When discussing the ‘Sovietness’, of Shevchenko and his reception by Soviets, one may start with the critics from St Petersburg. Firstly, upon reception of Kobzar, critics acknowledged his talent; yet Soviet critics also deplored the fact that he wrote in Ukrainian. However, this was not always obvious, as with the case of Great Russian critic Vissarion Belinsky, who appeared to credit Shevchenko for writing in Ukrainian. “Here,” declared the Russian critic, “are the poetic dumy, the historical legends and fascination of abandoned love and the artless story of Katerina’s love, in a word, all the elements of the folk poetry of the south of our fatherland.” Why should he not write in Ukrainian, asked Belinsky, “if Mr. Shevchenko grew up in Little Russia, if destiny has placed him in such relation to the language in which we write and communicate – i.e., Russian – that he cannot express in it his feelings? If from his youth his impressions assumed the forms of the southern dialect, should he therefore bury his talent in the earth? Must the sacred sounds be silenced in his soul only because some gentlemen in stylish tail-coats do not understand these sounds, do not or will not understand the native echoes of the Slavic tongue, the echoes fleeting from the south, from the cradle of glory and religion of Russia written in Little Russian such as … Shevchenko’s Katerina will undoubtedly be of great benefit to the south Russian common readers.”
Nonetheless, this seemingly flattering review from a Soviet critique was typical of the treatment Shevchenko would receive. Shevchenko would be praised to an extent as a Soviet Ukrainian whom enshrines his ‘Little Russian’ nationality, yet under the surface attacked for his inability to write in Russian and his Ukrainian roots.
Through these ‘contested tongues’ some writers may have seen these words as complimentary, whereas, Shevchenko did not, as whimsical comments upon his inability to write in Russian persisted. It must be clear that Shevchenko, in publishing Kobzar and the bulk of his work, did not aim to attribute “the folk poetry of the south of our fatherland” or to simply amuse Ukrainian readers by writing verse in their “dialect.” His ambition stretched farther than this, where he strived to prove the existence of a separate Ukrainian people and language by creating literature in Ukrainian. Yet, Russians would belittle such practice and simply denote such works as rabbles of a bard of the south Russian region. This bone of contention may be seen in Haidamafy, of which attacked Russia, and following critiques soon turned sourer. Belinsky, unleashed a scathing attack upon so-called Little Russian literature, suggesting that ‘We shall not repeat it here and will only say that the new attempt, songs by Mr. Shevchenko, this privileged, it seems, Little Russian poet, convinces us more than ever that works of such a type are published for the pleasure and edification of their authors only; there seems to be no other public for it’ .
Regardless of the bitter critique of Taras Shevchenko’s creative work by Russian scholars, Shevchenko can be seen to have become an integral part not only of Ukrainian, but Russian culture as well. He was even heralded as a “revolutionary democrat” by the Soviet regime, who honoured his struggle as aimed at Tsarist policies, not the Russian people. When discussing how Shevchenko symbolizes Russia culture, one struggles to look past the fact that the majority of his works have been interpreted in ways that are constantly falsified. Here, ‘Shevchenko is shown as a friend of Moscow, although it is evident from his works that he hated Russia, the prison of nations, with all his heart’ . Communists edited editions of the Kobzar, leaving out poems such as “Subotiv”, “The Opened Grave”, “The Great Grave”, and “Chyhyryn”, where the misfortune of Ukraine and the condemnation of Russia are clearly disclosed.
In terms of how falsified works and misled interpretations of work contributed to Shevchenko’s legacy in Russia, Soviet authorities would aim to utilize his works to legitimize their own power. Following the 1917 revolution, Bolsheviks sympathized with the poets struggle against tyranny and autocratic rule in Russia and had no qualms with the Ukrainians celebrating their poet. Moreover, this soon changed in the years that immediately followed, where he was now seen and symbolized as “a bourgeois democrat, and ideologist of the petty bourgeois peasantry, with religious and nationalist remnants” ; therefore these any representations were quickly removed. Interestingly, after the Soviet occupation in Ukraine, the ‘swept under the carpet’ image of Shevchenko in Soviet society began to change. Communists soon drew upon his works as laying down the conditions for Soviet ideological values. Upon such developments, Shevchenko was hailed as “a poet of country people,” a “revolutionary democrat,” “atheist,” and “singer of friendship between the two peoples (Ukrainians and Russians)” . Seemingly, any overarching national motives were initially ignored. To empathize his ideological similarity to the Soviet authorities, Shevchenko State awards were established in 1961.
Nevertheless, the Soviet regime did not manage to disregard the Ukrainian patriotic ideas of the poet. Shevchenko became one of the main inspirations of the resistance to the Soviet system in Ukraine. His martyr fate became an example of firmness for political prisoners in the Soviet prisons and sentences, and his work – an impetus for the revival of the fight for independence in 1987-91 and a symbol for modern Ukraine after declaring independence. Furthermore, it appears that in the present day Taras Shevchenko remains to be manipulated by the modern Russian regime. In the summer of 2015, Russia demolished the house to which Shevchenko was thought to of resided in during his time in Orenburg. In doing so, Russia clearly shows no regard for the historical significance of the residence and clearly shows no regard for the Ukrainian poet and his compatriots.
When discussing concepts of the exile-Ukrainian Shevchenko, Ukrainian nationalism reveals itself as the driving force behind his symbolism. Shevchenko wrote out against the destruction of Ukraine by imperialistic Russia, who shaped Ukraine from a free-land to a disregarded land, full of serfs, illiterates and “Ivan’s without kith and kin” . Prior to the rise of Shevchenko, sweeping Russification swept aside and banished Ukrainian writers such as Teofan Prokopovych and Stefan Yavrosky. Hereby, Ukraine struggled to have a voice of freedom, where not only did Ukrainian values and ideas diminish into obscurity, yet the language was quashed through Russification and even the Ukrainian elites disregarded the use of their native language, succumbing to the imperialistic tongues of Russian and/or Polish.
Following on from this diminishing effect, Shevchenko arose with anti-imperialistic poems and formed national ideas and concepts that would resonate with not only Ukrainians, but also universal supporters of freedom in the past and present. Below I have uncovered importance poems written by Shevchenko that enshrined the development of the language and nation.
In 1838, Shevchenko unleashed his first direct attack upon Russian imperialism, heralding Ukrainians to:
Have your love, you black haired maidens, But avoid the Moskals (Russians – Y.S.), For the Moskals – they are strangers, And they treat you foully… For the Moskals – they are strangers, And they always mock you .
Furthermore, Shevchenko’s criticism of Russia only escalated, where interestingly in his short poem “Kateryna” Shevchenko denotes how an innocent Ukrainian woman was seduced and abandoned by a Russian officer, suggestively contextualizing how so Ukraine defrauded by Russia. In another of his poems, Shevchenko pictured the Russians’ behavior in the occupied Ukraine:
Cruel Russians rob and pillage What their eyes can notice; There are even opened graveyards In the search for money.
Such words and dialect appealed not only to Ukrainians, but also universally to oppressed groups, who had suffered at the hands of imperialistic powers. Hereby, Shevchenko also heralded Caucasians as “crusaders for holy freedom.” addressing them personally in his poem “The Caucasus”:
Keep fighting—you are bound to win! God helps you in your fight! For fame and freedom march with you. And right Is on your side .
Without any doubt the poet deeply believes in the final result of an uprising—in victory:
Ukraina will arise, Drive away the dark of prison, Make verity gayer, And the captive rebels risen Will rejoice in prayer .
It was quite obvious for the tsarist government of imperialist Russia that Shevchenko became a spiritual leader of the downtrodden Ukraine, which strove for freedom and independence. Obviously, the signal greatness of Taras Shevchenko lies in the fact that his name became a symbol of Ukraine’s struggle for freedom and independence from Russia. To a great extent, he was, and is, a champion of justice and liberty for all men of earth.
Furthermore, it is worth making a comparison between Shevchenko and Scottish poet Robert Burns, in terms of how each individual propelled their native language. Here, like Burns, Shevchenko had a very similar literacy style, questioning national ideals and cultural identities. Moreover, both used their native styles of songs to base their poetry on, through Scottish folk songs and Ukrainian Kolomyiky folk songs. However, what is most interesting and comparable between the two remains to be with what each did for their native languages. As Ukrainian was disregarded and dispelled by the imposing Russian imperialism, so was the Scottish language by the British monarchs and ruling powers.
Upon such developments, Boris Hrinchenko suggests that ‘Shevchenko transformed the dead into live human beings, for what were the members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia as Ukrainians if not corpses? This is why we call him our national prophet and see him as a phenomenon perhaps unique in history’ . This was seen through the vigor to remain writing in his almost prohibited language, but also fighting against the imperialistic rulers by creating a unique Ukrainian identity detached from the overarching impact of Russian rule.
Today, when proposing whether there is a fusion of understanding in post-socialist Ukraine, Shevchenko’s impact is still celebrated and widely memorialized, through several monuments, of which not only appear in Ukraine, but across the globe, including a magnificent statue in Washington D.C and Winnipeg. On the topic of Shevchenko symbolism that stretches farther than Ukraine, the fact that many of his works are available in an array of translations, including “The Testament” of which has been translated into 45 languages. Moreover, several street names, towns and schools have been named after Shevchenko outside and inside the whole of Ukraine. Shevchenko days are celebrated in all schools in Ukraine, where his works seep into Ukrainian curricula, including lessons of reading, history and literature. However, Ukrainian progress is certainly stunted, as with modern developments such as Russian acquisition of the Crimea, you could suggest that there are similarities between the Russian imperialism Shevchenko fought so hard against and with modern Russian policy. Hereby, his struggle seems to continue with many Ukrainians of today and they still draw inspiration from his works when hoping to detach from the shackles of Russian influence. Upon such developments, Andrey Kurkov, a Ukrainian writer exclaims, “In today’s situation with Russia occupying Crimea, the poems of Shevchenko get the old meaning that Moscow is trying to dominate and to control the destiny of Ukraine” .
Even though this contention between the two differing concepts of Shevchenko still remain in the present day, neither interpretations can take away the fact that he was a great poet. I feel as if the national concept over the human concept is damaging and he should be honoured through his works universally. Even though it may be hard to look past his dominant position in Ukrainian history and society, his anti-Russian stances create an obvious divide across the borders, where seemingly he did more for the two nations than one may first consider. Furthermore, when directly proposing whether Shevchenko can be seen as a national symbol for the whole of Ukraine it seems that the negative interpretations stem from the permeable Russian-Ukrainian borders, of which ‘complicates the regimes efforts to neutralise the nationalist content of the symbolism’ . This thinking however, must not be confused by exile mythmaking of which propel nations of passion behind Shevchenko’s workings, of which are perceived to be received universally to Ukrainians, backing up a sentiment of national unity, whilst providing confidence and pride in these people, who declare that his writing propelled Ukraine to take their place amongst other great nations.