What is Ukraine’s role in the European cultural and spiritual theater? What should modern Ukrainian society do to play a truly fitting role? How strong are the historical traditions and the social ties that link us with Western European civilization? These are undoubtedly fundamental, basic, and fateful questions. They are still more important in the light of the unending debate on which civilization Ukraine should choose — East or West, Russia or Europe. One of those who study these problems is the authoritative philosopher Serhiy KRYMSKY, one of The Day’s most respected regular contributors, a leading research associate at the Academy of Sciences Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy, a person of literally inexhaustible encyclopedic erudition. In his interview with The Day he dwells precisely on the European component in Ukraine’s historical development.
Dr. Krymsky, it is common knowledge that the Ukrainian leadership has been declaring its European choice for years on end. But is it not true that, to honestly make this choice, one must have a clear idea of what such thing as Europe is — in the intellectual, social, political, and geographic senses? After all, what is Europe for us?
It is undoubtedly a multifaceted notion. If Europe is to be treated in purely geographical terms (say, from England to the Urals), then its hub lies, incidentally, on our territory, in Transcarpathia. If, conversely, Europe is to be viewed as a geopolitical entity, then let us recall Friedrich Engels’s interesting idea that Europe was limited by the borders of nineteenth-century Poland and Hungary. Further east was Eurasia. But since a considerable part of Ukraine was at the time part of the Polish state, our lands also belong to the European space according his criterion. As to Eurasia, it was historically regarded as a territory under Byzantine influence, which included the Balkans, Turkey, and, of course, Russia.
If viewed from the sociocultural perspective, the notion of Europe rests on three fundamental pillars: Antiquity, Christianity, and the Enlightenment. Moreover, Antiquity is viewed through the mirror of its reflection in the Renaissance, Christianity through the Reformation, and the Enlightenment in the context of further socio-scientific and democratic progress. It should also be noted that various historical epochs had their own visions of what Europe was. For instance, in the sixteenth century Europe did not comprise Germany because that country did not meet another criterion of Europe, one in terms of civilization, based on modernization and industrialization.
Now the term Europe comprises above all sociocultural components and chiefly rests on such a slightly forgotten notion as way of life. The latter has in turn three levels: the quality of life, living standards in a purely quantitative expression, and lifestyle. Yet, it is important to note that, as sociologists claim, modern European consciousness pivots on the problem of liberal democracy. Moreover, the civilized world judges democracy according to the extent to which minority rights and in a broader sense by how human and individual rights are guaranteed, rather than by the criteria of the majority. It will be recalled that Joseph Stalin used to muster what he considered a legitimate majority at all Party congresses — the question is by what means he managed to do so. For majority-based decisions are far from effective in alarming and dangerous situations or when one encounters a unique moral and esthetic problem. Leaving aside the fact that a wise person might end up in the minority, let us not forget the element of anonymous personal irresponsibility: “I am acting just like everybody else.”
Europe and the world are now full of talk about some crisis of humanism. What could you say in his connection?
I must dwell here on the so-called problem of personalism. What does this mean? Forty years ago the Second Vatican Council defined humanism as “an attempt to replace the religion of God made Man by the religion of man who makes himself God.” From this perspective, humanism is truly being subjected to severe criticism today. Emphasis is being put on the individual, on his inalienable rights. It will be recalled that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly says that the rights of the individual have priority over the rights of the state. This is what is meant by personalism, also a crucial component of Europeanness. It is in this sense that the notion of Europe is changing.
Dr. Krymsky, let us get back to the European choice declared by Ukraine. Could you historically substantiate this choice?
First of all, we can undoubtedly assert that Ukraine has been an integral part of a common European sociocultural, political, and economic space throughout its history. In the period of Kyivan Rus’ this common space was largely of a commercial nature, and Ukraine was the main intersection of West-East trade routes.
As you know, the Mediterranean was at the time under Arab and later Turkish domination, so the main thoroughfare of West-East trade ran along the Dnipro, known as the road from the Varangians to the Greeks, until the era of Crusades. Oddly enough, this road was in fact used, so to speak, in the reverse mode, from the Greeks to the Varangians, but it is still traditionally mentioned in the former version. Some historians view the these centuries-long trade links as manifestation of the historical North-South vector, but in reality the movement was from West to East. We can assert that Europe’s main trade artery, which linked the then West with the Byzantine Empire and, further, with the Caucasus and Central Asia, ran precisely across our lands, across the Dnipro basin, for more than a century.
What about the political ties between the Kyivan Rus’-Ukraine and Europe?
There are a host of well-known facts here. I will not dwell on Yaroslav the Wise’s famous daughters who established kinship links between the Kyiv court and Europe’s most important dynasties; this is common knowledge. Let me recall the prince’s daughter Yevpraksiya, an active participant in eleventh-century European politics: she was one of the main witnesses who testified against the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, a most powerful secular ruler in Europe, in his dispute with Pope Gregory VII in Canossa!
Let us now look at the common European space of the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries and the place Ukraine occupied in it.
The essence of this space lay in interfaith relations. The point is that Ukraine had always considered the equivalence of both parts of the Holy Writ — the Old and New Testaments — as an archetype, a pivotal point, of its culture. Conversely, Catholicism assumed, for example, that only the New Testament is the Bible’s quintessence; the Old Testament was not even recommended for believers to read. Let us recall what the sixteenth-century Reformation in Western Europe in fact began with: it was the demand that the Old Testament be made available to the public. Meanwhile, Ukraine took an equidistant approach at the very outset!
Sometimes the Old Testament was even preferred to the New. It is on the Old Testament’s truths that the great chronicler Nestor based all his historical concepts (as in The Tale of Bygone Years). Another example is Krekhov Paleya, a great literary and historical symbol of Old Rus’: when Ivan Franko thoroughly analyzed it, he found forty variations of the Old Testament’s Genesis there. Nowhere else in Europe could this be found!
It is worth noting that, unlike Ukraine, Russia regarded preaching the equivalence of the Bible’s two parts as what they called the Judaist heresy. Let us stress that these were none other than Orthodox priests who were accused of preaching heresy if they praised the Old Testament. Therefore, as long as the Reformation often adhered to a similar principle, Ukraine (where this approach was never called heresy) was considered a natural historical ally by the followers of various Protestant denominations. This can be also proved by analyzing the historical sources: for instance, the Halle center of Pietism once conducted a very active correspondence with the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. In general, the history of Ukraine in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries shows a great number of examples of interfaith ties within the context of the Reformation. Thus it is no accident that Petro Mohyla and Feofan Prokopovych came under scathing criticism as followers of Protestantism!
This is on the one hand. On the other, there was the Union that produced Greek Catholicism. We have not yet duly appreciated the historical role of this trend, which in fact saved Ukraine’s Christianity, already degenerating at least in terms of culture. At the turn of the seventeenth century, the Vatican’s educational institutions generously admitted so-called Uniate young men; almost all the cultured and educated part of our new elite studied in Vatican, disguised as Uniate young men. They would embrace Uniatism in Rome but, on coming back to the homeland, would quit this faith and actively participate in Ukraine’s intellectual and religious life.
Then comes the next historical period, the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Did our various links with Europe weaken?
Not at all. On the contrary, we find precisely at that time perhaps the most illustrative and convincing proof that there was not just a common European space but our practically complete cultural and historical unity with Europe: the culture of the Baroque. Striking as it is, all the monuments of that epoch, from Lisbon to Poltava, feature the same architectural style, the Baroque.
Even more importantly, this style occurred in the most diverse fields of Ukrainian culture, including poetry. A stunning historical fact is that baroque-style Latin-language poetry existed in Ukraine for 300 years! Taking into account that every nation has a sector of common human culture, the presence of Latin-language culture in the Ukrainian nation is the most conclusive proof that our culture is undoubtedly European. What is truly astonishing is that this Latin-language Ukrainian poetry existed as long as 300 years, not just a generation!
Naturally, the European cultural synthesis in Ukraine is not confined to the Baroque alone. For example, take music. Artemy Vedel, Maksym Berezovsky, and Dmytro Bortniansky were creators of genuine European music both in artistic finesse and in spirit (the only question is how this correlated with the harsh colonial realities of Ukraine...). Incidentally, Berezovsky studied at the same Bologna academy with Mozart himself; both of them graduated with distinction, and their names are indented in gold on this Italian city’s marble Board of Honor.
And was there a common European educational space at the time?
There certainly was, and this, is very important. Ukrainian students (spudei), who had fluent command of Latin, the international language of education in those times, wandered throughout Europe. Some sources claim that about a hundred Ukrainian students took a course conducted by the great philosopher Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century, while Petro Mohyla and Rene Descartes went to the same college in the early seventeenth century. Moreover, Petro Mohyla drew up a very interesting program of forming this common educational space, based on the idea of Western- Eastern cultural fusion. The trouble is that a certain part of the clergy put up stubborn resistance to these views, branding them as Latinism. Still, no one can deny that Ukraine made a clear and definite European choice during the Baroque period.
At that time, Europe published many Ukrainian books. For example, Petro Mohyla’s Manual of the Orthodox Faith came out in seventeenth-century Germany, while five of Feofan Prokopovych’s seven theological works were published in Leipzig in the early eighteenth century! Another example. Let us recall the great German philosopher Johann Gottfried von Herder (late eighteenth century) and his chief work Reflections a Philosophy of the History of Mankind. He believed Ukraine would be the hub of the Slavic world and occupy the most civilized place in future Europe (written over 200 years ago!). The French encyclopedists, who planned to write A World History (unfortunately, this plan remained unfulfilled in the eighteenth century), hoped to devote a separate volume to Ukraine. All this convincingly proves that there was reciprocal recognition between Ukraine and the rest of Europe.
What about the Cossacks, the core of the then Ukrainian nation? How did they interpret the European choice?
It is important to note the following: all through their history, the Cossacks served Western states only. There were Cossack units at the court of French King Louis XIV; the Cossacks were actively involved in capturing La Rochelle, a Protestant stronghold in southern France (1620s); they played quite a role in the Thirty Years’ War in Germany (1618—1648). One can assert categorically that all the European courts of those times used the Cossacks as their main armed force, especially in fighting the Turks. I have a very interesting Voltaire’s book, Cossacks at the Court of Louis XIV (unfortunately, not yet translated from French), in my library. The French philosopher tells an interesting fact in this book. Louis XIV was told that the Cossacks were on a drinking binge and shirked their military duties. So the king ordered the Cossacks to hold a competition with other foreign units under his command (the Swiss, German landsknechts, et al.). It turned out that the Cossacks could perfectly handle all kinds of weapons and won a well-deserved victory in this competition!
What other channels of Ukrainian-European cultural links do you think played an essential role in that epoch?
One should note the spread of Ukrainian folklore: it was quite well known in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe. An interesting detail: Beethoven used motifs of the famous song “A Cossack Was Riding Beyond the Danube” in his Variations for the Piano; Liszt arranged the famous folk song “The Winds Are Blowing”... But the main thing is that the Ukrainian nation’s core was oriented toward Western politics and culture until the mid-eighteenth century, when Ukraine was finally colonized. This should be clearly borne in mind. What followed this is common knowledge: the rule of Catherine II, transformation of senior Cossack officers into an integral part of the Russian nobility, and enserfment of the peasants.
We have missed the figure of Hetman Ivan Mazepa. But, Dr. Krymsky, our conversation would perhaps be incomplete without him. For he was, among other things, considered Europe’s richest man...
I think we must begin from afar. The point is that Europe saw the peak of industrialization at the turn of the eighteenth century. And we know that one of the consequences of this process was an agricultural crisis, which caused acute food shortages in Europe. So Poland and Ukraine boosted the output of foodstuffs by reinforcing the system of serfdom. Mazepa was a fervent advocate of serfdom in Ukraine, for which reason he was not supported by most Ukrainians. Although some prefer to forget this, it’s a proven fact. At the same time, we must admit that Mazepa’s personality aroused the curiosity of all the royal courts in Europe at the time: he was the object of newspaper articles and political disputes.
What fundamental conclusion do we come to when analyzing the history of seventeenth and eighteenth-century Ukraine?
The conclusion is this: we can assert that the Ukrainian nation was formed in the European context. The point is we must clearly differentiate between the notions of nation and ethnic group. An ethnic group is first of all based on a common territory, language, cultural and economic life, history, etc. Such a group can exist in isolation for a very long time, for example, in the mountains or on remote islands. What is very important, an ethnic group is transformed into a nation when it becomes an active subject of world history, when it begins to absorb world experience and assert its statehood.
It is very symptomatic that the first classic of modern Ukrainian literature, Ivan Kotliarevsky, should describe in his Aeneid the seventeenth century, when the Ukrainian nation was in the making, in figurative and symbolic terms, showing the Cossacks traveling down the Mediterranean coast, the hub of European culture, like the Trojans led by Aeneas, who sailed the Mediterranean in ancient times. In the same work Kotliarevsky showed one more thing: even the Ukrainian language (in his version) formed under the influence of Latin. We find such an inimitable mixture of tongues in Kotliarevsky’s texts that it is sometimes well-nigh impossible to distinguish between Ukrainian and Latin. This means that literature also reflects the formation of the Ukrainian nation as an entry into the circle of European civilization.
Another very important point is development of the idea of ecumenism in Ukraine. First of all, we must remember Petro Mohyla, one of the most illustrious representatives of this trend, a prominent champion of the unity of Christian denominations and of their future creative synthesis.
And finally, let’s see how Ukraine and Ukrainian civilization addressed common European problems. The first of these problems is Sophianism. The point is that Greco-Roman culture, in the context of which the category of Sophianism is usually considered, suggested two notions of being reasonable: the reason in the head (logos) and the reason in things and being (Sophia). Christianity endorsed this idea in order to link God with the world (“the world as a divine text”) and to validate the doctrine of God as an individual.
Surprisingly, this concept developed in Ukraine until as late as the twentieth century, when Pavlo Tychyna wrote about “a world lake a book,” “a world full of the senses of being,” and “the world as joyful artistry.” In contrast to Catholicism, Ukrainian culture is oriented — in the light of the ideas of Sophianism — toward optimism. If you come into Kyiv’s Cathedral of St. Sophia, you will be stunned to find no Doomsday pictures: there are no scenes of death, while the crucifixion is shown in a purely symbolic way... I will add that the concept of Sophianism created one more telling aspect of Ukrainian culture: there was no lyrical side in tragedy before Ivan Franko and Lesia Ukrayinka. A tragedy was interpreted in epic terms? thus, the tragedy of Shevchenko’s Kateryna was the tragedy of the whole nation. The epic interpretation produced a strong faith that together we’ll somehow survive.
Did the concept of Sophianism also develop in the West?
Naturally, I could name several great thinkers and first of all Blaise Pascal. He proceeded on the assumption that the truth was bestowed on the ancient Hebrews, but they took a carnal and sensual approach to it, thus failing to ascertain the full truth. Philosophers, who tried to ascertain this truth, also failed to do so because they perceived it exclusively with their reason. Therefore, divine wisdom can only be perceived through the heart, through the idea of Sophia (wisdom) as an artist who assisted God when He created the universe. An concept almost identical to the one in Ukraine was developed by Goethe and Novalis. In Russia, the concept of Sophianism went a long winding way to reach Soloviov and then Bulgakov.
And how did the Ukrainian intellectual space develop the concept of the individual.
This is precisely the second — and very important — aspect of how we address common European problems. Note that the Ukrainian nation was formed on the border of the Wild Field. Only free individuals could survive in such conditions. This brought about the concept of ethical value of an individual — a concept that has existed throughout our history. Even the Rus’ Truth (Yaroslav the Wise’s code of laws —Ed.) prescribes no capital punishment in the eleventh century! Of course, people were killed in real life, but this was strictly prohibited by law. Nor did the law provide for corporal punishment. Also important is that there were elements of representative democracy, such as Magdeburg Law, liberal statutes of theological schools, and elective nature of all church offices. And in addition the idea of the ethical value of the individual was the primary motive force for the Cossacks in their struggle against Muscovite despotism.
A very interesting interpretation of this concept was suggested by Hryhory Skovoroda. He proclaimed a delightful slogan, “I hate a life that ends with death.” In other words, he reversed the life-to-death vector of earthly existence! This may sound absurd, but let us try to set the record straight. According to Skovorda, birth is the death of the child as an intrauterine creature, a transition to a different world. Then come the following stages of life: childhood as paradise (man is inevitably and irreversibly cast out from this paradise), adult life as construction of one’s own Temple, and, finally, fusion with the Inner Person, that is, God, and transition to eternity. Naturally, this concept of Skovoroda’s enriches the European theory of individuality.
There is also a third channel through which the Ukrainian thought made a contribution to the solution of common European problems. This is the ethical assertion of the common European ideas of humanism. The point is that when Galileo experimentally proved in the seventeenth century the truth of Copernicus’s ideas and showed that man is not the hub of the world and the earth is not the hub of the universe, this evoked a very grave spiritual crisis in European intellectuals, in such outstanding people as Pascal and Goethe. This was a breakdown of earlier ideas, a great shift in the human mindset. Our Hryhory Skovoroda solved this problem. He said that even though man has ceased to be the hub of a big world, he still is a special world, a microcosmos, within himself and is at the same time its hub.
I will also say a few words about the Ukrainian interpretation of a fourth common European idea, the idea of Enlightenment. Ukraine traditionally held reason in very high esteem. Interestingly, during the early Enlightenment the coats-of-arms of all Kyivan metropolitans always featured a book. Besides, Ukrainian mythology does not have a character like Ivan the Fool and, moreover, has no holy fools at all because stupidity was not exactly in esteem! In Ukraine, spiritual values, such as erudition and knowledge, have always been held as at least no less important than material ones. Ukrainian Orthodoxy even developed the idea of spiritual reason. For example, Kyiv’s seventeenth-century Metropolitan Isaiah Kopynsky said, “Reason is above faith, for it leads to faith.” Our contemporary scholar Dmytro Nalyvaiko writes from a very interesting perspective about the consonance of ideas of the Enlightenment’s great dramatist William Shakespeare and our Taras Shevchenko.
But still, Dr. Krymsky, what are the exact criteria of Europeanness that allow one to judge the progress we have achieved in this endeavor? The more so that Europe is so multifaceted — from Turkey to Norway, so to speak.
I continue to insist that such criteria do exist. They are personalism, that is, the supremacy of individual and human rights in the liberal interpretation of the word, and such an extremely important idea as rationalism. The latter is an indispensable element of European civilization because it links logos (reason) with God. This is a very rationally-built civilization (including the economic aspect) which also calls for a specific style of behavior and high tolerance (including in ethnic relations). Otherwise, European countries could just not exist under today’s conditions. What stands in our way to Europe is immature democracy, which stems from our immature way of thinking. And immature democracy is sometimes no less dangerous than totalitarianism.
