“L’Ukraine a toujours aspire a etre libre” [Ukraine has always aspired to liberty] declared Voltaire (1694-1778). While he had a high regard for Tsar Peter I’s reforms, the French philosopher knew there was a different fate in store for Ukraine.
There are a number of reasons why it is impossible to fully fathom Shevchenko’s role in securing this “different fate” for Ukraine. It is still appropriate to note the significance of his personality in the light of present-day problems. Thus, Shevchenko means:
1. Dedication to freedom in its most humanistic and complete form, which brings one face to face with the question of the search for truth and the meaning of life, but does not verge on absolute humanocentrism.
At all times, but especially after the Renaissance, and in 19th-century Russia, there were many philosophers who touted personal freedom as the ultimate value. However, where the freedom of “smaller brothers” was concerned (in the Caucasus, Africa, or elsewhere, depending on which metropolis you’re looking outward), it was invariably restricted. After the “fraternal Soviet republics” obtained (i.e., did not win through battle) their independence (from one another), one Slavic nation became resentful over the newfound freedom of its closest ethnogenetic relatives, even though it ardently defended the freedom of certain remote and little-known tribes. Shevchenko wrote: “Come, clasp your [smaller] brothers to your heart, — Then shall our day of hope arrive, Ukrainian glory shall revive” (“To the dead, to the living, and to those yet unborn, my countrymen, all who live in Ukraine and outside Ukraine, my friendly epistle,” 1845). Despite the multitude of studies on ethnic tolerance and the significance of a civil society or political nation-state, Shevchenko was perhaps the first in Ukraine to establish a direct connection between building a free state and ensuring a free existence for national minorities. In terms of possible amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine, we should perhaps do what all nation-states must eventually do, i.e., grant all ethnic groups that have historically inhabited Ukrainian territory but do not have their own state the constitutional right to build their own national statehood within Ukraine. Would that create problems and conflicts? Absolutely. Yet it is conflicts and efforts to resolve them that result in ethnic development. Ethnic problems have to be resolved without formulating a new concept of ethnic and national development of Ukraine to suit every occasion, especially considering that all these concepts guarantee all ethnic minorities only the development of their folklore within the framework of a larger political nation-state. The possibility for the development of every ethnic community, from the level of each family all the way to elements of their own statehood, should be espoused as a principle of the new state. Only through real action and interaction can we achieve true ethnic tolerance.
2. Understanding of the significance of every individual ethnic culture. Although modern civilization recognizes the significance of ethnic cultures, it does not associate them with the preservation of life on the planet. While no one questions the importance of all the natural species on which humans obviously depend for their survival, we have yet to grasp the vital significance of every ethnos. There is an emerging understanding whereby every ethnic culture that has survived in our epoch of unnatural globalization has the right to full-fledged development, and not simply the development of its folklore. Those who consider such an approach a waste of time should be reminded of Keynesian economic theory, according to which “burying money in the sand” often produces development, while the opposite may bring the most developed and independent societies to the brink of degradation.
3. Understanding the possible failure of the development of every ethnos, the Ukrainian one being no exception. Shevchenko offered a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of his own ethnos. That such a failure is possible in principle in terms of the economy and the demographic situation is explained in a recent study (Oleksandr Kyslyi, Demohrafichnyi vymir istoriyi [The Demographic Dimension of History], Kyiv: Aristey, 2005).
4. Understanding the form of historical and spiritual unity of Slavic cultures, whereby they are self-sufficient, like rivers merging into a single sea. Yet this merging does not mean their self-annihilation. Therefore, individual Slavic cultures, which are valuable in and of themselves, can challenge Western cultures in terms of their influence. In a poem dedicated to the Slavist Paul Joseph Safarik (1795-1861), Shevchenko wrote: “Glory to you, noble sage / Wise Czech and faithful Slav / Who from the bottomless abyss / Saved all the Truth we have!” (“The Heretic”).
So-called Russian patriots have always viewed Ukrainian independence as a threat. The non-acceptance of other Eastern Slavic cultures except Russian has a long history. In the Euro-Atlantic culture every component is valuable, and it would be illogical to question the importance of any such constituent culture or consider it superfluous. Meanwhile, by virtue of its feudal and traditionalist nature, Russian economic culture follows an extensive pattern of development. But unless we recognize the possibility of the self-sufficient development of every individual Slavic culture, any positive competition with the Euro- Atlantic community will be out of the question. Unless we do so, in the near future we may no longer see any Slavophile virtues in real life, only in museums created by Western Europeans along with the Western Slavs. Thus, the biggest enemy of all Eastern Slavs is the millennium-long prospect of extensive economic development. It was this order that Shevchenko protested in the 19th century and against which Ukrainians revolted on Independence Square in 2004. This order means the irresponsible consumption of resources and disregard for one’s own people, identity, and knowledge. All of this leads to thievery as a social norm, absolutist forms of government, parading one’s narrow-mindedness, and disrespect for virtues espoused by the world’s leading nations. All of this led Peter I to seek the breath of freedom in Europe. Yet to this day the attempt to artificially impose sustainable freedom on Russian soil has failed. Characteristically, after returning from the West, Alexander Solzhenitsyn initially called upon the Russian government to divest itself of all its superfluous territories, but eventually thought better of it.
5. A continuation of the early Christian ideals of defending the oppressed and persecuted. Shevchenko is unforgiving of evil acts, no matter who commits them. Sainthood stems from truth and fidelity and not the other way around. Consider Shevchenko’s words about the suffering of the Decembrists: “And you, All-seeing Eye, have you looked down / Out of high heaven upon blessed slaves, / Fettered by hundreds in their chains and driven / To far Siberia, or racked, or hanged?” (“The Idiot”).
6. Understanding of women’s social role that is on an equal footing with men’s. Understanding of love between a man and a woman as a value that transcends all pseudo-moral codes of behavior: “You ... sin against God’s Mother /With wicked meekness. Waken up, dear crony! / Be roused, and glance around you while you may! / Spurn all that maiden coyness you affect, / And, with a heart sincere and innocent, / At least for once, my darling, go astray! (A poem to “N.T.” 1860).
7. An attitude toward the government and its functions from the perspective of an individual’s needs and present-day civil society: “Why do you need those kings? / Why do you need those kennel keepers? / You are people, not dogs!” (November 3, 1860). Shevchenko looked toward the best international examples of state building: “Ah, you miserable and cursed crew, / when will you breathe your last? / When shall we get ourselves a Washington / To promulgate his new and righteous law?” (“The Idiot”).
8. Understanding religion as merely a form that may vary and in individual cases may not even have any bearing on God the Absolute. Shevchenko was implacable in his condemnation of those who created injustice in the name of the church (“Under injustice and its yoke / All silent are the trampled folk, / While on the apostolic throne / A fatted monk now reigns alone, / Who barters human blood for pelf / And farms out paradise itself. / God! Thy judgment seems in vain, / And futile all Thy heavenly reign!”) (“The Heretic”, 1845). Therefore, ministers have no advantage over mere mortals aside from the understanding of their own and corporate sins. They have to be more committed to seeking the truth and setting an example by serving this truth. It is worth noting in this connection that our revolution has been seeking and will continue to seek those moral underpinnings on which it might build a new society. State building is currently the overriding goal of many nations across the globe. We should not forget, however, that Ukraine is not a country of only Orthodox Ukrainians. When some televised programs preach with annoying regularity that Orthodoxy is the only spiritual way for the soul, I ask myself why such people need God at all, along with the national heritage and Shevchenko.
9. Understanding the role of moral principles, the elite, art, and science both in the poet’s epoch and future periods. Aside from his numerous calls for us to “read, study, and discern,” I should point out the following words that he wrote a few months before his death: “The day goes passing by, likewise the night ... / And, pressing your dull head between your hands, / You wonder why the Lord of Truth and Light / Sends no Apostle to these darkened lands!”
“Truth and science.” What a strange combination. Yet these words are meant precisely for us. Only science will enable us to switch to higher-level resources and break the millennium-long enchanted circle of extensive economic development and self-delusion. It is believed that Shevchenko as a poet-creator was primarily guided by the principles of anthropocentrism, i.e., he placed the human being at the center of his worldview. Apparently, this is true, because it must have been love of people that set him on this unerring path to the truth. Meanwhile, as Dmytro Chyzhevsky (1894-1977), the renowned philosopher and literary historian, wrote: “In Shevchenko’s world nature is subordinated to man; it is a resonator, or mirror of emotional experiences.” But this is not the case. The second statement is much easier to refute. In Shevchenko’s poetry, man is an observer, who watches nature unfold on its own, as if there were no need for him and never was any: nature basks in its own beauty and brings forth beauty, which is a never-ending process. The impact of this portrayal of nature is so profound that even human injustice, “tears and misery” in Shevchenko’s poem “The Dream,” pale before the vision of eternity. Of course, Shevchenko, who was a sublime wordsmith, used nature imagery to convey the mood of his characters.
The first statement about Shevchenko’s anthropocentrism stems from Christianity and, to a larger extent, from the fact that the Renaissance philosophers, followed by the European humanists, viewed the human being as created in the image of God and later on even opposed to God. But Shevchenko is more complex than that. His poem, “I Somehow Think, But Cannot Ratify,” has a satirical beginning: “I somehow think, but cannot ratify, / That men at point of death don’t really die / But, still alive, go crawling into swine / Or to some kindred beast their souls assign; / Then in a slough their wallowing begins, / As formerly they wallowed in their sins.” But in the same poem he shows when he can “call God a God.” This time Shevchenko sings the praises of Mikhail Lermontov, because he is “God’s prophet” and “The poet’s blessed soul his words enhance; / He lives on in that holy utterance; / And as we read his pages we revive / And feel that God in heaven is still alive” (“I Somehow Think, But Cannot Ratify” 1850).
What does this mean? It means that we are not always capable of taking Shevchenko for what he’s worth. We can only adapt him to our current morals and philosophy. Only prophets and geniuses are blessed with a keen understanding of the truth that sets them free for a fleeting moment from the confines of time.
Frequent misunderstandings arise over the place of God in Shevchenko’s world perception. Our new national heroes liken Shevchenko to themselves and have talked their way to the point of calling him a devout Christian. As a result, like before, they shun his “blasphemous” poems. Therefore, their Shevchenko is “falling apart,” and they are willing to hide from him behind the walls of new Christian churches for the sake of their petty interests. Others view him as a “belligerent atheist,” much like in the Soviet period. I have the impression that they have never taken the time to take a closer look at his works or the Bible. There is a simple explanation for this too. Researchers do not dare assume that in his understanding of God Shevchenko eclipsed many religious and secular philosophers. It is just that he had neither opportunity nor need to create philosophical works. But his poems confirm his extremely holistic understanding of humans, creation, and truth. We are only now approaching his level of understanding. At the heart of Shevchenko’s idea of God is not simply a human being or eternal human values, but certain superior values that transcend the world, observed by the poet. At the center of his philosophy is not anthropocentrism and not even God himself, but the beginning and the end, the truth to which God and man aspire. If we view the human being as the highest value, this rules out the possibility of transformations. If you carefully select the episodes in Shevchenko’s poetry in which he contemplates the role of superior forces on earth, and analyze them, you will see that his God is undergoing transformations and that his heaven is not a rest home for the chosen few (“There is no paradise on earth, and heaven itself in doubt”), and his hell is all that is happening on earth.
It would therefore be grossly inadequate to say that Shevchenko does not have the slightest shadow of dogmatism, piousness, and worshipping of dead icons (what representatives of other religions do not understand in Christianity). He does not have an empty faith that is unsupported by supreme ideals. The paradox is that lately all kinds of pastors have again been urging the peoples of Ukraine to embrace faith, without proposing any ideals that would be superior to those that have repeatedly discredited themselves in the history of mankind. There is a dire shortage of such ideals among the new clerics on Ukrainian territory. The new clerics, much like the original pastors early in the history of mankind, refuse to recognize the fact that religions cannot be de facto different, and hence cannot be secondary, or less or more important in the eyes of God. Meanwhile, everyone has his unique faith and spirituality, which is his own attitude to Him. Therefore, there is one faith for all. Only a personal path to God makes a person free of all the unnecessary conventionalities and most dependent only on ultimate values, which must be discovered by the spiritual elite.
Of course, these are only superficial observations. The issue of Shevchenko’s faith is a very complex one, and future researchers must also have the same faith — independent of the flow of time and arbitrary views. Future generations will have the honor of examining Shevchenko’s works with their minds clear of the dogmatic confines of class ideology, piety, anthropocentrism, or progressivism, ethnic pseudo-tolerance, or anything else. There comes a time in the life of every nation when God brings His blessing upon it. In the life of the Ukrainian nation it was the day Shevchenko was born and, let us hope, one of the days in the present epoch.
