Readers of the January 19, 2009 e-POSHTA were linked to the latest entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine (IEU), dealing with Ukrainian folk music, as a part of an ongoing process of letting readers see IEU updates as they become available. See: http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?AddButton=pagesFOFolksongs.htm
Unfortunately, the now-online article (written back in 1984 for the original print encyclopedia) concludes rather abruptly with this paragraph:
"Folk songs have provided inspiration for many Ukrainian composers, such as Semen Hulak-Artemovsky, Mykola Arkas, Mykola Lysenko, Mykola Leontovych, Stanyslav Liudkevych, Kyrylo Stetsenko, Yakiv Stepovy, and Heorhii Maiboroda. The famous Russian composers Peter Tchaikovsky, M. Glinka, Modest Mussogorsky, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, and Serge Rachmaninoff collected, arranged, and used Ukrainian folk melodies widely in their works."
In particular, this statement gives the idea that, beyond Ukraine, only Russian composers have used Ukrainian folk melodies. It ignores the significant uses of Ukrainian music beyond the boundaries of the Russian/Soviet empires. This includes Beethoven (German), Hummel (Hungarian),Weber (German) Malcolm Arnold (British), Franz Waxman (American), George Gershwin (American, for Cossack Love Song), Quincy Porter (American, Ukrainian Suite for Strings),  Nikolai Berezowsky (American, for Christmas Fantasy Overture), Bela Bartok (Hungarian), Khachaturian (Armenian, for his famous hopak in Gayne Ballet) Arnold Bax (British), Malcolm Armold (British) etc. etc. The article does a disservice by ignoring the significant impact of Ukrainian folk song on world music. Perhaps the original article from 1984 might be excused for ignoring contributions beyond Russia, but the IEU update should have expanded, not merely copied the older article. (Indeed, the only change I found from 1984, is that the online version has determined to drop the first name of composer Mikhail Glinka, leaving first names for all other composers.)
In addition at least three Ukrainian folk songs have been totally transformed into the American and international repertoire. Most noted is of course, Carol of the Bells (Shchedryk). Also,Yikhav Kozak za Duna/i appears in Hollywood films (eg. Inspector General, Private Buckaroo) and popular jazz recordings of the 1940s by artists such as Harry James, Dick Haymes, and Spike Jones. Oy Ne Khody Hrytsiu was adapted by Jack Lawrence as Yes My Darling Daughter and has been recorded by Dinah Shore, Glenn Miller, Gene Krupa, The Andrews Sisters, and many many others.
Readers of e-POSHTA might be interested in knowing that Ukrainian folk music, notwithstanding the suggestion of the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine, has indeed reached far beyond the borders of Russia.
Denis Hlynka, Ph. D.
Department of Curriculum Teaching and Learning
University of Manitoba
dhlynka@cc.umanitoba.ca
Source: e-POSHTA/e- March 9, 2009 -- Vol.10 No. 6
Saturday, February 27, 2016
The patriarch’s new clothes
Ukrainians need no one's permission to form their own churches
Hans Christian Andersen wrote a wonderful tale entitled “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Two rogues, claiming to be gifted weavers, convinced the emperor that they could weave wonderful cloth visible only to those of pure heart and spirit. A grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his new finery. But neither the emperor nor his subjects wanted to be seen as less than pure of heart. So the emperor strode naked down the boulevard while his subjects cheered and clapped. However, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes.
Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, recently said that Ukraine is not ready for an independent church. This statement brought back memories of the Danish fairy tale. Indeed, no one wants to tell this “emperor” that -- not only does he not have any legal standing or canonical jurisdiction, i.e. “clothes” -- over the church in Ukraine, but that he is usurping the authority granted to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1591.
Patriarch Kirill, like many of his predecessors, is convinced that the Russian Orthodox Church must be an instrument of Russian national identity, and that the establishment of independent Orthodox churches within the former U.S.S.R. would weaken both the church’s and the Kremlin’s shared imperialistic ideology. In fact, while still Metropolitan of Smolensk, Kirill once stated that “the Russian Orthodox Church holds de facto first place among all other Orthodox churches…and exercises influence in all other Orthodox churches in the Balkans as well as in those countries where Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are rightful heirs of Byzantium.”
This expansionist concept of Moscow’s pretensions to primacy and interference in the affairs of other Orthodox churches was expounded by the controversial, ultra-nationalist Metropolitan Ioann after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was to become a mechanism by which the imperialistic ideology of Russia would be maintained and rebuilt. It is based on three major principles/peculiarities: territorial, ethnic/national and pastoral. Constantinople’s Patriarch Bartholomew characterized this theory as “foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous…”
We need not concern ourselves with all three principles, because only the first is supported by Orthodox canon law and tradition and determines whether Moscow’s patriarch has any standing when commenting on Ukraine’s readiness for an independent church. The other two are universally rejected by Orthodoxy.
Starting from Kyivan Rus in 988 until 1686, the metropolis of Kyiv prospered under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the 11th century it was the metropolis of Kyiv, not Moscow (a largely unknown entity at the time), that was categorically listed on the 61st position as a separate ecclesial entity in the constitutional record of metropolis, archbishoprics and bishoprics.
Even as late as 1591, Moscow laid no claim to the Kyiv See, and accepted the territorial limitations of the Golden Seal Certificate of Constantinople which validated the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate by defining the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Church of Russia and the far northern parts, but excluding the metropolis of Kyiv and Lesser Rus. This territorial limitation of the Russian Church is clear and unambiguous; and remains, to this day, the primary source of the Moscow Patriarchate’s authority and jurisdiction.
However, after the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654, when much of Ukraine was joined with Russia, the Ukrainian church recognized its vulnerability to absorption by the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Kosiv of Kyiv refused to send his entourage to attend treaty ceremonies, and even threatened to fight Muscovite intruders for building fortifications near St. Sophia’s Monastery. Many Ukrainian clergymen were prepared to lock themselves in monasteries and “die rather than accept the rule of the Metropolitan from Moscow.” Thirty years later, in 1685, Moscow, with the help of hetman Ivan Samoilovych, orchestrated the fraudulent election of Bishop Gideon as head of the Kyiv See -- an investiture that was recognized as illegitimate by Ukrainian clergy. Bishop Gideon, in turn, repaid the favor by accepting subordination to Moscow.
Immediately after Bishop Gideon’s election, Moscow began pressuring Dionisius, Constantinople’s patriarch, for ratification of the transfer. At first he refused to condone Moscow’s action, but the combination of “sable furs and two hundred gold coins” from the tsar, and pressure from the Ottoman Vizier (who had also received precious Moscow gifts), caused him to cede to Moscow’s wishes.
Although Patriarch Kirill characterized this scandalous history of fraud, intimidation, and bribery as the “mysterious transformation” of the Kyiv See into the Moscow Patriarchate, he conveniently forgets that -- shortly thereafter -- the Eastern hierarchs called a Church Council and forced Dionisius to step down because of his consent to the non-canonical transfer. The Council unequivocally declared that the canonical territories of the Moscow Patriarchate include only the lands under its control since its inception -- i.e. as of 1589, less Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the Baltic states. The Ecumenical See of Constantinople never accepted Moscow’s authority over Ukraine’s Church and still recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an integral part of its jurisdiction.
There is one very important element crucial to this discussion. A fundamental Orthodox ecclesiological principle is the territorial-canonical limitation of local churches. According to canons and Holy Tradition, the boundaries of every local Church are strictly defined. It is because of this principle that the Moscow Patriarchate operates as a territorial entity and is prohibited from expansion into the territory of other Orthodox Churches through political or military interference. Thus, Moscow has no canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine and its presence must be viewed as a usurpation of its patriarchal authority of 1591.
Ukraine’s Orthodox faithful need not fear Patriarch Kirill’s displeasure, but should look to their ancestral right – centuries older than Russia’s – to regain mastery of their church. After all, when it comes down to issues of canonical authority in Ukraine, Moscow’s patriarch truly has no clothes.
Hans Christian Andersen wrote a wonderful tale entitled “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Two rogues, claiming to be gifted weavers, convinced the emperor that they could weave wonderful cloth visible only to those of pure heart and spirit. A grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his new finery. But neither the emperor nor his subjects wanted to be seen as less than pure of heart. So the emperor strode naked down the boulevard while his subjects cheered and clapped. However, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes.
Patriarch Kirill, leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, recently said that Ukraine is not ready for an independent church. This statement brought back memories of the Danish fairy tale. Indeed, no one wants to tell this “emperor” that -- not only does he not have any legal standing or canonical jurisdiction, i.e. “clothes” -- over the church in Ukraine, but that he is usurping the authority granted to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1591.
Patriarch Kirill, like many of his predecessors, is convinced that the Russian Orthodox Church must be an instrument of Russian national identity, and that the establishment of independent Orthodox churches within the former U.S.S.R. would weaken both the church’s and the Kremlin’s shared imperialistic ideology. In fact, while still Metropolitan of Smolensk, Kirill once stated that “the Russian Orthodox Church holds de facto first place among all other Orthodox churches…and exercises influence in all other Orthodox churches in the Balkans as well as in those countries where Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are rightful heirs of Byzantium.”
This expansionist concept of Moscow’s pretensions to primacy and interference in the affairs of other Orthodox churches was expounded by the controversial, ultra-nationalist Metropolitan Ioann after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was to become a mechanism by which the imperialistic ideology of Russia would be maintained and rebuilt. It is based on three major principles/peculiarities: territorial, ethnic/national and pastoral. Constantinople’s Patriarch Bartholomew characterized this theory as “foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous…”
We need not concern ourselves with all three principles, because only the first is supported by Orthodox canon law and tradition and determines whether Moscow’s patriarch has any standing when commenting on Ukraine’s readiness for an independent church. The other two are universally rejected by Orthodoxy.
Starting from Kyivan Rus in 988 until 1686, the metropolis of Kyiv prospered under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the 11th century it was the metropolis of Kyiv, not Moscow (a largely unknown entity at the time), that was categorically listed on the 61st position as a separate ecclesial entity in the constitutional record of metropolis, archbishoprics and bishoprics.
Even as late as 1591, Moscow laid no claim to the Kyiv See, and accepted the territorial limitations of the Golden Seal Certificate of Constantinople which validated the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate by defining the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church as the Church of Russia and the far northern parts, but excluding the metropolis of Kyiv and Lesser Rus. This territorial limitation of the Russian Church is clear and unambiguous; and remains, to this day, the primary source of the Moscow Patriarchate’s authority and jurisdiction.
However, after the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654, when much of Ukraine was joined with Russia, the Ukrainian church recognized its vulnerability to absorption by the Moscow Patriarchate. Metropolitan Kosiv of Kyiv refused to send his entourage to attend treaty ceremonies, and even threatened to fight Muscovite intruders for building fortifications near St. Sophia’s Monastery. Many Ukrainian clergymen were prepared to lock themselves in monasteries and “die rather than accept the rule of the Metropolitan from Moscow.” Thirty years later, in 1685, Moscow, with the help of hetman Ivan Samoilovych, orchestrated the fraudulent election of Bishop Gideon as head of the Kyiv See -- an investiture that was recognized as illegitimate by Ukrainian clergy. Bishop Gideon, in turn, repaid the favor by accepting subordination to Moscow.
Immediately after Bishop Gideon’s election, Moscow began pressuring Dionisius, Constantinople’s patriarch, for ratification of the transfer. At first he refused to condone Moscow’s action, but the combination of “sable furs and two hundred gold coins” from the tsar, and pressure from the Ottoman Vizier (who had also received precious Moscow gifts), caused him to cede to Moscow’s wishes.
Although Patriarch Kirill characterized this scandalous history of fraud, intimidation, and bribery as the “mysterious transformation” of the Kyiv See into the Moscow Patriarchate, he conveniently forgets that -- shortly thereafter -- the Eastern hierarchs called a Church Council and forced Dionisius to step down because of his consent to the non-canonical transfer. The Council unequivocally declared that the canonical territories of the Moscow Patriarchate include only the lands under its control since its inception -- i.e. as of 1589, less Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the Baltic states. The Ecumenical See of Constantinople never accepted Moscow’s authority over Ukraine’s Church and still recognizes the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as an integral part of its jurisdiction.
There is one very important element crucial to this discussion. A fundamental Orthodox ecclesiological principle is the territorial-canonical limitation of local churches. According to canons and Holy Tradition, the boundaries of every local Church are strictly defined. It is because of this principle that the Moscow Patriarchate operates as a territorial entity and is prohibited from expansion into the territory of other Orthodox Churches through political or military interference. Thus, Moscow has no canonical jurisdiction in Ukraine and its presence must be viewed as a usurpation of its patriarchal authority of 1591.
Ukraine’s Orthodox faithful need not fear Patriarch Kirill’s displeasure, but should look to their ancestral right – centuries older than Russia’s – to regain mastery of their church. After all, when it comes down to issues of canonical authority in Ukraine, Moscow’s patriarch truly has no clothes.
Author: George Woloshyn, a native of Kupnovychi, Ukraine, is an American citizen living in Linden, Virginia. He can be reached at gwol@embarqmail.com.
If you can't be happy where you are, maybe you need to move
By: Cathy Goodwin, Ph.D.
Every time I give a talk about life transition, someone invariably calls to say, "I believe happiness is inside us. If you can't be happy here, you can't be happy anywhere."
I have to resist the temptation to shout, "Aaargh!"
We all know people who never seem to be happy. They move from one town to another. Maybe they keep changing jobs. It's tempting to say something like, "People your age always have trouble when they move to a new community." Or, "Very few people enjoy their jobs -- get used to it!"
Both of those statements are true. However, some people really will be happier in New York City than in a small town in Iowa, and vice versa. Some people have managed to choose a career that clashes with their personalities, talents and needs. When they move, they're happier almost immediately.
But don't be too quick to tell yourself (or your friend), "So, move already! Stop complaining!"
If you've had several unhappy moves, identify the underlying cause. You may simply be a restless person who needs a career and lifestyle that offers variety. You may be an outgoing, lively person, in a career or town that rewards quiet, reserved communication.
At the first sign of discontent, begin some reality-testing. Ask at least six people (the Goodwin Rule of Six) how they feel. Word your questions carefully: "I love it here. What do you think?" Newcomers can find themselves labeled M for "malcontent," even when they ask the most innocent questions.
You may need only a quick fix. I've seen people blossom when they transfer to a new department or move six blocks away. But you may have identified a deeper discontent.
Once you've identified the source, find a friend you trust. Tell that friend, "If I tell you I'm tempted to move again, remind me why I was miserable here."
Most friends -- along with many professional advisors -- are reluctant to become wet blankets who smother your dreams. Yet if you're trying to avoid repeating a mistake, a large bucket of ice water may save you from drowning when you dive into your next pond.
Every time I give a talk about life transition, someone invariably calls to say, "I believe happiness is inside us. If you can't be happy here, you can't be happy anywhere."
I have to resist the temptation to shout, "Aaargh!"
We all know people who never seem to be happy. They move from one town to another. Maybe they keep changing jobs. It's tempting to say something like, "People your age always have trouble when they move to a new community." Or, "Very few people enjoy their jobs -- get used to it!"
Both of those statements are true. However, some people really will be happier in New York City than in a small town in Iowa, and vice versa. Some people have managed to choose a career that clashes with their personalities, talents and needs. When they move, they're happier almost immediately.
But don't be too quick to tell yourself (or your friend), "So, move already! Stop complaining!"
If you've had several unhappy moves, identify the underlying cause. You may simply be a restless person who needs a career and lifestyle that offers variety. You may be an outgoing, lively person, in a career or town that rewards quiet, reserved communication.
At the first sign of discontent, begin some reality-testing. Ask at least six people (the Goodwin Rule of Six) how they feel. Word your questions carefully: "I love it here. What do you think?" Newcomers can find themselves labeled M for "malcontent," even when they ask the most innocent questions.
You may need only a quick fix. I've seen people blossom when they transfer to a new department or move six blocks away. But you may have identified a deeper discontent.
Once you've identified the source, find a friend you trust. Tell that friend, "If I tell you I'm tempted to move again, remind me why I was miserable here."
Most friends -- along with many professional advisors -- are reluctant to become wet blankets who smother your dreams. Yet if you're trying to avoid repeating a mistake, a large bucket of ice water may save you from drowning when you dive into your next pond.
Cathy Goodwin, Ph.D., author of Making the Big Move, offers straightforward career and business consulting to midlife professionals. *When your career means business." Your Next Move ezine: http://www.cathygoodwin.com/subscribe.html" target="_blank">http://www.cathygoodwin.com/subscribe.html
Website: http://www.cathygoodwin.com" target="_blank">http://www.cathygoodwin.com
Website: http://www.cathygoodwin.com" target="_blank">http://www.cathygoodwin.com
Source: www.officialiwant.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)