Diagnostician of our time

Are we always aware that perhaps the most terrible legacy of the totalitarian period, which is still immensely difficult to get rid of, is hatred for a spiritually free personality, a hatred that was imposed on more than one generation, a lurking or sometimes openly cynical suspicion, mistrust, or even hatred of anyone who dares to march out of step with time and society (read: the authorities)?

In the spiritual field, this had consequences that were more terrible than chemical poisoning: even such a truly outstanding poet as Mayakovsky used his tremendous talent to serve the totalitarian Leviathan, when he wrote: “One person is nonsense, one person is a zero” (this could not but shape the artist’s tragic destiny). Or consider the evolution of our unforgettable classics Pavlo Tychyna, Maksym Rylsky, and Mykola Bazhan in the 1920s and 1930s.

But in all times the human spirit, society, and the moral universe of nations have existed and continued to perfect themselves precisely thanks to Individuals, those who accumulate the indestructible experience of centuries and then pass the baton of life to their descendants, those who search and find, err and correct their errors, only to search again. Let us admit, without too much empty rhetoric, that the problem of spiritual authorities acclaimed by the Ukrainian people (the collective conscience of the nation) or, to be more exact, the acute shortage of such authorities in Ukraine, is now no less pressing than that of gas or bread.

Academician Ivan Mykhailovych Dziuba, the prominent Ukrainian scholar and public figure, is a unique exception. Whether or not one accepts his ideas — and as a person of unique intellect, Academician Dziuba is least suited to the role of an all-purpose oracle, the mouthpiece of the final truth on all issues — no one in Ukraine seems to be denying this person’s huge moral authority. People like Dziuba are the nation’s “golden fund.” When you analyze what Dziuba has said or written, you come across something surprising: what he has done is like a “magical window” into the world of our Ukrainian life and our common spiritual and social problems — we begin to better understand ourselves and our time. Therefore, to speak about Dziuba is in fact to speak about Ukraine and ourselves — such is the magnitude of this personality.

This is how one can formulate the brightest impression created by the roundtable debate “The Phenomenon of Ivan Dziuba,” which was held on Nov. 17 at Ukraine House on the initiative of the Cultural Council and the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Publishing House headed by Vira Soloviova. Opening the debate, Prof. Mykola Zhulynsky, director of the Taras Shevchenko Institute of Literature and member of Ukraine’s parliament, said jokingly, “Since Mr. Dziuba does not welcome this event’s ‘welcoming part’ (pardon the pun!), he sincerely requests the honored audience to make constructive and meaningful remarks rather than lavish praise. So we would like Mr. Dziuba to be an active participant in our debate and will give him the floor to respond quickly to each brief question or perhaps make some corrections or clarifications.”

The first to speak was the well-known Ukrainian literary scholar and winner of the Taras Shevchenko Prize, Mykhailyna Kotsiubynska, who presented a paper entitled “Ivan Dziuba through the Eyes of a Colleague and Peer.”

“I have long relied on Dziuba’s strong shoulder and cannot imagine a Ukraine-centered society without his continuous intellectual presence,” the speaker confessed. Then she outlined what she called “constants of the Dziuba phenomenon”: impartiality and aversion to black- and-white schemes and one-sided assessments. (I will add that this is an extremely rare trait and one that is sorely in demand right now, against the backdrop of blind categoricalness and unbridled ambitions.)

As a convincing example, Kotsiubynska cited Dziuba’s recent work The Trap, in which Bolshevism “is examined as a tragic page of our history, but not as a provincial farce that can simply be thrown away in disgust.” Another example is the “approach to Shevchenko. Dziuba approaches this topic in a historical context, without tearing apart the two basic principles: Shevchenko’s social concerns and his image of a national prophet.”

Kotsiubynska stressed that Dziuba “never embellishes a figure or an event to appease the current vogue. His analytical power has a rare and wonderful effect: it is perceived as one’s own, as though the reader has the same opinion. Dziuba is precious to Ukraine and to each one of us because he seeks to create a universal culture (yes, universal, not marginal), which is our slogan, too. His colossal erudition is not conceited (pardon the word) but warm and Ukraine-centered.”

Another very important constant of “the Dziuba phenomenon” in Kotsiubynska’s view is his “unflagging concern for ‘others,’ aversion to any kind of xenophobia, and calm and quiet ‘human-centricity.’ Dziuba loves and takes a great interest in people. Let us also express our tremendous gratitude for his never- ending and relentless fight against the plague of anti-Semitism.”

Prof. Mykhailo Stepanenko, head of the National Music Academy of Ukraine, shared some interesting and unconventional observations on the nature of “the phenomenon called Ivan Dziuba.” He confessed, “For me Dziuba is a person who, surprisingly, is also a connoisseur of music. I recall that when he was chairman of the National Shevchenko Prize Committee, which was considering nominating the prominent Crimean Tatar composer Alimdar Karamanov for our country’s highest prize, he repeatedly (at least five times!) listened to concerts of his work — before and after the prize was awarded. This music became part of him.

“At the same time, Dziuba specifically focuses on Ukraine and its culture as a whole. For example, in his interpretation the figures of Taras Shevchenko, Petro Nyshchynsky, Mykola Lysenko, and Ivan Franko belong to the same pleiad of people who were creating and building Ukraine. But the main thing is different. We are now witnessing a mass-scale, formidable, and extremely dangerous onslaught of anti-culture. So the battle for culture is in fact a battle for Ukraine. And Mr. Dziuba is playing an invaluable role here. “I recall his article on Saltykov- Shchedrin, in which he quotes an unforgettable phrase of the great satirist (“The population of this city had a propensity for eating.”) Do not forget that to some extent this also applies to us, for a great number of people are still provincial in spirit, remaining deep in their hearts residents of the USSR.”

One of the decisive and indispensable components of “the Dziuba phenomenon” is the fact that “as one of the creators of the independent Ukrainian state, Dziuba does not sing its praises but, instead, scathingly criticizes those who flatter themselves on accomplishing the false mission of national helmsmen.” This caustic remark, which caused quite a ripple in the audience, came from the Moscow- based Professor Yurii Barabash, an outstanding Ukrainian researcher of the works of Shevchenko, Gogol, and Skovoroda. Barabash directed his listeners’ attention to Dziuba’s “Renaissance-like” nature (“what is striking is the range of names he deals with: Schiller, Hugo, Slowacki, Khomiakov, Grossman, Sluckis, Khvylovy, and others.”). According to Barabash, Dziuba’s oeuvre is very closely linked with the centuries-old Ukrainian humanistic tradition, which only increases his value in our times.

For lack of space it is not possible to recount the roundtable speeches and reports in equal detail. The well-known Ukrainian poet and Shevchenko Prize winner Vasyl Herasymiuk delivered an interesting paper on “Ivan Dziuba and Poets.” A lasting impression on the audience was created by a paper entitled “The Return of Sisyphus” by Professor Oxana Pachlowska, a prominent Slavicist, which she sent from Rome.

The full text of this paper will appear in an upcoming issue of The Day, so I will confine myself to its main ideas: “Dziuba opposes the well-organized political forces that are undermining Ukraine.” “Dziuba was and still is creating a clear-cut vision of a European Ukraine. In his view, being the conscience of the nation means being in the right place at the right time when the nation is facing danger. He is ‘gathering stones’ and knows that no economic crisis poses as much danger as moral chaos; he opposes the ‘neo-jingoism,’ neo-Stalinism, and Russification that was promoted in the USSR under the slogan of ‘internationalism’ and in post-Soviet Ukraine, as ‘pragmatism.’”

And, finally, the house listened with rapt attention to the speech of the great contemporary Ukrainian poetess Lina Kostenko. “Fate decreed that we live on the fault line of epochs,” she said. “As for Dziuba, he entered the new epoch without breaking down (a lot of people did break down, unfortunately). He is integral — not the same at different times — but still integral. In the previous society, Dziuba was a tuning fork (incidentally, tuning forks live a horrid life: earlier, they used to brandish them and now they want to apply them to the ear because they unmistakably determine the pitch of sound), and now, in our society, Dziuba (I will say something unpleasant) stopped being a tuning fork because our society is sick and, therefore, he turned into a diagnostician. The title of one of his recent articles is ‘The Disappearance of the Word.’ What can be more terrible than this?”

Ms. Kostenko, who always adheres to the principle of saying what the truth prompts her rather than what will “please the audience,” said: “We must admit that the vast majority of society does not know and does not read the best works of our contemporaries. I recently read about the ranking of the books that have had the greatest impact on the ‘Ukrainian world’ in the past 15 years. There is no Dziuba there! And I would like to ask: is this really a ‘Ukrainian world’ if Ivan Dziuba has not influenced it?”

“The body politic is sick,” Kostenko’s words rang out in the silent and subdued hall, “and to cure it we must not whine and complain but work, since we have a diagnostician like Ivan Dziuba, who has one ‘weakness’: he works in a system of ethical coordinates that nobody wants now — neither the Ukrainian world that has fallen silent nor the raging anti-Ukrainian one. But I believe that the next generation will need Dziuba. Now that we are breathing in miasmas, I cannot help recalling a biblical question from the Book of Job, ‘Where is the one who counts the towers?’ So I want to say: Dziuba is one of those who count the towers. Moreover, he even wants ‘to see an honest man in his enemy’ (Dal).”

Ukraine’s premier poet concluded her speech with these words: “When a nation is facing a life-or-death dilemma, I am sure it will choose life! And Dziuba is of great help here because he is the diagnostician of our time.”

***

One should be aware of the unique modesty of Ivan Dziuba, a universally acclaimed person and a Hero of Ukraine, to properly understand the words he said as the roundtable drew to a close. “Dear friends! The ‘jubilee coefficient’ should be added to what was said here (he turned 75 this year — Author). All that I heard here brings me to the conclusion that our society badly needs a man who resembles the one eulogized here today. This will give me faith (which I sometimes lack, to be frank) and help me continue to work.”

The Day requests readers of this article to make one more “allowance.” I think that the roundtable debate was not only about our prominent contemporary Ivan Dziuba but also about all of us, our present day, and the diagnostics of our time. So let us heed his wish, “May we work in spite of everything!”