“I wish I hadn’t seen the Krylov Monument…”: On an entry in Taras Shevchenko’s diary from 1858
Taras Shevchenko’s diary of 1857–1858, a well-known and even iconic text, remains poorly commented and conceptualized to an even lesser degree. This despite the fact that it describes and interprets one the most important periods in Shevchenko’s life. When his exile ended, he returned to St. Petersb...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. RANEPA
2023-12-01
|
| Series: | Шаги |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://steps.ranepa.ru/jour/article/view/194 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Taras Shevchenko’s diary of 1857–1858, a well-known and even iconic text, remains poorly commented and conceptualized to an even lesser degree. This despite the fact that it describes and interprets one the most important periods in Shevchenko’s life. When his exile ended, he returned to St. Petersburg and to artistic production, became extremely popular as a key figure of Ukrainian nation-building. The article intends to demonstrate, on the example of one extended entry from April 30th, 1858, how a multifaceted commentary reveals the wide problematics of this diary. To achieve this goal, the first monographic commentary to the named entry was compiled, reconstructing and examining numerous contexts of that day, such as the historical, the biographical, the artistic, the urban, and the ideological. As a next step, the plots identified were interpreted within the framework of the optics of transition underscored by Shevchenko himself. The results of the study are: explication of several obscure or unnoticed passages; revelation of multicentered conflict as a main line of the text (“former I” vs “actual I”; Art vs state/Church; sacred Art vs. ignoble naturalism); analysis of structure and poetics of the entry. The emotional scenario of the day is explicated as developing from discontent to annoyance, then from disappointment to rage and indignation. The study demonstrates which rhetorical patterns are used and how the author defines himself by two symbolic figures, Karl Bryullov and Ivan Krylov. Painter and poet, respectively, they represent Shevchenko’s double-sided avatar, and also serve as tools for analysis of his traumatic past strongly influencing a new stage of his biography. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2412-9410 2782-1765 |