The Ukraine and the Dialectics of Nation-Building Author(s): Omeljan Pritsak and John S. Reshetar, Jr. Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Jun., 1963), pp. 224-255 Published by: Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3000673 . Accessed: 10/06/2014 16:35 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Slavic Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 91.229.229.92 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:35:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE UKRAINE AND THE DIALECTICS OF NATION-BUILDING BY OMELJAN PRITSAK AND JOHN S. RESHETAR, JR. EAST OR WEST? One of the meritsof ProfessorRudnytsky's article is his recognitionof the need forparticular methodological approaches to the studyof the Ukrainianpast. However,in his opinion the Ukraine is a typicalEast European nationin thatits historyhas been "markedby a highdegree of discontinuity"in contrastwith such Westernnations as England and France which "have enjoyed,in spite of some periodsof revolutionary upheaval, a millennium of continuous growth." In addition, the Ukraine is supposedlya "nonhistorical"nation, by which Rudnytsky does not mean thatit has lacked a historicalpast but only that it has suffered"discontinuity" as a resultof havinglost the "traditionalrep- resentativeclass." Consequently,the Ukrainiannational movementin the nineteenthcentury was not in the hands of the traditionalgentry and was supposedlynot characterizedby historicallegitimacy. The Ukrainianleading stratum had, accordingto Rudnytsky,to be "created anew" in orderto directthe " 'natural,'ethnic community to a politi- callyconscious nationhood." In spite of theiroriginality and attractiveness,these theoreticalfor- mulationsof the authorcannot be acceptedwithout reservation. The loss of statehoodas well as the unificationof ethnographicallyhomoge- neous territoryin a singlestate cannot be regardedas sufficientlychar- acteristicto providecriteria for the divisionof Europe. Such "West- ern" states(in Rudnytsky'sterminology) as Italy and Norwayhave also suffereddecline or discontinuityat times. In employingthe terms "East" and "West" with respectto Europe one cannot rely on geo- graphical location or on the currentpolitical situation and include Poland, Hungary,or the Czech territoriesin "Eastern" Europe. Al- thoughRudnytsky has definedwhat he meansby the "East," we regard it as necessaryto discussthis methodologicalproblem in some detail, bearingin mind that the terms"East" and "West" are so specificand meaningfulthat it would be unwiseto introducenew conceptseven as workinghypotheses. In the late eleventhcentury two opposingcultural spheres emerged MR. PRITSAK is professorof Far Eastern and Slavic languages and literature at the Universityof Washington. MR. RESHETAR is professor of political science at the Universityof Washington. This content downloaded from 91.229.229.92 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:35:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Ukraineand the Dialectics of Nation-Building 225 in Europe: the Western-Catholic-Romanand the Eastern-Orthodox- Byzantine.Only the formerprovided the basis fora culturecharacter- ized by a degree of universality-thatof WesternEurope. A people convertedto Catholicismbecame an equal memberof a large family united by a commoncultural language and an understandingof the need to learnfrom the worksof the ancientGreeks and Romans. Each people had an opportunityto learnfrom the ancient model and to make its own contributionto the developmentof this common culture. Originallythe leadershipwas exercisedby the clergy,which was inter- ested in learningand was motivatedby the idea of ora et labora; this broughtthe churchcloser to the people and raised theircultural level. The acceptanceof Roman Law and the rise of autonomouscities (for example,the MagdeburgLaw) createdthe basis forcoexistence and the lateremergence of the thirdestate in additionto theclergy and nobility. Concessionsobtained by the nobilityled ultimatelyto the development of the constitutionalorder. The wars of investiture,on the one hand, preservedthe independenceof the churchfrom the state and, on the otherhand, led to the churches'acquiring a national character. Hu- manismand the Reformationsecularized culture and promotedthe developmentof popular literarylanguages along with the progressin theexact sciences and geographicaldiscoveries. These developmentsin theirultimate form came to constituteWestern culture, which is based upon individualfreedom. Byzantiumknew but one universality:the idea of a single ruler of the Rhomaioiand of all Christians-theByzantine emperor. It viewed theworld as divided into Rhomaioi and "barbarians." The Orthodox Church,being dependentupon secularauthority, concerned itself with the salvationof individual souls; ora et labora was replaced by the anchoriteand hermit. The monastic communitiesdid not become centersof learningin the fullsense. The Slavs who acceptedChristian- ity fromByzantium never participatedfully in the high Byzantine culture,for theywere regardedas inferiorand theircultural develop- mentwas largelylimited to the sphereof the monasticcommunities. For the Slavs therewas prepareda translationof selectedreligious texts in theSlavic ("Church-Slavonic")language-a languagenot possessinga literarytradition and oftennot capable of conveyingthe subtletiesof higherlearning and secularculture.' Althoughthe classical Greek traditionspersisted in Byzantium,the Slavs,especially the EasternSlavs, derivedlittle benefitfrom this fact forthe reasonsdiscussed above. As the EasternSlavic languagesdevel- oped, ChurchSlavonic-the sole sourceof culture-becameless and less comprehensible.The Reformation-asa reaction-waspossible only in a Catholic milieu; conditionsin the Orthodoxworld were not condu- 1 For example, see the viewpoint of G. P. Fedotov as described by Georges Florovskyin "The Problem of Old Russian Culture," Slavic Review, XXI (March, 1962), 9. This content downloaded from 91.229.229.92 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:35:47 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 226 Slavic Review cive to the secularization of culture. Thus it is not surprising that Marxism remained a body of social and political theory in the West, while in Russian Leninism it assumed the form of a quasi religion. Does the Ukraine belong to the East or the West? At the time of the emergence of Western culture, between the thirteenthand seventeenth centuries, the Ukraine, though of the Orthodox faith,2constituted a component of states of the West European type. The Galician-Volhy- nian King Danylo sought a union of the two churches and received his crown from a papal legate in 1253. Earlier, in 1245, the Kiev metro- politan, Peter Akerovych,went to Lyons and concluded a Union with the Church of Rome. The Galician-Volhynian state employed Latin in its officialdocuments. With the demise of the dynasty(1340) part of the Ukrainian lands came under the Hungarian state and later under the Polish state; part joined the Lithuanian state, which originally (1386) entered into a real union with Poland, which later (1569) became a personal union. The various cultural achievements of the West did reach the Ukraine, though with some delay or without the possibility of full de- velopment. Humanism, the Reformation, and the Counter Reforma- tion all left their mark in the Ukraine. Thus the Reformationist Mykhailo Vasylevych (1556-61) and the Unitarians Symeon Budny (1562) and Vasyl Tiapynsky translated parts of the Scriptures into the living Ukrainian language of their time. That Church Slavonic was not replaced by the Ukrainian language for another two centuries was due in no small part to the authority of the apologist for Orthodoxy, the anchorite from Athos, Ivan Vyshensky.4It is well known that the 2 In this contextmention should be made of the cult of St. Clement, Pope of Rome, in Kiev. He was the patron of the Kiev Cathedral, the Tithe Church of the Virgin, built by Volodymyrthe Great. In his honor there was compiled a book of miracles, TIyao (two known versionsdate from the twelfthcentury). MnaxaijiorpymeBeliCrni, Icmopii yicpa'Ncb- o,i Izmepamypu,III (Kiev and Lviv, 1923), 105-9. When in 1147, as a result of political tensionbetween Kiev and Byzantium,the question arose as to how to obtain a new metro- politan, the Bishop of Chernyhiv,Onufrii, offered an interestingsolution. He proved that just as the patriarchof Constantinoplein consecrationemploys the sacred relic of the hand of St. John, so in Kiev a metropolitan could be consecrated with the reliquary of Pope Clement. It is significantthat when this method was approved by all six bishops of South- ern Rus' (the present Ukrainian territory)the Kiev Orthodox Metropolitan Klym Smolia- tych(<<1aHHnIHni H (DHJIOCOJ1,TaiK suKome B PYCLSOR BeBUJIHHe 6HimeTM>>-Hypatian Chronicle, s.a. 1147) was consecratedby means of the pope's reliquary. The bishops of Northern Rus', under the leadership of Nifont (who effectedthe Novgorod separatism discussed elsewhere) refusedto