Literature studies (літературознавство; literaturoznavstvo). Literary scholarship in Ukraine originated in the baroque period. Meletii Smotrytsky was the first to transcend the bounds of grammar proper, in the scholarly treatment of prosody in his Slavonic grammar (1619). At the Kyivan Mohyla College (later Academy) students received thorough instruction in the study of styles, as is evident from the theorizing elements in their panegyrics to Petro Mohyla that appeared in books published by the Kyivan Cave Monastery Press, among them Imnolohiia ... (Hymnology ..., 1630), Eufonia veselobrmiachaia (Joyful Ringing Euphony, 1633), and, particularly, Evkharistirion ... (Eucharisterion, 1632). In 1705 Teofan Prokopovych taught a course on the theory of literature at the academy; in his lectures (published in 1786) he examined the various literary genres in a comprehensive and professional manner. With the exodus of Ukrainian scholars into the Russian imperial service in Moscow and then Saint Petersburg, the study of literature in Ukraine declined.
From the 19th century to 1917. Literature studies in Ukraine were revived in entirely different circumstances in the first half of the 19th century. Inspired by the ideas of European romanticism, the scholars Mykhailo Maksymovych, Izmail Sreznevsky, Osyp Bodiansky, Mykola Kostomarov, Yakiv Holovatsky, and Ivan Vahylevych published surveys of Ukrainian literature in almanacs and periodicals. In Western Ukraine the first survey of the kind appeared in Ivan Mohylnytsky’s Vidomost' o russkom iazytsi (Information about the Ruthenian Language, 1829). Later Panteleimon Kulish’s survey articles in the journals Russkii vestnik (1857, no. 2) and Osnova (Saint Petersburg) (1861, no. 1) and in his almanac Khata (Saint Petersburg) (1860) were particularly important for their time.
In the late 1860s the first cultural-historical studies of the development of Ukrainian literature from the perspective of evolutionary historicism were written; notable examples are the surveys of Ukrainian literature by the Russians I. Pryzhov (in his book on Little Russia, 1869) and Aleksandr Pypin and V. Spasovich (in their history of Slavic literatures, 2nd edn, vol 1, 1879). Of particular note are Mykhailo Drahomanov’s series of articles on Russian and Ukrainian literature (in the journal Pravda [Lviv], 1873, nos 4–6, 16–21; 1874, nos 1–9) and his study of Taras Shevchenko, the Ukrainophiles, and socialism in Hromada (Geneva) (no. 4 ). Unlike his Romantic precursors, Drahomanov examined Ukrainian literature from the perspective of realism and democracy.
A valuable bibliographic guide to Ukrainian writers was Mykola I. Petrov’s Russian-language history of 19th-century Ukrainian literature (1884). It had a major weakness, however: Petrov claimed that the development of Ukrainian literature was dependent on its Russian counterpart. In his 1888 critique of Petrov, Mykola Dashkevych argued that Ukrainian literature evolved independently, and his response, together with Petrov’s work, laid the foundation for further literary studies. Around the same time Omelian Ohonovsky’s history of Ruthenian literature (4 pts, 1887–94) was published in Galicia. Ohonovsky’s thesis that the writing of Kyivan Rus’ was the initial stage of Ukrainian literature elicited bitter criticism from Aleksandr Pypin and other Russian historians. The responses by Ohonovsky and his defenders Mykhailo Komarov and Ivan Nechui-Levytsky (the latter writer’s Ukraïnstvo na literaturnykh pozvakh z Moskovshchynoiu [The Ukrainian Entity in Literary Challenges with Russia, 1891]) sparked a debate which was reminiscent of an earlier one between Mykhailo Maksymovych and the Russian historian Mikhail Pogodin.
In the 19th century many literary works and chronicles of the medieval and Cossack periods were published by Russian scholarly societies, by the Shevchenko Scientific Society in Lviv, and in the documentary collections Akty, otnosiashchiesia k istorii Iuzhnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii (Documents Pertaining to the History of Southern and Western Russia) and Arkhiv Iugo-Zapadnoi Rossii (The Archive of Southwestern Russia). Their publication facilitated in-depth studies of medieval and early modern Ukrainian literature by Mykola Sumtsov, Mykhailo Markovsky, Ahatanhel Krymsky, Mykola I. Petrov, Pavlo Zhytetsky, and other scholars from the 1880s on. A particularly important role in the furthering of such literary studies was played by Ivan Franko in Galicia and by Volodymyr Peretts in Russian-ruled Ukraine; the pre-eminent representative of the so-called philological school, Peretts trained such scholars as Leonid Biletsky, Serhii Maslov, Ivan Ohiienko, Oleksander Nazarevsky, and Varvara Adriianova-Peretts. Many studies appeared in the journals Zapysky Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka and Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk in Lviv and Kievskaia starina and Ukraïna (1907) in Kyiv.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries much attention was devoted to modern Ukrainian literature, particularly to Taras Shevchenko studies, by Ivan Franko, Vasyl Shchurat, Kyrylo Studynsky, Oleksander Kolessa, Oleksander Konysky, Yuliian Romanchuk, Vasyl Horlenko, and other scholars. At that time a utilitarian, ‘neopopulist’ approach to literary studies became dominant. Its primary exponent was Serhii Yefremov; Borys Hrinchenko, Ivan M. Steshenko, and Oleksander Hrushevsky were other prominent neopopulists. In contradistinction to the neopopulists a small group of scholars (Mykola Yevshan, Volodymyr Doroshenko, and others) advocated an esthetic approach to the study of literature.
The interwar years. Literature studies entered an entirely new phase in the early Soviet period. Until the onset of the Stalinist terror in the early 1930s, the Historical-Philological Division of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (VUAN) published many articles in the field of literary theory in its periodicals and collections, authoritative annotated texts of old Ukrainian literature, and pioneering monographs by such scholars as Volodymyr Peretts (on the medieval epic Slovo o polku Ihorevi [The Tale of Ihor’s Campaign, 1926]), Dmytro Abramovych (on the Kyivan Cave Patericon, 1931), and Volodymyr Riezanov (5 vols on Ukrainian drama, 1926–9). Mykhailo Hrushevsky published a major history of old Ukrainian literature (5 vols, 1923, 1925–7) using a cultural-historical approach that was similar to that of the neopopulists. Mykola Zerov, Pavlo Fylypovych, Mykhailo Drai-Khmara, Viktor Petrov, Mykhailo Mohyliansky, Oleksander Doroshkevych, Oleksander Biletsky, Yarema Aizenshtok, Ahapii Shamrai, Mykhailo Novytsky, Mykhailo Markovsky, Andrii Muzychka, Aleksandr Leites, Mykola Plevako, Petro Rulin, Taras Slabchenko, and Oleksander Bahrii made pioneering contributions to the study of modern Ukrainian literature; their work was published separately or in numerous VUAN serials and collections of articles. Shevchenko studies in particular flourished. Scholars edited, provided scholarly introductions to, and annotated the collected or selected works of Taras Shevchenko and most other prominent Ukrainian writers that were published by the State Publishing House of Ukraine and several co-operative publishers (the Rukh publishing house, Knyhospilka, Slovo, and others). Formalistic research thrived, and new textbooks on the history of Ukrainian literature and theoretical studies (by Borys Yakubsky, Dmytro Zahul, Borys Navrotsky, Hryhorii Maifet, and others) appeared. Scholars also published their research and literary criticism in several literary journals, particularly Chervonyi shliakh, Zhyttia i revoliutsiia, and Krytyka (1928–32).
At the same time, however, literature studies were hampered by political interference in scholarship. Marxist critics representing the Party line (Volodymyr Koriak, Andrii Richytsky, Volodymyr Yurynets, Ivan Lakyza, Samiilo Shchupak, Yevhen Hirchak, Andrii Khvylia, Borys Kovalenko, Hryhorii Ovcharov, and, later, Illia Stebun, Semen Shakhovsky, and others) falsified the history of Ukrainian literature, and with the Stalinist assault on ‘bourgeois nationalism’ and the resulting terror and physical destruction of almost an entire generation of Ukrainian intellectuals in the early 1930s, literature studies virtually disappeared. Restrictions on what the few surviving scholars could research and write effectively negated the achievements of the 1920s.
The postwar years. There was no noticeable change until the post-Stalin ‘thaw’ that began in the mid-1950s. At that time the Institute of Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR became the central, co-ordinating institution of literature studies in Ukraine, and a special commission chaired by the institute’s director was created to guide and determine the work of literary scholars at all postsecondary institutions in Ukraine.
Between the mid-1950s and 1991 the development of literature studies in Ukraine was uneven. Truly scholarly works in literary theory, particularly in esthetics, were sorely lacking. With the exception of I. Ivano’s Ocherk razvitiia esteticheskoi mysli Ukrainy (Outline of the Development of Ukraine’s Esthetic Thought, 1981), which, significantly, was published in Russian and in Moscow, most of what was written in the field of literary theory was dogmatic and propagandistic. Soviet Ukrainian theorists were not allowed to, or did not, deal with Western theories in their research. Only a few works devoted to general or concrete theoretical subjects were published; among them are Petro Volynsky’s book on the foundations of literary theory (1962), Volodymyr Kovalevsky’s book on rhythmic devices in Ukrainian literary verse (1960), and Vasyl Lesyn and O. Pulynets’s brief dictionary of literary terms (1961).
Research on 11th- to 13th-century Ukrainian literature was generally neglected in the postwar period. It was discussed in Ukrainian in journal articles, in a chrestomathy of old Ukrainian literature (1948; 3rd edn 1967) edited by Oleksander Biletsky, in a few other reference books on Ukrainian literature, and in Mykhailo Hrytsai, Vasyl Mykytas, and F. Sholom’s university textbook on old Ukrainian literature (1978, the first of its kind). Usually, however, it was approached within the parameters of Russian literature and written about in Russian. Slovo o polku Ihorevi is a case in point. Three editions of various renderings of it into modern Ukrainian were prepared, by Serhii Maslov (1953), Mykola Gudzii (1955), and Leonid Makhnovets (1967), but most scholarly studies of it, even by the Ukrainians Gudzii, Leonid Bulakhovsky, Mykola Sharleman, Pavlo Popov, and M. Hetmanets, were published in Russian in Moscow.
Similarly, most of the postwar research on 14th- to 18th-century Ukrainian literature was, until the late 1950s, conducted in Moscow. Soviet editions of the works of Ivan Vyshensky (1955) and Teofan Prokopovych (1961), for example, were first published in Russian in Moscow. A volume of Volodymyr Peretts’s research (1962) also appeared there in Russian, even though it dealt with 16th- and 17th-century Ukrainian literature. In the early 1960s a few important publications concerning the period appeared in Ukraine: a collection of articles about the 17th- and 18th-century Ukrainian translated narrative (1960), edited by B. Derkach, with an appendix of valuable original texts; a collection of articles about Ukrainian intermedes (1960), edited by Leonid Makhnovets; Hryhorii Syvokin’s book on old Ukrainian poetics (1960); an annotated edition of Hryhorii Skovoroda’s works (2 vols, 1961); Ya. Dzyra’s pioneering article on Samiilo Velychko’s Cossack chronicle and its influence on Taras Shevchenko in the journal Vitchyzna (1962, no. 5); and Makhnovets’s book on satire and humor in 16th- to 18th-century Ukrainian prose (1964).
A resurgence of scholarship on the literature of the period began in the early 1970s, and a few other important works were published: annotated editions of the works of Klymentii, Zynovii's son (1971), Ivan Velychkovsky (1972), and Hryhorii Skovoroda (2 vols, 1973); a modern Ukrainian edition of Mytrofan Dovhalevsky’s Poetyka (Poetics, 1973), translated and annotated by V. Masliuk; Leonid Makhnovets’s biography of Skovoroda (1972); and H. Sydorenko’s book on Ukrainian versification (1972). After the 1972–3 KGB crackdown on Ukrainian dissidents and ‘nationalist’ intellectuals in general, nothing of lasting value was published in Ukraine until the late 1970s. Later, particularly after the reforms of 1985, there was a perceptible liberalization in scholarship, and important new books appeared: an annotated anthology of late 16th- and early 17th-century Ukrainian poetry (1978), edited by V. Kolosova and V. Krekoten; a modern Ukrainian edition of Teofan Prokopovych’s philosophical works (3 vols, 1979–81); a collection of articles on the literary legacy of Kyivan Rus’ and 16th- to 18th-century Ukrainian literature (1981), edited by Oleksa Myshanych; P. Yaremenko’s books on Ivan Vyshensky (1982) and Meletii Smotrytsky (1986); an annotated anthology of 18th-century Ukrainian literature (1983), edited by Myshanych; a book on Antin Radyvylovsky’s stories (1983), edited by Krekoten; Masliuk’s book on poetics and rhetoric in Latin in the 17th and first half of the 18th century and their role in the development of literary theory in Ukraine (1983); Olena Apanovych’s book (in Russian) on the handwritten secular book in 18th-century Ukraine (1983); a collection of articles on 16th- to 18th-century Ukrainian literature and other Slavic literatures (1984), edited by Myshanych; M. Sulyma’s study of late 16th- and early 17th-century Ukrainian versification (1985); an annotated edition of Ioanikii Galiatovsky’s Kliuch razuminiia (Key of Understanding, 1985); annotated anthologies of 16th- and 17th-century Ukrainian poetry (1987, 1988), edited by Vasyl Yaremenko; and a collection of scholarly articles on Ukrainian literature of the baroque period (1987), edited by Myshanych.
Most postwar Soviet scholars focused their attention on 19th- and 20th-century literature. Many works (by Nina Krutykova and others) dealt with the subject of Ukrainian-Russian literary ties and have been of a propagandistic nature, emphasizing the salutary influence of Russian literature and writers. There were, however, works—by Mykhailo Bernshtein, Petro Volynsky, Oleh Babyshkin, Nina Kalenychenko, M. Yatsenko, P. Fedchenko, and others—which, despite their political bias, have provided abundant factual material from previously banned sources (by Panteleimon Kulish, Mykhailo Drahomanov, and others) on individual periods and problems and on such topics as journalism and literary criticism. Numerous articles and monographs on individual writers, notably on Taras Shevchenko, Ivan Franko, Lesia Ukrainka, Mykhailo Kotsiubynsky, Vasyl Stefanyk, and Olha Kobylianska appeared, as did biographies, analyses of particular aspects of the works, and even collections of primary materials and memoirs of most luminaries of 19th- and early 20th-century Ukrainian literature. Until the late 1980s, analyses were usually politically biased, however, and in certain cases authors even bowdlerized or falsified texts to try to show the love of certain Ukrainian writers for things Russian. Some of the leading postwar specialists on pre-Soviet modern Ukrainian literature were, besides those already mentioned, I. Bass, Oleksander Biletsky, L. Bolshakov, V. Borodin, D. Chaly, O. Dei, V. Herasymenko, O. Honchar, M. Hrytsiuta, Yurii Ivakin, Kalenychenko, A. Kaspruk, Leonid Khinkulov, Yurii Kobyletsky, Petro Kolesnyk, Yevhen Kyryliuk, Oleksander Kyselov, Vasyl Lesyn, M. Levchenko, Zakhar Moroz, Vasyl Mykytas, O. Honchar, Ivan Pilhuk, Fedir Pohrebennyk, Petro Prykhodko, Yevhen Shabliovsky, Semen Shakhovsky, V. Shubravsky, L. Stetsenko, Mykola Syvachenko, Hryhorii Verves, Oleksii Zasenko, and Serhii Zubkov.
In post-Stalinist scholarship on Soviet literature, in accordance with the Party line, most writers who had been destroyed in the terror of the 1930s were posthumously rehabilitated by way of selective, limited republication of their works (the exception being Ivan Mykytenko, who was widely studied and republished). Their biographies, however, were presented in a distorted manner to emphasize their Soviet patriotism, and any discussion of the reason for their untimely deaths was deliberately avoided until the reforms of 1980s. Until the late 1980s, authors of monographs and articles about the writers of the 1920s generally distorted and even denigrated their pre–socialist-realist writings (eg, Leonid Novychenko’s 1959 book on Pavlo Tychyna’s early poetry and Stepan Kryzhanivsky’s 1960 book on Maksym Rylsky) and were not allowed to discuss, except in passing and in a biased manner, the lives and works of various important literary figures (eg, Mykola Khvylovy, Volodymyr Vynnychenko, and Serhii Yefremov) who were deemed anti-Soviet. The foremost postwar specialists on Soviet Ukrainian literature were Yevhen Adelheim, Oleh Babyshkin, O. Diachenko, Vitalii Donchyk, I. Duz, Ihor Dzeverin, V. Fashchenko, K. Frolova, Z. Holubieva, Arsen Ishchuk, Yurii Kobyletsky, L. Kovalenko, P. Kononenko, B. Korsunska, N. Kostenko, Stepan Kryzhanivsky, Natalia Kuziakina, Oleh Kylymnyk, Yosyp Kyselov, Mykhailo Naienko, Leonid Novychenko, M. Ostryk, Serhii Plachynda, V. Radchenko, M. Rodko, I. Semenchuk, Yevhen Shabliovsky, Semen Shakhovsky, Dmytro Shlapak, Yelysaveta Starynkevych, H. Sydorenko, Mykola Syrotiuk, Hryhorii Syvokin, Aron Trostianetsky, A. Trypilsky, D. Vakulenko, and Mykola Zhulynsky.
Advances in literature studies nonetheless occurred in the post-Stalinist period. Works of many, though not all, writers banned under Joseph Stalin from the scholarly purview were included in various books, such as Maksym Rylsky and Mykola Nahnybida’s anthology of Ukrainian poetry (4 vols, 1957) and an anthology of the Ukrainian short story (1960) edited by Oleksander Biletsky et al. Studies of genres, particularly in pre-Soviet literature, were freely developed (eg, Hryhorii Nudha’s books on parody in Ukrainian literature , the Ukrainian ballad , and the Ukrainian poetic epic and the duma ). A few collections of materials for the study of Ukrainian literature (eg, a study edited by O. Biletsky [5 vols, 1959–63]), valuable works in literary bibliography (by L. Holdenberh, Myrosalv Moroz, Ivan Z. Boiko, and others), and Dei’s dictionary of Ukrainian pseudonyms and cryptonyms (1969) appeared. Hundreds of monographs, textbooks, literary biographies and ‘portraits,’ chrestomathies, and collections of articles, documents, and memoirs were issued, and scholars had the opportunity to publish in many periodicals, including Radians’ke literaturoznavstvo (now Slovo i chas), Ukraïns’ke literaturoznavstvo, Ukraïns’ka mova i literatura v shkoli, Inozemna filolohiia, Problemy slov'ianoznavstva, and Slov'ians’ke literaturoznavstvo i fol’klorystyka. The study of classical literature were fostered by such scholars as Oleksander Biletsky, M. Bilyk, Y. Kobiv, M. Kuzma, Masliuk, Yu. Mushak, F. Lutska, Yevhen Kudrytsky, Yu. Sak, and Y. Bahlai, and Ahapii Shamrai, Dmytro Zatonsky, Tetiana Yakymovych, Hryhorii Verves, M. Sokoliansky, Yurii Pokalchuk, Valerii Shevchuk, T. Denisova, D. Nalyvaiko, I. Zhuravska, and Oksana Pakhlovska, and other scholars wrote monographs on European, American, and other foreign literature.
Until the late 1980s, however, prominent scholars who survived Stalinism, including Oleksander Biletsky, the ‘dean’ of postwar Soviet Ukrainian literary scholarship, did not have many of their earlier, superior writings republished in representative editions of their works. Formalist and other ‘esthetic’ approaches were viewed as being incompatible with the obligatory Marxist-Leninist method. All manuscripts were subject to several levels of scrutiny—by the self-censoring authors themselves, the supervising editor of a publication, and the editorial board—and then still had to be sanctioned by a state censor. Consequently, all histories of Ukrainian literature, such as those published in two volumes in 1954–7 and 1987–8 and in eight volumes (nine books) in 1967–71, were written by ‘collectives’ of authors; the orthodox purity of all the individual contributions was thus safeguarded.
Western Ukraine and abroad, 1918–39. Under interwar Polish rule Lviv was the main center of literature studies in Western Ukraine. Ukrainian scholars were barred from Lviv University by the Polish authorities, and survived by teaching in gymnasiums or working for Ukrainian community organizations. They could, however, publish their works in Galicia, without having to endure the political constraints placed on their Soviet colleagues, in the serials of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSh), in Literaturno-naukovyi vistnyk, and in other periodicals. Older scholars, such as Ivan Bryk, Dmytro Doroshenko, Yaroslav Hordynsky, Denys Lukiianovych, Vasyl Shchurat, Kyrylo Studynsky, Ilarion Svientsitsky, and Mykhailo Vozniak, remained productive, and important contributions were also made by their younger colleagues in Lviv, notably Mykola Hnatyshak, Vasyl Lev, Luka Lutsiv, Hryhorii Luzhnytsky, Yevhen Yulii Pelensky, Volodymyr Radzykevych, Mykhailo Rudnytsky, and Mykhailo Tershakovets.
In the 1920s and 1930s most scholars who fled from Soviet rule found refuge in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, Germany, and France. Together with Galician and Bukovynian expatriates also living there they founded many new scholarly institutions, such as the Ukrainian Free University, the Ukrainian Higher Pedagogical Institute, the Ukrainian Historical-Philological Society in Prague, the Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Berlin and the Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Warsaw, all of which maintained close ties with the NTSh in Lviv. Valuable contributions to literature studies were published in the serials and collections of those institutions in Western Ukrainian, Czech, Polish, and German periodicals and in individual books by Dmytro Antonovych, Leonid Biletsky, Pavlo Bohatsky, Konstantyn Chekhovych, Dmytro Chyzhevsky, Dmytro Doroshenko, Oleksander Kolessa, Vasyl Simovych, and Stepan Smal-Stotsky in Prague, Volodymyr Birchak in Uzhhorod, Yevhen Perfetsky in Bratislava, Bohdan Lepky in Cracow, Ivan Ohiienko and Pavlo Zaitsev in Warsaw, Ostap Hrytsai in Vienna, and Elie Borschak in Paris. Several Czech scholars, notably V. Charvát, A. Hartl, Jiří Horák, J. Máchal, and František Tichý, also published works about Ukrainian literature.
Postwar scholarship outside Ukraine
Western Europe. After the Second World War many scholars sought refuge from Soviet rule and occupation as displaced persons in the Allied occupation zones in Germany. The Shevchenko Scientific Society and Ukrainian Free University were re-established in Munich, and a new body, the Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences (UVAN), was created in Augsburg in 1945. By the late 1940s most refugees had resettled overseas. Emigré literary scholars who have lived in postwar West Germany in the period after 1950 and made important contributions to the study of Ukrainian literature were Yurii Blokhyn, Dmytro Chyzhevsky, Volodymyr Derzhavyn, Anna Halyna Horbach, Ihor Kachurovsky (since 1969), Ivan Koshelivets, and Ihor Kostetsky. Another, Viktor Petrov, returned to Ukraine in 1949, and another, Mykola Hlobenko, moved to France in 1951. Only one prominent émigré literary scholar, Victor Swoboda, lived and published in Great Britain. In France contributions to literature studies were made more recently by Marie Scherrer, E. Kruba, and Leonid Pliushch.
Canada. George Stephen Nestor Luckyj, who became chairman of the Slavic studies department at the University of Toronto in 1954, played a leading role in the advancement of Ukrainian literature studies at Canadian and American universities through his pioneering English-language books, translations, and articles. Two prominent interwar scholars, Leonid Biletsky and Ivan Ohiienko, continued their literary activity after moving from Germany to Winnipeg. Other Canadian university professors have also contributed articles and books in English: the émigrés Constantine Bida and Valeriian Revutsky, and the younger, North American–educated Myroslav Shkandrij, Danylo Husar Struk, Oleh Ilnytzkyj, Irena Makaryk, and Maxim Tarnawsky. Academics who wrote articles and prepared anthologies include the Canadian-born Constantine Andrusyshen and Watson Kirkconnell (an Anglo-Canadian) and the émigré Yar Slavutych. The émigreé academics A. Malycky, N. Pedan-Popil, Jaroslav Rozumnyj, W. Smyrniw, W. Shelest, and Oleh Zuievsky and the younger, North American–educated R. Bahry, R. Karpiak, Natalia Pylypiuk, and Marko Robert Stech have contributed articles. Other postwar émigrés in Canada who have written books or articles on Ukrainian literature are M. Carynnyk, Oleksandra Chernenko, A. Horokhovych, O. Kopach, D. Kozii, P. Roienko, Yurii Rusov, Yurii Stefanyk, Meletii Solovii, and Yu. Voichyshyn. Books on Ukrainian-Canadian literature have been written by the émigrés Oleksa Hai-Holovko and Mykyta Mandryka, by the Canadian-born Jars Balan, and by the Ukrainian-Canadian Communist writer Peter Krawchuk.
United States. Of the Ukrainian literary scholars who emigrated to the United States after the Second World War Hryhory Kostiuk, Bohdan Kravtsiv, and Yurii Lavrinenko, in particular, produced important literary studies, anthologies, and editions of the repressed Soviet Ukrainian writers of the 1920s and 1930s. Books in Ukrainian have also been written and/or edited by other émigrés, including Vasyl Barka, V. Bezushko, Bohdan Boychuk, Vasyl Chaplenko, O. Drai-Khmara-Asher, Petro Holubenko, Sviatoslav Hordynsky, Vasyl Lev, Luka Lutsiv, Hryhorii Luzhnytsky, Petro Odarchenko, S. Pohorily, Volodymyr Radzykevych, Bohdan Romanenchuk, and Anatol Yuryniak. Among American academics Ukrainian literature was first treated systematically in the 1940s and 1950s by Clarence Augustus Manning of Columbia University. Since the 1950s, émigré scholars have taught at American universities and published English-language studies of Ukrainian literature. Books and articles have been written by the professors S. Chorney, John Fizer, George Grabowicz, and Leo Rudnytzky, and articles have been contributed by other university scholars, such as Larissa Onyshkevych, Maria Pshepiurska-Ovcharenko, Bohdan Rubchak, George Yurii Shevelov, and Wolodymyr Zyla. Bibliographic research in Ukrainian literature has been conducted by Marta Tarnavska.
Eastern Europe. Until the late 1980s postwar Ukrainian literature studies developed in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania not without ideological constraints. Nonetheless, important works were produced there, particularly in the area of the literary relations between those countries and Ukraine. Scholars in Poland have written on both old and modern Ukrainian literature. Books and articles have been produced there by the Ukrainian Stepan Kozak and Volodymyr Mokry and the Poles Marian Jakóbiec, M. Kuplowski, P. Lewin, Ryszard Łużny, Florian Nieuważny, and Elżbieta Wiśniewska. Articles have been written by Ukrainians, such as Ya. Hrytskovian, M. Iwanek, V. Nazaruk, Antin Seredynsky, and M. Syvitsky, and by the Poles G. Pazdro, F. Sielicki, and Przemysław Zwoliński. Ukrainian literature studies in Czechoslovakia focused on Ukrainian-Czechoslovak literary relations, the history of Transcarpathian literature, and contemporary Ukrainian writing in the Prešov region. Books and/or articles were written there by the Ukrainian scholars Yurii Bacha, Zina Genyk-Berezovska, Fedir Kovach, Mykhailo Molnar, Mykhailo Roman, Olena Rudlovchak, Y. Shelepets, and Orest Zilynsky and by the Czechs Mikuláš Nevrlý and V. Židlický. In Romania there has been only one prominent scholar of Ukrainian literature, Mahdalyna Laslo-Kutsiuk in Bucharest.
Elsewhere. Ukrainian literature studies in other parts of the world have had few contributors. In Brazil Vira Vovk has taught and written in Portuguese on Ukrainian literature. In Argentina Ihor Kachurovsky wrote in Spanish on Ukrainian literature while living there in 1948–69. In Australia studies of Ukrainian literature have been written by the émigrés Pavlo Bohatsky, O. Fylypovych, Sylvestr Haievsky, and Dmytro Nytchenko (Chub). Since the early 1980s the first Australian university lecturer in Ukrainian literature, Marko Pavlyshyn of Monash University, has published articles on modern Ukrainian writers and on Ukrainian literature in Australia.
Peretts, V. Natsional'naia politika v SSSR i uspekhi ukrainskogo literaturovedeniia v 1917–1932 gg. (Leningrad 1933)
Bilets'kyi, L. ‘Ohliad prats' iz istoriï pys’menstva ta literaturoznavstva,’ in 2. ukraïns'kyi naukovyi z’ïzd u Prazi (Prague 1934)
Kostiuk, H. ‘Ukraïns'ke naukove literaturoznavstvo v pershe porevoliutsiine p’iatnadtsiatylittia,’ in Zbirnyk na poshanu ukraïns'kykh uchenykh znyshchenykh bol'shevyts'koiu Moskvoiu, ed M. Ovcharenko, ZNTSh 173 (Paris and Chicago 1962)
Bilets'kyi, O. ‘Shliakhy rozvytku dozhovtnevoho ukraïns'koho literaturoznavstva,’ in his Zibrannia prats' v p’iaty tomakh, vol 2 (Kyiv 1965)
Komyshanchenko, M.; et al (eds). Ukraïns'ke radians'ke literaturoznavstvo za 50 rokiv (Kyiv 1968)
Hol'denberh, L. Literaturoznavcha knyha v Ukraïns'kii RSR: Pytannia teoriï ta istoriï (Kyiv 1980)
Hurladi, M. Na poklyk zhyttia: Rozrobka ideino-estetychnykh problem literaturoznavstva na Ukraïni v pisliavoienni roky (Kyiv 1984)
Briukhovets'kyi, V.; Kovalenko, L.; Naienko, M. ‘Literaturoznavstvo i krytyka,’ in Istoriia ukraïns'koï literatury, vol 2, ed L. Novychenko (Kyiv 1988)
Ivan Koshelivets, Roman Senkus
[This article originally appeared in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine, vol. 3 (1993).]