Historico-Political Traditions and Aspirations of the Ukrainians
Anthropological and lingual distinguishing characteristics are not sufficient to make a race into a nation. An individual nation, whether it be a Staatsnation or a Kulturnation, must have its own historical tradition, its own sacrifices and heroes, its own historical griefs and joys. These are the basis of the united aspiration to an ideal of the future, of that constant plebiscite which E. Renan regards as the thing which makes a race into a nation.
Now it is really the historico-political traditions which are very strongly developed in the Ukrainians. The story of his fatherland, full of the most terrible catastrophes, with the frightful Tatar menace and the oppression enduring for centuries, still lives in the consciousness of even the most uneducated Ukrainian. How few happy moments does the history of the Ukraine present, and yet no people in the world so dearly loves its past and so piously honors its national heroes as the Ukrainian People. And in this connection I do not mean the educated Ukrainians who know the history of their country, but the illiterate peasant, who recalls in his songs the naval expeditions to Constantinople, the old princes of the Kiev dynasty, the hetmans, and the great commanders of the Cossack period.
It is the historico-political tradition, living even in the lowest ranks of the nation, that gives the Ukrainians their most important indications of separate national existence. [[177]]And, had it not been for the dense ignorance that prevails in Western Europe regarding the history of the eastern half of the continent, and for the advertising carried on to this very day by Russian scholars in behalf of their propaganda for “Russian” history, which has worked its way into all the history books, this real condition of affairs could never have been obscured so long. We shall now attempt to determine the main lines of the Ukrainian historical tradition, basing our exposition on the works of Kostomariv, Antonovich, Drahomaniv, Hrushevsky and others.
The historical life of the Ukrainian Nation has been of an entirely different type from that of the Poles or Russians. Hence, the historical traditions and, consequently, the present political aspirations of the three nations, are entirely different.
The Ukrainian historical tradition has its roots in the ancient Kingdom of Kiev. Altho the historians of Eastern Europe are still undecided as to whether the so-called Old Russian Kingdom was founded by the Varangians in the present Northern Russia, or by the Eastern Slavic tribes of the south in Kiev, I have no doubt that the latter view should be approved. Anthropogeography knows no instance of a pirate band, at most a few thousand strong, which, within a few decades, could constitute a kingdom embracing half a continent. The Normans, to be sure, were able to found governments in Normandy, Naples and Sicily; they were even able to conquer the England of their day and to settle there, because everywhere they could take advantage of already existing state organizations and modify them to suit their purpose. Whenever the state organization was just in its beginnings, as for instance, in their own country, the Normans exhibited no particular capacity for state-organization.
The ancient Kingdom of Kiev, which is called “Old [[178]]Russian” in all historical works, was a state organized by the southern group of the Eastern Slavic races, particularly the Polan race around Kiev. The tribal chiefs, who had grown rich thru commercial relations with Byzantium, founded the State of Kiev. This government was already in existence in the beginning of the 9th Century. With the aid of mercenaries from Scandinavia (Varangians) who, since the middle of the 9th Century, had been serving in the armies of the princes of Kiev, the Kingdom during the 10th Century gave remarkable evidences of a very unusual activity of expansion. The Northern Slavic tribes, the forbears of the Russians of today, were subjugated, the nomadic tribes of the steppes were driven back, commercial and cultural relations were established with the Byzantine Empire. In the year 988 the Great Prince of Kiev (Vladimir the Great), together with all his peoples accepted Greek Christianity—with Slavic rites. There ensued, especially under his successor, Yaroslav the wise, a great advance in the material and spiritual civilization of the ancient Ukrainians.
The fact that the ancient state of Kiev, as well as its civilization, was produced by the ancient Ukrainians, is evident, not only from the fact that the most ancient literary monuments of Kiev already show specifically Ukrainian peculiarities of language. A still more important piece of evidence is the constitution of the Kingdom of Kiev, which originated thru the amalgamation of the newly organized royal power with the original republican constitution of the Ukrainians.
The ancient clan constitution has been of as fundamental importance for the historico-political tradition of the Ukraine as the Kingdom of Kiev itself.
All the power of government rested originally in the hands of the general assembly of all freemen, whose decrees were executed by elected officials, consisting in part of the war-chieftains (probably the later princes). In the ancient [[179]]Kingdom of Kiev there was constant opposition between the power of the princes, which originated later and rested on military might, and the power of the clan assembly, sanctioned by long tradition. The Prince, his retainers, and the Boyar nobility, which gradually developed out of the body of retainers, were never liked by the people. The Kingdom of Kiev grew out of the union of trade, and was a union which at that time was necessary. The governmental system established by the princes of the Kiev dynasty, on foreign models, was inherently alien to the original social-political system of the Ukrainian People, so that the amalgamation of these two elements was difficult, in fact, almost impossible.
Altho, as time passed, the General Assembly (viche—a name that is applied to all political assemblies of the Ukrainians to this day) partly regained their former power, and, altho at the same time various provisions of the original constitution sifted into the new governmental organization, monarchy, nevertheless, always remained something extraneous and unpleasant to the people. There is no wonder, therefore, that the State of Kiev never attained a power in keeping with its great territory and population. The people ostensibly supported everything which tended to weaken the power of the government. Thru the entire existence of the ancient Kingdom of Kiev, its Great Princes were forced to wrestle with the Boyar nobility and the people for absolute power. This limitation of the monarchic power turned out to be a disaster for the Kingdom of Kiev. By applying the practice of succession to the throne, in accordance with a principle known as that of “seniority,” there resulted the formation of numerous petty principalities, all rather loosely, perhaps only nominally, subject to the authority of the Great Prince of Kiev. The Boyar caste and the people were very persistent in their labors to aid in the formation and maintenance of these petty principalities [[180]]thruout the southern portion of the Kingdom of Kiev.
At the same time, it is very probable that if the ancient State of Kiev had survived a longer time, the Ukrainian People would gradually have become accustomed to a constitution founded on caste and privilege. It would also have been possible, as early as the Middle Ages, for the Ukrainian People to attain a constitutional monarchy. But things happened differently.
The Kingdom, weakened by partitions, was soon confronted by a powerful enemy in the young Muscovite State which was formed by the northern petty principalities of the Kingdom. In a series of bloody wars with the Muscovite State, Kiev was so permanently weakened that the headquarters of Ukrainian political life had to be shifted southward, in the 13th Century, to Halich on the Dniester.
Then, the situation of this Kiev country was such as to expose it to continuous invasion on the part of the nomadic warlike tribes which infested the steppes of the Ukraine. But the nation managed to hold them in check during this weary term of warfare. When, however, the hosts of the Mongol potentate, Djingis Khan, appeared in the Pontian steppes, the resources of Kiev and Halich were no longer equal to the pressure. In the three days’ battle on the Kalka (1224) their army was annihilated, and in 1240 the city of Kiev was razed to the ground. The principality (later kingdom) of Halich survived it by almost a century, but could not withstand the continued aggressions of the Tatars on the one side and of the Poles and Lithuanians on the other; in 1340 it was incorporated with Poland by right of succession, and thus ended the first national organization of the Ukrainian People. All the Ukraine, excepting the forest regions in the northwest, had been completely devastated.
The Polish-Lithuanian state treated the Ukraine as [[181]]conquered territory. Being now dissenters in the midst of a Catholic state, the Ukrainian nobles were limited in their prerogatives, and deserted their faith and their nationality, in order to have a share in the golden freedom of Poland. The burgher class was tyrannized (as was the practice all over Poland); the peasant became a serf. The splendid task of an ecclesiastical union with Rome was solved (Florence, 1439; Brest 1596) in an unsatisfactory manner and bore little fruit at the time. Every Ukrainian was made to feel the iron hand of the Polish government, and their dissatisfaction expressed itself in numerous rebellions. And yet the Polish-Lithuanian State was far too weak to protect the Ukraine against the onslaughts of the Tatars. Every year these hordes of riders sallied forth from the Crimea, pushing their invasions even as far as Galicia and Volhynia, devastating the country and depopulating it by seizures of slaves, conducted according to a systematic plan. The victims of this slave trade filled the markets of the Orient for centuries.
It was inevitable that this sorely-tried nation should take steps to defend itself. And its efforts were successful in that they led to the formation of a new independent state, but unsuccessful in that they exhausted its resources and later had a tragical outcome.
The constant state of warfare on the Tatar border forced the Ukrainian population in those parts to adopt a policy of continual “Preparedness.” These fighting people of the marshes led a precarious life, but they had access to the virgin lands of the borders with all their natural treasures, and the exploiting Polish officials did not dare venture forth into these dangerous districts. These armed farmers, hunters and fishermen led an independent life and called themselves Cossacks, i.e., “free warriors.”
In the 16th Century there arose among these Ukrainian Cossacks a military state organization, the center of which [[182]]was a strongly fortified position below the rapids of the Dnieper (the Zaporog Sich). The Zaporog warrior state, compared by some to a religious order of knights (because of their compulsory celibacy and their wars against unbelievers), by others to a communistic republic, shows us most clearly what has always been the goal of the Ukrainian “political idea.” In the Zaporog organization, absolute equality of all citizens in all political and social rights prevailed above all else. All authority was vested in the General Assembly of all the Zaporogs, and their decisions were enforced by elective officers who were, at the same time, officers of the army. The liberty of the individual was very great, but had to yield to the will of the whole. And when, in time of war, the General Assembly delegated unlimited dictatorial power to the highest official, the Hetman, it gave him a degree of authority with which the power of any one of the absolute rulers of Europe at the time could not be compared.
In the aristocratic state organization of Poland there was no room for such a lawless democratic state as that of the Zaporogs was in Polish eyes. The entire Ukrainian nation regarded the Zaporog Cossacks as their natural defenders against the terrible Tatar peril, and likewise as their sole hope as opposed to the oppression practiced by the Poles. An ominous discontent prevailed thruout the Ukraine, and after the Poles had naturally taken severe measures, a number of Cossack revolts occurred in rapid succession, beginning toward the end of the 16th Century and filling the first half of the 17th. In these revolts the Cossacks were supported by the oppressed peasantry. But the Polish Kingdom was rather deficient, always, as far as its standing army was concerned, and was obliged to appeal to the Ukrainian Cossack organization, which it could not possibly destroy, to aid in its wars against the Turks, the Russians and the Swedes. [[183]]
Finally, in 1648, the Ukrainian Cossacks, aided by the entire people, from the Dnieper to the San, raised the standard of rebellion, and under the leadership of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, succeeded in annihilating the Polish armies. Thus the Ukrainian Nation fought for and won its independence again after three hundred years of a foreign yoke.
Khmelnitsky, after his victory over the Poles, extended the Cossack organization beyond the narrow bounds of the Zaporoze, over the entire huge area of the Ukraine.
Surrounded by enemies on all sides, the new state needed calm and quiet to enable it to achieve the necessary internal organization. Much time was needed to organize the new order completely in so enormous a country, to bring to a successful conclusion the fight against the Polish social-political order, which had prevailed here so long and was so different from the Ukrainian. It required much time to work out new constitutional forms, which were inevitable, now that the Zaporog organization was extended over great areas. Khmelnitsky negotiated with all the surrounding governments and peoples, with the Poles, the Transylvanians, the Swedes, the Turks, and finally, in 1654, concluded the treaty of Pereyaslav with Russia, with which they were related by ties of religion. This treaty provided that the Ukraine should retain a complete autonomy, as well as their Cossack organization, the latter under the suzerainty of the Czar. The Hetman, who was to be elected by the votes of the General Assembly, was even to retain the right of conducting an independent foreign policy.
But Russia had no mind to respect the treaty that bound it in dual alliance with the warlike Ukrainian nation. The democratic form of government in the Ukraine was an abomination to Russia, just as it was to aristocratic Poland.
Once the Cossack republic was under the control of [[184]]Moscow, the Russian government felt that not a stone must be left unturned to destroy this dangerous national organism. Taking advantage of the untimely death of Khmelnitsky (1657), and the incompetence of his immediate successors, Russia began her political machinations in the Ukraine. The Cossack generals were inspired with prejudice against the Hetman, the common Cossacks against their superior officers, and the common people against all who were wealthy and in authority; huge sums of money were spent, successfully, and vast tracts of land granted as fiefs; and Russia thus fished in troubled waters to very good advantage. At every successive election of a new Hetman the autonomy of the Ukraine was cut down, and in the Peace of Andrussovo (1667) with Poland, the country was partitioned. Of the two sections, one, that nearest to Poland, which had been dreadfully devastated and depopulated, was ceded to that country, and this section very soon lost its Ukrainian form of government and its Cossack organization. The section on the other side, the left side, east of the Dnieper, under its dashing Hetman, Mazeppa, made an effort, during the Scandinavian War, to throw off the Russian yoke. Mazeppa made an alliance with Charles XII of Sweden. But the Battle of Poltava (1709) buried all his hopes. He had to flee to Turkey with Charles XII, and the Ukrainian rebellion was put down by Peter the Great with the most frightful atrocities, and finally the guaranteed autonomy of the Ukraine was abolished. To be sure, the title of Hetman was again introduced after the death of Peter the Great, but it had only a wretched semblance of life. Even this shadow of autonomy was destroyed in 1764; in 1775 the last bulwark of the Ukraine, the Zaporog Sich, fell into the hands of the Russians thru treachery, and was destroyed by them. The peasants became serfs.
Russia thus succeeded, in the course of about a century [[185]]and a half, in completely wiping out the later, second Ukrainian state. The devious policy Russia was simultaneously carrying on in Poland, led also to the latter’s downfall. In the successive partitions of Poland (1772–1795), the entire part of that nation which was inhabited by Ukrainians, with the exception of Eastern Galicia and the Bukowina, which fell to Austria, became the property of Russia.
But Russia was not satisfied with political domination alone. Russia already understood, in the 17th Century, that the Ukrainians differed entirely from the Russians in language, customs and views of life. The Russian government, therefore, inaugurated a policy of rigid repression of all these points of difference. As early as 1680 it prohibited any use of the Ukrainian language in ecclesiastical literature. In 1720, the printing of any Ukrainian books at all was forbidden. All Ukrainian schools were closed. In the middle of the 18th Century there were, in the province of Chernihov, 866 schools that had been founded during the period of Ukrainian autonomy; sixty years later not one of these was in existence. This, together with the attempt to introduce the Russian language, which none of them understands, is the cause of the overwhelming percentage of analphabets among the Ukrainians. The Ukrainian orthodox church, which enjoyed absolute autonomy, with a sort of loose subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople, was made subject to the Patriarch of Moscow (later to the Holy Synod) and became completely Russified. The Greek-United faith, which had many adherents in the Western Ukraine, was completely suppressed by the Russian government, and all who confessed it were obliged, by the most terrible persecutions, to “return to the orthodox belief.” The Ukrainian people became completely estranged from their former national church, which now is a tool wielded for purposes of Russification.
The bloody wars for independence which the Ukrainian [[186]]nation waged against Poland and Russia consequently brought no realization of its political ideals of liberty, equality, and a constitutional, democratic form of government. Instead came a terrible political, social and national oppression, which threatened to bring about the downfall of the tortured nation.
But the Russification of the Ukraine seemed to be making very little headway. To be sure, many educated Ukrainians, for the sake of personal advantage or for other considerations, did renounce their nationality, and some in fact, like Gogol, became great lights of Russian Literature. Yet there always remained the feeling of national independence, together with a living historical tradition, which continued to groan despite all obstacles. The rise of Ukrainian Literature did most to aid this great movement.
The idea of working for national independence was revived first in the Russian Ukraine, and found its logical starting point in the tradition of the one-time autonomy of the country. As early as the forties of the 19th Century, the national ideology of the modern Ukrainian movement was complete in all essential respects. It then made its way very rapidly to the Austrian Ukraine, and Galicia, particularly, soon became a national Piedmont to the Ukrainian people, who were so ruthlessly oppressed in Russia.
The present-day political efforts of the Ukrainian nation are a direct continuation of the former efforts, and a logical result of the historical tradition of the Ukraine. The ideal of these efforts was, and is, liberty and equality and the participation of all in government and legislation. Not until the present time has this ideal ceased to be an anachronism; only the present has opened to the Ukrainian nation a field of political activity; only in the present have these forms of political life, which the Ukrainian nation strove for, without success, so many centuries, become the [[187]]common possession of the entire civilized world. Hence, we may look with confidence toward the future. Now, at last, the times have come in which the Ukrainian nation may freely develop its political life; the times in which the political ideals which have been sacred to this nation for centuries, have become the common goal of civilized humanity.
The idea of the revival of the Ukrainian state developed gradually from a movement with modest aims to one of larger aims. It was generally recognized that the free development of the Ukrainian Nation could take place only outside of Russia. Hence, in the 20th Century, an independent democratic Ukraine, enclosed in its ethnographic boundaries, became the highest national ideal. Toward this goal all political parties of the Ukraine are striving today. The path leading to this goal is the fight for the autonomy of the Ukrainian territory in the frame of the states dominating it. In Russia, the efforts of the Ukrainians are almost hopeless. On the other hand, the Ukrainians place much hope in Austria, who has afforded her Ukrainians opportunities for political and cultural development.
The historico-political traditions of the Ukrainians are entirely different from those of the nations adjacent to them. The Polish tradition is a tradition of a one-time great kingdom, which was probably built up upon a local constitution similar to that of the oldest Ukrainian State. But fate permitted Poland to live thru the sorrowful period of partitions and civil wars, while, at the same time, the old Kingdom of Kiev was destroyed by the Mongols. Poland consolidated into a strong united kingdom, western influences destroyed the old local constitution entirely, the common people became serfs, and the classes of the aristocracy, nobility and bourgeoisie were formed. Thru wars, and particularly thru its union with Lithuania, [[188]]Poland increased considerably in size, for a time including almost the entire bridge of land between the Baltic and the Black Seas, and, in the 15th Century, became the most powerful state of Eastern Europe. At that time the Poles became the dominant race over the Lithuanians, White Russians, and Ukrainians. The entire ideology of the dominant caste became a characteristic of the Poles. In this very property of a ruling people lies the basis of the aristocratic nature of the historico-political tradition of the Poles. This aristocratic quality has a more important foundation in the historical development of Polish society. The middle class in Poland declined very rapidly, and the nobility and the magnates dominated the entire political, social and intellectual life of the country, so that Polish society, in the last centuries of the existence of the Polish kingdom, was purely aristocratic, and was supported on the backs of the completely submerged peasant and middle classes. Even tho, in the patrician republic, when the power of the kings was extremely limited, mobocracy or even anarchy very often prevailed, these forms also were aristocratic. This aristocratic tradition is responsible for the fact that democratic currents still find little encouragement among the Poles. Even the social democrats are obsessed with the Great-Polish state-idea.
From these facts, we perceive that the historico-political traditions of the Poles are entirely different from those of the Ukrainians. Just as great is the difference in their present aspirations. The Poles, with an endurance that is worthy of admiration, and awakens universal sympathy, are striving for the reorganization of their independent state. But not with ethnographic boundaries like the Ukrainians, but with ancient historical boundaries from the Baltic to the Dnieper and the Black Sea. To attain this goal, the Poles are trying, above all, to hinder the adjacent peoples, the Lithuanians, White Russians and Ukrainians, in their [[189]]national progress, and, whenever possible, to assimilate them. These efforts are responsible for the very sharp conflicts of the present day between the one-time rulers and their one-time subjects.
The Russian historico-political traditions are quite as different from and as opposed to those of the Ukrainians as the Polish, but in another direction. The Muscovite State was created out of the petty principalities which the ancient Kiev dynasty had founded among the Eastern Slavic races and the Finnish tribes of the north. From the blending of the Slavs and the Finns came the foundation of the present Russian or Great Russian (Muscovite) Nation. The name “Russian” was derived from the name of the dynasty. But the state was in reality simply Muscovite, for the Muscovite people gave this state a substance which was entirely different from the substance of the old Kingdom of Kiev. As early as the 12th Century we observe the Muscovite people striving for centralization and absolute power for the princes in their state. It was to the advantage of the prince to undermine the influence of the Boyar nobility and the clergy, and to attain absolute or even despotic power in the state. Not equal rights and liberty for all citizens as with the Ukrainians, or for certain classes as with the Poles, but the despotic authority of the Great Prince (later Czar), is the basis of the historico-political tradition of the Russian people. The absolute power of the ruler, that everlasting bugbear of the Poles and Ukrainians, becomes a sacred object to the Russian nation, and makes it possible for them to establish a Russian Empire which devours Poland and the Ukraine. For a comparison of the three adjacent states, the second half of the 16th Century affords the best illustration. At the same time that the radical-democratic Cossack republic originated in the Ukraine, and Poland was a paradise of golden freedom for the aristocrats and the nobility, with a [[190]]powerless kingship and a suppressed people, we witness in Russia the bloody orgies of the despotism of Ivan the Terrible.
The historico-political tradition of the Russian people places the Czar only slightly below God. The entire people, without class distinction, are slaves (kholopi) of the Czar, his property. The individual counts for nothing; everything must be sacrificed to the general good, which is embodied in the Czar. The reforms of Peter the Great, altho they gave Russia the external appearance of a civilized state, had no significance for the historico-political tradition of Russia. At most, they even strengthened the prestige of the absolute rule of the Czar, thru arguments repeated after the Western European absolutism. Even the Russian revolution of 1905 could not weaken this historico-political tradition. At best the revolution undermined its significance in some spheres of the Russian intelligenzia (numerically small). And, even in these spheres, it meant only the modification of the authority for which the Russian national spirit retains an immutable respect.
The present-day aspirations of the Russian Nation are hardly definite in their outlines. Nevertheless, it can already be clearly seen that they will follow the beaten path of the century-old tradition. The greatest possible expansion and strengthening of the Empire and the assimilation of all foreign peoples (including the Ukrainians too), will constitute the main substance of these aspirations. The Muscovite world has always been extremely intolerant of divergencies in faith, language and customs. This intolerance has always existed, and always will exist, even tho it may sometimes conceal itself behind a very cleverly adjusted mantle of commonplaces.