What was Shevchenko’s attitude toward religion? The best critics of
the poet, whether they are Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic,
or Protestant, have come to the conclusion that he was fundamentally a
religious man but that at times he employed certain phrases which have
allowed the advocates of militant atheism to claim him for their party.
Yet to prove their point, this latter group is compelled to believe
that he distinctly concealed his own thoughts to satisfy the dictates
of the censorship in a way that he did on no other subject and their
comments are so biassed that it is difficult to take them too seriously.
There can be little doubt that, especially after his visit to Ukraine
in 1843, Shevchenko was carried away by his bitterness over the lot
of the Ukrainian people. This is expressed again and again in his
attack on the official representatives of the Orthodox religion, which
had been definitely bureaucratized by Peter the Great, destroyer of
Ukrainian freedom, and Shevchenko could not resist the temptation
to attack the Church on all counts. Thus in both the _Dream_ and
the _Caucasus_ there are lines that reflect his distaste for the
established Church of Russia. In the _Heretic_ he employs his choicest
invectives against the condemnation of Hus. Later while he was in
exile, he expressed himself very sharply about the role of the Jesuits
in Poland. After his return he inserted certain phrases in _Mary_ that
vary from the traditional thought of the Church.
All this might be interpreted as an extreme form of that type of
anti-clericalism that is not uncommon in nineteenth century authors,
except for the fact that at times when his sense of social injustice
gets the better of him and he is writing with a burning zeal against
the social order, he seems at times to include God Himself in his
condemnations. It must be admitted by the best friends of the poet that
on occasion he indulged in decidedly intemperate language.
On the other hand there are remarkable examples of Shevchenko’s deep
interest in the religion of the people. We must remember that the
Russian occupation of Ukraine had led to a transfer of the clergy
from the supervision of Constantinople (where it had been during the
great days of Kiev) to Moscow and that the change bore as hardly upon
the religious life of the villages as it did upon the political and
cultural. The Russian tsars were trying to standardize and organize
everything under their own supervision and upon their own system and
while they did not change in any important degree the native rites and
practices, they tried to fit them into a different framework.
Nowhere in the whole of the poet’s writings does he cast any shadow
of contempt or brand as superstitious the peasant practices of making
the sign of the cross or of lighting candles or praying. The normal
religious life of the village where it concerns the peasants and God he
treats with the greatest respect. He recognized very clearly that there
was in it a something that answered the religious needs of the people,
that brought them into contact with a superior Power that alone could
make life tolerable, and he never deliberately cast any aspersions upon
it. It was part of the poet’s endeavor to build his future Ukraine on
all sound principles in the national life.
Similarly he makes absolutely no attacks upon the teachings of
Christ, on His pleas for brotherly love, on the Crucifixion and the
Resurrection. The birth of Christ and the redemption of humanity form
the central point in the entire history of mankind. He acknowledges and
glorifies His teachings, even if at moments of vexation he complains
that God is waiting too long, is allowing too much innocent blood to be
shed, too many abuses to continue on this planet.
So too with the Blessed Virgin. In the introduction to the poem _Mary_
he pays a glowing tribute to her, as sinless, the sacred power of all
saints, and he implores Her to give to the suffering poor the power
of Her martyr Son. In the introduction to the _Neophytes_, he again
appeals to Her as “Blessed among women, the holy, righteous Mother of
Her holy Son on earth.” All these references fit in strangely with the
arguments that the poet was in any way hostile to religion.
Besides this, there is abundant evidence that Shevchenko knew the Bible
thoroughly. In his letters from exile, he writes to Princess Repnina
that he read the Gospel constantly and he asked her to send him also
a copy of Saint Thomas à Kempis. He declares that only a Christian
philosophy could encourage a person in his hopeless position. We
certainly do not need to assume that in these passages he was writing
only with an eye to the effect that it would produce upon the Princess,
his friends in the capital and the censors.
More than that, Shevchenko drew heavily upon the Bible for themes for
his poems, especially in his later years. A favorite device might
almost be called a meditation upon the Old Testament, particularly upon
passages where the ancient prophets condemned severely the abuses
and the faults of their own day. Then in a direct manner he used the
present situation in Ukraine to illustrate the great truths of the
past. It is certainly interesting that it is not in these poems that
he resorts to expressions which are really in bad taste, for the great
majority of these occur in the poems written after his first return
to Ukraine, when he was deeply shocked by the conditions which he
saw there. Again on his last visit he apparently made remarks that
irritated some of the Polish landowners and involved him in trouble
with the police and the authorities.
The religious development of the poet thus seems to move along with
the general development of his thought. In the poems of the early
period through the _Haydamaki_ and _Hamaliya_, when he was interested
in picturing the romantic tales of the Kozaks, he accepts without a
murmur the popular rites and devotions. There is a deep sincerity
in the picture of the priests blessing the army before the uprising
of the _Haydamaki_. It is a scene of deep piety and also one that a
cynic could easily have turned into an attack on religion. The same
is true of the prayers of the Kozaks in prison in _Hamaliya_. Even in
_Katerina_, while he recognizes the harsh treatment of the poor mother,
he goes little further than to ask God why such things are allowed to
exist on earth.
It was after his visit to Ukraine in 1843 that the horrible position
of his people burst upon him with all of its terror, cruelty, and
injustice. To him the violation of the Christian law of love and
charity was the overwhelming fact in life. He became openly rebellious
against every institution--whether religious or civil--which seemed
even remotely to imply toleration for a social order that could be so
near a hell on earth. Yet even in his attacks on these institutions,
we can always feel the underlying belief of the poet that religion and
God are being deliberately misrepresented and that all would be well,
if we could only break through the iron wall that seems to surround
this world and penetrate the mystery beyond. There is much of the
spirit of Job in these poems, although the author could not at all
times hold fast to his vision of God’s justice and mercy. Here there
is undoubtedly a limitation on the thought of Shevchenko but it is
a limitation that is liable to confront any forthright thinker who
bounds his horizon with this planet and with life on earth. He was
not a mystic to indulge in the contemplation of the Divine but a man
suffering for the sad fate of his fellowmen, who believed with all his
heart in truth and justice and who was willing to sacrifice himself for
the good and true.
His arrest and imprisonment undoubtedly had a definite effect upon
him. We know from his letters to Princess Repnina and others that he
attended church services during his stay in the fortress. Later he
endeavored to secure permission to decorate both a Roman Catholic and
an Orthodox chapel and it can hardly be supposed that he did this only
to have an opportunity to draw and to paint. It was rather the feeling
that he could dedicate some part of his work to God at the moment when
it seemed impossible for him to carry on his work for his country.
On his return to St. Petersburg, he was of course thrown into company
with the fashionable radicals of the day with their deliberate and
unadulterated atheism and we might expect that he would give some
definite sign of their influence. He does nothing of the kind. Rather
he turned to the Old Testament for its harsh judgments on kings and
rich men who robbed and oppressed the poor and the downtrodden. He had
long dreamed of analyzing the character of the Blessed Virgin as a
typical mother and it is this that he does in _Mary_. While he might
have been influenced by some of the more irreligious of the popular
authors, the work emerged on an entirely different plane with an ardent
religious introduction and a reverent treatment of the entire theme. So
too with all of his writings.
In his last days Shevchenko had to some degree softened in his
ideas. Perhaps he had learned by experience. He certainly was not
terrorized. The man who had spoken so boldly in the _Neophytes_ that
he had frightened the timid Kulish would hardly have added a religious
introduction merely to silence opposition. Such an idea conflicts with
all that we know of Shevchenko’s character but he came to differentiate
more carefully between those elements of evil in the formal religion of
the day and religion itself and sharp as are some of his criticisms,
it is impossible for any honest scholar to claim that his works are
deliberately irreligious.
An additional sign of this is his _Primer_, which he secured permission
to publish only a few months before his death. It was definitely
written for the Sunday Schools which were springing up in Ukraine
under the new order. Shevchenko introduced a large amount of religious
material into it and he shows again in this the same interest in seeing
the social ideas of Christianity worked to the fullest possible extent.
It would have been so easy for him to have created a purely secular
book, had he been so inclined.
Thus at every stage of his life, we can find distinct traces of the
religious interests of Shevchenko. He was no trained theologian, he
was not a mystic, he was not a man who sought to evade the troubles of
earth by taking refuge in heaven. He felt that here on earth there was
a crying need for reform and human brotherhood and he never indicated
for a second that there was any other possibility for achieving this
than through the pure and applied teachings of the Gospel.
We know that he was familiar with the ideas of Skovoroda and of other
writers of a similar character. We know too that in his own time there
were various movements aiming for a new social order. He was influenced
by the ideas of the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius, and he
was led to revolt against the more formal and ritualistic sides of a
Christianity which neglected its task of teaching the people and was
willing to follow the dictates of a tyrannical government.
Despite all criticisms, the overwhelming impression that the poems,
the stories, and the letters of Shevchenko leave upon the careful
reader is that he is a man who profoundly appreciates the Crucified
and Risen Savior and who is only too ready to support his teachings
and suffer for his fellowmen. Some of his outbursts may be extreme but
it is very doubtful, if a single intelligent reader has ever found his
faith shaken by any poem of Taras Shevchenko. When we subtract from
his criticized remarks those that may be influenced by literary models
and those that come from blazing indignation, we shall find an amazing
residue of serious moral instruction, of deep respect for the worship
and practices of his people, of his own deep and abiding belief in
the traditional teachings and doctrines of Christianity in their true
development and application. His prayers and invocations are no sham,
no attempt to curry favor or to escape responsibility. They are a
product of a believing mind and a great soul.