It is found out that O. Selivachov’s manuscripts, as a rule, are more complete
than publications. This is explained by the fact that censorship, editorial
abbreviations and pruning, as well as interposition were embodied during the printing
preparation process. Additionally, it is noted that in democratic society
circumstances, there is an urgent necessity in returning undeservedly forgotten
historical figures to the cultural life space of modern Ukraine, especially when
it is predetermined by totalitarian past conditions, which distorted various forms
of commemorative practices.
A special emphasis is placed on the powerful artistic, professional and spiritual
potential of several generations of the same ancestry. It is established that family
tradition is important in providing a child not only with school education, but cultural
basis as well. Herewith, along with all this, the most important is personal natural
inclination, because children of the same parents did not always choose the same
profession or occupation. And finally, when the ancestry lasted for several centuries
(regardless of the activity nature of its representatives), only this created the
opportunity itself to study the regularities and coincidences of blighty history and
culture through the genealogical prism. As a rule, such an approach always convinces
with living concreteness.
An observed specific "change of milestones" in O. Selivachov’s works since
1917 is not conditioned by the political conjuncture, taking into account the fact that
for the longest time in Kharkiv of those years (1918–1919) the power belonged not to
the bolsheviks, but to the Germans, hetmans, denikinets. This applies to the general
awareness of the culture end of the imperial period. Used by O. Selivachov names of
imaginary ideological allies show a wide range of reviewers of both classic and
folklore traditions, which represent all trends in cultural and sociological thought of
8
the XIX cent. Among them some prominent figures can be enumerated, such as
revolutionary democrats (V. Bielinskyi, M. Dobroliubov, D. Pysariev), liberals (I.
Bunin, M. Hershenzon, I. Turheniev), conservatives of mystical and Slavophile
shades (M. Hohol, O. Miller, V. Soloviov, O. Sobolevskyi), researches of religious
revival (D. Merezhkovskyi, M. Nepliuiev, L. Tolstoi). At the same time, the influence
of many of them is felt in the texts of young Kharkiv scientist.
In this study O. Selivachov's texts that reflect ideological contradictions of the
revolutionary era in relation to the classic and latest forms of artistic creativity,
particularly, in terms of aesthetic or moral didactic criteria priority, are researched. It
is revealed that texts of this young Kharkiv scientist reflect those ways in which
folklore and poetic classic glorification of late XIX cent. was quickly changing into
critical attitude at the beginning of the next century. All this was facilitated by a
variety of factors in a wide range, from conservative anti progressive ideas to
modernist and avant-garde intentions of radical renewal.
The issues of faith, religion and atheism, Epiphany and god-fighting
in symbolists’ poetry are highlighted. According to this, it is concluded that
the authors’ lyrical heroes researched by O. F. Selivachov are characterised by their
mediocrity rejection and banality, in such a way creatively developing previously
formed ideas in a new way: "a poet and a crowd", reality deification and own
personality deliberation. Despite some kind of conservative worldview, the young
scientist enthusiastically welcomed the modernists’ art that was not recognised by all
contemporaries, considering it as a talented in rich forms and meanings artistic
phenomenon. He doubted the validity of the applied label "decadence", and was
conscious of the lack of a direct correspondence between aesthetic and artistic
preferences, political and religious beliefs.
