The Scholar, the Journalist, and the Political Thinker

Drahomanov^,s literary work is composed of two clearly distinct groups—his scholarly writings, chiefly on ethnography and folklore, and his political writings, which are Cxclusivelyjournalistic in form.

Of course, this does not mean that there is no connection between the two sides of Drahomanov¹S creative activity. He states clearly that his study of Ukrainian folk literature had a deep influence on the develop­ment of his political ideas. On the other hand, it is clear that the direction taken by his scholarly researches was often motivated by his political in­terests, as in the case of the analysis of the social and political content of folk poetry. In spite of these connections, there is a clear division be­tween Drahomanov¹S scholarly and political writings. This is character­istic of his personality and methods. He was too conscientious to claim scholarly authority outside the field of his special competence. Drahomanov does not teach about political questions ex cathedra; he writes about them as a citizen and fighter who seeks to reach certain prac­tical goals and is clearly aware of his special standpoint.

Therefore outwardly Drahomanov¹S political writings should be classi­fied as journalism. But this is journalism on an exceptionally high level. Drahomanov brought his great erudition and conscientious scholarship to bear on each particular article. Even more important was his incorrup­tible intellectual integrity. Although the immediate occasion for many of his political writings was polemical, his attitude was never sophistical—to win the debate at any price—but philosophical in the best Socratic sense—to recognize the objective truth. Drahomanov did not say what was tactically opportune, but what his research and reflection led him to believe to be true. His whole life was lived in accordance with his basic principle: