between confrontation and reconciliation. ukrainians and their

between confrontation and reconciliation. ukrainians and their

5
Etnografia Polska vol. LII, 2008, book 1-2
PL ISSN 0071-1861
ZBIGNIEW JASIEWICZ
Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology of the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
BETWEEN CONFRONTATION AND RECONCILIATION.
UKRAINIANS AND THEIR CULTURE IN POLISH ETHNOLOGICAL
AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
TH
IN THE 19 CENTURY AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH
CENTURY
The aim of this article is to present the method of description of the Ukrainian culture
and the attitude to this culture in the literature and period indicated in the title1. These
descriptions and assessments were a special kind of cultural contact; they were created
by representatives of the Polish culture who were in contact with the
Ruthenian/Ukrainian culture and their subject-matter was the said culture, which is still
connected with the Polish culture. The underlying reason for undertaking this topic is
the importance of Polish-Ukrainian contacts for the future history and culture of both
nations, both in the past and nowadays, and the significance of research papers
regarding the Ukrainian culture for the development of Polish ethnology. One of the
precursors of Polish ethnological research was, after all, Ignacy Lubicz-Czerwiński
(1769-1834), the author of articles such as: Swactwa, wesela i urodziny u ludu ruskiego
na Rusi Czerwonej (1805a) and Urodziny i zabawy u ludu na Rusi Czerwonej (1805b)
from Nowy Pamiętnik Warszawski and the book Okolica zadniestrska między Stryjem a
Łomnicą... (1811), which was appreciated by Ivan Franko (Pietraszek 1995: 41) and
treated already in the interwar period as the first Polish ethnographical monograph
(Fischer, no year: 1; idem 1928: 163). Zorian Dołęga-Chodakowski made use of
materials mainly from the Ukraine in his manifesto article O Słowiańszczyźnie przed
chrześcijaństwem (1818). Another justification of the return to old literature and cultural
reality presented in it is its extremely complex and dramatic character, which can
become a reason to reconstruct methods of thinking and evaluation applied by
1
This text is an extended version of the paper presented at the conference “Communication and dialogue
between cultures” organised by the Committee on Ethnological Sciences of the Polish Academy of
Science (PAN) in co-operation with the Institute of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology of the Adam
Mickiewicz University in Będlewo, 13-15 June 2008. This article was prepared under the grant from the
Ministry of Science and Higher Education no. 1 H01 H 033 29 “Beginnings of Polish ethnology and
cultural anthropology”.
6
researchers in the past. New needs and opportunities to interpret materials collected and
preserved in the past have arisen.
Terms “confrontation” and “reconciliation” were used for the purpose of defining the
attitude of Polish researchers and observers of Ukrainians and their culture. The
adoption of the attitude of both confrontation and reconciliation has a serious impact on
the method of perception and presentation of reality. The essence of confrontation is the
juxtaposition and contrasting of distinct cultural characteristics and the method of
argumentation that is aimed at presenting one’s own culture and its representatives as
more valuable and entitled to dominate, whereas the essence of the reconciliationoriented attitude is understanding, empathy and readiness to undertake a dialogue
recognising the other party’s subjectivity, to undo harm, co-exist and co-operate. The
aforementioned attitudes are related to traits of persons representing them, which were
also formed through contact with the surrounding reality. Terms “confrontation” and
“reconciliation” and similar designations from the sphere of attitudes and actions that
are peculiar to individual persons can also be applied to intercultural relations:
“confrontation of cultures”, “intercultural dialogue”, “reconciliation of cultures”. In
such cases they can be applied only metaphorically. Contact between Polish and
Ruthenian cultures evolved from border contact between uniform and relatively closed
territories to internal contact along with the expansion of the Commonwealth of Poland
and Lithuania 2 and the migration of the Polish population towards the East and the
migration (of a different kind) of groups of the Ruthenian-Vlach population through
mountainous areas towards the West. As a result of the inclusion of Ruthenians3 in
political, social and economic institutions of the Polish state that were formed and
dominated by Poles, contact turned into an internal one and the groups participating in it
became hierarchised. In the class structure adopted in the Commonwealth, most
Ruthenians found themselves in the class of serfs and became an object of exploitation.
Apart from the Polonised Ruthenian nobility, only small groups of free Cossacks
remained in south-eastern peripheries of the Commonwealth, playing a very important
role in the history of this territory and the formation of the Ukrainian national ideology.
The multidimensional predomination over the Ruthenian population determined the
2
In the 19th century the Commonwealth of Poland and Lithuania obviously did not exist, but the author
uses this term within the meaning of its territory in the period before the partitions, i.e. from the 16th till
the 18th century – editor’s note.
3
Apart from the name “Ukrainians”, the author uses a number of old names that were given in literature
to Ukrainians: “Ruthenians”, “Little Russians (Malorosiyans)” and “Little Ruthenians (Malorusiyans)”.
The first two of them, mainly Ukrainians and, to a smaller extent, Ruthenians, turned from ethnoregional
ethnonyms into ethnonational ethnonyms in the course of nation-forming processes in the 19th century.
Other names (Little Russians/Little Ruthenians), which were derived from the names coined in the
Middle Ages (Little Rus’, Little Russia), were disseminated in the 17th century since the Treaty of
Pereiaslav concluded by Bohdan Chmielnicki and meant at that time the lands inhabited by the Cossacks
and annexed to Russia. They became common at the end of the 17th century as a result of the
establishment of the Little Ruthenian governorate and prohibitions to use the names “Ukraine” and
“Ukrainians” in the 19th century. They were used as names of inhabitants of administrative regions: Kiev,
Chernihiv, Poltava and Kharkiv governorates, in a relatively ethnic sense. After the collapse of Tsarism,
they were used rarely and only outside the Ukraine. In the article, depending on the context of time and
place, the author uses these terms separately or jointly. One of the aims of this article is to present and
interpret the methods of use of terms defining Ukrainians in the Polish literature of the 19th century and
the beginning of the 20th century.
7
confrontational character of the contact. It resulted in negative tensions, antagonisms
and difficulties in communication between societies and cultures.
Apart from extreme situations, elements of confrontation and of understanding and
reconciliation usually occurred alternately. Moreover, in most cases they covered only
particular cultural and social segments rather than cultural and social issues as a whole.
What usually remained beyond the sphere of confrontation, was the language and rites;
the participation of the nobility and peasants, including the Ukrainian nobility and
Polish peasants, in confrontations was usually varied. The awareness of connections
between the two cultures and the observation of the possibilities of living in both of
them or moving from one to the other: Polonisation and Ruthenisation caused a sort of
ambivalence in attitudes of Polish archivists and researchers of the Ruthenian/Ukrainian
culture of the 19th century. They are aware of the distinctness of this culture towards the
Polish culture, but, knowing about mutual borrowings, they do not create models of two
opposite cultures of the East and the West on its basis, leaving this kind of role to the
Russian culture (cf. Kutrzeba 1916).
I try to treat authors of texts being analysed as information providers in field surveys.
As in the case of field studies, I am aware of the diversity of their experiences, beliefs
and aims. Moreover (as in the case of field studies, again), it is not always possible to
define to what extent and degree these aims and opinions are shared by others. One
significant difference between the use of literature from a relatively distant past and
materials from the researcher’s own field works lies in the fact that the researcher has
no possibility of observing and comparing gathered opinions with his own perception of
the reality and the limited possibility of asking additional questions.
I have already mentioned Lubicz-Czerwiński, who collected and interpreted
information from the position of an internal observer and an inhabitant of the village
and the region being described by him on the one hand and an external observer – a
Pole, an educated man, an advocate and, at the same time, the owner of a village with
serfs speaking a different language and professing a different Christian faith, on the
other hand. He was a researcher who respected peasants and recognised their
importance as informants – “a simple man still has the traits of a living historian who
teaches who his father and grandfather were; what they experienced; or what customs
they ordered their children to hold on to” (Lubicz-Czerwiński 1811: IV). He analysed
the mentality, morality and general social life of the rural population, including customs
and rites described by him. Adam Fischer claims that Lubicz-Czerwiński had omitted
songs and legends, but praises him for having noted down “many folk superstitions that
are often lost or distorted today” (Fischer, no year: 1; idem, 1928: 163). He was an
author with broad horizons, although his style of writing was archaic. In the work Rys
dziejów kultury i oświecenia narodu polskiego (1816), which was noticed by Joachim
Lelewel (Pietraszek 1995: 43), he was probably the first person to use the term “culture”
in the title of a work issued in Polish and define it. However, it was not “culture” within
the meaning adopted by Johann Gittfried Herder as a characteristic feature of peoples,
but “cultura animi” understood by Cicero as a cultivation and improvement of the spirit.
In addition, Lubicz-Czerwiński compared the socio-economic and ethnic situation in
Rus’ to the situation in South America and Central America. “[…] the fear of losing
Ukrainian Peru and Mexico did not allow Cossacks to reach even anything similar to the
noble freedom” (1816, part II: 39). Thus, he was also the first author who presented the
situation in the lands of the old Commonwealth in colonial terms. He refers to the Greek
8
sources of the Ruthenian culture, but does not over-emphasise its exotic nature,
although he discovers some relic elements of paganism within it – “[…] some kind of
respect for fire is expressed, particularly over the Dniester” (1814: 54). He criticises the
Uniate Church and the level of “the Ruthenian clergy”, which, in his opinion, favours
superstitions, and notices the “inexorable hatred” of the people “towards the Roman
rite” (1816, part II: 59). He condemns “Ukrainian landowners”, who “combining their
prejudice and pride with greed, dared to spread all of their violence in abuses onto the
once warlike Cossack people, and, therefore, this people has become a ruin not only of
the landowner’s property, but the country itself” (1816, part II: 88). He treats
Ruthenians mainly as a “simple people” representing the peasant class in the stratified
society, although he is also aware of their ethnic separateness, which is emphasised, for
instance, by the association of their origin with ancient Roxolani (1816, part I: 11). He
states that he wrote Okolica zadnieprska… in order to “describe the state of the peasant,
or the Ruthenian farmer […]” and in the latter part he writes, in accordance with the
ideology of the Enlightenment: “[…] the only aim of this work is to obtain a good
knowledge of the peasant and to learn where he needs improvement and by what
means” (1811: II).
In the book Rys Ukrainy zachodniej issued in Krzemieniec in 1810, Franciszek
Ksawery Giżycki, who had a good knowledge of the Ukraine, emphasises strongly the
distinctness of its inhabitants, referring to them no longer as Ruthenians and the “simple
people”, unlike in Lubicz-Czerwiński’s work, but as Ukrainians and the people – nation.
This book is a critical and largely supplemented translation of the work Podróż w
Polsce by P. (probably the equivalent of “Mr.” – Z.J.) August Friedrich Ephraim
Hammard, about which the author informs the reader in the preface, pointing out
fragments added by himself4. The author is aware of the low popularity of the term
“Ukraine”, which is “[...] not adopted from geographers and popularised by custom”
(1810: 3) and encompasses, in the author’s opinion, as the Western Ukraine, poviats5
between Dnieper and Dniester rivers that once formed the Bratslav voivoideship and the
southern part of the Kiev voivodeship. He creates a stereotype of Ukrainians, pointing
out their positive traits: “Bravery is a trait of nations, and a Ukrainian takes pride in it”
or “Wonderful beauty is the natural privilege of Ukrainian women” (ibid.: 10, 13). The
negative traits attributed to them are explained as follows: “The faults that some writers
ascribe to Ukrainians, such as drunkenness, idleness or greed, do not originate from
their national character, but are connected with the organisation of their society and are,
to some extent, common to societies carrying arms” (ibid.: 13). In order to reduce the
Polish-Ukrainian antagonism, he does not repeat information about the massacre of
Uman after Hammard’s text: “it seemed unnecessary to me to recall painful memories“
(ibid.: 2). He indicates connections between the Ukrainian culture and the East: “the
Slavic-Greek architecture […] borrowed characteristics from the oriental architecture”
(ibid.: 45). “The closer to the East, the more distinct Asiatic influences are” (ibid.: 8).
“The male costume is akin to the Asiatic one” (ibid.: 13).
In contrast to both of the aforementioned authors, Józef Sękowski from the Vilnius
Region was a traveller, which put him in the position of an external observer. This
outstanding co-founder of Russian oriental studies, who wrote under the pen name of
4
The basis of this book is the work Reise durch Oberschlesien zur Russisch Kayserlichen Armee nach der
Ukraine und zum Feldmarschall Rumanzew Zadunajski by A.F.E. Hammard , vol. 1, Gotha 1787.
5
Polish administration units such as district or county – editor’s note.
9
Baron Brambeus and assumed an anti-Polish attitude, left an interesting journal
Dziennik podróży z Wilna przez Odessę do Sztambułu, which was published in Dziennik
Wileński in 1819. The book is written in a matter-of-fact, non-moralistic tone. The
author analyses the state of the culture. Comparing Volhynia and Podolia to Lithuania,
he states that “the significant civilisational difference that exists between Lithuania and
Volhynia”, which manifests itself in the “apparent obscurity in Volhynia and Podolia”,
is caused by an insufficient number of schools (1819: 584). He notices the oppression of
peasants and the low position of the clergy of the “Russian Orthodox Church”. He
presents in a relatively detailed manner the architecture and agriculture of inhabitants of
Volhynia and Podolia. He points out the importance of natural conditions, the climate
and the soil, which make the situation of Volhynian and Podolian peasants slightly
better than in the case of Lithuanian peasants, and the “fertility of the soil luckily
compensates for the fact that farming tools of inhabitants of Volhynia and Podolia are
so poor that they cannot ensure the proper cultivation of the soil” (1819: 588).
A year earlier, in 1818, the Ćwiczenia Naukowe journal published an article which
was so important for the development of Romantic thought and literature and an
increase of interest in Slavic studies: O Słowiańszczyźnie przed chrześcijaństwem by
Dołęga-Chodakowski (Adam Czarnocki). The ideological message contained in this
work eclipses the scientific achievements of this researcher, which go beyond the
folklore and cover other fields of contemporary culture, such as economic trends, and
primeval history. He wrote Słowiańszczyzna mainly on the basis of materials from the
Ukraine. He carried on research work in Volhynia, Podolia and the Kiev Region from
1814 and in Galicia from 1818. His rich collection of songs, which had been kept in
archives for a long time, was published in Kiev only in the second half of the 20th
century (see: Dolenga-Hodakovs’kij 1974). He is treated like a pioneer of Ukrainian
ethnography, and the results of his works are esteemed highly in Ukrainian science
(Boltarovič 1976: 24 ff.).
When staying in the Ukraine, Dołęga-Chodakowski managed to collect the folklore
material that became an important part of the Ukrainian national culture in the future
along with the language as its substance. However, the main object of his interest were
“Slavic things” – a manuscript of part of the songs written down by him in the Ukraine
received the title Śpiewy słowiańskie pod strzechą wiejską zebrane (after: Boltarovič
1976: 29). He was one of the creators of the idea of the cultural community of Slavic
peoples, which was inspired, among others, by Johann Gottfried Herder and James
Macpherson, and accused the nobility and the clergy of having destroyed the ancient
Slavic culture. This idea became the basis of Slavophilism, which, on the one hand,
validated the people as the social stratum and Slavic peoples, built the common ground
and defended them against Germanisation and Turkisation and, on the other hand, was
used in order to maintain conservative structures in the village and as a tool of the
imperial policy of Russia – the most powerful Slavic state.
Dołęga-Chodakowski was not only a collector of folklore elements, but also a
valuable documentarian of field materials. He contributed to the development of the
methodology of ethnographical and archaeological research. He prepared plans of his
scientific trips and provided the collected materials with accurate records; carrying out
research together with his future wife Konstancja Fleming, he was probably the first
person to acknowledge the benefits from the participation of women in field works. He
regarded Konstancja as his most active assistant in the collection of materials and stated
10
that she “is faster at dealing with countrywomen when it comes to the analysis of
legends and ritual songs – she manages to overcome rural shyness that can be a serious
obstacle to a male researcher, as I know from my own experience” (after: MalašAksamitova 1967: 132).
Ukrainian materials delivered by correspondents of Dołęga-Chodakowski and kept in
the Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg are a
valuable source. In the letter of Z. Koropaczyński from Kiev dated 28 January 1815, we
can read: “As regards local songs that I collected, they touch me more intensely with
their tone than content […]. Their structure is awkward. They tell about old robberies by
particular Cossacks, their cases and end, unhappy love, ill-matched or constrained
marriages and sad incidents connected with them. In one of them, the awkward verse
tells the story of cruelty and murder of a young countrywoman who did not succumb to
Starost Kaniowski feeling a strong desire for her. In another song, the neat rhyme
describes the violence used by Poles towards Little Russians conquered by them.
Although all of these songs are rural, they are not dictated to me by villagers. Slavery
and huge oppression make them silent now, at least when it comes to singing. In the
past, when you travelled across these lands, you could hear roars and singing; today it
seems to be the moaning of an oppressed person or the fearsome shout of an oppressor.
Once beautiful, these villages in the Uman Region now seem to be very desolate. The
huts are stripped and partly broken down, without a fence and with surrounding trunks the remnants of once beautiful orchards. Stopping by at different villages and finding
accommodation most of the time in villagers’ houses, I listened to many complaints
about their present fate”6. Apart from scepticism towards artistic values of lyrics of folk
songs, the letter reflects the author’s understanding of Ukrainian peasants and sympathy
for their situation.
Dołęga-Chodakowski not only collected a few thousand Ukrainian songs himself, but
also inspired Krystyn Lach-Szyrma to do the same thing; the latter published an article
Dumki ze śpiewów ludu wiejskiego Czerwonej Rusi in Dziennik Wileński in 1818. A few
years later in Lviv, Pątnik Narodowy published an anonymous article O pieśniach ludu
polskiego i ruskiego (1827), which was attributed to Ludwik Piątkiewicz and played an
important role in the development of the methodology of folklore research. This article
is interesting in the context of our analysis not only because it distinguishes two “tribes”
that “divide into two main branches with respect to language” (1827: 100, 97), but
because it puts side by side songs of Polish and Ruthenian people, “in which creative
movement manifests itself” (ibid.: 91).
In 1833 Pieśni polskie i ruskie ludu galicyjskiego was published by Wacław from
Olesko (Wacław Zaleski). Inspired by ideas of Johann Gottfried Herder and works of
Zorian Dołęga-Chodakowski, Adam Mickiewicz and Kazimierz Brodziński, he regards
“vulgar songs” as an important source and basis of nationality. He also emphasises the
Slavic character of the “vulgar poetry”. He separates Little Russia from Galicia and
treats Ruthenian songs as “songs of our people”, “the Galician people”. However, he is
aware of the distinctness of “national” Ruthenians, which also refers to the language. He
notes the difficulties faced by the publisher of songs: how to write those Ruthenian
songs taken from the lips of the people who does not have its own grammar and in
whose language only one primer is printed in more than one dialect” (Zaleski 1833:
6
Russian National Library, St. Petersburg, fond 588, opis 4, ed. khran. 74, listok 2.
11
XII). He regrets that he cannot follow the example of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić and his
work on the grammar and dictionary of the Serbian language and do the same favour to
the Ruthenian people (ibid.: XLIX). He ascertains the abundance of Ruthenian ritual
and historic songs in contrast with the Polish folklore. He tries to find out the reasons of
this situation. “Here peasants were even poorer and subjected to harder oppression, but
they were left to themselves to a larger extent. The lesser nobility was not scattered
across villages as much as in Poland […]. In estates of great landowners villagers were
oppressed from a remote distance, but nobody interfered directly in their celebrations
and rites […]. What may have also contributed to the preservation of their rites, was the
fact that Masses and ceremonies are held in the national language” (ibid.: XL).
In anticipation of charges that appeared later, anyway, and are mentioned by Fischer
(no year: 1), he explains why he put Polish and Ruthenian songs together in his
collection:”I mixed them, because in Galicia Polish and Ruthenian people are mixed,
too. It did not seem necessary to me to separate them radically” (Zaleski 1833: XLII).
However, noticing the stability of national features and the distinctness and values of
Ruthenian culture, Zaleski does not see the possibility of their independent
development. He wants Ruthenians to be included in the Polish culture. “whom should
Ruthenians join? Or should we wish that Ruthenians had their own literature […]?”
(ibid.: XLIIII). This aspect of the author’s view, which has the form of confrontation
and assimilation, is cricitised by Ukrainian folklore experts. On the other hand, they are
keenly interested in Zaleski as a researcher making an important contribution to the
collection of materials and taking up problems of large importance for the folklore
(Borodin 2005; 2007).
An exceptional manner of description and evaluation of Ukrainians and their culture
is presented in the 2-volume work Lud ukraiński by Antoni Marcinkowski, which was
published under the name of Antoni Nowosielski in Vilnius in 1857. It was written
mainly on the basis of materials from the Kiev Region. The author uses consistently the
name “Ukraine” and “Ukrainians”, avoiding the name “Little Ruthenians” or “Little
Russians” used by the tsarist administration and stresses his bond with “the Ukrainian
people, who is best known to me and among whom I was born and grew up” (1857a: 9).
By writing about himself: “We are Ukrainians ourselves […]” (1857b: 7), he expresses
the attitude that can be called “nativity”; it was based on identification with the country
and its inhabitants and was particularly strong in Lithuania. He fully acknowledges the
subjectivity and autonomy of Ukrainians and their culture by defining Ukrainian not
only as a “people” – the peasant class, but also a “nation” – an ethnic group with its own
elite – the “Ukrainian nobility”, centre in Kiev and outstanding writers. Marcinkowski
was also the first person in Polish literature who expressed a favourable opinion on
Taras Shevchenko’s works (cf. Boltarovič 1976: 65). Indicating the role of Zaporizhia
and Cossacks – “Zaporizhian knights” in the history of the Ukraine, he states:
“Zaporizhia was a conglomerate of population, but this non-homogeneous mass was
organised under the guidance of two ideas: Ruthenian nationality and Ruthenian
Orthodox faith (Nowosielski 1857b: 181, 182); it is the only fragment where the author
refers to connections between Ukrainians and Ruthenians. The work deals with a wide
range of issues. The first volume bearing the subtitle Misteriozofia słowiańska discusses
beliefs, whereas the second one presents folk literature, rites, folk medicine, costumes,
dances and games. The aim of the work was to “give an accurate image of spirit, fantasy
and, in a word, the entire moral character of the people that has emerged in our land
12
from the general traditional thread of humanity” (1857a: IX). Thus, it can be regarded as
the first ethnographical monograph of Ukrainians, even though its scope is limited to the
Kiev Region.
Marcinkowski was familiar with contemporary and older literature. He refers to
French, German, Russian, English and obviously Polish researchers. He appreciated and
emphasised the role of ethnography. On title pages of both volumes he put the motto:
“After fulfilling its material mission, ethnography will soon feel the need to rise to a
moral mission…” from the work De l’influence des Moeurs sur les Lois et des Lois sur
les Moeurs (issued in Paris in 1832) by Jaques Matter. Marcinkowski recognised its
significant role in the reconstruction of the past – “In the 19th century, the science of
ethnography became one of the most important supplementary skills to the universal
history of man” (Nowosielski 1857a: 86). He also defined the directions of its works:
“ethnography has divided the human race into big family groups, into grafts of one tree,
showed a threat connecting peoples’ languages and laid out routes of wanderings of
peoples from its eastern homeland. Feeling its unity at last, humanity finds out … that
everything in it is tradition and that similarities in laws, myths, rites and symbols are not
only matters of pure coincidence, as was thought in the previous century” (Nowosielski
1857a: 8-9).
At the same time, Marcinkowski regarded the Bible as a source of knowledge about
the history of humanity: about the original condition of man, the flood and the fall of
humanity – “Bible tells us the history of creation and God’s law” (Nowosielski 1857a:
4). He attached great importance to the comparative method, but he used it without
restraint. He compared beliefs and other elements of Ukrainian culture to cultures of
ancient peoples: Hebrews, Egyptians, the Chinese, Greeks, Romans and mainly Hindus.
He was an advocate of the concept of the Indo-European community and interpreted
cultural similarity mainly in accordance with it. “I expect that nobody will impute
compilations from Vedas, Puran etc. to the Ukrainian people” (ibid.: 7). Marcinkowski
tried to find out traces of Ukrainian tales in Herodot’s and Lukian’s works and analysed
their similarity to Indian tales and tales of other Slavic peoples. He also went beyond the
Indo-European community and compared Ukrainian rites to those from other parts of
the world, including rites of contemporary peoples. He explained Ukrainian words by
means of words from other languages, most often Sanskrit. However, he was aware of
the deceptiveness of such comparisons: “I know that similarities do not always prove
anything; that etymology can sometimes lead to the strangest conclusions” (ibid.: 81).
Such an extensive use of the comparative method was taken over by Marcinkowski
from contemporary trends in science. Apart from cognitive aims, he wanted to achieve
another important aim in this way. It was the introduction of the people being described
to the general history of humanity created by ancient civilisations and societies, the
formulation of a message about the closeness of its culture to cultures of other
contemporary peoples, its ennoblement and building of the community ideology.
In the second half of the 19th century, many Polish ethnological works devoted to, or
taking account of Ruthenians and their culture were published. Here, I would like to
note only works by Wincenty Pol, including Rzut oka na północne stoki Karpat (1851);
Izydor Kopernicki, the most important work: O góralach ruskich w Galicji (1889),
mainly Ukrainian/Ruthenian volumes by Oskar Kolberg: Pokucie (1882-1889);
Chełmskie (1890) and Chełmskie. Suplement (2004); Przemyskie (1891); Wołyń (1907)
and Wołyń. Suplement (2002) and basic volumes published after World War II:
13
Sanockie-Krośnieńskie (1972-1974); Ruś Karpacka (1970-1971) and Ruś Czerwona
(1976-1979) as well as Góry i Pogórze (1968), which contained also materials
concerning the culture of Lemkos.
Together with the extension and deepening of interest in Ukrainian lands, the cultural
exchange processes occurring there and groups being subject to these processes became
the focus of attention, which confirmed the intensity of contacts. Among these groups
there were “Masurians”, who were treated most often like peasants professing the
Roman Catholic faith and speaking “Ruthenian” (cf. Dajczak 1906: 14). Research on
Masurians was proposed as early as the middle of the 19th century by Antoni Józef Rolle
(1857). He was also the first person who put a question about the meaning of that name.
Is it a trace of Masurian settlement, does it indicate Polish ethnicity, or is it a method of
differentiation between Catholic, Greek Catholic or Orthodox inhabitants of the village?
Did it encompass only peasants, or did it include the poor nobility as well? Pavel
Čubinskij, the head of the ethnographical and statistical expedition of the Imperial
Russian Geographical Society to the West Rus’ Land (1869-1870), treated Masurians
separately from Poles. On the basis of data from the governorate statistical committee
collected in 1865, he stated that there were 5,103 Masurians in the Podolia Governorate
who lived in 987 farms (Čubinskij 1872: 318). He characterised them as follows:
Although these Masurians have never lost their language and Catholic religion, their
language is apparently influenced by Little Ruthenians. They wear Little Ruthenian
clothes and, although they have not forgotten some of their songs, they sing also Little
Ruthenian ones. What is unique about them, is the fact that they carry children on their
back, not on their hands, in a big thickly woven cloth called rjadno” (Čubinskij 1872:
317). The term “Masurians” covered the entire bundle of meanings: it defined mainly
the social character of the group (consisting of peasants and a small group of the lesser
nobility), its Roman Catholic denomination and Polish origin (including not only
Masovia). The lack of identification with the nobility (Poles or “Lachy”, as it was called
in eastern lands) determined the ethnic autonomy of the group. Such meaning of the
name, which denoted mainly the social position of its carriers, has been recently
confirmed by Edward Pietraszek (2007: 49 ff.). The permanence of the ethnonym and
the mixed Polish-Ukrainian culture of this group is confirmed by the fact that they
survived even after part of the group was deported from the Soviet Ukraine to
Kazakhstan at the end of the 1930s (Jasiewicz 1992: 18). The adoption of Ruthenian
culture by the Polish population is mentioned also by Fischer, who refers to the lesser
nobility from Dolejów known from the work Zaściankowa szlachta polska w Dolejowie
by Aleksander Saloni and describes it as extremely interesting, because “Ruthenian
ritual forms” can be observed in its life (Fischer, no year: 1).
The issue of a great number of mixed Polish-Ukrainian marriages, which were so
important for cultural communication and exchange, was not elaborated. The said
marriages were concluded in spite of the isolation existing in that respect, mainly in
terms of social class and religion7. Relatively speaking, Polish-Ukrainian linguistic
relations were discussed most thoroughly. As early as 1970 in Cracow the dictionary
Słowniczek prowincjonalizmów podolskich, ułożony w Kamieńcu Podolskim was
7
An interesting testimony to the search for a spouse within one’s own social class and, at the same time,
ethnic and religious group is a photograph taken in 1874, entitled “Carters-butlers of the Galician nobility
looking for maids with a dowry in Podolia” (Sztandara 2006: 159).
14
published; prepared by Aleksander Kremer, it contained words in Polish adopted from
Ukrainian and was partly reprinted in Čubinski’s work (1872: 260-270).
The matters of increasing importance in the second half of the 19th century were
ethnic issues, which were recorded and interpreted not only as objective features, such
as language, religion, folklore or ethnonym, but also as subjective determinants of
identity, such as the sense of community and formulated common aims and needs.
Three main ethnonyms: Ruthenian, Little Ruthenian and Ukrainian were still used, but
their mutual relations were not determined clearly. The relation of these terms to the
name “Russians” was not specified clearly, either. In his book on ethnology O
plemionach rodzaju ludzkiego, czyli krótkim rysie etnografii (1852), which was
translated from French (most probably by Pol), Jean Julien d’Omalius d’Halloy wrote:
“Russians are simply divided into Great Russians and Little Russians […]. Little
Russians, that is Ruthenians, settle Kiev, Kharkiv, Chernikin, Poltava, Podolian and
Volhynian governorates. In Galicia and northern Hungary we can see all villages
inhabited by Ruthenians […]. Cossacks constitute a military caste rather than a nation”
(1852: 34). In successive publications the adjective “Ukrainian” is used gradually more
often for defining the nation and the language. Ksawery Branicki stated: “As regards
Ruthenian, or Ukrainian, or how they also call it – Little Ruthenian […], it has been
used in conversations since time immemorial, and in more recent years Shevchenko and
others have given it a partly literary character. We do not doubt that this language,
which is spoken by as many as 12,000,000 people in Russia and Austria, has a great
future” (1879: 29-30). He forecasted the formation of five big nationalities among
Slavs, including Ruthenians with a capital in Kiev (ibid.: 31). However, two separate
ethnonyms were used for a long time: the term “Ruthenians” was used for the
population in East Galicia in Austria-Hungary and the term “Little Ruthenians” was
used for the population on the other side of the Zbrucz river within the borders of Russia
(cf. Czyński 1909: 52, 73). Fischer used the term “Russians”. When publishing the work
Rusini. Zarys etnografii Rusi (1928), he gave priority to this ethnonym. Within
“Ruthenian ethnic groups” he distinguished, among others, “proper Ruthenians” and
“Ukrainians” and located the latter in lands “from Słucza and the eastern border of the
Podolian upland to the Don River” (1928: 9). In his letter to Dymitr K. Zelenin dated 1
March 1941, he explained the use of the name “Ruthenians” by him as follows:
“Ruthenians mean the same as Ukrainians in the official Polish terminology”
(Jasiewicz, Rieszetow 2003: 45). He used the term “Little Ruthenians” only
sporadically, e.g. when he planned the publication of a volume under this title in the
Etnografia słowiańska series. Other volumes planned in this series were to be devoted
to Belarusians and Russians, so we can presume that the ethnonym “Little Ruthenians”
was to include all groups that were later covered by the name “Ukrainians”.
The term “Ruthenians” was ambiguous and was used for various reasons and
purposes. It could mean submission to the existing language custom and the conviction
of the diversity and cultural distinctness of Galicia; it did not have to be interpreted as
an attempt at discrimination. This ethnonym was used, among others, by Bernard
Kalicki, an advocate of the dialogue between Poles and Ruthenians and the federation of
Slavic peoples. He protested against the division of Ruthenians into inhabitants of
Galicia and lands annexed by Russia, writing: The large space […], which stretches
from the Black Sea in the south to Vilnius in the north, is inhabited by the Ruthenian
nation” (1871: 2). The 1840s were a period of the development of Ruthenian literature
15
and history as well as education. According to Kalicki, the eradication of national
aspirations of Ruthenians created a “separate Ruthenian martyrology, which is one of
the undisputable features of national autonomy” (1871: 3). Thus, it was necessary to
abandon all attempts to Polonise Ruthenians as unrealistic and unethical, as “no
traditions of historical borders justify the refusal to acknowledge the existence and the
holiest rights of any nation” (ibid.: 13). He argued that “it is difficult to find anything
more inappropriate, unjust and destructive than the negation of Rus’ and the statement
that Ruthenian nationality is only fiction without any grounds” (ibid.: 1). The name
“Ruthenians” was also used by Jan Herburt-Heybowicz, who wrote under the pen name
of I8. Snitko, in his work Zarys pojęć o narodzie, which was underestimated in Polish
science (Snitko 1901). On the example of Galicia, he built there a model of an ethnic
situation in which “we come across two nationalities in the form of social strata situated
one over another in a given country or in a province” (ibid.: 470). He indicated that such
a situation results in rapprochement – not necessarily denationalisation, but creation of
new national categories. However, as the author postulated, it requires voluntary
resignation of the dominant group from acquired privileges and any forms of violence,
consistent introduction of the rule of bilingualism, full inclusion of the hitherto
subordinated group in public life and disregard of accusations of national treason (1901:
476). The retaining and use of the ethnonym “Ruthenians” was based on the attachment
of the part of the people to this term; they use this name for self-identification, are
convinced of their distinctness, have their own political and national aspirations and
create their own institutions in countries inhabited by them as well as institutions on an
international scale. On the other hand, however, this term was often used for the
purpose of confrontation and reinforcement of hegemony, in the hope of the
maintenance of the status of Ruthenians as an “ethnic mass” which will not make an
effort to transform itself into a nation and, in the course of time, may become absorbed
by the group that already has the status of a nation. The thwarting of national aspirations
of Ruthenians and the re-Polonisation of Ruthenised Polish peasants was demanded,
among others, by W. Dajczak (1906). He was aware of the harm that was done to
Ruthenians by the Polish nobility, which regarded peasants as a “livestock” and the
intelligentsia – Polish clerks, which “treated these peasants like dogs” (1906: 4, 22). He
accused the nobility of the class egoism that separated it from peasants, made
Polonisation difficult and led to the situation when “a nobleman will never speak to a
peasant in any language other than Ruthenian, even if he is deeply convinced that this
peasant is a Pole” (ibid.: 11). He also wrote that “the concept of the Ukraine – homeland
has never existed among the people” and the term “Ukrainians” meant for him followers
of the “Young Ruthenians” organisation, which was supported by part of the Polish
youth (ibid.: 21, 20). Representatives of the National Democracy party in Galicia also
used consistently the name “Ruthenian” at the beginning of the 20th century and later.
Barbara Stoczewska associates this fact with their refusal to acknowledge Ruthenians’
right to national existence and their fears of aspirations of the Ruthenian population to
the status of a nation (2000: 240).
The terms “Ukraine” and “Ukrainian”, which originally stood for a particular land
and its inhabitants, became the sign and name of the forming nation. They replaced the
name “Little Rus’” and “Little Ruthenians” and, after crossing the Russian-Austrian
8
I. Snitko is the pen name created from the initial of the first name (Izabela) and the surname of the
mother.
16
cordon, restricted the use of the names “Rus’” and “Ruthenians”. The term “Ukrainians”
as an ethnonym appertaining to all Ruthenians accepting it and their national rights were
written about by Leon Wasilewski (1911). It is also worth mentioning the opinion
expressed by Jan Niecisław Baudouin de Courtenay in the dissertation Kilka ogólników
o obiektywnej i subiektywnej odrębności Ukrainy pod względem językowym,
plemiennym, narodowym i państwowym (1925), which was published in the publishing
house of the Taras Shevchenko Scientific Society in Lviv. The excellent linguist wrote
in a manner adopted also today that ethnic and national groups are separated on the
basis of objective and subjective features. The author referred to the language and other
elements of culture as objective features and to the sense of national unity and national
consciousness as subjective features. He thought that “the entire group of objective
features creates the concept of a tribe (today we would say: ethnic group – Z.J.),
whereas the entire group of subjective features creates the concept of a nation (1925: 2).
He confirmed the distinctness of the Ukrainian language and criticised earlier opinions
of some Polish writers and scientists, including Wincenty Pol and Franciszek
Duchiński, which defined the Ukrainian language as the “Ruthenian peasant language”
or the “Polish language, but with Ruthenian endings” (Baudouin de Courtenay 1925: 2).
He found national consciousness among people speaking this language, which helped
him to recognise the “separate Ukrainian nation with all consequences arising from this
recognition” (ibid.: 6). According to the author, the interchangeable use of adjectives
such as “Little Ruthenian”, or “Ruthenian” in these times was related to the recent
popularisation of the term “Ukrainian”. Baudouin de Courtenay was convinced that
“even the most conscious Ukrainian patriot should not be offended by their use, unless,
of course, a given name of a people or nation is used with a shade of ignorance or
contempt in the user’s mind” (ibid.: 3). In states that came into being after the collapse
of Austria, Prussia and Russia, such as Poland or Czechoslovakia, he noticed the
practice of regarding the representatives of only one ruling nationality as the main hosts
of the country. In his opinion, it was a faulty and destructive policy; he demanded that
all inhabitants of the country have equal rights (ibid.: 15).
Polish texts from the 19th century and the beginnings of the 20th century, which
constituted a basis of this study, are obviously a choice which is far from being
representative. However, they give an insight into the diversity of attitudes: apart from
the attitude expressing empathy, sympathy, understanding and the will of dialogue and
reconciliation, there was also the attitude of confrontation. The latter was expressed
through social distance, attempts to maintain a privileged position distinguishing the
landowner from the peasant; religious differences: Roman Catholic vs. Greek Catholic
and Orthodox; ethnic distinctness: Pole-Ruthenian; the assessment of the cultural
potential – determination of the possession or non-possession of higher culture;
ascribing the status of a nation to one’s own group and refusal to acknowledge such
status of Ruthenians/Ukrainians. Although we must agree with the opinion expressed by
Daniel Beauvois on the basis of the analysis of memoirs of aristocrats and the wealthy
Polish nobility from Eastern Borderlands, according to which Poles from Kresy9 put too
little effort in building relationships with cultures in which their own culture was
immersed, it is impossible to accept his arbitrarily formulated thesis regarding that
reality: “The neighbourhood of cultures is not accompanied by any mutual penetration”
(2000: 197, 204). Foundations for cultural exchange and communication were created
9
Polish Eastern Frontier lands – editor’s note.
17
by various ideologies and attitudes formed within them, including physiocracy, which
regarded the improvement of the peasant’s situation as an important factor of economic
growth, romantic fascination with the folk culture, including the Cossack culture,
Slavophilism, the sense of relationship with the country and its ethnically varied
population and, finally, the recognition of social and national rights of Ukrainians.
Polish literary texts with ethnological and anthropological contents regarding the
Ukraine, which are created on the basis of various ideological and scientific
assumptions, are interesting and important not only for Polish researchers dealing with
the development of the Polish culture and science, but also for Ukrainian scientists
reconstructing the process of formation and development of the Ukrainian culture and
nation.
Translated by: LINGUA LAB, www.lingualab.pl, Grzegorz Fik
18
LITERATURE
B a u d o u i n d e C o u r t e n a y J a n N. 1925, Kilka ogólników o obiektywnej i subiektywnej
odrębności „Ukrainy” pod względem językowym, plemiennym, narodowym i
państwowym, Sumptibus Societatis Scientiarum Sevèenkianea Ucrainensium,
Leopolis.
B e a u v o i s D a n i e l 2000, Oni i inni: pamiętnikarze polscy na kresach wschodnich w XX
wieku, Przegląd Wschodni, t. 7, z. 1 (25), pp. 185.204.
B o l t a r o v i è Z o r i a n a E. 1976, Ukraïna w doslidzennâh pol’s’kih etnografiv XIX st.,
Naukova Dumka, Kiïv.
B o r o d ì n K s e n i â 2005, Vnesok Vaclava z Oles’ka u rozvitok slov’âns’kogo
narodoznavstva, Problemi Slov’ânoznavstva, vip. 55, pp. 116-125.
- 2007, Koncepcijni zasadi peredmovi do zbirnika „Pieśni polskie i ruskie ludu
galicyjskiego” Vaclava z Oles’ka, Visnik L’vivskogo Universietu, ser. Filologičnâ,
vip. 41, pp. 88-94.
B r a n i c k i K s a w e r y 1879, Narodowości słowiańskie, Drukarnia Polska A. Reiff, Paryż.
C z y ń s k i E d w a r d [Merczyng Henryk] 1909, Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności
i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej, Drukarnia Piotra Laskauera, Warszawa.
È u b i n s k i j P a v e l P. 1872, Polâki ûgo-zapadnago kraâ, [in:] Trudy étnografièeskostatistièeskoj ékspedicii v zapadno-russkij kraj. Materialy i izsl’dowaniâ sobr. P.P.
Čubinskim, t. VII, Imperatorskaâ Tipografiâ, Sankt Peterburg, pp. 215-330.
D a j c z a k W. [sic!] 1906, Lud polski na ziemiach czerwonoruskich, Wydawnictwo Tygodnika
„Ojczyzna”, Lwów.
D o l e n g a - H o d a k o v s. k i j Z o r i a n 1974, Ukraïns’ki narodni pìsni v zapisah Zoriana
Dolengi-Hodakovs’kogo, Naukova Dumka, Kiïv.
D o ł ę g a - C h o d a k o w s k i Z o r i a n 1818, O Słowiańszczyźnie przed chrześcijaństwem,
Ćwiczenia Naukowe, t. 2, nr 5, pp. 3-27.
F i s c h e r A d a m b. r., Etnografia województw południowowschodnich, typescript in
Archiwum Naukowe PTL, sygn. nr 125.
- 1928, Rusini. Zarys etnografii Rusi, Książnica Atlas, Lwów.
G i ż y c k i F r a n c i s z e k K s a w e r y (X.G.) 1810, Rys Ukrainy Zachodniej, Krzemieniec.
J a s i e w i c z Z b i g n i e w 1992, Polacy z Ukrainy w Kazachstanie. Etniczność a historia,
Lud, t. 75, pp. 11.54.
J a s i e w i c z Z b i g n i ew, A l e k s a n d e r M. R i e s z e t o w 2003, Korespondencja
między Adamem Fischerem a Dymitrem Konstantynowiczem Zieleninem. From:
Archiwum Naukowego PTL we Wrocławiu i Archiwum Rosyjskiej Akademii
Nauk w Sankt Petersburgu, Etnografia Polska, t. 47, z. 1.2, pp. 31-47.
K a l i c k i B e r n a r d 1871, Kwestia ruska, Księgarnia Gubrynowicza i Schmitta, Lwów.
K o p e r n i c k i I z y d o r 1889, O góralach ruskich w Galicji, Drukarnia Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego, Kraków.
K o r o p a c z y ń s k i Z. [sic!] 1815, List do Z. Dołęgi-Chodakowskiego z 28 stycznia,
Rosyjska Biblioteka Narodowa w Sankt Petersburgu, Oddział Rękopisów, fond
588, opis 4, jed, chran. 74, listok 2.
K u t r z e b a S t a n i s ł a w 1916, Przeciwieństwa i źródła polskiej i rosyjskiej kultury,
Księgarnia Polska B. Połonieckiego, Lwów.
19
L a c h - S z y r m a K r y s t y n 1818, Dumki ze śpiewów ludu wiejskiego Czerwonej Rusi,
Dziennik Wileński, rocz. 6, styczeń-czerwiec, pp. 489-496.
L u b i c z - C z e r w i ń s k i I g n a c y 1805a, Swactwa, wesela i urodziny u ludu ruskiego na
Rusi Czerwonej przez obywatela tamtejszego kraju opisane, Nowy Pamiętnik
Warszawski, t. XVIII, pp. 365-372.
- 1805b, Urodziny i zabawy u ludu na Rusi Czerwonej, Nowy Pamiętnik
Warszawski, t. XIX, pp. 242-245.
- 1811, Okolica Zadniestrska miêdzy Stryjem a Łomnicą.., tudzież jaki jest lud
prosty dla religii i pana swego, Drukiem Józefa Schnaydera, Lwów.
- 1814, Uwagi rozumu i ludzkości nad fałszem i ciemnotą, zabobonów, gusłów [...],
Drukarnia Jana Gołębiowskiego, Przemyśl.
- 1816, Rys dziejów kultury i oświecenia narodu polskiego, cz. I i II, Drukarnia
Jana Gołębiowskiego, Przemyśl.
M a l a š - A k s a m i t o v a L. A. [sic!] 1967, Dolenga-Hodakovskij (Adam Čarnockij) i ego
nasledie, Lud, t. 51, pp. 125-163.
N o w o s i e l s k i A n t o n i [Marcinkowski Antoni] 1857a, Lud ukraiński, t. I, Nakład i druk
T. Glücksberga, Wilno.
- 1857b, Lud ukraiński, jego pieśni, bajki, podania, klechdy, zabobony, obrzędy,
zwyczaje, przysłowia, zagadki, zamawiania, sekrety lekarskie, ubiory, tańce, gry
itd., t. II, Nakładi druk T. Glücksberga, Wilno.
D’ O m a l i u s d’ H a l l o y J e a n J u l i e n 1852, O plemionach rodzaju ludzkiego czyli krótki
rys etnografii, Nakładem i drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego, Wilno.
b.a. [Piętkiewicz Ludwik] 1827, O pieśniach ludu polskiego i ruskiego, [in:] Pątnik Narodowy
czyli zbiór drukiem dotąd nieogłoszonych pism [...], wydany przez L. Piętkiewicza,
t. 1, Nakładem Kuhna i Milikowskiego, Lwów, pp. 90-128.
P i e t r a s z e k E d w a r d 1995, „Lud prosty w calym sposobie życia swego.. O pionierskiej
monografii wsi I. L. Czerwińskiego”, Lud, t. 78, pp. 41-53.
- 2007, Mazury i Lachy na Ukrainie i w południowo-zachodniej Małopolsce, [in:]
Dziedzictwo kulturowe pograniczy. Drobna szlachta, ed. I. Kotowicz Borowy,
Wydawnictwo SGGW, Warszawa, pp. 49-61.
P o l Wi n c e n t y 1851, Rzut oka na północne stoki Karpat, Drukarnia „Czasu”, Kraków.
R o l l e A n t o n i J. 1857, Podole. Wycieczka w naddniestrzańską okolicę, Gazeta Codzienna,
Warszawa, nr 14 (article available in Oscar Kolberg Institute in Poznan).
S ę k o w s k i J ó z e f 1819, Dziennik podróży z Wilna przez Odessę do Sztambułu, Dziennik
Wileński, rocz. 7, grudzień, pp. 565-591.
S n i t k o I. [Jan Herburt Heybowicz] 1901, Zarys pojęć o narodzie, Księgarnia Gubrynowicza
i Schmidta, Lwów.
S t o c z e w s k a B a r b a r a 2000, źródła i główne idee nacjonalizmu polskiego, Przegląd
Wschodni, t. 7, z. 1 (25), pp. 231-256.
S z t a n d a r a M a g d a l e n a 2006, Fotografia etnograficzna i „fotograficzność” etnografii
II połowy XIX i I połowy XX wieku. Studium z historii myśli etnograficznej,
Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego, Opole.
Wa s i l e w s k i L e o n 1911, Ukraina i sprawa ukraińska, Sp. Nakład „Książka”, Kraków.
Z a l e s k i Wa c ł a w (Wacław z Oleska) 1833, Pieśni polskie i ruskie ludu galicyjskiego, F.
Piller, Lwów.
20
ZBIGNIEW JASIEWICZ
BETWEEN THE CONFRONTATION AND RECONCILIATION.
UKRAINIANS AND THEIR CULTURE IN POLISH ETHNOLOGICAL
AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL LITERATURE
TH
IN THE 19 CENTURY AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY.
Summary
This article presents and discusses descriptions and assessments of Ukrainians, known before
also as Ruthenians, Malorosiyans (Little Russians) or Malorusiyans (Little Ruthenians), and
their culture, that were included in Polish ethnological and anthropological literature in the 19th
century and at the beginning of the 20th century. Analysing the articles and books of that period,
the author focuses not only on ethnographic details, but also tries to re-sketch what and how
their authors were thinking and evaluating the Ukrainian people and culture. He presents the
whole scope of attitudes towards Ukrainians – from the attitude of confrontation to attitudes
aimed at understanding, cultural dialogue and reconciliation.
The author is especially interested in the Polish-Ukrainian cultural exchange and Polish
researchers’ attitudes to the process of building of Ukrainian nationality.. He analyses works
and writings of people such as Ignacy Lubicz-Czerwiński, Zorian Dołęga-Chodakowski,
Franciszek Ksawery Giżycki, Józef Sękowski, Wacław Zaleski, Antoni Marcinkowski, Bernard
Kalicki, Ksawery Branicki, Jan Herburt-Heybowicz, Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and Adam
Fischer. This article was written in the course of the author’s research on Polish works focusing
on the Ukrainian culture and their contribution to Polish and Ukrainian ethnology and, in the
general sense, their contribution to the culture of both nations and their mutual relations.
Abstract translated by Jarosław Derlicki; Revised by Grzegorz Fik
This project is financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education as part of the
National Program for Development of Humanities, 2012-2014.