develop in Russian the three styles of poetry as outlined by Boileau.
There was the high style to be employed in odes, tragedies, and epics
and the language of these forms was to have the highest proportion of
Church Slavonic words. Then came the more ordinary styles, and finally
in the low style of comedies there was to be the pure vernacular
speech. It was all carefully arranged by the scholars and the arbiters
of fashion by _a priori_ reasoning and not by practical experience or
literary skill. It could not fail to produce smiles and hence there
were several attempts to write burlesque epics and to poke a heavy fun
at the excesses of the more egotistical authors.
Yet it is to be noted that humor of this kind had long been a
characteristic of Ukrainian writing. The intermezzos that had been
inserted in the mystery plays were full of such burlesque exactly as
they had been in the West in an earlier period and the Academy in
Kiev had developed despite its formalism the comic element which was
inherent in the Ukrainian character.
All this brings us back to Ivan Kotlyarevsky, the talented founder
of modern Ukrainian literature. He was born in 1769 in Poltava in an
impoverished noble family. This was just five years after the abolition
of the Hetmanate and but six years before the destruction of the Sich.
When the boy was sixteen, the last vestiges of Ukrainian autonomy were
abolished. Thus in his youthful years he passed through the depressing
atmosphere of the downfall of the Ukrainian state. He studied in the
Seminary at Poltava and won a certain reputation as a poet. This did
not give him a livelihood and so for several years he remained as a
private tutor in the homes of various nobles. Then he entered the
Russian civil service and later served in the army as a captain. When
he retired from this, he secured a position as inspector in one of
the Poltava schools for the children of impoverished nobles. Later as
a welcome guest at the home of the Governor General Repnin, he became
director of the theatre at Poltava. He died in 1838.
His was a life lived in general superficial agreement with the new
order. There is no record that Kotlyarevsky met with any difficulties
because of his use of the Ukrainian language or because of his ideas
and it is perhaps a little extreme to credit him with far-reaching
separatist ideas. At the same time he clearly recognized the difference
between the Ukrainians and the Russians. He had a lively interest in
the conditions of his people and he deeply regretted that history had
not developed differently. He was not afraid to say that conditions as
he knew them were not ideal but it would be rash to press his views too
far, when we consider the general atmosphere of his times.
During his lifetime also there began the intense interest in folk
songs and folk customs. Rousseau had taught an interest in the lives
of the simple people and Herder as early as 1773 had begun to write
his glorification of the folksongs of the people. Everywhere in Europe
this form of study was growing. Scientists and poets alike worked on
the same themes and hardly a year passed without some new work in this
field. Macpherson’s _Ossian_ was already known in Russian as well as in
French and German. During the reign of Catherine the _Armament of Ihor_
had come to light and in the early nineties scholars and courtiers
“discovered” the idol of Tmuturakan and established a vogue for “South
Russian” antiquities.
Yet it is very significant that Kotlyarevsky in his first Ukrainian
work did not produce anything along these lines. Neither did his
interest in the people and their speech lead him to make a scientific
study of the language of the people. In this he differs sharply
from the Czech scholar Dobrovsky and he differs equally sharply
from Lomonosov and the other writers who founded modern Russian
literature. Poland too had its own development on the basis of French
pseudo-classicism which later passed into the Romantic period.
Kotlyarevsky started on the basis of the old classical culture of the
Ukrainian schools and stood nearer to the enlightened sceptics of the
eighteenth century than to the younger group of Romantic authors.
There is a story that he had commenced the _Eneida_ during his studies
at the Poltava seminary and had worked over it for many years. It is
perhaps possible, for there is much in it that reminds us of a work
conceived in a school perhaps as a definite and humorous reaction to
the excessive Latin training that was customary at the time.
It was a bold idea to undertake a travestying of the _Aeneid_ but it
was something that might be done under the conditions prevailing, as
other authors of Russia had done. The use of the vernacular was only a
slight extension of the normal usage for a burlesque epic should not,
under the strict rules, have been written in the high style and we can
therefore understand the course of Kotlyarevsky’s reasoning in starting
upon this work.
The most significant fact is that the author definitely decided to
depict Aeneas and his companions as Ukrainian Kozaks wandering around
Europe in search of a new home. The comparison was obvious but it took
a mind of considerable penetration to grasp the situation. Then as
now the vast majority of classical students insisted upon seeing the
ancients in a vacuum which had no relation to present reality. On the
other hand in the very first paragraph Kotlyarevsky sets the key note.
Aeneas was a clever fellow
And he was a superb Kozak.
He stood all ills and did not bellow,
Surpassed his men on every tack.
But when the Greeks old Troy had fired
And made of it what they desired,
He took his pack and drew a sigh.
A group of Trojans he did rally,
All banished boys, to make a sally
And showed his heels to Troy for aye.
The very opening stanza could not fail to bring to the mind of every
Ukrainian the parallel between Aeneas and the Kozaks from the ruined
Sich and with that as his text Kotlyarevsky worked on, following the
Aeneid very closely and yet modifying the adventures of the Roman hero
so that they would fit perfectly into the position of the Kozaks. His
skill in selecting the proper details and episodes show his amazing
talent in this difficult task.
Of course there were passages that were entirely unsuited to his
purposes. There was nothing in recent Ukrainian history which he
could use as Vergil used the destruction of Troy. Even aside from
difficulties with the censor there was no possible similarity between
the capture of the great city and the surrender of the Sich. None of
the older sieges which the Sich had undergone would have fitted into
the picture, as the source of the migration, and so Kotlyarevsky
merely assumes the fall of the home of Aeneas and goes on with his
story.
For the same reasons he slurs over those episodes which take place
upon the sea and it is in these passages that the work becomes rather
a burlesque upon the original poem. In their earlier and happier days,
the Kozaks had made many a raid down the Dnieper and across the Black
Sea against the Turks but for a couple of centuries their exploits were
associated with the land and so Kotlyarevsky could not adapt the scenes
at sea with the same skill and wealth of allusion that he could the
episodes on land.
Yet the great difference lies in the position of the authors. Vergil as
the poet laureate of Augustus was describing the events leading up to
the foundation of mighty Rome at a time when Rome was the mistress of
the world. It was safe and necessary for him to introduce prophecies
of Rome’s coming greatness and of the glories that the descendants of
Aeneas were to win. Anchises in the underworld could safely predict the
coming of all those great men who were to increase the prestige of Rome
and the Julian line for centuries to come. Kotlyarevsky, a contemporary
of the emigration of the Kozaks, saw their glory in the past. What was
to be their future? As he looked at the wretched inhabitants of Ukraine
and the suffering Kozaks abroad, he could only hope and that hope had
to be indefinite for the Russian sovereign had decided that there would
be no more Ukraine and any prophecy of resurrection might be treated
as treasonable. Thus the main differences in the treatment can be
explained by the different position of the two authors.
The religious attitude of the authors is also very different. Vergil
believed or pretended to believe in the gods of Rome. He had to
maintain the proper attitude of piety to the state. Kotlyarevsky treats
them as brawling and unidealistic beings, very human individuals with
all the vices of the Kozaks and little of their human virtues. Thus
Juno, the tutelary deity of the Latins and the implacable foe of Troy,
becomes a very ill-tempered _baba_ and she is described accordingly.
The gods who drink their fill and beyond are ordinary mortals. In this
there is a great deal of the scepticism of Voltaire and the criticism
of paganism by the older Christian tradition that believed in the evil
character of paganism, perhaps even more than a deliberate satire on
the rulers of Moscow with their almost divine pretensions as is thought
by Yefremiv (Istoriya Ukrainskoho Pis’mentsva Vol. I, p. 361). We can
never forget that Kotlyarevsky was an Orthodox Christian, writing
for his coreligionists and that they had been taught that the pagan
gods were either non-existent or evil and hence not deserving of a
respectful treatment.
It is not so often noted that the _Aeneid_ of Vergil is not the
only source of Kotlyarevsky’s poem. He undoubtedly knew his Homer,
especially the _Odyssey_, and the gods of the _Eneida_ are often human
in a manner similar to those of the Greek poet, although there is not
the same naivete in their description and Kotlyarevsky does not feel
the need of making them superhuman with the human virtues and vices
raised to a high degree. The Greek influence can be clearly seen, for
the poet perhaps for metrical reasons is far more apt to name the ruler
of the gods Zeves (Zeus) than Jupiter, the regular form in Vergil.
There is also a deliberate slurring over of supernatural incidents. The
miraculous plays very little role except in the transformation of the
ships of Aeneas into swans. Kotlyarevsky follows Vergil in passing over
lightly the episode of Polyphemus but he cannot resist the temptation
to bring Aeneas close enough to Circe’s Isle to see the animals into
which her different victims have been changed. Thus the Poles have
become rams, the bearded Muscovites goats, and the Prussians foxes.
He does not hesitate to depart from Vergil in the account of the visit
to the underworld. He definitely says so himself:
For Vergil, may he reign forever,
Was always wise, as we well know.
We would not harm him now or ever
But he lived many years ago.
Besides in hell conditions differ
From what they were when he looked thither.
And when the long departed wrote.
I now will give the present story,
Will change, omit some details hoary,
And from my elders I will quote. (III, 42)
So he includes in hell all those who have transgressed the Kozak spirit
and code and all who are working in this world to make unbearable the
lot of the poor people.
With these outstanding changes, Kotlyarevsky with good-natured fun
and real pathos makes Aeneas and his Kozak followers proceed through
the Latin story. They get uproariously drunk at Dido’s court. Aeneas
deserts Dido. They conduct the games in Sicily in the Kozak manner,
even to the scene where old Entellus, the former champion, is drunk in
a ditch and cannot be roused to meet the young challenger until he is
promised sufficient liquor, quite like the legends of Ilya of Murom
in the old byliny. The Kozaks revel and fight as they did once in the
Sich, they are loyal to one another and finally when they do make their
way to Italy, they learn Latin out of the same grammar that was taught
in the Ukrainian schools of the day and they make their petition to
Latinus in a grotesque mixture of tongues which may be well translated:
Aeneas, noster magnus panus
And Troianorum mighty prince
A-roaming o’er the sea, a gypsy,
Ad te, O rex, has sent us nunc.
Rogamus, domine Latine,
Do not destroy our wretched heads.
Permitte us to live among you
E’en for pecuniam or gratis.
We all will thank you always satis
For your beneficentia. (IV, 46)
Likewise in places where Vergil indulges in descriptions as in the
catalogue of the Italian clans, Kotlyarevsky gives us long passages
of information as to the Kozak leaders of the past and he describes
the various Kozak regiments as taking part in the campaign. He does
not mention either Khmelnitsky or Mazepa. Both were perhaps dangerous
figures to introduce, for the one had brought the Kozaks into
connection with Russia and the other was in bad odor with the Russian
government. It was therefore more convenient and more in line with the
policy of Kotlyarevsky to omit any clear mention of either.
The author showed however an amazing grasp of the manners and customs
of the Ukrainians of his day. Without idealizing or degrading them, he
pictures the life of Aeneas and his followers exactly as the Kozaks
lived, even to their petty virtues and vices. There is almost an
atmosphere of folklore study about certain passages and it testifies to
Kotlyarevsky’s powers of observation and selection that he was able to
do this so successfully.
The _Eneida_ was a revelation to the Ukrainians. Here was a poem in the
common vernacular, glorifying the Kozaks. It was very different from
the attitude of the historians, whether they were pro- or anti-Kozak,
and was nearer in spirit to the popular songs of the day. But what a
difference! For in the _Eneida_ Kotlyarevsky had dared to be himself,
to play with his material and to break out a new road.
The effect was almost instantaneous. What other writers had not been
able to accomplish with serious tracts or flaming denunciations, in
the old artificial language, Kotlyarevsky had done with a sure and
firm touch, thanks to his appreciation of the language and customs of
the people. Those who wished merely to laugh could find an abundance
of humor. Those who were more serious could see the sufferings of the
people hidden under a perfectly transparent guise. There was a message
of hope in the comparison. If Aeneas and his Trojans, the founders of
mighty Rome, had to pass through such hardships, then the cause of
Ukraine was not lost, so long as any of her sons remained alive.
It is small wonder that the poem speedily became popular and went
through three editions in a few years. It touched off the long hidden
spark which most had regarded extinct. Henceforth Ukraine had a written
language understood by the people, and it was up to them to write in it
as well as speak in it. The country and the people had the proof that
their ordinary vernacular could be adapted to literature and that real
books could be written in it. Once and for all in Eastern Ukraine the
artificial language vanished and slowly but surely its place was taken
in publications by the vernacular of Kotlyarevsky.
Meanwhile the author kept on with his ordinary work. He did not try to
repeat the performance. He did not engage in any propaganda for the new
language but his home became the centre for the steadily increasing
number of people who were awakening to a self-esteem that had been
sadly lacking for many years. That was the highest praise that could be
given to a work. Critics can analyze it and try to find the detailed
meaning of each allusion. They can seek for the author’s point of view
on many questions of the day. They can annotate every line. They can
praise or condemn. Kotlyarevsky had done the impossible and opened a
literature in a new language and he could rest content.
Meanwhile the years moved on and there was a growing number of books
written in the vernacular. Kotlyarevsky retained the friendship of the
Governor General and became more and more interested in the theatre and
finally was put in charge of the theatre in Poltava.
The Ukrainian theatre was in a bad way. There were troupes of serf
actors on many estates and in some of the main cities there were
theatres but there were no Ukrainian plays for them to perform. What
they did was to give uninteresting performances in a mixture of
Russian, Polish and Ukrainian. They satisfied a certain need but the
general level of education was so low that the new performances were
little more than the degradation of the old religious and school plays.
In 1812 Prince Shakhovskoy, realizing the musical value of the
Ukrainian folksongs, produced what he was pleased to call a Ukrainian
vaudeville, the _Kozak Poet_. This employed certain Ukrainian themes
and was written in what purported to be the Ukrainian language but
Shakhovskoy did not know the vernacular speech and his language was
neither Russian nor Ukrainian but a hodge-podge of unreal and assumed
forms. The _Kozak Poet_ became very popular and its linguistic defects
were largely unnoticed, for there was no fully accepted standard, and
his work was highly praised, especially by all those who were seeking
for advancement in the Russian service.
It displeased Kotlyarevsky, who had already shown some talent in
various amateur performances and he determined again to be a forerunner
in another field. In 1819 in his own theatre at Poltava, he produced
two comedies _Natalka Poltavka_ and _Moskal Charivnik_. (The Muscovite
Wizard.) The celebrated actor Mikhail Shchepkin, a Ukrainian by birth,
took part in these performances. They were the first real Ukrainian
plays written for a modern theatre and they have held their own on
the stage for over a century. Let us say frankly that they are not
masterpieces of the dramatic art but neither are they to be despised.
They are adapted to the stage and it is not only patriotic fervor that
has kept them alive.
Let us look a little more closely at the _Natalka Poltavka_,
“an opera in two acts,” as Kotlyarevsky calls it, though it is
really an operetta. It contains many elements that are typical of
the Franco-Italian play of the period. The characters are quite
conventional. There is the heroine, a beautiful country girl who has
been reduced to poverty by the death of her father but who is still
honorable and virtuous. She is a type that goes back through the ages
into the ancient world. There is the poor orphan boy who was regarded
as unworthy to become her husband and who returns rich at the crucial
moment. There is the sincere but ambitious mother. All these are stock
characters from world drama and if Kotlyarevsky had merely put these
types through their paces, he would have laid a good basis for the
Ukrainian theatre. He did more than merely imitate the conventional
models. He was deeply conscious of the difficulties of his people and
if he was not heroic in the later nationalistic sense, he stood for
an ideal that was strange in his day and boldly emphasized various
qualities of the Ukrainian temper.
Take the conversation between Petro and the _Vyborny_ and the _Vozny_.
Petro had been to the theatre in Kharkiv and had seen there the drama
of Shakhovskoy which was creating so much excitement. He boldly
declared that he could not understand it because the Moskal did not
know how to write the Ukrainian language or draw a Ukrainian character.
Here he definitely expresses the author’s sense of literary criticism.
It is very interesting that Petro is fully conscious of his difference
from the Moskals and that the _Vozny_, the judicial official, no more
educated than Petro, corrects the historical mistakes which Shakhovskoy
made about Ukraine.
In the _Moskal Charivnik_, Kotlyarevsky also pokes fun at those
Ukrainians who endeavor to turn themselves into Russians but this play
is far weaker and less clear in its construction. In the _Ode to Prince
Kurakin_, he stresses the same points and the hardships of the people.
Both of his dramas contain snatches of poetry, sometimes purely
original and sometimes a reworking of the poems of Skovoroda. They end
with a chorus as in the traditional dramas of the day and they show
Kotlyarevsky’s command of other forms of Ukrainian verse as well as the
epic.
The striking characteristic of all of Kotlyarevsky’s work is the
democratic character of his writings. The nobility had been pretty
well Russianized and it was only the common people who preserved the
native language. However, while he depicted them in a kindly humorous
way, he never lost an opportunity to speak out strongly about the
peasant virtues and to emphasize that democratic tradition which had
always been so strong in Ukraine and in the lives of the Kozaks. Thus
Natalka in her talk with the _Vozny_ definitely refuses to marry him,
because she is of poor peasant stock and he comes from the gentry.
There is hardly a literature which took its rise in such a clearly
democratic atmosphere as did modern Ukrainian and Kotlyarevsky from the
very beginning set the keynote which was to be followed by all of his
important successors.
Yet with it all Kotlyarevsky did not present the Ukrainian cause in a
manner that would get him into trouble with the authorities. He was
not a political agitator nor a man to menace by his actions the social
order of the day. He was a literary innovator and the creator of the
Ukrainian language and like most of the early leaders of the Slavonic
revival in various countries, he did not work in the field of politics.
He did not aim at reviving the political independence or the political
system which had been overthrown by the Russian Empress. At that time
Ukrainian culture had been so buffeted and demoralized that the first
and most essential factor was the creation of a new spirit and a new
self-respect.
That was his work and he succeeded admirably in what he undertook. It
is even said that many of the Russianized nobles were moved to tears
when they read in his lists of the Ukrainian regiments and groups their
own family names and recalled the old traditions which they affected to
have forgotten. Critics of the later day bewailed his frivolity and the
light tone in which he worked. Yet those very men were compelled to use
the language which he had forged and they profited by all that he had
accomplished. That language which had been derided as a peasant tongue
was revamped into a literary medium and when Kotlyarevsky died, he
could look out at a world in which the great poet Shevchenko was just
beginning his career. The creation of the language was the first step
toward this flowering and that was the work of Kotlyarevsky who formed
the speech out of an unwritten vernacular and taught his people to use
it and to use it in a democratic spirit.
The _Eneida_ was really the beginning of a new movement even as the
comedies were the practical start of the modern Ukrainian theatre. They
stand as a solid monument to Kotlyarevsky and every critic, friendly or
hostile, must realize the full measure of his accomplishment.
CHAPTER FOUR
HRIHORI KVITKA-OSNOVYANENKO
Kotlyarevsky had paved the way for a Ukrainian literature and he had
set standards for it in poetry and the drama. He had shown that the
Ukrainian language was a proper vehicle for literature and he had given
to it a strongly democratic quality. Yet the task of winning a proper
place for the literature was not yet completed.
It was still necessary to break through the stubborn opposition of the
gentry who then formed the bulk of the educated class. Most of these
had been Polonized or Russianized and while they knew the language,
they were ashamed to use it in their writings. They felt the charm of
Ukraine and of the Ukrainian scenery and customs, but they preferred
to write about it in the more popular and supposedly aristocratic
languages. As a result there appeared in both Polish and Russian
literature a large number of books which dealt with Ukrainian themes as
if they were a special subdivision of the culture of the master groups.
The authors regarded the Ukrainian language as suitable only for works
in a lighter vein and as a source of amusement. The Ukrainians were
often caricatured and derided and this procedure only increased the
tendencies toward assimilation.