The Historical Memory of Alla Horska in the 1970s–80s
Oleksiy ZARETSKY, PhD in Philology, Head of the Department for the Coordination of Domestic and Foreign Centers of Ukrainian Studies
Collection of Academic Papers of the National Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies. – Kyiv, 2010. – Vol. XXVII.
Abstract. The article investigates the destruction of the historical memory of the Ukrainian people. It shows the specific features of this process in the case of Alla Horska during the last decades of the existence of Soviet Ukraine. A pivotal role in the preservation of historical memory was played by the material about A. Horska in the fourth issue of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* (*Ukrainian Herald*), published by V. Chornovil. For many years, this material served as the main source for publications about A. Horska abroad, and from the late 1980s, in Ukraine as well. A discourse analysis of publications in samvydav and abroad is conducted. The article identifies the mechanisms of the aberration of historical memory under conditions of restrictions and oppression, which led to an uncritical attitude toward V. Chornovil’s material. A critical analysis of documents from the Sectoral State Archive of the SBU is also provided.
Keywords: historical memory, Ukrainian people, Soviet Ukraine, samvydav, aberration of memory.
The Soviet authorities either destroyed the memory of Ukraine’s history or distorted (falsified) it. The reasons and methods for this are beyond the scope of our research, but they have been sufficiently and deeply studied and are well known in Ukraine. The concept of historical memory has been developed, in particular, by H. Vashchenko, P. P. Kononenko, and Ya. S. Kalakura, and is used in two senses: 1) as a natural property of a person, their ability to fix and preserve in memory the images of people, events, and phenomena; 2) as an indispensable condition for the formation and development of society. In this study, within the framework of our topic, we will attempt to investigate some situational, psychological aspects of the preservation of historical memory in the past.
Alla Horska was mentioned episodically in exhibition catalogs and the press in the 1950s–60s, in connection with her participation in official exhibitions, especially since she was a member of the Union of Artists for a time, as well as being the creator of notable monumental works. Outside Ukraine, she was mentioned sporadically, mainly in connection with the destruction of the stained-glass window in the Red Building of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv on the night of March 8–9, 1964. However, at the level of oral tradition—rumors, gossip, etc.—she was a fairly well-known person, especially after the rise and subsequent closure in 1963–64 of the “Suchasnyk” Club of Creative Youth, the destruction of the stained-glass window, the Letter of Protest of the 139 in 1968, and so on. The oral memory of Alla Horska—of her friends and colleagues—was preserved; someone probably even wrote down their recollections. Thus this oral memory, which can also be considered historical memory, a certain short-lived variety of it, was documented. It was actualized and took printed form much later, after the disappearance of censorship, in the memoirs that were published in the early 1990s.
In addition to the publication of memoirs in the early 1990s, one must also point to a unique source: the *Diaries* of Les Taniuk. The entries in them were made a few days after the event, and often on the same day. As an example, one can point to the entries about the destruction of the stained-glass window. Later, L. Taniuk was the only one in the USSR of the 1970s–80s to include an episode about A. Horska in his book *Maryan Krushelnytsky*. During those years, her personal documents, notes, letters, and artworks were kept in private hands.
After the tragic death of Alla Horska on November 28, 1970, a wave of rumors arose that was very significant—this event deeply shocked many people, and gruesome, terrifying versions of events spread throughout society. These rumors could be the subject of a separate study, but one can schematically define the main current: was it a political or a domestic murder, and if political, was it planned or spontaneous in the case of a kidnapping intended to intimidate. In either case, such a decision would have had to be made by some authority. And in the highly centralized conditions of the USSR, it would have been at a high level. This was one of the topics of discussion in the 1970s: was the decision made at the Kyiv or Moscow level. After the opening of the KGB archives relating to events before Ukraine’s independence in 2008–2009, it became known that the reaction to Alla Horska’s death was scrupulously and thoroughly monitored. The KGB of the Ukrainian SSR repeatedly sent special reports to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine (CC CPU) regarding the fact of A. Horska’s death and the mood of the people concerning her death and funeral. This is the highest form of reporting for the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR, just as the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR’s reporting was to the KGB of the USSR. The fact itself is indicative, since officially A. Horska was not involved in any anti-Soviet or other hostile and officially documented activity. The only things that can be noted are her summonses to the KGB as a witness and her expulsion from the Union of Artists (but formally for creative reasons). We should note that the Vasylkiv police, which officially discovered the body on December 2, 1970, had no grounds to urgently report to the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR about a probable domestic crime. Yet in the following two weeks, between December 3 and 18, the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR sent five special reports directly concerning Alla Horska to the CC CPU, and two that were tangentially related to her activities.
The speed at which these special reports were sent is striking. The one about her death was sent on December 3, 1970—the day after the body was officially discovered by the Vasylkiv police. The special report on public sentiment was sent on December 5—the very day when the question of organizing the funeral and choosing the cemetery was being decided. On December 8, there was a special report about the funeral—the day after it took place on December 7. On December 11 and 18, they again reported on the reactions to her death. Such a rapid response was possible only with constant operational surveillance by the KGB of the UkrSSR, dictated by a secret, as-yet-unknown order. The source of this information could only have been secret sources—reports from agents and technical surveillance materials. If reported through standard procedures, such information would have reached the KGB and the CC CPU in a matter of weeks and would have appeared in monthly or quarterly reports. Also dated December 4 is a special report on the reaction of representatives of the Ukrainian democratic movement to the conviction of V. Moroz, and on December 11, on the contacts of representatives of the Ukrainian democratic movement with the writer Vira Selianska-Vovk (from Brazil). We note that both were on friendly terms and had contact with A. Horska. One has to admit that documenting the mood of confusion, depression, and disorientation of our people was the most important task of the state security and communist authorities during this period. The swiftness with which these measures were carried out leaves no doubt that they were prepared in advance—before the murder and funeral of Alla Horska. Thus, one can speak of at least two authorities involved in the commissioning, organization, and execution of Alla Horska’s murder: the CC CPU and the KGB of the Ukrainian SSR. The very fact that such special reports were submitted provides grounds for making definitive conclusions. An analysis of the actual content of the special reports can be done in further studies. A significant part of the KGB documentation was destroyed, primarily in the summer of 1990, on the basis of a then-current regulation, as documents whose preservation was unnecessary.
In the 1970s–80s, the sources of historical memory were extremely limited and were formed in a tense, dramatic atmosphere of a ruthless, cruel, yet systemic, deeply-echeloned struggle by the totalitarian state against the Ukrainian national democratic movement. Meanwhile, the repressive machine itself simulated a situation as if nothing special was happening. Although, for example, M. Yakovlev’s book, which was reprinted many times and translated into Ukrainian, acknowledges the fact of such a large-scale struggle.
Historical memory was formed differently in the illegal samvydav and the Western press. The most important document (text) for shaping the historical memory of Alla Horska in the 1970s–80s was the fourth issue of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* (*Ukrainian Herald*), which was distributed in samvydav and was also passed to the West by V. M. Chornovil and published there.
The *Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Studies* provides the following description: “*Ukrainskyi Visnyk* (*Ukrainian Herald*) – an uncensored samvydav journal. From 1970–74, 6 issues were published, which were reprinted (with the exception of no. 5) in the West and published by the Smoloskyp publishing house. Some issues were published in English and French.”
From the perspective of the historical memory of Alla Horska, the following aspects can be singled out. The article “The Tragic Death of A. Horska” in the fourth issue of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* was the only article about Alla Horska in the West, where it was reprinted that same year by the Smoloskyp publishing house. It was repeatedly reprinted in various versions and served as a source for other materials, including dictionary entries. Behind the Iron Curtain, there were no scholars or journalists who could provide a critical assessment, supplement, or comment on this text.
Let us give a brief characterization of this journal and the material about Alla Horska, based on the complete, annotated edition of 2006.
We will conduct a discourse analysis of this material. The cover bears the dedication: “To the bright memory of Alla Horska—a citizen, an artist, a person—this is dedicated.” The text consists of the following parts: “The Tragic Death of Alla Horska”; following the text are inserts: “From the record of the ‘discussion’ of the case of the Shevchenko stained-glass window at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv”; “A. Horska’s Complaint to the Prosecutor of the UkrSSR”; the texts of speeches at the funeral: O. Serhiienko’s “A Word from Friends”; Y. Sverstiuk’s “At the Grave of Alla Horska”; I. Hel’s “Speech at the Funeral of Alla Horska”; and a poem by V. Stus, “In Memory of Alla Horska.” The *Herald* also contains a number of materials dedicated to V. Moroz, as well as materials dedicated to V. Symonenko in connection with the 36th anniversary of his birth and the 7th anniversary of his death. A. Horska is mentioned repeatedly in this material. It then discusses the extrajudicial repressions against those who spoke at A. Horska’s funeral or simply participated—O. Serhiienko, O. Zalyvakha, I. Hel.
The impression is that the text of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* was written in one breath, hastily. The editor-compiler, Valentyna Chornovil, notes: “Viacheslav Chornovil worked very conspiratorially, so only a few people were directly involved in the production of the journal. ...More people were involved in collecting and distributing the materials, who at times did not even know who the editor of the journal was or where it was published, or only guessed.” That is, there could have been typos, printing errors, and problems with deciphering the small letters of the manuscript.
Based on research from the 1990s and 2000s, some factual errors, inaccuracies, and so on can be pointed out. They caused a certain aberration of historical memory—a shift of focus, a deviation, a blurriness.
So, using a descriptive method, we will present the themes of the article about Alla Horska in *Ukrainskyi Visnyk*, issue 4. Using this scheme, we will then attempt to explicate the aberration of historical memory.
1. Announcement of Alla Horska’s death.
2. Origins. Beginnings of A. Horska’s creative activity.
3. The “Suchasnyk” Club of Creative Youth.
4. General characteristics of her activities.
5. The destruction of the stained-glass window at Kyiv University in 1964.
6. Human rights activities.
6.1 Arrests of 1965.
6.2 Statements about the illegal conduct of the investigation.
6.3 Collective statement in defense of O. Zalyvakha.
7. A. Horska’s work in the field of monumental art.
8. Human rights activities (continued).
8.1 The trial of V. Chornovil.
8.2 The Letter of Protest of the 139.
8.3 Open letter to *Literaturna Ukraina*.
8.4 A. Horska’s support for V. Moroz.
9. Circumstances of Alla Horska’s death.
9.1 A lecturer’s speech.
9.2 Three versions of her death.
9.3 The funeral.
9.4 Speeches at the funeral.
9.5 Rumors.
This was already the fourth issue of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk*. Viacheslav Chornovil wrote these texts under illegal conditions; they touched him personally on a very deep emotional level, which, however, he tried to conceal. Similarly, the article about Alla Horska is written in a somewhat dry, factual manner. The author tries to be precise in citing possible sources and offers various possible versions. V. Chornovil fully imagined his addressee: the circle of samvydav readers in Ukraine and human rights circles in the USSR as a whole, as well as the reader in the West. It is unlikely that the author, who had never been outside the USSR, could picture this reader with complete clarity. But it can be noted that the article was reprinted by *Suchasnist*, *Vyzvolnyi Shliakh*, and *Ekran*. *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* was also translated for the English- and French-speaking reader. In these publications, errors began to accumulate, caused by the extremely limited range of sources. On the whole, one can speak of a certain simplification of Alla Horska’s biography, a presentation of events in a black-and-white ideological dimension. But V. Chornovil’s text is not tendentious, and the aberration is caused mainly by the authoritativeness and uniqueness of this source of historical memory. And it is for these reasons that *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* itself laid the groundwork for a number of distortions and tendentious interpretations. We will present them according to our descriptive methodology, following the themes we have identified.
The article begins with the sentence: “On November 28, the Ukrainian artist and public figure Alla Horska was killed under unclear circumstances.” Much later it became known for certain (and not at the level of conjecture) that the Kyiv Regional Prosecutor’s Office had conducted an investigation and accused her father-in-law, Ivan Zaretsky, of A. Horska’s murder; he committed suicide on November 29 of that year. Although in principle, Viacheslav Chornovil was absolutely right—this investigation clarified nothing, but rather recorded a falsified version. But such information from V. Chornovil is certainly inaccurate. The Soviet system, as in Stalin’s time, tried to appear legally sound.
V. Chornovil writes that A. Horska “was raised in a Russified Kyiv family.” Her parents, Olena and Oleksandr Horsky, had no connection to Kyiv until late 1943, when O. Horsky was appointed director of the Kyiv Feature Film Studio, where he worked for 10 years. In essence, A. Horska was raised in a Sovietized Leningrad Ukrainian family, where she lived from 1933 to 1943. And this is significant, because the Horskys had no connection to the aggressive, Russian-speaking Kyiv petty bourgeoisie, other than the environment at the film studio at the time.
7. Regarding her monumental works: “After her expulsion from the Union (of Artists), she was forced to look for work elsewhere, creating a number of monumental and decorative complexes in the Donbas together with other artists.” This statement by V. Chornovil is inaccurate, as it was in Donetsk, and later in Zhdanov (now Mariupol), as well as in Krasnodon, that the artists found commissions that they considered quite prestigious and adequate for their artistic level.
8.2 Regarding the persecution of the signatories of the “Letter of Protest of the 139,” V. Chornovil writes: “During the crackdown for signing this statement, officially labeled ‘anti-Soviet,’ of the group of artists, only A. Horska, L. Semykina, and H. Sevruk remained uncompromising to the end, for which they were again expelled from the Union of Artists.” There is reason to assume that he, by a certain inertia, used the word “compromise,” which was common among the Sixtiers at the time. But it does not accurately convey the meaning of those events, as a compromise is a certain agreement that involves mutual concessions, concessions for the sake of achieving a goal, whereas the signatories, under specific, cruel pressure, were demanded to repent—simply to retract their signatures and condemn their actions.
9.2 About Alla Horska’s death, V. Chornovil writes: “The investigation immediately took an accusatory turn against N. Svitlychna, Y. Sverstiuk...” One can assume that this is simply an inaccuracy, caused by a lack of information in the context of writing an article urgently under conspiratorial conditions. After A. Horska’s body was discovered by the district policeman in the presence of Y. Sverstiuk and N. Svitlychna, they were taken to Kyiv almost immediately in a police car. The fact that their testimonies were not recorded was a gross violation of the code of criminal procedure*.
9.2 V. Chornovil considers possible versions of Alla Horska’s murder, and he writes: “Many believe that it was her father-in-law—an elderly man whose wife had died a year before and who had experienced mental breakdowns as a result.” The father-in-law, I. A. Zaretsky, was in a state of extreme depression, but we note that he not only never received treatment, but he never complained or sought help from either a psychiatrist or a neurologist. However, lonely people without social adaptation can often be of interest to the special services.
9.3 The following circumstances of Alla Horska’s funeral should also be noted, which can be explained by the extreme emotional tension that V. Chornovil tried not to show. He writes: “None of her relatives or close ones were allowed near the murdered woman’s body; an open casket was not permitted.” At the morgue, A. Horska was prepared for her final journey by members of the monumental section of the Union of Artists, including Iryna Levytska and Ivan Lytovchenko, as well as Nadiia Svitlychna. And it was they who decided to have a closed casket, given the poor condition of the deceased’s face. Further, V. Chornovil writes: “Alla was buried in a newly created cemetery—on a wasteland outside the city.” We should note that A. Horska was buried not in a newly created cemetery, but in an old one, though it was little known to many Kyivans. At the time it was called the Hostomel or Berkovetske cemetery, and planned burials took place there. It later became the largest cemetery in Kyiv and officially adopted the name City Cemetery. These inaccuracies may not seem fundamental, and on the whole, they do not change the picture. But in subsequent publications, they were not corrected but, on the contrary, could be deepened.
A number of foreign publications reprinted the material from *Ukrainskyi Visnyk*. We will provide a textual analysis of some of them to show the aberration. For example, the American newspaper the *Chicago Tribune* published this material in an authorized translation by its own correspondent, Frank Starr. This article contains a number of clarifications that were meant to make it understandable to an English-speaking reader: for instance, it is specified that Kyiv is the capital of Ukraine, the locations of Vasylkiv and Fastiv relative to Kyiv are indicated, it is clarified that the “KGB” is the secret police, and in the subsequent text it is simply called the police, and so on. It is stated that no official sources in Ukraine reported Alla Horska’s death, and that the *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* (translated as *Ukrainian Herald*) is an underground, illegal publication, a copy of which was passed to the West. On the whole, the translation is quite accurate, stylistically corresponds to V. Chornovil’s text, and contains minor abridgments. The English title of the article can be translated as “The high price of dissent in the Soviet Union.”
The Chicago-based Ukrainian-language magazine *Ekran* provides a short summary of the material from the *Ukrainian Herald*, which is cursorily mentioned in the summary itself, and the source is named as: “*Ameryka*.” The material states that “More and more materials are coming from Ukraine about the mysterious death of the prominent Ukrainian artist from Kyiv, Alla Horska.” In this material, A. Horska is given a high assessment: she “belonged to the most active Ukrainian public figures.” The material openly formulates some propositions, which is logical from the point of view of a Western person unfamiliar with double standards, and in a particularly tense situation in a totalitarian state. It is said that in the 1960s, “representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia would gather for discussions at the Club of Creative Youth.” The club members did constantly hold discussions, but in a somewhat covert form, and when they officially gathered for evenings, excursions, etc., they did not hold discussions. But discussion clubs are a typical phenomenon of Western civilization. From the information, it appears that the destruction of the stained-glass window at the University on the night of March 8–9 was done on the orders of the KGB, but it was actually the City Committee of the CPU, which is significant, since the communist authorities themselves constantly, albeit indirectly, blamed their crimes on the excesses of the KGB. From this information, one might conclude that after the destruction of the stained-glass window, A. Horska and L. Semykina were expelled from the Union of Artists, and P. Zalyvakha was arrested. But P. Zalyvakha was arrested only a year and a half later, and the connection with the destruction of the stained-glass window, which likely existed, was indirect. This material also states that “Ukrainian cultural figures and people who courageously and openly spoke out with criticism of the policy of Moscow-ization...” But it was simply impossible to speak out courageously and openly. On the one hand, all these aberrations, these deviations caused by a certain different point of view, are insignificant. But it should be taken into account that *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* was, of course, not the only source of information, but the most important, authoritative printed publication, and the inaccuracies in it became a significant source precisely in the aspect of historical memory.
In later publications, even encyclopedic ones, we encounter new interpretations and errors. And often the source of these were the very aberrations in V. Chornovil’s text.
Let us analyze one of the most authoritative texts about A. Horska—the corresponding entry in the *Encyclopedia of Ukrainian Studies*:
“H. A.—an activist of the Ukr. nat. Movement, a native of the Crimea.” But she was not a native of the Crimea, only born in the Crimea. And this is only at first glance of little significance. After all, an image was being created of A. Horska as a person who had no connection to Ukraine. Further—“To earn a living, she was forced to leave Kyiv.” The inaccuracy of V. Chornovil is only intensified. There are simple mistakes—“with H. Sevriuk”—and this, as we have shown, is not negligence, but an extreme lack of basic information. There was no data about the prominent artist Halyna Sevruk in any accessible reference book. The authors of the encyclopedic entry did not know that Halyna Sevruk is a woman. “Officially, the crime remained without a solution” (original spelling—O.Z.). In this case, V. Chornovil’s interpretation is even more simplified, but in this form it was presented in the vast majority of publications.
“The stained-glass window—because of its non-standard, unconventional style and patriotic content (the depiction of an angry T. Shevchenko).” One can agree with this interpretation, despite some simplification. The special significance of the discourse of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* also lies in the fact that in those tense, dramatic conditions, this text was to a certain extent sacralized, canonized. Since this information about her was the only authoritative printed source, this version was fixed, poeticized, and mythologized, which can be defined as the “death of a hero.” Basic, everyday information was being destroyed. And it was through incredible efforts that V. Chornovil and his comrades, as well as democratic circles in the West, managed to preserve historical memory.
The discourse of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* shaped the historical memory of A. Horska and her era, and it was only in the 1990s, from the first uncensored publications to the release of the book *Alla Horska: The Red Shadow of the Kalyna* in 1996, that some correction of the historical memory of A. Horska took place.
The situation in the West began to change only in the early 1980s, when Nadiia Svitlychna began working at “Radio Liberty.” She had left the Soviet Union for the West in 1978 and was well-versed in this issue. She systematically spoke about the Sixtiers and, in particular, about A. Horska. N. Svitlychna’s memoirs of A. Horska were published in Ukraine as early as 1990, and she also gave large interviews several times. N. Svitlychna’s memoirs contain a factually accurate account of what she personally knew about A. Horska. They met in 1963 in Kyiv at an evening dedicated to V. Mayakovsky, and this friendship lasted until A. Horska’s death. We should note that N. Svitlychna’s memoirs do not contain the aberration that is characteristic of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk*. The situation changed radically in 1990, when the Iron Curtain fell. Bohdan Pevny, a researcher of her biography and work from the USA, published his articles. In them, he used not only the thorough and relatively substantial publication about A. Horska from July 1990, but also preparatory materials for articles and memoirs that were provided to him by N. Vasylchenko and O. Zaretsky. He also had the opportunity to communicate with people who had not previously traveled to the United States. In these articles, the aberration of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* is generally eliminated. B. Pevny also cautiously points out that V. Chornovil’s article in *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* only laconically states some facts and proposes versions without argumentation. However, it is clear from these articles that under those conditions, V. Chornovil had no opportunity to act or write otherwise.
In the falsified Soviet historical memory, public opinion, press, and even historical science, A. Horska found herself in the position of such figures as ministers of the governments of the UNR, the Directory, and the Hetmanate, or the generals of their armies. Some of them might be mentioned in such a specific genre as the critique of bourgeois historical concepts. And these publications were small-circulation and often kept in the special collections of libraries. The same libraries held Ukrainian journals published in the West. These periodicals could also be kept in the completely secret archives of the KGB. The same can be said about the vast majority of the leaders of the OUN and UPA. Many of them completely disappeared from any official texts. The historical memory of Alla Horska also acquired a certain religious or mystical dimension.
Alexey Zaretsky
Historical Memory of Alla Horska in the 1970s–80s
Abstract. The article investigates the destruction of the historical memory of the Ukrainian people. It shows the specific features of this process in the case of Alla Horska during the last decades of the existence of Soviet Ukraine. A pivotal role in the preservation of historical memory was played by the material about A. Horska in the fourth issue of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* (*Ukrainian Herald*), published by V. Chornovil. For many years, this material served as the main source for publications about A. Horska abroad, and from the late 1980s, in Ukraine as well. A discourse analysis of publications in samvydav and abroad is conducted. The article identifies the mechanisms of the aberration of historical memory under conditions of restrictions and oppression, which led to the uncritical reproduction of V. Chornovil’s material. A critical analysis of documents from the Sectoral State Archive of the SBU is also provided.
Keywords: historical memory, Ukrainian people, Soviet Ukraine, samvydav, aberration of historical memory.
Oleksiy Zaretskyy
Historical Memory of Alla Horska: 1970s–80s
Annotation. This article examines the destruction of the historical memory of the Ukrainian people. It considers the peculiarities of this process in the case of Alla Horska during the final decades of Soviet Ukraine. The material on Alla Horska in the fourth issue of *Ukrainskyi Visnyk* (*Ukrainian Herald*), a samvydav journal edited by Viacheslav Chornovil, was a key factor in the preservation of this historical memory. For many years, this article was the primary source for publications about Alla Horska abroad and, from the late 1980s, in Ukraine as well. A discourse analysis of publications in samvydav and abroad is conducted. The article outlines the mechanisms behind the aberration of historical memory under conditions of oppression and limitation, which resulted in the uncritical acceptance of Chornovil’s material. A critical analysis of documents from the Sectoral State Archive of the SBU is also presented.
Key words: historical memory, Ukrainian people, Soviet Ukraine, samvydav, aberration of historical memory.