LESSON № 3

The culture of Ukraine in the second half of ХVIІ – ХVIІІ c. Ukrainian national-cultural revival.

THEME: 1. The culture of Ukraine in the second half of ХVIІ.

 2. The culture of Ukraine in the second half of ХVIІІ c.

  3. Ukrainian national-cultural revival.

1. The culture of Ukraine in the second half of ХVIІ.

Period of the second part of the 17-18^th centuries became a breaking moment in the history of Ukraine and had a considerable influence on countries of Central and Eastern Europe. War for independence was going on, national state of Ukraine was formed. Ukrainian people gained a set of glorious victories over Polish armed forces, set free the major part Ukraine and once again proved that it is worth of independence. The uprising of 1648 favored national revival of Ukrainian people and its culture.

Education. Education, science and printing in right bank, left bank Ukraine and Slobidska Ukraine  during the second half of the 17^th – 18^th centuries developed under the influence of different circumstances. The quantity of orthodox nobility on the territory of the Right Bank Ukraine became lesser and middle class lost its importance. That’s why fraternity schools that appeared at churches during the period of the 11-12^th centuries began to decline and soon disappeared. Union schools appeared at their place. They were totally different comparing to fraternity schools.

Education committee was created in 1773 in Polish-Lithuanian state. That was the first ministry of education in Europe. Thai committee fulfilled a school reform, worked out a single school statue and supplied schools with money aid. Besides that educational committee opened new schools, for instance in Kaniv in 1786. Fraternity school s of the 16-17 centuries were saturated with the spirit of democracy and these new schools were oriented to the upbringing of the youth according to the catholic and polish national ideology. Common status, state aid and control from the side of the government representatives imparted schools with the state character that was completely different from that one when schools were under the church’s power.

There were only orthodox schools on the territory of the left bank Ukraine and Slobozhanshczna. Kyiv-Mohyulan school was the most important one. In 1701 it acquired an status of an academy according to the tsar’s order and began to be called Kyiv Academy. It was taken care of by Kyiv’s metropolitans.

Rafail Zaborovskyi restored the building of the Kyiv academy and took care of its best  student who were sent to German universities to get qualified enough to professor activity. Such prominent scientists, writers and artists as Lazar Baranovych, Ioanyliy Halyatovskyi, Varlaam Yasynskyi, Dmytro Tuptalo, Pheophan Prokopovych, Symeon Pototskyi and many others worked there. Professors and students of the academy were often invited to other Slavic countries to enrich and to improve their process of education.

In the second part of the 17-18^th centuries great influence of Ukrainian literature and culture on Russian society became obvious. Many innovations were introduced into religious, pedagogical and literary fields. Probably this positive influence of Ukrainians on the process of making Moscow culture more European was taken as an offence by Moscow clergy that constantly wrote denunciations to tsar.

There were other schools except for the Kyiv academy. For instance the archbishop Lazar Baranovych founded school in Novgorod-Siverskyi that in 1689 was moved to Chernihiv. In 1727 bishop of Bilgorod founded Kharkiv’s collegium, that was often called an academy. It was the central educational establishment in Slobozhanshchyna till the opening of the Kharkiv university in 1805.

Grygoriy Savych Skovoroda (1722-1794) worked as a teacher there. He was one of the most prominent Ukrainian pedagogues, philosophers and writers. He composed his works in the form of dialogues that are saturated with a deep anthropologism that is the basis of his philosophic concept. A human being to his mind is the basic key to solving the most antiquating mysteries of life and self cognition is the basic means of the reach of this aim. According to his views a human being is a microcosm, a little world that like a mirror reflects the big one. To understand the universe a person should start with self-cognition. That’s why Skovoroda took the slogan of Socrates “nosce te ipsum” became the basic idea of his works.

The bishop Arseniy Berl opened a seminary in Pereyaslav in 1738, that became an educational center of Poltava region.. Slavic seminary was founded in Poltava that was moved to Katerynoslav in 1786. It gave the world Ivan Kotlyarevskyi. These schools were organized according to the type of Kyiv academy.

Monasteries’ estates were the basic source for schools allowance. That ‘s why the policy of taking away lands from Ukrainian monasteries that was introduced by Katerina II in 1786 was a disaster for Ukrainian schools. This resulted in the further loss of the previous importance of schools.

Policy of Katerina II destroyed Ukrainian lower school on the territory of the left bank Ukraine. The population organized lower schools for their children at their own expense. Strolling deacons taught children in the territories where the populations lived in countryseats. Almost every village had a hospital that functioned at the expense of the village dwellers. Old, poor people and orphans lived there. During the period of 1740-1748 there were eight hundred sixty-six schools on the territory of left bank Ukraine. That means that there was one school per one thousand of the population. So we can draw a conclusion that this quantity of schools was enough. There were 134 schools (one school per 746 people) on the territory of Chernihivskyi, Gorodnenskyi and Sosnytskyi povits in 1768. in 1875 this figures were completely changed – only 52 schools – one school per 6750 people.

If we compare education on the territory of western Ukrainian lands to the education in the left bank Ukraine we should say that it differed greatly. The majority of fraternity schools that existed in Galychyna were closed due to unfavorable conditions. Jesuit collegiums continued their activity that was aimed at teaching students polish and Latin languages and catholic ideology.

Printing. Printing houses were the centers of cultural-educational life during those times. They were headed by highly educated people. First Ukrainian printing houses printed books in Slavonic language, but there were many books printed in polish and Latin. Lviv fraternity printing house was the most famous one in the middle of the 17^th century it had privileges on printing books. During 1639-1667 a printing house of Mykhailo Slyozka that was better equipped then fraternity’s one printed different books. A printing house in Univ worked the longest period of time (1660-1770). At the beginning of the 17^th century a printing house was opened in Kyiv. It happened due to the archimandrite of the Kyiv-Pechersk Monastery Yelysey Pletenetskyi  who bought a printing house in Stryatyn and moved it to Kyiv. Archbishop Lazar Baranovych founded a printing house on the territory of the left bank Ukraine that in 1679 was moved to Chernihiv. Unfortunately its production was of technically low quality and wasn’t of great importance.

Activity of Kyiv-Pechersk and Chernihiv  printing houses that printed works of contemporary writers Inokentiy Hizel, Antoniy Radyvylovskyi, Lazar Baranovych, Dmytro Tuptalo after subordination of Kyiv metropoly to Moscow patriarchy were persecuted for spreading “Greek and French wisdoms”. In 1690 the council censured works of Symeon Polotskyi, Petro Mohyla, Ioanykyi Galyatovskyi. All the books of Kyrylo Starovetskyi were burnt in Moscow.

The activity of the Kyiv-Pechersk and Chernihiv printing houses was terminated with the edict of Petro I in 1720. This edict banned printing of the books that were not church books. All the other books were issued under very strict censorship. Starting with this time Kyiv-Pechersk and Chernihiv printing houses began to decline losing their Ukrainian national character.

Literature. Ukrainian literature of the period of the 17-18^th centuries suits the limits oft he baroque style rather good adding to it some peculiarities. Their appearance was caused by the very same conditions that existed in the Renaissance times – numerical superiority of clergy among men of letters and absence of literature centers.

No independence, or its decline lead Ukrainian baroque literature to language discrepancy. There were literary works not only in Ukrainian language but also in Latin and polish.

Ukrainian spiritual verses were the most popular. Their thematics was rather varying – glorification of Jesus Christ and the virgin, songs dedicated to Christian holidays (Christmas and Easter), icons or saints.

There were also many songs describing feelings of love, songs with political content. Historic works occupy special place in the baroque literature. They include literary diaries of Atanasiy Phylypovych (about 1645), notes of Jakov Markovych, Mykola Khanenko, autobiographies of Illya Turchynovskyi. The so called “Cossack chronicles” by Samovydets (till 1702), Grygoriy Grabyanka (after 1709), who used scientific sources and wrote in elaborated style, Samiylo Velychko (finished after 1720), who depicted historic events in the form of instruction for the contemporaries.

Ukrainian baroque literature had a great influence outside Ukraine, first of all in the territories of the eastern and southern Slavs. Moscow literature of the second part of the 17^th century - beginning of the 18^th century almost completely depended on Ukrainian. Ukrainian thematics penetrated into polish literature, Ukrainian characters or Ukrainian themes a traced in Croatian and Latin-Slavic literature.

Cossack baroque. The second part of the 17^th century was the second bloom of the development of Ukrainian art, its golden age. In this period peculiar style was formed  - Ukrainian or Cossack baroque. Baroque style came to Ukraine from Italy and acquired peculiar artistic forms and national coloring.

The center of the artistic life was moved to Prydniprovya. Hetmans, Cossack’s nobility, rich people and clergy became its founders. They were guided by national interests, religious feelings and a desire to perpetuate their names erected churches, presented them with precious gifts. It stimulated the development of the old and creation of the new centers of religious life in Kyiv, Chernihiv, Poltava, Nizhyn, Lubny, Baturyn, Myrgorod and other cities.

First baroque buildings appeared in the first part of the 17^th century in Lviv and Kyiv, but an independent work of Ukrainian artisans began in the second part of the 17^th century having reached the highest pitch of its development during the reign of Ivan Mazepa.

Buildings of Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, that were created by Stepan Kovnir,  – Kovnirivskyi building, bell-towers, Klovskyi palace – are true masterpieces of Ukrainian baroque art.

High culture of baroque art had a great influence on the neighboring countries. For instance many buildings in Russia were built according to artistic forms and technical means of Ukrainian baroque as there worked many Ukrainian architects in the first part of the 18^th century from the middle of the 18^th century Ukrainian baroque style was substituted by rococo style with some transitory forms to classicism and buildings in the style of Russian baroque.

The 17^th century – first part of the 18^th century are marked with the decline of erecting buildings of stone of the western lands that were under the reign of Poland, so erecting building of wood became very popular. It caused appearance of separate architecture schools of this type. Western European culture of baroque period had a great influence at the cultural development of the countries of the Central and Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine. In this countries baroque was changed and accepted spiritual, ideological and national peculiarities of the people. In Ukraine baroque became a powerful spiritual movement that embraced all the spheres of cultural activity and entered to the world culture’s history under the name of Ukrainian baroque.

2. The culture of Ukraine  in the second half of ХVIІІ c.

Like the Belarusian and Russian languages, Ukrainian is an Eastern Slavic language, one of the closest to the original 9th-century AD Slavonic language used in Kiev before the formal Slavonic Church was introduced from Bulgaria, in the 10th Century. Ukrainian language has been preserved and is now more widespread, despite influences of the Russian and Polish languages and its banishment by Tzar Alexander II in 1876. The Ukrainian language was adopted as the official language of the country in 1990.

The Ukraine’s literary heritage is a product of centuries of development. The origins of the national literature of Ukraine can be traced back to the medieval Slavic chronicles, exemplified in the ballad Slovo o polku Ihrevim (The Tale of the Armament of Ihor). It is said that modern Ukrainian literature was laid by the mid-18th-century philosopher Hryhorii Skovoroda, who wrote poems and philosophical essays in Ukrainian, directed toward the common person rather than the elite. The first major writer in Ukrainian was the national hero Taras Shevchenko, a nationalist born a serf in 1814. Shevchenko’s literary contribution marked the golden age of Ukrainian literature. Ivan Franko was known as the most prolific writer of the early 20th Century, who wrote poetry, fiction, drama, children’s stories and philosophy. The Soviet regime was a subject for many writers, as it was a source of suffering. The poet Vasyl Stus reflected the agony of dissidence with his 'Winter Trees' in 1968 and 'Candle in the Mirror' in 1977. Stus was eventually murdered in a Soviet labour camp. One of the instruments of independence was the 1991 Ukranian Writer’s Union, founded in Kiev.

The Ukraine’s musical heritage included the long epic narrative poems called bylyny, and the equally long lyrical ballads known as dumas, which glorified the exploits of the Cossacks. Ukrainian folk music has its roots in the kobzar, who were wandering minstrels of the 16th and 17th Century who sang songs of heroic deeds of the Cossacks, accompanied by a lute-like instrument called the kobza. In the 18th Century, the large 45-stringed bandura instrument replaced the kobza and became a national symbol. Bandura choirs were staged throughout the country, and today the Kiev Bandura Corus is internationally acclaimed. One of the most famous Ukrainian Classical composers included Mykola Lysenko, whose piano works were based on Ukrainian folk songs. Popular musicians of today’s Ukranian modern music genre include the Punk Rock band Plach Yeremiyi and the singer/songwriter Nina Matvienko, who relies heavily on the folk traditions of Ukraine.

Ukrainian architecture is dominated by church buildings. After Christianity was introduced to the Ukraine in the 10th Century, Catholic and Orthodox churches split, around 1054. The wooden church of the time featured gables and wooden shingled domes and cupolas, held together by complex joineries. Hoping to suppress Ukrainian nationalism, the Soviets destroyed hundreds of church buildings in the 1930s, as well as four 12th-century cathedrals. Until the 17th Century, religious subjects were used in Ukrainian painting, especially with the painting of icons, images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and saints and angels on wooden plates. Ukrainians attributed spiritual and healing powers to these icons, which appeared in church mosaics, murals, and illuminated manuscripts and frescos. The rise of the 17th-century Cossacks introduced new schools of secular painting which explored nationalist subjects. After decades of Soviet Realism, these subjects were explored again, characterised by stylistic experimentation.

One unique tradition of Ukrainian culture includes the Easter egg. In the past, wax was used to draw patterns on these eggs. After bright colourful dye was added to the whole egg, the wax was removed to leave the colours of the pattern. This centuries-old tradition symbolises the arrival of Christianity in Ukraine. Various interpretations of this practice exist today in the Ukraine. Many Ukrainians believe the egg has power and frees the earth from the harsh conditions of the winter. The various designs of the eggs also render different meanings, and the eggs are used as gifts or decoration.

Ukraine has many styles of folk dancing but the most famous is the lively Kalyna. Both women and men participate together in this type of dance, with women wearing bright and colourful costumes, consisting of a solid-coloured tunic, a matching apron and a white skirt with an embroidered edge which reaches an inch below the knee. Part of the tradition entails women to wear specially designed red leather dance boots. They also sport a flower head wreath and plain red coral necklaces. Men usually wear baggy pants and a shirt embroidered at the neck, and sometimes an embroidered vest. Another popular folk dance is the Previtanya, which is a slow greeting dance where women bow to the audience and offer bread and salt on a cloth, as well as a bunch of flowers. The lively Hopak is yet another folk dance which involves many fast-paced movements.

The art and culture of Ukraine is a result of influence from the West and East because of it being geographically located between Europe and Asia, with an assortment of strong culturally-identified ethnic groups. Many movements brought about during the Byzantine Empire and the Renaissance influenced the culture of the Ukraine. At present the country is somewhat culturally divided with the western regions bearing a stronger European influence and the eastern regions presenting a strong Russian influence.

The Ukrainian is the official state language of Ukraine. It's the language of the East Slavic subgroup of the Slavic languages. Ukrainians use a Cyrillic alphabet sharing some vocabulary with the languages of the neighboring Slavic nations, most notably with Belarusian, Polish, Russian and Slovak. The language can be traced back to the Old East Slavic language of the ancient state of Kievan Rus. Officially called Ruthenian, or Little Russian, Ukrainian, East Slavic language is a direct descendant of the colloquial language used in Kievan Rus during the 10 th to the 13 th century.

The Ukrainians devotedly practice religion. Orthodox Christianity and Eastern Catholicism are the two most extensively practiced religions; Protestantism and Judaism are also represented in good numbers. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is the leading church in the country followed by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church which practice Byzantine rites but are united with the Roman Catholic Church.

The Ukrainian art and culture is richly embedded in ancient traditions. The 16 th century popular ‘dumy' and the playing of the ‘kobza', which were historical songs, are still enjoyed today. However music has also come a long way since then and the Kolomiya rap and Polissia magic pop tend to be most popular. There has also has been a resurgence of Cossack songs and song poetry.

Dance is also a major part of the culture of Ukraine. The Ukrainian people enjoy various forms of traditional dances and dance games. These mainly originated in rural Cossack villages and some of them can even be trace d back to the ancient cults. The women wear colorful costumes, sometimes featuring a solid bright colored tunic and matching apron with an open skirt underneath, and below that a white skirt with an embroidered hem that should reach an inch or so below the knee. Though traditionally many of these dances were performed only by males or females, today both sexes perform the dance together with great merriment. Appreciation for these dances is still kept alive by the Ukrainian dance troupes.

The Ukrainians like to celebrate a number of holidays. The Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, New Years and Ivana Kupala or St John's Eve are all enjoyed by the people in grandeur. A festival is also even held every autumn to celebrate the end of the harvest season. Though these many of these are celebrated world wide the Ukrainians have their own way of observing them. One very famous cultural festival is the Tavriya Games.

The Easter egg has its roots in Ukraine. These eggs were first drawn on with wax to create different patterns then dyed to give the eggs their delightful colors. The dye did not affect the wax-coated parts of the egg. Once the whole egg was dyed, the wax was removed leaving only the beautiful colorful patterns. This thousand years old tradition predates the arrival of Christianity in the country.

The Ukrainian food culture also dates back quite a bit. Special foods made during the Easter as well as Christmas are not made at any other time of the year. A variety of sausages, fish and cheeses are liked by the Ukrainians, besides bread which is their core diet needed to complete their meal. The Ukrainians toast their food to good health and like to linger over their meal, and engage in lively conversation with family and friends. They often drink tea (chai), wine, or coffee with a simple dessert, such as a fruit pastry. The Ukrainians specialties include the Chicken Kiev and Kiev Cake. Some of the popular traditional dishes include:

Varenyky (boiled dumplings with mushrooms, potatoes, sauerkraut, cottage cheese or cherries),

Borsch (soup made of beets, cabbage and mushrooms or meat) and

Holubtsy (stuffed cabbage rolls filled with rice, carrots and meat).

3. Ukrainian national-cultural revival.

Ukraine has been developing its own original culture since very early times of its history. There were periods when Ukrainian culture experienced considerable influences of other cultures, notably those of Byzantium and of the Vikings (in the medieval times of Kyivan Rus), but basically it preserved its general original quality. The Old Ukrainian language was used as Latin of Eastern Europe for a period of time.

Though oral literature existed in the very early periods of Ukraine's history, written elite literature began to develop from the end of the 10th century, after the adoption of Christianity which gave a big boost for the development of culture in general. The churches of Kyiv - and their number - caused admiration of foreign travellers visiting the city in the 11th and 12th centuries. The eleventh-century Grand Duke Yarsolav the Wise founded a library which became one of the biggest in Europe, and promoted the institution of schools, including those for girls. In later centuries, literacy was widely spread in Ukraine.

In spite of a turbulent and dramatic history, Ukraine has preserved a cultural constant from the early times of its existence. Book printing began in Ukraine in the 16th century and the first establishment of higher learning - the first not only in Ukraine but in the whole of Eastern Europe - Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, sprang up in the early 17th century.

Notwithstanding its colonial status, Ukraine had a wide spectrum of art and literature which entered a phase of stepped-up development in the 18th century. Poetic and prose works written by Taras Shevchenko, the most revered cultural figure of Ukraine, Ivan Kotlyarevsky, Lesya Ukrayinka, Ivan Franko, Mykhaylo Kotsyubynsky and other authors of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, were a worthy contribution to world literature.

Folk music, and later symphonic and opera music were and are among Ukraine's cultural strengths.

Since Ukraine is geographically located between Europe and Asia, much of its culture exhibits both Eastern and Western influences. Over the years it has been invariably influenced by movements such as those brought about during the Byzantine Empire and the Renaissance. Today, the country is somewhat culturally divided with the western regions bearing a stronger European influence and the eastern regions showing a strong Russian influence.

It is interesting to note that Communist rule in Russia had quite a strong effect on the art and writing of Ukraine. During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Soviet began enforcing the socialist realism art style in Ukraine. This style dictated that all artists and writers glorify the Soviet Regime with their talents. However, it wasn't long before the Soviet Union collapsed and artists and writers again became free to express themselves as they wanted. Unfortunately the collapse of the union also brought about a decrease in government subsidies. Writers chose to emulate the styles used in the 11th and 13th centuries, while artists expanded their horizons trying new techniques, subject matters and styles.

Ukrainian culture is richly embedded in ancient traditions. Even today many historical songs such as the dumy and the playing of the kobza – which was popular during the 16th century – is still enjoyed. However, music has also come a long way since then and Polissia magic pop and Kolomiya rap tend to be most popular. The culture scene has also seen a resurgence of Cossack songs and song poetry. There are also a number of cultural festivals such as the Tavriya Games which are most popular.

The Ukrainian people also enjoy their culture in the form of traditional dances and dance games. Many of these originated in rural Cossack villages and some of the oldest dances can be traced back to ancient cults. Traditionally many of these dances were performed only by males or females, but today both sexes sometimes mix and enjoy the dance together. Appreciation for these dances is usually kept alive by Ukrainian dance troupes.

Many people do not know that the tradition of the Easter egg had it's beginnings in the Ukraine. In times gone by (and still sometimes today) these eggs were drawn on with wax to create patterns. Dye was then added to give the eggs their delightful colors – the dye not affecting the wax coated parts of the egg. Once the whole egg was dyed, the wax was removed leaving only the colorful pattern. The tradition is thousands of years old and predates the arrival of Christianity in the country. While Christian interpretations of this practice abound, many Ukrainians still believe that the egg has immense power and releases the earth from the restraints of winter. Even the designs have meaning and the eggs are usually given as gifts or used as decorations.

Ukrainians celebrate a number of holidays, namely Christmas, Easter, Whitsuntide, New Years and Ivana Kupala (St John's Eve). They also hold a festival every autumn to celebrate the end of the harvest. While some of these festivals are celebrated world wide, Ukrainians have their very own way of observing them. The Ukrainian culture is very interesting and there is so much to say on the matter that it cannot be discussed fully here. The best way to find out more is to visit the country and learn from the locals.

Pysanky - Ukrainian Easter Eggs

These are a traditional craft in Ukraine, with a history of thousands of years. The method is similar to batik - patterns are drawn on the egg with wax, which then protects the covered areas from the dye that is applied. By repeating this process with different colors of dye, a multi-colored pattern is built up. Finally, the wax is removed to reveal the colors that were covered up at each stage. The symbols and colors used are rich in meaning; many pre-date the arrival of Christianity, and have had Christian interpretations layered on afterward.

This (1996) is the third year in a row that I've done pysanky. Before that, the last time was about twenty years ago. This past year we got electric kistky and analine dyes from a little mail-order shop in Minnesota. Up till then, we had been using PAAS and RIT dyes, and artists' ink-pens heated in the flame of a candle. The PAAS dyes are far too weak, and have no black. Also, my father (who has been taking lessons from a 90-year-old Ukrainian lady - his eggs are unbelievable!) gave us some hints about carefully measuring things beforehand, and marking some guidelines with a pencil. Before that, we did everything completely free-hand. Those three changes have made a *huge* difference. I don't know what more we can do next year, aside from practice, practice, practice.

After the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, a "Ukrainian People's Republic" was proclaimed and was led by outstanding personalities from the cultural field. However, this first Ukrainian state was short lived. Just four years later, in 1921, the Ukraine came under Soviet totalitarian rule, which lasted for 70 years. During this period of time, cultural expression was one of the main driving factors contributing to Ukrainian nationalism and, therefore, it was frequently subject to persecution and oppression.

Although the official Soviet propaganda declared this period the "Golden Age" of national cultures it was in fact characterised by the forced deportation of entire cultural communities (Crimean Tatars, German settlers in Ukraine) and severe repression of the nationalist intelligentsia. Compared to other territories of the former Soviet Empire, the persecution of the bearers of national ideas in the Ukraine was more wide-spread and of greater brutality. Whereas the population of the Ukrainian SSR constituted only about 17% of the total Soviet Union population, the share of Ukrainians among the "prisoners of conscience" in the Soviet GULAGs (concentration and labour camps) was more than 50%.

Shortly after the Second World War and during the first half of the 1950s, Ukrainian cultural policy was subject to the principles of the totalitarian state. This included strict centralism. Cultural institutions acted as intermediaries between the official state ideology and society. Through the ideological departments of the central and local communist party committees, the state decided which kind of culture was necessary for the people, and saw to it that cultural and artistic events remained on the "correct" political course. All artists associations and unions (writers, painters, theatre workers, and architects) were administrated by the state through respective party units operating within these institutions. Independent artists or artists' organisations could not exist outside of this framework. The state also controlled all amateur arts, popular and other non-professional or voluntary organisations in the cultural field. Private cultural entrepreneurship officially didn't exist.

Regardless of these conditions, great efforts were made to disseminate the achievements of world culture among all strata of the Ukrainian population. A lot of attention was paid to the cultural education of young people and to the development of young talents. There was also broad support for amateur and folk art activities and for book publishing. At the regional level, a vast landscape of cultural infrastructure was created and supported by additional budget subsidies. Their operations were not, however, guided by principles of efficiency or meeting the real needs of the communities involved.

On the 24th August, 1991, the Ukraine became an independent national state, signified by the Parliament's (Verkhovna Rada) approval of the Declaration of Independence of the Ukraine. This Act coupled with the results of the All-Ukrainian Referendum of December 1 1991, when more than 92% of the citizens voted for independence, put an end to ideological dictatorship and created the conditions necessary for the comprehensive development of a national culture.

There was, however, a drastic decrease in public support for culture due to political instability, the economic crisis, and contradictions between democratic goals and market conditions. The cultural infrastructure inherited from the Soviet period is gradually being destroyed and culture has become marginalised in comparison to other policy areas.

The lack of a clear medium-term and long-term cultural development strategy resulted in the creation of ad hoc policies at the central and local levels. They are aimed, in most cases, at preserving the existing situation. This situation, along with declarations about false achievements, has provoked indifference and distrust in a large part among the artistic community towards the government.

Dissatisfaction within the Ukrainian society became apparent, especially after the events of the so called "Orange Revolution". During the first "post-Orange" months, many meetings, conferences and round tables were organised by dissatisfied artists and cultural producers. Many appeals, requests and letters to change the situation were adopted and submitted to the President and the government. As a result, some new structures (public boards) were established at the Ministry of Culture and in the Presidential Secretariat.

The Presidential Edicts of 24 November 2005, N 1647/2005, proclaimed that "ensuring the enrichment and development of culture and spiritual heritage of the Ukrainian society is one of the high-priority tasks of the Cabinet of Ministers". In accordance with the Edict, the National Board for Cultural Affairs (NBCA) was established as an advisory body by the President of Ukraine. The NBCA, together with the Presidential Secretariat, elaborated a draft operation plan - "The Roadmap to the Programme for Enrichment and Development of Culture and Spiritual Heritage of the Ukrainian Society" - defining three key strategic priorities. They are:

integrity of the national linguistic and cultural space;

update national cultural heritage, and

protection of national cultural industries.

The Ministerial Report "State Cultural and Tourist Policies Implementation: Priorities, Achievements, Perspectives - Analytical Report for 2006 of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Ukraine" adds another key priority: the integration of Ukrainian culture to the global cultural space and shaping a positive image of Ukraine in the world by cultural means.

The Presidential Edict of 2 December 2005, N 1688/2005, approved the Regulations of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Ukraine, which determined the main tasks of the Ministry. In particular, this edict concerns the formulation and realisation of the state policy in culture, tourism, leisure activities and linguistic issues. Despite these developments, the general situation is changing very slowly.

In May 2007, the Council of Europe adopted the National Report on Cultural Policy in Ukraine (CDCULT(2007)14), along with the Experts' Review (CDCULT(2007)15), becoming the 27th country to complete the procedure for CoE review. As the minister of culture and tourism of Ukraine, Mr Bohutsky, stressed: "The most important achievement of our activities in 2006-2007 is, of course, the National Report successfully presented in the Council of Europe" (Ukrainian weekly "Mirror of the Week", July 7-13, 2007).

The head of the experts' group, Terry Sandell, stated that: "This review of cultural policy in Ukraine seems to be particularly timely. In the heady days of the early period of independence there were lively and often contentious debates on national culture. These continue, but since then the inevitable gaps have become evident between, on the one hand, the aspirations and on the other, the realities imposed by "transition", even when the aspiration has simply been to try to preserve the basic cultural infrastructure of the country... It can be reasonably argued that in a new socio-political climate and some fifteen years after independence this is a good time to take stock of where Ukraine has come from and where it is going and ask bold questions about the extent to which cultural policy is addressing current and future agendas and to what extent it is rooted in the past...We hope this special context might augur well for confident, inclusive, pragmatic, on-going debate on cultural policy in Ukraine and be the catalyst for the identification and pursuing of some helpful and appropriate new departures and experiments". (You can find both texts of National Report and Experts' Report on http://www.coe.int/t/e/cultural_cooperation/culture/policies/reviews/Ukraine.asp#TopOfPage or on http://www.mincult.gov.ua - Ukrainian versions).

In August-September 2007, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Ukraine, jointly with the independent Development Centre "Democracy through Culture", started a cultural policy debate campaign through briefings and press-conferences, professional meetings, international meetings and seminars (for example: "Cultural Ecology of a Region", Lviv, October 25-26), training, surveys and questionnaires (for example, the All-Ukrainian Marathon "21 strategic dilemmas of cultural policy" - see also: http://www.forum21.org.ua).

In December 2007, the democratic majority formed the new government in Ukraine, which approved the governmental programme "Ukrainian breakthrough: for people, not for politicians". The new Cabinet of Ministers adopted amendments to the section "Cultural development of society" of its programme at the meeting as of January 16, 2008. Five priority action lines are determined:

development of the language-cultural space as a basis for social cohesion and understanding between Ukrainian citizens;

preservation and actualisation of the national cultural heritage;

creation of proper conditions for activity of leading national institutions and groups in the field of visual, music, choreographic, theatre, circus and film arts, training of professional personnel for theatre, cinematography, TV and circus;

state protection of cultural industries of Ukraine by supporting national cultural product and market development; and

development of Ukrainian culture respectively to global integration trends providing wider access to achievements of the world culture and presenting national culture in the world context.

To revitalise and preserve memory of Ukrainian nation is determined as a separate priority through actions to homage victims of the Famine 1932-1933.

The Ukrainian peasant is distinguished, above all, by his earnest and sedate appearance. Beside the lively Pole and the active Russian, the Ukrainian seems slow, even lazy. This characteristic, which is in part only superficial, comes from the general view of life of the Ukrainians. According to the view of the Ukrainian, life is not merely a terrible struggle for existence, opposing man to hard necessity at every turn; life, in itself, is the object of contemplation, life affords possibilities for pleasure and feeling, life is beautiful, and its esthetic aspect must, at all times and in all places, be highly respected. We find a similar view among the peoples of antiquity. In the present time, this view is very unpractical for nations with wide spheres of activity. At all events this characteristic of the Ukrainian people is the sign of an old, lofty, individual culture, and here, too, is the origin of the noted "aristo- cratic democracy" of the Ukrainians. Other foundations of the individuality of the Ukrainian are the results of the gloomy historical past of the nation. It is the origin, first of all, of the generally melancholy individuality, taciturnity, suspicion, scepticism, and even a certain in- difference to daily life. The ultimate foundations of the individualism of the Ukrainian are derived from his his- torico-political traditions; preference for extreme individu- alism, liberty, equality and popular government. Pro- - ceeding from these fundamentals, all the typical char- acteristics of the Ukrainians may be logically explained with ease.

The family relations reflect the peculiarity of the Ukrainian people very clearly. The comparatively high ancient culture, coupled with individualism and a love of liberty, does not permit the development of absolute power in the head of the family (as is the case among the Poles and Russians). Likewise the position of woman is much higher in the Ukrainian people than in the Polish or Russian. In innumerable cases the woman is the real head of the household. Far less often does this state of affairs occur among the Poles, and only by exception among the Russians. A daughter is never married off against her will among the Ukrainians; she has human rights in the matter. Among the Russians, this business is in the hands of the father, who takes the so-called kladka for his daughter, that is, he sells her to whomever he pleases. Grown sons among the Ukrainians, as soon as they are married, are presented by their fathers with a house and an independent farm. The dwelling under one roof of a composite family (a family clan), as is usual among the Russians, is almost impossible among the Ukrainians, and is of exceedingly rare occurrence. The father has no absolute power in this case (as among the Russians) to preventjiiscord in the family.

It is part of the peculiarity of the Ukrainians that they seldom form friendships, but these are all the more lasting, altho reserved and rarely intimate. The Russians make friends among one another very easily, but they separate very easily, too, and become violent enemies. The Poles form close friendships easily and are true friends, too. Enmity is terrible among the Russians; among the Poles and Ukrainians it is less bitter, and is, moreover, less lasting. The capacity for association is very considerable in the Ukrainians. All such association is based on complete equality in the division of labor and profit. A foreman is elected and his orders are obeyed, but he receives an equal share of the profits and works .together with the rest. Among the Russians, the bolshak selects his workmen himself, does not work, and is simply an overseer. Still he receives the greatest part of the profits. Among the Poles the capacity for association is but slightly developed.

At this juncture we may also discuss the relation of the Ukrainians to their communities. The Ukrainian community (hromada) is a voluntary union of freemen for the sake of common safety and the general good. Beyond this purpose the Ukrainian hromada possesses no power, for it might limit the individual desires of some one of the hromada members. For this reason, for example, common ownership of land which has been introduced, following the Russian model, chiefly in the left half of the Ukraine, is an abomination in the eyes of the Ukrainian people, and is ruining them, economically, to a much greater extent than the division of the land in the case of individual ownership. The Russian "mir" is something entirely different. It is a miniature absolute state, altho it appears in the garb of a communistic republic. The mir is complete- ly a part of the Russian national spirit, and the Russian muzhik obeys the will of the mir unquestioningly, altho its will enslaves his own.

The general relation to other people has become a matter of fixed form to the Ukrainians; a form developed in the course of centuries. The ancient culture and the individual- istic cult have produced social forms among the Ukrainian peasantry which sometimes remind one of ancient court- forms. The proximity and influence of cities and other centers of "culture" have, to a great extent, spoiled this peasant ceremonial. But in certain large areas of the Ukraine it may still be observed in its full development. Great delicacy, courtesy and attention to others, coupled with unselfish hospitality, these are the general substance of the social forms of our peasants. These social forms are entirely different from the rough manners of the Polish or Muscovite peasants, which, in addition, have been spoiled by the demoralizing influence of the cities.

The relation of the Ukrainian people to religion is also original and entirely different from that of all the adjacent nations. To the Ukrainian, the essence of his faith, its ethical substance, is the important factor. This he feels deeply and respects in himself and others. Dogmas and rites are less significant in the Ukrainian's conception of religion. Hence, despite differences in faith, not the slight- est disharmony exists between the great mass of the ortho- dox Ukrainians of Russia and the Bukowina, and the 4,000,000 Greek-Catholic Ukrainians of Galicia and Hungary. From the ancient culture and consideration of the individual comes, also, the great tolerance of the Ukrain- ians toward other religions, a tolerance which we do not find among the Poles and Russians. The spirit of the Ukrainians has, likewise, been very indifferent toward all sects and roskols. Among the Poles, sects flourished very luxuriantly in the 16th Century; among the Russians, there are to this day any number of sects, often very curious ones, and more are constantly arising. Among the Ukrainians, a single sect has been formed, the so-called stunda (a sort of Baptist creed). This sect is not the result of rite formalism, however, but merely an effect of the Russification of the Ukrainian national church. In order to be able to pray to God in their mother-tongue, more than a million of the Ukrainian peasantry is persevering in this faith, which came over from adjacent German colonies, despite harsh persecution on the part of the Russian clergy and government.

The worth of Ukrainian culture appears, in its most beautiful and its highest form, in the unwritten literature of the people. The philosophical feeling of the Ukrainian people finds expression in thousands and thousands of pregnant proverbs and parables, the like of which we do not find even in the most advanced nations of Europe. They reflect the great soul of the Ukrainian people and its worldly wisdom. But the national genius of the Ukrainians has risen to the greatest height in their popular poetry. Neither the Russian nor the Polish popular poetry can bear comparison with the Ukrainian. Beginning with the historical epics (dumy) and the extremely ancient and yet living songs of worship, as for example, Christmas songs (kolady), New Years' songs (shchedrivki) , spring songs (vessilni), harvest songs (obzinkovi), down to the little songs for particular occasions (e. g. shumki, kozachki, kolomiyki) , we find in all the productions of Ukrainian popular epic and lyric poetry, a rich content and a great perfection of form. In all of it the sympathy for nature, spiritualization of nature, and a lively comprehension of her moods, is superb; in all of it we find a fantastic but warm dreaminess; in all of it we find the glorification of the loftiest and purest feelings of the human soul. A glowing love of country reveals itself to us everywhere, but particularly in innumerable Cossack songs, a heartrending longing for a glorious past, a glori- fication, altho not without criticism, of their heroes. In their love-songs we find not a trace of sexuality; not the physical, but the spiritual beauty of woman is glorified above all. Even in jesting songs, and further, even in ribald songs, there is a great deal of anacreontic grace. And, at the same time, what beauty of diction, what wonderful agreement of content and form! No one would believe that this neglected, and for so many centuries, suppressed and tormented people could scatter so many pearls of true poetic inspiration thru its unhappy land.

This peculiarity of the poetical creative spirit enables us, just as do the other elements of culture, to recognize the vast difference between the Ukrainian and the Russian people. The Russian folk songs are smaller in number and variety, form and content. Sympathetic appreciation of nature is scant. The imagination either rises to super- natural heights or sinks to mere trifling. Criminal mon- strosities and the spirit of destruction are glorified as objects of national worship. The conception of love is sensual, the jesting and ribald songs disgusting.

Like their popular poetry, the popular music of the Ukrainians far surpasses the popular music of the neigh- boring peoples, and differs from them very noticeably. Polish popular music is just as poor as Polish popular poetry, and almost thruout possesses a cheerful major character. Russian popular music has many minor ele- ments in addition to the major elements. But the Russian popular melodies are quite different from the Ukrainian. They are either boisterously joyous or hopelessly sad. The differences in the character of the melodies are so great that one need not be a specialist to be able to tell at once whether a melody is Ukrainian or Russian.

Popular art, in our people, is entirely original and much more highly advanced than in the neighboring peoples. The remains of the ancient popular painting are still in existence in the left half of the Ukraine. Wood carving has developed to a highly artistic form among the Hutzuls (there are the well-known peasant-artists Shkriblak, Mehedinyuk, and others). The chief field of Ukrainian popular art, however, is decoration. Two fundamental types are used; a geometric pattern with the crossing of straight and broken lines, and a natural pattern, which is modelled after parts of plants (as leaves, flowers, etc.). In the embroideries, cloths and glass bead -work, we find such an esthetic play of colors, that even tho each individual color is glaring, the whole has a very picturesque and harmonious effect. The decorative art of the Russians is much lower. It is based on animal motifs or entire objects, e. g., whole plants, houses, etc., and evinces an outspoken preference for glaring colors," which are so combined, however, as to shock the eye. Among the Poles, the art of ornamentation is very slightly developed. As for colors, they prefer the gaudy, not many at a time; usually, blue is combined with bright red.

For the sake of completeness, we must still say some- thing about Ukrainian manners and customs. In this aspect, too, the Ukrainian peasantry is richer than its neighbors. Only the White Russians are not far behind them. The entire life of a Ukrainian peasant, in itself full of need and poverty, is, nevertheless, full of poetic and deeply significant usages and customs, from the cradle to the grave. Birth, christening, marriage, death, all are combined with various symbolic usages, particularly the wedding, so rich in ceremonies and songs, so different in its entire substance from the Russian or Polish. The entire year of the Ukrainian constitutes one great cycle of holidays, with which a host of ceremonies are connected, most of which have come down from pre-Christian times. We find similar ceremonies among the White Russians, some also among the Poles, e .g., Christmas songs, songs of the seasons, but among the Russians, on the other hand, we find no parallel to the Ukrainian conditions. Among the Russians, neither the Christmas songs (kolady) are customary, nor the ceremonies of Christmas eve ibohata kutya), neither the midwinter festival (shchedri vechir), with its songs (shche- drivki), nor the spring holidays (yur russalchin velikden) and spring songs (vesnianki), nor the feast of the solstice (kupalo), nor the autumn ceremonies on the feast-days of St. Andrew or St. Katherine, etc. The entire essence of the popular metaphysics of the Ukrainians is quite foreign to the Russians, and almost entirely so to the Poles. Only the White Russians form a certain analogy, but, among them, pure superstition outweighs customs and ceremonies in importance.

Sufficient facts have been given to make clear to the reader the complete originality and independence of Ukrainian popular culture. We now come to a brief survey of the cultural efforts of the educated Ukrainians.

The number of educated Ukrainians is comparatively small. Hardly a century has passed since the intelligence of the nation awoke to new life, yet, in its hands lies the development of the national culture in the widest sense of the word. The disproportion between the magnitude of the task and the small number of the workers for culture, is at once apparent. And yet the results of the work, in spite of obstacles on every side, have grown in volume.

The Ukraine lies within the sphere of influence of European culture. This culture has spread from Central and Western Europe over the territory of the Ukraine and its neighboring peoples, the Poles, Russians, White Russians, Magyars and Roumanians. Each one of these nations has accepted the material culture of Western Europe to a greater or less degree, and adjusted the spiritual culture to its national peculiarities. The Ukrainians, for a long time after the loss of their first state and the decline of their ancient culture, found no line along which they could develop their national culture independently. For centuries they vacillated between the cultures of Poland and Russia. To this day, now that the conditions are much better, one may still find among the Ukrainians individuals who, culturally, are Poles or Russians, and only speak and feel as Ukrainians. Such a condition is very sad, and causes the Ukraine untold injury — most of all in the field of material culture, which, in both these neighboring nations, is very incomplete. Agriculture, mining, trade and commerce, are on a much lower plane among the Poles than in Western Europe. And what is to be said of the Russians, who are a mere parody of a cultured nation in almost every field, altho they possess so great a political organization? No one need be surprised that material culture is of so low a grade in the Ukraine. On the other hand, it has become clear to every intelligent Ukrainian, that the development of material culture is possible only thru Western European influence, by sending Ukrainian engineers, manufacturing specialists, merchants and farmers, to Western and Central Europe to learn their business.

In the field of Ukrainian mental culture, the chief influences to be considered are Polish and Russian. In this field, Polish culture is comparatively very high. It possesses a very rich literature, considerable science and art, and very definite principles of life. The influence of Polish culture is limited almost exclusively to Galicia at the pre- sent time. But it was very strong until very recent years, when it began to decrease. At one time, however, the entire Ukraine, particularly the right half, was emphati- cally under the influence of Polish culture for centuries (16th to the 18th Century).

There is one element in the spiritual culture of the Poles which certainly deserves to be, and is, imitated by the Ukrainians. It is the tone of national patriotism, the love for the nation, its present and its past, which is everywhere evident. Hence, modern Polish literature must be a model for Ukrainian literature in its tendencies and its sentiments. But, beyond its patriotic tone, Polish culture is not appropriate for the Ukrainian people. It is aristo- cratic, by reason of its descent and its philosophy of the universe. It is far removed from the mass of the people it should represent. In spite of all efforts, the Polish culture of the educated classes has been unable to establish an organic connection with the common people of Poland. It has been built up above the masses and has not grown out of them. To build up Ukrainian culture entirely after the model of Polish culture, would mean to tear it from its life-giving roots in the soul of the people. That it would be deadly to Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainians have perceived for a long time.

Russian culture is much more dangerous to the Ukrainian people than Polish. In its material aspect it is of a very low grade. In the spiritual field it possesses a very rich literature and a noteworthy science and art. The spiritual culture of Russia now dominates all of the Russian Ukraine, and has, to a great extent, become prevalent even among those educated Ukrainians in Russia who possess real national consciousness.

This very circumstance constitutes a great danger for the development of Ukrainian culture. For, let the Mus- covite conquest extend over the Ukrainians, even in the cultural field, and there is an end of all the independence of the Ukrainian element, and its beautiful language will be, in fact, degraded to a peasant dialect. But a still greater danger lies in the quality of the Russian cultural influence. The first evil characteristic of Russian culture is the complete lack of national and patriotic sentiment, which is absolutely necessary for an aspiring culture like the Ukrainian. Russian culture is infecting the Ukrainians with an ominous national indifference. Another unfavor- able characteristic of all Russian culture, is the fact that it is undemocratic thru and thru, and very far removed from the Russian people. The Russian people did not create this culture; the educated, in producing it, took nothing from the people. An intelligent man, brought up in the atmosphere of Russian culture, is unspeakably distant from the Russian people, so that it is impossible for him to work at the task of enlightening them. The views of the Russian "lovers of the people" (narodniki) , or of a Tolstoy, con- cerning the common people and its soul, simply offend us thru their unexampled ignorance of the peculiarities and customs of the common people,

A culture so far removed from the people as the Russian can bring no benefit to the Ukrainians. We observe this, best of all, in the condition of the muzhik, to whom the educated Russian has never been able to find an approach, and now the latter looks on indifferently, while the masses sink deeper and deeper down into the abyss of intellectual and spiritual darkness. To guide the common people along the path of organic social-political and economic progress, is a task which an intellect permeated with Russian culture can never perform. The last Russian revolution, and the beginning of the era of constitutional government for Russia, have furnished the best proof for the truth of this assertion.

The other chief characteristic of Russian culture is its manifest superficiality. Hidden beneath a thin veneer of Western European amenities lies coarse barbarism. The external manners of the educated Russian very often strike one by the coarseness, lack of restraint and brutal reckless- ness accompanying them. We see, then, that even the external forms of European culture have only been out- wardly assumed by the Russians. Still poorer is their condition with respect to the things of the spirit. We have observed to what a slight degree the Russians have been able to assimilate the material culture of Europe. The same holds for spiritual culture. Russian literature, particularly the latest, has brought ethical elements of the most questionable worth into the world's literature. (Artzibashev and others). Russian science, altho it can point to some great names and has unlimited means at its disposal, stands far behind German, English or French science. In Russian science, everything is done for the sake of effect, without thoroness, without method, hence fatal gaps appear. Let us consider, for example, our science of geography. Hardly a year passes in which the Russian government does not send one or more great scientific expeditions to Asia or to the North Pole. Each expedition hands in volumes of scientific results, and, at the same time, the surface configuration of the most populous and cultur- ally most advanced regions of European Russia, for example, is barely known in its main aspects. The best geography of Russia was written by the Frenchman Reclus. A modern, really scientific geography of Russia does not exist.

Even more emphatically does the superficiality of Russian culture appear in social and political questions. These two directions of human thought have, in most recent times, become very popular in all Russian society. But what an abyss separates a European from a Russian in this field! In Europe the theses of the social sciences or of politics are the result of life. They are adjusted to life conditions and treated critically. In Russia they are life- less dogmas, about which Russian scholars of the 20th Century dispute with the same heat and in the same manner as their ancestors, a few hundred years ago, disputed as to whether the Hallelujah should be sung twice or three times, whether the confession of faith should read "born, not created" or "born and not created," whether one should say, "God have mercy upon us" or "Oh God, have mercy upon us," whether one should use two fingers in crossing oneself or three, and so on. Naturally, at that time religious questions were the fashion. Today it is social questions. And what does it amount to? Rampant doctrinism, the eternal use of banal commonplaces, an immature setting up of principles. And the result is — extreme unwieldiness of Russian society in internal politics and in parliamentarism, in social and national work, together with a deep scorn of the depraved West (gnili zapad) .

With this superficiality of Russian culture, its most evil characteristic is connected; the decline of family life and a certain moral perverseness. This phenomenon is commonly met with in all peoples who have but recently come in contact with Western European culture. The bad quali- ties of a high civilization are always assumed first, the good qualities slowly. In this field the Russians have far outstripped their European models.

The above facts suffice to prove that Russian cultural influences are dangerous for the Ukrainian people. The severe, rigid materialistic character of the Russian people will, without any doubt, enable it to outlast the storm and stress period of the present Russian culture, and guide it to a splendid future. But for the Ukrainian people, with its sentimental, gentle character, the assuming of Russian culture would be a deadly poison. Even supposing that the Ukrainian people might survive such an experiment, a thing which is not likely, it would forever remain a miser- able appendage of the Russian nation.

And besides, such an experiment is entirely unnecessary. Either we say, "We are Ukrainians, an independent race and different from the Russians," and build up our culture quite independently, or we say, "We are 'Little Russians,' one of the three tribes of Great Russia and of its high culture," and, in that case, we may calmly lie down on the world renowned Ukrainian stove. For then it does not pay even to work at the development of our language. A third alternative does not exist.

At present, however, the former view is generally predominant among the intelligenzia of the land, and the fact that many intelligent Ukrainians are permeated with Russian culture is due, not to an ideal conviction, but only to the powerful influence of the Russian schools and the Russian cities. How do these educated people stand beneath the Ukrainian peasant who, even on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, does not exchange his individual Ukrain- ian popular culture for the Russian, and deserves the scornful, but in our eyes very commendable saying of the Russians, "Khakhol vyesdie kharkhol!"

If, then, we are to remain a really independent nation, there is only one avenue open to Ukrainian culture, and that is to follow the culture of Western Europe step by step, to seek its models among the Germans, Scandinavians, English and French. And this entire development we must base upon the broad foundation of our high popular culture. Let us consider with what piety the really cultural nations of Europe preserve the little remains of their popular culture. Their few usages or superstitions, their little body of folk-songs ! How much richer than they are we in all our misery! The Ukrainian people spoke a mighty first word thru Kotlarevsky a century ago; it then found the first diamond upon its path, the pure language of the people. Unfortunately, no Ukrainian has yet arisen who could speak just as mighty a second word by finding ways and means of lifting the treasures of the home culture of the land, and enabling the entire nation to work at the task of using them to advantage. This "apostle of truth and science," as he is called by Shevchenko, has not ap- peared, altho he has had several ancestors, like Draho- maniv. But there are already very many Ukrainians who would place their seal upon the declaration: "that the Ukraine possesses so rich a popular culture, that by develop- ing all its hidden possibilities and supplementing them by elements drawn from the untainted sources of Western European culture, the Ukrainian nation could attain a complete culture just as peculiar to itself, and just as exalted among the great European cultures, as Ukrainian popular culture is among the popular cultures of other peoples."

Hence, the way lay clearly indicated for the Ukrainians of the 19th and 20th Century. Ethnological investigations and the scientific study of folk-lore have been taken up very eagerly by Ukrainian scholars, so that in this parti- cular field, recent Ukrainian science, perhaps, ranks highest in all Slavic science. In no other cultured nation of Europe is the life of the educated elements so permeated with the influences of the nation's own popular culture. The Ukrainian cultural movement is hardly a century old, and yet it has results to show which, even today, guarantee the cultural independence of the Ukrainian nation. Active relations with Central and Western European cultures have been established, which may become of incalculable effect in the further development of Ukrainian culture.

The History of Ukraine-Rus' is the most comprehensive account of the ancient, medieval, and early modern history of the Ukrainian people. Written by Ukraine’s greatest modern historian, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, the History remains unsurpassed in its use of sources and literature, even though its last volume was written sixty years ago. In the development of the Ukrainian national movement, it is the definitive scholarly statement that Ukrainians constitute a nation with its own historical process. For Ukrainians the work is comparable in significance to František Palacký’s History of Bohemia for the Czechs. The great work of Czech national historiography was published in the early nineteenth century, but its Ukrainian counterpart did not appear until the turn of the twentieth. To a considerable degree, the delay reflects the difficulties Ukrainians faced in demonstrating that they were not a subgroup of the Russians or Poles and that they had their own history.

Ukraine found its Palacký in the person of Mykhailo Hrushevsky. From 1894 to 1934, Hrushevsky not only wrote the magnum opus of Ukrainian historiography, but also organized and led the two most productive schools of Ukrainian historical studies in modern times, the Shevchenko Scientific Society of Lviv, from 1894 to 1914, and the Institute of History of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, from 1924 to 1930. Hrushevsky’s more than 2,000 works in history, literary history, and other fields were matched in accomplishment by his inspiration of scores of younger scholars and his leadership of the Ukrainian national movement. But while the individuals he trained and the institutions he nurtured were destroyed in the vortex of Stalinism, his History of Ukraine-Rus'—except for the lost volume ten, part two, which remained in manuscript—survived. It weathered the Soviet assault on Ukrainian culture because no collective of specialists commanded by Soviet bureaucrats was able to produce a comparable work.

Born in 1866 to the family of an educator, the descendant of Right-Bank clerics, Hrushevsky spent most of his formative years outside Ukraine, in the Caucasus. As a young gymnasium student in Tbilisi, he was strongly impressed by the classic works of Ukrainian ethnography, history, and literature. This impression was reinforced by the appearance in 1882 of the journal Kievskaia starina (Kyivan antiquity), which contained an abundance of material on Ukrainian affairs. After initial attempts to work in Ukrainian literature, the young Hrushevsky decided to go to Kyiv, the center of Ukrainophile activities, to study history.

The Ukrainian movement, organized in the Kyiv Hromada, was still reeling from the Ems ukase and the banishment of Mykhailo Drahomanov (1841–95), the leading Ukrainian intellectual of his generation. The Ukrainian leaders in Kyiv were withdrawing from political activities. Their goal became the mere survival of the Ukrainian movement. Professor Volodymyr Antonovych typified the trend with his decision that continuing to research and teach would be of more long-term significance than any hopeless political protest. His student Hrushevsky would prove to be the vindication of that decision.

Under Antonovych’s supervision, Hrushevsky received a firm grounding in the examination of extensive sources in order to describe Ukrainian social and economic institutions of the past. Antonovych’s work concentrated on the vast sources for the history of Right-Bank Ukraine in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, a time when, significantly, the area had not been part of a Russian state. Hrushevsky followed his mentor’s lead in brilliant studies of the medieval history of the Kyiv region and of the early modern nobility and society of the Bar region. He might have been expected to follow Antonovych in making an academic career in the difficult political situation of imperial Russia, but developments in the neighboring Habsburg Empire were to provide him with a much more conducive environment for furthering Ukrainian historical studies.

In 1890 the dominant Poles of Austrian Galicia showed a willingness to reach an accommodation with the growing Ukrainian national movement in the province. Although the Polish-Ukrainian accommodation proved abortive, it did yield some concessions to the Ukrainians, the most important of which was the establishment of a chair intended to be in Ukrainian history with Ukrainian as the language of instruction. Professor Antonovych was called to the chair, but declined, proposing that his student Mykhailo Hrushevsky be appointed instead. Hrushevsky’s arrival in Lviv was the culmination of the process whereby the Ukrainian intelligentsia in the Russian Empire circumvented the imperial authorities’ restrictions on Ukrainian activities by transferring them to the Habsburg Empire.

The young Hrushevsky’s inaugural lecture at Lviv University in 1894 sketched an image of Ukrainian history as the evolution of the Ukrainian people from ancient times to the present. He called for the application of methods and data from all scholarly fields, from anthropology to archaeography, to that endeavor. Addressing the audience in Ukrainian, he demonstrated that a scholarly language appropriate to both sides of the Zbruch River could be forged. In practice, Hrushevsky was initiating his life’s project, the writing of a history of Ukraine. He was to use his lectures at Lviv University to compose the work. He attracted students to seminars where research papers filled the gaps in the project. He reshaped the Shevchenko Scientific Society into a scholarly academy with a library and a source publication program that provided material for his history. By 1898 he had published the first volume of the Istoriia Ukraïny-Rusy (History of Ukraine-Rus'), which went up only to the end of the tenth century rather than to the end of the Kyivan Rus' period, as he had originally planned. The last of the published volumes would appear, posthumously, in 1937, bringing the project up only to the 1650s.

The very title of Hrushevsky’s work was a programmatic statement. A history of Ukraine-Rus' emphasized the continuity between Kyivan Rus' and modern Ukraine. Written at a time when most Western Ukrainians still called themselves Rusyny (Ruthenians), the title served to ease the transition to the new name, Ukraine. In selecting a geographic name, Hrushevsky was defining the categories employed by his contemporaries. Ukraine was not an administrative entity at that time. In Russia the term was forbidden, and even the accepted ‘Little Russia’ often did not encompass all the territories inhabited by Ukrainian majorities. To Galician Ukrainians, Ukraine often meant the territories in the Russian Empire. The term ‘Great Ukraine,’ applied by Galicians to those territories, implied in some way that the Habsburg Ukrainian lands were ‘Little Ukraine.’ Hrushevsky defined the borders of his Ukraine as the lands in which Ukrainians had traditionally constituted the majority of the population, the object of the striving of the Ukrainian national movement. Most importantly, his use of the term ‘Rus'’ and the emphasis on continuity with Kyivan Rus' also challenged the monopoly that Russians had on that name and tradition in scholarship and popular thinking.

The subject of Hrushevsky’s history was the Ukrainian people and their evolution, both in periods when they possessed states and polities and when they did not. Hrushevsky rejected the view that history should deal only with states and rulers. Deeply imbued with the populist ideology of the Ukrainian national movement, he saw simple people as having their own worth and history. This meant that elites in Ukrainian society, which had often assimilated to other peoples, were of little interest to him. He sought to write the history of the narod, and in his conceptualization it was relatively easy to conflate its dual meanings of populace and nation. That conflation has always made it very difficult for commentators to identify his orientation as either left- or right-wing on national or social issues.

In addition to his populist sentiments, Hrushevsky relied on his Kyiv training in the documentary school. He sought out all sources and perused masses of literature. His notes were replete with the latest Western works in archaeology, linguistics, and anthropology. He weighed and dissected sources in reaching a conclusion on any issue. His reader was drawn into the kitchen of scholarship and shown the full array of ingredients and utensils.

Between 1898 and 1901, Hrushevsky published three large volumes. In 1901 Hrushevsky wrote volume four, dealing with the political situation in the Ukrainian lands under Lithuanian and Polish rule from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century. He began work on the fifth volume in 1902 and issued its first part in early 1905, but his efforts to disseminate his research slowed down the pace of his writing. Hrushevsky searched for a German publisher and prepared a new edition of volume 1 for translation into German. He also revised volumes 2 and 3 for a new printing when the ban on Ukrainian books lapsed in the Russian Empire in 1904.

The 1905 revolution in the Russian Empire improved the situation for the Ukrainian movement and for scholarship on Ukraine, providing an opportunity to repeat the Galician advances in the lands where most Ukrainians lived. During the revolutionary events Hrushevsky took an active role as a publicist. His Russian-language outline was reissued with a summary of more recent events. Hrushevsky began to transfer Ukrainian cultural and scholarly activities to Kyiv. The journal Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk (Literary-Scientific Herald) made the move, and Hrushevsky established a scholarly society in Kyiv.

Ultimately the political reaction in the Russian Empire after 1907 and the relatively less favorable conditions for the Ukrainian movement there than in Galicia—above all, the ban on Ukrainian in schools—undermined some of these initiatives. One indication of continued opposition to the Ukrainian movement was the refusal to appoint Hrushevsky to the chair at Kyiv University for which he applied in 1908. Beginning in the late 1890s, Russian nationalist circles had begun to see Hrushevsky as the architect of ‘Mazepist separatism,’ and his manifest scholarly achievements infuriated them. They succeeded in denying him the chair. Taking advantage of whatever opportunities were available to him, Hrushevsky divided his energies between Kyiv and Lviv (and, to a degree, St. Petersburg), turning his attention to writing popular histories of Ukraine.

Hrushevsky did not, however, abandon his major scholarly work. In 1905 he published the second part of volume five, followed by volume six in 1907, thereby completing his account of the Polish and Lithuanian period. Next Hrushevsky began his discussion of what he saw as the third period of Ukrainian history, publishing volume seven under the title of a subseries, ‘The History of the Ukrainian Cossacks,’ in 1909. This volume, which covered events to 1625, was followed in 1913 by the first part of volume eight, dealing with the years 1625 to 1638. The increasing source base, due in part to Hrushevsky’s vigorous archaeographic activities, was overwhelming him. In addition, mindful of the importance of public opinion for the acceptance of his ideas and interpretations in the Russian Empire, Hrushevsky issued part of volume one in Russian translation in 1911; in the course of doing so, he revised the work and issued a third Ukrainian edition of that volume in 1913. In 1913–14, Russian translations of volume seven and the first part of volume eight also appeared.

The outbreak of World War I found Hrushevsky, a Russian citizen, vacationing in the Ukrainian Carpathians of Austrian Galicia. Realizing that his presence abroad would provide propaganda for reactionary Russian forces, which had already begun a campaign against the Ukrainian movement before the war, Hrushevsky decided to return to Kyiv. He was immediately arrested. The intervention of highly placed friends changed his place of exile from Siberia to Simbirsk. Later he was permitted to take up residence in the university city of Kazan. In 1916 the intervention of the Russian Academy of Sciences succeeded in gaining permission for him to live in Moscow under police surveillance.

Before the war Hrushevsky had written a draft of his history up to the Zboriv Agreement of 1649. In Simbirsk he was unable to continue research on the primary sources needed for the History, so he turned his attention to writing a world history in Ukrainian. In Kazan, however, he had returned to his major project, revising and publishing volume eight, part two, for the years 1638 to 1648. With access to the archives and libraries of Moscow, Hrushevsky continued to expand his draft to cover the period up to the spring of 1650 and prepared it for publication. Volume eight, part three, was printed, but the press run was destroyed during the revolutionary events in Moscow and the book reached the public only in 1922, when it was reprinted in Vienna from a single preserved copy.

The Russian Revolution of February 1917 gave Hrushevsky his political freedom. It also resulted in his becoming president of the first independent Ukrainian state, which took him away from scholarship. During 1917 he headed the Ukrainian  Central  Rada,  which developed into the autonomous and then independent government of Ukraine. In taking the city of Kyiv  in  early 1918,  the  Bolshevik artillery specifically targeted Hrushevsky’s house, thereby destroying his library, priceless manuscripts, and museum, as well as the materials he had prepared for the History of Ukraine-Rus'. On 29 April 1918, he was elected president of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UNR), which evolved out of the Central Rada, but the German military authorities, whom he called in to protect Ukraine from the Bolsheviks, supported a coup by General Pavlo Skoropadsky to depose Hrushevsky and the UNR and to establish the monarchist Hetmanate. The fall of the Central Rada at the end of April removed Hrushevsky from power and the subsequent loss of Kyiv by its successor, the UNR Directory, in January 1919, made him a political refugee. He then served as the foreign representative of the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries, which he had supported since 1917. After extensive travels through Western Europe, he settled near Vienna, the initial center of the Ukrainian political emigration. He had lost considerable political authority among the tens of thousands of Ukrainian political émigrés, in part because of his failure to back the UNR fully and because of his political move to the left. He was, however, looked upon as the greatest Ukrainian scholar and was expected to organize Ukrainian scholarly and intellectual life.

Initially Hrushevsky fulfilled these expectations. He organized the Ukrainian Sociological Institute and published a French version of his general history, a discussion of early social organization, and an account of the development of religious thought in Ukraine. In 1922 he turned his attention to his second monumental work, the Istoriia ukraïns'koï literatury (History of Ukrainian Literature), and published the first three volumes in Lviv. Hrushevsky’s attention, however, was already directed to events in Soviet Ukraine. Although the Ukrainian movement had failed to maintain an independent state, it had succeeded in institutionalizing its view that Ukraine should be a distinct administrative entity and that the Ukrainian nation had its own language and culture. While the Bolsheviks had accepted those tenets, they remained a group with relatively few ethnic Ukrainians in their leadership and even fewer followers versed in Ukrainian culture. When the Soviet leadership adopted a policy of indigenization, accompanied by a reversal of its more radical ideological and social policies, the government in Kyiv sorely needed cadres who would be perceived as legitimately Ukrainian.

In 1923 Hrushevsky began seriously to consider returning to Kyiv. Rumors to that effect caused consternation in Ukrainian political circles, which saw such an action by the first president of the Ukrainian state as a major blow to the cause of Ukrainian independence. Hrushevsky was offered a professorship at the Ukrainian Free University and a number of other posts in hopes that he would abandon his plans. In 1924, however, he decided that he would go to Kyiv instead of Prague. The reasons for his decision have been debated to the present day. Certainly his assertion that he planned to bring his History of Ukraine-Rus' up to 1917 and could only do so with access to libraries and archives in Ukraine weighed heavily in his decision.

Accepting an offer from the Kharkiv government, Hrushevsky returned to Kyiv to take up a position at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. He showed his customary energy in organizing scholarship. Reinvigorating the academy’s Zapysky (Annals), Hrushevsky also revived the journal Ukraïna (Ukraine). He gathered a talented group of co-workers and launched a number of new series, including Za sto lit (In One Hundred Years), a publication devoted to the nineteenth century. New journals specializing in unearthing and studying sources, such as Ukraïns'kyi arkheografichnyi zbirnyk (Ukrainian Archaeographic Collection) and Ukraïns'kyi arkhiv (Ukrainian Archive), were launched. He also continued his work on the History of Ukrainian Literature, publishing volumes four and five. Returning to his magnum opus, he prepared volume nine on the period from 1650 to 1658, publishing it in two separate massive parts in 1928 and 1931. Hrushevsky’s research on the History was indeed stimulated by his return to the academic environment and archives of Kyiv, but the city did not long provide a conducive environment for his work.

The very sweep of Hrushevsky’s activities threatened the communist leadership. They had sought legitimacy by inviting Hrushevsky to return, but then found his revitalization of non-Marxist Ukrainian historiography dangerous, particularly at a time when the Ukrainization policy presented opportunities for the old Ukrainian intelligentsia to reach the masses. Attempts to obviate Hrushevsky by promoting the newly developing Marxist cadres led by Matvii Iavorsky did not have the desired effect. Ultimately the communist authorities in Kharkiv did not decide the fate of Hrushevsky’s historical school, for the rising tide of centralization accompanying the ascent of Joseph Stalin engulfed them as well. Ukrainian national communism was judged to be as dangerous as the more traditional Ukrainian national movement in a Soviet state that was increasingly becoming a successor to the Russian Empire. Beginning in 1928, Hrushevsky came under mounting attack by party officials. As arrests and trials of the Ukrainian intelligentsia proceeded, Hrushevsky became an isolated figure. Following an all-out attack by Volodymyr Zatonsky, Hrushevsky was warned to leave for Moscow. Departing in early March 1931, he was arrested in Moscow and sent back to Kyiv, but then returned to Moscow. As Hrushevsky was exiled to Russia, the Institute of History was dismantled and its scholarly programs halted. Deprived of his Ukrainian context, Hrushevsky nevertheless continued his scholarly work, publishing in Russian journals and completing volume ten of his history. Illness overtook him during a trip to Kislovodsk in 1934, and he died under somewhat mysterious circumstances, as the result of an operation. The best testimony to the power of his name is that he was accorded a state funeral in a Ukraine devastated by famine and terror. His daughter Kateryna even succeeded in printing the first part of volume ten of his History, dealing with the years 1658–60, before she herself was arrested in the new terror. The second part, sometimes called volume eleven, which covered the period to 1676, remained in manuscript in Kyiv until the 1970s, when it disappeared.

Hrushevsky did not complete his history, but he had written more than 6,000 pages outlining his vision of the Ukrainian past. His shorter histories allow us to see how he would have treated subsequent periods. He viewed the Ukrainian past as a process in which a people had evolved on a given territory under various rulers. Although he discussed the territory from the most ancient times, he dated the origins of the Ukrainian people to the fifth-century Antae, whom he viewed as Slavs. His goal was to use all available evidence to study periods of the Ukrainian past for which written evidence was sparse. Just as the nineteenth-century historians had turned to ethnography and folklore to understand the past of the common folk, who had left few written records, so Hrushevsky turned to the rapidly developing disciplines of historical linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, and sociology to penetrate the distant past of the entire Ukrainian people.

The translation of Hrushevsky’s magnum opus into an international scholarly language is being realized ninety years after the historian sought to arrange the German translation. In issuing a work begun nearly a century ago by scholar who died more than six decades ago, one must consider whether the work continues to have relevance and whether there is a need for a version other than the Ukrainian original. New archaeological finds have been made, new and better editions of sources have been published, new literature has appeared, and new theories and methods have emerged.

Hrushevsky’s Istoriia Ukraïny-Rusy is the major statement of a historian of genius. In breadth and erudition it still has no equal in Ukrainian historiography, and its examination of many historical questions remains unsurpassed. In some ways this is due to the unfortunate history of Ukraine, above all, the Soviet policies that not only imposed official dogmas, but also discouraged study of pre-modern Ukrainian history and the publication of sources. This policy, as well as the relative neglect of Ukrainian history in surrounding lands and in the West, has made new source discoveries and expansion of information more limited than might have been expected. The tragic fate of Ukrainian archives in the twentieth century—above all, the losses occasioned by wars and revolutions—frequently means that Hrushevsky’s discussions and citations are the only information extant. The reprinting of the History in Ukraine demonstrates to what degree Hrushevsky’s work is the starting point for rebuilding historical studies there. The appearance of the English translation now permits a wider scholarly community, which has often only known of Hrushevsky as a “nationalist” historian, to examine the type of national history that this great scholar wrote. The appearance of the History of Ukraine-Rus' should serve as a basis for understanding the Ukrainian historical process to the seventeenth century and as a tool for the examination of the thought of the Ukrainian national revival and the views of one of its greatest leaders.

WHY DO UKRAINIANS CELEBRATE Christmas on January 7th rather than December 25th? Many people wonder why the Ukrainian date is thirteen days later and only a few people are aware that it is related to a change from the calendar which was in use two thousand years ago.

Tradition plays a great part in the lives of people of Ukrainian origin and it is for this reason that they have continued to celebrate Christmas on the old date that would have been observed by all Christians.

The Roman calendar that had been in use since the eighth century B.C. originally started the year on March 1 and had 10 months as the names of the months themselves indicate, September (7), October (8), November (9) and December (10). Eventually two months were added, Januarius and Februarius, and the year was started on January. However, it was only 355 days long so it had over ten days error and the seasons and the calendar over the years continued to lose their correct relationship.

JULIAN CALENDAR

JULIUS CAESAR FINALLY in 46 B.C. had the Greek astronomer Sosigenes establish the length of the solar calendar at 365 and one quarter days (365.25). Every fourth year was to add one day to keep the quarter days accurate and this has now become our leap year with February 29. The Julian Calendar was introduced on January 1, 45 B.C. and the next year Caesar was honored by having the seventh month renamed in his honor as July. A later Roman Emperor, Augustus Caesar, corrected the leap year system in A.D. 8 and in his honor a month was renamed August.

But the Julian year of 365 days and 6 hours exceeds the true solar year of 365.2422 days or 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes and 46 seconds by the amount of 11 minutes 14 seconds. The difference is about 0.0078 of a day per year or about one day in 128 years. Over a period of 1,500 years the calendar was again getting out of step with the natural seasons by about ten days.

Christmas, which had been celebrated on many different dates was finally fixed on December 25th by Bishop Liberius of Rome.

In 354 A.D. he chose the date to replace a Roman pagan festival of sun-god worship with Christ's Mass, a Christian event.

GREGORIAN CALENDAR

FINALLY POPE GREGORY XIII in 1528 introduced changes to correct the error in the Julian Calendar. To restore the vernal or spring equinox to March 21st he eliminated the 10 days from March 11 to 21 in 1582 so the dates March 12 to 20 never existed in 1582, at least not in Roman Catholic countries. Some Protestant countries like England and Sweden adopted the new calendar only in 1752 so there was 11 days difference by then.

The Orthodox and Eastern rite churches such as the Ukrainian have maintained the Julian Calendar for ecclesiastical purposes into this century. The Ukrainians, numbering some 50 million in the world are the second largest nation following the Julian Calendar in their churches. The difference between the two Calendars placed Christmas on January 7th and, because of the size of the Ukrainian church the date has become widely known as "Ukrainian Christmas." However, there are other smaller Eastern-rite Orthodox national churches such as the Greek, Syrian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Byelorussian that follow the same calendar.

Historically the Julian Calendar is sometimes called Old Style (O.S.) and the Gregorian is called New Style (N.S.). All the Orthodox countries which preserved the Julian Calendar into this century had a 13 day lag. Thus a date would be written January 4/17, 1918, meaning the 4th in new style and 17th in the old style calendar.

Many Ukrainian families and many Ukrainian churches continue to observe the old traditional date of Ukrainian Christmas on January 7 despite the pressures of modern society to change. The later date appeals to many people since, after the commercialism of December 25th, it is possible to enjoy a quieter and more religious occasion. For those who leave their shopping for the last minute the big advantage in celebrating Ukrainian Christmas is that the big sales start - just in time for Christmas shopping. - A.G.

In Ukraine the first mention of St. Nicholas is related to the year 882 at the time of King Ihor of Rus when there was mention of a St. Nicholas Church on one of the hills of Kiev. When St. Vladimir, King of Rus-Ukraine in 988 proclaimed Christianity the religion of his realm it is said he had a special veneration for an ikon of St. Nicholas. When he had visited Constantinople he had seen and was impressed by an ikon of the mighty Byzantine Emperor bowing to the Saint. To this day St. Nicholas ikons may be found, usually on the left of the ikonostas wall of Ukrainian churches.

Among the talismans the Zaporozhian Cossacks would often take in their boats on the treacherous Black Sea was an ikon of St. Nicholas, or Sviaty Mykolai, as Ukrainians usually call him. The Hutsuls, mountaineers of western Ukraine named the four seasons of the year after saints. Winter honored St. Nicholas, Spring was St. George, Summer was St. Peter and Fall was St. Demetrius. Gift giving has been related to St. Nicholas in Ukraine for less than a century and a half. The Christmas Tree, originally a German tradition, first came into Ukraine about 1840 via Austrian influence.

Saint Nicholas is now a permanent part of Christmas, the season of peace and generosity among all peoples. So it's appropriate that the elements of our Christmas celebrations should have come from so many nations. Although the Ukrainian Saint Nicholas wears the dress of a bishop while the American Santa Claus is a jolly fellow in a white fur-trimmed suit of red, however, under both there is a heart that first beat some sixteen centuries ago in Myra. The generous spirit of Nicholas, Bishop of Myra, lives on today.

When we speak of culture as a distinguishing mark of a specific nation, we mean, of course, not culture in the widest sense of the word, but those well-known cultural peculiarities which characterise every European nation.

The Ukraine lies wholly within the confines of the greater European cultural community. But its distance from the great culture-centers of Western and Central Europe has, of course, not been without profound effect. The Ukraine is at a low stage of culture, and must be measured by Eastern European standards.

The Ukraine, which in the 11th Century caused great astonishment among travelers from Western Europe, because of its comparatively high culture, can now be counted only as one of the semi-cultural countries of Europe. The very low stage of material culture, to which the economic conditions of the country bear the best witness, is characteristic of the Ukraine in its entire extent. The intellectual culture of the people appears frightfully low. The number who know how to read are 172 out of a thousand in Volhynia, 155 in Podolia, 181 in Kiev, 259 in Kherson, 184 in Chernihiv, 169 in Poltava, 168 in Kharkiv, 215 in Katerinoslav, 279 in Tauria, and 168 in Kuban. These hopeless figures, to be sure, are only a result of the exclusive use of the Russian language, which is unintelli- gible to the Ukrainians, in all the schools. Even in the first school-year, it is not permitted to explain the most unintelligible words of the foreign language in Ukrainian. This frightfully low grade of education of the people permits of no progress in the economic life of the country. Even the most well-meaning efforts of the government or the Zemstvo, break on the brazen wall of illiteracy and ignorance of the Russian language. And Ukrainian books of instruction and information are forbidden as dangerous to the state. No wonder, then, that the Ukrainian farmer tills his field, raises his cattle, carries on his home industries, cures his ills, etc., just as his forefathers used to do. There is a small number of the educated who are still cultivating literature and art, feebly enough for the size of the nation — but how could one speak of a distinct, independent culture here?

And yet it exists. For the low stage of culture which every foreign tourist, who only knows the railroads and cities, immediately notices, applies only to the culture created in the Ukraine by the ruling foreign peoples, to- gether with the small mass of Ukrainian intelligenzia. (The intellectual culture of the Ukrainian educated classes will be discussed later). In the same way, every hasty observer would consider the Ukrainian peasant as a semi-European, standing on a very low level of culture. And yet this illiterate peasant possesses an individual popular culture, far exceeding the popular cultures of the Poles, Russians and White Russians. The settlements, buildings, costumes, the nourishment and mode of life of the Ukrainian peasant stand much higher than those of the Russian, White Russian and Polish peasant. Hence, the Ukrainian peasant easily and completely assimilates all peasant settlers in his own land. The rich ethnological life, the unwritten popular literature and popular music which, perhaps, have no counterpart in Europe, the highly developed popular art and standard of living, preserve the Ukrainian peasant from denationalization, even in his most distant colonies. The power of opposition to Russification is particularly great. The Ukrainian peasant never enters into mixed marriages with the Russian muzhik, and hardly ever lives in the same village with him. The ethnological culture of the Ukrainian people is, by all means, original and peculiar; entirely different from the popular cultures of all the neigh- boring peoples.

Even in prehistoric times, Ukrainian territory was the seat of a very high culture, the remains of which, now brought to light, astonish the investigator thru their loftiness and beauty. In ancient times the early Greek cultural influences flourished in the Southern Ukraine, then the Roman, and in the Middle Ages the Byzantine. Byzantine culture had a great influence upon ancient Ukrainian culture, and its traces may still be seen in the popular costume and in ornamentation.

The most important element in Ukrainian culture, however, is entirely peculiar, and independent of these influences. The entire view of life of the common man, to this day, has its roots in the pre-Christian culture of the ancient Ukraine. The entire creative faculty of the spirit of the nation has its source there ; all the customs and manners and very many of the songs and sayings. Christi- anity did not destroy the old view of life in the Ukraine, but was adapted to it. This accommodation was all the easier, because the character of the ancient faith and philos- ophy of life of the Ukrainian people were not so gloomy and cruel as was the case with many of the other peoples of Europe.

Outside of the prehistoric, Byzantine and Christian body of culture, we observe extremely few foreign influences in the popular culture of the Ukraine. It is highly inde- pendent and individualized. The Polish and Muscovite influences are very insignificant, and appear only here and there in the borderlands of the Ukraine.

It would require the giving of a detailed ethnological description of the Ukrainian people if we wished to draw a complete picture of its peculiar culture. Such a description has no place in geography, and certainly none in a book of such general nature as this. Therefore, I shall discuss but briefly the various phases of the popular culture of the Ukraine, so that in this respect, too, the independent posi- tion of the Ukrainians among the peoples of Eastern Europe may appear in the proper light.

The Ukrainian villages (with the exception of the mountain villages, which consist of a long irregular line of farms) are always built picturesquely, in pretty places. The huts of a typical Ukrainian village are always surround- ed by orchards, which is hardly ever the case among the Russians and White Russians, and very rarely so among the Poles. These neighbors of the Ukrainians plant orchards only in the few regions where professional fruit- growing has developed. In a Ukrainian village, the green of the orchards is considered absolutely necessary. The Russian will not endure trees in the neighborhood of his hut; they obstruct his view. In the Ukraine an orchard is an indispensable constituent part of even the poorest peasant homestead. And the separate farms, in which very much of the spirit of the glorious national past still lives, are hidden in the fresh green of fruit orchards and apiaries.

The Ukrainian house is built of wood only in the moun- tains and other wooded areas. In all other regions it is made of clay and covered with straw. The front windows are always built facing the south. In this way, different sides of the houses face the street, and in general, too, street life does not play so important a part in a Ukrainian village as it does in Polish, White Russian or Russian villages. The Ukrainian houses are always well fenced in, altho not so strongly and so high as the Russian houses in the forest zone, or as the White Russian houses. They usually stand (except in Western Podolia) rather far apart. Thus, the danger of fire is less than in the Russian villages of the Chornozyom region, where the huts lie very close together. As a result, the insurance companies, for instance, charge smaller premiums in the Governments of Kursk and Voroniz for insuring Ukrainian village proper- ties than for Russian.

The general external appearance of the Ukrainian huts, which are always well whitewashed and have flower gardens before the windows, is very picturesque, and contrasts to advantage with the dwellings of the neighboring races, especially the miserable and dirty Russian "izbas." All the houses of the Ukrainians, excepting, of course, the poorest huts, are divided by a vestibule into two parts. The division into two we do not find in the typical huts of the Poles and White Russians. A further characteristic in which the Ukrainian house differs from the houses of the neighboring peoples, is its comparative cleanliness. Particularly does it differ in this respect from the Russian izbas, which are regularly full of various insects and para- sites, where sheep and pigs, and, in winter, even the large cattle, live comfortably together with the human inhabi- tants. The well-known authority on the Russian village, Novikov, relates a very characteristic little story in this connection. Several Russian families settled in a Ukrainian village. Naturally, cattle were kept in the living room. And when the Ukrainian village elders expressly forbade the keeping of cattle in the huts, the Russians moved out, because they could not become accustomed to the Ukrainian orderliness. It happens very seldom that the Russians live together with the Ukrainians in one and the same village. In such a case, the Russian part of the village lies separate, on the other side of a ravine, a creek, or a rivulet. In the regions of mixed nationality we see, adjoining one another, purely Ukrainian and purely Russian villages.

The interior arrangement of the houses and the arrange- ment of the barnyard differentiate the Ukrainian very sharply from his neighbor. Still more decidedly does he show his individuality in his dress. The mode of dress is quite varied thruout the great area of the Ukraine, and yet we observe everywhere a distinctness of type and individu- ality as opposed to the dress of neighboring peoples. Only the dress of the Polissye people bears some trace of White Russian influence, on the western border of Polish influence, in Kuban of Caucasian influence (Russian influence appears nowhere). But all these influences are slight. Ukrainian dress is always original and esthetic. No one can wonder, therefore, that the Ukrainian costume is surviving longer than the Polish, White Russian and Russian, and is giving way very slowly to the costume of the cities.

The description of even the main types of Ukrainian costume would take us too far afield ; similarly, we cannot discuss the diet of the people in detail, altho in this respect, too, the Ukrainian race retains its definite individuality, those cases excepted, of course, in which economic strain forces the people to be satisfied with "international" potatoes and bread.

We now come to the intellectual culture of the Ukrainian people. If the material culture of the Ukrainians, despite its originality and independence is not at a strikingly higher level than that of the neighboring peoples, the intellectual culture of the Ukrainian people certainly far outstrips all the others.

The Ukrainian peasant is distinguished, above all, by his earnest and sedate appearance. Beside the lively Pole and the active Russian, the Ukrainian seems slow, even lazy. This characteristic, which is in part only superficial, comes from the general view of life of the Ukrainians. According to the view of the Ukrainian, life is not merely a terrible struggle for existence, opposing man to hard necessity at every turn; life, in itself, is the object of contemplation, life affords possibilities for pleasure and feeling, life is beautiful, and its esthetic aspect must, at all times and in all places, be highly respected. We find a similar view among the peoples of antiquity. In the present time, this view is very unpractical for nations with wide spheres of activity. At all events this characteristic of the Ukrainian people is the sign of an old, lofty, individual culture, and here, too, is the origin of the noted "aristo- cratic democracy" of the Ukrainians. Other foundations of the individuality of the Ukrainian are the results of the gloomy historical past of the nation. It is the origin, first of all, of the generally melancholy individuality, taciturnity, suspicion, scepticism, and even a certain in- difference to daily life. The ultimate foundations of the individualism of the Ukrainian are derived from his his- torico-political traditions; preference for extreme individu- alism, liberty, equality and popular government. Pro- - ceeding from these fundamentals, all the typical char- acteristics of the Ukrainians may be logically explained with ease.

The family relations reflect the peculiarity of the Ukrainian people very clearly. The comparatively high ancient culture, coupled with individualism and a love of liberty, does not permit the development of absolute power in the head of the family (as is the case among the Poles and Russians). Likewise the position of woman is much higher in the Ukrainian people than in the Polish or Russian. In innumerable cases the woman is the real head of the household. Far less often does this state of affairs occur among the Poles, and only by exception among the Russians. A daughter is never married off against her will among the Ukrainians; she has human rights in the matter. Among the Russians, this business is in the hands of the father, who takes the so-called kladka for his daughter, that is, he sells her to whomever he pleases. Grown sons among the Ukrainians, as soon as they are married, are presented by their fathers with a house and an independent farm. The dwelling under one roof of a composite family (a family clan), as is usual among the Russians, is almost impossible among the Ukrainians, and is of exceedingly rare occurrence. The father has no absolute power in this case (as among the Russians) to preventjiiscord in the family.

It is part of the peculiarity of the Ukrainians that they seldom form friendships, but these are all the more lasting, altho reserved and rarely intimate. The Russians make friends among one another very easily, but they separate very easily, too, and become violent enemies. The Poles form close friendships easily and are true friends, too. Enmity is terrible among the Russians; among the Poles and Ukrainians it is less bitter, and is, moreover, less lasting. The capacity for association is very considerable in the Ukrainians. All such association is based on complete equality in the division of labor and profit. A foreman is elected and his orders are obeyed, but he receives an equal share of the profits and works .together with the rest. Among the Russians, the bolshak selects his workmen himself, does not work, and is simply an overseer. Still he receives the greatest part of the profits. Among the Poles the capacity for association is but slightly developed.

At this juncture we may also discuss the relation of the Ukrainians to their communities. The Ukrainian community (hromada) is a voluntary union of freemen for the sake of common safety and the general good. Beyond this purpose the Ukrainian hromada possesses no power, for it might limit the individual desires of some one of the hromada members. For this reason, for example, common ownership of land which has been introduced, following the Russian model, chiefly in the left half of the Ukraine, is an abomination in the eyes of the Ukrainian people, and is ruining them, economically, to a much greater extent than the division of the land in the case of individual ownership. The Russian "mir" is something entirely different. It is a miniature absolute state, altho it appears in the garb of a communistic republic. The mir is complete- ly a part of the Russian national spirit, and the Russian muzhik obeys the will of the mir unquestioningly, altho its will enslaves his own.

The general relation to other people has become a matter of fixed form to the Ukrainians; a form developed in the course of centuries. The ancient culture and the individual- istic cult have produced social forms among the Ukrainian peasantry which sometimes remind one of ancient court- forms. The proximity and influence of cities and other centers of "culture" have, to a great extent, spoiled this peasant ceremonial. But in certain large areas of the Ukraine it may still be observed in its full development. Great delicacy, courtesy and attention to others, coupled with unselfish hospitality, these are the general substance of the social forms of our peasants. These social forms are entirely different from the rough manners of the Polish or Muscovite peasants, which, in addition, have been spoiled by the demoralizing influence of the cities.

The relation of the Ukrainian people to religion is also original and entirely different from that of all the adjacent nations. To the Ukrainian, the essence of his faith, its ethical substance, is the important factor. This he feels deeply and respects in himself and others. Dogmas and rites are less significant in the Ukrainian's conception of religion. Hence, despite differences in faith, not the slight- est disharmony exists between the great mass of the ortho- dox Ukrainians of Russia and the Bukowina, and the 4,000,000 Greek-Catholic Ukrainians of Galicia and Hungary. From the ancient culture and consideration of the individual comes, also, the great tolerance of the Ukrain- ians toward other religions, a tolerance which we do not find among the Poles and Russians. The spirit of the Ukrainians has, likewise, been very indifferent toward all sects and roskols. Among the Poles, sects flourished very luxuriantly in the 16th Century; among the Russians, there are to this day any number of sects, often very curious ones, and more are constantly arising. Among the Ukrainians, a single sect has been formed, the so-called stunda (a sort of Baptist creed). This sect is not the result of rite formalism, however, but merely an effect of the Russification of the Ukrainian national church. In order to be able to pray to God in their mother-tongue, more than a million of the Ukrainian peasantry is persevering in this faith, which came over from adjacent German colonies, despite harsh persecution on the part of the Russian clergy and government.

The worth of Ukrainian culture appears, in its most beautiful and its highest form, in the unwritten literature of the people. The philosophical feeling of the Ukrainian people finds expression in thousands and thousands of pregnant proverbs and parables, the like of which we do not find even in the most advanced nations of Europe. They reflect the great soul of the Ukrainian people and its worldly wisdom. But the national genius of the Ukrainians has risen to the greatest height in their popular poetry. Neither the Russian nor the Polish popular poetry can bear comparison with the Ukrainian. Beginning with the historical epics (dumy) and the extremely ancient and yet living songs of worship, as for example, Christmas songs (kolady), New Years' songs (shchedrivki) , spring songs (vessilni), harvest songs (obzinkovi), down to the little songs for particular occasions (e. g. shumki, kozachki, kolomiyki) , we find in all the productions of Ukrainian popular epic and lyric poetry, a rich content and a great perfection of form. In all of it the sympathy for nature, spiritualization of nature, and a lively comprehension of her moods, is superb; in all of it we find a fantastic but warm dreaminess; in all of it we find the glorification of the loftiest and purest feelings of the human soul. A glowing love of country reveals itself to us everywhere, but particularly in innumerable Cossack songs, a heartrending longing for a glorious past, a glori- fication, altho not without criticism, of their heroes. In their love-songs we find not a trace of sexuality; not the physical, but the spiritual beauty of woman is glorified above all. Even in jesting songs, and further, even in ribald songs, there is a great deal of anacreontic grace. And, at the same time, what beauty of diction, what wonderful agreement of content and form! No one would believe that this neglected, and for so many centuries, suppressed and tormented people could scatter so many pearls of true poetic inspiration thru its unhappy land.

This peculiarity of the poetical creative spirit enables us, just as do the other elements of culture, to recognize the vast difference between the Ukrainian and the Russian people. The Russian folk songs are smaller in number and variety, form and content. Sympathetic appreciation of nature is scant. The imagination either rises to super- natural heights or sinks to mere trifling. Criminal mon- strosities and the spirit of destruction are glorified as objects of national worship. The conception of love is sensual, the jesting and ribald songs disgusting.

Like their popular poetry, the popular music of the Ukrainians far surpasses the popular music of the neigh- boring peoples, and differs from them very noticeably. Polish popular music is just as poor as Polish popular poetry, and almost thruout possesses a cheerful major character. Russian popular music has many minor ele- ments in addition to the major elements. But the Russian popular melodies are quite different from the Ukrainian. They are either boisterously joyous or hopelessly sad. The differences in the character of the melodies are so great that one need not be a specialist to be able to tell at once whether a melody is Ukrainian or Russian.

Popular art, in our people, is entirely original and much more highly advanced than in the neighboring peoples. The remains of the ancient popular painting are still in existence in the left half of the Ukraine. Wood carving has developed to a highly artistic form among the Hutzuls (there are the well-known peasant-artists Shkriblak, Mehedinyuk, and others). The chief field of Ukrainian popular art, however, is decoration. Two fundamental types are used; a geometric pattern with the crossing of straight and broken lines, and a natural pattern, which is modelled after parts of plants (as leaves, flowers, etc.). In the embroideries, cloths and glass bead -work, we find such an esthetic play of colors, that even tho each individual color is glaring, the whole has a very picturesque and harmonious effect. The decorative art of the Russians is much lower. It is based on animal motifs or entire objects, e. g., whole plants, houses, etc., and evinces an outspoken preference for glaring colors," which are so combined, however, as to shock the eye. Among the Poles, the art of ornamentation is very slightly developed. As for colors, they prefer the gaudy, not many at a time; usually, blue is combined with bright red.

For the sake of completeness, we must still say some- thing about Ukrainian manners and customs. In this aspect, too, the Ukrainian peasantry is richer than its neighbors. Only the White Russians are not far behind them. The entire life of a Ukrainian peasant, in itself full of need and poverty, is, nevertheless, full of poetic and deeply significant usages and customs, from the cradle to the grave. Birth, christening, marriage, death, all are combined with various symbolic usages, particularly the wedding, so rich in ceremonies and songs, so different in its entire substance from the Russian or Polish. The entire year of the Ukrainian constitutes one great cycle of holidays, with which a host of ceremonies are connected, most of which have come down from pre-Christian times. We find similar ceremonies among the White Russians, some also among the Poles, e .g., Christmas songs, songs of the seasons, but among the Russians, on the other hand, we find no parallel to the Ukrainian conditions. Among the Russians, neither the Christmas songs (kolady) are customary, nor the ceremonies of Christmas eve ibohata kutya), neither the midwinter festival (shchedri vechir), with its songs (shche- drivki), nor the spring holidays (yur russalchin velikden) and spring songs (vesnianki), nor the feast of the solstice (kupalo), nor the autumn ceremonies on the feast-days of St. Andrew or St. Katherine, etc. The entire essence of the popular metaphysics of the Ukrainians is quite foreign to the Russians, and almost entirely so to the Poles. Only the White Russians form a certain analogy, but, among them, pure superstition outweighs customs and ceremonies in importance.

Sufficient facts have been given to make clear to the reader the complete originality and independence of Ukrainian popular culture. We now come to a brief survey of the cultural efforts of the educated Ukrainians.

The number of educated Ukrainians is comparatively small. Hardly a century has passed since the intelligence of the nation awoke to new life, yet, in its hands lies the development of the national culture in the widest sense of the word. The disproportion between the magnitude of the task and the small number of the workers for culture, is at once apparent. And yet the results of the work, in spite of obstacles on every side, have grown in volume.

The Ukraine lies within the sphere of influence of European culture. This culture has spread from Central and Western Europe over the territory of the Ukraine and its neighboring peoples, the Poles, Russians, White Russians, Magyars and Roumanians. Each one of these nations has accepted the material culture of Western Europe to a greater or less degree, and adjusted the spiritual culture to its national peculiarities. The Ukrainians, for a long time after the loss of their first state and the decline of their ancient culture, found no line along which they could develop their national culture independently. For centuries they vacillated between the cultures of Poland and Russia. To this day, now that the conditions are much better, one may still find among the Ukrainians individuals who, culturally, are Poles or Russians, and only speak and feel as Ukrainians. Such a condition is very sad, and causes the Ukraine untold injury — most of all in the field of material culture, which, in both these neighboring nations, is very incomplete. Agriculture, mining, trade and commerce, are on a much lower plane among the Poles than in Western Europe. And what is to be said of the Russians, who are a mere parody of a cultured nation in almost every field, altho they possess so great a political organization? No one need be surprised that material culture is of so low a grade in the Ukraine. On the other hand, it has become clear to every intelligent Ukrainian, that the development of material culture is possible only thru Western European influence, by sending Ukrainian engineers, manufacturing specialists, merchants and farmers, to Western and Central Europe to learn their business.

In the field of Ukrainian mental culture, the chief influences to be considered are Polish and Russian. In this field, Polish culture is comparatively very high. It possesses a very rich literature, considerable science and art, and very definite principles of life. The influence of Polish culture is limited almost exclusively to Galicia at the pre- sent time. But it was very strong until very recent years, when it began to decrease. At one time, however, the entire Ukraine, particularly the right half, was emphati- cally under the influence of Polish culture for centuries (16th to the 18th Century).

There is one element in the spiritual culture of the Poles which certainly deserves to be, and is, imitated by the Ukrainians. It is the tone of national patriotism, the love for the nation, its present and its past, which is everywhere evident. Hence, modern Polish literature must be a model for Ukrainian literature in its tendencies and its sentiments. But, beyond its patriotic tone, Polish culture is not appropriate for the Ukrainian people. It is aristo- cratic, by reason of its descent and its philosophy of the universe. It is far removed from the mass of the people it should represent. In spite of all efforts, the Polish culture of the educated classes has been unable to establish an organic connection with the common people of Poland. It has been built up above the masses and has not grown out of them. To build up Ukrainian culture entirely after the model of Polish culture, would mean to tear it from its life-giving roots in the soul of the people. That it would be deadly to Ukrainian culture, the Ukrainians have perceived for a long time.

Russian culture is much more dangerous to the Ukrainian people than Polish. In its material aspect it is of a very low grade. In the spiritual field it possesses a very rich literature and a noteworthy science and art. The spiritual culture of Russia now dominates all of the Russian Ukraine, and has, to a great extent, become prevalent even among those educated Ukrainians in Russia who possess real national consciousness.

This very circumstance constitutes a great danger for the development of Ukrainian culture. For, let the Mus- covite conquest extend over the Ukrainians, even in the cultural field, and there is an end of all the independence of the Ukrainian element, and its beautiful language will be, in fact, degraded to a peasant dialect. But a still greater danger lies in the quality of the Russian cultural influence. The first evil characteristic of Russian culture is the complete lack of national and patriotic sentiment, which is absolutely necessary for an aspiring culture like the Ukrainian. Russian culture is infecting the Ukrainians with an ominous national indifference. Another unfavor- able characteristic of all Russian culture, is the fact that it is undemocratic thru and thru, and very far removed from the Russian people. The Russian people did not create this culture; the educated, in producing it, took nothing from the people. An intelligent man, brought up in the atmosphere of Russian culture, is unspeakably distant from the Russian people, so that it is impossible for him to work at the task of enlightening them. The views of the Russian "lovers of the people" (narodniki) , or of a Tolstoy, con- cerning the common people and its soul, simply offend us thru their unexampled ignorance of the peculiarities and customs of the common people,

A culture so far removed from the people as the Russian can bring no benefit to the Ukrainians. We observe this, best of all, in the condition of the muzhik, to whom the educated Russian has never been able to find an approach, and now the latter looks on indifferently, while the masses sink deeper and deeper down into the abyss of intellectual and spiritual darkness. To guide the common people along the path of organic social-political and economic progress, is a task which an intellect permeated with Russian culture can never perform. The last Russian revolution, and the beginning of the era of constitutional government for Russia, have furnished the best proof for the truth of this assertion.

The other chief characteristic of Russian culture is its manifest superficiality. Hidden beneath a thin veneer of Western European amenities lies coarse barbarism. The external manners of the educated Russian very often strike one by the coarseness, lack of restraint and brutal reckless- ness accompanying them. We see, then, that even the external forms of European culture have only been out- wardly assumed by the Russians. Still poorer is their condition with respect to the things of the spirit. We have observed to what a slight degree the Russians have been able to assimilate the material culture of Europe. The same holds for spiritual culture. Russian literature, particularly the latest, has brought ethical elements of the most questionable worth into the world's literature. (Artzibashev and others). Russian science, altho it can point to some great names and has unlimited means at its disposal, stands far behind German, English or French science. In Russian science, everything is done for the sake of effect, without thoroness, without method, hence fatal gaps appear. Let us consider, for example, our science of geography. Hardly a year passes in which the Russian government does not send one or more great scientific expeditions to Asia or to the North Pole. Each expedition hands in volumes of scientific results, and, at the same time, the surface configuration of the most populous and cultur- ally most advanced regions of European Russia, for example, is barely known in its main aspects. The best geography of Russia was written by the Frenchman Reclus. A modern, really scientific geography of Russia does not exist.

Even more emphatically does the superficiality of Russian culture appear in social and political questions. These two directions of human thought have, in most recent times, become very popular in all Russian society. But what an abyss separates a European from a Russian in this field! In Europe the theses of the social sciences or of politics are the result of life. They are adjusted to life conditions and treated critically. In Russia they are life- less dogmas, about which Russian scholars of the 20th Century dispute with the same heat and in the same manner as their ancestors, a few hundred years ago, disputed as to whether the Hallelujah should be sung twice or three times, whether the confession of faith should read "born, not created" or "born and not created," whether one should say, "God have mercy upon us" or "Oh God, have mercy upon us," whether one should use two fingers in crossing oneself or three, and so on. Naturally, at that time religious questions were the fashion. Today it is social questions. And what does it amount to? Rampant doctrinism, the eternal use of banal commonplaces, an immature setting up of principles. And the result is — extreme unwieldiness of Russian society in internal politics and in parliamentarism, in social and national work, together with a deep scorn of the depraved West (gnili zapad) .

With this superficiality of Russian culture, its most evil characteristic is connected; the decline of family life and a certain moral perverseness. This phenomenon is commonly met with in all peoples who have but recently come in contact with Western European culture. The bad quali- ties of a high civilization are always assumed first, the good qualities slowly. In this field the Russians have far outstripped their European models.

The above facts suffice to prove that Russian cultural influences are dangerous for the Ukrainian people. The severe, rigid materialistic character of the Russian people will, without any doubt, enable it to outlast the storm and stress period of the present Russian culture, and guide it to a splendid future. But for the Ukrainian people, with its sentimental, gentle character, the assuming of Russian culture would be a deadly poison. Even supposing that the Ukrainian people might survive such an experiment, a thing which is not likely, it would forever remain a miser- able appendage of the Russian nation.

And besides, such an experiment is entirely unnecessary. Either we say, "We are Ukrainians, an independent race and different from the Russians," and build up our culture quite independently, or we say, "We are 'Little Russians,' one of the three tribes of Great Russia and of its high culture," and, in that case, we may calmly lie down on the world renowned Ukrainian stove. For then it does not pay even to work at the development of our language. A third alternative does not exist.

At present, however, the former view is generally predominant among the intelligenzia of the land, and the fact that many intelligent Ukrainians are permeated with Russian culture is due, not to an ideal conviction, but only to the powerful influence of the Russian schools and the Russian cities. How do these educated people stand beneath the Ukrainian peasant who, even on the shores of the Pacific Ocean, does not exchange his individual Ukrain- ian popular culture for the Russian, and deserves the scornful, but in our eyes very commendable saying of the Russians, "Khakhol vyesdie kharkhol!"

If, then, we are to remain a really independent nation, there is only one avenue open to Ukrainian culture, and that is to follow the culture of Western Europe step by step, to seek its models among the Germans, Scandinavians, English and French. And this entire development we must base upon the broad foundation of our high popular culture. Let us consider with what piety the really cultural nations of Europe preserve the little remains of their popular culture. Their few usages or superstitions, their little body of folk-songs ! How much richer than they are we in all our misery! The Ukrainian people spoke a mighty first word thru Kotlarevsky a century ago; it then found the first diamond upon its path, the pure language of the people. Unfortunately, no Ukrainian has yet arisen who could speak just as mighty a second word by finding ways and means of lifting the treasures of the home culture of the land, and enabling the entire nation to work at the task of using them to advantage. This "apostle of truth and science," as he is called by Shevchenko, has not ap- peared, altho he has had several ancestors, like Draho- maniv. But there are already very many Ukrainians who would place their seal upon the declaration: "that the Ukraine possesses so rich a popular culture, that by develop- ing all its hidden possibilities and supplementing them by elements drawn from the untainted sources of Western European culture, the Ukrainian nation could attain a complete culture just as peculiar to itself, and just as exalted among the great European cultures, as Ukrainian popular culture is among the popular cultures of other peoples."

Hence, the way lay clearly indicated for the Ukrainians of the 19th and 20th Century. Ethnological investigations and the scientific study of folk-lore have been taken up very eagerly by Ukrainian scholars, so that in this parti- cular field, recent Ukrainian science, perhaps, ranks highest in all Slavic science. In no other cultured nation of Europe is the life of the educated elements so permeated with the influences of the nation's own popular culture. The Ukrainian cultural movement is hardly a century old, and yet it has results to show which, even today, guarantee the cultural independence of the Ukrainian nation. Active relations with Central and Western European cultures have been established, which may become of incalculable effect in the further development of Ukrainian culture.

The Orange Revolution was a series of protests and political events that took place in Ukraine from late November 2004 to January 2005, in the immediate aftermath of the run-off vote of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election which was claimed to be marred by massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud. Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, was the focal point of the movement with thousands of protesters demonstrating daily. Nationwide, the democratic revolution was highlighted by a series of acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins, and general strikes organized by the opposition movement.

Viktor Yushchenko Viktor Yanukovych

The protests were prompted by reports from several domestic and foreign election monitors as well as the widespread public perception that the results of the run-off vote of November 21, 2004 between leading candidates Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych were rigged by the authorities in favor of the latter. The nationwide protests succeeded when the results of the original run-off were annulled, and a revote was ordered by Ukraine's Supreme Court for December 26, 2004.

Official results of the November 21 vote for each territory. Although the results have been heavily manipulated, the map still shows a political divide between eastern and western Ukraine.

Change in claimed turnout between the 1st and 2nd rounds of the election according to the Central Election Commission.

Results of the December 26, 2004 repeated run-off presidential election. Orange denotes provinces where Yushchenko won the popular vote. Blue represents provinces where Yanukovych led in the popular vote.

Under intense scrutiny by domestic and international observers, the second run-off was declared to be "fair and free". The final results showed a clear victory for Yushchenko, who received about 52 percent of the vote, compared to Yanukovych's 44 percent. Yushchenko was declared the official winner and with his inauguration on January 23, 2005 in Kiev, the Orange Revolution ended.

Viktor Yanukovych

Orange-clad demonstrators gather in the Independence Square in Kiev on 22 November, 2004. On some days, the number of protesters in the center of Kiev reached hundreds of thousands (one million by some estimates)

The 2004 presidential election in Ukraine featured two main candidates. One was sitting Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, largely supported by Leonid Kuchma (the outgoing President of Ukraine who already served two terms in the office and was precluded from running himself due to the constitutional term limits). The opposition candidate was Viktor Yushchenko, leader of the Our Ukraine faction in the Ukrainian parliament, also a former Prime Minister (1999–2001).

Viktor Yushchenko, the main opposition candidate

The election was held in a highly charged atmosphere, with the Yanukovych team and the outgoing president's administration using their control of the government and state apparatus for intimidation of Yushchenko and his supporters. In September 2004, Yushchenko suffered dioxin poisoning under mysterious circumstances. While he survived and returned to the campaign trail, the poisoning undermined his health and altered his appearance dramatically (his face remains disfigured by the consequences to this day).

Protesters at Independence Square on the first day of the Orange Revolution.

The two main candidates were neck and neck in the first-round vote held on October 31, 2004, collecting 39.32% (Yanukovych) and 39.87% (Yushchenko) of the vote cast. The candidates that came third and fourth collected much less: Oleksandr Moroz of the Socialist Party of Ukraine and Petro Symonenko of the Communist Party of Ukraine received 5.82% and 4.97%, respectively. Since no candidate carried more than 50% of the cast ballots, a run-off vote between two leading candidates was mandated by Ukrainian law. Soon after the run-off was announced, Oleksandr Moroz threw his support behind Viktor Yushchenko. Another Ukrainian opposition leader, the charismatic populist Yulia Tymoshenko, chose not to run herself. Promised the position of Prime Minister if Yushchenko were to win the presidency, Tymoshenko enthusiastically supported his presidential bid from the onset of the campaign.

In the wake of the first round of the election many complaints regarding voting irregularities in favor of the government supported Yanukovych were raised. However, as it was clear that neither nominee was close enough to collecting an outright majority in the first round, challenging the initial result would not have affected the final outcome of the election. As such the complaints were not actively pursued and both candidates concentrated on the upcoming run-off scheduled for November 21.

Orange was originally adopted by the Yushchenko's camp as the signifying color of his election campaign. Later the color gave name to an entire series of political terms, such as the Oranges (Pomaranchevi in Ukrainian) for his political camp and supporters. At the time when the mass protests grew, and especially when they brought about political change in the country, the term Orange Revolution came to represent the entire series of events.

An orange ribbon, a symbol of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution. Ribbons are common symbols of non-violent protest.

In view of the success of using color as a symbol to mobilize supporters, the Yanukovych camp chose blue for themselves.

Protests began on the eve of the second round of voting, as the official count differed markedly from exit poll results which gave Yushchenko up to an 11% lead, while official results gave the election win to Yanukovych by 3%. While Yanukovych supporters have claimed that Yushchenko's connections to the Ukrainian media explain this disparity, the Yushchenko team publicized evidence of many incidents of electoral fraud in favor of the government-backed Yanukovych, witnessed by many local and foreign observers. These accusations were reinforced by similar allegations, though at a lesser scale, during the first presidential run of October 31.

The Yushchenko campaign publicly called for protest on the dawn of election day, November 21, 2004, when allegations of fraud began to spread. Beginning on November 22, 2004, massive protests started in cities across Ukraine: the largest, in Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square), attracted an estimated 500,000 participants, who on November 23, 2004, peacefully marched in front of the headquarters of the Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian parliament, many wearing orange or carrying orange flags, the color of Yushchenko's campaign coalition.

The local councils in Kiev, Lviv, and several other cities passed, with the wide popular support of their constituency, a largely symbolic refusal to accept the legitimacy of the official election results, and Yushchenko took a symbolic presidential oath. This "oath" taken by Yushchenko in half-empty parliament chambers, lacking the quorum as only the Yushchenko-leaning factions were present, could not have any legal effect. But it was an important symbolic gesture meant to demonstrate the resolve of the Yushchenko campaign not to accept the compromised election results. In response, Yushchenko's opponents denounced him for taking an illegitimate oath, and even some of his moderate supporters were ambivalent about this act, while a more radical side of the Yushchenko camp demanded him to act even more decisively. Some observers argued that this symbolic presidential oath might have been useful to the Yushchenko camp should events have taken a more confrontational route. In such a scenario, this "presidential oath" Yushchenko took could be used to lend legitimacy to the claim that he, rather than his rival who tried to gain the presidency through alleged fraud, was a true commander-in-chief authorized to give orders to the military and security agencies.

At the same time, local officials in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, the stronghold of Viktor Yanukovych, started a series of actions alluding to the possibility of the breakup of Ukraine or an extra-constitutional federalization of the country, should their candidate's claimed victory not be recognized. Demonstrations of public support for Yanukovych were held throughout Eastern Ukraine and some of his supporters arrived in Kiev. However, in Kiev the pro-Yanukovych demonstrators were far outnumbered by Yushchenko supporters, whose ranks were continuously swelled by new arrivals from many regions of Ukraine. The scale of the demonstrations in Kiev was unprecedented. By many estimates, on some days they drew up to one million people to the streets, in freezing weather

Although Yushchenko entered into negotiations with outgoing President Leonid Kuchma in an effort to peacefully resolve the situation, the negotiations broke up on November 24, 2004. Yanukovych was officially certified as the victor by the Central Election Commission, which itself was allegedly involved in falsification of electoral results by withholding the information it was receiving from local districts and running a parallel illegal computer server to manipulate the results. The next morning after the certification took place, Yushchenko spoke to supporters in Kiev, urging them to begin a series of mass protests, general strikes and sit-ins with the intent of crippling the government and forcing it to concede defeat.

In view of the threat of illegitimate government acceding to power, Yushchenko's camp announced the creation of the Committee of National Salvation which declared a nationwide political strike.

On December 1, 2004, the Verkhovna Rada passed a resolution that strongly condemned pro-separatist and federalization actions, and passed a non-confidence vote in the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, a decision Prime Minister Yanukovych refused to recognize. By the Constitution of Ukraine, the non-confidence vote mandated the government's resignation, but the parliament had no means to enforce a resignation without the co-operation of Prime Minister Yanukovych and outgoing President Kuchma.

On December 3, 2004, Ukraine's Supreme Court finally broke the political deadlock. The court decided that due to the scale of the electoral fraud it became impossible to establish the election results. Therefore, it invalidated the official results that would have given Yanukovych the presidency. As a resolution, the court ordered a revote of the run-off to be held on December 26, 2004. This decision was seen as a victory for the Yushchenko camp while Yanukovych and his supporters favored a rerun of the entire election rather than just the run-off, as a second-best option if Yanukovych was not awarded the presidency. On December 8, 2004 the parliament amended laws to provide a legal framework for the new round of elections. The parliament also approved the changes to the Constitution, implementing a political reform backed by outgoing President Kuchma as a part of a political compromise between the acting authorities and opposition.

The December 26 revote was held under intense scrutiny of local and international observers. The preliminary results, announced by the Central Election Commission on December 28, gave Yushchenko and Yanukovych 51.99% and 44.20% of the total vote, respectively. The Yanukovych team attempted to mount a fierce legal challenge to the election results using both the Ukrainian courts and the Election Commission complaint procedures. However, all their complaints were dismissed as without merit by both the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the Central Election Commission. On January 10, 2005 the Election Commission officially declared Yushchenko as the winner of the presidential election with the final results falling within 0.01% of the preliminary ones. This Election Commission announcement cleared the way for Yushchenko's inauguration as the President of Ukraine. The official ceremony took place in the Verkhovna Rada building on January 23, 2005 and was followed by the "public inauguration" of the newly sworn President at Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in front of hundreds of thousands of his supporters. This event brought the Ukrainian Orange Revolution to its peaceful conclusion.

According to one version of events recounted by The New York Times, Ukrainian security agencies played an unusual role in the Orange Revolution, with a KGB successor agency in the former Soviet state providing qualified support to the political opposition. As per the paper report, on November 28, 2004 over 10,000 MVS (Internal Ministry) troops were mobilized to put down the protests in Independence Square in Kiev by the order of their commander, Lt. Gen. Sergei Popkov. The SBU (Security Service of Ukraine, a successor to the KGB in Ukraine) warned opposition leaders of the crackdown. Oleksander Galaka, head of GRU (military intelligence) made calls to "prevent bloodshed". Col. Gen. Ihor Smeshko (SBU chief) and Maj. Gen. Vitaly Romanchenko (military counter-intelligence chief) both claimed to have warned Popkov to pull back his troops, which he did, preventing bloodshed.

In addition to the desire to avoid bloodshed, the New York Times article suggests that siloviki, as the security officers are often called in the countries of the former Soviet Union, were motivated by personal aversion to the possibility of having to serve president Yanukovych, who was in his youth convicted of robbery and assault and had alleged connection with corrupt businessmen, especially if he were to ascend to the presidency by fraud. The personal feelings of Gen. Smeshko towards Yanukovych may also have played a role. Additional evidence of Yushchenko's popularity and at least partial support among the SBU officers is shown by the fact that several embarrassing proofs of electoral fraud, including incriminating wiretap recordings of conversations among the Yanukovych campaign and government officials discussing how to rig the election, were provided to the Yushchenko camp. These conversations were likely recorded and provided to the opposition by sympathizers in the Ukrainian Security Services.

Many analysts believe the Orange Revolution was built on a pattern first developed in the ousting of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia four years earlier, and continuing with the Rose Revolution in Georgia. Each of these victories, though apparently spontaneous, was the result of extensive grassroots campaigning and coalition-building among the opposition. Each included election victories followed up by public demonstrations, after attempts by the incumbent to hold onto power through electoral fraud.

Each of these social movements included extensive work by student activists. The most famous of these was Otpor, the youth movement that helped bring in Vojislav Koštunica. In Georgia the movement was called Kmara. In Ukraine the movement has worked under the succinct slogan Pora ("It's Time"). Chair of Georgian Parliamentary Committee on Defense and Security Givi Targamadze, former member of the Georgian Liberty Institute, as well as some members of Kmara, were consulted by Ukrainian opposition leaders on techniques of nonviolent struggle. Georgian rock bands Zumba, Soft Eject and Green Room, which earlier had supported the Rose Revolution, organized a solidarity concert in central Kiev to support Yushchenko’s cause in November 2004.

Activists in each of these movements were funded and trained in tactics of political organization and nonviolent resistance by a coalition of Western pollsters and professional consultants funded by a range of Western government and non-government agencies. According to The Guardian, these include the U.S. State Department and USAID along with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the Bilderberg Group, the NGO Freedom House and George Soros's Open Society Institute. The National Endowment for Democracy, a foundation supported by the U.S. government, has supported non-governmental democracy-building efforts in Ukraine since 1988.^[15] Writings on nonviolent struggle by Gene Sharp formed the strategic basis of the student campaigns.

Round table talks with Ukrainian and foreign representatives during the Orange Revolution on December 1 in Kiev.

Former president Leonid Kravchuk accused Russian oligarch, Boris Berezovsky, of financing Yushchenko's campaign, and provided copies of documents showing money transfers from companies he said are controlled by Berezovsky to companies controlled by Yuschenko's official backers. Berezovsky has confirmed that he met Yushchenko's representatives in London before the election, and that the money was transferred from his companies, but he refused to confirm or deny that the companies that received the money were used in Yushchenko's campaign. Financing of election campaigns by foreign citizens is illegal in Ukraine. According to BBC's The Russian Godfathers, Berezovsky poured millions of dollars into sustaining the spontaneous demonstrations and was in daily contact with the key opposition leaders.

On the other hand, Russia's involvement in the election was more direct and heavily on the side of Prime Minister Yanukovych. The extent of this involvement is still contested but some facts are indisputable such as multiple meetings between Russian president Vladimir Putin, Kuchma and Yanukovych before and during the elections. Putin repeatedly congratulated Yanukovych while the results were still contested, which was soon to embarrass both parties. Yanukovych received a much more preferential treatment in Russian media, and was surrounded by Russian consultants known to be close to the Kremlin throughout the election cycle. During the protests Russian media portrayed the Ukrainian protesters as irresponsible, led astray by Western agents.

3.Presidency of Viktor Yushchenko. Domestic and foreign policy of Ukraine.

Political turmoil occupied the first few years of Yushchenko’s presidency. His first cabinet served only until September 2005, when he dismissed all his ministers, including Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, a fellow leader of the Orange Revolution.

Yulia Tymoshenko

The next prime minister, Yury Yekhanurov, stayed in office only until January 2006.

 Yuriy Yekhanurov

 Parliamentary elections early that year saw Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party finish third, behind Yanukovych’s Party of Regions and the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc. When a proposed coalition of the so-called Orange parties in parliament fell apart, Yushchenko was forced to accept his rival Yanukovych as prime minister. The ensuing power struggle between the president and the prime minister, whose political role had been enhanced by constitutional reforms that took effect in 2006, led Yushchenko to call for another round of parliamentary elections in 2007. Once again the president’s party finished behind both Yanukovych’s and Tymoshenko’s parties. This time, however, a coalition with the Yuliya Tymoshenko Bloc held together, allowing the pro-Western Orange parties to form a government with Tymoshenko as prime minister (December 2007). As the government continued to balance the often conflicting goals of maintaining positive relations with Russia and gaining membership in the EU, dissent between Yushchenko and Tymoshenko contributed to the collapse of their coalition in September 2008. In October the president dissolved parliament. Parliamentary elections, at first scheduled for December, later were canceled, and Yushchenko’s and Tymoshenko’s parties agreed to form a new coalition, together with the smaller Lytvyn Bloc, headed by Volodymyr Lytvyn.

The first 100 days of Yushchenko's term, January 23, 2005 through May 1, 2005, were marked by numerous dismissals and appointments at all levels of the executive branch. He appointed Yulia Tymoshenko as Prime Minister and the appointment was ratified by parliament. Oleksandr Zinchenko was appointed the head of the presidential secretariat with a nominal title of Secretary of State. Petro Poroshenko, a cutthroat competitor of Tymoshenko for the post of Prime Minister, was appointed Secretary of the Security and Defense Council.

Presidential Administration building in central Kiev.

In August 2005, Yushchenko joined with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in signing the Borjomi Declaration, which called for the creation of an institution of international cooperation, the Community of Democratic Choice, to bring together the democracies and incipient democracies in the region around the Baltic, Black, and Caspian Seas. The first meeting of presidents and leaders to discuss the CDC took place on December 1-2, 2005 in Kiev.

On September 8, 2005, Yushchenko fired his government, led by Yulia Tymoshenko, after resignations and claims of corruption.

On September 9, acting Prime Minister Yuriy Yekhanurov tried to form a new government. His first attempt, on September 20, fell short by 3 votes of the necessary 226, but on September 22 the parliament ratified his government with 289 votes.

Also in September 2005, former president Leonid Kravchuk accused exiled Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky of financing Yushchenko's presidential election campaign, and provided copies of documents showing money transfers from companies he said were controlled by Berezovsky to companies controlled by Yushchenko's official backers. Berezovsky confirmed that he met Yushchenko's representatives in London before the election, and that the money was transferred from his companies, but he refused to confirm or deny that the money was used in Yushchenko's campaign. Financing of election campaigns by foreign citizens is illegal in Ukraine.

In August 2006, Yushchenko appointed his onetime opponent in the presidential race, Viktor Yanukovych, to be the new Prime Minister. This was generally regarded as indicating a rapprochement with Russia.

References:

а) Basic: Encyclopedia of Ukraine:

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/

b) - http://www.ukraine-arabia.ae/

- http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108070.html

- http://www.ukraine.com/culture/

http://www.tdmu.edu.ua