Ukrainian literature had long dealt with Ukraine and Ukraine only. The writers of the past half century had neglected other subjects but there was a movement away from this narrowness and in dealing with classic antiquity and the ancient world, she was following after decades in the steps of Shevchenko with his poems as the _Neophytes_ and _Maria_. So Lesya Ukrainka with her more abundant erudition and her acquaintance with the Black Sea and the Mediterranean south knew by study and observation the life of other regions and saw how these ideas could illustrate the psychological, moral and social lessons which she wished to convey. Her English reading gave her the idea of Robert Bruce and she pictured the well known story of the Scottish king who accepted the throne only on the condition that he could use his power to keep his people free. That was his claim to fame and the fact that he lived up to his promise gave him everlasting glory. After 1902 the nature of her works gradually changed. They ceased to be predominantly lyrical in character and gradually assumed the form of poetic dramas and dialogues in which by preference she treated some subject connected with the downfall of a people and the efforts that they had to make to win back their independence. Many of these as the _Babylonian Captivity_ and _On the Ruins_ dealt with the sufferings of Israel under the yoke and immediately after the return to Palestine. Lesya Ukrainka understood well that death or shame were the only alternatives to a courageous struggle for independence. Even in _Three Moments_ which dealt with the French Revolution the Girondist who is able to save his life by escaping realizes that he cannot be happy while his companions are facing death and prison for the cause in which he believes. Thus for example in _Ioanna, Wife of Khusov_, we have the story of a woman of Palestine who has left her husband to follow in the train of Jesus of Nazareth. When she returns after the Crucifixion, she finds her husband busily engaged in gaining the favor of some Roman visitors. There is obvious misunderstanding on both sides, an obvious attempt on his part to deny his own traditions in order to curry favor with the new rules of the land and to secure an invitation to Rome, and to do this, he is willing to break all the rules of native etiquette, and imitate the strangers. Ioanna is thoroughly unhappy and feels herself more isolated than ever before because of her grasp of higher ideals. Yet she is compelled to go through with her role, even though it leaves her unhappy and miserable. The parallel to the Ukrainian situation is obvious and we can be sure that it was in the mind of the poetess, even though there are no definite statements that might apply to the situation.