https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2020.86 Gauta 2020 10 29

Rostyslav Radyshevsky Kijevo nacionalinis Taraso Ševčenkos universitetas, Ukraina National University of ,

Populizmas Lesios Ukrainkos literatūriniame-kritiniame pavelde Populism in Lesya Ukrainka’s Literary-Critical Heritage

Summary

The article raises the issue of populism in Lesya Ukrainka’s literary-critical heritage and the formation of neo-romanticism as a new ideological and aesthetic phenomenon. The specific focus is on Lesya Ukrainka’s articles, in which the modernist populist opposition is vividly presented. The basic principles of populism, which are examined by the writer on the basis of Ukrainian, Polish and German literatures, are analyzed. The term “populism” is understood as a set of ideological, aesthetic and stylistic features of the XIX century literature which to a great extent influenced realism and positivism. According to Lesya Ukrainka, both real- ism and positivism felt a considerable impact of populist school. Lesya Ukrainka used the term “populism” quite actively, implying a whole set of ideological, aesthetic and stylistic flaws in the XIX century literature alongside its thematic limitations. She was also interested in Herder’s idea of the Slavs’ honorable mission of implementing humanity in history, which had not been realized by the Romans and Germans.

SANTRAUKA

Straipsnyje keliamas klausimas dėl populizmo Lesios Ukrainkos kūryboje, nagrinėjamas neoromantizmo kaip naujo ideologinio ir estetinio reiškinio atsiradimas. Daugiausia dėmesio skiriama Lesios Ukrainkos parašytiems straipsniams, kuriuose kalbama apie modernistinę populistinę opoziciją. Straipsnyje nagrinė- jami esminiai populizmo principai, kuriuos rašytoja aprašė remdamasi ukrainiečių, lenkų ir vokiečių lite- ratūros kūriniais. Šiame straipsnyje terminas „populizmas“ suprantamas kaip ideologinių, estetinių ir stilis- tinių XIX a. literatūros bruožų, stipriai paveikusių realizmą ir pozityvizmą, rinkinys. Anot Lesios Ukrainkos, realizmas ir pozityvizmas patyrė itin didelį populistinės mokyklos poveikį. Lesia Ukrainka gana dažnai vartojo sąvoką „populizmas“, kurią tapatino su ideologiniais, estetiniais, stilistiniais ir tematiniais trūkumais XIX a. literatūroje. Ji taip pat domėjosi Herderio idėja apie garbingą slavų misiją istorijoje įgyvendinant humaniškumą, kurio nerealizavo romėnai ir vokiečiai.

Raktažodžiai: Lesia Ukrainka, populizmas, neoromantizmas, literatūrinis-kritinis paveldas. Key words: Lesya Ukrainka, populism, neo-romanticism, literary-critical heritage. LOGOS 105 181 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS ROSTYSLAV RADYSHEVSKY

INTRODUCTION

Lesya Ukrainka’s literary-critical, It seems appropriate to accept as jus- epistolary and artistic heritage is a vivid tifiable the observations of present-day evidence of the formation of neo-roman- Ukrainian literary scholars who argue ticism as a conceptual integrity, a new that “the typical for the European cul- ideological and aesthetic phenomenon ture contrast between Modernism and that has been rapidly developing in Eu- Positivism has been transformed in rope since the 2nd half of the XIX century. Ukraine’s history into the modernist- The very term “neo-romanticism” indi- populism opposition” (Hundorova 1997: cated both the genetic affinity of the cul- 39). However, in their discussions of the ture at the turn of the centuries with Ro- literary process at the turn of the XIX manticism and the original and distinc- century, a number of scholars protest tive worldview that could lay the basis against the ungrounded ‘labelling’ of the for reproducing the ideas of the new era. national literature as ‘populist’, or ‘folk’, Considering stylistically varied works or ‘incomplete’, which devaluates it, ei- in the Ukrainian, Polish and German lit- ther totally, or partially, at particular eratures (written by O. Kobylyanska, stages of its development (with the V. Stefanyk, V. Vynnychenko, G. Haupt- terms ‘ethnographic’, ‘domestic’ and the mann, S. Przybyszevsky), Lesya Ukrain- hackneyed ‘enlightenment’ abounding) ka pointed out in her articles that they (Shumylo 2003: 186–187; (Denysiuk have a common basis, neo-romanticism, 1999: 35). thus emphasizing the neo-romantic na- At the beginning of the XX century. ture of all the latest literary and aesthetic I. Franko was the first to oppose the use trends. In this regard, she turned out to of the term “populism” for the “old” be one of the first in the Ukrainian litera- . In his polemics ture to begin the revision of populism as with S. Rusova, who referred populism a broad spiritual movement at the turn to a limited thematic scope of literature of the century, the ideological limitations in her article “The Old and the New in of which became an impediment to the Modern Ukrainian Literature”, I. Franko entire national life of Ukrainians at the argues: “I think it is time to leave off beginning of the new era. these definitions, incorrect in their ri- In her article “Some Notes on the gidity. The Ukrainian literature has Contemporary Polish Literature”, Lesya never been entirely populist. Already in Ukrainka criticized the decadent trend his “Aeneid”, Kotlyarevsky wrote about in art and assessed populism, consider- the Ukrainian gentry, i.e. middle-range ing this trend typical for the 2nd half of and rich Cossacks of the late XVIII cen- the XIX century, but she marked its im- tury, rather than peasantry” (Franko portance for the Polish literature. 1982: 91–92).

182 LOGOS 105 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS KultŪra

populism in LesYa Ukrainka’s LITERARY-CRITICAL heritage: CONCEPTion, worldview and AESTHETIC APPROACHES

Lesya Ukrainka used the term “pop- Ukrainka 1975–1979; V. 8: 105). Lesya ulism” quite extensively and implied, Ukrainka believed that old, as well as alongside thematic limitations, a set of modern populist Polish prose, was great- ideological, aesthetic and stylistic short- ly influenced by the “Ukrainian School” comings of the XIX century literature. in Polish Romanticism: She studied thoroughly the issues of “[…] the beginning of Polish populism populism in world literature. Her con- was closely connected to the Ukrainian ceptual articles are “Little Russian Writ- School of novelists and playwrights […], ers in Bukovina”, published in Russian as if Polish writers had noticed the exis- in the magazine Life (1900, № 9), and tence of Ukrainian “serf” earlier than they “Some Notes on the Contemporary Pol- did their own, the Polish one […] because ish Literature” in the first issue of St. the Ukrainian “serf” used to remind of Petersburg’s magazine Life (Lesya his existence for many centuries, with the Ukrainka 1975–1979; Vol. 8: 100–127). Ukrainian problem looming like a ghost Another article, on M. Konopnitskaya’s over Polish figures of all tendencies […]” poetry, written for the Russian magazine (Lesya Ukrainka 1975–1979; Vol. 8: 104). God’s Peace in 1902, for the 60th anniver- The era of Рositivism which followed sary of that Polish writer, was turned Romanticism kept taking interest in Pol- down by the editors and has not sur- ish people, peasantry, in particular, as vived, but its contents are known from the time was regarded as unpoetic; how- Lesya Ukrainka’s letters. Her article ever, Lesya Ukrainka marked out Maria “Populism in Germany”, which was not Konopnitska, the poet-populist: published either, is outlined in the letter “The populist approach was of great im- to her parents as of January 28, 1901 (Le- portance for the Polish literature, as it sya Ukrainka 1975–1979; Vol. 11: 204). immediately opened the new vistas, mod- Lesya Ukrainka’s article “Some Notes ernized both the form and contents of the on the Contemporary Polish Literature” Polish novel and short story and gener- deals with the first manifestations of the ated the novella” (Lesya Ukrainka 1975– populist trend in Polish literature, which 1979; V. 8: 105)… Populist poets, with she could discern in the poetry of Ro- Maria Konopnitska being among the most manticism, in the development of Polish outstanding among them, tend to shirk folk themes, and in the “passion for eth- more or less successful attempts of po- nography” (Lesya Ukrainka 1975–1979; etization of everyday work and everyday Vol. 8: 103). This trend in the Polish lit- human suffering, and plunge into the erature gave “certain contours to the dream of nirvana, burst into curses of idea of organic labor”, which is based earth or reproaches to heaven, or seek on “the principle of the service for the solace in philosophical indifference to everything” (Lesya Ukrainka, Vol. 8: 113). nation, paying off age-old debts to all forgotten Polish peasants”, to the content According to Lesya Ukrainka, realism of “realists” and “idealists” alike (Lesya and positivism were also under the

LOGOS 105 183 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS ROSTYSLAV RADYSHEVSKY

strong tutelage of populist school. As the mentality and ethnography; in addition, main cause of Polish populists’ degrada- he is influenced by European, mainly tion, she regarded their confusion on German, Romanticism” (Lesya Ukrainka such concepts as “people”, “nationality”, 1975–1979; Vols. 8: 66–67). “nation”, “nationalism” and “patrio- However, she did not intend to con- tism”, which would tempt them away sider the popular themes and images of from a clear-cut, direct path in theory rural life within the category of “populist and practice,” (Lesya Ukrainka 1975– literature”. This becomes quite evident in 1979; Vol. 8: 107–108). the way she characterizes V. Stefanyk’s Lesya Ukrainka, as V. Petrov pointed works; he should not be classified as “a out later, (Petrov 1994: 184–187), singled populist”, even if his short stories, in fact, out the two leading trends in both the did not go beyond the themes of peas- Ukrainian and the Polish literatures of antry. Lesya Ukrainka writes in her arti- the XIX century: the romantic and ethno- cle “Little Russian Writers in Bukovina”: graphic populism as the prevailing meth- odological and ideological trend in the 1st “Stefanyk is not a populist; his “people” are not the bearers of any “foundations” half of the XIX century, and the positivist, and virtues unknown to the “rotten intel- or realistic populism in its 2nd half, which lectuals”, but it is the absence of these was based on positivism, realism, and foundations and virtues, revealed with a evolutionism. The people, i.e, the peas- skilful and loving hand, and it produces antry, are in the center of the populist on thinking and feeling readers a stron- doctrine of both trends. In fact, “the peas- ger, deeper and more fruitful impression ant conception of the people, on the one than all the panegyrics of the idealized hand, and the linguistic-literary, philo- people in populist literature, imbued, of logical conception of the people, on the course, with the best intentions” (Lesya other hand, are consistently intertwined. Ukrainka 1975–1979; Vol. 8:74). The statement “people is the language” Lesya Ukrainka also criticizes the su- becomes an unbreakable dogma through- perficial, purely decorative layer of peo- out the XIX century” (Petrov 1994: 185). ple’s life, without any “honorable idea” Lesya Ukrainka’s article “Little Rus- or subtly outlined “silhouettes of folk sian Writers in Bukovina” characterizes types” of European social drama (the the populist trend in the Ukrainian litera- article “European Social Drama in the ture. She opposes it to new views and ar- late ХІХ Century” (Critical Review): tistic achievements of O. Kobylyanska and V. Stefanyk, who marked the transition to “[…] As long as it (drama – R.Р.) focused the period of modernity by their literary on forms rather than contents of social works. Lesya Ukrainka presents Y. Fed- life… it was finally reduced to the so- called “folk play”, which “is thriving on kovych’s writings as romantic populism, all third-rate stages of Western Europe. It seeing his excessive ethnographic passion is a mixture of ethnography and masquer- as a weakness in his artistic system: ade, melodrama and farce, almost com- “Fedkovich is no stranger to the short- pletely devoid of artistry, and only mea- comings inherent in the populist litera- sured by a cheap effect” (Lesya Ukrainka ture of the time: he often falls into senti- 1975–1979; Vol. 8: 285).

184 LOGOS 105 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS KultŪra

Lesya Ukrainka does not accept the this trend – the “peasant” concept of the idea of “service” in Franko’s work either. people. In her article “It’s Not So Much the She cannot agree with the view of litera- Enemies as Good Friends”, she opposes ture as the extended enlightenment or in viewing the term populist: the public duty of the writer who “takes “I. Franko’s main commandment is the care of health and soul of the people”, direct propaganda among the people (he thus letting authors disregard the artistic uses the word “people” not in the Euro- side of their work. Lesya rejects the idea pean, but in the populist sense “peas- of moralizing at the expense of the artis- ants”) […]; however here, in Ukraine, it tic dimension, any disguise of the artistic is necessary to gain the intelligentsia, first frailty by a patriotic phrase; she also op- and foremost, and return its “brain” to poses the industrial-patriotic understand- the nation” (Lesya Ukrainka 1975–1979; ing of literature and its deliberate “sim- vol. 8: 22). plification” (Doroshko 2015: 54–56). In The term “populism” involves, for her letter to M. Drahomanov as of March Lesya Ukrainka, any kind of bias that is 15, 1892, she writes that it is only to a turned into an established norm or cli- genius that she could forgive ché, thus constraining the poet’s creative “a poorly constructed poem, but not al- imagination, and she rejects it as such. ways, for that matter. Ukrainian poets… She, as L. Doroshko rightly emphasizes, should be forbidden to write national- rejects flatly what is superficial, declara- patriotic poems for a while and learn ver- tive, or stylized. Hence her negative at- sification through lyrics and titude towards Sadovsky’s imitation instead; while now they rely, by and large, populist theater and Nechuy’s clumsy on their readers’ patriotism rather than on folk types (“For God’s sake, don’t judge their own rhyme and meter” (Lesya us by Nechuy’s novels, or we will have Ukrainka 1975–1979; Vol. 8: 130). to be condemned forever, not guilty as Lesya Ukrainka added the depth we are. Actually, I don’t know a single meaning to the notions of “people”, “na- intelligent person in Nechuy’s novels. If tionality”, and “folk language”, bearing you believed him, all Ukraine would in mind an old tradition: seem stupid” (Lesya Ukrainka 1975– “Some people complained that I was evad- 1979; Vol. 10: 113). She cannot reconcile ing “folk” themes and the vernacular com- with the ethnography, decorativeness position, elbowing into literary sophistica- and superficial perception of people in tions and “intellectualizing”, but the Y. Fedkovych’s poetic work (“Fed- trouble, probably, is that I understand the kovych’s poetic talent was only sufficient words “people”, “literature” and “intelli- to reproduce immediate impressions of gentsia” differently from my critics’ way” life in an artless form” (Lesya Ukrainka (Lesya Ukrainka 1975–1979; vol. 10: 65). 1975–1979; Vol. 8:64)). Hence her critique In populist literature, Lesya does not of European social drama without an only question the shallow image of peo- “honorable idea”. Speaking of domestic ple’s lives, ethnography and decorative- drama and comedy, Lesya Ukrainka sees ness, but also disputes the very basis of the cause of the writer’s ideological and

LOGOS 105 185 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS ROSTYSLAV RADYSHEVSKY

artistic imperfection, his social commit- turned out to be a specific case of posi- ment, with the aesthetic aspect being tivism” (Morenets 2002: 51). V. Morenets ignored. believes that “populism as a complex set In comparing the development of Pol- of characteristic ethno-cultural features ish and Ukrainian literatures at the turn deserves further consideration rather of the XIX century, V. Morenets argues than rejection”, because folklore and that Polish thinkers did not link the mythological folk song traditions have “modernist break” with the renunciation always been definitive in the Ukrainian of national issues, and that the Ukrai- literature, and this distinguishes it from nian populism could not be fully identi- other Slavic literatures, which managed fied with positivism, thus insisting that to renounce the barren postulates of a only one of the aspects (primarily, edu- positive worldview [...] without renounc- cational) of the Ukrainian “populism” ing themselves” (Morenets, 2002: 51–52).

“NATIONAL SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS” AND “artist and society” AS CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS OF populism

Lesya Ukrainka also managed to re- is, in other words, to complete their na- nounce the “barren postulates of a posi- tional “self-determination”. An impor- tive worldview”, without any self-deni- tant factor to cement the national unity al. As indicated by O. Zabuzhko, a and self-consciousness was the constant- deeper, more ancient tradition, and the ly impending danger of foreign religious preservation of cultural memory meant and secular aggression and, consequent- much more for her, (Zabuzhko 2018). In ly, struggle for freedom, which lasted for view of this, Lesya Ukrainka’s interest in centuries and found its vivid expression German populism deserves special at- in the Slavs’ heroic folklore, including tention. In her letter as of January 28, the Ukrainian. Ukrainians are distin- 1901 (Lesya Ukrainka 1975–1979; Vols. guished by their folk tradition, specific 11: 20), she requests her sister Lily to find character traits and folk culture; they are materials on the subject of “Populism in ready to fulfill the honorable mission of Germany”. The article was never pub- implementing the principles of the noble lished and obviously lost. She took an idea of humanity (Kozak 2011: 87). Lesya undoubted interest in Herder’s idea of Ukrainka must have been interested in the Slavs’ mission presented in his work Herder’s Slavophile conceptions, there- “Philosophic Reflections on the History fore the issue of external and internal of Mankind”. Herder is known to regard slavery prevails in her dramas. the Slavs as an ideal, for they were to The poet and his poetry became an have fulfilled their mission in history, important factor for Lesya Ukrainka in unfulfilled by the Romans and Germans. the new era, although she added a mod- However, according to Herder, the Slavs ern meaning to the concepts of “educa- had, primarily, to discover themselves, tion” and “service for the people” which their national history and culture, that was associated neither with moralism,

186 LOGOS 105 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS KultŪra nor with ardent appeals of public speech- opinion, begins in the late 1890s and es, nor with thematic limitations, nor early 1900s, “when Ukrainian poets (not with stylistic imitations of folklore. Thus, all of them, only the most radical) felt the classical problem of the relationship the dreadfulness of the old Ukrainian between the artist and society under Ro- sentimentalism in the lyrics, with its ar- manticism developed into the problem tificial and sugary style perceived as of populism. obligatory, […] and discerned the obso- Lesya Ukrainka was aware of the lete character of naive lamentations over flaws in Ukrainian literature that pre- peasant misery […] They wanted new vented it from taking the road of the new ways, they wanted to “get a little closer European development. She denounced, to the trends and tendencies in the Eu- criticized and analyzed them – and she ropean literature”, they wanted to walk called them “populism”. M. Zerov de- along new paths” (Zerov 2002: 324). The fined Lesya Ukrainka’s role in the “new critic emphasizes that Lesya Ukrainka reality” and the “new style” very pre- did not only seek something new and cisely, summarizing the main features of spoke about new vistas, like many others populism which she consistently criti- did, but she created a new aesthetic real- cized. The new Ukrainian poetry, in his ity in her poetry.

Conclusions

Lesya Ukrainka was one of the first antry, the biased social commitment of in Ukrainian literature to start the forma- the writer, with all of them accountable tion of neo-romanticism as a system and for the artistic frailty of literary works. a new ideological and aesthetic phenom- Lesya Ukrainka contributed a lot to the enon by the “reassessment of values” transition of the Ukrainian literature and the discussion of literary populism. from a narrow ethnographic framework Her literary-critical articles, focused, in to the wider European space, by oppos- particular, on populism in the Ukrainian ing populist culture studies in every and Polish literatures. Her letters to rel- possible way. The revision of populist atives and friends, contained an open traditions in the Ukrainian literature and revision of populist approach towards the priority to the aesthetic values initi- the individual, the life and the art, and ated by Lesya Ukrainka was later devel- it centered on the principles of moralism oped by Ukrainian critics M. Sriblyan- and utilitarianism. Lesya Ukrainka’s sky, A. Tovkachevsky, and M. Yevshan term “populism” covers a number of on the pages of the modernist magazine features: the superficial description of “Ukrainska­ Khata” (1909–1914). They folk life, the focus on its decorative side, actually declared a war on the old pop- the fascination with folklore stylization, ulism by professing the European mo- the conception of the people as peas- dernity of the Ukrainian literature.

LOGOS 105 187 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS ROSTYSLAV RADYSHEVSKY

References

Denysiuk Ivan. 1999. – Денисюк Іван. 1999. Розви- Ukrainka Lesya. 1975–1979. – Українка Леся. ток української малої прози XIX–поч. XX ст. 1975–1979. Заметки о новейшей польской ли- [Development of Ukrainian short prose XIX– тературе [Some Notes on Contemporary Polish early. XX century]. Львів: Академічний Експрес. Literature]. Зібрання творів: у 12 т. М. Л. Гон- Dontsov Dmytro. 2009. Донцов Дмитро. 2009. Лі- чарук (упор. та прим.), П. Й. Колесник (ред. тературна есеїстика [Literary essays]. Дрого- тому). Київ: Наукова думка. Т. 8: Літератур- бич: Видавнича фірма “Відродження”: 97–106. но-критичні та публіцистичні статті: 100–127. Doroshko Lidiya. 2015. – Дорошко Лідія 2015. Ukrainka Lesya. 1975–1979. – Українка Леся. 1975– Неоромантичність раннього українського 1979. Лист до батьків (від 28.01.1901 р.) [The модернізму [Neo-romanticism of early Ukrai- Letter to parents (January 28, 1901)]. Зібрання nian modernism]. Студії з україністики. Вип. творів: у 12 т. М. Л. Гончарук (упор. та прим.), XV. Київ: Університет “Україна”. П. Й. Колесник (ред. тому). Київ: Наукова дум- Franko Ivan. 1982. – Франко Іван. 1982. Cтаре й ка. Т. 11: Листи: 202–205. нове в сучасній українській літературі [The Ukrainka Lesya. 1975–1979. – Українка Леся. Old and the New in Modern Ukrainian Litera- 1975–1979. Лист до М.П.Драгоманова (від ture]. Франко Іван. Зібрання творів: у 50 т. 15.03.1892 р.) [The Letter to M. P. Drahomanov Київ: Наукова думка. Т. 35: 91–111. (March 15, 1892)]. Зібрання творів: у 12 т. М. Л. Hundorova Tamara. 1997. – Гундорова Тамара. Гончарук (упор. та прим.), П. Й. Колесник 1997. ПроЯвлення слова. Дискурсія раннього (ред. тому). Київ: Наукова думка. Т. 11: Листи: українського модернізму: Постмодерна ін- 129–132. терпретація [Manifestation of the word. The Ukrainka Lesya. 1975–1979. – Українка Леся. Discourse of Early Ukrainian Modernism: A 1975–1979. Малорусские писатели на Букови- Postmodern Interpretation]. Львів: Літопис. не [Little-Russian Writers in Bukovina]. Зібран- Kozak Stefan. 2011. – Козак Стефан. 2011. Хрис- ня творів: у 12 т. М. Л. Гончарук (упор. та тиянство – романтичний месіанізм – сучас- прим.), П. Й. Колесник (ред. тому). Київ: На- ність [Christianity – Romantic messianism – укова думка. Т. 8: Літературно-критичні та Modernity]. Студії з україністики. Вип. IX. публіцистичні статті: 62–75. Київ: 82–93. Ukrainka Lesya. 1975–1979. – Українка Леся. 1975– Morenetsʹ Volodymyr. 2002. – Моренець Володи- 1979. Не так тії вороги, як добрії люди. [It’s мир. 2002. Національні шляхи поетичного Not So Much the Enemies As Good Friends]. модерну першої половини XX ст. [National Зібрання творів: у 12 т. М. Л. Гончарук (упор. Ways of Poetic Modernism of the First Half of та прим.), П. Й. Колесник (ред. тому). Київ: the XX Century.]. Україна і Польща. Київ: Ос- Наукова думка. Т. 8: Літературно-критичні та нови. публіцистичні статті: 19–25. Petrov Viktor. 1994. – Петров Віктор. 1994. Енци- Shumylo Natalya. 2003. – Шумило Наталя. 2003. клопедія українознавства [Encyclopedia of Під знаком національної самобутності. Укра- Ukrainian Studies]. Загальна частина: ре- їнська художня проза і літературна критика принтне відтворення видання 1949 року. Ки- кінця XIX – поч. XX ст. [Under the Sign of Na- їв: Віпол: 184–187. tional Identity. The Ukrainian fiction and liter- Ukrainka Lesya. 1975–1979. – Українка Леся. ary criticism of the late XIX–early XX century]. 1975–1979. Європейська соціальна драма в Kyyiv: Za druha. кінці ХІХ століття (Критичний огляд) [The Zabuzhko Oksana. 2018. – Забужко Оксана. 2018. European Social Drama in the Late XIX Cen- Notre Dame d’Ukraine: Українка в конфлікті tury (Critical review)]. Зібрання творів: у 12 т. міфологій [Ukrainka in the conflict of mythol- М. Л. Гончарук (упор. та прим.), П. Й. Колес- ogies]. Київ : Видавничий Дім “Комора”. ник (ред. тому). Київ: Наукова думка. Т. 8: Zerov Mykola. 2002. – Зеров Микола. 2002. Укра- Літературно-критичні та публіцистичні стат- їнське письменство [Ukrainian literature]. Ки- ті: 282–286. їв: Основи: 317–325.

188 LOGOS 105 2020 SPALIS • GRUODIS