Author and style: intellectualization of Victor Domontovych`s artistic discourse

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

AUTHOR AND STYLE: INTELLECTUALIZATION OF VICTOR DOMONTOVYCH'S ARTISTIC DISCOURSE

Vitaliy Kononenko

Abstract

The article highlights the features of the idiostyle of Victor Domontovych, a writer of 1920s, a representative of modernist artistic discourse. The stylistic manner of the author's writing shows his intellectualism, principles of his extraordinary scientifically oriented linguistic thinking. V. Domontovych depicts artistic reality through the prism of the ontological clash of categories of rational and irrational, real and unreal, intellectual and primitive-bourgeois, sexual and asexual. Using the concepts of plausible and implausible, real and conditional, the author characterizes the psycho-behavioral stereotypes of his characters in order to comment and evaluate their actions and decisions; he often uses a descriptive and contemplative manner, and forms of logical conclusions; therefore, a symbiosis of scientific and fictional presentation is formed.

V. Domontovych's texts are full of ironic and mocking intonations in order to expose spirituality, low culture, meanness; the author strongly condemns selfishness, callousness, dishonesty in the behavior of the characters; the sharpness of his critical vision is directed against the arrogance of the intelligentsia, unjustified rationalism, scientific-like thinking, and bourgeoisie. The intellectual novels of the writer can be considered as extended metaphorical constructions, integral figurative and symbolic structures, profound artistic worldview carriers, as well as systems of meaning mythologizing. The author's usage of linguistic and stylistic means is not extensive; they are unusual in their associative-figurative aspect and intended for the domain of cognitively meaningful perception. The expressiveness of texts is achieved through an implicit coded word usage, there is space for the reader to think creatively as the texts rely on the conceptual interaction within the system Author-Text-Reader.

Keywords: idiostyle, linguistic thinking, intellectualization, irrationalism, text, artistic discourse, linguistic stylistic means.

Анотація

Кононенко Віталій. «Автор і стиль: інтелектуалізація художнього дискурсу Віктора Домонтовича

У статті висвітлено особливості ідіостилю письменника 20-х років XX ст. Віктора Домонтовича як представника модерністського художнього дискурсу. Стильова манера письма автора відтворює його інтелектуалізм, засади його неординарного науково орієнтованого мовомислення. Домонтович зображує художню дійсність через призму онтологічного зіткнення категорій раціонального й ірраціонального, реального й нереального, інтелектуального й примітивно-міщанського, сексуального й асексуального. Через тлумачення понять правдоподібного й неправдоподібного, дійсного й умовного автор схарактеризовує психоповедінкові стереотипи персонажів із метою прокоментувати, оцінити їх дії та вчинки, нерідко в описово-розсудливій формі, шляхом умовисновків; утворено симбіоз науково-белетристичного викладу.

Домонтовичеві тексти пройнято іронічно-глузливим інтонуванням задля викриття бездуховності, малокультурності, ницості; автор гостро засуджує егоїзм, черствість, непорядність у поведінці героїв; гострота його критичного бачення спрямована проти зарозумілості інтелігенції, невиправданого раціоналізму, наукоподібного мислення, міщанства. Інтелектуальні романи письменника можуть розглядатися як розширені метафоричні побудови, цілісні образно-символічні структури, носії глибинного художнього світорозуміння, системи міфологізації смислу. Мовностилістичні засоби, до яких вдасться автор, обмежені у використанні, незвичні за асоціативно-образним спрямуванням, розраховані на когнітивно осмислене сприймання. Експресія текстів досягається за рахунок імпліцитного закодованого слововжитку, з урахуванням можливого домислення з боку читача, на засадах розв'язання концептної взаємодії в системі Автор-Текст-Читач.

Ключові слова: ідіостиль, мовомислення, інтелектуалізація, ірраціоналізм, текст, художній дискурс, мовностилістичний засіб.

Introduction

domontovych idiostyle artistic discourse

The linguopoetics of Viktor Domontovych's prose discourse is a complex phenomenon, and not only for its unconventional stylistics, or literary and artistic distinctiveness, but also due to its "mystery" of sub-textual silences, the one that is not written but has to be read in between lines, and due to hidden signs of deep linguistic thinking. In the evaluation of critics "his style is neither eclectic, nor internally contradictory, nor fragmentary" [9], but it poses the question: what kind of style is it really, then? Apparently, it is in this linguistic and stylistic uncertainty, depressurization, where the author's idiostylistic purpose lies. According to linguistic and stylistic parameters, Domontovych's texts are usually included into the modernist discourse, his style of writing is corresponds to the avant-garde of the 1920s, but it is hardly fair to unambiguously include his style in the stream of a certain literary movement, to qualify it exclusively as something of the above-mentioned; the fundamental paradigm of his word usage is based on the uniqueness and extravagancy of the writer's creative search.

Theoretical background

V.Domontovych's texts astonish the modern reader with noticable differences in the application of literary norms, they catch an eye more effectively, than, say, the manifestations of Ukrainian classical writing. The texts of the author are full of a strings of words-concepts: some of them are of abstract meaning or belong to scientific terms, some of them are outdated, or rarely used names, that can be traced back partly to diaspora writers, partly to dialects and borrowings from foreign languages; e.g.: борлак (borlak) spoken 'upper bulging part of a throat, Adam's apple' [DUL, 1, 218]; каламар (kalamar) old-fashioned 'inkwell, inkstand' [DUL, 4, 74]; обол (obol) 'coin' [not recorded in DUL]; цератовий (tseratovy) - adjective to "tserata" 'oilcloth, oilskin' [DUL, 11, 201], etc.

Words acquire outdated orthoepic indicators [and different spelling leads to different pronunciation], eg: апльомб (apl'omb) [instead of aplomb], мистець (mystets') [instead of mytets'], павза (pavza) [instead of pausa], роля(rolia) [instead of rol'], силюет (syliuet) [instead of syluet], сурдука (surduka) [instead of siurtuka], фюєрверк (fiuieverk) [instead of feierverk], хемія (hemia) [instead of himia]; what is common here is the soft sound [j] in the middle of the word: ініціятива (initsiiatyva) [instead of initsiatyva], піяніно (piianino) [instead of pianino], екватаріяльний (ekvatoriial'nyi) [instead of ekvatorial'nyi]. Feminine nouns ending in consonant receive the ending -и (-y) in their genitive case: радости (radosty) [instead of radosti], стриманости (strymanosty) [instead of strymanosti], тверезости (tverezosty) [instead of tverezosti] etc.; there is also noticeable extended use of [w]; this is a result of the requirements of linguists of that period (one cannot help but take into account that modern publications of V. Domontovich works follow the foreign publication example: V.Domontovych. Prose. Three Volumes, Suchanist', 1988., that clerly marked the tastes the publisher's preferences). The external features of Domontovych's writing create the outline of an unusual, encrypted text.

Results and discussion

The profound structures of the writer's linguistic thinking rely on the perception of artistic reality as a contradictory, ambiguous phenomenon, which is not completely studied and which is determined not so much by the reproduction of processes and actions complexity, but by the dual nature; his texts are coded, his linguistic style is obscure, non-steady in its sketches and postulates, and it akin to the principles of the subconsciousness. The author's motives are built up on the antitheses of rational and irrational, real and illusory, intellectual and primitive, sexual and asexual. His ontological views and aesthetic preferences find their realization in a system of antinomies, allusions, mythologies, syllogisms, they are structured in idiostyle, which creates a linguistic picture of the world, different from the artistic strivings of the literature of that time.

In this sense, a figurative and symbolic formation based on the concepts of similarity / dissimilarity, an explication into the parallel of plausible - implausible appears as a kind of a literary construct; it lingers through the entire textual plane of the novel "Girl with a Teddy Bear". According to the dictionary, plausible is 'similar to truth, akin to what it may actually be' [DUL, 7, 500], i.e. one that is not the ultimate truth, but only similar to it, something fragile, amorphous, undefined in its result; consequently, implausible should mean 'dissimilar to truth'. The antithesis of plausible - implausible becomes the basis of the conceptual and semantic field - the kind of a core of the philosophical thinking of the main characters of the novel. Let's compare:

[1.] -- Ти завжди говориш так, щоб воно ні на що не було подібне <...> Ти повинен знати, що я не переношу подібностей. Я волітиму краще неподібного: за неправдопобідне! [- You always talk in such a way that it wouldn't look like something <...> You should know that I do not tolerate similarities. I will prefer dissimilar: [I am] for the unbelievable! ] The fragment defines the understanding of the подібного as "the one that has common features with someone, something; similar to someone, something" [DUL, 6, 745] as opposed to неправдоподібному that is perceived as "similar to the truth". Неправдоподібне in the context of the work is the denial of the obsolete, the habitual, it is the assertion of something new, modern, although it is not the whole truth.

[2.] Я запитую Зину, що може означати ця підкреслена її ворожнеча до «подібностей». Чи не знаходить вона, що за останній час ці слова «подібності» й «неподібності» зробились її улюбленими словами. Вони набули для неї значення якогось терміну, вона маніфестує цими словами <...> Звідкіля, хтів би я знати, Зина засвоїла звичку грати цими протиставленнями правдоподібного й неправдоподібного? [I ask Zyna what this emphasized hostility to "similarities" can mean. Doesn't she find that lately words like "likeness" and "dissimilarity" have become her favorite words? They have acquired a meaning of some term for her, she manifests with these words <...> I wonder, where from Zyna acquired the habit of playing with these oppositions of plausible and unlikely?] Герой не розуміє витоків вибору Зини на користь неправдоподібного, не бачить підстав змінювати поведінку згідно з цими постулатами. The character does not understand the origins of Zina's choice to favor the word неправдоподібного, he doesn't see the reason to change behavior because of these postulates.

[3.] -- Я дуже втішена, що ви помітили мою нелюбов до правдоподібного. Ви, Іполіте Миколайовичу, будете за мене, за неправдоподібне, і заперечуватимете всі правдоподібності! - <...> не розумію, чому саме я маю заперечувати правдоподібне? [I am very glad that you noticed my dislike of the plausible. You, Ipolyt Mykolaiovych, will be for me, for the improbable, and you will deny all plausibilities! - <...> I don't understand why it is me who has to deny the plausible?] The character does not support Zina, in his perspective, judging by the context, the неправдоподібне equals to delusion, fiction, a concept foreign to common sense.

[4.]-- Правдоподібне? Ви питаєте, що таке правдоподібне? Треба ненавидіти все правдоподібне, бо воно тільки подібне на правду, але не є правда. Ми ж шукатимемо самої тільки правди, а не її оманних подібностей. [Credible? You are asking, what is credible? We must hate everything that is credible, because it is only similar to the truth, but it is not the truth. We will seek only the truth itself, not its deceptive similarities] This quote reveals the logical contradiction of the character's statements: striving for the improbable is also not the whole truth, not the search for the truth.

[5.] «Ми шукали неправдоподібних істин. І ми не найшли їх. Життя зламало нас. Нічого не лишилося для надій. Я гину». [We have been looking for implausible truths. And we have not found them. Life has broken us. There is nothing left for hope. I'm dying] The existence of implausible truths is denied. Life has rejected them. However, this is far from a return to the подібного, there is no answer to the question: where the truth is.

[6.] Коли так, то навіщо ті слова, що їх вона дівчиною любила повторювати, її улюблені слова про істину й оману, про правдоподібне і неправдоподібне? [If so, what are the words for, those words she loved to repeat still being a girl, her favorite words about truth and delusion, about the plausible and the improbable? ] The character's words about the правдоподібне and the неправдоподібне turned out to be empty, insignificant, not supported by actions. Another main character generalizes the thesis, which is not proved by action, he makes it sound like life wisdom: Слова завжди відштовхували мене від себе. [Words have always chased me away from myself]. However, having rejected verbal formulas, the character does not find anything true or essential to contradict them.

The real and unreal, the rational and irrational go far beyond playing role of the fundamental "unity of opposites" in the author's philosophy; his pessimism relies on the fact that the illusory, fictional, and untrue wins because it reflects reality, because the truth is sacrificed to it. One of the means of irony concerning the "fiction" of life itself is based on the "concept substitution" in the conversations of a scientist with a five-year-old girl ("the lips of a baby speak the truth”). Let's consider fragments of the text of the novel "Doctor Seraficus".

[1.] --А ти, дядю Комахо, людина? <...>

--Усерйоз людина, чи ти тільки кажеш? Зовсім чи тільки настільки? Вона показала кінець пальця.

--Усерйоз, Ірцю! Цілком усерйоз. Така ж людина, я і ти, як і твої тато й мама!

--Не може бути! -- сказала роздратовано Ірця й тупнула ногою.

[- And are you, Uncle Komaha [meaning "an insect"], a person? <...>

-Are you really a person, or are you just saying it? Totally or only this much? She showed the tip of her finger.

Really, Irtsia! Quite really. [I am] a person, both me and you, as well as your father and mother!

-No way! Irtsia said irritably and stamped her foot.]

[2.] Коли дядя Корвин настоював, що Комаха -- не пупс, Ірця сердилась, насумрювалась і починала бити його кулаками, намагаючися зачепити за пенсне. [When Uncle Corvinus insisted that Komaha was not a doll, Irza was angry, sulky, and began to beat him with her fists, trying to get to the pince-nez]

[3.] -- Дядю Пупс, упади.

--Ну, Ірцю, мені не хочеться падати. До того ж, тут насмічено й брудно.

-- Та ні! Ти «ніби» впади.

--А, «ніби»? Гаразд! Я «ніби» впав.

[-Uncle Pups [meaning "a doll"], fall down.

-Well, Irtsia, I do not want to fall down. Moreover, it is littered and dirty here.

-Not that! You can pretend "as if" you fall down.

-Oh, "as if"? OK! I fell, "as if". ]

[4.] «Ніби -- улюблена схема слів, думок, вчинків Ірчиних. У ніби, в уявлене «неначе» замкнено всі події, все коло її днів. Вона задовольняється з ніби. Проводячи межу між ніби й тим, що є, вона ясно відчуває різницю, що відокремлює ніби від реальности, але не надає особливого значення цій різниці

["As if" seems to be Irtsia's favorite pattern of words, thoughts, and actions. "As if", an imagined "as if" incorporates all events, the whole circle of her days. She is satisfied with the "as if". Drawing the line between "as if" and what reality is, she clearly feels the difference that separates the "as if" from the reality, but she does not attach much importance to this difference.]

The fragment [1.] focuses on the incompatibility of the surname Komaha (meaning "an insect”) with the human body of the character, who had a huge body, red, shaved, square face, which resembled a pile of meat. Common sense is powerless against the girl's perception - No way! The substitution of a person with a toy displayed in the fragment [2.] reveals the rejection of her game. In the fragment [3.] the action is expressed through the reproduction of an action that takes place in the imagination ( I fell down, "as if" ). The final "touch" in the reflection is relayed in the "scientific" justification of as if - a favorite scheme of words, thoughts, actions.

The discursive word [2.] as if not only organizes the textual structure, but also expresses the unreality, hypothetical situations, and fanciful features of the reported. There arises the idea of comprehension of as if as the foundation of the imaginary world; it is not an artistic embodiment, but rather a reflection of the environment. The picture of the world is being destroyed, some impressions are being replaced by others, and there is no place of relaxation. There is an ongoing process of establishing instability, variability, inconsistency not only in the mental state of the characters, but also in the system of "real-unreal".

In the literary reality, the actions of the characters remain unfulfilled, displaced, ridiculous, and inadequate; they replace actions with contemplation, they substitute the awareness of reality with fiction. At the first glance, it doesn't seem so: the male character of "Girl with a Teddy Bear" is an engineer, a chemist, a working man, but his behavioral stereotypes are vague, confusing, and uncorrect: там, де не було жадних суперечностей, він їх вигадував [ where there were no contradictions, he invented them]. Instead of щоб мати справу з тим, що єсть, він з кожного життєвого явища утворював якусь потворну вигадку [dealing with what there is, he transformed each life phenomenon into some ugly fiction] (these observations are actually descriptive, scientific, but not presented by means of real actions or certain behaviour). The main character of "Doctor Seraphicus" would like to have his own child, but he comes up with unrealistic projects concerning its birth; he would like to be loved by a woman, but limits himself to addressing her unsent letters, in which he asks himself: Що я повинен зробити, щоб ти була... Я хотів сказати: МОЯ, потім: НІЧИЯ?! [What should I do to make you... I wanted to say: MY, then: NOBODY'S ?!] (a typical utterance of a person who is unable to act: if not mine, then at least a nobody's ); he dooms himself to failure.

In some speech situations, the unproductive, imaginary behavior of the characters is shown through the images of possible but unrealized actions: Він [доктор], певно, зовсім забув би запросити сісти. Просто він хотів, щоб вона сіла й більше не рухалась. Безглузда метушня дратувала його [He [the doctor] would probably have forgotten to offer her to have a sit. He simply wanted her to sit down and not move. He found senseless fuss irritating] ("Doctor Serafims"): he wanted her to sit down, but forgot to offer it, he wanted her to stop moving, but it was impossible. Here we have a description, a statement confirming a state, but not an enactment of the script. The writer's characters seem to live a full life, but in reality it is just something resembling a full life, it is an illusory existence, fiction.

There arises a well-known literary idea of duality as a regular pattern, ontological essence, irrational meaning of existence. Ipolyt Mykolayovych is both an engineer and a dreamer, he is far from reality; Komaha is a professor and a scientist, as well as a confused man incapable of action. In these images Yu. Sheveliov saw the reflection of the writer's personality: "a popular image of a confused scientist includes the features of the author's self-portrait" [9, 28; p.10]; however, the image of the author-analyst, observer of the "duality", confusion, inner turmoil of a man living in a semi-real world, is more complex than the written-off prototype.

The writer seeks to scientifically comprehend and evaluate the worldview of his characters in order to express his philosophical guidelines in the process of analysis, as well as to express the principles of their linguistic thinking in the intellectual projection. Let's compare, for example, the author's intentions: Передо мною Зина, яка, відчувши в собі жінку, в передчутті кохання, що ще не родилось, помацки блукає по стежках свого ще не знайденого й непізнаного кохання («Дівчина з ведмедиком») [There I can see Zina, who, having felt herself a woman, is in anticipation of love that has not yet been born, and she gropes the paths of her yet undiscovered and unknown love ] ("Girl with a Teddy Bear"). The text is built of rather dry, sensible characteristics, despite the fact that they are the words of a character in love with a girl; at the same it is a psychosomatic self-assessment of the character - an unemotional intellectual person capable of analyzing and weighing arguments; his reflections include a variant of Freudian psychoanalysis [see: 1, 14]; the only "literary" element in the fragment one can find is the dead metaphor ponders the paths of love.

Domontovych's texts are characterized with an ironic and mocking intonation of an intellectual who perceives his surrounding through the prism of a critical vision of the comic, even if it is about drama or even tragedy. The ironic effect can be traced not so much in the explicit context, as in the implicit one, in the deep structures of the subconscious. There is a kind of coded irony is the character's contemplations after a sexual intercourse: Того вечора Зина віддалась мені... Як звичайно припускають, шлюб є натуральний вихід, котрий розв'язує, або ж, принаймні, повинен розв'язувати усі життєві й літературні ускладнення. Традиції белетристичного роману XVIII-XX ст. стверджують, що для романіста немає кращого способу закінчувати твір, як одруживши «його» й «її» [That evening Zyna gave herself to me... It is commonly believed that marriage is a natural solution that solves, or at least should solve, all difficulties of life and literature. Traditions of fiction novel of the XVIII-XX centuries state that the best way for a novelist to finish his work is to marry "him" and "her"] ("Girl with a Teddy Bear"). These statements are a ruthless debunking of the character, showing his unprecedented cynicism, callousness, lack of spirituality; an intimate meeting with his beloved makes him come with empty "thoughts" ( marriage is a natural solution ), his reference to the fiction novels of the XVIII-XX centuries is the pinnacle of heartlessness, selfishness, and blasphemy. It is a devastating satire, a mockery at the "intellectual" in his secret pride.

The writer is indignant, full of contempt and repulsion, concerning the character's artificially insightful instructions he utters after the death of his once beloved woman: Зина обернулась у повію, тільки в повію <<> Вона не захотіла жити творчим життям, вона не повірила у творчу міць щоденної праці, у працю, що визволяє. [Zyna turned into a tart, just a tart <...> She did not want to lead a creative life, she did not believe in the creative power of daily work, inspiring work ]. The character masks his guilt with pompous words (creative life, creative power of daily work, inspiring work ). Satire reaches its highest register. These statements condemn not so much an arrogant person, but a character who views the unfolding horrific events only as reason to come up with "thoughtful" comments.

An undisguised irony of the comic is the thought of Another intellectual, Professor Seraficus, who is "seriously" considering the prospects of solving the "problem" of childbearing, is full of ironic thoughts that evoke a comical effect: Коли б людство було культурно розвиненіше, воно давно подбало б про те, щоб примітивний і некультурний спосіб дітонародження заступити іншим [If humanity were more culturally developed, it would have already changed the primitive and non-cultural way of birthgiving for something more sophisticated] ("Doctor Seraficus"). Here sarcasm is even more prominent, considering the fact that these "theoretical" musings belong to the scientist.

The mocking and contemptuous tone of Domontovych's discourse goes beyond his novel prose. His stories are also full of connotative overlays of irony and sarcasm. We see the devastating mockery at the new masters of life in a comical poem with the conspicuous title "Princes": --Партія,--зазначав повчально тов. Портянко, оптимістично ототожнюючи в своїй уяві себе й партію, -- я за науку!.. За природу!.. ["Party," said comrade Portianko in a teaching manner, optimistically identifying himself and the party in his imagination, - I am for science!..For nature!..]. The insulting name comrade Portyanko [meaning "pants"], the primitivism of his illiterate statements ( I am for science, for nature ), the ridiculous teaching manner, optimistically, in his imagination show the position of an intellectual who observes social processes "on the sideline". Compare: -- Ти, каже, Пилипе, шпикулянт!.. Предатель соціалізму!.. Несвідомий, буржуазний клас!.. Відрижка капіталізму!.. [ - Philip, he says, you are a speculator!.. A traitor of socialism!.. Unconscious, bourgeois class!.. Burp of capitalism!.. ] ("Trypillia tragedy") (the incompetence, rudeness, and ignorance prompt the writer's effect of categorical rejection).

The discourse demonstrates the changes in the connotations of indignation and denial to admiration, elation, and joy, when the writer-intellectual talks about works of art, or lists the brush masters; literary allusions sometimes take over the narrative of depicted events and situations, but these passages are often accompanied by several layers of ridicule and mockery. In the records of the "semi-intellectual" Ver one reads: «Коли Толстой пише: «Я живу добре! Три роки не читав і тепер не читаю жодної газети», чи не мусимо ми радіти: він -- ми, ми -- він?..» ["When Tolstoy writes:" I live well! I haven't read a newspaper for three years and now I don't do it now", shouldn't we be happy: he is us, we are him?.."] (the stupidity and naivety of statements like that do not need additional explicit comments on the author's part). According to N. Kondratenko, Domontovych's prose contains numerous intertext parallels; in particular, there is a an allusion to A.Blok's words: Чорний вітер, білий сніг!.. Подух вітру революції виніс його з села <...> [Black wind, snow white!.. The gust of wind of the revolution got him out of the village <...> ] ( "Without foundation") [4, 193]; one cannot but notice the ironic intonation of the author in the metaphor, the gust of wind of the revolution got him out of the village. Compare: На кожній плитці підлоги в кав'ярні, куди його примушував іти Корвин, Комаха вже читав написа з Дантового пекла: Lacsiate ogni speranca -- Згасіть вогні сподіванки, входячи! [On every floor tile of the coffee shop Corvyn forced him to go to, Komaha could easily read an inscription from Dante's Hell: Lacsiate ogni speranca - Extinguish the lights of hope, those who enter!] ("Doctor Seraficus") (one sees the word play around the incompatible concepts of floor tiles and elaborated Dante's poety; this "similarity" hides the intellectual- bookworm's smile).

Domontovych's intellectual romantic prose can be presented in the form of extended metaphorical constructions, integral figurative-symbolic structures, which are united by a complicated philosophical vibe, deep sub-textual meaning; it is a mythologized manifestation of an intention [see: 4, 177]. There appears an idea that the discursive plane can be covered by a single common metaphor of contradiction, the permanence of the world picture of the world, the dichotomy of man, the errancy of deeply ingrained truths. This approach allows viewing the writer's characters like living individuals with their psychosomatic traits, but rather as mannequins, representatives of a certain idea, selfconcept, or a mythologem. In this sense, there is no longer need for a mandatory selection of partial metaphors, comparisons, hyperboles, or symbols, etc.; it is general descriptions and reflections that prevail.

Such stylistic guidelines prompt readers to fall back on the linguistic and stylistic devices based on cognitive principles; a metaphor becomes internal and hidden, a comparison is obtained from the context, a symbol is perceived as a code, and an epithet acquires the features of an associative word [see: 5; 6; 7; 8]. For example, the hyperbolic exaggeration in the description of sturdy Seraficus is accompanied by the humorous name of the character - Komaha (meaning " an insect") ( -- Комаха (-- А чому ти такий дуже великий, якщо ти -- комаха? Адже ж комахи бувають маленькі? [- Why are you so very large, if you are an insect? After all, insects are small, aren't they?] ( "Doctor Seraficus”): semantic parallels very large and insect are elements of the carnivalization, a linguistic game). Consider the hidden litotes characterizing the character as a self-critical but simultaneously funny and miserable person: -- Ви бачите: я -- злиденний і ніщо! Що я можу віддати, коли в мене нема нічого ? [- You see: I am pathetic and nothing! What can I offer when I have nothing?]. The encoded symbolism is embedded in the images of the girl with a teddy bear and girl Irtsia; the first of them is the embodiment of the idea of change, transformation, potential gradual growing up, infantilism, and naivety (it is no coincidence that Zyna promises the male character to gift away the teddy bear, thus, saying farewell to children's games forever); the second image is a symbol of naivety without borders, life in a fictional world, unchanging childhood; e.g.: -- Скільки тобі років, Ірцю? -Торік було десять, а цього -- п'ять; -- Я скоро стара буду [- How old are you, Irtsia? - Last year I was ten, and this year I am five; - I will be old soon] ("Doctor Seraficus") (age changes do not interfere with the frozen naivety and primitivism of the worldview).

Consider cognitive comparisons: Корвин зробився Серафікусом, Серафікус -- Корвином, із тією, хіба, різницею, що Корвин -- більше Серафікус, а цей останній -- далеко менше Корвином, -- чи, може, і зовсім ним не став [Corvyn became Seraficus, Seraficus became Corvyn, with only the difference that Corvyn was more of a Seraficus, and the latter was far less of a Corvyn, or, perhaps, not at all] (this assimilation does not become a full-fledged comparison, the degree of similarity of one character to another is relative, it is not so much a comparison but carnivalization - a change of masks). What is exemplary is the use of several seemingly bland adjectives that evoke soothing connotations, feeling of slow selfunderstanding, but at the same time they bring on the atmosphere of a boring provincial existence, a blind alley: Комаха дивився на викривлені лінії цієї сухої, спаленої сонцем, зелено-брунатної місцевости, і його охоплювало почуття спокою і ясности <...> («Доктор Серафікус»); Із лівого боку йшли зелено- брунатні горби, порослі сухим і шорстким бур'яном [Insect looked at the uneven lines of dry, green-brown terrain scorched by the sun, and he was flooded with a sense of calmness and clarity <... > ("Doctor Seraficus"); On the left side there were green-brown hills overgrown with dry and rough weeds] (attributes dry, green-brown, uneven, scorched, rough are ironic symbols of the professor's feelings).

Domontovych's discourse revolves around the distinct motive of Kyiv - the center of gravity for thoughts and feelings, the city-mystery, the mythologem. The unexpected, often unfathomable, events and situations, described by the author, could take place only in this ancient city with its churches, monasteries, bizarre buildings, and steep mountains: У своїх нічних блуканнях вони пройшли повз будинок із химерами Notre-Dame, що звис над проваллям. У фіалкових присмерках на густій синяві неба чорно-сірі гігантські потвори розкинули свої крила. Від збудження, що ще тремтіло в них обох, нічні потвори прокинулися, щоб справити відьомський шабаш [In their nocturnal wanderings, they passed Notre- Dame, a house with chimeras, hanging over the abyss. In the violet twilight against the thick blue sky, giant black and gray monsters spread their wings. The excitement still reverberating in both of them made the night monsters wake up to perform their witches' sabbath] ("Doctor Seraficus") (the hyperbole giant black and gray monsters, metaphors monsters spread their wings, night monsters wake up, the mythologem the witches' sabbath, all that darkens the subtext of the fragment, mystifies it).