TRANSLATED and EDITED by GEORGE S.N. LUCKYJ Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies Diasporiana.Org.Ua Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Mono~Raph Series
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TRANSLATED AND EDITED BY GEORGE S.N. LUCKYJ Harvard Series in Ukrainian Studies diasporiana.org.ua Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Mono~raph Series Editarial Board Omeljan Pritsak, Editar-in-Chief Ihor Sev~enko Paul R. Magocsi, Managing Editar Committee on Ukrainian Studies Edward Keenan Horace G. Lunt Richard E. Pipes Omeljan Pritsak, Chairman Ihor Sevl:enko Wiktor Weintraub Cambridge, Massachusetts Ievhen Sverstiuk Clandestine Essays Translation and an Introduction by George S. N. Luckyj Published by the Ukrainian Academic Press for the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute 1976 The Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute was established in 1973 as an integral part of Harvard University. It supports research associates and visiting scholars who are engaged in projects concerned with all aspects of Ukrainian studies. The Institute also works in close cooperation with the Committee on Ukrainian Studies, which supervises and coordinates the teaching of Ukrain ian history, language, and literature at Harvard University. Copyright© 1976 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All Rights Reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data ,......, ,.-.... Sverstiuk, IEvhen. Clandestine essays. (Monograph series - Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute) Includes bibliographical references. CONTENTS: A cathedral in scaffolding. -Ivan Kot liarevs'kyi is laughing. -Final plea before the court. 1. Ukraine-Politics and govemment-1917- -Addresses, essays, lectures. 2. Dissenters Ukraine-Addresses, essays, lectures. I. Title. II. Series: Harvard University Research Institute. Monograph series- Harvard Ukrainian Research Insti tute. DK508.8.S825 322.4'4'094 771 76-20768 ISBN 0-87287-151-7 ISBN 0-87287-1584 pbk. Ukrainian Academic Press, a division of Libraries Unlimited, Inc., P.O. Box 263, Littleton, Colorado 80120 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 7 Footnotes . 16 A CATHEDRAL IN SCAFFOLDING . 17 Footnotes . 65 IV AN KOTLIAREVS'KYI IS LAUGHING . 69 Footnotes . 94 FINAL PLEA BEFORE THE COURT . 97 INTRODUCTION 1 Mter Stalin's death intellectual dissent in Ukraine was slow in developing. The "year of protest-1956" which in Russian literature left great scars on socialist realism, produced no turmoil in Ukraine. The greatest work of Ukrainian literature of that time, Oleksandr Dovzhenko's Zacharovana Desna (The Enchanted Desna, 1957) was, after all, concerned neither with the present nor with the future, but with recollections of the past. It made no claim to esthetic innovation. Some stirrings of the "young poets" (Kostenko) became noticeable in the late 1950's but not until the next decade did they come fully into the open. The reasons for the relative silence in Ukraine in the fifties are not difficult to detect. The devastation in Ukrainian literature and culture left by Stalinism was of enormous proportions, greater than that which fell upon Russia. The wholesale destruction of Ukrainian writers, scholars, critics, and artists in the 1930's struck fear into the hearts of the Ukrainian intelligentsia. It was intensified by the blows against the peasantry, still the backbone of the Ukrainian nation, and against the Ukrainian communist leadership, which provided the only shield of political power. In Russia, national heritage and Party leadership emerged after the death of Stalin if not intact, at least viable and strong. Strong enough to nurture the forces of discontent. In Ukraine, the Ukrainian intelligentsia, haunted by the stigma of "nationalism," was spiritually paralyzed. The Ukrainian communists, under the strong influence of Khrushchev, their boss in the critical period of 193849, were enlisted in the various tasks of Soviet empire-building in the role of junior partners. They gave up trying to defend Ukrainian cultural and political autonomy, a role attempt~d by their predecessors, Shums'kyi and Skrypnyk. Now there was no one in Kiev in a position of power or with nationwide prestige to oppose either the growing Russification or the theories of the "merging" of languages emanating from Moscow. It seemed as if Stalinist repression had been effective. Yet those who predicted a new Ru&sian-Ukrainian amity, achieved on Russian terms, spoke too soon. Although subdued, the Ukrainians were not conquered. De-Stalinization induced some re-examination of their recent 7 Introduction past. However timid at the beginning, the partial rehabilitation of the writers and scholars who had perished in the 1930's raised some disturbing questions in the minds of the young generation. Not the least important of them related to the tardiness and incompleteness of the rehabilitation. Republication of proscribed works began in Russia in the mid-fifties (Babel, Bagritskii, Olesha, Esenin); it reached a similar crest in Ukraine in the mid-sixties (Kosynka, Pluzhnyk, Zerov, Slisarenko). Undoubtedly, those responsible for decisions in Ukraine were very cautious. However, what was recovered from oblivion conveyed a great deal of the rich literature that had enjoyed such a flowering in the 1920's. Some of the leading writers of that era, notably Mykola Khvyl'ovyi, the author of the slogan "away from Moscow," were not rehabilitated. But those who were, must, in some measure, have provided the spark for the upsurge in the literature of the sixties. A freer discussion of Ukrainian history and folk culture also stimulated the search for a national identity. Yet when they came to the forefront of Ukrainian literature, the men and women of the sixties (shestydesiatnyky ), who were mostly poets, were not nationalist. To be sure, some of their works-and especially their achievements in revitalizing and enriching the Ukrainian poetic language appealed to national sentiments. Yet the main impact of the "young poets" in Ukraine, just as it was in the 1920's, was made on universal, esthetic grounds. To say that their protest is expressed in human rather than national terms simply because the latter are still taboo is to misunderstand the nature of modern Ukrainian literature. Like every other literature, it no longer wants to be concerned merely with national politics but with the human condition. In this it follows the finest traditions of Ukrainian literature from Shevchenko onwards. This is not to deny that in the past Ukrainian literature has often been ideologically committed. The founder of modern Ukrainian literature, Taras Shevchenko (1814-61 ), gave it an ideological orientation, though in his best works he rose above national issues. But the Ukrainian writers' preoccupation with the national destiny was thrust upon them by circumstances. In nineteenth century Russia, Ukrainians were denied political and linguistic freedom; therefore, literature became a vehicle of social, political, and cultural aspirations. As soon as conditions improved (notably after the 1905 revolution), the writers departed from politics, though the break with commitment was rarely complete. The Soviet regime in Ukraine was established as the result of a three-cornered fight between the nationalists, the Ukrainian communists, and the Russian communists. Though the latter were in control, they made 8 Introduction considerable concessions to the national Ukrainian demands during the first decade (1922-32). The literary revival of that period, a product of these concessions, is often regarded as showing great national vitality. This is true only to the extent that nationalism is a part of any emerging culture. In fact, many Ukrainian writers and intellectuals of that period looked beyond nationalism. The fact that they were later accused of being nationalists does not make them so. While some intellectuals-especially Khvyl'ovyi's group were interested in political and national power, others-the Futurists, the Neoclassicists, the group Lanka (Unk)-were genuine, uncommitted "fellow travellers." These distinctions were quite clear and were beneficial for the national life in general. All groups were indiscriminately lumped together by the communists (and often by emigre critics) only after they were destroyed in the 1930's. It is interesting, however, that the apolitical intellectuals suffered in the purges as much as the politically committed. Stalinist measures were not only anti-Ukrainian, they were anti-humanist as well. This, as we shall see, explains why the protest documents from Ukraine of today are made not only on behalf of a nation, but on behalf of humanity. There are several links between intellectual life in Ukraine in the 1920's and the 1960's. The emergence of the "modernist" poets of the sixties cannot be explained as a purely national phenomenon because they are concerned with the restoration of freedom not only for Ukraine but for all men. National sentiments are prominent in some poets (Drach, Vinhranovs'kyi), but greater concern is voiced for social justice and individual freedom. "A small group of people in Kiev," wrote Valentyn Moroz, "scattered sparks all over Ukraine, and where they fell the ice of indifference and nihilism that had accumulated over long years began at once to thaw."2 Some of the writers sympathized with the authors of underground documents, but they hesitated themselves to take up the tasks of political protest. That task is now performed by the intellectual underground. The functions of writers and of underground intellectuals (some of them former writers) are separate though complementary. During my visit to the Soviet Union in 1964 I witnessed the fire at the Library of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev, on May 24th. Standing in a crowd of rather apathetic spectators I was struck by the magnitude of the blaze (it was still burning the next day) and I wondered about Soviet firefigh ting methods. Next day, when no word about this disaster appeared in the local press, I talked to some Ukrainian writers who thought the fire was an 3d of sabotage. My question as to who could be the saboteur remained unanswered. Not until nine months later did I read an answer in a document smuggled out of Ukraine and printed abroad.3 It was one of the first such documents to reach the West.