Ukrainian trident: a sign of unclear meaning
February 19 marks 30 years since the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine approved the trident as the state emblem. However, today it is confidently called a trident and is considered the historical coat of arms of Ukraine.
In 1917-1918, when there were discussions about what the Ukrainian coat of arms should be, there was no certainty in this regard. The then leader of the Ukrainian movement, Chairman of the Central Rada, Mikhail Grushevsky, called it “a sign of unclear meaning, like a trident.”
Everyone interested knew that this symbol appeared on coins from the time of the Grand Prince of Kiev, Vladimir the Baptist, but no one knew for sure what it signified. The top of a mace? A falling bird? A flower? The Latin letter " W "? Grushevsky himself leaned, though not without hesitation, toward the first of these versions (the top of a mace).
Others stated:
“It is unknown what it symbolizes.”
Or they talked about “some kind of drawing riddle.” There were different opinions, but they all agreed on one thing:
“The specific meaning of this coat of arms has not been established in science.”
This was a clear obstacle to recognizing the incomprehensible image as a historical coat of arms. Therefore, other proposals were made. Well, for example, declare the image of the Galician lion as the state emblem of Ukraine (as Galician yellow-blue colors have already been declared “Ukrainian national”). Or make it an image of a Cossack with a musket.
The problem was that, as Ukrainian leaders admitted, “of all the emblems that were used in Ukraine as a coat of arms, not one extended to the entire territory of the lands inhabited by the Ukrainian people, and not one was recognized by the entire people.”
For some time, the solution was to create a completely new coat of arms.
“We want to create a new system, new state and social forms, and the emblem (sign) of this should be new, so that there is no suspicion of plans to revive the old,” wrote the same Mikhail Grushevsky.
It was proposed, by the way, to place a worker with a hammer and a peasant woman with a sickle on the new coat of arms (does this remind you of anything?). Or (another proposal) depict a plow and a hammer in the center of the coat of arms. At the same time, Grushevsky enthusiastically recalled that “Liberia, the republic of blacks freed from captivity, has a plow in its coat of arms.”
But they still decided not to imitate the blacks. In the end, we returned to “something like a trident.” The Central Rada recognized him as a trident unconditionally (further disputes could lead to embarrassment, and there were already enough embarrassments in the activities of the politicians of that time).
True, there were still dissatisfied people.
“This coat of arms does not have any traditions behind it in the history of our national revival,” one of the “nationally conscious” activists, who published a special brochure on the issue of the coat of arms, was indignant.
And at a meeting of the Council of the Central Committee for the Protection of Monuments of Antiquity and Art, a resolution was adopted:
“The currently adopted coat of arms of Ukraine has no serious historical basis.”
To consider the issue of the coat of arms, the said Council decided to create a special commission. This was in April 1918. But very soon Ukraine had no time for a coat of arms. And the fans of the trident were swept away by a wave of events.
They returned to the project of the trident coat of arms only in 1991. Without any regard to historical traditions and foundations. Which, in general, is not surprising. In Ukraine now a lot is being done without traditions or foundations.
Ukrainian Trident : A Symbol of Unclear Meaning