На прикладі численних алюзій прозаїка до творів світового письменства продемонстровано, що однозначність ідеологічного змісту роману істотно ускладнюється завдяки введенню в текст прямих і прихованих цитат з авторів, що жили вже після Хмельниччини: розповідач цитує як українських (Митрофан Довгалевський, Григорій Сковорода, Тарас Шевченко, Олекса Стороженко, Михайло Коцюбинський, Володимир Сосюра та ін.), так і зарубіжних письменників (Вільям Фолкнер, Анна Ахматова, Борис Пастернак). Анахронічні цитатиформують образ гетьмана як утілення всієї української історії та культури у світовому контексті, а прихований інтертекстуальний діалог підважує цілком офіціозні тези, висловлені експліцитно.
Th e paper is the fi rst part of a study on the poetics of intertext in Pavlo Zahrebelnyi’s novel “I, Bohdan”. Th e work by Zahrebelnyi vividly illustrates the diff erence between the intention of the author and the intention of the text. Th e writer’s self-commentaries were inevitably ideo-logically engaged, while the intention of the text, that is, the textual strateg y of the novel, can be reconstructed. Special attention should be paid to the textual points where the senses are generated and tensions or contradictions between diff erent levels of th&e text emerge — especially those between direct utterance and intertextual subtext. Th us, the defi nition of the intention of the text is at the same time its deconstruction, in the Derridian sense of the word. Th e & unambiguity of the ideological content of the novel is greatly complicated by the introduction of the direct and hidden quotations and allusions to the writers who lived and worked long aft er Khmelnytskyi’s time. T&h ese authors may be Ukrainian (Skov-oroda, Shevchenko, Franko, Kotsiubynskyi, Tychyna, Sosiura), Russian (Pushkin, Akhma-tova, Pasternak, Bakhtin), European and American (Mickiewicz, Faulkner, Churchill). Th e narrator of the novel is Boh&dan Khmelnytskyi, a monument in the Kyiv square and at the same time a hetman who’s dying in 1657. Th e hero exists beyond time and at every point in time. Anachronistic quotations contribute to the creation of the image of the het&man as the embodiment of all the Ukrainian history and culture in the world context. Th e narra-tor sometimes enters into a dialogue with the authors of the original texts and may argue with them. Numerous (or even all) literary v&ersions of Khmelnytskyi’s image, in the Polish and Ukrainian paradigms, the late populist and the socialist realist ones, are presented as dubious or simply false. Th e main objects of controversy are Sienkiewicz (as the author of the &novel most hostile to the hetman) and Shevchenko (as the author most critical towards Khmelnytskyi in the Ukrainian tradition). Bohdan as the founder of the new Ukrainian nation is equal to Shevchenko as a historical fi gure and prophet;& the narrator of the novel, although he disagrees with Shevchenko’s opinion, still cites it. Th e reader, in the end, must decide for himself whom he trusts more and for what reason. Since Shevchenko’s ruthless words are quoted in the fi rst chapte&r of the novel, the rest should be read in this - extremely ambiguous - ideological perspective.
