ANTHROPOGEOGRAPHY
ETHNOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES OF UKRAINE
NUMBER AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF UKRAINIANS
To give the ethnographic boundaries of a Western or Central European
nation is very easy, for they have long since been determined and
investigated, and it would be hard to find anyone who might try to
efface or disregard them, least of all to falsify them. But with the
Ukrainians it is quite different. They possess neither political
independence, as for example, the Germans, French, Italians, etc., nor
political influence, as for instance, the Poles and Czechs in Austria.
The Ukrainians inhabit parts of two states, Austria-Hungary and Russia,
and have some political significance in the former, while in the latter
they are not even recognized as a racial entity.
Accordingly, the real boundaries of the National territory of the
Ukraine are insufficiently known. They are best known within Austrian
territory, altho the statistics, especially those of Galicia, are very
poor. Even less exact in respect to the distribution of the Ukrainians
are the Hungarian statistics. In Russia the condition is worst of all.
The first real census here was taken on January 28, 1897. All earlier
calculations and estimates are of very questionable worth. For
instance, all the Pinchuks, the Ukrainian inhabitants of the Polissye,
have been erroneously counted with the White Russians, the Ukrainians
in the vicinity of Mhilin and Starodub with the Great Russians.
Besides, very many Ukrainians were registered under the general heading
of “Russians.”
For this reason, it is impossible at the present time to give the
boundaries of the Ukrainian racial territory as exactly as those of the
Western and Central European countries. The boundaries here given,
however, are drawn from official statistical sources, and only very
conspicuous and generally acknowledged errors have been corrected.
The western boundary of the compact Ukrainian national territory begins
on the shores of the Black Sea at the delta of the Danube, where part
of the descendants of the Zaporogs are still devoted to their
traditional vocation of fishing. Here the neighbors of the Ukrainians
are the Roumanians and Bulgarians. The Ukrainian-Roumanian boundary
line then goes thru Bessarabia, Bukowina, and Northeastern Hungary.
In Bessarabia the border passes thru Ismail, Bilhorod, the mouth of the
Dniester at its liman, then up the Dniester to Dubosari, running in
adventurous windings past Orhiev and Bilzi until it reaches the
Prut-Dniester divide, and leaving this province near Novoselitza.
Innumerable ethnographic islands lie on both sides of this boundary;
Roumanians on Ukrainian territory and Ukrainians on Roumanian
territory. Only within the past centuries has the land been settled
more thickly and the main body of Roumanians has been so dotted with
this medley of races as to form a veritable ethnographic mosaic.
In the Bukowina, the boundary of the Ukrainian territory, running along
the national border at first, reaches the cities of Sereth and
Radivtzi. Then it turns with a sharp bend to Chernivtzi and passes in a
wide curve toward the southwest and west, thru Storozhinetz, Vikiv,
Moldavitsia and Kirlibaba to the White Cheremosh, where it extends over
into Hungary. In the Bukowina, too, the ethnographic boundary of the
Ukrainians is not of great antiquity (the Cheremosh region excluded).
The boundary is all the older in Hungary, for the Ukrainian people have
had a place here since the early middle ages. This boundary extends
along the Visheva, and then the Tissa, past Sihot to Vishkiv. At this
place the border crosses to the left bank of the river and, passing
along the Gutin Mountain Ridge, reaches the river Tur near Polad. Here
the Roumanian-Ukrainian boundary ends and the neighboring country of
the Magyars begins.
The boundary of Ukrainian territory here runs in a generally northeast
direction, touching Uylak, Beregszasz, Mukachiv (Munkacs), Uzhorod
(Unghvar), Bardiiv (Bartfa), Sabiniv (Kis Szeben), Kesmark. At Lublau
the boundary crosses the Poprad River and reaches Galicia. Between
Unghvar and Bartfeld, the Slovaks become the neighbors of the
Ukrainians. The boundary between Slovaks and Ukrainians is very
indistinct, and only the investigations of Hnatiúk and Tomashivsky have
succeeded in determining it and in proving that thru the centuries the
borders of Ukrainian territory have been subject to comparatively
slight changes.
In Galicia, the Ukrainians are neighbors to the Poles. The Polish rule
of over 500 years’ duration, has forced the Ukrainian element eastward
to a great extent into the hill country and the plain. Only in the
mountains has the Ukrainian element preserved itself and the Ukrainian
territory here forms a peninsula extending far to the west.
The Ukrainian-Polish boundary in Galicia begins at the village of
Shlakhtova, west of the Poprad Pass, and extends eastward, touching the
small towns of Pivnichna, Hribov, Horlitzi, Zmigrod, Dukla, Rimanov,
Zarshin, as far as Sianik, whence it follows the general direction of
the San as far as Dubetzco. Here it turns toward the northeast, reaches
the San River again near Radimno, and runs along the left shore past
Yaroslav, Siniava, Lezaisk, reaching Russian-Poland at Tarnogrod.
In Russian Poland, the Ukrainians inhabit the newly-created Government
of Kholm, and for five centuries they have had to ward off the eastward
expansion of the Poles. Nevertheless, the Polonizing of the country
began to progress under Russian rule, as a result of the inconsiderate
Russification policy of the authorities and the sympathy of the
Ukrainian population with the Greek-Catholic faith, ruthlessly
suppressed by the Russians, to which the Ukrainians of the Kholm
country still belonged half a century ago, a sympathy which is not yet
extinct.
The boundary line between Poles and Ukrainians in the Kholm country
has, on both sides, a more or less wide zone of a mixed population and
numerous ethnographic islands. It passes thru Tarnogrod, Bilhoray,
Shteshebreshin, Zamostye, Krasnostav, Lubartiv, Radin, Lukiv, Sokoliv,
Dorohichin and Bilsk, reaching the Narev River in the Government of
Grodno. Here the borders of the Ukrainian and the Polish national
territory meet the White Russian border and the northern border of the
Ukraine begins.
The Ukrainian-White Russian boundary extends thru the Governments of
Grodno and Minsk, at first along the Narev River, up to its source in
the Biloveza Forest. Then the line passes Pruzani over to the Yassiolda
River, turning off near Poriche toward the northeast and reaching the
lake of Vihonivske Ozero. From here it turns toward the southeast and
reaches the Pripet River at the mouth of the Zna. Then this river forms
the boundary up to where it joins with the Dnieper. Only below Mosir
the White Russians push forward in an obtuse salient to the right bank
of the Pripet. It should be observed that the White Russians along the
boundary described form a transition in respect to language and
ethnology between the real White Russians and the real Ukrainians, who,
in this region, are called Pinchuki. The transition zone is 30 to 50
kilometers in width.
The Dnieper forms the boundary of the Ukraine only along a short
stretch in the Government of Chernihiv, from the mouth of the Pripet to
the mouth of the Sol near Loüv. Then the border runs northeast past
Novosibkiv, Nove misto and Suraz, as far as Mhlin, where the White
Russian country ceases and the Russian begins.
To sketch accurately the boundary of the Ukraine toward Muscovy is not
easy, even tho there is by no means a gradual transition here, as there
is on the White Russian border. The boundary of the Ukraine is even
much more sharply defined here than in the region where it separates
the Ukrainians from the Poles, Roumanians and Magyars. But it is hard
to determine without detailed investigation on the spot, for the
official Russian statistics have been compiled very much in favor of
the ruling race. In addition, it must be observed that the districts
along this border were not thickly settled until the 17th and 18th
Centuries. The settlers came from the Ukraine on the one side and from
Muscovy on the other, and established themselves in separate
settlements. To this day a purely Ukrainian village or small town often
borders on one made up entirely of Russians, and the number of
ethnographic islands is rather large on both sides.
The boundary of the compact Ukrainian territory in the Governments of
Kursk and Voronizh passes thru Putivil, Rilsk, Sudza, Miropilia,
Oboian, the sources of the Psiol, and Vorskla, Bilhorod, Korocha, Stari
Oskol, Novi Oskol, and Biriuch, and reaches the Don River near
Ostrohosk. The Don forms a smaller part of the border of the Ukraine
than the Dnieper. The boundary line leaves the river at the mouth of
the Icorez, cuts the Bitiuh River and, passing Baturlinivka and
Novokhopersk, reaches the Khoper River in the country of the Don
Cossacks. Here begins the eastern boundary of the Ukrainian country. It
extends first along the Khoper River southward, crosses the Don
perpendicularly at the mouth of the Khoper, passes along the Kalitva
and the Donetz, crossing the Don for the third time near Novocherkask,
and, pursuing a wide curve along the Sal River, reaches Lake Manich.
Right opposite, on the left bank of the Don, the Ukrainians confront
the Kalmucks, the advance guard of the sub-Caucasian and Caucasian
medley of races. Among these thinly scattered and culturally inferior
tribes, a strong flood of Ukrainian and Russian colonization has been
pouring in the course of the past century. The Ukrainian element is
gradually predominating in the entire region of Ciscaucasia and is
constantly pushing forward toward the east and southeast. New islands
of Ukrainian-speaking people are forming and are growing constantly and
uniting to form larger complexes.
From Lake Manich, the border of the Ukraine country runs southward thru
the district of Medveza of the Government of Stavropol, as far as the
sources of the great Yahorlik. Then it turns eastward past Stavropol,
Alexandrivsk and Novohrihoryvsk. In a narrow strip the Ukrainians here
reach the Caspian Sea. It was only suggested in the census of 1897, but
proved beyond doubt by the reports of the new settlements of the
Ukrainian element in these regions, that the Ukrainian area here shows
a great increase.
The southern boundary of the Ukraine in the Caucasian lands passes thru
the Terek, Kuban and Black Sea Governments by way of Nalchic,
Piatihorsk, Labinsk and Maikop, reaching the shore of the Black Sea
between Tuapse and Sochi. In this region the Ukrainians have as
neighbors besides the Russians, the Kalmucks, Kirgizians, Norgaians,
Chechenians, Cabardines, Circassians, Abkhasians and Caucasian Tartars.
The further course of the southern border of the Ukraine, as far as the
delta of the Danube, is indicated on the whole by the coasts of the
Black Sea and the Sea of Azof. Only Crimea has, until recently,
remained outside the ethnographic confines of the Ukraine. To the
extent that the Crimean Tartars have begun to emigrate to Turkey,
however, the Ukrainian element has gained strength thru constant
reinforcements from the Central Ukrainian districts, so that today only
the mountain region and the south coast of Crimea are considered Tartar
country.
These boundaries enclose the compact country which is inhabited by the
Ukrainians. This country includes North and West Bukowina, Northeastern
Hungary, East Galicia and the southwestern part of West Galicia, the
newly-created Government of Kholm (the eastern districts of the
Governments of Lublin and Sidlez in Russian Poland), the southern part
of Grodno and Minsk, all of Volhynia, Podolia, Kiev and Kherson,
besides the southeastern and northwestern districts of Bessarabia. To
the left of the Dnieper, the borders of the Ukraine include the
Governments of Chernihiv, Poltava, Kharkiv, Katerinoslav, Tauria (with
the exception of the Yaila) and the entire Kuban region, the chains of
high mountains excepted. In addition, the following belong to the
territory of Ukraine: The southern third of the Government of Kursk,
the southern half of Voroniz, the western third of the Don Cossack
country, the southern half of Stavropol, the northern border of the
Terek region, and, finally, the northwestern part of the Government of
the Black Sea. For Europe it is a very spacious territory, being second
in size only to the Russian (Muscovite) national territory. The area of
the Ukrainian national territory is 850,000 square kilometers, of which
only 75,000 square kilometers lie within the borders of the
Austro-Hungarian monarchy, the remaining country of 775,000 square
kilometers being subject to Russian rule.
Beyond this compact Ukrainian national territory, the Ukrainians live
in numerous great homogeneous patches, scattered over wide areas of the
Old and New Worlds. In Bessarabia we meet with a whole series of these
Ukrainian language areas or islands along the Prut River and the
Russian-Roumanian boundary, in the Roumanian Dobrudja, and in the delta
of the Danube. In the Bukowina there are Ukrainian language islands at
Suchava and Kimpolung, in Hungary in the Backza, at Nyregihatza,
Nagi-Caroli, Göllnitz, etc., in the Kholm country between Lukov and
Zelekhov, between Sidletz and Kaluszin, and near Sokolov. Along the
White Russian border, where the transition is gradual, no real language
islands are found in the intervening zone before mentioned. We find all
the more of them in Ukrainian-Russian borderlands, where the two
nationalities are very sharply separated and there are no transitions.
In the Government of Kursk we find a whole chain of well-defined
Ukrainian language islands in the midst of the Russian territory; at
Fatiez, between Dmitriev and Oboian, and also at the sources of the
Sem. In the Government of Voroniz there are several language islands at
Siemlansk and Borisoglebsk. A few scattered Ukrainian settlements
extend to the district of Tambov and Yelez. The Don country, for a long
time practically closed to settlers because of its Cossack
organization, was a valuable thoroughfare for the Ukrainian
colonization movement in its expansion in the central Volga district.
Here there lived (1910) over 600,000 Ukrainians in the Governments of
Saratov, Samara and Astrakhan. Here lie, in closest proximity to
numerous German colonies, great Ukrainian language islands, near
Balashov, Atkarsk, Balanda, on the Eman and Medveditza, at Nikolaievsk,
Khvalinsk, Samara and Boguruslan. From Khvalinsk on, the Ukrainian
colonies on the left bank of the Volga take up as much space as the
Russian. We find the Ukrainian colonies here opposite Saratov,
Kamishin, Dubivka, Chorni Yar, and at Zarev. Besides these there are,
at a greater distance from the Volga, Ukrainian language islands in the
country around the source of the Yeruslan and the Great Usen, on Lakes
Elton and Baskunchak, on the Ilovla and the Yergeni hills. In the
Orenburg Government, on the Ural River, more than 50,000 Ukrainian
colonists now dwell. In general, the Ukrainians in the year of 1897
comprised 13% of the population of the Government of Astrakhan
(District of Zarev 38%, Chornoyar 43%), more than 7% in the Government
of Saratov, nearly 5% in Samara. At present, considering the active
Ukrainian colonization of the past decades, these percentages must be
much greater.
In the Caucasus lands we likewise find a goodly number of Ukrainian
Colonies. According to the results of the census of 1897 the Ukrainians
comprised 17 to 19% of the “Russian” population in the Governments of
Erivan, Kutais, Daghestan and Kars, 7,5% in Tiflis and 5% in
Yelisavetpol and in Baku each.
Thru the Volga and Caucasus lands, the tide of Ukrainian emigrants
reached Russian Central Asia. The establishment of Ukrainian
settlements in this region only began toward the end of the past
century and has continued to this day. In the year 1897 the Ukrainians
already comprised 29% of the “Russian” population in the province of
Sir Daria and 23% in the province of Akmolinsk. In the Provinces of
Transkaspia, Siemiriechensk, Turgai, Samarkand and Ferghana, the
Ukrainians comprised 10% to 20% of the “Russian” population; in the
Province of Siemipalatinsk, 5%.
But Ukrainian colonization in Siberia appears on the largest scale of
all. In a long line of thousands of kilometers, Ukrainian language
islands and detached colonies stretch along the southern border of this
land of tomorrow. The highest percentages of Ukrainians are found among
the “Russian” population of the coast province near Vladivostok (over
29%) and the Province of Amur (over 20%), the greatest absolute numbers
in the southern districts of the Governments of Tomsk, Tobolsk and
Yeniseysk.
Besides these colonies and language islands in Eurasia, we find
settlements of considerable size in America. More than half a million
Ukrainians are scattered in small groups over the spacious area of the
United States. They are, for the most part, mine and factory workers,
who usually return, with the earnings they have saved, to their
fatherland. Pennsylvania is especially rich in Ukrainian emigrants, who
sometimes take root here, but usually lose their nationality in the
second generation. Agricultural colonies have been established by the
Ukrainians in Canada. Here we find Ukrainian language islands of some
size in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and smaller groups of
settlements in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The number of the
Ukrainians in Canada exceeds 200,000, and the steady character and
compactness of the settlements preserve the Ukrainian element from
rapid denationalization. The same kind of agricultural colonies have
been established by the Ukrainian peasants in Brazil. They are located
chiefly in the State of Parana, also in detached groups in Rio Grande
do Sul, Santa Catarina and São Paulo, as well as in the adjacent lands
of Argentina. These rapidly increasing settlers, about 60,000 in
number, form an important cultural element here among the indolent
Luso-Brazilians.
But we do not desire, in this small work, to write a geography of the
Ukrainian colonies. All are branches severed from the mother-tree,
which, considering the low grade of culture of the settlers, must
sooner or later be assimilated by the foreign race. Only the Asiatic
colonies have some (though rather slight) prospects of preserving their
national individuality into the remote future. The constant addition of
new arrivals from the home country, as well as the higher culture of
the Ukrainian people as opposed to the Russian masses, will preserve
the Ukrainian colonists in Asia from rapid denationalization.
What is the total number of Ukrainians, and how many of them live in
the compact Ukrainian national territory?
The answer to this question is not easy—for the same reasons which do
not permit us to draw accurately the boundaries of the Ukrainian
country. The political subjugation of the Ukraine on the one hand, and
the size of the nation and its territory on the other, cause the ruling
governments to falsify the statistics, thus concealing the true state
of affairs. To a great extent, also, the ignorance of the organs
performing the census bear the blame for the unreliability of the
statistics collected in Ukrainian territory. The Ukrainians are either
simply registered as members of another (usually the ruling)
nationality, or forced, by various means, to deny their inherited
nationality.
In Hungary entire villages are sometimes set down as Magyar, Slovak or
Roumanian, altho their population is wholly, or for the most part,
Ukrainian. In the Bukowina, too, a great many Ukrainians are registered
as Roumanians. In Galicia, all Roman-Catholic Ukrainians are regularly
entered as Poles, altho, as a rule, they have not even a mastery of the
Polish language. Nevertheless, the Austro-Hungarian statistics allow
the possibility of determining very closely the true condition. The
Russian census of 1897, which gives us the sole materials for
statistics on a racial basis in the Ukraine, was carried out greatly to
the disadvantage of the Ukrainian element. In the cities, only the
smallest minority of the Ukrainians are registered as such, all the
rest being counted as Russians. The same has been the case in all the
Ukrainian colonies and language islands scattered thru the great space
of the gigantic Russian Empire. Even so, we are omitting from
consideration those Ukrainians who, because of lack of national
consciousness or for fear of persecution, have denied their
nationality.
Despite all these shortcomings of the official statistics, we shall
make their statements the basis of our calculations. Only the most
marked falsifications or errors can be considered and corrected. As the
basis of our calculations, we shall take the figures of the census in
Austria and Hungary of the year 1910, as well as the Russian
calculations of the same year. As the latter lack any statement as to
the relative proportions or percentages of the nationalities, we must
apply the percentages of the enumeration of 1897 to the totals of 1910.
This process, of course, gives us only approximate values, but it is
the only available method.
We shall begin our statistical view of the Ukrainian lands with
Northeastern Hungary. Here the Ukrainians inhabit a compact territory
of over 14,000 square kilometers. The greatest part of it lies in the
Carpathian Mountains and includes the northern three-quarters of the
County of Marmarosh, the northeastern half of the County of Ungh, the
northern borderlands of the Counties of Semplen and Sharosh, and the
northeastern borderlands of the County of Zips. The total number of
Ukrainians in Hungary was 470,000 in 1910, a number which, because of
the insufficient Hungarian statistics, may be confidently raised to a
half a million, if we consider the fact that even the doctored
Greek-Catholic figures of the eighties gave approximately the latter
number. The percentages of the Ukrainians in different counties,
according to official reckoning, are as follows: In Marmorosh 46%,
Uhocha 39%, Bereg 46%, Ungh 36%, Sharosh 20%, Semplen 11%, Zips 8%. In
the east the Roumanians form small scattered language islands, in the
west the Slovaks. Amid the Ukrainian population, scattered, but in
considerable numbers, live Jews; in the cities, Magyars and Germans
besides. The Ukrainians inhabit all the mountainous, sparsely settled
parts of the counties, hence the percentage of them is small, despite
the extent of the country they inhabit. The Ukrainian people in Upper
Hungary consist almost exclusively of peasants and petty bourgeois. The
lack of national schools causes illiteracy to grow rampant. The upper
strata of the people are three-fourths denationalized; the common
people are stifled in ignorance, and in the consequent poor economic
conditions, which the Hungarian Government is vainly trying to relieve.
In the Bukowina the Ukrainians, over 300,000 in number (38% of the
total population of the land), inhabit a region of 5000 square
kilometers, situated mostly in the mountainous parts of the country.
The Ukrainians inhabit the following districts: Zastavna (80%),
Vashkivtzi (83%), Viznitza (78%), Kitzman (87%), and Chernivtzi (55%),
half the District of Sereth (42%), a third of the District of
Storozhinetz (26%), besides parts of the Districts of Kimpolung,
Radautz and Suchava. Amid the Ukrainian population a great many Jews
are settled, scattered, and in the cities many Germans, Roumanians,
Armenians and Poles besides. The degree of education and the economic
state of the Bukowina Ukrainians are incomparably better than those of
the Ukrainians of Hungary. From the rural population a numerous
educated class has sprung, which has taken the lead of the masses in
the economic and political struggle.
In Galicia (78,500 square kilometers, 8 million inhabitants) the
Ukrainians, 3,210,000, that is 40% of the total population (with 59% of
Poles and 1% of Germans) occupy a compact space of 56,000 square
kilometers, in which they comprise 59% of the population. These figures
are taken from the census of the year 1910, which, because of its
partisan compilation, is perhaps unique among the civilized states of
Europe. For not only are all the Jews (who speak a German jargon)
listed as Poles, but also all the Ukrainians of Roman-Catholic faith,
of whom there is more than half a million, and 170,000 pure Ukrainians
of Greek-Catholic (united) faith. Basing our calculations, not on these
statistics of the vernacular, but on the statistics of faith, which,
too, are not unobjectionable, we obtain the following results: For the
Greek-Catholic Ukrainians 3,380,000 (42%), for the Roman-Catholic Poles
3,730,000 (47%), and for the Jews 870,000 (11%). According to religious
convictions, then, Ukrainian East Galicia would contain 62% of
Ukrainians, over 25% (1,350,000) Poles, and over 12% (660,000) Jews. As
a matter of fact, the number of Ukrainians in Galicia, according to the
investigations of Dr. Okhrimovich, should be raised to at least
3,500,000, and, adding the Roman-Catholic Ukrainians of East Galicia,
the number is 4,000,000. We shall retain the figure 3,380,000, however,
but for the following view of the districts, the percentages will be
taken from the much more justly compiled census of the year 1900. The
greatest percentage of the Ukrainian population, that is 75–90%, is
found in the Carpathian Districts of Turka, Stari Sambir, Kossiv,
Pechenizin; the sub-Carpathian Districts of Bohorodchani, Kalush,
Zidachiv; the Pocutian Districts of Sniatin and Horodenka, besides the
District of Yavoriv in the Rostoche. The percentage of Ukrainians
vacillates between 67 and 75% in the Districts of Lisko, Dobromil,
Striy, Dolina, Nadvirna, Tovmach, Salishchiki, Borshchiv, Rohatin,
Bibrka, Zovkva and Rava. More than three-fifths of the population
(60–66%) is made up of Ukrainians in the Districts of Drohobich,
Sambir, Rudki, Mostiska, Horodok, Kolomiya, Sokal, Kaminka, Brody,
Sbaraz Zolochiv, Peremishlani, Berezani, Pidhaytzi, Chorytkiv, and
Husiatin; 50–60% Ukrainians are found in the Districts of Chesaniv,
Peremishl, Sianik, Ternopil, Skalat, Terebovla, Buchach and
Stanislaviv. In only two districts the percentage of Ukrainians falls
below 50%: in the districts of Lemberg (49%) and Yaroslav (41%). In the
city of Lemberg the Ukrainians comprise only one-fifth of the
population, and in other larger cities of East Galicia, too, their
percentage is not great. Consequently, the total percentages of the
Ukrainians in the districts are influenced very unfavorably thru the
addition of the city population. Besides, the East Galician cities,
inhabited chiefly by Jews and Poles, are the chief centers of the
Polonizing efforts. Only in the most recent times is the percentage of
Ukrainians in the larger cities of East Galicia becoming greater, as a
result of the continued flocking in of the Ukrainian rural population.
In the fifty smaller cities of East Galicia, on the other hand, the
Ukrainians comprise absolute majorities, e.g., Yavoriv, Horodenka,
Tismenitza.
In West Galicia only the District of Horlitzi (Gorlice) has more than
25% Ukrainians, the remaining four (Yaslo, New Sandetz, Krosno, Hribov)
only 10–20%.
The Ukrainian population of Galicia consists nine-tenths of peasants
and petty bourgeois. From them a numerous educated class has sprung in
the past century, which has taken the political and cultural leadership
of the masses. For this reason, too, national consciousness has
advanced most among the Ukrainians of Galicia.
In the compass of the Russian State the Ukrainians occupy a compact
national territory of almost 775,000 square kilometers. The actual size
of this territory will be accurately determined only when we possess an
accurate ethnographic map of the Ukraine. Until then the size of the
various Ukrainian sections can only be estimated.
The following statistical information is taken from the calculation of
1910, the percentage of Ukrainians from the Russian census of 1897. But
the Pinchuks, in the Government of Minsk, were counted as belonging to
the Ukrainians by the common opinion of all Russian and non-Russian
ethnographers, altho the official statistics have designated them as
White Russian.
We shall begin at the western border region, at the Kholmshchina (Kholm
land), which was recently organized by the Russian Government as an
independent Government apart from Russian Poland, and includes the
eastern areas of the Governments of Lublin and Sidletz. In the
Government of Lublin (16,800 square kilometers, 1,500,000 inhabitants)
the Ukrainians comprise 17% of the population (250,000), in the
Government of Sidletz 14% (140,000). The region inhabited by the
Ukrainians in both Governments together, amounts to 10,000 square
kilometers. Poles and Jews inhabit not only the cities in the Kholm
country, but to a great extent villages as well, and comprise a
considerable percentage of the population near the western border of
the Ukraine. The percentage figures of the Ukrainians and Poles (in
parentheses) are in the various districts of the Government of Lublin:
Hrubeshiv 66 (24), Tomashiv 52 (37), Kholm 38 (38), Bilhoray 22 (68),
Zamostye 9 (83), Krasnostav 6 (83); in the districts of the Government
of Sidletz: Vlodava 64 (20), Bila 48 (38), Konstantiniv 22 (55), Radin
5 (87). In these districts the Jews comprise 5–13% of the population,
the Germans 14% in the District of Kholm. The number of Ukrainians in
the generally Polish-Jewish cities is not insignificant, even
comprising the absolute majority in Hrubeshiv.
In the Government of Grodno (38,600 square kilometers 1,950,000
inhabitants), the Ukrainians comprise 23% of the population and inhabit
the districts of Berestia (81% Ukrainians), Kobrin (83%), Bilsk (42%
relative majority), and the border of Pruzani (7%), altogether 14,000
square kilometers, with a Ukrainian population of 440,000. The Poles
and White Russians comprise 2–3% in the first two of these districts,
the Poles 37% in the District of Bilsk, the White Russians 79% in
Pruzani, the Jews 9–11% in all districts.
In the Government of Minsk (91,000 square kilometers, 2,800,000
inhabitants), the Ukrainians (Pinchuks) comprise 14% of the population.
They inhabit the entire District of Pinsk and the half of the District
of Mosiv, situated on the right bank of the Pripet River, altogether
17,000 square kilometers, with a Ukrainian population of 390,000.
The Government of Volhynia (71,700 square kilometers, 3,850,000
inhabitants) is a central Ukrainian region. The Ukrainians (2,700,000)
here comprise over 70% of the population, the Jews 13%, the Poles over
6%, the Germans about 6%, the Russians 3%, the Czechs 1%. These foreign
peoples live scattered, or as colonists, and chiefly in the cities of
Volhynia, in all of which (Kremianetz excepted) they are more numerous
than the Ukrainians. In the country it is different. The percentages of
Ukrainians in the districts of Volhynia are very high: Kovel 86%,
Ovruch 87%, Ostroh 85%, Zaslav 82%, Kremianetz 84%, Starokonstantiniv
80%. Somewhat smaller are the percentages in the following districts:
Zitomir 73%, Dubno 73%, Volodimir Volinsky 68%, Rivne 65%, Lutzk 62%.
In the Government of Kiev (51,000 square kilometers, 4,570,000
inhabitants) the Ukrainians comprise over 79% (3,620,000) of the
population. This percentage takes into account the city population, of
which the majority are Jews and “Russians.” In the districts, as
Chihirin, Svenihorodka, Uman, Tarashcha, the percentage of Ukrainians
exceeds 90%, in Radomishl 80%. The chief foreign element are the Jews
(12%), then the Russians (over 6%), and the Poles (2%). In the city of
Kiev the Ukrainians comprise more than one-fifth of the population, as
much as the Jews and Poles together. An absolute Ukrainian majority
exists in the cities of Vassilkiv, Kaniv, Tarashcha, Zvenihorodka and
Chihirin. In Berdichiv, Cherkassi, Uman, Lipovetz, Skvira and Radomishl
the Jews predominate.
The Government of Podolia (42,000 square kilometers, 3,740,000
inhabitants) has over 81% of its population Ukrainian (3,030,000). In
some districts the percentage is much higher, as for example in the
District of Mohiliv, 89%. The Jews are the largest foreign element
(12%) then the Russians (3%), and the Poles (2%), who live principally
in the cities. Only the smaller Podolian cities, e.g., Olhopol, Yampol,
Stara Ushitza, Khmelnik, have a Ukrainian majority. In Haisin,
Vinnitza, Litin and Bar the number of Ukrainians equals the number of
Jews; in Kamenetz, Balta, Bratzlav, Letichiv, Mohiliv and Proskuriv the
Jews predominate.
The Government of Kherson (71,000 square kilometers, 3,500,000
inhabitants), just as the three last discussed, is part of the compact
Ukrainian national territory, altho the population of this region
appears much more mixed. The Ukrainians (1,640,000) here comprise
barely 54% of the population. The chief cause of this is the fact that
in the large cities of this Government, Jews and Russians predominate,
and then there are a great many Roumanian, German and Bulgarian
colonies. Despite this, however, the Ukrainians constitute an absolute
majority in most of the districts (e.g., the District of Alexandria 88%
of Ukrainians, Yelisavet 73%, Kherson 70%, Ananiiv 63%), a relative
majority in the rest (Odessa 47%, Tiraspol 38%). The Russians comprise
more than 21% of the population, the Jews 12%, the Roumanians over 5%
(District of Tiraspol 27%), the Germans nearly 5%, the Bulgarians and
Poles 1% each. Odessa is a city of many languages. Russians and Jews
predominate; the Ukrainians comprise barely one-eleventh of the
population, besides which there are Germans, Roumanians, Bulgarians,
Poles, Greeks, French, English, Albanians, etc. In Mikolaiv the
Ukrainians are only one-thirteenth of the population, in Kherson
one-fifth, in Yelisavet one-fourth. In the following cities the
Ukrainians possess an absolute majority over the Russians: Alexandria,
Ananiiv, Bobrinetz, Vosnesensk, Olviopol, Ochakiv, Berislav, Dubosari.
The Government of Bessarabia (46,000 square kilometers, 2,440,000
inhabitants) has only its northwest tip and its coastal region within
Ukrainian national territory. The Ukrainians (460,000) comprise barely
20% of the population of this Government, which consists principally of
Roumanians. The territory inhabited by the Ukrainians amounts to 10,000
square kilometers. The Ukrainians comprise an absolute majority only in
the District of Khotin (56%), along with 25% Roumanians and 13% Jews.
In the District of Akerman the Ukrainians make up 24% of the
population, the Bulgarians the same, the Germans and the Roumanians 18%
each, the Turks 4%. The Ukrainians settle on the sea-coast and the
Dniester. In the District of Ismail there are 17% Ukrainians, 47%
Roumanians, 11% Bulgarians, 9% Turks, 3% Germans; in the District of
Soroki 17% Ukrainians, 67% Roumanians, 11% Jews. In other districts of
Bessarabia there are much fewer Ukrainians; in the district of Biltzi
12%, Benderi 9%, Orhiiv 6%, Kishinev only 2%. In the cities Jews,
Russians and Roumanians predominate. The Ukrainians possess an absolute
majority only in Akerman, a relative majority in Ismail and Kilia.
In our survey of the Ukraine on the left Dnieper bank we shall begin
with the border regions, coming gradually to the central parts.
In the Government of Kursk the Ukrainians (670,000) comprise over 22%
of the population and inhabit the following districts: Putivl (55%
Ukrainians), Hraivoron (61%), Novo Oskol (56%), and the southern parts
of Sudga (44%), Rilsk (33%), Korocha (35%), Bilhorod (24%). Besides
that, the Ukrainians are scattered in large and small language islands
over the Districts of Oboian (12%), Stari Oskol (9%), and Lhov (5%).
The area of the compact Ukrainian territory in the Government of Kursk
may be estimated at 12,000 square kilometers. The only neighbors and
co-inhabitants of the Ukrainians here are the Russians, who, even in
many cities of the purely Ukrainian territory, comprise majorities.
However, there are a number of Ukrainian cities in the Kursk country.
Miropilia has 98%, Sudza 65% Ukrainians, Hraivoron and Korocha are half
Ukrainian.
In the next following border region, the Government of Voroniz (65,000
square kilometers, 3,360,000 inhabitants), the Ukrainians inhabit the
Districts of Ostrohosh (94% Ukrainians), Bohucha (83%), Biriuch (70%),
Valuiki (53%), and the southern parts of Pavlovsk (43%), Bobrovsk
(17%), Korotoiak (17%), Novokhopersk (16%). Ukrainian language islands
are found chiefly in the District of Semliansk (4%). The total
percentage of Ukrainians in the Government of Voroniz is 36%, their
number over 1,210,000, the surface they inhabit 29,000 square
kilometers. The only neighbors of the Ukrainians here are the Russians,
who also comprise the majority in all cities. Only in Biriuch,
Bohuchar, Ostrohosh, do the Ukrainians predominate.
In the Government of the Don Cossack army (164,000 square kilometers,
3,500,000 inhabitants) the relation of the Ukrainians to the population
is similar to that in the Governments of Kursk and Voroniz. Just as the
Ukrainian districts there border on the adjacent central Ukrainian
lands of Poltava and Kharkiv, so the Ukrainian parts of the Don country
touch the central Ukrainian lands of Kharkiv and Katerinoslav. The
Ukrainians (980,000) comprise 28% of the population of the Don country
and inhabit 45,000 square kilometers. Most thickly populated by
Ukrainians are the southern districts: Tahanroh (69%), Rostiv (52%),
the western half of the Donetz District (40%). The statistics show far
less Ukrainians in the Districts of Cherkask (23%) and Sal (31%). In
the Districts of Don I (12%), Don II (4%), Ust Medvedinsk (11%), Khoper
(7%), the Ukrainians form language islands in the midst of a Russian
population. In the District of Sal the relative majority is credited to
the Kalmucks (39%), but beyond that only Russians are the neighbors of
the Ukrainians. But all this data is not unobjectionable. It has long
been an established fact that the lower “Don Cossacks” are for the most
part of Ukrainian nationality. At the same time we see, from the
official census of 1897, that none of the Don Cossacks were counted as
members of the Ukrainian nation. In the cities of the Don country the
number of Ukrainians is very small, e.g., in Rostiv hardly greater than
one-fifth. Only the city of Osiv (Azof) is predominantly Ukrainian.
The Kuban country (92,000 square kilometers, 2,630,000 inhabitants) has
a relative Ukrainian majority (over 47% = 1,250,000), along with 44%
Russians and 9% Caucasus races.
In this land the purely Ukrainian country embraces over 56,000 square
kilometers. Three of the districts have an absolute Ukrainian majority:
Yask (81%), Temriuk (79%), and Katerinodar (57% Ukrainians, 27%
Russians, 11% Circassians). In the Caucasian District there are 47% of
Ukrainians and as many Russians, in the District of Maikop 31%
Ukrainians, 58% Russians, 6% Circassians, 2% Kabardines, in the Labinsk
District 28% Ukrainians, 77% Russians, in the District of Batalpashinsk
28% Ukrainians, 39% Russians, 13% Karachaians, 5% Abkhasians, 4%
Kabardines, 3% Nogaians, 2% Circassians. It should be observed,
however, that perhaps nowhere have so many Ukrainians been entered as
Russians in the census as in these very Caucasian lands. For this
reason the entire Kuban country may be considered Ukrainian territory,
except the chains of high mountains.
In the Government of Stavropol (60,000 square kilometers, 1,230,000
inhabitants) the Ukrainians comprise 37% (450,000). They inhabit a
region of nearly 22,000 square kilometers in the west and south of the
Government, where the border of the Ukrainian settlements, which
reaches the Caspian Sea, begins. The District of Medveza has 48%
Ukrainians (in the west), the District of Stavropol 13% (in the extreme
south), the District of Olexandrivsk 40%, Novotvihoriiosk 54% (chiefly
in their southern halves). The neighbors here are Russians and
Nogaians.
In the Terek region (69,000 square kilometers, 1,183,000 inhabitants)
the Ukrainians officially comprise only 5% of the population (50,000),
altho it is generally known that an appreciable part of the Terek
Cossacks belongs to the Ukrainian nation. A large percentage of
Ukrainians (14%) is found only in the District of Piatihorsk; outside
of that the Ukrainians are united in a narrow seam of settlements
extending to the Caspian Sea. 29% of the population in the Terek region
is Russian; the absolute majority is made up by various Caucasian races
(Kabardines, Tatars, Ossetians, Ingushians, Chechenians, Avaro-andians,
Kumikians, Nogaians).
The small Government of the Black Sea (7000 square kilometers, 130,000
inhabitants) has only 16% Ukrainians who live, 10,000 in number, in the
northwestern part of the extended coast region. In the District of
Tuapse there are 27% Ukrainians; in the District of Sochi 8%. Their
neighbors are Russians, who do not form an absolute majority at any
place, then Armenians, Circassians, Greeks, Turks, etc.
The most important border country in the south, however, is, without
doubt, the Government of Tauria (60,000 square kilometers, 1,800,000
inhabitants). The Ukrainians here comprise the relative majority of the
population (42%—790,000), with 28% Russians, 13% Crimean Tatars, over
5% Germans, about 5% Jews, about 3% Bulgarians, about 1% Armenians,
etc. The Ukrainians comprise an absolute majority in the Districts of
Dniprovsk (76%), Berdiansk (64%), and Melitopol (57%), and large
minorities in the Districts of Eupatoria (27%) and Perekop (24%), the
northern parts of which they inhabit. The entire mainland part of the
Government and the northern part of the Crimean peninsula, consequently
belong, without doubt, to the compact Ukrainian national territory,
while the number of Ukrainians in the southern regions of Crimea
appears much smaller (District of Feodosia 13%, Simferopol 10%, Yalta
2%). The chief foreign element in Tauria is composed of Russians
(Dniprovsk 16%, Melitopol 32%, Berdiansk 18%, Perekop 24%, Eupatoria
17%), and Tatars (Yalta 71%, Simferopol 51%, Feodosia 45%, Eupatoria
40%, Perekop 24%). To the extent that the Tatars emigrate to Turkey,
however, the settled area and the number of the Ukrainians of Tauria
constantly increase, so that the time does not seem far off when the
Ukrainian element will have gained the entire Crimean peninsula for its
national territory. Besides, one must entertain strong doubts
concerning the actual number of the Russians mentioned in the
statistics, for the Rittich map of 1878 gives almost no Ukrainians in
Tauria, and calls even the mainland parts of Tauria Russian. And twenty
years later came the just-mentioned figures of the official statistics.
We may then, confidently consider the entire Government of Tauria a
Ukrainian district, with considerable colonization by foreign-speaking
people. The most important of the foreign settlers are without a doubt
the Germans. They are 24% of the population in the District of Perekop,
12% in Eupatoria, 8% in Berdiansk, 5% in Melitopol; the Bulgarians make
up 10% of the population in Berdiansk.
Next to be considered, after these borderlands, are the four central
regions of the Ukraine which lie on the left bank of the Dnieper. In
the Government of Katerinoslav (63,000 square kilometers, 3,060,000
inhabitants) the Ukrainians 2,110,000 in number, comprise 69% of the
total population, with 17% Russians, 5% Jews, 4% Germans, 2% Greeks, 1%
each of Tatars, White Russians and Poles. Detached districts of the
land have very high percentages of Ukrainians, e.g., District of
Novomoskovsk 94%, Verkhnodniprovsk 91%, Olexandrivsk 86%, Pavlohrad
83%. In the large cities the number of the foreign elements is very
great, hence, the District of Katerinoslav has 74% Ukrainians, and when
the city is counted in, only 56% Ukrainians, with 21% Russians, 13%
Jews, 6% Germans, 2% Poles. The smallest percentage of Ukrainians is
found in the southeastern districts of the region, where populous
settlements of foreign elements exist. The District of Bakhmut, for
instance, has 58% Ukrainians with 32% Russians, the District of
Slavianoserbsk 55% Ukrainians besides 42% Russians, the District of
Mariupol 51% Ukrainians besides 20% Greeks. In the City of Katerinoslav
the Ukrainians comprise barely one-seventh of the population, while in
Olexandrivsk, Verkhnodniprovsk, Novomoskovsk and Bakhmut, they
predominate over the Russians, and are equal to them in Slaviansk and
Pavlohrad.
In the Government of Kharkiv (54,000 square kilometers, 3,250,000
inhabitants) the Ukrainians make up 70% of the total population, or
2,275,000. As a result of considerable Russian colonization (28%),
forming several language islands in the midst of Ukrainian territory,
the percentage of Ukrainians in several districts varies appreciably
(e.g., Smiiv 66%, Vovchansk 75%, Starobilsk 84%, Kupiansk 87%). But we
note for the first time, here, the remarkable fact that in all the
district cities the Ukrainians are much more numerous than the
Russians. Only in the capital city, Kharkiv, are they in the minority,
and comprise little more than one-fourth the population.
The Government of Poltava (50,000 square kilometers, 3,580,000
inhabitants) may be considered the heart of the Ukraine. The Ukrainians
here comprise 95% of the population, or 3,410,000, beside 4% Jews and
1% Russians. The percentage in detached districts varies between 88%
(District of Konstantinohrad) and 99% (District of Sinkiv). The
Russians and Jews live principally in the cities, where they are always
second to the Ukrainians, however, except in the city of Kreminchuk,
where the Jews comprise the majority.
In the Government of Chernihiv (25,000 square kilometers, 2,980,000
inhabitants) the Ukrainians comprise 86% of the population (2,450,000),
beside 5% White Russians, 5% Jews, and 4% Russians. With the exception
of the northern districts, Suraz (Ukrainians 19%, White Russians 67%,
Russians 11%), Novosibkiv (Ukrainians 66%, Russians 30%, White Russians
2%), and Starodub (Ukrainians 75%, Russians 22%), all the districts of
the region have from 88% (Horodnia) to 99% (Krolevetz) of Ukrainians.
All the district cities, except Novosibkiv, Starodub, Suraz and Mhlin,
have an absolute Ukrainian majority; the capital, Chernihiv, only a
relative one.
The number of Ukrainians within the compact national territory in
Russia, then, amounts to almost 28½ millions. Excluded in this estimate
are the Ukrainians of the Government of Astrakhan (190,000), Saratov
(220,000), Samara (150,000), Orenburg (50,000), as well as the
Ukrainians of all Asiatic-Russian lands, whose number is not placed too
high at 500,000. We may therefore estimate the number of Ukrainians in
the entire Russian Empire as 29½ millions.
This figure, which was gained thru a critical survey of the statistical
material of the individual administrative units of Russia, is
approached with remarkable closeness by the figure which may be gotten
in another, more general way. In the year of 1897 the number of
Ukrainians in the Russian Empire was 22,400,000; that is, 17.4% of the
total population of 129,000,000. Applying the same percentage to the
numerical estimate of 1910, we get 28,900,000 Ukrainians in a total
Russian population of 166,000,000. Adding the Pinchuks (390,000) who,
in the official statistics were erroneously counted as White Russians,
we receive for the number of Ukrainians of Russia (1910) 29,300,000.
Now, adding up all the Ukrainians of the globe, we receive (for 1910)
an amount of 34½ millions; 32,700,000 of it in the compact Ukrainian
country. This figure is a minimum value, for in calculating it the
intentional errors of the official statistics were taken into the
bargain. Nevertheless, this figure shows us that the Ukrainians occupy
the sixth place, numerically, among the nations of Europe, the five
above them being the Germans, Russians, French, English and Italians.
Among the Slavic races they stand in the second place.
How this great numerical strength of the Ukrainian nation can be
brought into harmony with its political and economic weakness we shall
try to show in the sections following. Now let us turn briefly to the
density of population of the Ukraine.
The 850,000 square kilometers of solid Ukrainian national territory are
inhabited by approximately forty-five million people (1910), of whom,
according to official estimates, 73% are Ukrainians. The general
density of the Ukraine, consequently, amounts to 53 inhabitants to the
square kilometer. The Ukraine is also the transition from the thickly
populated countries of Central Europe to the thinly-peopled northeast
and east of the globe. This transition may easily be followed out
within the Ukraine also. The western border regions are the most
thickly settled. Galicia has a density of 102, the Government of Lublin
90, the Government of Kiev 90, Podolia 89, Bukowina 77, Poltava 72. We
see a wide zone of dense population, then, extending along the 50th
parallel of latitude, from the Carpathians to the Dnieper. To the north
of it, the first more thinly peopled zone extends: Sidletz 69, Grodno
51, Minsk 39, Volhynia 54, Chernihiv 57, Kursk 65, Voroniz 51. On the
south of the thickly peopled zone lies the second more sparsely settled
zone: Bessarabia 53, Kherson 49, Tauria 31, Katerinoslav 48. Most
thinly settled, however, are the eastern borderlands of the Ukraine:
Kuban 28, Don and Stavropol each 21, Chornomoria and the Terek region
each 17.
Within these extensive regions, too, the density of population varies
greatly. Sometimes districts very close together have a widely
different density. These differences, however, are largely only seeming
differences and are caused by the city populations. Thus, for example,
the marked density of the Districts of Stanislaviv (184), Ternopil
(161), Peremishl (160), Kolomia (156), is caused by the presence of the
populous cities of the same names. Therefore the Pokutian District of
Sniatin (147) seems very thickly settled, because of the smallness of
the district cities. The average density of Ukrainian East Galicia is
only 98; in the mountainous Districts of Dolina and Kossiv it only
attains 45. The same conditions exist in Russian Ukraine. The District
of Kharkiv has a density of 164 inhabitants to the square verst; the
District of Kiev 152. Considering only the rural population, however,
these figures sink to 81 and 75 respectively. Therefore, the District
of Kaniv with its 117 inhabitants to the square verst, (113, or not
reckoning in the inhabitants of the cities), appears to be the
best-populated district of the Russian Ukraine. Many districts besides,
in Podolia, Kiev, Poltava, Kharkiv and South Volhynia (without counting
the cities), have a density of 75 and 100, while other districts of the
same region vary between 50 and 75. In the forest swamp regions of
Northern Ukraine the density figure falls a great deal. The District of
Ovruch, in Northern Volhynia, attains a density of only 29; the
Polissian Districts of Pinsk and Mosir 26 and 17 respectively. The
steppe country of Southern Ukraine is likewise very thinly settled in
places. The density of population of most of the districts of Southern
Ukraine varies between 30 and 50, but the Districts of Eupatoria and
Perekop, for example, have only 11 inhabitants per square verst, the
second Don District 12, the Sal only 6, the District of Batalpashinsk
in the sub-Caucasian country only 17.
From these figures we see that the Ukraine, as regards its density, is
a genuine Eastern European land. But in comparing its density of
population with that of the Russian Empire, or even of Russia in
Europe, we perceive that the Ukraine is the most thickly settled part
of the giant Russian Empire, after Poland. Even the most thinly settled
southeastern border regions have a greater population to the square
kilometer than Russia’s average (25 per square kilometer). Almost
one-fourth of the enormous human reservoirs of Russia are found on
Ukrainian territory. And yet the Ukraine, despite its great size, is
only one-twenty-ninth of the giant Russian Empire.
From these figures we see, furthermore, that trade, industry and
commerce have, to this day, been unable to influence the density of
population of the Ukraine. The Ukraine has remained in the original
stage of development, in which only the age of settlement and the
fertility of the soil form the basis for increase in the density of
population. The history of the Ukraine has, to this day, influenced the
country’s density of population. The former central districts of the
old Ukrainian state of Kiev and Halich are still the most thickly
settled; the southern and eastern border regions, which have suffered
most from the 500 years of the Tartar scourge, the most thinly settled.
This is the reason that Galicia, one of the poorest regions of the
Ukraine in natural resources, where industry and trade are so little
developed, is at the same time the most thickly populated region.
Similarly primitive, and betraying a low grade of culture, is the
relation between the city and country population of the Ukraine. Only a
very insignificant fraction of the population inhabits the cities and
towns of the Ukraine. In Galicia (1910) only 14½% of the population
lives in places whose population is more than 5,000; only 9½% in cities
of over 10,000. Similar conditions prevail in Russian Ukraine. Very
rarely does the city population exceed 10% of the total number of
people, usually keeping below this percentage, which is typical for all
of Russia. Podolia has only 7% city population, Volhynia 8%, Chernihiv
9%, Poltava 10%, Kuban 11%, Katerinoslav 12%, Kiev 13%, and Kharkiv
14%. Only the regions colonized within the last century in Southern
Ukraine, with their large cities, have a large percentage of city
population (Tauria 20%, Kherson 29%).
More glaringly still does the low grade of culture of the Ukraine stand
out when we give the percentage of the Ukrainian population in the
cities of the Ukraine. Only in Galicia do 14% of the Ukrainian people
of the country live in the cities. In the Government of Kharkiv only
10% of the Ukrainians of the district belong to the city population, in
Kherson only 9%, in Kuban 8%, in Chernihiv 7%, Poltava 6%, Tauria 5%,
Kiev and Katerinoslav each 4%, in Podolia 3%, and in Volhynia actually
only 2%. It is true that, especially in the cities, the official
estimates were “made” very unfavorably to the Ukrainian element, but,
nevertheless, they show clearly enough that the Ukrainian people,
clinging to their agrarian state, have left the cities, those centers
of cultural and economic life, in the hands of foreign elements. Only
within very recent years have these conditions begun to improve. The
foreign-speaking cities are gradually coming to be Ukraine-ized, and
the very rapidly growing percentage of Ukrainians in Galicia and the
Russian Ukraine justify us in hoping that the Ukrainian element, in its
continuous stream from the surrounding country, will, in time, absorb
the foreign-speaking elements which now command the cities of the
Ukraine.
THE UKRAINIAN NATION AS AN ANTHROPOGEOGRAPHIC UNIT
GENERAL SURVEY
In the first chapter of our little book we mentioned the reasons which
compel us to regard the Ukraine as a physico-geographic whole. We
emphasized the fact that the geographic units of the great uniform
country of Eastern Europe could not, for obvious natural reasons,
appear so well-defined and individualized as the different sections of
Western and Central Europe. The same is true of the anthropogeographic
conditions of Eastern Europe as well.
The anthropogeography of Eastern Europe is so unfamiliar a part of
geographic science that even such pioneer geographers as Ratzel,
Kirchhoff and Hettner entirely misunderstood and misrepresented the
anthropogeographic conditions of Russia, and especially the racial
conditions of this giant empire.
There are two reasons for the universal ignorance of the
anthropogeographic conditions of Russia which exists even in the ranks
of renowned scholars. The first cause lies in the sources from which
scholars, and subsequently publicists, draw their knowledge of the
subject. Now the official Russian sources on the basis of which an
anthropogeography of Eastern Europe would have to be written are not
immune from serious criticism. The ranks of Russian scholars have
always worked in the interests of the Russian political idea, and
latterly, caught by the mighty wave of Pan-Slavic-Russian nationalism,
they are doing their best to represent as actual fact whatever Russian
governmental politics would desire to be fact. Russian geography,
ethnography, statistics, history, have always worked in accordance with
approved “unifying” designs. Hence, European learning involuntarily
sees all that exists and is coming into existence in Russia thru the
spectacles put on it by official Russia. The same official Russia comes
to meet the European traveler upon every step of his journey, and
guides him in such a way that he may be sure not to see below the
general official Russian varnish what is actual and true. Besides,
there is the Russian censorship, which even now, after the introduction
of the constitution, takes very good care to veil everything from the
view of the outside world, which, in the interest of the Russian
political idea, should remain hidden.
The second cause of ignorance as to the anthropogeography of Russia
lies in the subject itself. The Eastern European family of races
inhabiting Russia is so different from that of Western and Central
Europe in its evolution and composition, that the anthropogeographical
laws and methods which (as far as civilized peoples are concerned) are
based upon Western European conditions, do not apply in the least in
Eastern Europe. A difficulty confronts anthropogeography here,
analogous to the difficulty which confronted geologic science when,
fitted out with European stratigraphy, it sought to explore South
Africa or India. The geologists, as representatives of a natural
science, were readily able to find the way out, but the
anthropogeographers, whose field is more that of a psychic science,
have lost themselves in false assumptions and in commonplaces.
We must not wonder, therefore, if every critical reader of the
preceding chapter is assailed by a host of questions: Why in the world
are the Ukrainians, this second largest Slavic nation of the whole
world, so utterly unknown? Perhaps Ukraine is only an ethnographic
conception, and the Ukrainians only a branch of the Russian race, just
as the Bavarians or Saxons are branches of the German people? Or are
the terms “Ukraine,” “Ukrainian”, only outgrowths of the idle
imagination of a few belated enthusiasts, who rave about a glorious
past and a brilliant future, and represent what they are striving after
as a fait accompli, and so forth.
Such questions, based upon deep ignorance of the anthropogeography and
history of Eastern Europe, come up in this very 20th Century, even in
the learned circles of scholars, publicists and politicians. To answer
these and similar questions correctly, this little book has been
written.
The Ukrainians are quite as independent a Slavic nation as the Czechs,
Poles, White Russians, Russians, Serbs or Bulgarians. The historic
roots of the Ukrainian nation extend just as far back into the early
middle ages as the roots of the German, French or English nations. The
old Ukrainian Empire of Kiev is of the same age as the Holy Roman
Empire of the German Nation. But, while the evolution of the great
European nations was steady and uninterrupted, the Ukrainian Nation was
hindered in its development by reason of its geographical position on
the threshold of Asia. The Mongolian attack in the 13th Century
shattered the state of Kiev and introduced the 500 years’ Tartar
scourge. Weakened by the continual expeditions and slave-hunts of the
Crimean Tatars, the Ukraine fell under the rule of Lithuania and
Poland, who not only could not relieve the land of the Tatar menace but
even added national, social and religious pressure. The instinct of
self-preservation led the Ukrainian nation, in that troubled time, to
create the splendid military organization of the Ukrainian Cossacks,
and about the middle of the 17th Century, in a victorious war, to shake
off the Polish yoke. Thus, the second Ukrainian state, the Cossack
Republic, came into existence. By the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654) it
was ceded as a vassal state to Russia, which was related to it in
religious faith. But Russia broke the treaties of suzerainty, shared
the desolated Ukrainian land with Poland, and, after a century and a
half, changed the autonomy of the Ukraine into abject serfdom. After
Russia, in the partitions of Poland, had united almost the entire
Ukrainian territory under its rule (with the exception of Eastern
Galicia, Northwestern Bukowina, and Northeastern Hungary), it set all
forces to work to destroy the national independence of the Ukrainians
as well. In the 17th and 18th Centuries the Ukrainian Nation lost its
upper classes—the aristocracy, the lesser nobility, the wealthy
burghers—first thru Polonization, then thru Russification. It had left
only its minor clergy, its lower middle class, and a completely
downtrodden peasantry. Thus, at the end of the 18th Century, it seemed
as if the last hour of the Ukrainian people had struck.
It is therefore easy to explain that in the 19th Century, when the
national question became one of the most important problems of
humanity, the two neighbor nations of the Ukraine, the Poles and the
Russians, believed they had solved the “Ukrainian question.”
The views of Poles and Russians coincide absolutely in emphasizing one
statement: “There is no such country as the Ukraine; no such people as
the Ukrainians; there are only Poland and Russia; a Polish nation and a
Russian nation.”
This complete agreement of both nations, whose giant states fought for
two centuries for domination in Eastern Europe, may be easily
understood. The Ukraine has always been the richest region of Eastern
Europe in natural resources, the Ukrainians the second largest nation,
the Ukrainian question the most important problem in every state
commanding Eastern Europe. Now the Ukrainian nation was completely
exhausted by half a thousand years of Tatar oppression and an equally
long period of serfdom. So that it seemed an easy matter to the mighty
neighbor nations to even deny the existence of the Ukrainian nation, to
hold up its development, and gradually to absorb it.
The Poles, since their country lost its independence, have made heroic
attempts to win back their freedom by armed uprisings. Despite all
defeats, they have never given up their hopes of re-establishing the
Polish Kingdom. But these hopes were never confined to the ethnographic
territory of the Polish nation. The future Polish Kingdom was to have
the old boundaries of the historic Poland—the Baltic and the Black Sea.
Hence, the geographical conception of Poland, even to the scientific
Polish geographers, still includes, besides the entire Polish
ethnographic territory, Lithuania, White Russia and all of the Ukraine,
as far as the Dnieper River and the Black Sea.
How could this historico-geographical conception of Poland be made to
harmonize with the ethnographic conception of the Ukraine? The solution
of this question seemed very easy to the Polish scholars and
politicians. They simply proved that the Ukrainians constituted a part
of the Polish nation, that their language was a provincial dialect of
the Polish language, and that only the religious faith, a number of
manners and customs, songs, etc., were slightly different from those of
the Poles; these slight differences the common country folk might
retain, likewise the educated Ukrainian might be permitted to keep his
language and customs in private life, but in his political sentiments,
in his culture, in his literary language, he must be and remain a Pole.
This Polish solution of the Ukrainian question is derived from the
Polish “state-idea” of a Polish Empire extending from the Baltic to the
Black Sea. Despite the fact that the history of the national relations
of Eastern Europe clearly proved this solution false in the second half
of the 19th Century, the opinion prevails in all important Polish
circles, that the Ukrainian people merely constitutes an ethnographic
mass which shall make a good foundation for the expansion of Polish
culture and power.
This Polish theory in the Ukrainian question has not been detrimental
to the development of the Ukrainian nation. That the Ukrainians are not
a Polish people was quite clear to every Ukrainian at the very
beginning of the relations of the two nations (11th Century). Among the
masses the feeling of independence was always lively and strong, and
only those of the educated Ukrainians credited Polonophile theories,
who were the few members of Polish secret societies, plots, uprisings
(1831, 1863), etc. Polonization, in former centuries, demanded many
victims from among the educated Ukrainians; in the past half a century
it has only very slight successes to show, altho the Ukrainians of
Galicia still continue to be under the political and cultural influence
of the Poles.
Much more dangerous for the Ukrainians was the other solution of the
Ukrainian question. It, too, is derived from a state-idea, namely, from
the idea of a Russian state which should unite all Slavdom, or at
least, all of the one-time Empire of Vladimir the Great, under its
scepter. In order to attain this end the “Theory of the Unity of the
Russian Nation” was formed, as far back as the times of Peter the
Great, who transformed the old Muscovite Czar state into an imperial
Russian government, and later this doctrine was further developed.
According to this theory the Russian nation consists of three tribes:
the Great Russians, the Little Russians, and the White Russians, whose
tongues differ from one another only dialectically. A common literary
language, Russian, connects all the tribes; race, customs, history,
political aspirations are the same for all three. Ukraine, Ukrainian,
are only local names, which, however, bear a strong taint of
separatism, and must, therefore, appear dangerous and inadmissible.
In the spirit of this theory of the unity of the Russian nation, the
politics of the Russian state have, for more than two centuries, aimed
incessantly to hinder the development of the Ukrainian nation, by means
of the most ruthless oppression, and to degrade it to an ethnographic
mass which, thru its increasing denationalization, should strengthen
the Russian state and support its political expansion.
In a later section we shall be able to follow the individual phases of
Russian state politics in regard to the Ukraine. We shall turn, now, to
consider the great injury which the Russian unity theory has done to
the progress of the Ukrainians as a nation.
The internal injury of the Russian unity theory to the Ukrainian
peasantry is comparatively slight. The Ukrainian peasant in Russia is
much more highly conscious of his national individuality as opposed to
the Russian than as opposed to the Pole. The ethnologic culture of the
Ukrainian peasantry is so much higher than that of the Russian, that
the Ukrainian looks down with contempt upon the “rough Katzap.” This,
as it were, ethnologic feeling of independence has protected the
Ukrainian peasantry from Russification, not only within its national
territory, but even in its distant Siberian or Turkestan colonies. Only
a small part of the so-called village aristocracy, e.g., pensioned
soldiers, village mayors, notaries, former city workmen who have learnt
some Russian, try to murder the Russian language and to pass for
Russians. The same is true of a part of the city proletariat. But the
great mass is opposed to the Russian language and customs, and
preserves its national individuality unchanged.
Far more serious injuries has the Russian unity theory caused among the
upper classes of the Ukrainian nation. For the sake of office, honors
and gifts of land, the Ukrainian nobility has, in the last two
centuries, permitted itself to be Russified for the most part; likewise
a host of government officials, military men, clergymen, etc. In the
second half of the 19th Century the Russification of the educated
Ukrainian circles has slackened its pace, altho, even now, there are in
Russia a great many of the educated Ukrainians by birth who are
completely Russified and the worst enemies of their own nation.
The Russian unity theory, in the sixties of the 19th Century, found its
way into Austria-Hungary too, and founded the so-called “Russophile
Party.” Its educated retainers, with few exceptions, do not even
command the Russian language. Nevertheless, they call themselves
Russians, propagate “the unity of the Russian People from the
Carpathians to the Kamchatka,” and call their Ukrainian mother-tongue
“a dialect of the Carpathian herdsmen and swineherds.” They speak and
write a remarkable jargon consisting of Ukrainian, Russian and
Church-Slavic words (the so-called Yazichiye); only in very recent
years have they begun to use a bad Russian. Supported by considerable
subsidies of money from Russia, the educated Russophiles are developing
an active agitation among the peasants of Eastern Galicia, the Bukowina
and Northeastern Hungary. The Russophile peasants of these countries,
whose number is insignificant, to be sure, constitute a remarkable type
of a seduced mass. They also try to speak the Yazichiye, use the
old-fashioned “thousand-year-old” orthography, which is entirely
analogous to the Russian and, at least, partly hides the differences
between the Ukrainian and Russian languages, live in the illusion that
the Czar speaks the same language that they speak, use the Russian
national colors, and hate everything Ukrainian with the passion of the
renegade.
These internal injuries of the Russian unity theory and the Russophile
tide it has created are becoming slighter year by year. Ukrainian
national consciousness is continually growing in the masses of the
Ukrainian nation, and the Russophile wave would long since have
disappeared if it were not for the Russian subsidies, and if certain
Polish circles, frightened by the rapid advance of the Ukrainian
national idea, were not working with all their might to prevent the
fall of Russophilism.
Much more important are the external injuries done to the Ukrainian
national idea by the Russian unity theory. They may be expressed in a
single sentence: As a result of the absolutism of the Russian unity
theory in the history, geography and statistics of Eastern Europe, the
civilized world does not know that there exists in Europe a large
country which is called “Ukraina,” and that in this country there lives
a nation with a separate individuality, a nation of over thirty million
souls, which bears the name “Ukrainians.”
It is true that, from time to time, since the beginning of the present
century, magazine articles and pamphlets in various leading languages
have appeared, which aim to inform the world about the Ukraine and the
Ukrainian people. But these journalistic efforts have only an ephemeral
value. Politicians only occasionally interest themselves in the
Ukrainian question when it is brought to their notice. And scholars,
however well-disposed, can not give such publications preference over
the official Russian sources.
The young Ukrainian learning has thus far been unable to spread true
information on the Ukrainian nation, and to establish the Ukrainian
nation in the scientific world as an independent unit among the Slavic
nations. Only in the historical field the independent position of the
Ukrainians among the nations of Eastern Europe has been demonstrated,
thanks to the compositions of a Kostomariv, Antonovich, Drahomaniv,
Hrushevsky. In the fields of philology, anthropology, ethnology,
ethnography and folk-lore, there are many treatises relating to these
sciences, but there is no systematic exposition of the Ukrainian nation
as a uniform whole in relation to these branches of science. In the
anthropogeographic field the present lines constitute the first effort.
In addition, all these treatises have appeared only in Ukrainian or
Russian, and, consequently, remain inaccessible to the overwhelming
majority of the European world of scholarship.
For these reasons science must depend upon the official statements. The
official Russian geography considers the Ukrainians only as one of the
three tribes of the unified Russian people. The official Russian
statistics report this to the world. Hence, German, French and English
geographic science, too, usually accounts for the Ukrainians as
Russians. The names Kleinrussen, Petits Russes, Little Russians, do not
mean an independent nation, but a tribe of the Russian nation. Such
erroneous views may be found in all the general encyclopedias and
lexicons, in all handbooks of geography and statistics. The
Austro-Hungarian Ukrainians, who are mentioned in the official
statistics as Ruthenians, are also to a great extent taken for a part
of the Russian people which differs from the mass of Russians only in
its Catholic faith, or more remarkably still, for an entirely
independent little nation called Ruthenia, and differing both from the
Little Russians and the Russians.
The results of such ignorance of the Ukrainian Nation in the scientific
world are disastrous for the Ukrainians. Every appearance of the
Ukrainians in the political and cultural arena remains enigmatic to the
whole world. Enigmatic remains the struggle of the Ukrainians against
Russia and particularly against its Russification policy. In case after
case it is explained by far-fetched political, social and economic
causes, but never by national-cultural reasons. For almost no one in
Europe knows that in the Ukraine a great independent nation is
struggling for its national life, and not a political or social party
for its significance in the state. The struggle of the Austrian
Ukrainians against the predominance of the Poles in Galicia seems
hardly more reasonable to the foreigner than the striving of the
Russian Ukrainians. Most incomprehensible here appears the struggle of
the Ukrainians against the Russophile movements. For a long time it was
regarded as insincere, or even as non-existing, and this circumstance
has brought the Ukrainians innumerable political injuries.
From these briefly stated observations we see what obstacles are
impeding the Ukrainians in their efforts to bring their Ukrainian
nation to a point where it will be respected as an element of equal
worth with the other nations of Europe. The two neighboring nations,
the Polish and the Russian, politically and culturally stronger, are
trying to divide the Ukrainians between themselves, and are refusing
them the right to exist as an independent nation. Against these
appetites for conquest the comparatively small army of educated
Ukrainians is fighting with might and main, supported semi-consciously
by the mass of the Ukrainian People. The Ukrainian peasantry has for
centuries defied all attacks upon its ethnographic-national
independence. It refuses, even in its most distant Eastern Siberian
colonies, to be assimilated by the Russians. This characteristic has
made the Ukrainians the subject of a proverb with their Russian
neighbors: “Khakhol vsyegda khakhol”—the Ukrainian remains a Ukrainian
everywhere.
In the following sections we shall discuss briefly all the foundations
of the independence of the Ukrainians as a nation. The chief
foundations of an independent nation are, proceeding from the less
important to the most important: Independent anthropological
characteristics, a distinct, independent language, uniform
historico-political traditions and aspirations for the future, an
independent culture, and, especially, a compact geographical territory.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UKRAINIANS
Anthropology is a comparatively recent science. Barely a century has
elapsed since the beginning of its serious work. The material thus far
collected by anthropological science, while it might seem immense to
some, is, nevertheless, still small, and what is even more important,
irregular. Concerning some races and peoples the science has many
thousands of measurements at its command, while other races and peoples
are known from very few measurements. For this reason the science of
anthropology is still a long way removed from an exact knowledge and
perfect description of different races and peoples. Even in Europe,
where anthropological investigations have been based on a study of the
greatest number of human individuals, the distribution of various
anthropological racial characteristics in different peoples and tribes
of the continent were, until recently, very hard to interpret and to
understand. It is the pioneer work of investigation of Deniker, Hamy
and others, that has made it possible to divide the population of
Europe into so-called anthropological races.
Pure-blooded peoples, all of whose individuals possess the same
anthropological characteristics, exist nowhere. Hardly in the most
inaccessible corners of the globe, are small primitive peoples found
who approach the ideal of pure-bloodedness. The great civilized peoples
of the earth are all of them more or less heterogeneous peoples, and
show no uniform anthropological type. This is true especially of the
Western and Central European cultured peoples: French, English,
Spanish, Italians, even Germans. Continued commixtures, which can
certainly be proved historically, have entirely eradicated the original
anthropological characteristics of these civilized nations. No wonder,
then, that anthropogeography, in view of these most apparent examples,
has almost given up designating anthropological characteristics as the
characteristics of nations.
But, in considering an Eastern European nation, such misgivings of
anthropogeographical science cannot be justified. Just as the
physico-geographic conditions of Western and Central Europe are
measured by other standards than those of Eastern Europe, so the
anthropogeographical problems of this region, too, must be approached
differently. Just as the physico-geographical variety of Western and
Central Europe gives way to Eastern European uniformity in Ukrainian
territory, so the anthropological variety gives place to greater unity.
Vast areas of the Ukraine, even without any great natural hindrance,
were always unfavorable to separation into classes, and did not
encourage the development of physical differences. And foreign
admixtures are almost out of the question. For the foreign peoples
which, since the earliest beginnings of history, traversed or even
dominated the region of the Ukraine, were first of all too small in
number to make any noticeable impression on the anthropological type of
the Ukrainians. And, besides that, the foreign races—almost all nomad
peoples—came into the land as fierce enemies, with whom there existed
no voluntary peaceful relations. For these reasons the Ukrainian nation
reveals a much greater uniformity in its anthropological aspect than
the nations of Western and Central Europe, which, in the course of
history, were visited by innumerable peoples of the most varied
anthropological types, who stayed there and were assimilated. If,
therefore, in these peoples, anthropological characteristics can have
no particular significance, the matter is quite different with the
Ukrainians and many other Eastern European nations. Here,
anthropological peculiarities still have considerable weight as
distinguishing characteristics of nations.
Investigations concerning the anthropology of the Ukrainians began more
than half a century ago. But they were made, without any system, in
different regions of the great national territory selected, quite
without a plan, and for a long time gave no acceptable results. Not
until the 20th Century was enough material gathered to at least make it
possible to determine the main anthropological type of the Ukrainians.
The most important investigators in this field are: Hopernitsky,
Protzenko, Welker, Popov, Hilchenko, Krasnov, Petrov, Erckert, Emme,
Talko Hrincewich, Diebold, Biloyid, Anuchin, Ivanovsky, Vovk and
Rakovsky.
To be sure, according to these investigations, the Ukrainians, too, are
anthropologically a mixed race, just as the other nations of Europe.
But the formation of this mixed race took place in a very distant
prehistoric past and later admixtures have been too insignificant to
visibly change the original racial type of the Ukrainians. From the
Vislok to the Kuban, from the Pripet to the Black Sea, the Ukrainian
people constitute a uniform anthropological type. This type has
preserved itself in its purest state in one wide zone which embraces
the Ukrainian Carpathian Mountain lands, Pokutye, Podolia, Dnieper
Plateau and Dnieper Plain, the Donetz Plateau and the Kuban
sub-Caucasus country. Tall stature, with long legs and broad shoulders,
strongly pigmented complexion, dark, rich, curly hair, rounded head and
long face with a high and broad brow, dark eyes, straight nose,
strongly developed elongated lower part of the face, medium mouth and
small ears; that is the type. Outside the described main zone of
distribution of the Ukrainian racial type, these characteristics become
less and less sharply defined, altho at all parts of the ethnographic
boundary the anthropological differences of the Ukrainians from their
neighbors, especially from the Poles, White Russians and Russians, are
very clearly marked.
The mean stature of the Ukrainians is 1670 mm. Consequently the
Ukrainians are among the tallest peoples of Europe, and in this respect
they surpass their neighboring nations by a great deal. The average
height of the White Russians is only 1651 mm., the Poles 1654 mm., the
Russian 1657 mm., of 100 individuals among the Ukrainians, 53 are
taller than the average, 47 shorter; among the Poles and Russians 51%
taller and 49% shorter. Right here we see a great difference between
the Ukrainians and their neighbors, as well as a great similarity of
these three peoples.
The tall stature of the pure Ukrainian racial type is pretty regular in
the above-mentioned main zone. The tallest stature is that of the Kuban
Ukrainians of the sub-Caucasus country (1701 mm.). It is due to the
fact that the Ukrainians of that region are, to a great extent,
descendants of the Zaporog Cossacks, who for centuries represented the
flower of the physical power of the Ukrainian people. Barely below that
is the stature of the Hutzuls (1693 mm.), of the Podolians, Volhynians
and Dnieper dwellers. In Central Galicia, Podlakhia, Polissye, in the
Don country, that is in direct proximity to the Poles, White Russians
and Russians, the stature of the Ukrainians decreases appreciably. But,
even in these border countries, the Ukrainian people form a strong
contrast, with their higher stature, to their neighbors, especially to
the Russians, with their heavy mixture of the small grown
Finnish-Mongolian elements. Anuchin emphasizes expressly that in those
parts in any Russian “Government” into which the smallest tip of
Ukrainian territory extends, the average height of the recruits is
noticeably increased. Because of their fine stature many Ukrainians in
Russia are stationed in the regiments of the guard.
In the Ukrainians, the tall slender form is coupled with breadth of
shoulders and great chest-measurement. From the material gathered by
Ivanosky, it is evident that in this respect the Ukrainians surpass all
their neighbors. The average chest-measurement of the Ukrainians is
55.04% of the length of the body, of the Poles 54.11, of the White
Russians 53.84, of the Russians only 52.18.
In respect of length of arms and legs, the Ukrainians again occupy an
independent position among the nations of Eastern Europe. In the White
Russians, the length of the arms is 45.1% of the length of the body, in
the Poles and Ukrainians 45.7, in the Russians 46.0. The length of the
legs is greatest in the Ukrainians (53.6%), much less in the Poles
(52.1) and White Russians (51.7), and least in the Russians (50.5),
which again indicates considerable mixture of Finnish-Mongolian blood.
(The length of leg of the Mordvines is only 49%, that of the Altaic
Tartars 48.6).
The most important anthropological characteristic was for a long time
thought to be the shape of the skull. The Ukrainians belong (as do all
Slavs, for that matter) to the class of Brachicephalites (short heads).
The average skull index in the Ukrainians amounts to 83.2. Among the
neighboring peoples, the Poles (82.1) are least short-headed, then
follow the Russians, almost the same as the Poles (namely 82.3), and
then further away the Ukrainians (83.2). The greatest
Brachicephalousness appears in the White Russians (85.1). The height of
the skull is greatest in the Ukrainians (70.3), smaller in the Russians
(70.1), smallest in the White Russians (66.1).
The skull index of the Ukrainians shows a similar territorial
distribution as the stature. The greatest brachicephalousness is found
in the Hutzuls; it decreases continually as we go northeast and east,
so that in the Don and Kuban region the skull index is smallest.
Besides, the shortness of head of the Ukrainians decreases regularly on
the Polish and Russian borders, as a result of centuries of proximity.
In the Russians the shortness of head is much less marked than in the
Ukrainians, because of the Finnish strain, in the Poles because of the
commixture with Finns and a primeval European long-headed and
light-haired race.
Just as in the shape of the skull, so also in the form of the nose, the
Ukrainians reveal distinct differences from their neighbors. In the
Ukrainians the nose is usually straight and thin. The nasal index is
67.7, and consequently somewhat greater than in the Poles (66.2). Then
follow the Russians (68.5) and the White Russians (69.2).
The width of the face in the Ukrainians is on the average 180, that of
the Poles 181, of the Russians 182, of the White Russians 186; the
facial index in the Ukrainians 78.1, in the White Russians 76.2, in the
Poles 76.3, in the Russians 76.7. Here, too, we note the great
difference of the Ukrainians from their neighbors and the similarity of
these to one another.
The color of hair and eyes is by far not so sure an anthropological
characteristic as the above-mentioned, yet constitutes an important
complement. In this respect, too, the position of the Ukrainians among
their neighbor nations is just as independent as in regard to the above
discussed characteristics. Among the Ukrainians dark shades
predominate, so that out of 100 individuals only 29.5% have light hair
and eyes, 35% medium color, and 35% dark. In the Russians the
percentages run 37% light, 41% medium, 22% dark; in the Poles 35%
light, 46% medium and only 19% dark. Thus the light type is much more
common in the neighboring races than in the Ukrainians.
In the distribution of color of eyes and hair in the Ukrainians the
same territorial law holds as in the distribution of stature and shape
of skull. In the main zone of the Ukrainian racial type, but especially
in the southwest, the color of hair and eyes is most characteristically
represented. Near the Polish, White Russian and Russian borders, the
Ukrainian type loses much of its peculiarity.
This short anthropological sketch of the Ukrainians, despite its scanty
and general character, enables us to perceive very clearly that the
Ukrainians show extremely little anthropological similarity to the
Poles, White Russians and Russians. On the other hand, all of these
neighboring races of the Ukrainians are very similar, and closely
related to each other. The Pole, the White Russian and the Russian,
stand very close to one another, while the Ukrainian is very different
from all his neighbors and, from an anthropological point of view,
holds an entirely independent position.
The vanity of the impression that the Ukrainians are Polonized Russians
or Russified Poles, therefore, becomes apparent at once. The “unity
theories,” Polish and Russian, which are based on perverted historical
and philological phrases, are here opposed by a natural science, with
its exact results of investigations.
But anthropology discredits not only these theories which are still
dominating European science. Several Polish historians have recently
evolved a new theory of the origin of the Ukrainians and spread it thru
Europe. According to this theory the Ukrainians are a mixture of Slavs
and the Mongolian-Turkish nomad tribes which traversed and commanded
the Ukrainian steppes for centuries; they are a semi-nomadic steppe
people, incapable of culture, whose development might bring with it the
greatest dangers for European civilization.
The science of anthropology, however, robs this theory of its very
foundation. The Mongolian-Turkish nomad tribes were almost all
distinguished by low stature, short legs, long arms and round heads.
The same characteristics should therefore appear very distinctly in the
Ukrainian racial type. But the Ukrainians have a higher stature than
any of the neighboring peoples, the longest legs, and arms of medium
length. And the brachicephalousness of the Ukrainians is least just in
the east, where mixing with the Mongolian tribes could proceed most
easily.
The anthropological type of the Ukrainians, then, reveals complete
individuality as opposed to the Polish, White Russian and Russian type,
and betrays no noticeable trace of a Mongolian admixture. The
difference of the Ukrainian type from the types of other Eastern Slavs
caught the attention of the great geographer, Reclus, in the eighties
of the past century. At that time he noticed the closer relationship of
the Ukrainians to the Southern Slavs. Toward the end of the 19th
Century, Hamy divided all the Slavs into two large groups, a tall
brachicephalous group with dark hair, and a short, less brachicephalous
group with light hair. In the first group he included the Serbians,
Croatians, Slovenes, Czechs and Ukrainians; in the second the
Polabians, Poles, White Russians and Russians. A similar division was
accepted also by Deniker. According to his view the Ukrainians belong
to the so-called Adriatic (Dinaric) Race, while the Poles and the
Russians belong to the two closely related races, the Vistula Race and
the Oriental Race, respectively. The Adriatic Race has recently come to
be considered by many the specifically Slavic Race. However, it has
remained comparatively pure only in the case of the Southern Slavs and
the Ukrainians, while the Northern Slavic races reveal strong foreign
admixtures.
Anthropology shows us, in the Ukrainians, a finely grown, physically
sturdy race of men. Another characteristic of the Ukrainian People is
its great fecundity. Wherever the Ukrainian People has not yet
degenerated thru social pressure and the spread of pauperism, it shows
remarkably high birth figures, which, despite the high infant mortality
resulting from the low grade of culture, occasion a very rapid increase
in population. The birth rate and rate of increase (1900–1904) for the
central districts of the Ukraine in European Russia are on the average
yearly: Volhynia 4.5% and 2%, Podolia 4.3% and 1.8%, Kiev 4% and 1.4%,
Kherson 4.5% and 2%, Tauria 4.2% and 1.9%, Katerinoslav 5.6% and 2.8%,
Chernihiv 4.6% and 2%, Poltava 4.3% and 1.9%, Kharkiv 4.9% and 2%.
Galicia, in the early years of the century, has had a yearly increase
in population of 1.6 to 1.8%. These figures, which are much higher than
the corresponding figures in Polish or Russian national territory,
constitute one of the less agreeable facts which enable us to look with
confidence toward the future of the Ukrainian nation. For the greater
increase of the Ukrainians is not due to a higher state of culture of
the neighbor nations. The Polish and Russian peasantry is not only not
superior to the Ukrainian in respect to culture, but, on the contrary,
inferior. The greater increase of the Ukrainians is connected only with
their superior racial qualities.
THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE
Language is not an absolutely necessary distinguishing characteristic
of a nation, as is shown by the examples of the Swiss, the North
Americans, and the Spanish and Portuguese daughter-nations in America.
If the Ukrainians, determining to be considered an independent nation,
had the remaining characteristics of an independent nation, they would
certainly be one even if their language were identical with the
Russian, White Russian or Polish.
But, in this regard, the Ukrainians are in the favorable position of
really calling an independent language their own. To be sure, the
opinion has been to a great extent spread thruout Europe that the
Ukrainian language is a rural dialect of the Polish language, and
official Russia is still encouraging the view that there is only a
“Little Russian dialect” of the Russian language; European science and
publicism opened the doors to both the above-mentioned unity theories,
and the Russian unity theory has become the solely dominating one even
in German science.
Slavic philology passes a different judgment. With the exception of a
few Pan-Russian philologists (Florinsky, etc.), who, as a matter of
fact, are not capable philologists at all, the entire philological
profession is decided on the point that the Ukrainian language is
related to the Russian and the Polish only to the extent that the
Serbian and Bulgarian are, for instance, or the Polish and Czechic. The
investigations of Miklosich, Malinovsky, Dahl, Maksimovich, Potebnia,
Zitetsky, Ohonovsky, Shakhmatov, Broch, Baudouin de Courtenay,
Fortunatov, Korsh, Krimsky, Satotsky, and others, have proved beyond a
doubt that the Ukrainian language is not a dialect of the Russian
language, but an independent language of equal rank with the Russian.
The same opinion has been expressed most forcibly by the St. Petersburg
Academy of Sciences in its famous official decision, “Concerning the
Removal of the Restrictions on Little Russian Publications, St.
Petersburg, 1905.” The Academy emphasized expressly that the Russian
and Ukrainian languages are two independent languages of equal rank.
The Russian written language is not built up on a general East Slavic,
but only on a Great Russian foundation. Hence, it cannot be forced upon
the Ukrainians, since they have a completely developed written language
at their command.
It is very likely that, in a far distant prehistoric time, all Eastern
Slavic tribes, the ancestors of the present Ukrainians, White Russians
and Russians, spoke a common tongue. But soon after the beginnings of
historical life in Eastern Europe we see these Slavic races divided
lingually into three groups. In the 11th Century, the differences
between the language spoken in Kiev or Halich on the one hand, and
Vladimir on the Klasma or Sugdal on the other, were already distinct.
The political unification of all the Eastern Slavic tribes in the Kiev
Empire could not eradicate these differences between North and South,
and they are very evident in the literary monuments of that time. The
disruption of the Empire of Kiev into loosely connected principalities,
the formation of the Muscovite political center, the decline of
Kiev—all went to strengthen the lingual antitheses between the
ancestors of the Ukrainians and those of the Russians. The Tatar
oppression finally separated the Muscovite group permanently from the
Ukrainian, forcing each to lead a separate historical life. The Ukraine
fell under Lithuanian, then Polish rule; Muscovy gradually developed
into the Russian Empire. The differences in language, which in the 14th
Century were already appreciable, increased so strongly thru the
independent development of each language that in the 18th Century, when
Russia received the greatest part of the Ukraine beneath her dominion,
the Russian and Ukrainian languages confronted one another as entirely
independent languages.
According to the investigations of Stotzky and Gartner, the Ukrainian
language, from a philological point of view, is related to the Russian
only to about the same extent that it is related to the Polish or
Czechic. Of all Slavic languages the nearest to the Ukrainian is the
Serbo-Croatian. From this it follows that the Ukrainians must at one
time have had a much closer community with the Serbo-Croations than
with the Russians.
We see here a fine example of how relationship of languages goes hand
in hand with anthropological relationship. (Incidentally, proof is
herewith presented that the anthropological characteristics in the
peoples of Eastern Europe have an entirely different significance from
the same in Western and Central Europe). This coincidence of two
sciences, entirely independent of one another, causes the Ukrainians to
appear to us a very peculiar independent unit in the Slavic family of
races. Only the restriction of the knowledge of Ukrainian among
Slavists, the interpretation of Eastern European history always from
the Russian point of view, the common church language, which, for a
long time, was the basis of the written language as well, the
unfortunate confusion due to the name Russ, Russki, which as ancient
state designations for the Empire of Kiev were usurped by the Muscovite
Empire and applied to all Eastern Slavic nations; these things have
made it possible to conceal the real state of affairs from the eyes of
European science and have helped establish the Russian unity theory.
That the Ukrainian language is independent and entirely different from
Russian or Polish is known to every illiterate peasant from one end of
the Ukraine to the other. He does not understand the Pole and the
Russian; likewise his language is unintelligible to a Pole or Russian.
Polish is the more easily understood by the uneducated Ukrainian, since
the living together of the Poles and Ukrainians for centuries in the
Polish-Lithuanian state resulted in important influences in both
directions, especially in the vocabulary. But Russian, with its strange
vocabulary and phonetic character, different manner of word-building,
declension and conjugation, is for a Ukrainian a difficult foreign
language. How much trouble must the Ukrainian peasantry endure at every
step because the unintelligible Russian language is used exclusively in
administration, court, school and church! The educated Ukrainian who
has been trained in Russian schools has had much trouble to learn his
Russian, and he never has so complete a command of it that a Russian
could not immediately recognize “the Khakhol in him.” For an educated
Ukrainian trained outside of Russia, Russian is as hard to learn, if
not more so, than the Polish, Czechic or Serbian. Such obvious facts
convince us of the independence of the Ukrainian language, perhaps,
more forcibly than the arguments of learned philologists.
The Ukrainian language, like every other great European language, is
not uniform. Because of the great extent of the Ukrainian territory and
the great population, favorable conditions have always been present for
the formation of dialects and idioms. The Ukrainian language has four
dialects,—the South Ukrainian, the North Ukrainian, the Galician (Red
Ruthenian), and the Carpathian mountain dialect. The South Ukrainian
dialect embraces the south of the region of Kiev, Kursk, Voroniz, the
entire regions of Poltava, Kharkiv, Kherson, Katerinoslav, Tauria, Don
and Kuban. It possesses three idioms;—the northern, which constitutes
the basis of the present Ukrainian literary language, the central, and
the southern or steppe idiom. The North Ukrainian dialect includes the
Chernihov country, the northern part of the Kiev district, Northern
Volhynia, the Polissye along the Pripet, and the northern part of the
Pidlassye. Its idioms are the Chernihov, the North Ukrainian proper,
the Polissian, and the Black Ruthenian. The Galician or Ruthenian
dialect takes in: Galicia (outside of the mountains), the Kholm region,
Southern Volhynia and Western Podolia, and possesses two idioms,—the
Podolian-Volhynian and the Galician (Dniester) idiom. The Carpathian
Mountain dialect includes the entire Ukrainian Carpathian country and
has four idioms,—the Hutzulian, the Boikish, the Lemko idiom, and the
Slovak-Ruthenian border-idiom.
The Ukrainian dialects and idioms differ very little from one another,
as indeed is the case with all the dialects and idioms of all the
Slavic languages. A comparison of the Ukrainian dialects and idioms
with the German, for instance, is entirely impossible. The Kuban
Cossack or the Boiko, an Ukrainian inhabitant of Polissye or of
Bessarabia, understand one another without the slightest difficulty.
Only the Lemko idiom and Ruthenian-Slovak border-idiom show greater
differences than other Ukrainian idioms. Beyond that, a great
uniformity of language prevails thruout the wide areas of the Ukraine.
A popular tale taken on a phonograph in the Kuban sub-Caucasus country
is heard with the same understanding in a peasants’ reading society in
the neighborhood of Peremishl, as if it came from a neighboring
village, instead of a border country of the Ukraine thousands of
kilometers distant. The same folk-songs, proverbs and fairy tales are
found in Pidlassye and along the Manich, at Chernihiv and Odessa, on
the Don and on the Dniester.
The Ukrainian language is distinguished by advantages which insure it a
high place among Slavic languages. The great wealth of vowels, the full
tone, the softness and flexibility, the transition of many vowels to
the i-sound, the absence of the massing of several consonants in one
syllable, make Ukrainian the most melodious Slavic language. After the
Italian language the Ukrainian is best adapted for singing. Most
important, however, is the great richness of the Ukrainian language.
This richness is all the more remarkable in that it did not come about
thru centuries of development of the language in literature and
science. The common people have collected and preserved the treasures
of the Ukrainian language. While the vocabulary of an English farmer,
according to Ratzel, does not include more than three hundred words,
the Ukrainian peasant uses as many thousands. And, incidentally, the
purity of the language is remarkable. Barely a few borrowed words have
been introduced into the language of the people thru the centuries of
contact with neighboring peoples. They disappear entirely amid the
wealth of pure Ukrainian words. What interests us geographers and
natural scientists most of all is the wonderful wealth of the
colloquial language in very striking names for surface forms, natural
phenomena, plants and animals. The construction and codification of the
Ukrainian terminology of natural sciences and geography was, therefore,
very easy. The infant science of the Ukraine possesses a terminology
which, for example, far surpasses the Russian.
The most important proofs of the independence of the Ukrainian language
are Ukrainian literature and Ukrainian science. The Ukrainian language
has given proof, thru its development of a thousand years, that it is
capable of giving expression to the loftiest products of human feeling
and human intellect.
Ukrainian national literature cannot possibly be compared with the
literature of a Provençal or Low German dialect, which represents the
daily life of a small group of people. Ukrainian Literature is the
versatile literature of a great nation; a literature which looks back
upon a history of a thousand years and continues to develop in spite of
all obstacles. A strong foundation is furnished it in the remarkably
rich, popular poetry, which has not a counterpart in the entire
civilized world.
Ukrainian Literature holds a high place among Slavic literatures. Only
Russian and Polish Literature surpass it in the number and greatness of
their works.
The history of almost a thousand years of Ukrainian Literature begins
at the time of the fullest development of the Kiev Empire, when the
so-called Chronicle of Nestor originated, the Galician-Volhynian
Chronicle, the powerful Epic of Igor and other important monuments of
Ukrainian Literature (the works of Ilarion, Serapion, Kirilo Turivsky,
etc.). Their language is built up upon the Church-Slavonic dialect, but
presents great linguistic departures, as early as the 11th Century,
from the literary works simultaneously produced in the Russian
territory to the north.
This promising beginning of the old Ukrainian Literature was almost
completely crushed by five centuries of Tatar barbarism. The continuous
state of war, the loss of their independent political organization, the
crushing foreign yoke, permitted only a weak vegetating of Ukrainian
Literature for five centuries. Legal, theological, philosophical and
polemic literary monuments and the beginnings of the drama, written in
a Macaronic language made up of a mixture of Ukrainian and
Church-Slavonic, can at the most be considered proof that the educated
Ukrainians of that time had too little leisure and opportunity to
devote themselves to artistic literature.
But these times of decline of the written literature are at once the
times of the greatest flourishing of the unwritten literature of the
people. The old pre-christian religious and secular songs and tales
were not forgotten, and the active, warlike life of the nation created
an immense mass of epic folk-lore dumy, which was sung by by wandering
minstrels (kobzar, bandurist). Toward the end of the 18th Century, when
the political and national destruction of the Ukrainian nation seemed
inevitable, the Ukrainian popular literature reached such a high stage
of development that it awoke the educated classes of the nation to new
literary life.
Through the introduction of the pure popular speech into Ukrainian
Literature (by Kotlarevsky, in 1798), and thru the great influence of
the popular literature, the foundation was laid for an unanticipated
rise of Ukrainian Literature. In the course of the 19th Century the
history of Ukrainian Literature has a number of great poets and prose
writers to show, who would be a credit even to the greatest literatures
of the world (Shevchenko, Vovchok, Kulish, Fedkovich, Franko, Mirni,
Kotsiubinsky, Vinnichenko and others), as well as a considerable number
of lesser poets. Great versatility characterizes the works of Ukrainian
Literature in the 19th Century, and in the 20th Century its development
in all directions is making giant strides.
The second half of the 19th Century was also marked by a very active
study of the sciences, leading to the founding of two learned bodies
very much along the plan of the so-called “Academies” (in Lemberg and
Kiev). In every branch of human knowledge the Ukrainians can already
point to publications, books and dissertations in their own language.
The versatility and richness of Ukrainian Literature assure it a
prominent place among Slavonic literatures, thus furnishing proof, if
any is needed, that the Ukrainian language is not a mere dialect, but a
civilized language in every sense of the word; and the testimony of
Ukrainian scholarship strengthens the case beyond a doubt. For surely
nobody could discuss problems of higher mathematics, biology or
geomorphology in a dialect analogous to the Provençal or Low German.
The rise of the Ukrainian literary language from the speech of the
common people makes clear that it will be an admirable means of
educating the race, in view of its well-known intelligence, into an
enlightened and progressive nation. But the Russian government has been
thoroughly aware of this, and for fear of national separatism, has left
no stone unturned in its efforts to stop the development of Ukrainian
Literature and, finally, by the famous ukase of the Czar of the year
1876 has forbidden absolutely the publication of any writings in the
Ukrainian language. None but a really living and significant literature
could have survived these thirty years (1876–1905) of repression, and
Ukrainian Literature has stood the test!
HISTORICO-POLITICAL TRADITIONS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE UKRAINIANS
Anthropological and lingual distinguishing characteristics are not
sufficient to make a race into a nation. An individual nation, whether
it be a Staatsnation or a Kulturnation, must have its own historical
tradition, its own sacrifices and heroes, its own historical griefs and
joys. These are the basis of the united aspiration to an ideal of the
future, of that constant plebiscite which E. Renan regards as the thing
which makes a race into a nation.