Practical Class 5

The Phenomenon of Ukrainian Baroque

1. Historical circumstances of Ukraine in the context of Baroque culture.

2. Educational process and intellectual activity in Ukrainian lands.

3. Arts of Ukrainian Baroque.

1. The Baroque was the leading cultural phenomenon in the XVII – beginning of the XVIII centuries. The Baroque (from French – “rough of imperfect pearl”) is a style in arts and the cultural period, which emphasizes luxury, elegance and balance of bright colors, details and decorative ornaments in harmony of their subordination to the whole. It had originated in Italy and flourished chiefly in countries that were strongly affected by the Counter-Reformation. Roman Catholic Church encouraged Baroque style, promoting the idea that the arts should communicate religious themes through direct and emotional involvement.

Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a stronghold of Catholicism and a field for Counter-Reformation movement was very sensitive to Baroque tendencies. Ukrainian lands under the rule of Poland also were influenced by Baroque culture. But due to indigenous impulse of Ukrainian culture Baroque style there was not simply the copy of European stylistic features but Ukrainian modification of them, that is usually called Ukrainian or Cossack Baroque.

That impulse to the development of Ukrainian Baroque was from the cossackhood. Cossacks (from Turkic – free man) had appeared at the territory of Ukraine since the XV century as defenders of frontier regions from nomads and as protectors of trade caravans travelling the steppe routs. The history of Ukrainian Cossacks has three dimensions: their struggle against the Tatars and the Turks in the steppe and on the Black Sea; their struggle against national-religious and social-economic oppression by the Polish magnates; their role in shaping of the autonomous Ukrainian state. Since 1654–1667, when Ukraine was split along the Dnieper river, and till the end of the XVIII century Cossacks were leading social force in both banks of the Dnieper. They influenced social and political life of Ukrainian lands, as well as their cultural life. The ideal of Cossackhood as Ukrainian knighthood has been romanticized and idealized in folklore since that time. Ukrainian bards (kobza players, bandura players, lira players) accompanied Cossacks in military campaigns.

The artistic tradition of Ukrainian wandering bards, kobza players, bandura players, and lira players is one of the most distinctive elements of Ukraine's cultural heritage. While kobzars first emerged in Kyivan Rus', bandurysts and lirnyks appeared and became popular in the 15th century. Kobzars often lived at the Zaporozhian Sich and accompanied the Cossacks on military campaigns. The epic songs they performed served to raise the morale of the Cossack army in times of war, and some were even beheaded by the Poles for performing dumas that incited popular revolts. As the Hetman state declined, so did the fortunes of the kobzars, and they gradually joined the ranks of mendicants, playing and begging for alms at rural marketplaces.

Kobzars. Wandering folk bards who performed a large repertoire of epic-historical, religious, and folk songs while playing a kobza or bandura. Kobzars first emerged in Kyivan Rus’ and were popular by the 15th century. Some (eg, Churylo and Tarashko) performed at Polish royal courts. They lived at the Zaporozhian Sich and were esteemed by the Cossacks, whom they frequently accompanied on various campaigns against the Turks, Tatars, and Poles. The epic songs they performed served to raise the morale of the Cossack army in times of war, and some (eg, Prokip Skriaha, Vasyl Varchenko, and Mykhailo, ‘Sokovy's son-in-law’) were even beheaded by the Poles for performing dumas that incited popular revolts.

As the Hetman state declined, so did the fortunes of the kobzars, and they gradually joined the ranks of mendicants, playing and begging for alms at rural marketplaces. In the late 18th century the occupation of kobzar became the almost exclusive province of the blind and crippled, who organized kobzar brotherhoods to protect their corporate interests. A few performed at the Russian courts of Peter I, Elizabeth I, and Catherine II (eg, Hryhorii Liubystok and O. Rozumovsky).

Bandura. A Ukrainian musical instrument similar in construction and appearance to a lute. The bandura has 32–55 strings: the 8–14 bass strings (bunty) are stretched along the neck, and the 24–43 treble strings (prystrunky) run along the side of the soundboard. Before the 20th century the bandura had various shapes and tunings (basically diatonic), but in recent times it has been standardized. The modern bandura is usually chromatic, with a basic tuning in G major/E minor; the range is from AA to G3. The Chernihiv bandura is 109 cm by 51 cm in size. The bandura differs from other lutelike instruments by the presence of the prystrunky, on which the melody is performed (the bunty are used only for accompaniment), and the absence of frets. Each string produces only one note.

The oldest record of a bandura-like instrument in Ukraine is an 11th-century fresco of court musicians (skomorokhy) in the Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kyiv. This lute-like instrument is probably the ancestor of the bandura and the kobza. The two instruments were related, but distinct. The kobza was smaller in size and had fewer strings, but these were fretted. Around the 16th century prystrunky were added to the bandura, and from that time only one note was obtained from each string. During the 17th and 18th century the bandura was very popular at the Zaporozhian Sich, among the common people, and at the gentry manors. In the 18th century the bandura displaced the kobza, and both names are now used synonymously. Old banduras were symmetrical. Their shape limited the number of prystrunky and thus the range of the instrument.

And after decline of Hetman state bards wandered across Ukraine and glorified prominent past of Cossackhood. Also, during the XVII–XVIII Cossack aristocracy supported actively cultural development, inspired and sponsored Ukrainian Baroque culture.

2. In 1632 Kiev Epiphany Brotherhood School was transformed by Petro Mohyla to Collegium, i.e. institution of higher learning offering philosophy and theology courses and supervising a network of secondary schools. The leading center of higher education in 17th- and 18th-century Ukraine, which exerted a significant intellectual influence over the entire Orthodox world at the time. Established in 1632 by Petro Mohyla through the merger of the Kyiv Epiphany Brotherhood School with the Kyivan Cave Monastery School (est 1631 by Mohyla), the new school was conceived by its founder as an academy, ie, an institution of higher learning offering philosophy and theology courses and supervising a network of secondary schools. Completing the Orthodox school system, it was to compete on an equal footing with Polish academies run by the Jesuits. Fearing such competition, King Władysław IV Vasa granted the school the status of a mere college or secondary school, and prohibited it from teaching philosophy and theology. It was only in 1694 that the Kyivan Mohyla College was granted the full privileges of an academy, and only in 1701 that it was recognized officially as an academy by Peter I.

In founding the school, Petro Mohyla's purpose was to master the intellectual skills and learning of contemporary Europe and to apply them to the defense of the Orthodox faith. Taking his most dangerous adversary as the model, he adopted the organizational structure, the teaching methods, and the curriculum of the Jesuit schools. Unlike other Orthodox schools, which emphasized Church Slavonic and Greek, Mohyla's college gave primacy to Latin and Polish. This change was a victory for the more progressive churchmen, who appreciated the political and intellectual importance of these languages.

Church Slavonic, the sacral language, and Ruthenian, the literary language of Ukrainians and Belarusians closest to the vernacular, continued to be taught, while Greek was relegated to a secondary place. The undergraduate program, based on the liberal arts, was designed to develop the basic skills of public speaking rather than to pass on a body of knowledge, and was organized into five grades. The three lower grades were essentially grammarian. They were preceded by an introductory grade, analog or fara, devoted to reading and writing and elementary Latin, Polish, and Slavonic. The first grade provided an introduction to Latin grammar. In the next grade, grammatical continued to be used for Latin syntax, readings from Cicero and Ovid were analyzed, and Greek grammar was introduced. In the syntaxis grade was completed and Greek continued to be studied. Besides Ovid and Cicero, some works by Catullus, Virgil, Tibullus, and Aesop were read. Each grade required a year to complete and included some instruction in catechism, arithmetic, music, and painting.

The intermediate level consisted of two grades, in which students began to compose Latin prose and verse. The first, poetica, took one year and provided a grounding in the theory and practice of literature, and a close study of the writings of Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Curtius, Martial, Virgil, and Horace. Polish Renaissance and baroque poetry (Jan Kochanowski, Samuel Twardowski) and, later in the century, some Ukrainian poetry (Ivan Velychkovsky) were also read. The two-year rhetorica grade completed the secondary-school program. Cicero and Aristotle's Poetics were studied in the course of mastering the rules of elegant composition. In both grades students absorbed much prose and verse information on secular and biblical history, mythology, and classical geography for the purpose of rhetoric, not of knowledge.

Kyivan instructors, like the instructors of Polish and other European schools, prepared their own Latin manuals of poetics and rhetoric. The remarkable efflorescence of Ukrainian baroque literature was closely connected with the school's philological program.Higher education consisted of a three-year philosophy program that paved the way to four years of theology. In spite of the king's prohibition, some course in philosophy was usually taught, and in 1642–6 a theology course was offered. In the mid-1680s a full philosophy and theology program was given a permanent place in the curriculum. Logic, physics, and metaphysics were the main parts of the philosophy program. The philosophy manuals prepared by the school's professors, of which about 80 have survived, show that there was no uniform system of thought, but that each course reflected the preferences and abilities of the instructor. The basically Aristotelian philosophy taught in the school was derived not from Aristotle himself but from his medieval interpreters and was supplemented with doctrines from Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham, humanists such as L. Valla, L. Vives, and D. Erasmus and the Protestant scholar P. Melanchthon, and the Jesuits F. Suárez, P. da Fonseca, and L. de Molina. At the beginning of the 18th century Teofan Prokopovych showed an interest in R. Descartes and F. Bacon. From the middle of the 18th century on orders from the Holy Synod the academy adopted C. Wolff's philosophy. The theological courses at the academy consisted of commentaries on Catholic theologians such as R. Bellarmine, F. Suárez, T. González, and the Polish Jesuit T. Młodzianowski. In method, if not in content, they were very Thomistic. The only attempt to work out an independent theological system was Petro Mohyla's Pravoslavnoe ispovedanie ... (Orthodox Confession ..., 1640).

From its beginnings, the academy had close ties with the Cossack starshyna, which provided it with moral and material support. Hetman Ivan Petrazhytsky-Kulaha approved Petro Mohyla's plans for the new school in 1632 and granted it a charter. The school, in turn, educated the succeeding generation of the service elite. In the 1640s, when the Orthodox hierarchy sided with the Polish Crown against the rebellious Cossacks, Cossack sons continued to attend the college. Among them were the future hetmans Ivan Vyhovsky, Ivan Samoilovych, Pavlo Teteria, Ivan Mazepa, and Pavlo Polubotok. Bohdan Khmelnytsky established the tradition of hetman grants in money, lands, and privileges to the college. The Kyiv clergy's opposition to the Pereiaslav Treaty of 1654 severely strained their relation with the Cossacks. During the Cossack-Polish War (1648–57) and the Ruin period (1657–87), the activities of the college were severely disrupted. Its buildings and property were looted and destroyed several times by Muscovite and Polish armies. The strong Hetman state that emerged in Left-Bank Ukraine after the Ruin period provided favorable conditions for the college's growth. Supported generously by Hetman Samoilovych (1672–87), the school began to flourish towards the end of his rule, and during Hetman Mazepa's reign (1687–1709), enjoyed its golden age. The enrollment at the time exceeded 2,000.

At the same time, Moscow's expanding political power and increasing interference in Ukrainian affairs threatened the academy's freedom and well-being. Gaining control of Kyiv metropoly in 1686, the Patriarch of Moscow attempted to end the intellectual influence of Kyiv on Muscovite society by placing almost all Kyiv publications on an index of heretical books. It was forbidden to print books in Ruthenian. Although in 1693 Patriarch Adrian eased the linguistic restrictions, Ukrainian books were denied entry into Muscovy. The academy's golden age came to an abrupt end with Ivan Mazepa's defeat at the Battle of Poltava in 1709. The school's properties were plundered by Russian troops. Students from Right-Bank Ukraine, which was under Polish rule, were no longer admitted. By 1711 the enrollment fell to 161. Graduates of the academy were encouraged to seek positions in Moscow or Saint Petersburg. Peter I's ban on Ruthenian publications and religious texts in the Ukrainian recension of Church Slavonic was a heavy blow to the academy.

After Peter I's death, Ivan Mazepa's endowments were returned to the academy. Thanks to the support of Hetman Danylo Apostol and the administrative talents of Metropolitan Rafail Zaborovsky (1731–42), the school revived. New courses in modern languages, history and mathematics, medicine, and geography were added to its curriculum. The enrollment rose steadily from 490 in 1738–9 to 1,110 in 1744–5. Graduates were encouraged to complete their education in European universities and many sons of wealthy Cossack families studied abroad. The academy continued to educate the civil and ecclesiastical elite of the Hetman state and the Russian Empire. Catherine II's abolition of the Hetmanate in 1764 and secularization of the monasteries in 1786 deprived the academy of its chief sources of financial support. The school became a ward of the Russian imperial government and its importance declined rapidly. By the end of the century it was reduced to an eparchial seminary.

The academy's adaptation of European education was largely conditioned by the social and religious demands of early 17th-century Ukrainian society. Hardly touched by the Renaissance and Reformation movements, it placed little value on the vernacular Ukrainian language and felt no need for a secular culture. It defined itself mostly in religious terms and, therefore, made the preservation of the Orthodox faith its primary concern. By arming the Ukrainian members of the leading estates in the Polish Commonwealth with the languages and intellectual tools of the dominant culture, the academy fulfilled the demands placed on it by society. Accustomed to a defensive, conservative posture, the intellectual elite nurtured by the academy failed to capitalize on the new opportunities offered by the Hetman state. Its literary and scholarly achievement had a decisive impact on the development of Ukrainian culture and provided a firm foundation for later accomplishments.

Many of the most prominent Ukrainian intellectuals of that epoch were connected to the Kiev Collegium. L. Baranovich, I. Maksimovich, S. Yavorsky, T. Prokopovich served at the faculty. Professors of Collegium had impact on the development of Ukrainian baroque literature. Also there were many poems and dramas of unknown authorship there. There were poems of various shapes, in which images from Christian and Antique worlds were mixed. Excess, playfulness, ornamentation, and using allegories (demonstrative form of representation explaining the meaning other than the words that are spoken) have prompted scholars to refer them to Baroque. Panegyric (a formal public speech/verse, delivered in high praise of a person or thing), epigram (a brief, clever, and usually memorable statement) were widely represented.

Dramas were represented by morality-play (didactic allegorical drama) and mystery (religious drama at the base of liturgy with Biblical plot). P. Berinda, G. Konysky, M. Dovgalevsky were the most famous dramatists of the period. Students and seminarists composed intermezzos (comic interludes inserted between acts or scenes of a play), especially for the plays which were in the repertoire of vertep, specially arranged puppet theatre. School drama, a special genre of religious dramaturgy, was created by students or teachers of brotherhood schools and Kiev Collegium. T. Prokopovich, the prominent religious policy activist was also known as the author of the school drama “Vladimir” (1705).

Although the religious tales, sermons, and secular chronicles are of interest, they nonetheless belong more to the realm of the ‘written word’ than to literature. Literature in its purer form developed in poetry and drama. Although a large corpus of poems survived (many of them in manuscript), no really major poet emerged. Many of the poems are of unknown authorship. Some have the name of the author encoded into the poem, acrostics being popular at the time; there are also poems in various shapes (cross, half-moon, pyramid, etc) and so-called crabs, which could be read both from left to right and from right to left. Such excess, playfulness, and ornamentation have prompted some scholars to refer to the period as the baroque. Poetics were taught at the Kyivan Mohyla Academy and in the brotherhood schools, and most of the poems show traces of having been school excercises. Written in syllabic meters, they mix images from the Christian and the ancient worlds. Allegory is a predominant trope, and much use is made of certain set images (‘emblems’—a scythe for death, dove for purity, etc). Along with poems of religious or moral content, which stress the vanity and brevity of earthly life, there are numerous panegyrics and heraldic poems devoted to verbal description and the glorification of coats of arms. Epigrams are also quite widely represented. Those by the archpriest Ivan Velychkovsky are perhaps the most interesting.

Remarkable among the many religious poetasters were Kyrylo Stavrovetsky-Tranquillon, who used lines of irregular length close to those of folk dumas; Ioan Maksymovych, who presented religious truths in a broad narrative manner; and Klymentii, Zynovii's son, who is notable for the sheer number (369) of opinionated poems which he composed at the beginning of the 18th century. Arguably the best poet of the period, the peripatetic philosopher Hryhorii Skovoroda wrote religious and morally didactic poetry. The popularity of his live-and-let-live theocentric philosophy as expressed in the collection Garden of Divine Songs, (1753–85) can be seen in the fact that some of the poems became folk songs. His Kharkiv Fables(1774) marks the beginning of the fable genre in Ukrainian literature. Quite widely known toward the end of the period was the collection of religious poetry The Praise Book(1790), from Pochaiv, with many poems based on legends and apocrypha about the Mother of God.

Equally important was the development of the dramatic genre. Western European morality, miracle, and mystery plays were part of the Jesuit school curriculum in Poland and from there entered the curriculum of the brotherhood schools. Joined with the study of poetics, school drama concentrated on the development of poetic dialogue. One early example of a dramatic dialogue is the collection of Christmas poems of Pamva Berynda (1616). Soon afterward, full-length dramas were composed, such as the widely known play by an anonymous author Alexis, Man of God(1673). To captivate the audience and to provide relief from their often-heavy didacticism, plays were interrupted by entr'actes consisting of humorous dialogues called intermedes. Those contained rather down-to-earth slapstick humor, but also, at times, social commentary in the form of mocking stereotypes of members of the various social strata of the time—Polish lords, Jews, Cossacks, Gypsies, and peasants—as in an untitled play by Mytrofan Dovhalevsky [1737] or in Heorhii Konysky's The Resurrection of the Dead, (1746). Students and seminarians were more than willing to compose intermedes, especially for the plays which were part of the repertoire of the puppet theater, the vertep. (Texts for vertep dramas have survived only from the 1770s.) Since the students and wandering precentors presented the vertep at village and city fairs, both the serious mystery plays and the slapstick interludes reached a wide audience. The most famous play of the time, Vladimir (1705) by Teofan Prokopovych, is unusual in its blurring of the strict division between the serious and the comic. Glorifying Volodymyr the Great for christening Rus’, Prokopovych merges the comic and derisive elements with other elements of the play and so initiates the genre of tragicomedy. A much weaker tragicomedy, dealing with the fall in morals of the day, is Varlaam Lashchevsky's Tragedokomediia ... (1742). Of interest also is the drama God's Grace Which Has Liberated Ukraine (1728), by an anonymous author. It moves away from religious themes and deals with events during the Bohdan Khmelnytsky period. The use of personifications in the play to portray such ‘personages’ as Ukraine or News is also quite typical of the time.

Although the Cossack period in Ukrainian literature lasted until the end of the 18th century, it had begun to decline with the signing of the Pereiaslav Treaty of 1654, when Ukraine came under ever-increasing Russian domination. All through the Cossack period most of what was written in Ukraine was written in the bookish language, which in the 18th century came under the strong influence of the Russian language and consistently grew farther away from the vernacular.

One of the most famous alumni of the Kiev Collegium was G. Skovoroda, a philosopher and a poet of Ukrainian Baroque. He created the treatise on Christian morality and several philosophical dialogues, a lot of songs, poems, fables, some of which became widely known and took their position in Ukrainian folklore. Philosopher and poet, he was educated at the Kyivan Mohyla Academy (1734–53, with two interruptions). He sang in Empress Elizabeth I's court Kapelle in Saint Petersburg (1741–4), served as music director at the Russian imperial mission in Tokai, Hungary (1745–50), and taught poetics at Pereiaslav College (1751). He resumed his studies at the Kyivan academy, but left after completing only two years of the four-year theology course. He spent the next 10 years in Kharkiv, teaching poetics (1759–60), syntax and Greek (1762–4), and ethics (1768–9) at Kharkiv College. After his dismissal from the college he abandoned any hope of securing a regular position and spent the rest of his life wandering about eastern Ukraine, particularly Slobidska Ukraine. Material support from friends enabled him to devote himself to reflection and writing. Most of his works were dedicated to his friends and circulated among them in manuscript copies.

Although there is no sharp distinction between Skovoroda's literary and philosophical works, his collection of 30 verses (composed from 1753 to 1785) titled Sad bozhestvennykh pesnei (Garden of Divine Songs), his dozen or so songs, his collection of 30 fables (composed between 1760 and 1770) titled Kharkiv Fables, his translations of Cicero, Plutarch, Horace, Ovid, and Muretus, and his letters, written mostly in Latin, are generally grouped under the former category. Some of his songs and poems became widely known and became part of Ukrainian folklore. His philosophical works consist of a treatise on Christian morality and 12 dialogues.

Skovoroda preferred to use symbols, metaphors, or emblems instead of well-defined philosophical concepts to convey his meaning. Moreover, he delighted in contradiction and often left it to readers to find their way out of an apparent one. In the absence of explicit statements of doctrine and expected solutions to obvious problems, it is sometimes uncertain what exactly Skovoroda had in mind.

For Skovoroda the purpose of philosophy is practical—to show the way to happiness. Hence, the two central questions for him are what happiness is and how it can be attained. For him happiness is an inner state of peace, gaiety, and confidence which is attainable by all. To reach this state, some understanding of the world and oneself and an appropriate way of life are necessary. Skovoroda approaches metaphysics and anthropology not as a speculative thinker, but as a moralist: he does no more than outline those truths that are necessary for happiness. His basic metaphysical doctrine is that there are two natures in everything: the ideal, inner, invisible, eternal, and immutable; and the material, outer, sensible, temporal, and mutable. The first is higher, for it imparts being to the second. This dualism extends through all reality—the macrocosm or universe, and the two microcosms of humanity and the Bible. In the macrocosm the inner nature is God, and the outer is the physical world. Skovoroda's view on God's relation to the world is panentheist rather than pantheist. In man the inner nature is the soul; the outer, the body. In the Bible the inner truth is the symbolical meaning; the outer, the literal meaning.

From this metaphysical scheme Skovoroda drew a number of fundamental conclusions for practical life. Since the universe is ordered by a provident God, every being has been provided with all that is necessary for happiness. The assurance that what is necessary is easy and what is difficult is unnecessary (for happiness) brings peace of mind. It also serves as a criterion for the material conditions of happiness: we need only those goods that are necessary to health and are available to all people. But to dispel anxiety about material security is not enough for happiness. Active by nature, humans must also fulfill themselves in action by assuming the congenial task or vocation assigned to them by God. To pursue one's task regardless of external rewards is to be happy, while to pursue wealth, glory, or pleasure through uncongenial work is to be in despair. Furthermore, since vocations are distributed by God in such a way as to ensure a harmonious social order, to adopt an uncongenial task leads to social discord and unhappiness for others.

The doctrine of congenial work is the central doctrine in Skovoroda's moral system. Although it is not metaphysically plausible, it expresses his faith in the creative potential of human beings and the possibility of self-fulfillment in this life for everyone. Although they were never presented in a systematic fashion, Skovoroda's ideas form a remarkably coherent system. His chief authorities are the ancient philosophers (the Stoics, the Cynics, Epicurus, Plato, and Aristotle), from whom he selects the basic elements of his own teaching. Following the patristic tradition, he treats the Bible allegorically: he holds that its literal meaning (anthropomorphic God and miracles) is external and false, and that its inner, symbolic meaning coincides with the truth known to the ancient philosophers. In this way he reconciles secular learning with Christian faith.

Interest to the history provoked the teachers of the Collegium to compile historical texts: T. Safonovich created the “Chronicle” (1672), I. Gizel compiled the “Synopsis” (1674). Also, several Cossack chronicles appeared: the anonymous Samovidets Chronicle (ca 1654), “The Chronicle” by G. Grabyanka (1710) and S. Velichko (1720). Fascination with the lives of saints and with the extraordinary also gave rise to a renewed interest in history, which fostered the development of the historiographic genre. Teodosii Safonovych, a teacher in the Kyivan Mohyla College, compiled a history (Kroinika) in 1672 composed of previous Kyivan Rus’ as well as Polish chronicles. Even more prominent was the historical compilation Sinopsis, published in 1674 in Kyiv and attributed to Innokentii Gizel. The work was republished many times and remained a basic historical text throughout the period. The momentous upheavals of the Bohdan Khmelnytsky period were recognized for their historical importance by the contemporary participants. Several Cossack chronicles appeared. Although strictly speaking those chronicles belong more to historiography than to literature, their style and influence on the Ukrainian Romantics played an important role in the later development of literature proper. Three chronicles deserve special mention: the anonymous Samovydets Chronicle, which begins with the Khmelnytsky uprising and ends in 1702; the Hryhorii Hrabianka Chronicle (1710), which concentrates on the Khmelnytsky period but begins in antiquity and ends at the beginning of the 18th century; and the Samiilo Velychko chronicle, completed after 1720. The last is perhaps the most lively and interesting of the three. In vivid and colorful language Velychko chronicles events and attempts to give the reasons for them, as well as to draw a moral for future generations. Not quite in the same genre but equally lively and interesting is the autobiography of Illia Turchynovsky. His adventures vividly portray the life of the wandering students-preceptors who played an important role in the development of literature, especially poetry and drama.

Baroque music of Ukraine is closely connected with N. Diletsky, a musician, the first theorist and the author of several a cappello concertos composition treatises. Church music is identified with names of composers D. Bortnyansky, A. Vedel.

3. There are two traces of Baroque architecture in Ukrainian lands. The first one is evident in Lviv because of its geographical and cultural location in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in that period. Western-European stylistic features are in Church of St. Peter and Paul (1610–1630), the first, became a model for the Church of Purification (1642–1644) and Ascension Catholic Church in Rudki (1728). Buildings in central and north-eastern Ukraine are usually attributed to proper Ukrainian (or Cossack) Baroque. Cossack Baroque architecture emerged during the Hetman era of the XVII–XVIII centuries as a representation of Cossack aristocracy. Its distinctive features were: more constructivist design, more moderate ornamentation, simpler in form comparatively to Western European principles of art. Examples of Ukrainian church architecture are: Trinity Cathedral of the Chernigov Trinity Monastery (1679), the Church of St. Catherina in Chernigov (1715), Holy Ascension Cathedral in Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky (1695–1700), Nikolay Military Cathedral in Kiev (1695). Many medieval Rus churches were significantly reconstructed and expanded in Baroque motives: church domes and exterior and interior ornamentation were added (Kiev Cave Monastery, Vydubichi Morastery, Pochaiv Monastery, St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev). Secular Baroque architecture is signified by transition from castles to palaces, the process which started in Renaissance Ukraine. Baroque palaces of Ukraine are Mariinskiy (1750) and Klovsky (1756) in Kiev, Kachanivka near Chernigov (1770s), Sofiivka upon Kamianka (1796).

Ukrainian baroque architecture was representative of the lifestyle of the kozak aristocracy. At that time most medieval churches were redesigned to include a richer exterior and interior ornamentation and multilevel domes. The most impressive exponents of this period are the bell tower of the Pechersk Monastery and the Mariinsky Palace in Kyiv, Saint George's Cathedral in Lviv, and the Pochaiv Monastery. A unique example of baroque wooden architecture is the eighteenth century Trinity Cathedral in former Samara, built for Zaporozhian kozaks. The neoclassical park and palace ensemble became popular with the landed gentry in the late eighteenth century. Representative samples are the Sofiivka Palace in Kamianka, the Kachanivka Palace near Chernihiv, and the palace in Korsun'-Shevchenkivskyi.

Ukrainian folk architecture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries shows a considerable influence of baroque ornamentation and neoclassic orders while preserving traditional materials like wood and wattled clay. Village planning remained traditional, centered around a church, community buildings, and marketplace. The streets followed property lines and land contours. Village neighborhoods were named for extended families, clans, or diverse trades and crafts. This toponymy, dating from medieval times, reappeared spontaneously in southern and eastern Ukrainian towns and cities, such as Kherson, Mykolaiv, and Simferopol that were built in the eighteenth century.

actical Class 6

Rival Cultural Strategies in Ukrainian Culture of the late XVIII - mid-XIX Centuries

1. Enlightenment and Classicism in Ukrainian culture.

2. Romanticism in Ukrainian culture.

3. The Humanities in Ukrainian lands.

4. Development of arts.

1. Since the XVIII century Europe was embraced by the Enlightenment, i.e. cultural movement that sought to mobilize the power of reason in order to reform society and advance knowledge. The "Enlightenment" was not a single movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals, and a strong belief in rationality and science. Thus, there was still a considerable degree of similarity between competing philosophies. Some historians also include the late 17th century, which is typically known as the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism, as part of the Enlightenment; however, most historians consider the Age of Reason to be a prelude to the ideas of the Enlightenment. Modernity, by contrast, is used to refer to the period after The Enlightenment; albeit generally emphasizing social conditions rather than specific philosophies.

In opposition to the intellectual historiographical approach of the Enlightenment, which examines the various currents, or discourses of intellectual thought within the European context during the 17th and 18th centuries, the cultural (or social) approach examines the changes that occurred in European society and culture. Under this approach, the Enlightenment is less a collection of thought than a process of changing sociabilities and cultural practices – both the “content” and the processes by which this content was spread are now important.

One of the primary elements of the cultural interpretation of the Enlightenment is the rise of the public sphere in Europe. Civil society as an arena for voluntary collective actions of free citizens and their associations around shared interests, purposes and values was an inevitable part of Enlightenment. Public sphere of civil society was the spiritual space where citizens could get together and freely discuss political, social, and cultural problems of their life and influence on their resolving.

Values of this bourgeois public sphere were: its members held reason to be supreme; everything was open to criticism (the public sphere is critical); and its participants opposed secrecy of all sorts. The creation of the bourgeois public sphere was connected with two long-term historical trends: the rise of the modern nation state and the rise of capitalism. The modern nation state in its consolidation of public power created by counterpoint a private realm of society independent of the state – allowing for the public sphere. Capitalism likewise increased society’s autonomy and self-awareness, along with creating an increasing need for the exchange of information. As the nascent public sphere expanded, it embraced a large variety of institutions; the most commonly cited being coffee houses and cafés, salons and the literary public sphere. The context of the rise of the public sphere was the economic and social change commonly grouped under the effects of the Industrial Revolution: "economic expansion, increasing urbanisation, rising population and improving communications in comparison to the stagnation of the previous century". Rising efficiency in production techniques and communication lowered the prices of consumer goods at the same time as it increased the amount and variety of goods available to consumers (including the literature essential to the public sphere). Meanwhile, the colonial experience (most European states had colonial Empires in the 18th century) began to expose European society to extremely heterogeneous cultures. Outram writes that the end result was the breaking down of "barriers between cultural systems, religious divides, gender differences and geographical areas". In short, the social context was set for the public sphere to come into existence.

There were two main tendencies of Enlightenment – moderate and radical. The former adhered to the way of reforms, the latter exposed the idea of revolution. Amongst representatives of moderate Enlightenment were Voltaire, Ch.-L.  Montesquieu, D. Diderot in France, D. Hume, A. Smith in Scotland, B. Franklin in the USA. J.-J. Rousseau was a French intellectual of radical Enlightenment.

Till that period the majority of Ukrainian lands were under the rule of Russian Empire. Galicia, the Northern Bukovina, and Transcarpathia were the parts of Habsburg Empire. Russian Empress Catherine II was considered to be an adherent of the Enlightenment, she corresponded with Voltaire and invited Diderot to visit Russia. St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, established in 1724, was intended to support modernization of Russia. But Catherine could not implement the process of the Enlightenment there. There were neither bourgeoisie, nor civil society in Russian Empire of that period.

Russia was engaged actively in Classicism movement as the most relevant to imperial claims. Classicism referred generally to a high regard for classical antiquity, which inspired European culture from the mid-XVIII to the 1^st half of the XIX centuries. Classicism meant good familiarity of an artist with “classical” examples, to resynthesize and extend which was its agenda. While avoiding mere reproduction of classical themes, artists intended to place their works in the context of classical tradition and demonstrate their mastery of the genre rules.

In Ukrainian culture Classicism is represented by I. Kotlyarevsky, a poet and a playwright. Poet and playwright; the ‘founder’ of modern Ukrainian literature. After studying at the Poltava Theological Seminary (1780–9), he worked as a tutor at rural gentry estates, where he became acquainted with folk life and the peasant vernacular, and then served in the Russian army (1796–1808). In 1810 he became the trustee of an institution for the education of children of impoverished nobles. In 1812 he organized a Cossack cavalry regiment to fight Napoleon Bonaparte and served in it as a major (see Ukrainian regiments in 1812). He helped stage theatrical productions at the Poltava governor-general's residence and was the artistic director of the Poltava Free Theater (1812–21). From 1827 to 1835 he directed several philanthropic agencies.

Kotliarevsky's greatest literary work is his travesty of Virgil's Aeneid, Eneïda, which he began writing in 1794. Publication of its first three parts in Saint Petersburg in 1798 was funded by Maksym Parpura. Part four appeared in 1809. Kotliarevsky finished parts five and six around 1820, but the first full edition of the work (with a glossary) was published only after his death, in Kharkiv in 1842. Eneïda was written in the tradition of several existing parodies of Virgil's epic, including those by P. Scarron, A. Blumauer, and N. Osipov and A. Kotelnitsky. Although the Osipov-Kotelnitsky travesty served as a model for Kotliarevsky's mock-heroic poem, the latter is, unlike the former, a completely original work and much better from an artistic point of view. In addition to the innovation of writing it in the Ukrainian vernacular, Kotliarevsky used a new verse form—a 10-line strophe of four-foot iambs with regular rhymes—instead of the then-popular syllabic verse.

Eneïda was written at a time when popular memory of the Cossack Hetmanate was still alive and the oppression of tsarist serfdom in Ukraine was at its height. Kotliarevsky's broad satire of the mores of the social estates during these two distinct ages, combined with the in-vogue use of ethnographic detail and with racy, colorful, colloquial Ukrainian, ensured his work's great popularity among his contemporaries. It spawned several imitations (by Petro Hulak-Artemovsky, Kostiantyn Dumytrashko, Pavlo Biletsky-Nosenko, and others) and began the process by which the Ukrainian vernacular acquired the status of a literary language, thereby supplanting the use of older, bookish linguistic forms.

Kotliarevsky's operetta Natalka Poltavka (Natalka from Poltava) and vaudeville Moskal’-charivnyk (The Muscovite-Sorcerer) were landmarks in the development of Ukrainian theater. Written ca 1819, they were first published in vols 1 (1838) and 2 (1841) of the almanac Ukrainskii sbornik edited by Izmail Sreznevsky. Both were written for and performed at the Poltava Free Theater; both, particularly the first, were responses to the caricatures of Ukrainian life in Prince Aleksandr Shakhovskoi's comedy Kazak-stikhotvorets (The Cossack Poetaster), which was also staged at the Poltava Theater. As a playwright, Kotliarevsky combined the intermede tradition with his knowledge of Ukrainian folkways and folklore.

G. Kvitka-Osnovyanenko was also a prominent promoter of Ukrainian literary language, which he developed in his prose. His humorous novelettes (1831–1841) were the first prose in Ukrainian. At the age of 23 he entered the Kuriazh Monastery, but after serving as a novice for 10 months he returned to secular life. His religiosity remained a constant throughout his life and is evident in his writings. On his initiative the Kharkiv Theater was established in 1812, and he served as its first director. That year he also helped found and headed the Society of Benevolence, which provided aid to indigent children. He was a benefactor of an institute for girls and served as a county marshal of the nobility (1816–28), president of the Kharkiv chamber of the criminal court (1840–3), and curator of the first public book collection in Kharkiv.

Kvitka began writing rather late in his life, first in Russian and then in Ukrainian. His Little Russian Anecdotes was written in 1820–2 and published in 1822. Being a member of the provincial nobility, which accepted the existing social and political order as unchangeable, Kvitka never raised in his writings the issue of social or national injustice. At first he wrote in the tradition of literary travesty represented by Ivan Kotliarevsky, which viewed writing in Ukrainian merely as a pleasant pastime. His first Ukrainian short story, and the first story in modern Ukrainian literature—‘A Soldier's Portrait: A Latin Tall Tale Told in Our Tongue’(1833)—is written à la Kotliarevsky. To some extent his other humorous novelettes— “Parkhym's Breakfast” (1841), Pidbrekhach (The Second Matchmaker, 1843), and Kupovanyi rozum (Purchased Intelligence, 1842)—belong to the same genre.

Much more important was his collection “Little Russian Novelettes”, 2 vols, (1834, 1837), which included ‘Marusia,’ ‘Poor Oksana’, ‘True Love’, ‘God's Children’, and other stories. In them he moved beyond anecdote and travesty and showed that the Ukrainian language can also be used for serious subjects. These tales had a great influence on the subsequent development of Ukrainian literature and won their author the honorary title of the ‘father of Ukrainian prose.’ Having plots without any social conflict, and characters who are paragons of chastity and piety, Kvitka's serious tales are typical examples of Ukrainian sentimentalism, based on both the literary and the oral tradition. Kvitka's predilection for ethnographic detail left a mark on Ukrainian prose of the 19th and even 20th century. His simple style is attributable to the generally accepted belief that to write in Ukrainian one had to view the subject through the eyes of simple folk.

Kvitka's enduring popularity as a playwright rests on the comedies Svatannia na Honcharivtsi (Matchmaking at Honcharivka, 1836), Shel’menko-denshchyk (Shelmenko the Orderly, (1837). He also wrote several comedies in Russian, including ‘The Newcomer from the Capital, or the Hubbub in the County Town’ (1840), which some critics consider the precursor of Nikolai Gogol's Revizor (The Inspector-General). His most popular work in Russian was the novel Pan Khaliavskii (Master Khaliavsky, 1839). Kvitka's works have appeared in numerous editions. They belong to the Classicist period and are quite free of Romanticism, which was then coming into vogue. His major contribution was to extend the use of the Ukrainian language to ‘serious’ prose and to promote an interest in ethnography among his literary successors. He also wrote several historical studies of Slobidska Ukraine; most of them were published in the journal Sovremennik.

2. Romanticism was an artistic, literary and intellectual movement which appeared in Germany at the boundary of the centuries. It was originated as a reaction to the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment – excessive believe in rationalization and progress of humankind.

It was an artistic, literary and intellectual movement that originated in the second half of the 18th century in Europe, and gained strength in reaction to the Industrial Revolution. In part, it was a revolt against aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of Enlightenment and a reaction against the scientific rationalization of nature. It was embodied most strongly in the visual arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on historiography, education and natural history.

The movement validated strong emotion as an authentic source of aesthetic experience, placing new emphasis on such emotions as trepidation, horror and terror and awe—especially that which is experienced in confronting the sublimity of untamed nature and its picturesque qualities, both new aesthetic categories. It elevated folk art and ancient custom to something noble, made of spontaneity a desirable character (as in the musical impromptu), and argued for a "natural" epistemology of human activities as conditioned by nature in the form of language and customary usage.

In a basic sense, the term "Romanticism" has been used to refer to certain artists, poets, writers, musicians, as well as political, philosophical and social thinkers of the late 18th and early to mid 19th centuries. It has equally been used to refer to various artistic, intellectual, and social trends of that era. Despite this general usage of the term, a precise characterization and specific definition of Romanticism have been the subject of debate in the fields of intellectual history and literary history throughout the 20th century, without any great measure of consensus emerging.

The movement of Romanticism was inspired by national history and glorious past of the country. Lord Byron and W. Scott were the most popular Romantic authors of Europe. In Ukraine Romanticism became very popular cultural trend because it provoked appeal to the history of Ukraine, its traditions and glorious past. P. Gulak-Artemovky with his verses and romantic ballads was a representative of Ukrainian Romanticism, S. Rudansky also wrote in Romantic manner.

Rudansky, Stepan , b 6 January 1834 in Khomutyntsi, Vinnytsia county, Podilia gubernia, d 3 May 1873 in Yalta. Poet. He studied at the Saint Petersburg Academy of Medicine and Surgery, and after graduation (1861) he worked for the rest of his life as a doctor in Yalta. Rudansky began to write poetry in his pre–Saint Petersburg days, while still a student at the Kamianets-Podilskyi Theological Seminary, and that poetry shows the influence of Taras Shevchenko's work and of folklore. He began to publish his work in 1859 in Saint Petersburg, where he became friendly with a group of Ukrainian writers working on the journal Osnova (Saint Petersburg). Having begun in the genre of the Romantic ballad, Rudansky then turned to poetry on social issues, using that of Shevchenko as a model. That later poetry featured a condemnation of serfdom, a rallying call to work in the field of Ukrainian culture, and a reliving of the glorious history of the Ukrainian people. Rudansky achieved long-lasting fame as author of Spivomovky (Singing Rhymes, 1880), which consisted of poems of various length, jokes, proverbs, and short anecdotes about landlords, clerics, Gypsies, Muscovites, Poles, Jews, Germans, devils, Cossacks, peasants, and so forth, derived mainly from folk oral literature and written in a jaunty tone with pointed humor and many witticisms. Apart from those light-hearted spivomovky, Rudansky wrote lyric poetry filled with an aching sadness, which reflected not only the poet's personal life but also the sufferings of all his people. Some of those poems are autobiographical, and some became popular songs (such as ‘Povii vitre, na Vkraïnu’ [Blow, Wind, on Ukraine]). Rudansky's works also include translations, such as of The Tale of Ihor's Campaign, of Homer's Iliad, of Virgil's Aeneid, of a part of Mikhail Lermontov's Demon, and of individual poems by Heinrich Heine, Teofil Lenartowicz, and Branko Radičević. Most of his significant works were published only posthumously. Rudansky's style straddles the Romantic and the realist. His imagery and the poetics of his ballads and lyric poems are clearly of folkloric derivation.

Development of history and ethnography (i.e. learning the cultural phenomena of the definite ethnic group) was closely connected with Romanticism. “History of the Rus’ People”, a Romantically oriented book of unknown authorship, circulated in that time. It was a political exposition in a historical form that provided moral and political right of Ukraine to sovereignty.

Kotlyarevsky’s “The Aeneid” and “History of the Rus’ People” became arguments in polemics about the status of Ukrainian language, and wider – of Ukrainians to be an independent nation. These works proved the existence of Ukrainian literary language but not the Little Russian dialect, and Ukrainian cultural culture as a unique phenomenon.

In late 1830s, when Ukrainian lands were under the rule of Habsburg Empire, a Galician literary group “Ruthenian Triad” was inspired by Romanticism. M. Shashkevich, Y. Golovatsky, I. Vagilevich collected folk oral literature, studied history, wrote verses and treatises. Like Kotlyarevsky, they published the collection “The Dniester Nymph” (1836) in spoken Ukrainian and promoted the use of vernacular Ukrainian language in literature.

Simultaneously, there was so called Ukrainian school in Russian literature, in which N. Gogol was the first figure. (1809 -1852 ). The most famous Russian writer of Ukrainian origin. Having graduated from the Nizhyn gymnasium, he left for Saint Petersburg in 1828 armed with a manuscript and hope for a successful literary career. His aspirations were abruptly arrested by extremely negative criticism of his sentimentally Romantic narrative poem Hans Kuechelgarten, which he published at his own expense in 1829 and copies of which he subsequently bought out and destroyed. He tried to survive economically by working as a bureaucrat, a teacher at a boarding school for daughters of the nobility, and very briefly as a lecturer of history at Saint Petersburg University. In 1836 he left Russia and, except for two brief eight-month intervals (1838–9, 1841–2), he lived abroad, mostly in Rome, until 1849, when he returned via Palestine to Russia.

While working as a minor civil servant, Gogol spent his free time composing short stories based on his observations and memories of life in Ukraine. The first two volumes of these stories, ‘Evenings on a Farm near Dykanka’ (1831–2), brought him immediate fame. Hiding behind the authorial mask of Rudy Panko the beekeeper, Gogol managed to portray a world where fantasy and reality intermingle in the prism of the worldly-wise but unsophisticated narrator, and thus Ukraine becomes at once fanciful, humorous, nostalgic, and somewhat poignant in its quaintness.

In his second two-volume collection of Ukrainian stories, ‘Myrhorod’ (1835), containing the first version of his famous historical novelette Taras Bul’ba, Gogol's nostalgic tone gives way to a more satiric view of his native land. In the same year he also published ‘Arabesques’ (1835), in which his stories dealing with the world of the Saint Petersburg civil servant first appeared. Simultaneously he turned to writing drama and published his great “The Inspector-General” (1835), which needed the approval of the emperor to be staged in 1836. This was followed by his second completed play, “The Marriage” (1835), and the famous satirical story “The Nose” (1835). His other plays remained unfinished.

The staging of The Inspector-General did not produce the result Gogol intended. Shattered by the fact that his idea of the moral influence of true art did not have the desired effect, he left Russia. The years abroad were less productive. Gogol devoted himself to his epic work, “Dead Souls” (1842), but managed to finish successfully only the first of three intended parts. He also wrote his famous story Shinel’ (The Overcoat, 1841), and revised Taras Bul’ba and ‘Portret.’ In 1845 he wrote his didactic essays, “Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends” (1847). Disillusioned by the attacks that followed this publication, Gogol blamed himself for being incapable of producing morally ennobling art. His attempt at preparing himself morally for his task of ‘serving God and humanity’ sent him first on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; finally, under the influence of a religious fanatic, Rev M. Konstantinovsky, who demanded that he enter a monastery and destroy his ‘evil’ art, Gogol burned the second part of Dead Souls, refused all food, and stayed in bed until his death.

Gogol's works display different variations of the Romantic style and a masterly use of metaphor, hyperbole, and ironic grotesque. His language is exceptionally rhythmic and euphonic. He was the first writer of the so-called Ukrainian school in Russian literature to employ a host of lexical and syntactic Ukrainianisms, primarily to play with various stylistic levels from the vulgar to the pathetic. Some of his Ukrainian stories are the earliest examples of the Russian naturalist school, which combined Romantic ideology with a negative, ‘low’ depiction of everyday life. Gogol's writings were frequently imitated by such Ukrainian writers as Hryhorii Kvitka-Osnovianenko, Panteleimon Kulish, and Oleksa Storozhenko, and by such writers of the Ukrainian school in Russian literature as Yevhen Hrebinka; Gogol's influence was felt in the early writings of Ivan Turgenev, F. Dostoevsky, V. Sollogub, and by the Russian Symbolists F. Sologub, A. Remizov, and A. Bely.

3. Till the time of reforms in education at the first decades of the XIX century, Kiev Mohyla academy was reduced to a seminary, primary schools were destroyed at all. Reform assigned a definite school level as the extreme and ultimate to every estate. Only the children of nobility could study at universities of St. Petersburg and Moscow. But the new wave of educational reforms provoked a question about universities in Ukraine. In circumstances of Russification (i.e. acquisition of Russian language and culture by Ukrainians), universities were possible only as Russian-speaking institutions. So, the first university was founded in Slobodskaya Ukraine, in Kharkov in 1804. In Kiev the University was established in 1834. Famous botanist M. Maksimovich became the first rector of the university. In 1845 he left the post and devoted himself to ethnographic researches.

M. Maksimovich (1804 -1873). Historian, philologist, ethnographer, botanist, and poet. In 1832 he concluded his studies at Moscow University, and remained at the university for further academic work. He lectured in botany. In 1833 he received his PH D and was named professor for the chair of botany in Moscow University. In 1834 he was appointed professor of Russian folk literature at Kyiv University, and that year he became the university's first rector, a post he held until 1835. Owing to ill health he retired in 1845, and he devoted the rest of his life exclusively to scientific and literary work, which he engaged in on his estate, Mykhailova Hora. Notwithstanding his authority as an academic (he was an honorary member of numerous Ukrainian and Russian universities and many scientific societies) he was made a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences only toward the end of his life, in 1871. Maksymovych's learning was of encyclopedic dimensions and covered an unusually wide range, from botany to history. His scientific work in the field of the natural sciences was published in the 1820s and 1830s. That work, such as “On Systems of the Plant Kingdom” (1827), “The Foundations of Botany”, vols 1–2, (1828–31), “Reflections on Nature” (1833), not only met the standards of contemporary science but proposed a new methodology.

As a folklorist Maksymovych published collections of Ukrainian folk songs “Little Russian Songs” in Moscow in 1827 and “Ukrainian Folk Songs” in 1834. A third anthology, “A Collection of Ukrainian Songs”, pt 1, was published in Kyiv in 1849. Maksymovych's publications on folklore had a major influence on Ukrainian folklore studies, even in Galicia. In the field of philology Maksymovych published many papers on the classification of Slavic languages (1838, 1845, and 1850), in which he extensively used examples from Ukrainian. As a literary scholar Maksymovych studied “The Tale of Ihor's Campaign” and transcribed it into contemporary Ukrainian. He wrote “The History of Old Rus’ Literature”, vol 1, (1839). In addition he translated the Psalms into Ukrainian and wrote several poems (of note is the one dedicated to Taras Shevchenko “O, How Ukraine Has Longed after You”). Maksymovych published the anthologies and almanacs Dennitsa (1830–4), Kievlianin (1840–1, 1850), and Ukrainets (1859, 1864).

Maksymovych adhered to the then-popular idea of romanticism and identification with the peasant ethnos. He defended the theory of the organic link between the Princely era and Cossack era in Ukrainian history, to which he devoted much research and many articles, critical notes on sources, and other writings. In his article “On the Imaginary Desolation of Ukraine” (1857) and in letters to Mikhail Pogodin, Maksymovych exposed the faulty basis of Pogodin's hypothesis of the ‘Great Russian’ population of the Kyiv principality during the Princely era. The works of Maksymovych on the history of Rus’, on Kyiv, and its historic monuments are numerous; among them are “Essay on Kyiv” (1847) and “Letters about Kyiv to M. Pogodin” (1871). He wrote many articles on the history of the Cossack period, the Hetman state, and the haidamaka uprisings. His research in those areas was significant for the development of Ukrainian historiography.

Maksymovych also worked in the field of Ukrainian archeology and was the author of the first archeological report using the typological method in Ukraine. His work in the natural sciences and history found common ground in his philosophical work. Following Schelling's philosophy of nature, Maksymovych claimed that the study of nature and society should be based on scientifically researched facts. Research should be ‘rigorously analytical and carefully synthetic, and thus positive’ because ‘philosophy can be found in every work of the mind,’ and ‘all learned disciplines should be philosophy.’ ‘Regarding the various sciences, or various branches of knowledge, one all-encompassing philosophy ought to be used, right down to fine details.’

Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood, a secret civil association, was established at the initiative of N. Kostomarov and had links with the Kiev University. Its program documents were “The Book of the Genesis of the Ukrainian People” and “The Statute of the Slavic Society of St. Cyril and Methodius”, both by Kostomarov

The aim of the society was to transform the social order according to the Christian principles of justice, freedom, equality, and brotherhood. It proposed a series of reforms: (1) abolition of serfdom and equality of rights for all estates, (2) equal opportunity for all Slavic nations to develop their national language and culture, (3) education for the broad masses of the people, and (4) unification of all Slavs in the spirit of the Slavophilism of the time in a federated state in which Ukraine would play a leading role. Kyiv was to be the capital of the federation and the seat of the all-Slavic diet. Among others, the following individuals belonged to the brotherhood: M. Kostomarov, Vasyl Bilozersky, Oleksander Navrotsky, Mykola Hulak, Dmytro Pylchykov, O. Petrov, Panteleimon Kulish, Opanas Markovych, and Taras Shevchenko. Since the brotherhood never reached an organizational stage requiring a clear criterion of membership, its composition cannot be determined exactly. For a long time the membership in the society of Shevchenko and Kulish was questioned, but research finally confirmed that they were members. There is but one testimony on the general size of the society—D. Pylchykov's as noted down by Oleksander Konysky—and it gives the figure of about 100 members.

The organizational looseness of the society permitted members who shared the same aims to differ markedly on the means of realizing them. Kostomarov, Bilozersky, and others stood for liberal moderate reform, while Shevchenko came out with revolutionary slogans. Somewhere between these two poles stood Mykola Hulak and Oleksander Navrotsky. Before the society could become fully active, it was denounced by O. Petrov, and its members were arrested in March 1847. After a police investigation held in Saint Petersburg, the arrested members were punished without trial by exile or imprisonment. The relatively mild punishment meted out to the society's members (Shevchenko and Kulish were punished for crimes other than membership in the society), considering the antidespotic character of the society, can be explained, on the one hand, by the government's desire to conceal from the public any antigovernment tendencies and, on the other, by its reluctance to antagonize the Slavic movement in the West, which had ties through some of its representatives with members of the brotherhood. In spite of its brief existence the society made some impact on its contemporaries, as is evident from the propagation of anti-Russian proclamations during the detention of its members, and had an even more important influence on the development of the Ukrainian movement later on.

T. Shevchenko (1814–1861), Ukrainian bard and famous artist, was amongst members of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood. Ukraine’s national bard and famous artist. Born a serf, Shevchenko was orphaned when he was twelve and grew up in poverty and misery. He was taught to read by a village precentor and was often beaten for ‘wasting time’ on drawing. At the age of 14 he became a houseboy of his owner, P. Engelhardt, and served him in Vilnius (1828–31) and then Saint Petersburg. Engelhardt noticed Shevchenko's artistic talent, and in Saint Petersburg he apprenticed him to the painter V. Shiriaev for four years. Shevchenko spent his free time sketching the statues in the capital’s imperial summer gardens. There he met the Ukrainian artist Ivan Soshenko, who introduced him to other compatriots, such as Yevhen Hrebinka and Vasyl Hryhorovych, and to the Russian painter A. Venetsianov. Through these men Shevchenko also met the famous painter and professor Karl Briullov, who donated his portrait of the Russian poet Vasilii Zhukovsky as the prize in a lottery whose proceeds were used to buy Shevchenko's freedom on 5 May 1838.

Soon after, Shevchenko enrolled in the Imperial Academy of Arts in Saint Petersburg and studied there under Briullov’s supervision. In 1840 his first poetry collection, Kobzar, consisting of eight Romantic poems, was published in Saint Petersburg. It was followed by his epic poem Haidamaky (The Haidamakas, 1841) and the ballad Hamaliia (1844). While living in Saint Petersburg, Shevchenko made three trips to Ukraine, in 1843, 1845, and 1846, which had a profound impact on him. There he visited his still enserfed siblings and other relatives, met with prominent Ukrainian writers and intellectuals (eg, Hrebinka, Panteleimon Kulish, and Mykhailo Maksymovych), and was befriended by the princely Repnin family (especially Varvara Repnina). Distressed by the tsarist oppression and destruction of Ukraine, Shevchenko decided to capture some of his homeland’s historical ruins and cultural monuments in an album of etchings, which he called “Picturesque Ukraine” (1844).

After graduating from the academy of arts in 1845, Shevchenko became a member of the Kyiv Archeographic Commission and traveled widely through Russian-ruled Ukraine in 1845 to sketch historical and architectural monuments and collect folkloric and other ethnographic materials. In 1844 and 1845, mostly while he was in Ukraine, he wrote some of his most satirical and politically subversive narrative poems, including “A Dream”, ‘The Heretic/Jan Hus”, “The Blind Man”, ‘The Caucasus”. He transcribed them and his other poems of 1843–45 into an album he titled “Three Years”.

While in Kyiv in 1846, Shevchenko joined the secret Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood. Like the other members of the brotherhood, he was arrested, on 5 April 1847. The authorities’ confiscation and discovery of his anti-tsarist satirical poems in the ‘Try lita’ album brought Shevchenko a particularly severe punishment—military service as a private in the Orenburg Special Corps in a remote region by the Caspian Sea. Tsar Nicholas I himself ordered that Shevchenko be forbidden to write, draw, and paint while in military exile. While serving at the Orenburg and Orsk fortresses, however, Shevchenko managed to continue doing so. He hid his secretly written poems in several handmade ‘bootleg booklets’ (1847, 1848, 1849, 1850). Many of the drawings and paintings he made while in exile depict the life of the indigenous Kazakhs. Owing to Shevchenko’s skill as a painter, he was included in a military expedition to survey and describe the Aral Sea (1848–9).

In 1850 Shevchenko was transferred to the Novopetrovskoe fortress (now Fort Shevchenko in Kazakhstan), where the terms of his captivity were more harshly enforced. Nevertheless, he managed to create over a hundred watercolor and pencil drawings and write several novellas in Russian. Finally released from military exile in 1857, two years after Nicholas I’s death, Shevchenko was not allowed to live in Ukraine. After spending half a year in Nizhnii Novgorod, he moved to Saint Petersburg. He was allowed to visit relatives and friends Ukraine in 1859, but there he was detained and interrogated and sent back to Saint Petersburg. Shevchenko remained under police surveillance until his death. He was buried in Saint Petersburg, but two months later, in accordance with his wishes, his remains were transported to Ukraine and reburied on Chernecha Hora (Monk’s Mountain) near Kaniv. Since that time, his grave has been a ‘holy’ place of visitation by millions of Ukrainians. Today it is part of the Kaniv Museum-Preserve (est 1925).

Shevchenko has had a unique place in Ukrainian cultural history and in world literature. Through his writings he laid the foundations for the creation of a fully functional modern Ukrainian literature. His poetry contributed greatly to the growth of Ukrainian national consciousness, and his influence on various facets of Ukrainian intellectual, literary, and national life is still felt to this day.

Shevchenko's literary oeuvre consists of one mid-sized collection of poetry (Kobzar); the drama Nazar Stodolia and two play fragments; nine novellas, a diary, and an autobiography written in Russian; four articles; and over 250 letters. Already during his first period of literary activity (1837–43), he wrote highly sophisticated poetic works. He adapted the style and versification of Ukrainian folk songs to produce remarkably original poems with a complex and shifting metric structure, assonance and internal rhyme, masterfully applied caesuras and enjambments, and sophisticated alliterations grafted onto a 4 + 4 + 6 syllable unit derived from the kolomyika song structure. He also abandoned use of the regular strophe. Innovations can also be found in Shevchenko's use of epithets, similes, metaphors, symbols, and personifications. A man of his time, his worldview was influenced by Romanticism. But Shevchenko managed to find his own manner of poetic expression, which encompassed themes and ideas germane to Ukraine and his personal vision of its past and future.

Shevchenko’s early works include the ballads ‘Prychynna’ (The Bewitched Woman, 1837), ‘Topolia’ (The Poplar, 1839), and ‘Utoplena’ (The Drowned Maiden, 1841). Their affinity with Ukrainian folk ballads is evident in their plots and supernatural motifs. Of special note is Shevchenko’s early ballad ‘Kateryna’ (1838), dedicated to Vasilii Zhukovsky in memory of the purchase of Shevchenko's freedom. In it he tells the tale of a Ukrainian girl seduced by a Russian soldier and abandoned with child—a symbol of the tsarist imposition of serfdom in Ukraine.

Although Shevchenko's early poetic achievements were evident to his contemporaries, it was not until his second period (1843–5) that through his poetry he gained the stature of a national bard. Having spent eight months in Ukraine at that time, Shevchenko realized the full extent of his country's misfortune under tsarist rule and his own role as that of a spokesperson for his nation's aspirations through his poetry. He wrote the poems ‘Rozryta mohyla’ (The Ransacked Grave, 1843), ‘Chyhyryne, Chyhyryne’ (O Chyhyryn, Chyhyryn, 1844), and ‘Son’ (A Dream, 1844) in reaction to what he saw in Ukraine. In ‘Son’ he portrayed with bitter sarcasm the arbitrary lawlessness of tsarist rule. Shevchenko’s talent for satire is also apparent in his 1845 poems ‘Velykyi l'okh,’ ‘Kavkaz,’ ‘Kholodnyi Iar,’ and ‘I mertvym, i zhyvym …’ (To the Dead and the Living.). ‘Velykyi l'okh, ’a ‘mystery’ in three parts, is an allegory that summarizes Ukraine's passage from freedom to captivity. In ‘Kavkaz’ Shevchenko universalizes Ukraine's fate by turning to the myth of Prometheus, the free spirit terribly punished for rebelling against the gods, yet eternally reborn. He localizes the action in the Caucasus, whose inhabitants suffered a fate similar to that of the Ukrainians under tsarism. In his poetic epistle ‘I mertvym, i zhyvym …’ Shevchenko turns his bitterness and satire against the Ukrainians themselves, reminding them that only in ‘one's own house’ is there ‘one's own truth’ and entreating them to realize their national potential, stop serving foreign masters, and become honorable people worthy of their history and heritage, in their own free land.

Similarly, in his poem ‘Try lita’ (1845), which has also been used as the name of the second period of Shevchenko’s poetic creativity and the body of work he wrote at that time, he presents his own ‘awakening’ to the shame around him. Shevchenko laments his lost innocence and scorns the coming new year ‘swaddled’ in one more ukase. His scorn for the inactivity of his compatriots is also echoed in the poem ‘Mynaiut' dni, mynaiut' nochi’ (Days Pass, Nights Pass, 1845), in which somnolent inactivity is seen as far worse than death in chains. In December 1845 Shevchenko composed a cycle of poems titled ‘Davydovi psalmy’ (David’s Psalms).

Shevchenko wrote his poetic cycle ‘V kazemati’ (In the Casemate) in the spring of 1847 during his arrest and interrogation in Saint Petersburg. It marks the beginning of the most difficult, late period of his life (1847–57). The 13 poems of the cycle contain reminiscences (the famous lyrical poem ‘Sadok vyshnevyi kolo khaty’ [The Cherry Orchard by the House]); reflections on the fate of the poet and his fellow members of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood; and poignant reassertions of his beliefs and his commitment to Ukraine. Throughout his exile, Shevchenko's views did not change. But his poems grew more contemplative and reflective. In his ‘bootleg booklets’ he continued writing autobiographical, lyrical, narrative, historical, political, religious, and philosophical poems. Of special interest is his long poem ‘Moskaleva krynytsia’ (The Soldier's Well, 1847, 2d variant 1857), which reveals Shevchenko's preoccupation with the themes of inhumanity and the capacity to accept and forgive. A comparison of its two variants provides an insight into Shevchenko’s maturation as a poet and thinker.

Varied and rich are the poems devoted to narratives and description motivated by his memories of peasant life. Shevchenko uses folk-song elements to depict sadness, parting, loneliness, folkways, motherhood, women’s harsh fate, and the longing for happiness. His poetic style is marked by the use of simple language, concrete descriptions, metaphors, and personification. Shevchenko consistently refined his use of folkloric material. He expanded the use of ancient symbolism and made full use of the expressivity of folk songs. His adaption and transformation of folkloric elements was so successful that many of his poems became folk songs (such as Reve ta stohne Dnipr shyrokyi [The Mighty Dnieper Roars and Bellows]) in their own right.

Shevchenko sporadically reiterated his political convictions and continued pointing to the tsarist enslavement of individuals (serfdom) and nations. In his poem ‘Poliakam’ (To the Poles, 1847), he once again called for a Polish-Ukrainian pan-Slavic brotherhood. Shevchenko used a Kazakh legend in his short poem ‘U Boha za dveryma lezhala sokyra’ (Behind God’s Door Lay an Ax, 1848) to describe in allegorical terms the Kazakhs’ misfortunes under Russian rule. Satire remained part of his poetic arsenal. In the poem ‘Tsari’ (Tsars, 1848, revised 1858) he presented killing, debauchery, incest, and adultery as typical of royal courts, including those of King David of Israel and Grand Prince Volodymyr the Great. The successful combination of an offhand burlesque style with bitter invective gave Shevchenko a powerful but somewhat veiled weapon in his attack on monarchism in general and tsarism in particular. Much more direct are his accusations against the tsars in ‘Irzhavets'’ (1847, revised 1858).

Parallel to the motifs of the seduced girl and the unwed mother, which occur frequently in Shevchenko's poems, is the motif of incest. It appears in ‘Tsari’ and ‘Vid' ma’ and forms the basis for ‘Kniazhna’ (The Princess, 1847). Although in many of his poems Shevchenko harshly attacked the hypocrisy of the church and clergy, he remained steadfast in his belief that divine justice would triumph one day not only in Ukraine, but throughout the world. His millenarian vision appears in many of his poems, but it is perhaps best encapsulated in the following lines from ‘I Arkhimed i Halilei’ (Both Archimedes and Galileo, 1860): ‘An d on the reborn earth / There will be no enemy, no tyrant / There will be a son, and there will be a mother, / And there will be people on the earth.’

The last period of Shevchenko's creativity began after his return from exile in 1857 and ended with his death in 1861. It is marked in his works by more frequent allusions to the Bible and classical literature and by the increasingly dominant role of contemplative lyricism.

The novellas Shevchenko wrote while in exile were not published during his lifetime. They reflect the influence of the satirical-exposé prose of Nikolai Gogol, but also contain many asides (excursions into the past, inserted episodes, authorial comments, reminiscences, and commentaries). Although written in Russian, they contain many Ukrainianisms. The first two of them—‘Naimychka’ (The Servant Girl, 1852–3) and ‘Varnak’ (The Convict, 1853–4)— share the anti-serfdom themes of Shevchenko's Ukrainian poems with the same titles. ‘Kniaginia’ (The Princess, 1853) is similar in theme to his poem ‘Kniazhna.’ The remaining six novellas—‘Muzykant’ (The Musician, 1854–5), ‘Neschastnyi’ (The Unfortunate Man, 1855), ‘Kapitansha’ (The Captain’s Woman, 1855), ‘Bliznetsy’ (The Twins, 1855), ‘Khudozhnik’ (The Artist, 1856), and ‘Progulka s udovol’stviiem i ne bez morali’ (A Stroll with Pleasure and Not without a Moral, 1856–8)— are not thematically similar to any particular poems. Shevchenko also kept a daily diary in Russian; it is of great value in interpreting his poetic works and an important source for studying his intellectual interests and development.

Shevchenko has held a unique position in Ukrainian intellectual history, and the importance of his poetry for Ukrainian culture and society cannot be underestimated. His Kobzar marks the beginning of a new era in Ukrainian literature and in the development of the modern Ukrainian language. Through his poetry, Shevchenko legitimized the use of Ukrainian as a language of modern literature. His poems’ revolutionary and political content found resonance among other captive peoples. The earliest translations of his poems—mainly into Polish, Russian, Czech, and German—appeared while he was still alive. By the 1990s parts of the Kobzar had been translated into more than 100 languages. Shevchenko's poetry has also become a source of inspiration for many other works of literature, music, and art.

Although Shevchenko is known primarily because of his poetry, he was also an accomplished artist; 835 of his art works are extant, and another 270 of his known works have been lost. Although trained as an academic artist in Saint Petersburg, Shevchenko moved beyond stereotypical historical and mythological subjects to realistic depictions on ethnographic themes, such as his painting A Peasant Family (1844), often expressing veiled criticism of the absence of personal, social, and national freedom under tsarist domination. His portraits have a broad social range of subjects, from simple peasants and petty officials to prominent Ukrainian and Russian cultural figures, Ukrainian historical figures , members of former Cossack starshyna families, and members of the imperial nobility. They are remarkable for the way Shevchenko uses light to achieve sensitive three-dimensional modeling. He painted or sketched over 150 portraits, 43 of them of himself. He also painted and drew numerous landscapes and recorded such Ukrainian architectural monuments as The Vydubychi Monastery (1844), Bohdan’s Church in Subotiv (1845), The Ascension Cathedral in Pereiaslav (1845), The Ruins of Subotiv (1845), The Pochaiv Monastery from the South (1846), and Askoldova Mohyla (1846). While in exile he depicted the folkways of the Kirghiz and Kazak people. Shevchenko frequently turned in his paintings and drawings to literary, historical, and mythological motifs. He was also very proficient in watercolor, aquatint, and etching. On 2 September 1860 the Imperial Academy of Arts recognized his mastery by designating him an academician-engraver.

4. Styles in arts of that period demonstrated the variety and richness of manifestations. The end of the XVIII century was marked by intermingled rococo and baroque influences. Rococo, also referred as “late Baroque”, became the style of ornate, florid, and playful decorativeness. Rococo influences in Ukrainian sculpture can be seen in iconostases, where carved shell motifs and interlace patterns replaced grapevines and acanthus foliage. Examples of Rococo style in Ukraine are: the Cathedral of God’s Mother Nativity (1752–1763) in Kozelets; the Roman Catholic Churches of the Dominican order in Lviv (1747–1764); the town hall (1751) in Buchach, Galicia.

Classicism in sculpture was represented by Ivan P. Martos and M. Kozlovsky, who worked in St. Petersburg and Moscow, and by K. Klimchenko, who worked in Rome. Ukrainian classicist painters had an important influence on the development of Russian painting; among these painters were A. Losenko, who founded the historical school at the Russian Academy of Arts; D. Levitsky, who was the leading portraitist of his time; and Levitsky's student V. Borovikovsky, who painted icons and portraits. All of them worked in St. Petersburg.

Losenko, Antin, ( 1737 -1773 ) Painter; a leading exponent of historical painting in the classicist style. He was brought to Saint Petersburg to sing in the imperial court choir in 1744. After his voice changed, he was sent to study art under I. Argunov (1753–8) and at the Saint Petersburg Academy of Arts (1759–60), which gave him bursaries to study in Paris (1760–5) and Rome (1766–9). Losenko became a member of and professor at the academy in 1770, served as its director (1772–3), and wrote its textbook on human proportions (1772). His oeuvre includes paintings on biblical and mythological themes, such as The Miraculous Draught of Fishes (1762), Abraham's Sacrifice (1765), Cain (1768), Abel (1769), Zeus and Themis (1769), and Hector's Parting with Andromache (1773); paintings on historical themes, such as The Holy Apostle Andrew (1769) and Grand Prince Volodymyr and Rohnida (1770); portraits of prominent personalities; a self-portrait; and approx 200 drawings of nude figures and parts of the body, which were held up as models of excellence to students at the academy for many years. Losenko introduced to Russian painting the pompier style and influenced the work of several artists, including I. Akimov, P. Sokolov, and G. Ugriumov. Most of his works are preserved at the Russian Museum in Saint Petersburg and the Tretiakov Gallery in Moscow.

Levytsky, Dmytro H. ( 1735 -1822 ). The most prominent portraitist of the classicist era in the Russian Empire. He acquired his basic training from his father, Hryhorii K. Levytsky, and helped him do engravings for the Kyivan Cave Monastery Press. In 1753–6 he helped his father and Aleksii Antropov decorate Saint Andrew's Church in Kyiv. From 1758 to 1761 he worked in Saint Petersburg, where he likely studied with Antropov, L.-J.-F. Lagrené, and G. Valeriani. From 1762, while living in Moscow he was a portraitist in great demand among the Russian aristocracy. He moved to Saint Petersburg in 1769, and he won the highest award at the summer exhibition in 1770 held by the Saint Petersburg Academy of Arts and was elected a member of the academy. A teacher of portraiture at the academy (1771–88), he retired to Ukraine in 1788, but in 1795 he returned to Saint Petersburg to become portraitist at the imperial court.

Building on the baroque, classicism, and Western European traditions, Levytsky created a school of portrait painting. His portraits reveal his expert knowledge of drawing, composition, color, and the appropriate gesture. He executed over 100 portraits, including ones of Empress Catherine II (Portrait of Catherine II, 1783), other members of the Russian imperial family, King Stanislaus I Leszczyński, the French encyclopedist D. Diderot (now in the Geneva Museum of Art and History), his own father, brother, and daughter (Portrait of the Artist's Daughter), and six of the first graduates of the Smolny Institute for aristocrats' daughters. Many Ukrainian (eg, L. Myrypolsky, S. Maiatsky, L. Kalynovsky) and Russian portraitists studied with Levytsky at the academy, and his works influenced Volodymyr Borovykovsky.

Borovykovsky, Volodymyr ( 1757 - 1825 ). Iconographer and portrait painter, son of Luka Borovyk (d 1775) who was a Cossack fellow of the banner and an iconographer. Borovykovsky was trained in art by his father and uncle and then in 1788 went to study portrait painting under Dmytro H. Levytsky at the Saint Petersburg Academy of Arts. In 1793 he became an academician there. Until 1787 Borovykovsky lived and worked in Ukraine. During his career he painted many churches, icons, and iconostases, only some of which have been preserved: the icons of Christ (1784) and the Virgin Mary (1784 and 1787), now in Kyiv, the icon of SS Thomas and Basil (1770s, in Myrhorod), the iconostases and wall paintings in the village churches in Kybyntsi in the Poltava region and Ichnia in the Chernihiv region, several icons in the Church of Saint Catherine in Kherson, the religious painting King David (1785), now in Saint Petersburg, and the iconostasis in the Church of the Holy Protectress in the village of Romanivka in the Chernihiv region (1814–15). Borovykovsky's religious art departed from the established norms of Byzantine iconography in the Russian Empire and tended towards a realistic approach.

Borovykovsky painted about 160 portraits, among them Ukrainian public figures, including the Poltava burgomaster P. Rudenko (1778), O. Kapnist (1780), the wife of Oleksander Bezborodko with his daughters (Portrait of O. Bezborodko with her Daughters, 1803), Bishop M. Desnytsky, the mayor of Kyiv P. Borshchevsky (1816), Dmytro Troshchynsky (1819), and A. Rodzianko (1821). Among the large number of official portraits he painted are the full-figure portraits of Catherine II (Portrait of Catherine II, 1794) and Paul I (Portrait of Tsar Paul I, 1800), Prince A. Kurakin (Portrait of Prince Kurakin, 1799), and the Russian poets G. Derzhavin (Portrait of G. Derzhavin, 1811) and Vasilii Zhukovsky. At the beginning of the 1790s Borovykovsky began to paint miniatures and portraits of women in the Ukrainian iconographic style. Adhering to the spirit of classicism, he promoted West European traditions through his art. The largest number of Borovykovsky's works can be found in the museums of Saint Petersburg and Moscow. In Ukraine they can be seen in the museums of Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odesa, Poltava, Dnipropetrovske, Kherson, and Symferopil. A few of his paintings are in the United States.

In architecture classicism is represented by palaces of Ossolinskis in Lviv (1827), P. Galagan’s palace in Sokirintsy (1829); city architecture such as the new building of the Kiev Mohyla Academy (1822), the Bezborodko Nezhin Lyceum (1824), the Kiev University (1837–1842): church architecture of the Church Rotunda on the Askold Grave in Kiev (1809–1816), the Transfiguration Cathedral in Bolgrad (1833–1838), the Cathedral of Saint Peter and Paul in Sevastopol (1843).

A special place in Ukrainian fine arts belongs to T. Shevchenko, the alumnus of the Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg. He was interested in realistic depiction on ethnographic themes, in portrait painting, and etching. He painted or sketched over 150 portraits, 43 of them were of himself. He also painted and drew landscapes and architectural monuments. While in exile, he depicted folkways of the Kirghiz and Kazakh people. In 1860 the Imperial Academy of arts recognized his mastery by giving him the rank of an academician-engraver

Practical Class 7