HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES - See also - Harvard University

522 STEFAN KIENIEWICZThe essays, written on various occasions separated by long intervals of time, containmany repetitions which the editors apparently decided not to eliminate. Theessays are linked by the leitmotif of meditations on the dramatic fate of the Ukraine,a nation that gradually matured to complete self-awareness amidst unusual adversities.Twice in its modern history the Ukraine was close to battling its way to a lastingindependent state: in the Cossack period in the seventeenth century, and in1917-1919 in the aftermath of the fall of Russian tsardom. Twice it lost the battleand came under the authority of Russia. In analyzing the circumstances of bothdefeats, the author draws attention to the centuries-long Ukrainian-Polish antagonismwhich was equally fatal to both nations. The two partitions of the Ukrainebetween Russia and Poland (1667, 1921) later turned out to be disastrous not onlyfor Ukrainians, but also for Poles. In the author's opinion, "the party mainlyresponsible for the past failures in Polish-Ukrainian relations is the Poles. . . . Thestronger side, consequently, bears the larger part of responsibility" (p. 50).Not being a specialist in the history of the seventeenth century or the twentiethcentury, I cannot competently verify the author's argument. On the plane of moraljudgments, I am willing to accept his severe verdict, and I can add that an understandingof Polish guilt in relation to the Ukraine has recently grown in the Polishintellectual milieu. I would distribute the emphasis differently here and there, however,a point to which I shall return. Before doing so, I will touch upon three issueswith which I am well familiar: Ukrainian-Polish relations in the period of Poland'soccupation by the three partitioning powers; the biographies of public figures straddlingthe Polish and Ukrainian nationalities; and, finally, the problem ofDrahomanov.First of all, however, let me comment on the two essays which are rightly placedat the beginning of the volume: "Ukraine Between East and West" (1966), and"The Role of Ukraine in Modern History" (1963). They relate to the Anglo-Saxonreader, clearly and accessibly, what the Ukraine meant to Europe over the centuries.Facts known to the Polish reader familiar with history are marshalled here in anintelligent way that gives food for thought. In Rudnytsky's opinion, on the basis ofthe Ukraine's past its inhabitants should be considered Europeans for the same reasonsas Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians are. But Ukrainians are distinguishedby two elements of their history connected with the East: the role ofsteppe nomads, and the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium. With regard tothe first point, the author offers a comparison with the famous "frontier thesis" ofTurner, but he rightly notes that the situation of the "Wild Fields" (Dyki polja) wasvery different from that of the American "Wild West" (p. 4). The raids of Asiaticinvaders, from Scythians to Tatars, had several consequences: first, a retardation ofthe Ukraine's civilization in relation to Europe; second, an exceptional role inUkrainian history for the element that opposed the invaders, i.e., the Cossacks. Iwould propose that Poland's two hundred-year-long contact with the Tatars had a