The current level of solidarity was last reached by Ukrainian society at the turn of the 20th century during the period called `Young Ukraine' by I. Franko, the movement's prominent representative and leader. In Franko's time this name emphasized the ideological and political affinity between the end of century generation and European national liberation movements of the 19th century, from `Young Europe' created in 1834 that united `Young Germany', `Young Italy', `Young Poland', etc., to `Young Chekhs', the party of Chekh national revival. However, `Young Ukraine' differed from them in not having been formally organized; the name was conceived as a metaphor implying the unity of Ukrainian intellectuals of `Franko period' (Zabuzhko, 1992, p.15).

It is this metaphorical nature that is important in this context, for because of it `Young Ukraine' never became a `construction point' for Ukrainian society divided between two empires. Ukrainian culture attained its structural perfection (for the first time ever all its components were evolving organically: aesthetics, art, science, religion, and politics), yet only at the level of educated intellectuals; the whole society never consolidated at that time.

The 1905 revolution seemed to have created conditions for legalization and intensification of Ukrainian national liberation movement on the whole territory of Ukraine. Characrerizing the situation at that time, V. Vynnychenko, one of the leaders of Ukrainian national liberation movement, pointed out: `Actually, at that time we were gods who undertook to create a whole world from nothing'. I. Franko called that new period `a springtime, when the ice of absolutism crackles, when people's force amidst the awful catastrophies search for a new path and new forms of activity'. In 1905 these words were addressed to the generation to which Franko appealed in `An outspoken letter to Galitian Ukrainian youth', and whose rebellion he and his associates had been preparing all their lives.

It was this generation that was destined to make efforts and accomplish the task formulated by I. Franko in one of his speeches: `To transform the huge ethnic mass of Ukrainian people into Ukrainian nation, a complete social and cultural body capable of independent cultural and political living, resistant to other nations' assimilating attempts, from wherever they may be coming, but at the same time capable of integrating in the widest sense and at the quickest pace those universal achievments of mankind, without which none of the states, however powerful, can succeed. It was at the height of those efforts that a Ukrainian independent state came into being'. (Horskyi, 1997, p.223).

However, the following events did not bring about a consolidation I. Franko had called for; on the contrary, the confrontation inside the Ukrainian society itself aggravated the situation. The short-lived Ukrainian independent state, dramatically affected Ukrainian nation's destiny in the later periods, which could be attributed to immaturity of Ukrainian national liberation movement and decreasing of social solidarity to critical levels. Creating a new state was impeded because the process of national formation had not been completed. As a consequence, Bolsheviks' propaganda spread among Ukrainian citizens (while in 1917 it had been accepted by only 3% of Ukrainians), and on Dec 19, 1919 Kharkiv was proclaimed the capital of the Ukrainian Social Soviet Republic as opposed to Kyiv, the capital of the Ukrainian People's Republic.

Comparable to current political events is the situation with solidarity in society and the discourse of "Two Ukraines" (although geografically they are somewhat different now). This discourse divides, or attempts to divide the country into `European Ukraine' in which civil society seems to have been established and democratized, and Eastern Ukraine which remains premodern and requires integration into `national identity' (Zhurzhenko, 2003).

In this context it would be quite interesting to recall Franko's thoughts on `lackey's mind' in his article `Beyond possible'. Franko points out that when sciences are in question, this kind of reasoning is incompetent. But when it concerns social life, politics, sociology, it is summoned as a witness or even a judge. `This reasoning is not simple for it was deformed and is still being deformed by thousands of superstitions and restrictions; neither is it sound, for it is a result of thousands of generations and reasonings, often very sick and broken' (Franko, 1956, p.354).

This statement contains several interesting points which will be later touched upon in Franko's works and should be seriously consireded today. This is, on the one hand, a purely romantic view, but on the other hand it presents an absolutely practical problem of identity and crowd, described in Franko's poems `Moses' and `The Burial'.

No wonder that that a person of such magnitude could not stand aside from the theme of the Messiah. If people are not aware of themselves and their interests, who could lead them out of this situation? (Isn't it one of the current urgent problems?). Who if not the Messiah? Having good knowledge of history and the Old Testament, Franko could not stand away from biblical plots, moreover biblical texts were well known and understood by the entire Ukrainian Christian community.

Though convinced that `world history is not a story of heroes, but a story of mass movements and changes', Franko yearned for `quintessence of nation' - passionary individuals, as a necessary element of nation-making movement. To Franko the hero is a saviour of his epoch (Zabuzhko, 1992, p.75).

`Moses' is a compendium of Franko's life phylosophy, the apex of his creative biography' (Bass & Kaspruk, 1983, p.123). Caracteristic of his ideology is Franko's choice of the theme of Moses, the creator of national religion and actually of the first national history in the ancient world. According to O. Zabuzhko (Zabuzhko, 1992) Franko regarded the story of Moses as a mythologized model, a canonic example of essential transformation of ethnical mass into a new type of community (nation) through the efforts of a Messiah, the awakener. Consequently this theme had a symbolical meaning to Franko.

In his introduction to the second edition of `Moses' Franko himself points out that Moses' death (a prophet not recognized by his people) is not a biblical, but his own theme. Early history does not know prophet - heroes not accepted by their people. And in Franko's poem Moses is rejected not by a nation, but by an `under-nation', `those lazy nomads'; only the prophet's death turns the crowd into a nation. Franko and his hero believe in the nation's vitality; once awaken the crowd should becomes a nation with a sense of its identity.

The worst for Moses is the futility of his faith in his mission. Thus, the poem presents a certain model of the state position and prospects for Ukrainians. This is a problem of relationship between the elite and the people: should the nation be led or not, and what are the moral foundations of building a nation?

In Franko's works, paricularly in `The Burial', such prospects for the nation look quite pessimistic. Franko's Moses belongs to the poet's time and solves contemporary (to Franko) problems of a nation's future/ Of course, one can also say that Franko anticipated the problems facing modern Ukraine. The main problem is: who would lead this nation and where, and what does the nation itself aspire to?

Franko was a radical, and neither he nor his `party' had any real support from the people. Galitian peasantry supported their clericals. Such people as Pavlyk and Franko were lonely in an amorphic and politically undeveloped crowd. Hence the sentiments of elitarism and spiritu al aristocracy, the desire to form an ideal (Popovych, 1998, p.486).

A sense of national identity as condenscending admiring the `people' provokes resentment and anger in a blacksmith's son from a godforsaken Carpathian village. He hates that humble everyday life from which he has broken free himself and dreams to free his nation. Hence two points: messiahnism and `models' of its implementation. Hence is also the theme of a split personality. Myron, his lyrical hero (at the end of the 19th century Franko often uses this pseudonym) simply leads to death the rebels who follow him to battle.

Myron, a prophet and aristocrat of spirit, explains his attitude to the people and the motives of his betrayal: he drove his people, like cattle, like Moses did, to eradicate `all plebeian instincts'. Yet he realizes that the victory of masses is the victory of `brutal forces, plebeians and unconcsiousness. '. Therefore Myron dooms his comrades to death: ` a heroic death now is better than a plebeian victory'. For, despite having a lot of strength, people had no ideal `of great struggle and faith. '.

In his reply to the general Myron `transforms' his own betrayal, interpreting it as a call for reform the backward people, `. to kindle, to ignite their souls so that their coal turns to diamond': for the rebels, although they `fought like eagles, In their souls they still were dark and treacherous, The same old slaves as they used to be', so the easily won victory would be a Pyrrhic one to them. A martyr sacrifice, `a heroic death' of fighters were needed to give people at such price that only thing that makes it a nation in spiritual sense: `an immortal power, the ideal'.

Relevant today seems E. Renan's argument that a nation can attain a high level of solidarity that is established by a sense of past and future sacrifices (Renan, 2010). Events taking place in modern social, political and cultural space of Ukraine reaffirm the importance of the problems contemporary to `Young Ukraine' and justify a new philosophical perception of Franko's understanding of the ideal.

In such circumstances, social solidarity arising as a reaction to traumatic events, `performs the function of a social hope for the better' (Karas, 2001). According to J. Alexander, solidarity is a natural consequence of social traumas. A traumatic experience could be regarded as the main consolidating element in the nation if it has the same traumatic subject, the agressor. Worth mentioning in this respect seems A. Neil's approach who studies a case of major American national traumas and argues that the reaction to trauma usually determines the progress as well as new opportunities for change and innovation (Kurakin, 2013).

Chech philosopher Jan Patocka defines solidarity as a phenomenon that emerges under the influence of perception of a fact of violence and human rights violation. Solidarity is not a simple reaction to an act of violence, rather it is hope and openness of man to future joys. Therefore solidarity gains historical significance gradually, but it plays an increasingly important role in the `ontological constitualizing of human existence' (Patocka, 1981).

Conclusion