What did the Church Union of Brest 1596 mean for Rus/Ukraine and its neighbours?

[yurilev0]

Originally posted by Zbyszek

Hello Yuri,
Your observations are interesting and I have to reason not to trust you. My own experience is very limited in this case. I think the differences reflect the different cultures which developed in the west and in the east of Ukraine. The eastern part was united in the religious aspect and experienced more personal submission at the same time. The western part was more diversified in the religious sense and there was more personal freedom and people got used to it.

Hi Zby,

In what sense was the western part more religiously diversified? Are you talking about pre Brest Lotovsk? Were they not all basically Orthodox before that time? I thought they were, but if not I am curious to know.

Yuri

[Halina]

Originally posted by yurilev0
Dear Halina,

I don't think that the divisions are as sharp as they were but they still exist. I come from a Uniate family, but let me tell you I am far from thinking of the Orthodox as "the others."

I haven't been to Ukraine in over four years, but from my experience the Brest treaty created two different Ukraines in many ways. The two peoples have very different general character. Speaking VERY generally, westerners or Uniates, tend to be very staunch and stubborn in there convictions. The down side is that they're very very conservative. Eastern or Orthodox Ukrainians have been conquered more. They tend to be more pliable and open.The west is more nationalistic while the east is more open to influences. It's a different experience traveling in the east or the west.
Yuri

Hi Yuri,

I had a vague idea about such differences beforehand but I'd be grateful if you could tell me more since you know it from your own experience. For example, what do you reckon, is the reason behind the Western, Uniate part of the Ukraine being more conservative & nationalistic than the East?
And, let's say someone visits the Eastern part of the Ukraine and while discussing history, mentions the fact they are Uniate. Does it have any specific impact on the Orthodox listener? I know, of course, that we do not live at the time of 'The Wars of the Deacons' & you say yourself it makes no difference to you whether someone is an Old Believer, or a Uniate, but is there still some emotional taboo regarding the two Churches in the Ukarine as a whole?

[Zbyszek]

Originally posted by yurilev0

Hi Zby,

In what sense was the western part more religiously diversified? Are you talking about pre Brest Lotovsk? Were they not all basically Orthodox before that time? I thought they were, but if not I am curious to know.

Yuri [/B]

Hi Yuri, at the moment I am terribly busy so I will give you more detailed answer a bit later. Look, the western wind of reformation came to Poland in the XVIth century and the religious tolerance soon became a daily practice in plural society (although it applied almost only to the nobles which were unexpectedly numerous).
This contradicts the erroneous and well established notion of Poland as an ultra-catholic country . In Ukraine, there were not enough nobles to spread the new religions. Compare it with Lithuania, where there were quite a lot of Calvinists at a time of the Brest Union.

Halina, thank you for your voice which I respect.

[yurilev0]

Dear Halina,

I have to preface some things I say with my impression that you and Zby know this part of history better than me. Having said that, I can say that from what I know that the east became less nationalistic due to heavy handed Muscovite tactics fro 1654 onward. As far as my knowledge goes, from Hrushesky to Subtelny to Anna Reid, the west was alternately under the Poles and the Austrians since that time. The Austrians especially were very tolerant of cultural and geographical diversity. Galicia especially was able to retain a Rus identity. Within western Ukraine there was some conflict regarding Carpato-Rus versus Rus/Ruthenians. The later eventually developed the Ukrainian identity.

In the east, the Ukrainian language was trampeled very badly, culminating in the Tsarist Ukaz of around the mid nineteenth century, forbidding any use of the Ukrainian language whatsoever.

Today there is still some degree of alienation. I have been involved with a spiritual organization in the east, for example, that was more worried about maintaining ties with their brethren in Uzbekistan and Russia than strengthening relations with comrades in Western Ukraine. There is a kind of barrier, almost invisible. like a silk or plastic curtain. I think that the language issue may have something to do with it,while the religious issue is a more subtle undertone.

That's about all I can say about that for now, but I'll be happy to write more when I get more time.

I am also grateful for your voice Halina.

Yuri

[Halina]

Hello Yuri,

Thanks a lot for your kind words concerning our knowledge of history. I think Zbyszek's historical analysis is usually very informative and conscious of the manifold intricacies involving historical events. This is especially true in the case of the Ukrainian-Polish relationship both in the past & nowadays.(He started this thread!).

As for myself, I am very fond of history and base my knowledge on the books I've read, or documentaries I've watched, but I am not an expert by any means! Sometimes, lietrature and customs are really handy. Also, the language is a great source of historical information since place -names, proverbs and sayings can teach you a lot about a given nation.

Coming back to the topic, your observations with regard to the religious divisions in the Ukraine come as the first-hand experience and as such are even more valuable. I have read your recent post with a great deal of interest.

It looks like the the Eastern part of the Ukraine suffered a lot from the hands of the Tsarist police. The language of the local population - as a living symbol of their identity, was doomed by the order of the Tsar. Thus the Eastern Ukrainians somehow resigned themselves to the dominance of the Russian colossus. The Western Ukrainians, on the other hand, could breath more freely under the Polish and then the Habsburg rule.
The Poles did not always treat them fairly at all. Yet, the idea of the religious tolerance and multiculturalism within the Commonwealth was very vivid and significant (prior to the Union of Brest).

In this sense, Zbyszek is right quoting the Reformation and the religious toleration of Rzeczpospolita. For example (as related by a Welsh historian - N.Davies in 'God's Playground'), even after the Union of Brest, the purely Orthodox Ruthenian/Ukrainian Prince - Ostrogski married a lady of the Tarnowski Famiy, who was a devout Catholic. Ostrogski's son - Janusz was a Catholic and his two sons were Catholics as well, while the third son became an Orthodox.

To make matters even more mixed-up, one of his daughters married Krzysztof Radziwill, the Calvinist Hetman of Lithuania and the other daughter married an Arian!

Rzeczpospolita was full of different religions (including Islam) and they could peacefully co-exist, or even mingle like in the case of the above marriages. This - one has to admit - was a unique phenomenon at that time (when compared with i.e. the Spanish Inquisition, or the massacres of the Irish Catholics opposing the English Protestantism, or the witch-hunt practised all over Europe).

No, I do not think the Union of Brest was a grand idea since there was a breach of trust between the Crown and the Orthodox Church. The latter finally managed to reassert itself against the Catholic supremacy, but then it became the prey of Muscovy for a change.

All this probably lies at the heart of this subtle 'silk-like' division in the nowadays' Ukraine that you've written about. Do you think the two attitudes also include some specific loyalties, i.e the Eatserners are more pro-Russian and see themselves as a part of the 'Grand Russian tree'?.
Or am I wrong?

[yurilev0]

Hello Halina,

This is a good discussion for me, in the sense that there was a gap in my knowledge with regard to Rzeczpospolita. Does this word stand for a Commonwealth policy or is it the name of the state at the time?

As for the loyalties of the Eastern Ukrainians, I'm still trying to get a handle on that myself. Many parodoxes exist, and I've encountered a wide spectrum of people and attitudes.

For example, therre is the "Sowjetski cholowjek" who feels allegiance to nothing and nobody. He is neither Ukrainian,Russian or even Soviet. I've met a few people like that and they are usually either cynical, arrogant, hostile or a combination thereof. Then there is the Russian speaker who feels ambivalent about western Ukrainians but feels proud about things such as Ukraine's take-over of the Black Sea Fleet. Then there is the Ukrainian speaker who also knows Russian and slides effortlessly between the languages as need dictates. He knows Ukrainian but doesn't make a big deal out of it. He or she also may have nationalistic feelings. You also have the Ukrainian speaker who is hostile to the languauge, deeming it below Russian in nobility and quality. You also get the nationalist who grew up on Ukrainian. Then you have the "Surzhyk" speaker, that mixure of Ukrainian and Russian who isn't so crazy about Ukrainian indepence.

Halina, I haven't even begun to scratch the surface with regard to the different allegiances and attitudes. It's a big puzzle, a large murky maze.

Y

[mishaaverko]

HISTORY OF THE UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE
http://www.ukraine.com/forums/showth...?threadid=4486

I have linked The _Last Word's opening post on a thread he initiated to serve as an offest to the pro-Polish anti-Russian west Ukrainian nationalist spin dominating this forum.

I personally know a RUSSIAN whose parents emigrated to America from Galicia in the early 19 hundreds. One of the first things his family did was reconvert to the RUSSIAN Orthodox Church out of the belief that the Uniate influence was part of a foreign occupation hostile to the Kievan Rus legacy.

A few years ago on the North American produced weekly Ukrainian emigre show Kontakt, one of the Ukrainian nationalist hosts discussed a trend of how Uniates were seeking to become more closer to Orthodox ritual.

Gogol was a Russian-Ukrainian, whose epic Taras Bulba heroically depicts the RUSSIAN struggle against Polish occupation.

I justifiably don't accept this crapola about how comparatively more freer and democratic Polish occupation was over Russian governed Ukraine. During the Soviet era before WW II, yes, Poland was freer. Still, this didn't stop people like Bandera from committing acts of terrorism against Polish officials.

As for this garabge about suppressing the Ukrainian language, Russian was the language of the Russian Empire. In schools and other government run sectors, Russian was the utilized language. However, outside these structures, people were able to utilize other languages. This explains why these languages survived to the degree they did.

When discussing contemporary Ukrainians, there's also the Skoropodsky model (named after a Russian Civil War Ukrainian Cossack noble, who headed a short lived Ukrainian government), which identifies with a Ukrainian background, while proudly feeling a unified kinship with Russia. Many such individuals have Great Russian ethnic backgrounds to go along with their Ukrainian one. Within this grouping, a simultaneous feeling of being Russian and Ukrainian is evident.

I personally know that this spirit is even greater in present day Belarus.