Change in the Austrian Empire

At the beginning of 1848, the Habsburg ruling elite was confident about the future of the empire. One reason for its confidence was the recent Habsburg success in dealing with such trouble-spots as Galicia, where small groups of Polish nobles and intelligentsia had conspired for decades to restore the old Commonwealth.

The series of revolts that engulfed much of Europe in spring 1848 signaled a dramatic change in Habsburg fortunes. These revolts, brought on not just by demands for political and socioeconomic reform, but also, in central and Eastern Europe in particular, by the awakening desire for national sovereignty, hit hard at the conservative, multinational empire. During this “spring of nations,” when nationhood emerged as the paramount political issue, the Habsburgs’ German and Italian subjects rose up to demand unification with their brethren outside the empire. Simultaneously, the Hungarians commenced a war of national independence, and the Poles once again agitated for the restoration of their lost statehood.

When news of the riots in Vienna, of the resignation of the hated Prince Metternich, and of the promises of the badly shaken Emperor Ferdinand to implement political liberalization and social reform reached Lviv on 19 March 1848, the Poles immediately sprang into action. They sent off a petition to the emperor calling for even more liberalization and greater political rights for Poles in Galicia, but they totally ignored any mention of the Ukrainian presence in the province. To mobilize support for these demands, a Polish National Council was organized in Lviv on 13 April. Soon afterwards, a network of local councils and a newspaper were founded. To the great surprise and disappointment of the Poles, the Ukrainians – whom the Poles did not consider a separate nationality – rejected invitations to join in these efforts. Instead, they formed their own representative body, the Supreme Ruthenian Council (Holovna Ruska Rada), along with a system of local branches and a newspaper. Fortunately for the Habsburgs, they had an unusually intelligent and enterprising defender of their interests in Galicia in the person of Count Franz Stadion, the recently appointed governor of the province. In the tense situation that developed in Galicia, he was able to manipulate skillfully the key issues and play the Ukrainians and Poles off against each other in a generally successful attempt to retain Habsburg control over the province.

From the Ukrainian point of view, there were two main and closely intertwined issues that predominated in 1848. One was socioeconomic in nature and dealt with the traditional problem of the peasantry, particularly its crushing feudal obligations to the landlords. The other was concerned with the new concept of nationality and, specifically, how two peoples – the Poles and Ukrainians – who had until recently always viewed themselves simply as peasants or noblemen, Greek Catholics or Roman Catholics, but who were now beginning to define themselves as separate and distinct ethno-cultural communities or nations (with competing national aspirations) were to coexist in a single province.

Already for many years prior to 1848, it was clear to open-minded bureaucrats, liberal intelligentsia, and even some noblemen that the feudal rights the landlord nobility exercised over the peasants who worked on its estates were badly outdated. As early as the 1780s, during the reign of Joseph II, major changes were introduced in the landlord/peasant relationship. The most important of these was that the peasants obtained the right to defend their interests in court. Another reform distinguished the landlord’s lands from those lands set aside for the use of peasants. However, a major feature of the feudal lord/peasant relationship, namely corvee (pan-shchyna in Ukrainian), remained – especially in the less advanced areas of the empire, such as Galicia. Corvee was the obligation of peasants to work on the lands of their lord, usually two or three days per week, in return for the use of their plots. It was this hated obligation that was the cause of most dissatisfaction and bitterness among the Galician peasantry.

The revolution of 1848, and particularly the tense situation it engendered in Galicia, finally created the conditions for the abolition of this last vestige of serfdom. Having learned their lesson in 1846, Polish patriots – mostly nobles – now eagerly sought the goodwill of the peasantry in an effort to strengthen their position in Galicia. To this end, they urged their fellow Polish noblemen to abolish the hated corvee voluntarily. The nobility’s response was generally negative, however. Nevertheless, Polish tactics were so worrisome to Stadion that he desperately urged Vienna to take the lead in freeing the peasants of their obligations. He argued that this would not only check Polish designs, but it would also win the gratitude of the peasants for the monarchy at a most critical moment. Persuaded by these arguments, Emperor Ferdinand issued the historic manifesto abolishing the corvee in Galicia on 23 April 1848. It preceded a similar patent banning the corvee in the rest of the empire by about five months.

Stadion’s plan succeeded. Ukrainian peasants in particular greeted the announcement with enthusiasm and pledged their loyalty to the Habsburgs (although it was clear that the patent left many questions unanswered). To mollify the nobles, the Viennese government announced that it would pay them for the lost labor. (Later it shifted about two-thirds of the cost of this indemnity onto the peasantry itself.) Furthermore, although the peasants received 70% of the cultivated lands and the landlords 30%, the crucial question of who owned the forests and pastures – lands previously held in common – was not resolved. In time, landlords would obtain ownership of these common lands and peasants would become dependent on them for the all-important firewood and grazing land. Finally, the size of peasant allotments was pitifully small: over 70% of these were less than fourteen acres, an area that at best barely allowed for the subsistence of an average family.

Map 17 West Ukrainian lands in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the late 19th century

This is not to say, however, that the impact of the abolition of the corvee (panshchyna) on the peasant was slight; on the contrary, it cut the last formal bond between him and his lord (pan) and made the peasant outright owner of his own land. By making the Galician peasant master of his own fate, it awakened in him an interest in political, educational, and even cultural issues that he had never before evinced. From this time onward, the West Ukrainian peasant would become a political factor that could no longer be ignored. The nationality issue

The revolution of 1848 provided the small, educated segment of West Ukrainian society (which consisted chiefly of members of the clergy and intelligentsia) with the impetus and the opportunity to define themselves formally as a distinct nationality and to establish their own national institutions.

On 19 April, at the instigation of Stadion, a group of Greek Catholic clergymen, associated with St George’s cathedral in Lviv and led by Bishop Hryhorii Iakhymovych, addressed a petition to the emperor. Unlike the earlier Polish appeal, it was a timid, loyalist document. Its introduction consisted of a historical survey stressing the national distinctiveness of the Ukrainians of Eastern Galicia, the past glories of the medieval principality of Halych, its subsequent subjugation and exploitation by the Poles, and the fact that the populace “belonged to the great Ruthenian [Ukrainian] nation, whose 15 million members, of whom 2.5 live in Galicia, all speak the same language.”¹

The petition itself requested the introduction of the Ukrainian language in the schools and administration of Eastern Galicia, access to government positions for Ukrainians, and the genuine equalization of the Greek and Roman Catholic clergy. Two weeks later, on 2 May 1848, the Supreme Ruthenian Council, the first modern Ukrainian political organization, was established in Lviv. Led by Bishop Iakhymovych, it consisted of sixty-six members, almost half of whom consisted of clergy and theology students and the other half of the secular intelligentsia. In the weeks that followed, fifty local and thirteen regional branches of the Supreme Ruthenian Council were established throughout Eastern Galicia by priests who acted as the chief organizers.

The rise of Ukrainian political activism in Eastern Galicia necessarily led to the growth of Ukrainian/Polish antagonism. Because the Poles considered Galicia to be the cornerstone of their plan to restore Polish statehood, they regarded the emergence of a Ukrainian movement that was pro-Vienna as a grave threat. Therefore, they attempted to neutralize the Supreme Ruthenian Council by forming a rival “Ukrainian” organization that was pro-Polish. On 23 May, a handful of thoroughly Polonized nobles and intelligentsia of Ukrainian origin of the type who usually referred to themselves as “Ruthenians of the Polish nation” (gente Rutheni natione Poloni) met in Lviv to form the Ruthenian Council (Ruskyi Sobor). A Ukrainian newspaper, Ruskyi Dnevnyk, published in Latin script, was also established. The Poles scored a coup of sorts when they enticed Ivan Vahylevych, a member of the Ruthenian Triad, to become its editor. But this was their only success. Almost universally shunned by Ukrainians, the Ruthenian Council and its newspaper had a brief, ephemeral existence. Moreover, the entire episode only soured Polish/Ukrainian relations. The Prague congress

Poles and Ukrainians soon clashed head on. Ironically, the confrontation occurred in early June at the Slav Congress organized in Prague by Czechs specifically to celebrate Slavic solidarity and common interests. Delegates were sent to Prague by the Supreme Ruthenian Council, the Polish National Council (Rada Narodowa), and the Ruthenian Council. To the great consternation of the Czechs, the Poles and Ukrainians immediately commenced a heated, protracted debate about who should represent Galicia and what the relationship between its two peoples should be. The most controversial issue, however, emerged somewhat later, when the Ukrainians demanded that Galicia be divided into separate Polish and Ukrainian administrations, an idea the Poles adamantly opposed.

Because the fierce Polish/Ukrainian rivalry was impeding the general progress of the congress, the Czechs intervened and helped effect a compromise between the two delegations. If the Ukrainians would drop their demands for the partition of Galicia, the Poles would agree to recognize them as a separate nationality with equal linguistic rights and equal occupational opportunities, especially in the administration. This agreement was never implemented, however, for only days after it was reached, Austrian troops bombarded Prague, forcing the congress to disband and rendering its decisions meaningless. The modern debut of Ukrainians on the international political stage was thus cut short. Ukrainians in the imperial parliament

While the Prague congress was still in session, elections commenced in Galicia to the Reichstag, or lower house, of the newly founded imperial parliament. For the Ukrainians, and the peasants in particular, these elections were a new and confusing experience. The Poles, in contrast, being politically much more sophisticated, enjoyed a distinct advantage, and they succeeded by means of rumors and threats in keeping many Ukrainian peasants away from the polls. Those who did vote often supported fellow peasants, many of whom were illiterate, rather than the priests and members of the city-bred intelligentsia recommended by the Supreme Ruthenian Council. As a result, the Ukrainians won only 25 of the 100 seats allotted to Galicia. Of these, 15 were held by peasants, 8 by priests, and 2 by members of the intelligentsia.

In the parliamentary debates that took place in the latter part of 1848, first in Vienna and then in Kromeriz, the Ukrainians concentrated on two issues: the question of compensation to landlords for the abolition of corvee and, once again, the proposal for administrative division of Galicia. The Ukrainian peasant delegates vehemently rejected any form of compensation. In the first speech ever made by a Ukrainian in parliament, Ivan Kapushchak, a simple peasant, emotionally denounced the centuries-old exploitation of the peasantry by the nobles, concluding with these words: “Should we pay an indemnity for this mistreatment and abuse? I think not. Let the whips and knouts that lashed our tired bodies be our indemnity payment. Let them satisfy the landlords!”²

Although this memorable speech was greeted with enthusiastic applause, the indemnity proposal nevertheless passed by a narrow margin. Disillusioned, the peasant members lost interest in all further discussions. The non-peasant members of the Ukrainian delegation, for their part, considered the administrative division of Galicia into separate Ukrainian and Polish parts as “a matter of life and death for our people.” To back their proposals, they produced a list of about 15,000 signatures, which later swelled to 200,000. But after months of acrimonious debate, they too failed in their attempt to convince the majority of parliament. Meanwhile, the imperial government was slowly regaining control of the situation. In December, soon after the new emperor, the 18-year-old Franz Joseph, ascended the throne, parliament was disbanded. Ukrainian activity in Eastern Galicia

Ukrainian achievements on the local level were more concrete. Taking as their model the Czech cultural institution, Matica, they established the Halytsko-Ruska Matytsia in Lviv in July 1848. The goal of this organization was to publish inexpensive books for the general reader on religion, customs, crafts, agriculture, and pedagogy. It also strove to encourage the use of Ukrainian in the schools. On 19 October, the Supreme Ruthenian Council convened a congress of Ukrainian scholars to assess general Ukrainian cultural needs and to discuss the standardization of the Ukrainian language. Of the approximately 100 participants, over two-thirds were members of the clergy, while the remainder belonged to the intelligentsia. Not surprisingly, they concluded that Ukrainian culture in Galicia was in a sad state. About two-thirds of educated Ukrainians were Polonized and the majority of peasants were illiterate. The problem was exacerbated by the lack of standardization in the Ukrainian language. After lengthy debates, the congress unanimously recommended the use of the Cyrillic rather than the Latin alphabet. It also reached the consensus that the spoken language should serve as the basis for the literary language, but this motion was accepted only after much opposition and many qualifications.

During this period, Ukrainians began the construction of a National Home in Lviv, which was to include a museum, a library, and printing facilities. They also successfully lobbied for the establishment of a chair of Ukrainian language and literature at the university. Its first holder was Iakiv Holovatsky. Finally, late in 1848, because of their reluctance to join the Polish-controlled Galician National Guard and as a sign of their loyalty to the Habsburgs, they received Vienna’s approval to form Ukrainian military units. The 1400-man Ruthenian Riflemen were not trained in time, however, to fight on the Habsburg side against the Hungarian rebels. Bukovyna and Transcarpathia

In the other West Ukrainian lands, 1848 also sparked a flurry of activity, but on a much smaller scale than in Galicia. Only a few events of note occurred in tiny Bukovyna: several peasant uprisings led by the bold Lukiian Kobylytsia took place against Romanian landlords; five Ukrainian delegates were elected to parliament; and in 1849 the area was separated from Galicia and formed into a separate crown land.

In Hungarian-dominated Transcarpathia, there was a minor upsurge of political activism associated mostly with the talented and energetic Adolf Dobriansky. When the Hungarians revolted against the Habsburgs, they hoped, as the Poles had in Galicia, to gain the support of the non-Hungarians whom they had long oppressed. However, Dobriansky, acting like a one-man Supreme Ruthenian Council, persuaded his countrymen to reject Hungarian blandishments and to pledge loyalty to Vienna. Convinced that the Slavic populace of Transcarpathia belonged to the same ethnic stock as the Ukrainians of Galicia, he also urged the Supreme Ruthenian Council in Lviv to make the union of Transcarpathia with Galicia one of its goals. These views did not prevent Dobriansky and his small circle of associates from having pro-Russian sympathies which were strengthened by the sight of Russian armies advancing through Transcarpathia on their way to crush the hated Hungarians. These Russophile tendencies would later contribute to the confusion regarding national identity that characterized this most isolated of Ukrainian lands. The significance of 1848

In the West Ukrainian lands, the revolutionary events of 1848 were packed into a mere 227 days. During this remarkably eventful period, the Ukrainians were presented with the opportunity to express themselves as a nation for the first time in their modern history. The experience, however, produced mixed results. For the Ukrainians, the greatest achievements of 1848 were undoubtedly the abolition of the corvee (panshchyna) and the introduction of constitutional government. But these gains were not peculiar to the Ukrainians, for they were scored by other peoples of the empire as well, at the expense of the momentarily faltering Habsburg regime. Of the uniquely Ukrainian achievements during this period, foremost was the activity of the Supreme Ruthenian Council. Considering the total lack of experience on the part of Ukrainians in political affairs, the performance of the Supreme Ruthenian Council, which effectively organized previously passive Ukrainians in the pursuit of well-defined goals, was impressive. By establishing institutions that would systematically promote cultural growth, the Supreme Ruthenian Council took the first crucial steps toward making Eastern Galicia an organizational bastion of Ukrainianism.

But 1848 also highlighted West Ukrainian limitations, the most serious of which was the problem of leadership. Because it monopolized positions of leadership, the clergy put its own indelible stamp on West Ukrainian politics. Seeing the Habsburgs as their greatest benefactors, the churchmen of the Supreme Ruthenian Council committed Ukrainian society wholly and unconditionally to the support of the dynasty. As a result, throughout 1848, Ukrainians found themselves supporting absolutism against Polish and Hungarian insurgents who, by and large, espoused liberal, democratic views (while continuing their association with the landowning nobility). Thus, because of the clergy’s political and social conservatism and because the anti-Habsburg forces were identified with the hated landowners, Ukrainians often functioned merely as tools of the Habsburgs. Moreover, instead of trying to wring greater concessions from the government for their services, the priests of the Supreme Ruthenian Council did no more than meekly hope for imperial favors. Such an approach brought disappointing results.

Yet taken as a whole, 1848 clearly marked a turning point in the history of the West Ukrainians. It broke their age-old inertia, passivity, and isolation, and launched them on the long and bitter struggle for national and social emancipation.