This study is an intellectual biography of prominent Ukrainian modernist writer Ol΄ha Kobylians΄ka, who is represented not through the statics of definitions as a feminist or modernist but through the dynamics of ideological and aesthetic interactions within her texts. Yuliya V. Ladygina demonstrates how in-depth reading of Friedrich Nietzsche forms Kobylians΄ka's anti-socialist feminism and specifies her vision of nationalism particularly as a cultural project; how an aesthetic adoption of fascism contributes to Kobylians΄ka's withdrawal from her searches of the New Woman images and forms her literary ideal of masculinity; how the illusion of style mimicry emerges as a result of Kobylians΄ka's polemic with populists when her fiction refers to peasant themes but demonstrates strong anti-populist orientation.
This work focuses on processuality of Kobylians΄ka's ideological searches, writing, and social interactions and thus provides the detailed discussion on internal conflicts and contradictions that undermine canonical images of Kobylians΄ka having been represented in Soviet and post-Soviet studies. The Soviet interpretation of Kobylians΄ka as an advocate for the oppressed is challenged by her depiction of the peasantry as a wild and uncivilized mass. The image of a true feminist is deconstructed through the conceptualization of Kobylians΄ka's vision of the New Woman that is rather a thoughtful intellectual who transforms both herself and her family within the safe realm of a traditional marriage than a political activist who transforms a society. Ladygina also re-reads the image of a modernist-individualist through emphasizing the crucial for Kobylians΄ka notion of service to the national culture. Ladygina even tries to reconstruct the evolution of Kobylians΄ka's political views that progress from her absolute loyalty to the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Habsburgs to her vision of the Ukrainian national project.
It is crucial that the author tries to reinterpret Kobylians΄ka's most well-known texts. For instance, Ladygina explains the end of the novel A Person (1891) with a marriage of the main heroine not as a collapse of illusion and a life's defeat for Olena but as a positive example of “pedagogical erotics” (V. Domontovych), when a woman chooses the role of an intellectual guide and an educator for her spouse. In contrast, Sava in Kobylians΄ka's novel Land Earth (1902) is shown as a noble Nietzsche's man amidst a dark peasant mass with its “herd morality”—not a murderer but a libel victim whose strong will and character separate him from others and make him a target for rumors about fratricide.
Ladygina introduces the metaphor of a bridge between east and west for the conceptualization of Ukraine as a place for meeting of different (and rival) ideologies and for emphasizing the transformative potentialities of Ukraine as a space for a dialogue. In this regard, Kobylians΄ka is represented in the plurality of her life choices and intellectual searches. Reconstructing Kobylians΄ka's reading circle, Ladygina demonstrates how the novelistic approaches of Eugenie Marlitt, Nikolai Chernyshevskii's ideologized writing, Dmitrii Pisarev's literary criticism, and the complicated narrative techniques of both Fedor Dostoevskii and Ivan Turgenev have an impact on Kobylians΄ka's texts and her personality.
Yet this work lacks the detailed and nuanced depiction of the cultural milieu where Kobylians΄ka had been formed as a writer and an intellectual. Ladygina selectively refers to some episodes of Kobylians΄ka's biography—her polemics with populists and her professional rivalry with Natalia Kobryns΄ka. Nonetheless, these are not the only influential factors. It is essential that Kobylians΄ka's feminist attitudes were influenced by her communication with Sofia Okunevs΄ka and Lesia Ukrainka. Also, Natalia Kobryns΄ka is not only a rival but also a mentor whose influence on the forming of Kobylians΄ka's range of interests cannot be overestimated. The notion of nation as a cultural project emerges as a result of reading Nietzsche as well as communication with Lesia Ukrainka, who strongly denounces the populist concept of simplicity and understandability of “literature for people” and thus provinciality and inferiority of Ukrainian culture. Kobylians΄ka's modernism should be considered in light of a rebellion of the younger generation, whose literary searching nevertheless make an impact on the older generation of writers—Ivan Franko's “Withered Leaves” and Kobryns΄ka's modernist short stories are examples.
Still, a significant contribution of Yuliya V. Ladygina to interpreting Kobylians΄ka's prose texts includes the contextualization of her ideological and aesthetic searches and taking into account the process of Kobylians΄ka's identity formation.
