In the _House of Slavery_ we have still another study of the same problem. The scene is Egypt but the Hebrew slave and the Egyptian slave cannot work together and be friends. Both desire freedom but the one wants it to continue the culture that has enslaved him. The other desires it as ardently but that freedom would be meaningless unless it gave him the power to shatter and destroy all that had overpowered him and reduced him to his present situation. There are differences in slavery as well as in masters and he who would forget that does so at his peril. Thus at almost every turn Lesya Ukrainka chooses some subject which can have at least an indirect significance for Ukraine and the cause of its people. Yet the connection is never too obvious. For its understanding it required deeper thought and a clearer insight into the nature of the problems which were facing the country. There was also required a better understanding of the psychological nature of man. The earlier authors had treated this in a casual way when they saw fit to mention it at all. They had taken a rather simple view of human nature and the problems of their characters could be expressed in terms of external injustice and oppression. In such writings of Lesya Ukrainka as _Tristan and Isolda_, where the one Isolda represents spiritual love and the other earthly, we have a clearer representation of the problems of human nature than we have had hitherto. Even in the poems of Shevchenko we do not meet such representations of human life with its manifold aspects and the problems that come from the various elements of human nature. All this marks the entrance of Ukrainian literature into a more mature stage and heralds its approach to the great literatures of the world in their modern form. Of course it annoyed many of the representatives of the older school, who could not see that this deepening of themes was anything but a betrayal of the sacred cause. They were ready to condemn the poetess and lament that she did not continue in the old vein. The same thing happened when the various theatres attempted to produce her plays. The troupes of actors were in many cases experienced and able to represent the old fashioned type of characters and the old fashioned problems. They were hardly prepared by training or outlook to give a good exposition of this new kind of problem. It is true that her writings were more literary and not so well adapted to theatrical presentation as those of the older writers. She had not had that experience with the theatre that was possessed by many of her predecessors but under proper auspices some of her sketches contain striking dramatic scenes.