A153. Bobrova, Larysa. “The ‘heart’ as poetic metaphor in Antonych’s The Grand Harmony.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.3 (Fall 2009): 255-271.

The use by Antonych in his poetry collection Velyka harmoniia of basic conventional heart metaphors, such as “the heart is a container”, “the heart is a musical instrument”, “the heart is a fire” and “the heart is a field” allows the poet “to illuminate exclusively his experience of joy, love, faith and grand harmony”, says Bobrova. She analyzes also Michael M. Naydan’s translations of Antonych and claims that the poet’s “metaphorical creativity in conveying his sensations is precisely retained in the English translation of The Grand Harmony”. Bobrova’s article is part of a special issue of Ukrainian Quarterly dedicated to the 100^th birth anniversary of Bohdan Ihor Antonych. For other contributions to this issue, see Michael M. Naydan, guest editor (cf. A165), Lidia Stefanowska (cf. A181), Viktor Neborak (cf. A167), Mykola Polyuha (cf. A175), Olha Tytarenko (cf. A183) and Mariya Tytarenko (cf. A184).

A154. Butler, Francis. “Ol'ga’s conversion and the construction of Chronicle narrative.” Russian Review. 67.2 (April 2008): 230-242.

An analysis of two portrayals of Princess Ol’ha, the ruler of Kyivan Rus’ - the historical and the legendary. From the Byzantine point of view, Ol’ha’s journey to Byzantium, the sponsorship of her baptism by the emperor, even the choice of her name, may suggest a potential incorporation of Kyivan Rus into the Christian empire ruled by Constantinople, says Butler. From the perspective of the author of Povist vremennykh lit, however, some of the historical facts of Ol’ha’s baptism are embellished in order to “emphasize Ol’ga’s cleverness and determination to maintain the independence of the Riurikid dynasty and of Rus’.”

A155. Caudano, Anne-Laurence. “Pamvo Berynda’s verses on the Nativity of Christ: Between Western education and Byzantine hymnography.” Canadian Slavonic Papers. 49.1-2 (March-June 2007): 9-26.

Pamvo Berynda’s collection of Christmas poems was published in Lviv in 1616. The original title is given as Na rozhestvo [sic] Hospoda Boha i spasytelia nasheho Isusa Khrysta. These poems, according to the author, were designed as an “exercise in declamation” for students and “are in fact the first traces of oral presentations in Ukraine.” Caudano analyzes the contents, structure and poetic form of the collection. The main constituents of Berynda’s intertext were, in her view, the Gospel and the Orthodox liturgy of the day and the original intention of these poems was “to entertain and express the joy of Christmas.” The author is especially interested in discovering influences on these poems of Byzantine religious hymns and claims that Berynda’s poems “bear witness to a Byzantine tradition still alive in seventeenth century Ukrainian minds.”

A156. Danylenko, Andrii. “The Holy Gospels in vernacular Ukrainian: Antin Kobyljans’kyj (1874, 1877) vs. Pantelejmon Kuliš (1871).” Welt der Slaven. 55.1 (2010): 83-104. Biblio. 102-104.

A detailed linguistic comparison of two modern Ukrainian translations of the Gospels, that of Panteleimon Kulish (assisted by Ivan Puliui) published by the Bible Society in Vienna in 1871 and that of Antin Kobylians’kyi published in 1874 and 1877 in Lviv. In syntax, according to Danylenko, no major differences exist between Kobylians’kyi’s and Kulish’s translations, “both largely leaning on archaic (Church Slavonic) patterns...” However, says Danylenko, Kulish “was open to multidialectical borrowings with an eye to diversifying his language”, while Kobylians’kyi “remained largely focused on obvious regionalisms...” Says Danylenko: “Kobyljans’kyj’s translations heralded a new round in the formation of the local variety of literary language aimed at bridging a rift between the educated clergy and common parishioners in Galicia, Subcarpathian Rus’ and Bukovyna.”... “Based on the southeastern Ukrainian vernacular as opposed to the Russian recension of Church Slavonic ushered in by the Russian Synod decrees in the 1720's, Kuliš strived for a synthesis of the intrinsically low-style vernacular with elements picked from other territorial and functional registers, including Church Slavonic, Russian, Polish, and Galician expressions.” Danylenko discusses also the reception of these translations in Western and in Eastern Ukraine, and provides a survey of other pre-modern and modern Ukrainian translations of the Bible.

A157. Fizer, John. “Ad memoriam: Vasyl’ Barka (1908-2003)” / I.M. Fizer. Ukrainian Quarterly. 59.1-2 (Spring-Summer 2003): 153-154. port.

Vasyl Barka is characterized in this obituary as “an outstanding Ukrainian poet, novelist, essayist, translator and scholar.” Born in the village of Solonytsi in the Poltava region of Ukraine in 1908, he died in Glen Spey, N.Y. on 11 April 2003. Barka’s poetic idiom, says Fizer, was “continuously evolving from the effortlessly accessible semantics to the ever increasing metaphorically and symbolically latent discourse” . For the poet, this idiom was “a mystic language imbued with the primordial truth”. Reception of Barka’s poetry, according to Fizer, “required intuitive rather than strictly logical decoding.”

A158. Goldblatt, Harvey. “Old approaches and new perspectives: once again on the religious significance of the Slovo o polku Igorevě” / Harvey Goldblatt and Riccardo Picchio Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 28.1-4 (2006 [©2009]): 129-154. Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday. Ed. by Harvey Goldblatt [and] Nancy Shields Kollmann.

According to the authors, Slovo o polku Ihorevim “should not be viewed as the heroic-epic exaltation of a valiant warrior but rather as a religious exemplum that provides an ethical and edifying message that may well be grounded in Christian teachings...” “....one is dealing with an unambiguous message of accusation and censure directed against both Prince Igor’ and all others who engage in the willful and deplorable bahavior that leads to the violation of the religious and political system of Orthodox Rus’.”

A159. Grabowicz, George G. “Shevchenko in critical essays of Ievhen Malaniuk.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 28.1-4 (2006 [©2009]): 441-459. Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday. Ed. by Harvey Goldblatt [and] Nancy Shields Kollmann.

The focus of the article is on the reception of Shevchenko as reflected in Evhen Malaniuk’s essays collected in his two-volume Knyha sposterezhen’. Malaniuk’s essays, especially the early ones, “have a pronounced, indeed programmatic, ideological orientation”, says Grabowicz, since he was “espousing the new nationalist ideology of Dontsov and the journal Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk...” According to Malaniuk, “Shevchenko articulates in his poetry both a political and a national vision of and for Ukraine”, he is “a national prophet and a national genius”, while symbolic and mythical aspects of Shevchenko’s vision of Ukraine are ignored, says Grabowicz. And yet, in Grabowicz’s view, Malaniuk in his reception of Shevchenko “is more balanced, nuanced, and less unabashedly doctrinaire and propagandistic than Dontsov’. “Malaniuk actually focuses on Shevchenko in an intrinsically literary way; his criticism engages the poet and his texts and his multivalent presence in the literary process”, says Grabowicz, and Shevchenko emerges as “a phenomenon that deserves a critical reading”.

A160. Humesky, Assya. “Shevelov’s dynamic approaches to literature.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 59.3-4 (Fall-Winter 2003): 264-271.

A good critic, according to Shevelov, says Humesky, “tries to grasp the uniqueness of the work, to probe its essence, and to uncover the ways in which the different components fit together. His aim is to help the author to better understand himself, and to help the reader to understand the author...” Shevelov insisted “on the critic being attuned to the author’s ‘soul’”, says Humesky. She discusses Shevelov’s views on the subjectivity of criticism, on the periodicity of styles and genres as proposed by D. Chyzhevs’kyi, as well as his early theory of the so called “organically national literature” (an idea that he later discarded and considered a remnant of his youthful Soviet indoctrination). Humesky’s article is based on a paper delivered at the Symposium in honor of George Y. Shevelov, at Columbia University on 2 October 1998.

A161. Karpinich, Walter. “Shevchenko and Goethe.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 57.1-2 (Spring-Summer 2001): 53-63. Biblio.

An attempt to find parallels in the life and work of the German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Taras Shevchenko. “In his work, Shevchenko like Goethe and other world class writers, transcends parochial limits and addresses universally relevant themes and enduring concerns and aspirations of the individual”, says Karpinich. The author compares Shevchenko’s and Goethe’s view of the natural world, their interests in and contributions to biology, their ideas on the treatment, status and role of women in society. Karpinich claims that Shevchenko was “well acquainted with Goethe’s works in circulation” and cites Goethe’s poem “Wanderer’s Nachtlied (Über allen Gipfeln ist Ruh)” in the original, as well as in Russian and Ukrainian translations.

A162. Kononenko, Natalie. “Ukrainian ballads in Canada: Adjusting to new life in a new land.” Canadian Slavonic Papers. 50.1-2 (March-June 2008): 17-36.

A study of Ukrainian Canadian folklore based on the collection of oral ballads made by Robert Bohdan Klymasz and housed in the Bohdan Medwidsky Ukrainian Folklore Archives. Kononenko analyzes the dominant themes of these ballads: they deal with the physical hardships of life in Canada, with conflicts between mothers and daughters, women and their daughters-in-law, with the absence of men who work away from home, with marital tensions, alcoholism and infidelity. Kononenko notes that magic used in ballads performed in Ukraine, is not present in Canadian-Ukrainian ballads. This, in her view, marks “a shift from a magical to a rational orientation at the grass roots level using the words of the Ukrainian Pioneers themselves.” Quotations from the ballads are provided in the original Ukrainian and in the author’s English translation.

A163. Lunde, Ingunn. “When the Devil quotes the Psalms: On the function of reported speech in the Tale of Boris and Gleb’.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 28.1-4 (2006 [©2009]): 225-235. Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday. Ed. by Harvey Goldblatt [and] Nancy Shields Kollmann.

There are two hagiographic works from Kyivan Rus about the life and death of the Princes Borys and Hlib. Lunde compares the anonymous Skazaniie and the Chteniie, written by the monk Nestor and concludes that “While the text of the Skazanie is a less polished work than Nestor’s Čtenie, it definitely gives the impression of a more spontaneous account, closer to the field of action and the (imagined) emotions of its participants.”

A164. Myshanych, Olexa. “Revising once again the question of the authenticity of the Tale of Ihor’s Campaign.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 57.1-2 (Spring-Summer 2001): 91-99.

A polemic with Edward L. Keenan, whose article in Harvard Ukrainian Studies [22 (1998, rel.2000): 313-327. Cultures and Nations of Central and Eastern Europe: Essays in honor of Roman Szporluk] questions the authenticity of Slovo o polku Ihorevim. Keenan claims that Slovo o polku Ihorevim is not a medieval text, but rather the work of the Bohemian Jesuit scholar Josef Dobrovsky, composed “no earlier than August 1792". “Keenan’s hypothesis is nothing but an allegation without any basis in documentary evidence”, says Myshanych. To ascribe the authorship of the Slovo o polku Ihorevim to Joseph Dobrovsky, says the author, “is an idle exercise, but to allege that he forged it while suffering from insane delirium is unethical”. Myshanych reviews prior researches into Slovo’s authenticity, provides his own explanation of the term “saltan” (as a variant of sultan) and claims that the Chronograph containg the text of the Slovo did exist and was known to scholars before 21 August 1791, while Dobrovsky first arrived in St. Petersburg in August 1792.

A165. Naydan, Michael M. “Bohdan Ihor Antonych and the music of the night.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.3 (Fall 2009): 166-169.

Michael M. Naydan is the guest editor of this special issue of Ukrainian Quarterly dedicated to the 100^th anniversary of the birth of Bohdan Ihor Antonych. Naydan is introduced by the editors on p.165. Speaking of his translations of Antonych’s poetry and of his studies of the poet’s work, Naydan characterizes Antonych as “a seeker, an eternal pilgrim, a traveler on the road of life seeking answers to the seemingly unanswerable questions” and the hallmark of his poetry as ‘a rich style charged with astoundingly striking metaphorical constructions.”. Naydan introduces the other contributors to this special issue, i.e. Lidia Stefanowska (cf. A181), Viktor Neborak (cf. A167), Mykola Polyuha (cf. A175), Olha Tytarenko (cf. A183), Mariya Tytarenko (cf. A184), and Larysa Bobrova (cf. A153). The issue includes also a biography of Antonych (1909-1937) with his portrait (pp.170-171) and a selection of Antonych’s poetry in Michael Naydan’s translation (pp.172-174), as follows: Musica noctis (Music of the night) (Light up the torch of the pale moon in the sky). • De morte I (On death I) (Only later I will bow my head in thought). • Liber pergrinorum 3 (Book of pilgrims 3 (Jerusalem) (The yellow road beneath my feet). • Three rings (On the wall a winged violin). • Self-portrait (Red and silver maples).

A166. Nazarenko, Tatiana. “The winding path leading to the goal: the evolution of the East European labyrinth poem.” Canadian American Slavic Studies. 38.4 (Winter 2004): 375-408. illus.

Literary labyrinths, according to the author, are a form of visual poetry associated with the maze and their origin can be traced as far back as the first century BC in Rome. The labyrinth poem, says Nazarenko, “possesses both a strong visual impact and the attributes of the poetic text”. Nazarenko discusses Bulgarian and Polish labyrinth poetry of the Baroque period and their influence on Ukrainian visual poetry. In the period from the 16^th to the 18^th century labyrinth poems in Ukraine, says Nazarenko, were composed by such authors as Ivan Velychkovs’kyi, Mytrofan Dovhalevs’kyi, Ioan Maksymovych, Lavrentii Krshchonovych, Bazyli Rudomicz, Simeon Polotskii. In contemporary literature Ukrainian labyrinth poems can be found in the writings of Mykola Soroka, Myroslav Korol, Jars Balan, as well as the Russian poet Vilen Barsky. The article is illustrated with a selection of labyrinth poems by these authors.

A167. Neborak, Viktor. “A poet’s interpretation of Antonych’s ‘The Land of the Annunciation’.” / Trans. by Lilya Valihun. Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.3 (Fall 2009): 184-191.

An interpretation of the poem “Kraina Blahovishchennia (Zaviia zeleni, pozhezha zeleni)”

by Bohdan Ihor Antonych in the special issue dedicated to the poet’s 100^th birth anniversary. According to Neborak, the “image of fire, which plays an ambiguous role in the awakening of Ukraine from a state of semi-dormancy, recurs throughout the poem. The poem can also be linked to various poems by Taras Shevchenko, through direct mention of the Ukrainian bard as well as numerous literary allusions.” Neborak considers the poem a prophecy of Ukraine’s awakening in flames.The poem is quoted in its entirety both in the Ukrainian original and in the English translation of Lilya Valihun. [The Land of Annunciation (A blizzard of verdure, a fire of verdure)]. For other contributions to this special Antonych issue see Michael M. Naydan, guest editor (cf. A165) , Lidia Stefanowska (cf. A181), Mykola Polyuha (cf. A175), Olha Tytarenko (cf. A183), Mariya Tytarenko (cf. A184) and Larysa Bobrova (cf. A153).

A168. Onyshkevych, Larissa. “Taras Shevchenko: his life, his poetry and his art.” / Larissa Zaleska Onyshkevych. Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.1-2 (Spring-Summer 2009): 119-126.

A review article of Taras Shevchenko: Vybrana poeziia. Zhyvopys. Hrafika = Selected poems. Paintings. Graphic Works. [Kyiv: Mystetstvo, 2007. 607 p. illus.] - a bilingual Ukrainian-English luxury edition of Shevchenko’s poetry and art works, edited by Serhii Hal’chenko, with introductory essays by Ivan Dziuba and Tetiana Andruschenko and English poetry translations by Vera Rich. Onyshkevych takes issue with what she calls Dziuba’s “ too-condensed manner”, which leads, in her view, to omissions of important relevant facts of Ukraine’s history and of some data of Shevchenko’s life and ancestry. Onyshkevych thinks highly of Vera Rich’s translations, and notes the translator’s “Britishisms” as well as her “purposely chosen archaisms”, which, in Onyshkevych’s view, “provide a sense of distance in time and a feel for a ‘higher’ rather than colloquial language.”

A169. Ostrowski, Donald. “The account of Volodimer’s conversion in the Povest’ vremennykh let: a chiasmus of stories.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 28.1-4 (2006 [©2009]): 567-580. Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday. Ed. by Harvey Goldblatt [and] Nancy Shields Kollmann.

There are four distinct stories involving five different traditions about the conversion to Christianity of Prince Volodymyr of Kyiv, says Ostrowski. It is now generally accepted, according to the author, that the account given in the Povist vremennykh lit “is mostly a literary invention.” The combining of these conflicting traditions, however, “does tell us something about the literary skill of Sil’vestr as the compiler of the PVL,” says Ostrowski.

A170. Ostrowski, Donald. “The application of biblical exegesis to the study of Rus’ Chronicles.” Medieval Slavonic Studies: New Perspectives for Research. Ed. by Juan Antonio Alvarez-Pedrosa and Susana Torres Prieto. Paris: Institut d’études slaves, 2009. (Collection historique de l’Institut d’études slaves, 43) 169-191. Abbreviations, Works cited: 188-191.

Researchers familiar with biblical exegesis, according to Ostrowski, can provide many methodological insights for the study of medieval chronicles [litopysy] of Kyivan Rus’ and especially for the study of Povist vremennykh lit.

A171. Papazian, Elisabeth A. “Offscreen dreams and collective synthesis in Dovzhenko’s Earth.” Russian Review. 62.3 (July 2003): 411-428. illus.

Oleksandr Dovzhenko’s film Zemlia might have had “ostensible propaganda mission in the interest of collectivization”, says Papazian, but even Soviet critics sensed the film’s “ideological failures”. Says Papazian about the film: “It is my contention that Dovzhenko uses offscreen space, along with a related technique of ‘unreported speech’ to allude to a utopian vision; the presence of the utopian impulse is also revealed in a striving toward visual and thematic synthesis. The nature of this utopia and its relation to the Soviet project, however, is rendered ambiguous and must be revealed by the viewer.”

A172. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “Literary canons and national identities in contemporary Ukraine.” Canadian American Slavic Studies. 40.1 (Spring 2006): 5-19.

Literary canons have a considerable influence upon national identity, on the values and attitudes of readers. Pavlyshyn examines two types of literary canons in contemporary Ukraine. The first such canon, which he calls “iconostasis”, displays, says the author, “continuity with both the nineteenth-century populist canon and, in most matters other than ideology, the canon of Socialist Realism, while openly promoting a national identity orientated toward the reinforcement of the Ukrainian nation-state.” In connection with this first canon Pavlyshyn discusses the role of the Writers’ Union of Ukraine, the cult of Oles Honchar, and the phenomenon of the “writers of the sixties”. The second or the new canon is characterized by Pavlyshyn, as modernist or postmodernist. It is, according to the author, indifferent or even opposed to a partisan national identity. The Bu-Ba-Bu group and particularly Iurii Andrukhovych are discussed as examples of the new attitudes. Pavlyshyn, however, detects “a modicum of deception” in the refusal of the new canon writers “to participate in the project of developing a national identity”: their stand could be interpreted as an invitation to a different Ukrainian culture, one viewed as “dynamic, multifarious, multicultural, and aesthetically challenging.”

A173. Petrovsky-Shtern, Yohanan. “The Construction of an improbable identity: the case of Hryts’ko Kernerenko.” Ab imperio. 1 (2005): 191-240. illus.

Hryts’ko Kernerenko (real name in Hebrew and Yiddish: Hirsch ben Borukh Kerner, in Ukrainian: Hryhorii Borysovych Kerner) was the first known Ukrainian poet of Jewish descent. He was born in 1863 in Huliai -pole in a wealthy Jewish family, graduated from Simferopol gymnasium (high school) and then from a polytechnic college in Munich, Germany. After travelling for some time in Europe, he returned to Huliai-pole , where he managed his own estate. He published four books of Ukrainian poetry (Nevelychkyi zbirnyk tvoriv (1890), Shchetynnyk (1891), V dosuzhyi chas (1894), Menty natkhnennia (1910). He was also the author of a tale Pravdyva kazka (1886), of an unpublished play “Liubov pevna-kara temna” (whose stage presentation was prohibited by Russian censors), and of Ukrainian translations from Yiddish, German and Russian poetry. Petrovsky-Shtern provides a survey of Kernerenko’s life and work and of the critical receptions of his poetry. According to Petrovsky-Shtern, nothing is known about Kernerenko’s life after 1910. The author characterizes Kernerenko’s subject matter as love poetry, depiction of Ukraine as “a utopian country of redemption and lofty freedom”, and of Shevchenko “as the Messiah of the Ukrainians.”, and later also poetry on Jewish themes. Kernerenko’ work was published in such Ukrainian periodicals as Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk, Ukrains’ka khata, Hromads’ka dumka, Rada and in some anthologies of poetry. Kernerenko’s work attracted the attention of such Ukrainian writers and critics as Ivan Franko, Mykhailo Komarov, Pavlo Hrabovs’kyi, Mykola Yevshan, Serhii Iefremov, Khrystia Al’chevs’ka, Mykyta Shapoval, Bohdan Lepkyi and more recently Anatol Hak, Petro Rebro, Ihor Kachurov’skyi. Many of Kernerenko’s critics, according to Petrovsky-Shtern, “held a low opinion of his poetic talents”, some accused him of an “art for art’s sake” mentality and “negligence toward contemporary empiric reality”. And yet, says the author, “Kernerenko continued polishing his Ukrainian language, construing his Ukrainian imagery, attempting a Ukrainian-Jewish concoction, bringing his Ukrainian books to press, establishing contacts with Ukrainian literary figures, and hoping, against all odds, that his literary creativity and social stance would merit either acceptance or sympathy.” Petrovsky-Shtern’s article is supplemented by Kernerenko’s poetry and poetic translations on pp.241-248, his letters (one of which is a facsimile of a handwritten text) on pp. 249-252 - all in the original Ukrainian.

A174. Petrovsky-Shtern, Yohanan. “The new Moses: a Ukrainian-Jewish poet in the making.” East European Jewish Affairs. 34.1 (Summer 2004): 12-28.

Moisei Fishbein is - in the words of Petrovsky-Shtern - “a Ukrainian poet conscious of his Jewishness”. Born on 1 December 1946 in Chernivtsi and educated in Kyiv, Fishbein lived for a while in Israel and now resides in Germany. He is the author of several books of poetry and prose (Iambove kolo, Zbirka bez nazvy, Dyvnyi sad, Apokryf, Rozporosheni tini, Aferyzmy, Ranii rai et al.) A member of the National Association of Writers of Ukraine, he is аlso the laureate of the Vasyl Stus Prize. The author surveys the reception of Fishbein’s poetry by some Ukrainian critics, citing George Y. Shevelov who considered Fishbein “a post-neoclassic poet” and praised “the uniqueness of his poetic voice”, Maksym Strikha who wrote about Fishbein’s “Ukrainian linguistic virtuosity”and Vadym Skurativskyi who praised Fishbein’s “perfect Ukrainian acoustics” and noted, that “for the first time in history, Judaism speaks Ukrainian.” In providing his own characterization of the poet, Petrovsky-Shtern writes about Fishbein’s “metaphysical imagery and a tragic world view”, his messianism which is “an integral element of his literary endeavors, his daily practice, and his self-parody”and his belief in the Ukrainian language as the supreme value, as a guarantor of statehood and independence. Fishbein sees himself, according to Petrovsky-Shtern, “not as a regular Ukrainian poet of Jewish descent, but as a ‘Jewish messiah’ sent to Ukraine.” He is unlike some other Ukrainian-Jewish poets (such as Sava Holovanivs’kyi or Naum Tykhyi) who - according to Petrovsky-Shtern - “adopted a Ukrainian identity while conveniently eliminating their Jewish one. In Fishbein’s case, the Jewish and Ukrainian motifs inform a complex poetic image that is more subtle than a mere combination of ‘the Jewish’ and ‘the Ukrainian’”... “The soul of the poet absorbs Kyiv and Jerusalem alike, but preserves their integrity.” The article is interspersed with excerpts of Fishbein’s poetry in Petrovsky-Shtern’s translation.

A175. Polyuha, Mykola. “Apolitical poetry as politics: The political writings of Antonych.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.3 (Fall 2009): 192-212.

“Antonych did not directly express his political ideas”, says Polyuha, but “a close reading of his poetry, nevertheless, reveals his political positions.” In an attempt to explain the ban of Antonych’s works in Soviet Ukraine, Polyuha discusses Antonych’s biography, the poet’s independence from political organizations, the formal and structural features of his poetry, and the three poems from the collection Knyha leva, i.e. “Slovo do rozstrilianykh” (A word for the executed), “Slovo pro chornyi polk” (A word about a black regiment) and “Slovo pro zolotyi polk” (A word about a golden regiment), all three of which, according to Polyuha, have “metonymic political messages”, and express the poet’s humanism. Fragments from the three poems are cited in the author’s own translations. Polyuha’s article is part of a special issue of the Ukrainian Quarterly dedicated to Antonych’s 100^th birth anniversay. For other contributions to this special issue, see Michael M. Naydan, the guest editor (cf. A165), Lidia Stefanowska (cf. A181), Viktor Neborak (cf. A167), Olha Tytarenko (cf. A183), Mariya Tytarenko (cf. A184) and Larysa Bobrova (cf. A153).

A176. Prymak, Thomas M. “In memoriam: Bohdan Budurowycz (1921-2007). Canadian Slavonic Papers. 49.1-2 (March-June 2007): 5-7. port.

Bohdan Budurowycz (born 8 September 1921 in Ukraine, died in Toronto 8 March 2007) was Professor of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of Toronto until his retirement at the end of the 1980's. In this tribute to his mentor Prymak characterizes Budurowycz as one who was “by character and taste much more a librarian than a teacher” despite the popularity of the courses he taught. Budorowycz was the author of Polish-Soviet Relations, 1932-1939 (published in 1963) and of Slavic and East European Resources in Canadian Academic and Research Libraries (published in 1976).

A177. Rudnytzky, Nicholas G. “Lazar Baranovych: a cultural navigator caught in the tides of history.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 64.3-4 (Fall-Winter 2008): 191-199.

The 17^th century churchman and writer Lazar Baranovych is characterized by the author as “poet, preacher and archbishop” who “authored several polemical works aimed at Catholicism, a collection of poems, sermons and a large body of correspondence”. The focus of the article, however, is on the political role of Baranovych as “a key figure in the transition of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine from Ukrainian to Muscovite control.”

A178. Sereda, Ostap. “From church-based to cultural nationalism: early Ukrainophiles, ritual-purification movement and emerging cult of Taras Shevchenko in Austrian Eastern Galicia in the 1860's.” Canadian American Slavic Studies. 40.1 (Spring 2006): 21-47.

The Greek Catholic Church in Austrian-ruled Galicia of the 19^th century was the most important symbol of the population’s Ruthenian identity. According to Sereda, it was only gradually that “Ukrainian cultural nationalism” superseded “the more traditional Ruthenian church-based nationalism”. An important role in this process was played by the ritual-purification movement whose aim was to stop and reverse the Latinization of the ritual practices promoted by the Polish Roman Catholic church. The influx of Ukrainian publications from the Russian empire in the early 1860's as well as requiem masses sponsored by the ritual-purification movement after the death of Shevchenko, says Sereda, led eventually to the establishment of a new tradition of Shevchenko commemorative evenings and strengthened the Ukrainophile orientation in Galicia.

A179. Shkandrij, Myroslav. “A change of heart: Iurii Klen’s ‘Adventures of the Archangel Raphael.” Canadian Slavonic Papers. 51.4 (December 2009): 513-523.

Iurii Klen was a Ukrainian poet of German origin. His real name was Oswald Burghardt. He was born 4 October 1891 in Serbynivtsi, Podillia gubernia in Ukraine and died 30 October 1947 in Augsburg, West Germany. Shkandrij traces Klen’s ideological evolution from “his adherence to Mykola Zerov’s neoclassicism” in the 1920's, through “Faustian voluntarism” of Dmytro Dontsov’s Vistnyk in the 1930's, to his return to neoclassicism and rejection of Dontsov’s ideology in the 1940's. His short story “Pryhody Arkhanhela Rafaila” written shortly before his death demonstrates clearly, according to Shkandrij, Klen’s “change of heart” and can be read both as “a rejection of the radical social and cultural experimentation of Bolshevism and Stalin’s rule”, as well as “a rejection of Nazism.” Shkandrij analyzes the short story in detail, stressing its connections to the Christian worldview and says of the author’s evolution: “Klen began by supporting the ideals of Christian humanism and of cultural education based on a knowledge of classical authors. He moved in the thirties and early forties to extolling heroic myths of conquest in line with Dontsov’s desires, and ended by reaffirming an outlook of Christian tolerance and classical restraint.”

A180. Soroka, Mykola. “Travel and Ukrainian literary modernism.” Canadian Slavonic Papers. 49.3-4 (September-December 2007): 323-347.

Travel writing, according to Soroka, can be seen as an “important aspect of Ukrainian modernism.” For writers who were able to travel outside of their own country, travel experience provided opportunities for “escape, detachment, adventure, exoticism, and discovery”, as well as “intellectual growth and cultural contacts”, new impressions, and “a sense of freedom”. Soroka’s focus is on four Ukrainian writers: Petro Karmans’kyi, Lesia Ukrainka, Mykhailo Kotsiubyns’kyi and Volodymyr Vynnychenko. Karmans’kyi studied in Italy, traveled in Austria, Canada and Brazil. Italy, especially, had a profound influence on his creativity and his worldview and there are many references to Italy in his poetry and prose, says Soroka. Lesia Ukrainka’s journeys in search of medical treatment took her to Austria and Germany, to Egypt, Crimea, and the Caucasus. Her impressions and comments are well documented in her correspondence and are reflected in her dramatic poems. Kotsiubyns’kyi’s sojourns in Italy, Moldova, Crimea and the Carpathian mountains in the Austro-Hungarian empire supplied him with topics for a great number of his major works.... “in speaking about the exotic, [Kotsiubyns’kyi] also speaks about the universal by imbuing his literary material with deep philosophical reflections”, says Soroka. Unilike the other three writers, Vynnychenko was a professional revolutionary and an exile. and was involved in émigré political activity. He travelled throughout Europe and expanded his intellectual horizons through education, but only a few of his works have exotic foreign settings - they reflect cosmopolitan international Bohemian life and discuss new international trends in modernist art and literature. The perspective of a displaced exile, according to Soroka, helped Vynnychenko to identify the colonial status of Ukraine.

A181. Stefanowska, Lidia. “Antonych: the mythologization of reality.” / Trans. by Michael M. Naydan. Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.3 (Fall 2009): 175-183.

Antonych’s “poetic analysis of cosmic as well as biological hierophanies ...permits a coming closer to an understanding of the interrelationships of the cosmos with the material existence of the earth”, says Stefanowska. She speaks of “imagistic and formal antimonies, existential and metaphysical oppositions” in Antonych’s poetry, of “constant tension between vision and construction”, of “mythological symbolism” - all of which contribute to the poetry’s “extraordinary poetic beauty.” The protagonist of Antonych’s poetry “does not feel a threat from the cosmic and natural forces, but, to the contrary, experiences a deep connection with that reality...” According to Stefanowska, “One can understand the creative works of Antonych as a dream about a cosmic order that is benevolent for a person, the dream of a skeptic, agitated by the vision of catastrophe.” For other contributions to this special issue of Ukrainian Quarterly dedicated to the 100^th anniversary of the birth of Antonych, see Michael Naydan, guest editor (cf.A165), (Viktor Neborak (cf. A167), Mykola Polyuha (cf.A175), Olha Tytarenko (cf. A183), Mariya Tytarenko (cf. A184) and Larysa Bobrova (cf. A153).

A182. Timberlake, Alan. “The recovery narrative of Gleb.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 28.1-4 (2006 [©2009]): 329-339. Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday. Ed. by Harvey Goldblatt [and] Nancy Shields Kollmann.

The author dicusses the possibility that Skazanie, a medieval hagiographic text about the life and martyred death of Princes Borys and Hlib might have used the Bohemian Wenceslas legends as a model.

A183. Tytarenko, Olha. “The paganism in Antonych’s Thee Rings: return or escape?” Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.3 (Fall 2009): 213-226.

The author analyzes Antonych’s collection of poetry Try persteni published in 1934. Here, in his poetry, according to Tytarenko, Antonych “comprehends a new realm of existence outside his time and space”, he creates his own golden age, a mythical reconstruction of childhood, as well as a lost paradise of the natural primordial world, a lost utopia “to which the poetic persona escapes from adult reality.” Fragments from Antonych’s poetry are quoted in the original Ukrainian and in Michael Naydan’s English translations.This article is part of a special issue of Ukrainian Quarterly dedicated to the 100^th birth anniversary of Bohdan Ihor Antonych. For other contributions to this issue, see Michael M. Naydan, the guest editor (cf. A165), Lidia Stefanowska (cf. A181), Viktor Neborak (cf. A167), Mykola Polyuha (cf. A175), Mariya Tytarenko (cf. A184), and Larysa Bobrova (cf. A153).

A184. Tytarenko, Mariya. “Cordocentrism in the poetry of Antonych: the metaphysics of harmony.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.3 (Fall 2009): 227-254.

The author traces images of the heart in Antonych’s poetry, includes a content analysis, comparing the uses of the word “heart” in various Antonych’s collections, and claims that the heart in Antonych’s poetry appears in four different categories: as a thing-in-itself, as “a place where God abides”, as a mediator between the poet and the world, and as a lyrical hero. The role of the heart in Antonych’s poetry, says Tytarenko, “comprises the cornerstone of his conception of the macro- and microcosmos depicted in his oeuvre.” Quotations of poetry appear both in the original Ukrainian and in Michael M. Naydan’s English translation. This article appears in the special issue of Ukrainian Quarterly dedicated to the 100^th anniversary of the birth of Antonych. For other contributions in this issue see Michael M. Naydan, guest editor (cf. A165), Lidia Stefanowska (cf. A181), Viktor Neborak (cf. A167), Mykola Polyuha (cf. A175), Olha Tytarenko (cf. A183) and Larysa Bobrova (cf. A153).

A185. Vereecken, Jeannine. “Jaroslavna, voice of the Russian earth; a contribution to the interpretation of the Igor Tale.” Russian Literature. 66.4 (15 November 2009): 483-499.

The leading female character of Slovo o polku Ihorevim іs interpreted by the author in a mythological and symbolical way. “Plach Iaroslavny” is analyzed as a magical incantation and Iaroslavna is characterized as the “personification of the Russian Mother Earth.” The article includes 26 lines of “Plach Iaroslavny” in the author’s own translation on pp. 486-487.

A186. Yekelchyk, Serhy. “No laughing matter: state regimentation of Ukrainian humor and satire under high Stalinism (1943-1953).” Canadian American Slavic Studies. 40.1 (Spring 2006): 79-99.

An examination of the role of laughter and joking in Soviet culture during the last decade of Stalin’s rule. “While Stalinist functionaries sought to hold back all satirical representations of the Soviet system, they were particularly wary of a dangerous connection between literary humor and street folklore,” says Yekelchyk. The author focuses on the role of Perets, the Ukrainian magazine of satire and humor, and on the preeminent Ukrainian humorist of the time Ostap Vyshnia. Both Perets and Vyshnia were at various times subjects of party criticism and had to conform to what was considered to be acceptable laughter. In general, says Yekelchyk, satire was to be directed at foreign topics, while Soviet reality was to be treated with friendly humor.

A187. Zhivov, Viktor. “The Igor Tale from the perspective of cultural history.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies. 28.1-4 (2006 [©2009]): 353-362. Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays presented in honor of Michael S. Flier on his sixty-fifth birthday. Ed. by Harvey Goldblatt [and] Nancy Shields Kollmann.

In his attempt to reconcile the uniqueness of Slovo o polku Ihorevim “with the idea of a flourishing court culture”, Zhivov suggests that the original form of Slovo was most probably oral. “It is not clear whether the Tale was ever actually sung by a court bard in its entirety or there were several (say, two or three) separate oral texts (songs) closely related to each other and combined into a single text by a transcriber...”

A188. Zyla, Wolodymyr T. “Shakespeare’s sonnets in Ukrainian translation” / Volodymyr T. Zyla. Ukrainian Quarterly. 59.3-4 (Fall-Winter 2003): 293-300.

A review article of William Shakespeare’s sonnets issued in a parallel text edition with the originals in English and Ostap Tarnavs’kyi’s translations into Ukrainian. (Philadelphia: Mosty, 1997. 321 p.). Zyla provides a survey of Ukrainian translations of Shakespeare’s sonnets, analyzes Tarnavskyi’s translations, especially of sonnets CIV, CXVI, XVIII, and concludes that Tarnavs’kyi’s translations ”are accurate with Shakespeare’s originals, they sound Shakespearean, and they give a true picture of the Shakespearean reality and ideas.” Quotations from the sonnets are given in the original and in a transliterated version of Ukrainian translations (Sonnet XVIII, in Zyla’s view, “the closest to the original...as regards imagery and the transference of content” is quoted in its entirety).

A189. Bondarevska, Iryna. “The concept of the baroque in the works of Dmytro Chyzhevsky.” / Iryna Bondarevska and Larysa Dovha. Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 32.2 (Winter 2007): 1-20.

“...every epoch is marked by a specific mentality... that informs all spheres of cultural life...” and “we must try to approximate as closely as possible the understanding of past events that was characteristic of those living at the time” say the authors and claim that Chyzhevs’kyі “devoted most of his works on cultural history to substantiating and clarifying this theory...” According to Bondarevska and Dovha, Chyzhevs’kyі’s treatment of historicism is “oriented toward a concept of style borrowed from art history but interpreted more broadly as a fundamental feature of a period.” “Every epoch has its own visage, its own character, its style,” says Chyzhevs’kyі and follows the Swiss art scholar’s Heіnrich Wölfflin’s original concept by studying the baroque as a cultural style. “The greatest conceptual achievement of Chyzhevsky’s research on the Ukrainian baroque”, say the authors, “is his structuralist analysis of texts, both literary and philosophical... which promotes dispassionate scholarly discourse as the only reliable basis for the study of culture.” This essay is part of a special issue of the Jоurnal of Ukrainian Studies devoted to Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi. For other contributions see Roman Mnich (A194), Maria Vasilieva (A206), Werner Korthaase (A191), Maryna Tkachuk (A204) and Iryna Valiavko (A205).

A190. Kipa, Albert A. “Introduction to a ‘Natural Epic’” / Albert A. Kipa and Leonid Rudnytzky. Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.4 (Winter 2009): 293-298.

The article introduces a new translation of the Slovo o polku Ihorevim prepared by Albert A. Kipa and Leonid Rudnytzky and published under the title “The Lay of Ihor’s Campaign, Ihor, Son of Svyatoslav, Grandson of Oleh” on pp.299-323 of the same issue. The authors discuss the reasons for a new translation, such as the need to illuminate the Ukrainian aspect of the work, its “strong, unmitigated cautions about statehood” and the ecocritical examination of “human interaction with nature”. They discuss also the historical background of the medieval tale, its authorship and the classification of its genre, as well as the history of the manuscript itself.

A191. Korthaase, Werner. “Dmytro Chyzhevsky as a Comenius Scholar.” Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 32.2 (Winter 2007): 47-72.

Comenius or Jan Amos Komensky (1592-1670) was, in Korthaase’s view, a significant figure in European intellectual history. Chyzhevs’kyi’s works about Comenius, says Korthaase, have been mostly ignored by scholars, and yet they are groundbreaking studies and Chyzhevs’kyi himself regarded them as his “crowning scholarly achievements”. This article is part of a special issue of the Journal of Ukrainian Studies devoted to Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi. For other contributions see Iryna Bondarevska (A189), Roman Mnich (A194), Maria Vasilieva (A206), Maryna Tkachuk (A204), and Iryna Valiavko (A205).

А192. Liber, George O. “Re-assessing Dovzhenko’s black holes.” Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 31.1-2 (Summer-Winter 2006): 149-171.

Review article of Roman Korohods’kyi’s book Dovzhenko v poloni. Rozvidky ta esei pro maistra (Kyiv: Helikon, 2000, 352 p.). Liber considers Korohods’kyi “one of the most prominent critics of the Soviet interpretation of Dovzhenko’s life”, praises the author for his openness and his “courage in raising difficult questions and accepting unpleasant answers”, but takes issue with some of Korohods’kyi’s statements (e.g. Dovzhenko as a member of the Borotbists) and his acceptance of the veracity of Dovzhenko’s 1939 autobiography.

A193. Mikhailova, Yulia. “Cross kissing: keeping one’s word in twelfth-century Rus’” / Yulia Mikhailova and David K. Prestel. Slavic Review. 70.1 (Spring 2011): 1-22.

Kissing of the cross, according to the authors, was considered a sacred obligation of the rulers of Kyivan Rus’ and oaths made on the cross were trusted as valid agreements or treaties. Cross kissing, say Mikhailova and Prestel, was “the centerpiece of a system of public order established more on the basis of norms than of institutions.” The article is based on medieval monuments of Kyivan Rus’, such as “Ipatiivskyi litopys”, “ Pouchenie ditiam” by Prince Volodymyr Monomakh, “Povist vremennykh lit” and “Slovo o kniaziakh”.

A194. Mnich, Roman. “Ernst Cassirer and Dmytro Chyzhevsky: an instance of Cassirer’s reception among the Slavs.” Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 32.2 (Winter 2007): 21-32.

Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945) was a German philosopher whose greatest achievement, according to Mnich, “was the creation of a new concept of the European philosophy of culture.” Chyzhevs’kyi, like Cassirer, “inclined toward a cultural approach in the study of literature and even philosophy,” says Mnich. Chyzhevs’kyi read Cassirer’s works, wrote about them and there are many parallels between the two scholars and similarities in their views, especially in their philosophy of symbolic forms. Mnich’s essay is part of a special issue of the Journal of Ukrainian Studies devoted to Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi. For other contributions see Iryna Bondarevska (A189), MariaVasilieva (A206), Werner Korthaase (A191), Maryna Tkachuk (A204) and IrynaValiavko (A205).

A195. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “Choice of context, negotiation of identity: Olha Kobylyanska.” Australian Slavonic and East European Studies. 16.1-2 (2002): 183-208.

Pavlyshyn examines published and unpublished German and Ukrainian works, notebooks, letters and diary of Ol’ha Kobylians’ka in order to trace the process of “her national self-identification”, a process that, in Pavlyshyn’s words “accompanied her self-definition as an individual human being, a woman, an intellectual and a writer.” For young Koblians’ka, says Pavlyshyn, German was the language for social interaction and intellectual activity: it is not surprising that her early works were in German. He discusses her interest in feminism, Darwinism and the writings of Nietzsche - all of which are reflected in her German articles and literary works. However, “her foray into German literature was unsuccessful”, says Pavlyshyn. Her conscious decision to start writing in Ukrainian, on the other hand, was met with positive reception of Ukrainian public. “On the whole,” says Pavlyshyn, “Kobylyanska was understood by her Ukrainian critics much as she indicated that she wished to be: as an intellectual commenting on general issues, especially the situation of women, and as an artist working at a high level of aesthetic accomplishment with paradigms not conventional in Ukrainian literature to achieve an independent and noteworthy formulation of her world-experience.”

A196. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “Literary politics vs. literature: Ukrainian debates in the 1990s.” Soviet and Post-Soviet Review. 28.1-2 (2001 [2002]: 147-155.

A literary work in the USSR, says Pavlyshyn, was assumed to be “a more or less direct vehicle for political communication”. Critics of Soviet literature in the West also interpreted Soviet literary works as “responses to political stimuli”. In independent Ukraine of the 1990's , according to Pavlyshyn, there continues to be a desire “for literature to function as politics under another name” and even “literary life that conceives of itself as anti-traditional involuntarily lapses into a new kind of literary politics”. Ukrainian writers are expected to “promote Ukrainian state-and-nation building”, younger writers who rebel against excessive institutionalization of literature end up forming another literary institution, critical examination of the literary canon ends up in “literary petty politics”, etc. etc. Pavlyshyn sees attempts to move away from politics in some new prose published in journals and in such works as Izdryk’s Votstsek.

A197. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “Literary travel: Ukrainian journeys toward the national and the modern.” Australian Slavonic and East European Studies. 23.1-2 (2009): 1-18.

Pavlyshyn discusses “the journey as a topos in texts of Ukrainian culture”, particularly in the travel writing of Taras Shevchenko, Anatolii Svydnyts’kyi, Panas Myrnyi, Ivan Nechui-Levyts’kyi and Maik Iohansen. According to Pavlyshyn, the topos of the journey “helped structure a kind of human identity (with ethnic, territorial and cultural components)...”, “it promoted an emancipatory social and political program” (by “implied comparisons with an idealised Europe”), pointing out at the same time certain dangers of Eurocentric development.

A198. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “Modern literature and the construction of national identity as European: The case of Ukraine.” Domains and Divisions of European History. Ed. by Johann P. Arnason and Natalie J. Doyle. [Liverpool]: Liverpool University Press [©2010]. (Studies in social and political thought, 18). 181-197. Biblio. 195-197.

Ukrainian national literature is defined here as “a literature functioning within and for a community that is, actually or potentially, a modern nation...” In the case of Ukraine, it began with the publication in 1798 of Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi’s Eneida. This work defined also the national literary system as European by expressing common European values of the era of the Enlightenment, classicist poetics and the use of the vernacular language. European tradition established by Kotliarevs’kyi was continued. There were, however, other voices, too. Taras Shevchenko, according to Pavlyshyn, “made a case for a national authenticity that was not European, Europe being for him so complicit in Russia’s colonial project that it deserved only condemnation and sarcasm”. Dependence upon Europe, on the one hand, and resistance to Europe, on the other, according to Pavlyshyn, are visible divisions in contemporary Ukrainian literature, with writers such as Iurii Andrukhovych and Iurii Izdryk favoring the European orientation, and Valerii Shevchuk, Ievhen Pashkovs’kyi, Viacheslav Medvid’, Oles’ Ulianenko and Serhii Zhadan focusing on the local and the native and rejecting the European values.

A199. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “The new obscurity: Adventures in contemporary Ukrainian literature.” Die Lektüre der Welt=Worlds of Reading. On the theory, history and sociology of cultural practice. Festschrift for Walter Veit. Ed. by Helmut Heinze and Christiane Weller, in co-op. with Heinz Kreutz. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang [©2004]. (Forschungen zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte, Bd.74). 445-451.

Obscurity in literature can be defined as diminished intelligibility - a consequence of particular ways of how an author uses his language. Obscurity in contemporary Ukrainian literature, according to Pavlyshyn, is used by four categories of writers: 1/ the neopopulists, like Ievhen Pashkovs’kyi and Viacheslav Medvid’, whose prose, says Pavlyshyn, “is presented as as unvarnished thought or speech in its scarcely intelligible or unintelligible particularity, with ‘authentic’ irrationality and ‘authentic’ non-standard and non-literary linguistic forms”; 2/ rebels against the realist tradition, like Mykhailo Osadchyi whose Cataract, says Pavlyshyn, includes features such as the “Joycean stream of consciousness”, “echoes of Freudian psychoanalysis” and “verbal equivalents of cubist imagery”; 3/ writers who “claim to address philosophical issues in a profound way”, like Iurii Izdryk whose prose work Votstsek, according to Pavlyshyn, “invokes existentialist, Christian and poststructuralist thought” and Volodymyr Ieshkiliev, “a philosophically erudite young writer....close to carnivalesque postmodernists”; and, finally, the 4/category - writers who “engage in parody”, Ieshkiliev partly belongs to this group as does Viktor Neborak whose “impeccably obscure poem” “Mif pro Prometeia” and its author’s explication of the text is cited by Pavlyshyn as “a philologically well-informed spoof upon the notion of exegesis and the ambition to uncover ‘real’ meaning.”

A200. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “The Rhetoric of geography in Ukrainian literature, 1991-2005.” Ukraine, the EU and Russia: history, culture and international relations. Ed. by Stephen Velychenko. [New York]: Palgrave Macmillan [2007]. (Studies in Central and Eastern Europe). 89-107. Bibliography: 106-107.

In the USSR the historical, political and cultural rhetoric was oriented toward Moscow. In independent Ukraine, according to Pavlyshyn, there are “two competing spatial rhetorics”, one with a severely local focus, the other oriented towards the West. Much of the anticolonial literary writing of the 1980's and 1990's, says Pavlyshyn, “rested on the evocation of the physical domain of the nation as an autarkic, centered, autonomous and self-sufficient space”. The most prominent writer of this orientation is, in Pavlyshyn’s view, Valerii Shevchuk, whose native city, Zhytomyr, is treated in many of his works as “a microcosm of the world.” Other writers with the local focus discussed are Ievhen Pashkovs’kyi, Viacheslav Medvid’, Oles’ Ulianenko and Serhii Zhadan. Representatives of the Western orientation are mostly writers from Western Ukraine. Pavlyshyn analyzes in some detail selected works of Iurii Andrukhovych and mentions briefly Iurii Vynnnychuk, Iurii Izdryk, Volodymyr Ieshkiliev and Taras Prokhas’ko. Attention is paid also to the feminist writings of Ievheniia Kononenko and her “resentment of the West”, and to the Russian-language writing of Andrei Kurkov, who, according to Pavlyshyn, “does not confer any special meaning upon the familiar connection between Ukraine and Russia, thereby decoupling the Russian language from its colonizing role.”

A201. Pavlyshyn, Marko. “Writing in Ukraine and European identity before 1798.” Australian Slavonic and East European Studies. 21.1-2 (2007) : 125-142.

The publication in 1798 of Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi’s travesty of Virgil’s Aeneid in Ukrainian began a new era in Ukrainian culture which became “part of the modern secular culture shared by educated people throughout Europe”, says Pavlyshyn. Europe, however, was invoked in Ukraine centuries prior to Kotliarevs’kyi, according to Pavlyshyn, in panegyrical writing, as a geographic concept, as a “space across which are shared certain political objectives and values”, as a common civilization identified mostly with Christianity, and as common genesis of European peoples.

A202. Rudnytzky, Leonid. “Eros and ambiguity in Ukrainian literature: the case of Ivan Franko (1856-1916).” Confessions of Love: the ambiguities of Greek Eros and Latin Caritas. Ed. by Craig J.N. de Paulo et al. New York: Peter Lang [©2011]. (American university studies. Series 7: Theology and religion, v.310): 113-139. Notes: 135-139.

“Plato’s concept of Eros as an aquisitive love... informs Franko’s lyrical poetry, especially his Zivyale lystya...” “Eros, as an intensely subjective act of human spirit, also makes its presence felt in Franko’s prose...” says Rudnytzky. He examines in some detail the story “Lesyshyna cheliad’, but then focuses on Franko’s long narrative poem “Ivan Vyshens’kyi” where, in his view, “ambiguity reaches its zenith”. Despite its title, however, the article covers much more than Ivan Franko and his works. By way of introduction the first pages discuss the literature of Kyivan Rus, including the chronicles and the Slovo o polku Ihorevim, as well as “eros and ambiguity” in the works of Kotliarevs’kyi and Shevchenko, while the concluding pages are devoted to contemporary writing where, in the author’s view, “Eros became unbound; it lost its Platonic character and, in many works, acquired pornographic features.” In this context the author characterizes briefly the works of Iurii Andrukhovych, Viktor Neborak, Oleksandr Irvanets’, Oksana Zabuzhko and Valerii Shevchuk. The article is interspersed with translated brief quotations of poetry by Ivan Kotliarevs’kyi, Ivan Franko, and Maksym Ryl’s’kyi.

A203. Tarnawsky, Marta. “The search for common groung.” Ukrainian Quarterly. 65.4 (Winter 2009): 382-387.

A review article of Myroslav Shkandrij’s book Jews in Ukrainian Literature: Representation and Identity. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. xiv, 265 pp.). The book is characterized as “a very important and most welcome pioneering study that should open the door to future publications.”

A204. Tkachuk, Maryna. “Dmytro Chyzhevsky and the tradition of Ukrainian ‘Cordology’‘. Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 32.2 (Winter 2007): 73-82.

The so called philosophy of the heart has become very popular in post-Soviet Ukrainian studies; there are many publications devoted to Ukrainian cordocentrism, says Tkachuk, and many of them draw inspiration from Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi’s history of philosophy in Ukraine. Imitators of Chyzhevs’kyi, however, “lost sight of his cautions about the hypothetical nature of his characterizations of the Ukrainian national world view,” says Tkachuk. This essay is part of a special issue of the Journal of Ukrainian Studies devoted to Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi. For other contributions see Iryna Bondarevska (A189), Roman Mnich (A194), Maria Vasilieva (A206), Werner Korthaase (A191) and Iryna Valiavko (A205).

A205. Valiavko, Iryna. “The legacy of Dmytro Chyzhevsky in Ukraine: reconstruction, research, prospects and tasks.” Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 32.2 (Winter 2007): 83-97.

Works of Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi were banned in Soviet Ukraine during the scholar’s lifetime. In independent Ukraine, however, from early 1990's on, Chyzhevs’kyi’s scholarly legacy in philosophy, comparative literature, intellectual history are being republished and studied. Valiavko provides a critical survey of Chyzhevs’kyi’s works and studies about him published recently in Ukraine with a focus on Chyzhevskyi’s contributions to Ukrainian studies. This article is part of a special issue of the Journal of Ukrainian Studies devoted to Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi. For other contributions see Iryna Bondarevska (A189), Roman Mnich (A194), Maria Vasilieva (A206), Werner Korthaase (A191), and Maryna Tkachuk (A204).

A206. Vasilieva, Maria. “Dmytro Chyzhevsky and Petr Bitsilli on the “Problem of the double”. Journal of Ukrainian Studies. 32.2 (Winter 2007): 33-46.

There was no personal contact between the Russian historian, philologist and literary critic Petr Mikhailovich Bitsilli (1879-1953) and Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi. There were, however, various points of intersection of their scholarly interests. The most important subject of their intellectual relations was their common interest in Dostoevsky studies, and especially in “the problem of the double”, one of the central ideas in many Dostoevsky works. Vasilieva’s essay is part of the special issue of the Journal of Ukrainian Studies devoted to Dmytro Chyzhevs’kyi. For other contributions see Iryna Bondarevska (A189), Roman Mnich (A194), Werner Korthaase (A191), Maryna Tkachuk (A204) and Iryna Valiavko (A205).