"…And Holding His Head in His Hands...": Ritualization/Humanization

Abstract

Background. Taras Shevchenko and his creativity has been accompanied by the dichotomy "ritualization/humanization" for centuries. The article aims at exploring the reasons behind this phenomenon and its impact, particularly on the study of the works and personality of our national genius, as well as at determining how to improve the means and methods of such study under current conditions of information space oversaturated with foreign and overtly hostile narratives.

Methods. General scientific (analysis–synthesis–forecast), specifically philological, historical-literary, comparative, and intermedial as well as elements of scholarly polemics and essayistic style are employed in this work.

Results. The ritualization and iconization of Taras Shevchenko's legacy have a long-standing tradition, although they have also been accompanied by opposing tendencies. On the one hand, there is deification and elevation onto a pedestal; on the other hand, there is a desire to see a real person, to bring him/her closer to the reader's heart; there is also a third, and even a fourth dimension – attempts, often disguised as iconoclasm to throw him off the pedestal at any cost. These are driven by either Herostratic complex or an antagonistic stance rooted in a form of zoological xenophobia, ranging from chauvinistic assessments during Shevchenko's lifetime to outright desecration. A macabre manifestation of the latter was the defaced monument to Taras Shevchenko in Borodianka, a town near Kyiv, where occupying forces had shot through the Socratic brow of his statue, a brutal act carried out during the temporary occupation and later liberation of the city. The article examines Osyp Makovey's satirical story "How Shevchenko Was Looking for a Job", the eponymous short film by emerging filmmakers (directed by A. Bortnyk), Mykhailo Kondratiuk's ironic story "Where to Shev?" as well as Mykola Semenko's categorical rejection of Shevchenko and his harsh attacks on Mykola Voronyi. It also presents reflections by fellow scholars on the shortcomings of school literature curricula and the strong competition posed by the cinema. An even more serious competitor is digital devices, which predominantly offer non-Ukrainian content, that is alien, and often hostile to our mentality, national character, and humanistic values, yet attractively packaged. In this case, standard curricula and textbooks prove ineffective. The solution lies not in dry didacticism or prohibitions but in encouraging the creation of content that is more talented, more engaging, and inherently our own.

As for the cinema, it should not be a rival but rather a companion to literature. A case in point is the twelve-part artistic-documentary film "Taras Shevchenko. Testament". A survey of fellow lecturers revealed that, like their students, they are largely unaware of this series. As a result, literary scholars play in their own "sandbox", filmmakers in theirs while the spiritual and cultural space around us is increasingly dominated by aggressive and lowbrow entertainment. The world has long been moving toward a new syncretism of the arts, in which the art of the word and its visual representation should hold a prominent place.

The article analyzes the satirical animated film "Ukrainian Literature: A Guide for Jerks" (2010) and its discussion with the directors (2020), as well as heated debates about modern history textbook (2025).

Conclusion. Iconization of Ukrainian literary classics is unnecessary, while desecration disguised as de-iconization is even worse. Works should be evaluated based on their overall contribution and artistic quality.