Ihor Nabytovych
ORCID 0000-0001-9453-158X,
Doctor of Sciences, Professor,
Marie Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin (Poland)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37222/2786-7552-2025-7-4
The Role of Neoclassicists in the Literary Discussion of 1925-1928 and the Policy of Magazine Publications.
The article is devoted to the Literary Discussion of 1925–1928 in soviet Ukraine, the role of Kyiv neoclassicists in it, the search for ways to develop Ukrainian writing. This discussion was a manifestation of a clash of ideas and declarations about the orientations and the search for ways that Ukrainian artistic literature, Ukrainian culture in general, should follow. The aim of the research is to study the role of Kyiv neoclassicists in this discussion and to present this group in the discussion and media space.
In the Literary Discussion of 1925–1928, the VAPLITE and neoclassicist groups jointly tried to define new ways for Ukrainian literature – oriented towards Europe. Khvylovyi called to Europe – because it expresses the experience of centuries and is the heart of a separate rich civilization. At the same time, it is a symbol of opposition to massism. To Khvylovyi’s question “Where are you going?” Zerov gave the answer of all neoclassicists: “Ad fontes!” – “To the sources”. The ideas of these two groups were a declaration that Ukrainian literature had begun the search for its own self-definition, individual identification in the context of European literature and culture in general.
Permissions to create literary and artistic magazines, as well as funding were issued only to left-wing, “proletarian” writers’ associations. Outside this circle remained organizations or associations that were not proletarian, were considered “fellow travelers” (Aspis, Lanka, MARS) or even hostile (neoclassicists) to proletarian literature. Therefore, in the history of the Kyiv neoclassicists there were no attempts to create their own literary and artistic magazine.
Based on the analysis of contemporary magazine and newspaper publications, involving published documents of secret services, it was found out that this discussion was controlled not only by state institutions and communist organizations, but also by the influence of punitive bodies on them.
Keywords: neoclassicists, Literary discussion of 1925–1928, editorial strategies, censorship.
References
Danylenko, V. (Comp.). (2012). Ukrainska inteligentsiia i vlada: Zvedennia sekretnoho viddilu DPU USRR 1927–1929 rr. [Ukrainian intelligentsia and government: The rise of the secret police of the Ukrainian SSR, 1927–1929.]. Kyiv: Tempora [in Ukrainian].
Dosvitnii, O. (1926). Do rozvytku pysmennytskykh syl [To the development of literacy skills]. Vaplite. Zoshyt pershyi, 5–17. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian]. Drai-Khmara, M. (2015). Tvory [Works], Serhiia Halchenka (Comp.). Kyiv: Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].
Ivashko, M. (1990). Mykola Zerov i literaturna dyskusiia (1925–1928) [Mykola Zerov and literary discussion]. Slovo i chas, 4, 19–28 [in Ukrainian].
Khvylia, A. (1929). Dopovid na zasidanni plenumu politbiuro 20 lystopada 1926 roku [Report at the plenary session of the Politburo on November 20, 1926]. Budivnytstvo radianskoi Ukrainy. Zbirnyk. Vyp. I: Za lieninsku natsionalnu polityku, 101–104. Kharkiv: Derzhavne vydavnytstvo Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
Koriak, V. (1928). Literaturna dyskusiia. Shliakhy rozvytku ukrainskoi proletarskoi literatury. Literaturna dyskusiia (1925–1928) [Literary discussion. Paths of development of Ukrainian proletarian literature. Literary discussion (1925–1928)], 7–30. Kharkiv: Ukrainskyi robitnyk [in Ukrainian].
Kovaliv, Yu. (1990). Literaturna dyskusiia 1925–1928 rr. [Literary discussion (1925–1928)]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Liubchenko, P. (1926). Stari teorii y novi pomylky [Old theories and new mistakes]. Zhyttia i Revoliutsiia, 11–12, 75–88 [in Ukrainian].
Platforma y otochennia livykh [The platform and environment of the left]. (1927). Nova heneratsiia, 1 (Zhovten), 41 [in Ukrainian].
Polityka partii v spravi ukrainskoi khudozhnoi literatury [The party's policy on Ukrainian literature]. (1928). In Leites A., Yashek M. Desiat rokiv ukrainskoi literatury (1917–1927). T. 2 (S. 306–310). Kharkiv: Derzhavne Vydavnytstvo Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
Savchenko, Ya. (1926). Aziiatskyi apokalipsys [Asian apocalypse]. Kharkiv: Hlobus [in Ukrainian].
Shkandrii, M. (2006). Modernisty, marksysty i natsiia. Ukrainska literaturna dyskusiia 1920-kh rokiv [Modernists, Marxists, and Nationalists: Ukrainian Literary Discourse in the 1920s]. Kyiv: Nika-Tsentr [in Ukrainian].
Shliakhy rozvytku suchasnoi literatury. Dysput [Ways of developing contemporary literature. Debate]. (1925). Kyiv: Ukrainska Akademiia Nauk [in Ukrainian].
Stalin, Y. V. (1949). Tvory [Works]. T. 8. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Statut Vilnoi Akademii Proletarskoi Literatury [Statute of the Free Academy of Proletarian Literature]. (1926). Vaplite. Zoshyt pershyi, 94–96. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Z peredmovy do pershoho nomera «Molodniaka» [From the preface to the first issue of Molodnyak]. (1928). In Leites A., Yashek M. Desiat rokiv ukrainskoi literatury (1917–1927). T. 2 (S. 216–217). Kharkiv: Derzhavne Vydavnytstvo Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].
Zahul, D. (1926). Literatura chy literaturshchyna? (Pro ukrainskykh neoklasykiv) [Literature or literary trash? (On Ukrainian neoclassicists)]. Kharkiv: Hlobus [in Ukrainian].
Zatonskyi, V. (1929). Pro pidsumky ukrainizatsii [Про підсумки українізації]. Budivnytstvo radianskoi Ukrainy. Zbirnyk. Vyp. I: Za lieninsku natsionalnu polityku, 7–24. Kharkiv: Derzhavne vydavnytstvo Ukrainy [in Ukrainian].