VASYL LISOVYI. THE DISSIDENT MOVEMENT.
The word “dissident” (from the Latin dissidens, meaning “one who disagrees”), which in its historical sense was used as a name for heretics, came to refer to individuals who, from the 1960s to the early 1980s in the USSR and other countries of the “socialist camp,” questioned and criticized official communist ideology and policy. The growing number of people in the 1960s–80s who openly expressed disagreement with the official ideology and policy, and of those who in one way or another showed solidarity with them, gave grounds to speak of a “dissident movement” in the USSR. The participants of this movement themselves did not use the word “dissident” as a self-identifier; the use of this word is of Western origin. Most participants in the Ukrainian dissident movement (which later took on the character of a human rights movement) endured various forms of persecution: expulsion from educational institutions, dismissal from work, and for the most active among them, imprisonment in camps, prisons, and exile. Some of them died in the camps: Yurii Lytvyn, Valerii Marchenko, Vasyl Stus, and Oleksa Tykhyi. Others were committed to psychiatric hospitals, becoming victims of punitive psychiatry (Leonid Pliushch, Vasyl Ruban, Mykola Plakhotniuk, Mykola Yakubivskyi). The movement’s participants can be divided into two groups: those who publicly (openly) criticized official ideology and policy, either in writing or orally; and those who produced, hid, and distributed uncensored literature (the so-called samvydav). These two groups operated within a circle of “passive” participants—those who knew about the activities of individuals from the two aforementioned groups, communicated with them, sympathized with their ideas (and often held even more radical views), and were readers of uncensored literature. The dissident movement was most widespread in Ukraine, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and to a lesser extent in Armenia and Georgia.
Although the dissident movement had a political component, its foundation was an intellectual and cultural movement. Taking advantage of the process of de-Stalinization initiated by M. Khrushchev’s famous speech at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in 1956, the Ukrainian intelligentsia launched a new attempt at national and cultural revival, which came to be known as the “Sixtiers” movement. This term began to denote those representatives of the creative intelligentsia who sought to modernize Ukrainian culture and had the courage to resist the authorities through their work, which the state classified as ideologically hostile. This led to a fusion of the intellectual-cultural movement with civic and political action, giving grounds to call this a movement of resistance to Russian chauvinism and communist totalitarianism. In literature, poetry led the way (Lina Kostenko, Vasyl Symonenko, Ivan Drach, Mykola Vinhranovskyi, and others), along with literary studies and criticism (Ivan Svitlychnyi, Ivan Dziuba, Yevhen Sverstiuk, Mykhailyna Kotsiubynska). If we evaluate the literary and artistic movement of the Sixtiers based on the stylistic features and content of their works, several tendencies can be identified: (a) a predominantly traditional style, but with a thematic focus on awakening civic and national consciousness (Andrii Malyshko, Oles Honchar, Vasyl Symonenko, Dmytro Pavlychko, and others); (b) existentialism; (c) archetypal symbolism and cosmic spiritualism; and (d) “modernism,” provided that the term “modernism” is used not in its narrow sense (as a name for a specific aesthetic or style), but in a broader one—as an attempt to “renew” or “modernize” literary and artistic creation by drawing on various currents in 20th-century literature and art. The tendency referred to as “existentialism” is characterized by an emphasis on the value of the individual's inner spiritual world, a perception of the world as “my world,” and a dramatic experience of Ukraine’s fate in this world. Although this way of perceiving and understanding the world was somewhat influenced by Western literary existentialism (J.-P. Sartre, Saint-Exupéry), including the literature and art of the absurd (Camus, Kafka), the socio-political impetus for the emergence of such literature was the dramatic conflict between the individual and the system and an awareness of the tragic state of the Ukrainian nation (see Existentialism, Absurdism). This tendency is most clearly represented in the poetry and journalism of the most outstanding poet of the 1960s–80s, Vasyl Stus.
The phrase “archetypal symbolism” here denotes attempts at an intuitive-symbolic “illumination” of archetypes that either form the subtext of Ukrainian cultural identity (in particular, attempts at a symbolic-metaphorical “representation” of the structures of the collective unconscious) or relate to the metaphorics of being and the cosmos. On an intellectual level, the first tendency resonated with the psychoanalysis of C.G. Jung. This literary and artistic movement can also be described as a “return to the sources.” It found expression in various art forms of the 1960s: in the naïve painting (Kateryna Bilokur, Maria Prymachenko, Liza Myronova), in the painting of the “early” Panas Zalyvakha, in the sculpture of Halyna Sevruk, in the songwriting of Nina Matviienko, in musical composition (M. Skoryk, V. Ivasiuk, and others), in choral songwriting (L. Yashchenko and others), and in “poetic cinema.” In poetry, this movement is represented by an interest in the work of Bohdan-Ihor Antonych and in the poetic works of I. Kalynets, V. Holoborodko, M. Vorobiov, V. Herasymiuk (in the 1970s), and others. Motifs of the absurd are most clearly present in the poetry of M. Kholodnyi and H. Chubai, and partly in the poetry of I. Sokulskyi. Existential (metaphysical) symbolism is represented in the poetry of M. Vorobiov. This artistic movement was accompanied by a renewed interest in ethnographic research and the revival of Ukrainian rituals (for example, Christmas carols, which the authorities also tried to ban).
A somewhat different, though related, line of thought was a literary-philosophical current that can be termed “cosmic spiritualism”—the creation of symbolism and metaphors related to the view of humanity and the nation as part of a spiritualized Universe (O. Berdnyk and others). In addition, there were attempts at a rational justification for viewing human activity on a cosmic scale. We find such an attempt in the works and articles of M. Rudenko, who emphasized the importance of certain “forgotten” ideas—those of S. A. Podolynskyi and V. I. Vernadskyi. This direction of thought itself is worthy of high praise and corresponds to the ideas of some contemporary Western philosophers (for example, the idea of a “Mitwelt,” or common world, by K. M. Meyer-Abich).
If the term “modernism” is used in the sense of a “modernization” of aesthetics and style, it encompasses various innovative aesthetic trends, including the use of certain artistic styles of the 20th century—in poetry (Lina Kostenko, I. Drach, M. Vinhranovskyi, and others), in painting (I. Marchuk, V. Medvid, and others), in music (Sylvestrov, Hrabovskyi, Skoryk, Stankovych, and others), and so on (see Modernism, Avant-garde, Abstractionism, Expressionism, Surrealism, etc.). This art existed on the border between the public sphere and the underground, but the underground in this case was forced (and this is an important distinction from its Western or contemporary varieties). Accompanying and inspiring these literary and artistic renewals was the civic activity and creative work of such literary scholars and critics as I. Svitlychnyi, I. Dziuba, and Ye. Sverstiuk, whose most resonant works were circulated in samvydav. Among other fields of social sciences and humanities, it is necessary to mention historians (M. Braichevskyi, O. Apanovych, O. Kompan, and others), as well as journalists (V. Chornovil, V. Marchenko).
Regarding the main intellectual trends in the humanities and philosophy, alongside the tendency of existentialism, three other not always clearly articulated trends can be named: philosophical neoconservatism, critical rationalism, and philosophical revisionism (“critical dialectics”). The trend of neoconservatism (“liberal conservatism”) is most clearly represented in the literary-philosophical essays of Yevhen Sverstiuk (“Cathedral in Scaffolding,” “Ivan Kotliarevskyi is Laughing,” and others), which were circulated in samvydav. Here we are dealing more with a “Herderian tradition,” in which the “cordocentrism” (heart-centeredness) and personocentrism of existentialism are dialogically complemented by an emphasis on the importance of tradition as a source of values and meanings. However, tradition in the intellectual-cultural movement of the Sixtiers was understood not as the preservation of past cultural achievements in their unchanged form, but as their renewal, reinterpretation, and supplementation with their own creativity. It is precisely this approach to understanding tradition that allows us to understand the combination of, on the one hand, a “return to the sources,” and on the other, the innovative character of the literary and artistic work of the Sixtiers. In this line of thought, intuition plays an important role, and in the style of expression, the use of symbols and metaphors is key. This mode of thinking and expression is closer to the “philosophical style” of H. Skovoroda than to the analytical tradition. In 20th-century Western philosophy, this style is represented more by the philosophy of life (existentialism, the intuitionism of A. Bergson, hermeneutics). In this emphasis on tradition, one can find some resonances with the philosophy of the later Heidegger and the philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer. It is hard to deny some influence of these philosophers’ ideas (borrowed, in particular, from the commentaries of the “critics of bourgeois philosophy” of the time) on literary and artistic creativity. But it was not so much these external influences as the needs of national and cultural revival that prompted attempts to overcome the separation of Ukrainians from their cultural tradition, a practice of the communist regime. The phrase “critical rationalism” is used here in a broad sense (as opposed to its use for the philosophy of K. Popper) to denote a more analytical approach aimed at criticizing various mythologems and stereotypes introduced by the official ideology. Examples of this line of thought include such outstanding works of Ukrainian samvydav as “Internationalism or Russification?” by I. Dziuba, “Reunification or Annexation?” by M. Braichevskyi, “The Right to Live” by Yu. Badzio, and several others. In professional (academic) philosophy in the 1960s–80s, there was a clearly unarticulated opposition between the logical-analytical and dialectical approaches (the “dispute between logicians and dialecticians”). Proponents of the dialectical approach tried to develop a version of “critical dialectics” (“revisionism”). However, more due to the short duration of the Thaw, neither the analytical nor the revisionist tendency in professional Soviet philosophy led to the emergence of a work with broad social resonance or one that would be significant in the context of the Western philosophical tradition. Although these intellectual tendencies were not clearly represented in texts, they characterized the discussions “behind the scenes” at the time; ignoring them, like the aforementioned trends in literary and artistic life, impoverishes our understanding of the intellectual atmosphere of the 1960s.
The creation and distribution of samvydav literature became the main method of the dissident movement's activity (see Samvydav). I. Dziuba’s work “Internationalism or Russification?”, V. Chornovil’s book “Woe from Wit,” M. Braichevskyi’s long article “Reunification or Annexation?”, articles by Ye. Sverstiuk, the uncensored poetry of V. Symonenko, M. Kholodnyi, I. Drach, L. Kostenko, and I. Sokulskyi, articles by V. Moroz, various appeals and protests, information about the persecution and conditions of political prisoners in the camps, and the uncensored journal “The Ukrainian Herald,” edited by V. Chornovil, constituted the bulk of Ukrainian literature circulated in “samvydav.” To this should be added works of Russian samizdat that were distributed in Ukraine. Among diaspora publications, I. Koshelivets's book “Contemporary Ukrainian Literature,” B. Kravtsiv's work “On the Crimson Horse of Revolution,” and some others were circulated in a narrower circle. The most influential figures in the Ukrainian dissident movement were Ivan Svitlychnyi, Ivan Dziuba, Viacheslav Chornovil, and Yevhen Sverstiuk, but the movement was not centralized and consisted of many cells in which people were united by personal, professional, family, and local ties.
Research on the dissident movement can be divided into political studies, focused primarily on the question of ideology, as well as historical and sociological studies. The above overview of the intellectual and cultural foundation of the dissident movement allows for a better understanding of the sources of its ideology. Perhaps the first attempt to provide a general overview of the ideology of the Ukrainian dissident movement was made by I. Lamba-Rudnytsky. The rights of the individual and the right of nations to self-determination (and thus an appreciation of the uniqueness of Ukrainian culture and national consciousness) formed the ideological core of the Ukrainian dissident movement. However, a characteristic feature of the movement’s ideology was its lack of ethnocentrism: the appreciation of the Ukrainian nation’s cultural distinctiveness was based on a universal attitude of respect for the world's cultural diversity and, accordingly, respect for any other nation and the cultural identity of national minorities. This also included an appreciation for dialectal differences within the Ukrainian nation (the attitude toward the film “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” can be considered indicative in this regard). Respect for other nations and the defense of the rights of national minorities ensured solidarity among representatives of different nationalities within the Ukrainian dissident movement—Jews, Crimean Tatars, Belarusians, etc. This was a position that found expression in concrete actions—public speeches (e.g., I. Dziuba's speech at Babyn Yar), statements (e.g., by P. Hryhorenko and others in defense of the Crimean Tatars), and the collection of relevant information (e.g., S. Karavanskyi’s collection of information about the execution of Polish officers at Katyn).
Of course, the general, “framework” ideology outlined here united people with different personal worldviews and ideological positions—from the “radically” right-wing (with an orientation towards private property and an independent national state), including some with tendencies towards integral nationalism (V. Moroz), to people with socialist orientations. Many former members of the OUN and UPA or their children joined or at least sympathized with the dissident movement, recognizing that a different historical situation required a different ideology for the national liberation struggle. In the political camps, there were no fundamental disagreements or conflicts between dissident prisoners and former members of the OUN and UPA; instead, there was a sense of solidarity. However, some dissidents genuinely adhered to the position of “socialism with a human face” (a position close to the right wing of social democracy). Ideological texts that set the goal of Ukraine's secession from the USSR and the formation of an independent Ukrainian state were, as a rule, intended for conspiratorial circulation among a narrow circle of people (e.g., the “Draft Program” of the Lukianenko–Kandyba group, Ye. Proniuk’s article “The State and Tasks of the Ukrainian Liberation Movement,” and others). In the Ukrainian dissident movement, so-called “pure democrats” (“liberal democrats”), who did not consider an orientation toward the assertion of Ukrainian national self-awareness and an independent Ukrainian state to be important, were few and far between. Some individuals from persecuted religious confessions (Greek Catholics, Baptists, etc.) also joined the dissident movement. As for national-communism, the mere use of communist rhetoric, particularly in appeals to official bodies, cannot be a reliable basis for classifying the author of a text as a convinced national-communist. Although individual texts by Ukrainian dissidents that circulated in samvydav contained elements of Marxist and communist rhetoric, they were, as a rule, based on a logic that contradicted the Marxist class principle. After all, all the most important value-laden concepts (freedom, human rights, justice, equality) in almost all opposition texts of that time were derived from outside the framework of class ideology. As a result, in their texts, fundamental concepts and values did not undergo destruction through the application of the class principle; on the contrary, their intrinsic value and self-sufficiency were defended. If the official communist ideology claims that socialist democracy is a higher type of democracy (compared to “bourgeois democracy”), then the dissidents demanded that at least elementary democratic norms be observed. Since the USSR Constitution proclaims freedom of speech, then it should be freedom of speech (hence the demand to adhere to the Constitution). If there is talk of just inter-ethnic relations and the equality of nations, then practice should not demonstrate the implementation of opposite principles. After the USSR signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1975, the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords was created in Ukraine in November 1976 (see Ukrainian Helsinki Group). Its creators were M. Rudenko, O. Berdnyk, O. Meshko, L. Lukianenko, and P. Hryhorenko (Moscow). Gradually, many participants of the dissident movement became members of the UHG. This was possible because the recognition of individual human rights was an important component of the intellectual-cultural movement of the 1960s from which the dissident movement grew and which sustained it. However, in the Ukrainian dissident movement, the recognition of the importance of personal rights was always combined with the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination as an important element of the international legal order, as well as the recognition of the rights of national minorities. The individual and national-cultural identity remained two important values even when the dissident movement acquired a human rights character. This attitude was preserved and even strengthened when the Ukrainian Helsinki Union was formed on the basis of the UHG, which, in turn, became the foundation for the creation of Ukraine's first democratic party—the Ukrainian Republican Party. The ideology of the Ukrainian dissident movement became the basis of the so-called “national-democratic” ideology: this term itself is somewhat unusual in the context of Western political ideologies, as every Western democratic ideology naturally includes a national aspect—an appreciation of national-cultural identity and national interests. The use of the term “national-democratic” points to the specificity of the Ukrainian situation, the need to emphasize the establishment of an independent Ukrainian national state, as opposed to a purely democratic ideology, which could also be conceived from the perspective of the democratization of the USSR. This also applies to the opposition of the terms “communists” and “national-communists.” What has been said here about the ideology of the dissident and human rights movement requires a longer conversation about the fate of Marx’s idea of “real humanism”: the desire to establish humanism through social revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat led (in the Bolshevik use of this idea) to mass terror and genocide. Therefore, to have “socialism with a human face,” it was necessary to reject the class-based destruction of basic values.
As for historical research, which at the same time contains elements of sociology, L. Alexeyeva's book “History of Dissent in the USSR” retains its value even today (given its coverage of all varieties and links of the dissident movement in the USSR). Regarding the Ukrainian dissident movement, following some research published in the West, the most important historical studies today are the book by Georgiy Kasyanov “The Dissenters” (Kyiv, 1995) and Anatoliy Rusnachenko's “The National Liberation Movement in Ukraine” (Kyiv, 1998). The second of these books also provides the most complete bibliography (the list covers publications in Ukraine and the West). Much more has been done in the publication of sources: multi-volume editions of the works of V. Stus and V. Chornovil, I. Dziuba, individual books by dissidents, collections of documents, memoirs, etc. Regarding the publication of various kinds of documents—statements, appeals, letters, etc.—it is necessary to note the activities of international human rights organizations (particularly Amnesty International Publications) and Ukrainians in the diaspora: this concerns both periodical publications (e.g., the journal “Suchasnist”) and individual publications. A significant contribution to this cause was made by the “Smoloskyp” publishing house, headed by O. Zinkevych. It regularly published collections of documents of the Ukrainian human rights movement (in particular, the voluminous books “The Ukrainian Human Rights Movement,” 1978; “The Ukrainian Helsinki Group,” 1983, and others), and also published the English-language newspaper “Smoloskyp,” which published various documents of the Ukrainian dissident movement. Since 1992, the publishing house has been operating in Ukraine and has a Museum of Samvydav—the richest collection of texts of Ukrainian samvydav in Ukraine (see “Smoloskyp”). The Museum of the Sixtiers, founded on the initiative of N. Svitlychna (chairman of the board M. Plakhotniuk), also collects and preserves documents of the dissident movement.
The first attempt at a sociological study of the dissident movement in Ukraine (the number of participants in the two aforementioned groups, their ethnic and social origin, age, marital status, profession, level of education, geography of residence and activity, etc.) was made by B. Krawchenko in a small section titled “The Dissidents” (about three pages), included in his book “Social Change and National Consciousness in Twentieth-Century Ukraine” (1985). Today, this line of research includes the collection of information about participants of the dissident movement, which is being carried out by the Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, headed by Ye. Zakharov; V. Ovsienko (Kyiv), who has written a large number of biographical notes on dissidents, also works within this group. The achievement of these efforts was the publication of the “International Biographical Dictionary of Dissidents of Central and Eastern Europe and the Former USSR. Vol. 1, Ukraine. Parts 1 and 2. – Kharkiv, 2006,” compiled by Ye. Zakharov and V. Ovsienko (the first part contains an introductory article by Ye. Zakharov, “The Dissident Movement in Ukraine, 1954-1987”). The Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group has also created the website “Virtual Museum: The Dissident Movement in Ukraine” (http://museum.khpg.org), which hosts biographical information about individuals, interviews, memoirs, and research. To date, important information has been collected in the form of interviews with participants of the dissident movement, including video interviews (O. Dyrdovskyi, V. Ovsienko, V. Kipiani, Yu. Zaitsev, and others). B. Zakharov based his “An Outline of the History of the Dissident Movement in Ukraine (1956–1987). – Kharkiv, 2003” on fresh audio interviews with dissidents. Nevertheless, unfortunately, we still lack systematic studies of the communication circles associated with the spread of samvydav, particularly the contacts or “paths” whose topography within Ukraine would allow us to assess both the scale of distribution and the number of people involved in this activity. An important sociological characteristic of the dissident movement in Ukraine is its relatively high degree of distribution across different regions of Ukraine, despite the clear predominance of western regions over eastern ones (in Russia, the dissident movement was concentrated mainly in Moscow and St. Petersburg). One of the important features of the Ukrainian dissident movement (in comparison, say, with the Russian one) is the fact that a significant number of former dissidents became active participants in the political life of Ukraine in the late 1980s and 90s. As for the assessment of the intellectual-cultural movement of the Sixtiers and the dissident movement, a balanced assessment should obviously be based on a differentiated approach. The dissident movement contained a far-reaching project to affirm the value of the individual and the nation (in the context of appreciating the cultural diversity of the world and the cultural uniqueness of any nation or civilization). But this project was rooted in the mindset of Enlightenment idealism: there was a prevailing belief that, in conditions of freedom, people would very quickly be able to recognize true values and their proponents, and, accordingly, the formation of civic and national consciousness would happen quickly. Here we have an underestimation of the power of inertia of the stereotypes and ideologemes in the mass consciousness, formed by the imperial communist ideology. A second shortcoming lies in the fact that the critique of the communist regime was not combined with the development of specific political theories and strategies designed for the long term—for the “dismantling” of the communist empire. This refers to theories and strategies aimed at transformations in the mass consciousness, in the political system, in the economy, and in the social sphere that would ensure the successful establishment of national democratic states in the conditions of the collapse of the USSR. There were no suitable conditions for developing well-founded projects concerning the paths of reforming post-Soviet societies (due to the short duration of the “Thaw”). In the 1960s–70s, the prevailing notion in the dissident movement was that the time when such concrete theories would be needed was not as close as it actually turned out to be. And this was reflected in the readiness of national-democratic parties for the situation that arose after the collapse of the USSR. The neglect by national-democratic parties of the role of political education and enlightenment, the underestimation of organizational and personnel aspects of party management, as well as the role of discussion in party life and in communication with the “grassroots,” led to the prevalence of authoritarian leadership, monologism of party leaders, and so on. In general, behind this lies an underestimation of the role of critical self-awareness as an important sign of the quality of political elites and as the main means of radical transformation of the mass consciousness inherited from the communist regime (see National-Democracy). But this criticism and self-criticism do not undermine the historical significance of the dissident movement in the radical political transformations that are the collapse of the USSR and the fall of communist totalitarianism. Most researchers consider the dissident movement a special period of the national liberation movement and recognize its decisive role in the emergence of the modern independent Ukrainian state. In contemporary publications, attempts to give a balanced, predominantly multi-faceted assessment of both the intellectual-cultural movement of the Sixtiers and the dissident movement associated with it are prevalent.
Lit.: “Prisoners of Conscience in the USSR: Their Treatment and Conditions.” – Amnesty International Publications, 1975. Alexeyeva, L. “History of Dissent in the USSR.” – Khronika Press, 1984. Krawchenko, Bohdan. “Social Change and National Consciousness in Twentieth-Century Ukraine.” // Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1987. Lysiak-Rudnytsky, I. “The Political Thought of Ukrainian Sub-Soviet Dissidents.” In “Historical Essays.” Vol. 2. – Kyiv, 1994. Kasyanov, H. “The Dissenters: The Ukrainian Intelligentsia in the Resistance Movement of the 1960s–80s.” – Kyiv, 1995. Rusnachenko, A. “The National Liberation Movement in Ukraine: mid-1950s – early 1990s.” – Kyiv, 1998. “The Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords.” Vol. 1. “Personalities.” Vols. 2–4. “Documents and Materials.” Kharkiv, 2001 (compiled by Ye. Zakharov and V. Ovsienko). Zakharov, B. “An Outline of the History of the Dissident Movement in Ukraine (1956–1987).” – Kharkiv, 2003. “International Biographical Dictionary of Dissidents of Central and Eastern Europe and the Former USSR.” Vol. 1. Ukraine. Parts 1, 2. – Kharkiv, 2006 (Part 1 contains an introductory article by Ye. Zakharov, “The Dissident Movement in Ukraine”). Korotenko, A., Alikina, N. “Soviet Psychiatry: Delusion and Intent.” – Kyiv, 2002. . “The Ukrainian Human Rights Movement.” Compiler O. Zinkevych. – Toronto – Baltimore, 1978. “The Ukrainian Helsinki Group.” Compiled by O. Zinkevych. – Toronto – Baltimore, 1983. Svitlychnyi, I. “The Voice of the Era.” – Kyiv, 2001. Dziuba, I. M. “Internationalism or Russification?” – Kyiv, 2005. Dziuba, I. M. “From the Well of Years.” In 3 volumes. Vol. 1 – Kyiv, 2006. Sverstiuk, Ye. “On a Festival of Hopes.” – Kyiv, 1999. Chornovil, V. “Works in Ten Volumes.” Vols. 1–4. – Kyiv, 2002–2005. Lukianenko, L. “I Will Not Let Ukraine Perish.” – Kyiv, 1994. “Mykhailo Braichevskyi. The Scholar and the Person.” – Kyiv, 2002. “Vasyl Stus. In Life, Work, Memoirs, and Assessments of Contemporaries.” – Baltimore – Toronto, 1987. Badzio, Yu. “The Right to Live.” – Kyiv, 1996. Snegirov, G. “A Novel-Denunciation.” – Kyiv, 2000. Marchenko, V. “Creativity and Life.” – Kyiv, 2001. Kheifets, M. “Ukrainian Silhouettes.” – “Suchasnist,” 1983. Surovtsova, N. “Memoirs.” – Kyiv, 1996. Horska, A. “The Red Shadow of the Viburnum. Letters, Memoirs, Articles.” – Kyiv, 1996. Horbal, M. “One of the Sixty. Memoirs.” – Kyiv, 2001. Rudenko, M. “Memoirs.” – Kyiv – Edmonton – Toronto, 1998. Batenko, T. “An Opposition Personality of the 20th Century: A Political Portrait of B. Horyn.” – Lviv, 1997. Marynovych, M., Gluzman, S., Antoniuk, Z. “Letters from Freedom.” – Kyiv, 1999. Sverstiuk, Ye. “‘This is the Choice’ (A Bio-bibliographical Essay).” – Kyiv, 2002. “Three Uprisings of the Sichkos.” – Kharkiv, 2004. Berdychowska, B., Hnatiuk, O. “Rebellion of a Generation.” – Kyiv, 2004. Meshko, O. “I Will Not Retreat!” – Kharkiv, 2005. Ovsienko, V. “The Light of People. Memoirs and Journalism.” Books 1 and 2. – Kyiv – Kharkiv, 2005. Moroz, R. “Against the Wind.” – Lviv, 2005. Horyn, B. “Not Only About Myself.” – Kyiv, 2006.
V.S. Lisovyi
July 17, 2007. 