Mykola Soroka

I am not going to speak about the myth about Gorky as a “friend of Ukrainian culture,” constructed by Soviet critics. If we were to look for similarities, Maxim Gorky (1868-1936) and Volodymyr Vynnychenko (1880-1951) would be, arguably, an ideal pair for a comparison of two literary and cultural discourses, Russian and Ukrainian. Both were the most popular writers in their respective homelands at the beginning of the twentieth century. They shared many ideological and artistic views and were affected by the political changes in the Russian empire and the Soviet state. Many critics (e.g., Pohorilyi 21, 139) admit that Vynnychenko-the-writer grew out of Gorky, including the themes of vagabonds [bosiaky], wanderings, freedom, moral purification and active social and political involvement. The two writers lived in exile for quite a long time being out of favour with both the tsarist and Bolshevik regimes.[1] They met on Capri in 1908 and corresponded for a short period of time. An admirer of Vynnychenko’s early stories, Gorky proposed to publish them in the publishing house “Znaniie” [Knowledge]. Shortly thereafter, however, Gorky decided against publishing them because of Vynnychenko’s tendency to criticize revolutionaries. I wonder how these two writers, whose literary and ideological views developed much in the same way, found themselves, eventually, on opposite sides: the former embraced a colonial stance, returned to the Soviet Union and participated in the creation of Soviet literature; the latter was labeled a “bourgeois nationalist” and was not allowed back. My argument is that they belong to two opposed cultural spaces, those of the centre/metropolia (Gorky) and periphery/colony (Vynnychenko). In this paper I would like to focus in more detail on the Russian-Ukrainian encounter, represented respectively by two intellectual leaders – Gorky and Vynnychenko. Though a postcolonial approach, deployed by most critics, remains important, I will also utilize the perspectives of Marxism and displacement, demonstrating how they participated in the construction of Gorky’s imperial identity.

In 1926 the writer Oleksa Slisarenko, on behalf of a Ukrainian institution, sent a letter to Maxim Gorky, asking permission to publish his novel Mat’ [Mother] in a Ukrainian translation. Gorky’s response shocked the Ukrainian public. Gorky wrote:

It seems to me that a translation of [this] povest’ into the Ukrainian dialect is…unnecessary. I am astounded by the fact that people who have one and the same goal not only affirm the dissimilarity of dialects – trying to make [the Ukrainian] dialect a ‘language’ – but even oppress those Great Russians who suddenly find themselves a minority in the domain of a given dialect. During the old regime I strongly protested against such a phenomenon. It seems to me that under the new regime it would be appropriate to strive toward the removal of everything that prevents people from helping one another. Otherwise, a curious thing happens: some people try to create a ‘worldwide language,’ while others do exactly the opposite.[2]

Since then this case has been serving as a classic example of a dominant colonial attitude of the Russian intelligentsia to the Ukrainian question. An important factor here is that Gorky represents not monarchic, but democratic and progressive circles, which themselves fought against the chauvinism of imperial Russia.

Why did Gorky make such an argument? Many scholars and critics have briefly addressed this issue as an example of a colonial approach (Luckyj, Ilnytzkyj, Shkandrij, and 20-i roky,etc). Probably, the most critical response, specially focused on the conflict, was “An Open Letter to M. Gorky” by Vynnychenko, an émigré at that time. The letter was published first in a Ukrainian émigré newspaper, Ukrains’ki visti [Ukrainian News], on July 19, 1928 (# 72, pp. 3-4) and later republished elsewhere in the émigré press.[3] Yet, it remains largely unknown to the public.

In Gorky’s reference to the Ukrainian language as a “dialect,” Vynnychenko sees the reflection of the imperial political and national outlook of Russia and the history of the relationship between the two Slavic nations that brought so much “suffering, violence and evil” (2). In this respect, whether it sounds paradoxically or not, Vynnychenko aligns Gorky with Minister Valuiev and the Union of Russian People [Soiuz Russkogo Naroda] as extreme representatives of Russian chauvinism. Moreover, a separate status of the Ukrainian language was recognized by the Imperial Academy of Sciences as far back as in 1905. But the provocation of Gorky’s act is that Maxim Gorky had been hailed the “conscience of Russian soil” and protector of freedom.

You are the first representative of the so called “progressive” Russian intelligentsia, who so overtly and daringly snatched off the fig-leaf of silence with which the Russian intelligentsia has always covered the zoological nakedness of tsarist despotism concerning the Ukrainian issue… One must say the truth: after Valuiev no one among “progressive” people had enough courage and candour to unleash their silent grumbling out loud in full voice…: never existed, does not exist and will never exist!... The terrible thing, Mr. Gorky, is that you, Gorky, not an ignorant and irresponsible person or an ideologist of the Union of Russian People said this out loud… You, the famous Russian writer, who is supposed to be a representative of Russian culture, even a spokesman of Russian proletarian culture.

Then Vynnychenko exposes Gorky’s inconsistency and duplicity, typical of the Russian intelligentsia concerning the national question:

Interestingly, you, who sometimes speak about peace and brotherhood of peoples so eloquently, who stand against the war and who so naively ask members of the Communist Party not to debate so aggressively among themselves, here you without hesitation welcome the most disgraceful war of the stronger against the weaker, and the stifling of the weaker’s most basic need (3).

 In the end of his open letter, Vynnychenko invites Gorky to reveal the reasons behind such an ideological turn. Gorky never responded to Vynnychenko’s letter.

Speaking of Gorky’s colonial, or imperial position, I argue that his outburst in 1926 cannot be treated as unusual and unexpected. Even though, before the revolution, Gorky, following the tradition of Leo Tolstoy and Anton Chekhov, was lauded as the most consistent “fighter for the freedom of the human spirit,” one may detect his imperial predisposition in a close reading of some of his writings. Interestingly, Gorky’s article under consideration, “O russkoi intelligentsii i natsional’nykh voprosakh,” [About the Russian Intelligentsia and National Issues] is written as a questionnaire response to the journal Ukrainskaia zhizn’ [Ukrainian Life], edited by Symon Petliura in Moscow (1912, # 9, pp. 7-15). Representing himself as an opponent of “Great Russia” and “Moscow centralism,” his views, nonetheless, coincide with those of the “apologists of moribund Moscow statehood” (i.e., Struve) who consider Russian as one nation [russkii narod], as “our nation” which consists of three tribes [tri plemeni] – Great Russians, Little Russians and White Russians:

In speaking of Russia as a whole, one should not forget that it was built by the three tribes together and that they constitute its real skeleton, tightly overgrown with the muscles of other tribes; one has always to take care persistently that this stem retains its ‘chemical unity’ so that all its good and useful characteristics develop quickly and successfully, and then the muscles will knit with it more tightly (13).

But a question arises: what is the place of “Little Russia” in this state? Will it be equal as it is declared by socialists, or marginalized as it is always seen by supporters of “Great Russia”? Apparently, Gorky himself answered that question in 1926, refusing the Ukrainian language and literature their equal status in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But it was not so clear before the revolution. Along with M. Sriblians’kyi (i.e., Mykyta Shapoval) in Ukrains’ka khata (1913, # 1), Vynnychenko attempts to deconstruct the attitude of the Russian intelligentsia towards the Ukrainian subject right after Gorky’s publication in Ukrainskaia zhizn’. Although there are no any references to Gorky’s article, Vynnychenko in his article “Otkrytoie pis’mo k russkim pisateliam” [Open letter to Russian Writers] in the same journal Ukrainskaia zhizn’ (# 10, 1913) exposes the stereotypical depiction of Ukrainian characters by Russian writers as marginalized representatives of the common multiethnic space:

Always and everywhere “khokhol” is a little bit silly, a little bit cunning, a little bit lazy, melancholic and sometimes good-natured. One finds hardly any other characteristics of human psyche of “khokhols” in these stories. There are more than thirty millions of them, but strangely they show nothing but such stiffness and one-sidedness of development (47).

Vynnychenko observes that the way Gogol described Ukrainian characters still remains mostly unchanged: “A peasant, intelligent man or worker – all speak in the same manner and almost about the same” (47).

Vynnychenko’s open letter can be considered rather a call to Russian writers to represent Ukrainians in their works as having an equal part in all human problems and with deep penetration into their psychology. He failed, however, to explain the reason for such negligence. “Russian writers are strangely conservative concerning Ukrainians” – Vynnychenko remarks rather pathetically (48). Interestingly, he includes not only second-rank writers (i.e., Stepan Skitalets) but also such distinguished writers as Gorky. Andrei Nakhodka from the novel Mat’ is, in Vynnychenko’s opinion, an image of the “silly, sentimental, though not evil, simpleton, the “khokhol” (47). What is striking in Vynnychenko’s argument is that Russian writers do so unconsciously, otherwise, he says, his letter would be useless (46). According to Freud, a writer in the creative process of writing sublimates and transforms his original subconscious energy into different feelings and attitudes. Contrary to Vynnychenko’s argument, the unconscious, or subconscious position of Russian writers appears to be quite telling about their real thinking.

Gorky’s stance looks even more curious if we take into account his allegedly positive attitude to Ukrainian language and culture. As is well-known, before the revolution he stayed for some time in the village of Manuiilivka (Poltava region), where he, along with local peasants, staged plays by Russian and Ukrainian playwrights. Gorky even played Ukrainian characters (Khinkulov 34) and recited Shevchenko’s poetry (ibid. 42). Vasyl’ Horlenko in his letter to Borys Hrinchenko cites Gorky’s pleasure in reading in the Ukrainian language:

I’ve read Ianovskaia without stopping. How beautiful her language is and how smart she is! Advise her to translate “Death of Makarykha” into Russian… What a simple and melancholic piece… There is no such folk drama in Russian, there is no a thing written for a theatre so artistically and intelligently. You know, I am even envious… (65).

In his letter to Vynnychenko in 1908 Gorky confessed: “I admired Little Russians [maloros], as well as their glorious country and their rich and gentle language” (2001, 253).

Gorky also helped the Ukrainian writer Mykhailo Kotsiubyns’kyi to publish his two volumes in Russian translation in the publishing house “Znaniie.”

But if we acknowledge Gorky’s contribution to the Ukrainian culture, does this mean that he steps beyond the stereotypical attitude to Ukrainians as a marginalized group? Or is he just travelling to an exotic region of Russia, as his predecessors had done in the nineteenth century? Even if we take into account his inconsistency and conflicting emotions, there is every reason to assume that he did not step beyond that line. In his article Gorky deploys his historical vision of constant aspirations of “Russian people” to freedom. But he sees this in social, not in national, terms as simple attempts to resist the tyranny of the centre: “The Russian people always understood the necessity of regional independence and regional self-governing; modern “separatisms” reveal this historically justified aspiration to freedom” (“O russkoi” 11). As soon as the social and political systems are changed, Gorky implies, there would be no reason for separatism. In other words, he aligns ethnically different regions (i.e., Ukraine, the Caucasus) with administrative regions (i.e., Ural, Siberia).

His haughty attitude to Ukrainians also comes from his constant identification of Ukrainians as “khokhols” in his writings (i.e.,“Emelian Piliai,”Mat’, etc). He also uses the word in his correspondence. “All these khokhols are wonderful guys!” – he writes to his wife (Khinkulov 39). Andreas Kappeler notices that “khokhols” occupies the lowest position in an ethnic hierarchy among Ukrainians of the Russian empire. They were defined as a type of “uncivilized peasantry,” in comparison with loyal “maloros” and nationally conscious “mazepynets” (130).

Thus, our analysis has revealed so far that the “democratic” writer Gorky in the period before the revolution manifested a colonial attitude towards the “Ukrainian tribe,” firstly, as that belonging to “one Russian nation,” and, secondly, to its marginalized segment. This was, however, a latent process in him, so that it was difficult to recognize or prioritize it due to a new Marxist discourse.

The cornerstone of Marxist philosophy is a union of all working people against capitalists and the creation of new social, political and cultural entities on the basis of a class, not a nation. That is why a new progressive culture is seen as international, not national: “The slogan of working-class democracy is not “national culture” but the international culture of democracy and the world-wide working-class movement” (Lenin 22). Propaganda on a national basis, according to Lenin, would only facilitate dividing of workers into smaller units and, thus, prevent them from achieving more important political goals. Everything national is simply labeled as “bourgeois nationalism,” contrary to the concept of “proletarian internationalism” (26). “[I]f asked what nationality he belongs to, the worker must answer: I am a Social-Democrat” (27). Assimilation was considered a positive step. The right of nations to self-determination including secession is only a tactical manoeuvre, which Lenin uses to implement his political goals. But when it concerns concretely what language a new international community would speak, Lenin says: “The requirements of economic exchange will themselves decide which language of the given country it is to the advantage of the majority to know in the interests of commercial relations” (21). In the situation of post-imperial Russia, this, certainly, implies Russian as a dominant language, while all other languages become doomed to disappear or be marginalized.

Although Gorky tries to keep his distance from direct political involvement, he primarily affiliates himself with the Bolsheviks. His Marxist rhetoric does not differ much from that of Lenin. Here is how Andrei Nakhodka in the novel Mat’ expresses his Marxist position: “No nations, no tribes exist for us; there are only comrades and enemies. All workers are our comrades, and all rich people and all governments are our enemies” (1950, 221-22). Justly criticizing the chauvinistic policy of imperial Russia, Gorky at the same time expresses an “idea of universal union of democratic peoples” (“O russkoi” 13). He accepts only one kind of union – “assimilation on the basis of general human [obshchechelovecheskaia] culture, which is currently becoming the global culture.” “This assimilation – continues Gorky – is inevitable; it leads to the international uniting of people…” (ibid. 14). In the initial stage of the revolution in the Russian empire all progressive people “should seek All-Russian union” [vserossiiskoie iedineniie] (ibid., 15). But again a question arises: what should be the dominant language of this new cultural space? Gorky does not answer this question in his article. But no doubt, he implies Russian – as he confirms in his letter to Slisarenko.

Vynnychenko, however, does not recognize the significance of the Marxist factor in Gorky’s turn and, as with many other critics, accepts only the colonial one: “In this case you are led not by scientific data and experience but by ‘lordly’ ideology, this imperial ideology of an owner and this psychology of zoological nationalism…” – writes Vynnychenko in his letter (3). Still in 1934 Vynnychenko himself dogmatically believes in the righteousness of Marxist principles. Under socialism Russian chauvinism, in his opinion, is a temporary phenomenon (Za iaku Ukrainu?, 1934). Denouncing Bolshevism after the politics of the “Great Terror,” Vynnychenko, nevertheless, continues to believe in a future harmonious international community, “Federal States of Earth,” as he calls it. He never explains, however, how languages and literatures would co-exist in this community. Marxism becomes philosophy and ideology, forcing Vynnychenko, as a representative of a colonized culture, to choose between national and social paradigms, whereas for Gorky and other representatives of the colonial centre it serves as a disguise, conscious or unconscious, for the dominance of their culture.

Another important aspect of Gorky’s stance is that he was writing as an émigré in the Italian town of Sorrento (1924-1933). The Russian diaspora, including monarchic and liberal groups, was largely anti-Ukrainian, blaming Ukrainians for “separatism,” contributing to the fall of the Russian state. Speaking of the Russian intelligentsia (i.e., N. Berdiaiev, I. Il’in, L. Karsavin, N. Losskii, I. Solonevich, G. Fedotov, S. Frank, V. Shulgin, etc), Askold Dorochenkov observes that “most of them in the interwar period saw the Russian nation as that consisting of three East Slavic branches: Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian” (80-81). Although the formation of Soviet culture was seen by many émigrés as a process of erosion of traditional Russian identity (i.e., imperial), it soon became clear that Russia’s interests as a national state and state interests of the USSR were not only close in content but fully coincided (ibid. 71). As a member of the Russian exile community (i.e., he established his journal Beseda [Conversation], which lasted for the years 1923-1925) Gorky was likely exposed to its anti-Ukrainian rhetoric, even though he kept his distance and did not join any political group in emigration. Although Gorky stays in touch with the Soviet circles, he does not think yet of coming back in 1926. Thus, he does not need to play any political diplomacy and carry responsibility. He could not foresee that in two years he would have to explain his words to Ukrainian writers during the meeting in Kharkiv:

Probably, I wrote something ill-considered, being perturbed by the chauvinistic tone of Slisarenko’s letter. But I have to say that I have always had a close relationship with a number of Ukrainian public activists and writers and that I cannot deprive any nation from developing its native language… I am an internationalist, and I cannot be counted a chauvinist” (Khinkulov 62).

“The chauvinistic tone of Slisarenko’s letter” is, actually, a request by the latter to allow translation into Ukrainian. Internationalism, as we can see, only serves as a term which justifies Gorky’s doing and, virtually, disguises real chauvinism.

This division, “colonial/colonized,” thus, explains why Gorky was able to return to his homeland, whereas Vynnychenko was not welcome back, because he represented a threat to Moscow centralization. Eventually, Gorky becomes the founder of socialist realism, which is to constitute a traditional, though in a Soviet modified form, imperial cultural hierarchy with the Russian nation at its head as an “older brother;” Vynnychenko is prohibited and labeled as a “bourgeois nationalist” and his works are proscribed until the late 1980s. But both writers began as opponents of the Russian empire, “the prison of peoples.” Gorky, however, influenced by the imperial, Marxist and émigré discourses, failed to rid himself of imperial sentiments and to recognize Ukraine as an equal partner. Although Vynnychenko had never been able to depart ideologically from Marxism, he effectively denounced Soviet-style of communism and worked explicitly to preserve his national state and culture (i.e., “Bula, ie i bude”).

Notes

1.  Gorky – 1906-1913 and 1921-1933; Vynnychenko – 1907-1914 and 1920-1951.

2.  Quoted from Khvylia, Andrii. “Zustrich.” Krytyka 5 (1929): 11 in Ilnytzkyj, 105.

3.  Dilo. [L’viv] 2 August, 1928, # 170, pp. 2-3; Novyi chas [L’viv]6-10 August, 1928, # 94-96; Here I refer to his article in Ukrains’ki visti [New Ulm, Germany]. 25 November 1948, # 95, pp. 2-3.

20-i roky: literaturni dyskusii, polemiky.Ed Vitalii Donchyk. Kyiv: Dnipro, 1991. [The 1920s: Literary Discussions, Polemics]

Do problemy ‘M. Gorky i ukrains’ka literatura.’ Z lystuvannia V. Horlenka z B. Hrinchenkom.” Radians’ke literaturoznavstvo. 4 (1985): 63-66. [Towards the Problem “M. Gorky and Ukrainian Literature.’ Correspondence between V. Horlenko and B. Hrinchenko]

Dorochenkov, Askold. Emigratsiia ‘pervoi volny’ o natsional’nykh problemakh i sud’be Rossii. Sankt-Peterburg: DB, 2001. [Émigrés of the ‘First Wave’ About National Problems and the Fate of Russia]

Gorky, Maxim. Mat.’ Sobraniie sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh. Moscow: GIKhL, 1950. Vol. 7. [Mother]

_____. “O russkoi intelligentsii i natsional’nykh voprosakh.” Ukrainskaia zhizn’ [Moscow] 9 (1912): 7-15. [About the Russian Intelligentsia and National Questions]

_____. Pis’ma. Moscow: Nauka, 2001. Vol. 6. [Correspondence]

Ilnytzkyj, Oleh S. Ukrainian Futurism, 1914-1930. A Historical and Critical Study. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Distributed by Harvard U P for the Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University, 1997.

Kappeler, Andreas. “Mazepintsy, malorossy, khokhly: ukraintsy v etnicheskoi ierarkhii Rossiiskoi imperii.” In Rossiia-Ukraina: istoriia vzaimootnoshenii. Ed A. Miller et al. Moscow: Shkola “Iazyki russkoi kul’tury,” 1997. 125-44.

Khinkulov, Leonid. Ukraina v zhytti i tvorchosti M. Gorkoho. Kyiv: Radians’kyi pys’mennyk, 1963. [Ukraine in M. Gorky’s Life and Writings]

Lenin, Vladimir. “Kriticheskiie zametki po natsional’nomu voprosu.” Polnoie sobraniie sochinenii. Moscow: GIPL, 1961, Vol. 24. [Critical Thoughts on a National Question]

Luckyj, George. Literary Politics in the Soviet Ukraine, 1917-1934. Duke UP, 1990.

Pohorilyi, Semen. Neopublikovani romany Volodymyra Vynnychenka. New York, 1981. [Unpublished Novels of Volodymyr Vynnychenko]

Shkandrij, Myroslav. Modernists, Marxists and the Nation: the Ukrainian Literary Discussion of the 1920s. Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1992.

Sriblians’kyi, Mykola. “Chy bude prosvitok?” Ukrains’ka khata. [Kyiv] 1 (1913): 62-66. [Will There Be a Ray of Hope?]

Struve, Petr. “Na raznyie temy.” Russkaia mysl.’ 1 (1911): 175-87. [On Different Topics]

Vynnychenko, Volodymyr. “Bula, ie i bude.” Ukrains’ki visti [New Ulm, Germany] 28 November 1948, # 96, pp. 2-3 and 2 December 1948, # 97, p. 3. [It Existed, It Exists and It Will Exist]

_____. “Otkrytoie pis’mo k russkim pisateliam.” Ukrainskaia zhizn.’ [Moscow] 10 (1913):  29-33. [Open letter to Russian Writers]

_____. “Vidkrytyi lyst do M. Gorkoho.” Ukrains’ki visti. [Ukrainian News] 19 July 1928, # 72, pp. 3-4.

_____. “Vidkrytyi lyst do M. Gorkoho.” Dilo. [L’viv] 2 August 1928, # 170, pp. 2-3.

_____. “Vidkrytyi lyst do M. Gorkoho.”Novyi chas [L’viv] 6-10 August 1928, # 94-96.

_____. “Vidkrytyi lyst do M. Gorkoho.” Ukrains’ki visti. [New Ulm, Germany] 25 November 1948, # 95, pp. 2-3. [An Open Letter to M. Gorky]

_____. Za iaku Ukrainu? Paris, 1934. [For Which Ukraine?]

© M. Soroka

back

top