The Concept of Ukrainian Culture In Its Historical Dimensions (CIFU, 09/13-14/93)
Dmytro Dziubaniuk
**********************************************************************
CURRENT INFORMATION FROM UKRAINE Kyiv September 13-14, 1993
**********************************************************************
THE CONCEPT OF UKRAINIAN CULTURE IN ITS HISTORICAL DIMENSIONS
Valeriy Shevchuk -- Viche, July 1993, pp.38-51
In 1991/993, the "Slovo i Chas" journal started speaking about
a concept of Ukrainian culture with a program called "Ukrainian
national culture: the past, the present, and the future". Its authors
were V. Rusanivskiy, L. Novychenko, H. Verves, P. Tolochko,
M. Zhulynskiy, V. Mazepa, and I. Dziuba. The fact of publishing the
program became an expression of a concept of our culture, seen by the
scientists educated on the principles of sociological, mainly Marxist
school, that regards ideological conception of the world as the basis
of its methodology (Slovo i Chas, 1991, No.2).
After that, there was published a number of articles and notices
relating this theme. And finally, as a result of the talk (though I
believe that subject inexhaustible), we saw an interesting article by
H. Verves called "At The Sources of The Newest History" (1993, No.3).
The discussion, and the author agreed with us, was partly
pointless. Naturally, we seem to have been unready for understanding a
concept of Ukrainian culture in its historical dimensions.
As to my mind, one couldn't proceed from some temporary
conditions, creating a concept of Ukrainian culture.
The authors of a project see their objective in an aspect form:
a) idea and content aspect; b) institutional aspect; c) structural
aspect. Those seem to be absolutely ideological, i.e., beforehand, they
try to make a template to fit particular occurrences to it instead of
drawing conclusions out of the facts that we have known.
Arises a question: can one study the history of culture as a
system of philosophies of life? Obviously, one can, because that is
one of historical aspects. When following that path, one can study the
culture as pre-Christian; Christian of Byzantine type; of Renaissance
(humanistic), of Baroque, or of Enlightenment type; as romantic one,
narodnik (populist), sociological, communist, or anti-communist one.
Also the culture can be classified by confessional features: Orthodox,
Uniate, Catholic Russ-Ukraine, or Protestant, with any specifications
possible within that pattern.
The second aspect. Can we study the history of our culture by
means of the state principle? I think we can:
- the culture of a period when Ukrainian statehood was forming
(archaic type of state);
- the culture of Kyiv State;
- the culture of Lithuanian State;
- the culture of a period when Ukraine was under Poland and
Russia.
All these aspects cannot be excluded from consideration as those
reflect a process of creating our culture.
Here, the most mysterious and hardly understood period is one
relating to the culture of Lithuania State and its projection onto
Ukrainian culture. We do not know whether it had the state character
or, so to say, substate in the form of survival.
The collective authors of the concept of Ukrainian culture who
were mentioned above, equal Lithuania to Tatar and Mongol invasion
(Slovo i Chas, 1991, No.2, p.74). They take no notice of the fact that
Lithuanian State was mainly Slavic one, where Lithuanians,
Belorussians, and Ukrainians, were united, Lithuanians making up a
minority (although ruling minority). The fact, that the minority
lagged behind in the cultural aspect, made our culture of XIV-XV
centuries exist mechanically relating to the culture of Kyiv State,
and then conserving it and, practically, not developing. But to speak
about some cultural vacuum is to show rather little knowledge of that
epoch.
Meaning the state aspect, Lithuania regarded itself as a heir of
Kyiv State and in that relation it and Moscow were antagonists. Hence,
we should consider the period of Lithuania State as intermediate
between the state and non-state existence of our nation.
The third aspect. Can one study Ukrainian culture as a system of
subcultures that time by time were interchanging particular values,
fighting against, as well as enriching each other; viz. as the
history of cultural-stylistic epochs? To my mind, we can and even
must. Here we should take into account that our culture was creating
by both vertical and horizontal dimensions.
In times of Kyiv State its culture by vertical falls into public
culture (oral tradition), middle class culture (tradition of bylyna,
i.e. folk epic, born by merchantry), and high society
culture (tradition of druzhuna, i.e., prince's body guard, and the
culture created by clergy -- Nikon, K.Turovskiy, Nestor, Sylvestr,
Ilarion, Volodymyr Monomakh, others).
Such tendencies could be observed within every state or non-state
period until XIX century, when culture became to acquire all-national
status. Although, in XIX century it fell into public and elite one,
i.e., culture created by illiterate and educated people.
By horizontal, the culture divided into species: Literature,
Music, Fine Arts, Architecture, Theater, Folklore, and Science. Those
species fell into cultural-stylistic periods. Let's take Literature:
Kyiv-Byzantium period, "mechanical-conserveting" period of Lithuania
State, Renaissance, Baroque, Classicism, Romantism, Realism,
Neoromantism, Neobaroque (the two latter with subspecies: Symbolism,
Futurism, Neorealism, Neoclassicism, Socialist Realism).
It is interesting to consider, in that aspect, aesthetical
struggle between subcultures: Christian against Heathen, which lasted
up to XVIII century, (we can see such motives in works of H.
Skovoroda), Realism against Romantism, Romantism against Baroque,
Neoromantism against Realism or Futurism, Futurism against Romantism
or Realism, Neoclassicism and Neorealism against Socialist Realism,
and Socialist Realism against every life-giving style.
Contrary to this, particular art schools as links of certain
subcultures established themselves on the base of aesthetical unity.
The Christian Church was creator of art synthesis, since it
required architects for building churches; painters for decorating
them with icons, frescoes, or mosaics; composers for writing chorales;
poets for writing libretti; singers for rendering chorales; engravers
for making iconostases; printers for publishing books; illustrators
for designing those; calligraphists for making manuscript books;
miniaturists for making illustrations; and ornamentalists (let us
remember Peresopnytsa Gospel), metal work designers; others.
The fourth aspect -- territorial -- comes out of thorough
working out preceding aspects. Later Medieval tendency of both
development of culture within particular centers and division of
Ukraine by foreign countries establishes a specific variety of
subcultures: for instance, in XVIII century -- one existing throughout
lands under Poland, and one under Russia. The first has the Uniate
base, another one -- Christian Orthodox base.
After division of Poland, the situation didn't change, but yet we
can see three territorial units of the same culture: pan Ukrainian,
western Ukrainian, and one of Zakarpatja, that were existing until
1939, uniting and exerting influence on each other.
Beginning from XIX century we observe some emigratory centers of
our culture: on one hand, those were in the capitals of states under
which our lands were (in Vienna and Petersburg); on the other hand,
those centers were established by fugitives running away from regimes
of imperialistic superiors of our country. After the revolution and
liberation war of Ukrainian nation of 1917/21, such centers were
established in Praque, Warsaw, Vienna, Berlin, Paris. With the
beginning of foundation of labor emigration, Ukrainians of Canada and
the USA initiate their cultural activity.
The Second World War II of 1939/45 intensified that process.
After the war, Ukrainian cultural centers appeared in Romania,
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia (Priashiv); Poland, viz. in native
settlement of Ukrainians that, due to certain historical
conditions, happened to be under foreign countries; as well as in
emigration: in Germany, Austria, England, France, Italy, Canada, the
USA, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, and others.
Ukraine's cultural center. In times of Kyiv State it was Kyiv,
in Halychyna-Volyn State it moved to Halych and Volodymyr. In
Lithuania those were in Vilno, Smolensk, and Lviv. In XVI century such
cultural centers were in Lviv and Ostroh. Since the end of XVI century
it moved back to Kyiv. In the first half of XIX century those were in
Kyiv, Kharkiv, Petersburg (until the 60s), and in Lviv. In the second
half of XIX century until 1917, those were in Kyiv, Lviv, Uzhorod,
Chernivtsi, in 1917/41 -- in Kyiv, Kharkiv, Lviv, Uzhorod, Praque.
During the 40s those were in Kyiv, and internment camps in Germany, in
1950/80 -- in Kyiv, Munich, Toronto, New York.
The fifth aspect. Activity and works of some prominent
individuals that themselves were a kind of original epoch in our
culture, each creating his own individual subculture. We cannot name
all of them but only those who really made an epoch in our culture.
Let us take our ancient literature: Nestor, Sylvestr, Ilarion, Symon
and Polikarp, Pavlo Rusyn of Krosn, Mykola Gusovskiy, Stanislav
Orikhovskiy, Sebastian Klenovych, Herasym Smotrytskiy, Ivan
Vyshenskiy, Meletiy Smotrytskiy, Pavmo Berynda, Yelisey Pletenetskiy,
Zakharija Kopystenskiy, brothers Zymorovych, Lazar Baranovych, Kyrylo
Trankvilion-Stavroretskiy, Klymentiy, Danylo Bratkovskiy, Ivan
Ornovskiy, Stafan Yavorskiy, Teofan Prokopovych, Semen Klymovskiy,
Tymofiy Shchurovskiy, Hryhoriy Skovoroda, Iryney Falkivskiy, Vasyl
Hryhorovych-Barskiy, Luka Yatsenko, Vasyl Dovhovych, and doznes of
others. Each of them is an expressive or even outstanding
individuality.
Some prominent figures were in XIX and XX centuries. They are
better known and require much space for mentioning, although all
their works are not thoroughly comprehended and, therefore, popular.
The sixth aspect -- international -- and seems to be the most
difficult for highlighting and understanding.
In Ukrainian conditions that complicated aspect is acquiring the
special importance because states being Ukraine's superiors were
systematically drawing its cultural powers off.
The question about the mutual influences is more clear. Byzantine
culture was exerting much influence on the culture of Kyiv State but
that did not make the latter the former's appendage; Ukrainian culture
was also influenced by Bulgarian one but did not become the latter.
But when speaking about mutual connections with cultures of the
nearest neighbors, the matter is quite complicated, especially when
one analyzes links with a neighbor-conqueror.
There is certain difficulty in identifying different cultures of
Kyiv State. Those existed under the dominating idea of
Ukrainian-Byzantine culture, and the difficulty consists in the fact
that one of those cultures became a founder of a new state that in the
course of time conquered the metropolis and made it its province,
usurping and assuming the metropolitan culture. Naturally, Kyiv State
wasn't unified and ethnically monolithic, it comprised a conglomerate
of Slavic and non-Slavic tribes, but it was in power due to dynastic,
religious, and, to some extent, economic connections.
After the downfall of the absolutist power the lands of that
state divided into a number of independent principalities. Their
centers were: on one hand Kyiv, Chernihiv, Volodymyr, and Halych; on
the other hand Volodymyr, Suzdal, and Novhorod; and Polotsk between
them.
Antagonism between Kyiv and Novhorod was early to show itself:
each center had its own culture influencing on each other mutually. In
course of time we can notice some antagonism with Volodymyr-Suzdal
principalities, where there were their own models of state and,
therefore, culture. Joining cultures of Novhorod-Pskov to that of
Volodymyr-Suzdal made the rudiment of Russian culture, whereas
joining cultures of Kyiv, Chernihiv, and Halychyna-Volyn made the
rudiment of Ukrainian culture.
Let us take the ex-USSR. Its example shows us that state
community doesn't mean community of cultures, but it means the
penetration of predominant culture into dependent ones
(Russification), even when those defend themselves. On the other hand,
when predominant culture is weaker than dependent one, a process of
"drawing off" particular cultural values takes place: Rome having
conquered Greece"drew off" its culture, which caused flowering of
Roman culture and decadence of Greek one. But that doesn't mean that
Roman culture can be regarded as that of Greece.
After the downfall of Kyiv, Volodymyr-Suzdal principalities began
to"draw off" Kyiv culture by migration of Kyiv intellectuals to the
new metropolis. After 1654 Russia continued doing the same firstly on
a small scale and on a voluntary basis, then, in times of Peter the I,
that was compulsory.
Anyway, one cannot regard the Kyiv culture as the Russian one.
Here we shouldn't speak of unity of cultures but only of their mutual
influences. Usurpation of a right to inherit particular culture is a
political and imperialist but not an aesthetic action because such a
right might have a people-autochthon but not a people-conqueror.
Particular Ukrainian scientist who studies Kyiv culture of X-XIII
centuries cannot but study Byzantine and Bulgarian cultures that are
sources of the latter. So does a Russian scientist. When studying
Russian culture he studies its source, i.e. Kyiv culture.
The question of identifying some intermediate or international
writers who lived and worked abroad and, sometimes, in Ukraine, is
quiet complicated. It requires a distinct scientific definition
without any political tricks.
The easiest is the question on the emigrant writers or those who
did not lose touch with their native lands though lived in the
capitals of states that included those.
There is some difficulty with writers who working abroad didn't
lose connections with their own culture and had, so to say, two souls,
as Mykola Hohol did. Without their works we couldn't understand
Ukrainian cultural process. In XVI century the number of authors who
wrote in Latin attached a word "rusyn" or "rutenets" to their names
(Pavlo Rusyn from Krosn, Heorhiy Tuchynskiy-Rutenets, Stanislav
Orikhovskiy, Hryhoriy Chui, rusyn from Sambor, Ivan
Turobiniy-Rutenets, others). Not having included their works in
Ukrainian literature we won't understand who were those Latinists
against whom Ivan Vyshenetskiy was fighting.
By the way, from the end of XVI century to the first quarter of
XVII century there existed some specific Polish-Ukrainian
subliterature as a product of particular joint cultural area within
Poland. And that subculture cannot be related to Polish or Ukrainian
culture.
Also we couldn't consider a language to be any criterion of
author's cultural affiliation.
In general, one of the ancient features of Ukrainian culture
was its multi-lingual character, and if we don't take that fact into
account we'll never understand our culture. From the middle of XVIII
century, when Ukraine became a part of Russia, when Ukrainian school
was liquidated, the education was provided in Russian, and Russian
became the one of Ukraine's literature languages, though it was full
of Ukrainisms. Such a language was used by Ukrainian patriots Vasyl
Kapnist whose works had an international character, anonymous author
of "History of Russes" as well as Hryhoriy Skovoroda and Iryney
Falkivskiy.
Just that literature, written in the ersatz language, or even in
Russian, in the first half of XIX century became the basis of
Ukrainian-Russian literature: M. Hohol, V. Narizhniy, P. Bajskiy
(Somov), A. Pohorelskiy, P. Holota, Marko Vovchok, Y. Hrebinka, H.
Kvitka-Osnovjanenko, M. Kostomarov. At the same time, there was a part
of exclusively Ukrainian literature written in Russian: stories by
T. Shevchenko, some works by H. Kvitka-Osnovjanenko, Y. Hrebinka,
works by P. Kulish, M. Kostomarov, O. Kuzmych, others.
We must put the special emphasis on the fact that Mykola Hohol
was Ukrainian writer because he described Ukraine, because his works
were a compound of Ukrainian literature process, and also because he
was a Ukrainian by ethnic affiliation. But it would be wrong to cite
his works out of Russian literature context.
Such aspects, to my mind, we should take into account when
creating a modern concept of Ukrainian culture.
----------
******************* Shliakhy Information Center ********************
POB 20, Kyiv-136, 254136, Ukraine
***************** shliakhy%dod.k...@ussr.eu.net *******************
-----8<---------------------------------------------------------------