Private in the city

The three stories presented here are dedicated to three different women united by one city. Sharing a common urban space, they experienced it in different ways, given their different social positions, status and starting opportunities. The time in which they had to live their lives was in one way or another reflected in microstories from the life of each of these women. The first story is dedicated to Maria Hrushkevych, a long-time employee of the Lviv post office, who was among the "first" women employed by the state. In the second, Maria Linchak will be talked about, who was a maid in the house of Teofil and Liudmyla Hrushkevych, a chorister at the church of St. Onufry in Lviv and the heroine of numerous domestic disputes. The third story will tell about Yevhenia Barvinska, a pianist and a choir conductor, the wife of the Ukrainian politician Oleksandr Barvinskyi and the mother of their seven children. The everyday experiences of these women were obviously different. Both Marias (Maria Hrushkevych and Maria Linchak) lived in the same house for some time, but only one of them could call this house her own while for the other it was just a place where she earned a livelihood. While the first two women were approximately the same age, Yevhenia Barvinska represented rather the generation of their parents. However, no matter how striking the differences were, there was something in common that united the women of their time — a private space as a feminine scope for action. While representatives of wealthier social classes, those coming from the families of the intelligentsia, like Yevhenia Barvinska or Maria Hrushkevych, could realize themselves in this space through a family, women from the social bottom, such as Maria Linchak, mastered this space literally, making it a profitable and comfortable place for the personal life of its owners.

The 19th century defined the very idea of the house, which, with some modifications, went through the next, 20th century. The concept of the private sphere as a quiet harbour protected from the hustle and bustle of public world took shape in the 19th century. It was then that the home as the main symbol of private space, according to sociologist Eva Illouz, acquired its moral imperative: since the space of the home began to be imagined not only in opposition to work, ambitions, competition, it found itself above all of these. Women, as the personification of the home, finally secured for themselves the status of "keepers of the family hearth" with all the duties assigned to them by the ideology of "divided spheres." The idea of "a man is public, a woman is private", however, was not always a practice. In addition, this idea was typical chiefly of the upper and middle classes, that is, it had a clear social basis. A non-working wife was a status. The turn of the century and the First World War with its consequences greatly undermined this female status — not always because of the women’s choice, but also due to the family's economic need for an additional working person outside the home.

The 19th century also formed the "right to be alone" (fully realized already in the next century), i.e. the right of a person to get rid of the community’s control over his/her private life. "Free love" or marriage based on feelings actually started to be discussed in Galicia in the second half of the 19th century. At the turn of the century individualist rebellion of the young generation literally formalized the modern request to leave a person alone with what was done in his/her own bedroom. However, in the conditions of the actual legal incapacity of women (especially married women), it was the interests of men that this request served first and foremost.

The outlined peculiarity of the time in which the heroines of this study lived requires a few words about the specifics of the sources that allow some of their stories to be told. Along with the general frugality of the surviving materials about the women's past, which in the case of the main actors of the current text are represented by private correspondence and diaries, a key circumstance typical of these materials was that they were not intended to ever be told in principle. Therefore, the fragmentary nature of testimonies preserved in personal correspondence is perhaps the most obvious feature of the sources used here. Eventually, this circumstance dictated the presence of some plot in the stories chosen to be told. Another important characteristic of the sources was that not all three heroines were able to "speak" for themselves, that is, with their own handwritten texts (letters). Maria Linchak was "talked about" by her employers: all that could be learned about the woman's life were references to her in the interpretations of the owners of the house where she served.

"I want to play a joke on my boss," wrote Maria Hrushkevych, a 32-year-old post office worker, in a letter to her brother in 1911, "but I can't do it myself. He announced himself in the Halychanyn [a Muscophile daily newspaper published in Lviv in 1893-1913] more or less in this way: "A middle-aged official, lacking acquaintances, is looking for a life partner on this road" […] I want to pull his leg and write to him, but naturally in such a way that he feels like answering this letter of mine. Then I would be really satisfied with my innocent joke. I can't write this myself because he would recognize my writing, so a bit of Russian would be good here, that is, the etymological spelling." Actually, Lviv's matrimonial market of the early 20th century was indeed not without its problems both for Maria's boss and for most people of marriageable age. The "lack of acquaintances", mentioned by the man is not a statement of his own deficiency, but rather a general and understandable fact of an objective lack of opportunities for getting acquaintances, that is, a variety of places where they could happen. The reason for this state of affairs was the separation of the female and male spheres, which was present in almost all levels of public life: from gender-segregated schools, societies, and entire institutions that did not provide for women's participation in principle (such as universities until the mid-1890s, for example) to the actual prohibition of women's access to many urban entertainments and public leisure (at least in the status of "an honest woman", that is, without suffering reputational losses).

Getting married and acquiring the status of the "head of the family" for the men of Maria's generation meant a complete fulfillment. Taking responsibility for the wife and children formed the basis of the masculinity of those times and at the same time granted full legal and economic power over the family. In a patriarchal society, marriage was also one of the main economic transactions (except inheritance) that allowed men to increase capital.

It remains to be guessed how successful dating through newspaper ads really was, but towards the end of the 19th century it was obvious that more and more people were turning to this method. It is interesting that there were more marriage ads from men than announcements from potential brides. This was probably natural, given the standards of femininity at that time, among which modesty was considered one of the mandatory features. Of the 27 matrimonial advertisements published by the newspaper "Dilo" in 1908 (the number is cited without multiple repetitions of the same author's messages), nine belonged to women. Among the listed requirements, they most often mentioned "intelligence," "honesty" and "decency" (something like "likeability" in today's language); often the desired profession of the future husband was clearly indicated (the most common were seminarians, i.e. future priests, and government officials). Men's advertisements, in addition to the desired "feminine" virtues ("kind heart," "gentle disposition"), focused on dowry issues, usually stating specific amounts, as well as on appearance and sometimes on the national or religious affiliation of the chosen one.

Against the background of most similar announcements, Maria's boss probably had very good chances: firstly, because of his rather modest expectations (at least those declared), and secondly, because of his administrative profession, which was one of the most desirable among women. The only possible "restriction" of the search could be his Muscovite orientation, which was indicated not only by the man's choice of newspaper, but also by the etymological spelling with which Maria intended to meet his expectations. The national-ideological component of matrimonial searches was a relative innovation. The politicization of Galician society in the late 19th century affected private life much more often and more persistently than the feminists of that time did. At least, among its Ukrainian/Ruthenian part.

For the Ukrainian minority of Lviv at that time, the private became especially acute, first of all in the context of mixed marriages, the percentage of which in the city was higher than in Galicia as a whole (where it varied within 10%). Among the total number of spouses married in the cathedral of St. George in 1901, for example, the share of interdenominational ones equaled 46.42%, in the church of St. Paraskeva — 45.6%. Most often, Greek Catholics (who were actually identified as Ukrainians by their religious affiliation) took Roman Catholics as mixed marriage partners. In the wake of increasingly dramatic inter-ethnic Polish-Ukrainian confrontation, such alliances were treated as problematic. The fear of national identity loss or "denationalization" for the city's Ukrainian minority gave rise to various pessimistic scenarios regarding their own national perspective.

The public debate on this issue, initiated by the newspaper "Dilo" in the early 1900s, highlighted the key arguments of the parties: opponents of mixed marriages and those for whom they did not pose a problem. Interestingly, both considered women to be the culprits of the not-quite-successful national matrimonial project. Arguing for the possibility of marriage outside the framework of one’s own nation, an anonymous author of the newspaper "Dilo" cited as one of the reasons for the spread of mixed marriages among Ruthenian gentlemen that Ukrainian women were "too downtrodden and confused by concepts brought from various Basilian institutes where education was run by nuns"; in his opinion, it was due to ideals instilled there that Ukrainian women often were socially uninitiative and generally uninteresting. Their lack of idealism, independence, initiative and education simply left no choice and forced men to look for alternatives.

When Maria Hrushkevych was growing up, in the family there were probably not many female professional examples on which she could model her daily work life. Her mother Liudmyla did not work outside the home; her older sister Sofia (marriage surname Rakovska) stopped her teaching activity after she got married. It can be assumed that the only example of a woman working on a permanent basis was her aunt, Ivanna Sliuzarova, the headmistress of the St. Olha Girls' Institute in Lviv. At the end of the day, the lack of role models was in no way a specific family phenomenon of the Hrushkevychs; it was rather a standard of their social milieu by whose canons women's work took place in the family and for the family. Housekeeping, from the budget to the organization of a comfortable emotional climate, was, ideally, a women's space of action. The only possible exception to this rule was charitable or national educational activities.

At that time, most of the national policies regarding the family were based on the emotional meaning of the home. When the idea of "organic labour" of the Poles was born after the failures of the liberation uprisings, the family was imagined as a stronghold and the most reliable bastion of Polishness, the only thing that would help survive the loss of their own state. In the Ukrainian version of "organic labour", family life was endowed with similar meanings, the only exception being that the Ukrainian state should start from it. After all, the allegories surrounding the nation in both cases most often appealed to female images. As Martha Lampland explains using the example of 19th-century Hungary, the image of a nation as a mother was (and still is) "particularly suitable for a project of national development in which a productive, active and fertile economy is central" (Lampland, 2013, 89).

Unfortunately, the further family correspondence did not preserve the development of the story about Maria's joke, so it was not possible to find out whether her boss had appreciated it. What is known for certain, this event definitely did not have any consequences for the woman. Being in the vanguard of the first women in Galicia hired to work by the state, Maria Hrushkevych probably valued her job. In the late 1890s, choosing from a rather limited list of government (in modern parlance, state or public) positions available to women — "school or post office and telegraph" — she chose the latter. She graduated from the Postal and Telegraph Courses, worked in the town of Komarno near Lviv for several years and only later got a position in her hometown.

Maria's father, Teofil Hrushkevych, a teacher of classical languages at the Second (German) Gymnasium of Lviv, obviously considered it mandatory to provide his youngest daughter with an education and therefore a profession. In the end, he was not different from most parents of his generation and social status, who tried to take care of their daughters’ education within the limits of the women's educational institutions available at that time. It was due partly to ideological beliefs about the equality of children of both sexes in their right to education and partly to enable his daughter to support herself in case of need (that is, without a husband).

From the family correspondence of the Hrushkevychs and the diary of Maria's father Teofil, kept by him intermittently in 1895-1915, it is clear that Maria's work was often a topic to mention: schedule, weekdays, gossip and relations at work, arranging vacations or sick days — these were the topics, which in one or another combination appeared during the 35 years of Mania's (that's what the family called Maria Hrushkevych) work at the post office. Working "in the office" brought not only her own money, but also the feeling of being able to dispose of it. "I don't remember if I wrote to you about that," Maria recalled in a letter to her brother, "I bought a gold watch for myself. I'm very happy with it. I don’t have to regret bying things for myself, do I? That's that. I save a little money. I already have 80 crowns in the savings bank. In Komarno, they’ve laughed at me that if I keep doing it like this, I will collect a few thousand in a few decades." Maria's work had a short break at the beginning of the First World War. The return to Lviv from Vienna, where the family sought refuge in the vortex of wartime unrest, was actually caused by the need to return to work. "Lviv made an unpleasant impression on me," she wrote to her brother in September 1915, "it looked the same but seemed to lack something. There is not the animation and movement of the times before. At my post office, too, silence prevails all the time, I am staying alone and have no one to utter a word to."

In view of her belonging to a middle-class urban family, Maria's leisure activities were appropriate: theaters, exhibitions, concerts, movies, vacations outside the city, etc. In addition to professional theaters, Maria also attended amateur ones. With the appearance of the first cinemas in the city, she started to go to the cinema with her father. Also, she attended the Philharmonic. She liked to walk in the Stryisky Park, especially when "musicians" or "students playing mandolins" could be heard there. She attended public lectures: for example, her father Teofil noted in his diary on March 14, 1909, that both of his daughters attended a lecture by Ivan Kopach (a doctor of philosophy, who taught at the Lviv Academic Gymnasium) "on culture in Ruthenia."

It is clear from Maria's correspondence that she was a sociable person, loved company and preferred to keep it. In the autumn of 1935, in a letter to her sister-in-law Melania Hrushkevych, she sent a questionnaire called "chain of happiness" and popular at that time in Lviv, with the following explanations: "I am sending you, dear Melania, this "chain of happiness", it may be useful. One of my friends from the post office has imposed this on me and I have to submit it further to five more persons. You have to sign the completed sheet in the sixth place and send 1 zloty to the first one on it, "Henryk Jaros." On the blank sheets, write in turn all the names except the first one to whom the money was sent. So there you will already be in the fifth place; try to distribute all five. It's more difficult for me, as now I don't go anywhere and I don't see anyone, but the whole of Lviv is already full of this."

Being a child of a mixed marriage — her mother Liudmyla Hrushkevych, née Kligel, came from a Jewish (according to other sources, Jewish-Armenian) family and was Roman Catholic by religion, while her father Teofil traced his lineage from a Greek Catholic priestly dynasty, — Maria, as well as all three children of the couple, avoided the religious and national antagonisms in the family predicted by the Ukrainian press. She could easily combine attending the Lviv Philharmonic for a concert dedicated to Shevchenko or the Ukrainian economic and industrial exhibition in Stryi with attending a Polish theater afterwards. After all, the children being baptized according to the religious rite of the father, the Hrushkevych family not only did not follow the canons of the Concordia (a religious decree issued in 1863 by the congregation De Propaganda Fide according to which children born in mixed marriages were to be brought up according to the rite of the parents depending on their sex: boys in the father's rite and girls in the mother's rite), but did not tolerate any manifestations of inter-ethnic or inter-religious enmity in principle. "If only you knew how much gossip is in such a small town," wrote Maria to her brother from Komarno, "I found out about it when after a party some gentlemen gathered at the office. One of them started arguing about some ladies not dancing at all and some, who had protection, being so tired that they could not even catch their breath, that he danced with this lady only once and with that lady several times, that another lady had to tell a Jewish lawyer who came up to invite her "ja z żydami nie tańcue" [I don't dance with the Jews] etc. I really have a headache because of all this." Despite their religious and linguistic dualism, the Hrushkevych family managed to avoid the controversies expected by the national press against this background. The family celebrated Christmas according to both calendars, Maria’s mother Liudmyla remained Polish-speaking throughout her married life with her Ukrainian husband; at least, this is what is evidenced by her family correspondence.

"Yesterday, Mania came from the post office," Liudmyla Hrushkevych wrote to her older children, "and said that  Potocki had been shot dead , and Dad and I said it was a canard; in the meantime, at 6 a.m. a Jewish neighbour came bringing the Kurjer supplement (the Kurjer Lwowski was a daily newspaper published in Lviv in 1883-1935), so it was really what happened, and it was a Ruthenian; it's a terrible case and an unpleasant one, he has gone a little crazy, hasn't he…  I don't let Dad go anywhere, because I'm afraid, they’ve broken windows in the  Dniester " [in the original Polish version this reads as follows: "Wczoraj przychodzi Mania z poczty i mówi że Potockiego zastrzelili, a my z Tatem mówimy że to Kaczka, tymczasem o 6tej przychodzi sąsiad żyd z dodatkim Kurjera że napewne i to rusin, to stranny wypadek i nieprzyjemny, czy też nie ma on trochy bzieku, ja Tata nigdzie nie puszczam bo się boje, w Dniestrze okna powybijali"]. The event shocked the Hrushkevychs in a special way. At the beginning of his career, Teofil Hrushkevych was a teacher of the deceased and had a special feeling for this family.

Maria Hrushkevych worked at the post office for almost her entire working life, retiring on March 1, 1935, in a nation completely different from the one in which she had started her career. As a woman, she obviously experienced many changes over the years of her work: she was forced by life itself to emancipate, in the sense of realizing the vulnerability caused by her sex. However, I have not been able to find any evidence of Maria's interest in any women's movements that were actively developing at that time. Nevertheless, it is known that her older sister Sofia was a member of the Ukrainian Women's Union (the largest Ukrainian women's organization of interwar Galicia, founded in 1917), while her sister-in-law Melania Hrushkevych headed the Ruthenian Women's Society in Stanislaviv (in 1922, during her tenure, it was renamed the Society of Ukrainian Women. It is also unknown whether Maria Hrushkevych was a member of any professional associations. In 1905, an association of female post and telegraph workers called Schronisko (Polish for shelter) was founded in Lviv. The founders declared "providing moral and material assistance to its members, as well as awakening the spirit of camaraderie" the purpose of its existence.

It is obvious, however, that Maria took advantage of the opportunities that the emancipatory changes were bringing about. Her professional life is perhaps the clearest proof of this. For women of her social environment, it was just beginning to be common to earn money on their own. Work, of course, was not perceived (only) through the prism of feminist slogans, it was primarily a duty that significantly influenced life choices and the rhythm of everyday life. It was this duty that dictated Maria's return to Lviv in 1915, when all her relatives remained in forced emigration near Vienna caused by the war. Because of this, she was unable to attend the funeral of her father Teofil, who died in September 1915 in Schmidsdorf: "I am terribly sorry," Maria wrote to her brother, "that I was unable not only to be present at our dearest dad’s deathbed, but even to attend his funeral; such is my fate. It wasn't until the 5th, the day of the funeral, that I received a letter from Yas [Ivan Rakovskyi, her brother-in-law) that our dearest Dad was sick, and on the 6th another letter came telling that he had already died and the funeral had been over. You cannot go without a leave, and now leaves are granted only by the directorate itself, and only then you can apply for a passport." Professional duty influenced her decision to get vaccinated twice against smallpox, the obligatory nature of this vaccination being controlled by the police in the city during the First World War.

The woman met her retirement stoically, although not without worries, mainly because she was uncertain if her Austrian record of service would be recognized in the newly created Polish Republic. Upon retirement, Maria took care of her mother Liudmyla's tombstone at  the Lychakivsky cemetery  and the purchase of a nearby plot for herself. In the family correspondence of the Hrushkevychs, preserved in the manuscripts department of the Lviv National Vasyl Stefanyk Scientific Library, her traces are lost after 1935. It is not known whether, where and how Maria Hrushkevych survived the Second World War, whether she emigrated like her older sister Sofia's family or remained in Ukraine like the family of her brother Yaroslav.

However, such a busy schedule on a Sunday was not the norm for the girl. In spite of the fact that, theoretically, Sunday was the only day in the week that could be a day off for Catholic maids, in practice the schedule of workload and rest depended mainly on their employers. The local press often reported on all kinds of abuse of servants by unscrupulous masters. In 1898, the "Gazeta Lwowska", for example, reported on the beating of Parashka Yaremko by her employer, "Ms. N.", who lived at ul. Głęboka 1/7. According to the publication, similar cases happened in Lviv several times a week, but this one aroused the special interest of the press because of its reason. The reason for the beating was the maid’s failure to address her mistress as "noble lady."

Liudmyla and Teofil Hrushkevych never treated their servants brutally, at least there were no hints of similar cases in the family correspondence. Their dissatisfaction with Maria (whom the Hrushkevychs usually called Marynia) was due to something else: the woman's "fanatical piety"; that is how the master of the house, Teofil, defined the cause of the main conflict with her. Marynia attended church very often, causing inconvenience to her employers and not always meeting their expectations. At times, according to the author's confession, it came to "bitter words" from his side, because of which Marynia cried and "complained about her misfortune." "An unfortunate event occurred in our house early today, at half past seven," noted Teofil Hrushkevych in his diary entry dated January 27, 1909. "Marynia Linchak, a maid who has been working with us for almost three years so far, has become increasingly defiant and has begun to snap. Today she got up late, didn't prepare washing water for  Mania , who has to rush to the office early, and instead of admitting her fault, she even responded so that my wife began to cry spasmodically. I'm sorry for this maid, because she has been quite attached to the house and decent, as she doesn't look for admirers, her only pleasure being to go often to the church of the Basilian fathers. However, bigotry like this causes great destruction in the household."

In general, the Hrushkevychs were somehow particularly fortunate in having very pious maids. Another similar story appeared in Teofil's diary a few years later, this time telling about a maid who worked in his son Yaroslav's house. In this case, however, Teofil Hrushkevych rather defended the girl: "Each person looks for his or her own kind of pleasure in this needy life", reflected he on his daughter-in-law's displeasure due to the maid going on a retreat. "It isn't the poor creature's fault that she sees her only comfort in being in the church. This is a very innocent wish, perhaps the best of all others."

The example of the Hrushkevychs' maidservants' piety resonates very strongly with the then-widespread narrative about maids as being morally threatened or easily tempted — these were precisely the traits that various kinds of thematic literature where they appeared, such as manuals for servants, usually endowed them with. Written from the perspective of the employers rather than from that of the hired servant, they particularly emphasized the moral issues of female servants. The main warning was about profligacy: according to most of these manuals, this was a vice maidservants were drawn into quite easily. The fact that Maria Linchak "did not look for admirers" mentioned by Hrushkevych was not just a casual phrase since this feature was considered one of the key parameters of her personal and professional decency.

We can only guess whether Maria Linchak's frequent visits to the church were due to exclusively religious motives. Obviously, the time spent at the liturgy could be simultaneously a time of rest from the hard physical work that awaited her in the service, as well as an opportunity for socialization. This time probably also served as an attempt to organize her own private life, which was not an easy task for a maidservant.

It is interesting and hardly accidental that the personal life of their maids as discussed in the private correspondence of the masters was, a priori, an immoral phenomenon. Their romantic relationships (if their employers knew about them) were described as relationships with "admirers," "lovers" or "suitors", imposing a prosaic form of the feelings they experienced. After all, the language used to or about maids often recorded a superior attitude towards their emotional experiences. Housewives (they were considered the chief managers of the domestic servants' workload), whose letters I was able to analyze, when talking about their nannies, cooks or aids, often used the designation "stupid", without having much caution about its possible offensive nature. This characteristic not only appealed to the lack of elementary education, which these women mostly did not have, but also to their way of thinking, life principles or the choices they made.

The years of service obviously brought them closer together, making the relationship with maids more personalized. Teofil and Liudmyla Hrushkevych, for example, became godparents of their former maid Antosia Kotsurivna's daughter. As the author of the diaries noted, "there were no more godparents." However, such rapprochement was the exception rather than the common practice. In the same way, many years of service in one house was not commonplace either. According to the lists of domestic servants registered in Lviv in 1886-1917, as well as private correspondence, maids stayed in one house for many years not often.

"Attachment to the house", a feature that Hrushkevych attributed to Maria Linchak, appealed to her long period of service ("almost three years so far"), hence the probable sentiment towards the family in whose house she worked. Also, such a characteristic presupposed permanent stay at home as a norm, hence readiness to work as soon as a command was received. The physical workload of maidservants, who were most often general workers, combining different types of household activities and working as cooks, servants, laundresses, maids, porters, and sometimes babysitters at the same time, was quite serious not only in terms of working hours (at the least, they had to get up before everyone else and to go to bed after everyone else), but also on its rhythm. Marynia Linchak, being the only servant in the house, had to combine all of the above as well. In principle, a workload of this kind left little time outside of work. After all, doing nothing in the presence of the masters was a luxury almost beyond the reach of servants.

Good relations with the masters not only guaranteed positive reviews in the maids' "service books", documents that actually provided them with the possibility to work, being a kind of work record book with recommendations, but also created a number of opportunities for women who wanted to use them and knew how to do that. If we try to model the list of these opportunities, they could include basic education (reading and writing), saving and housekeeping skills, sewing and needlework. According to Teofil Hrushkevych, his daughter-in-law Melania taught her maid to read, "instilled in her frugality", "clothed her" and, according to the author, demanded "gratitude and supplication" for this. Actually, on the part of the masters, the lack of the latter became one of the key reasons for conflicts with their servants. Ingratitude was seen in any disobedience of the maid or her denial of anything to her masters.

Among the newly created opportunities in which maids could be "trained" in the homes of the Ukrainian intelligentsia in the last third of the 19th century was national awareness. The public space of the city, in view of the increasingly tangible interethnic Polish-Ukrainian confrontation, formed special narratives around private life, more and more persistently endowing it with political and ideological meanings. In the interpretations provided by the Ukrainian press, the people from the villages located in the vicinity of Lviv  (they were the majority of workers in the city at that time), were to become the first target audience for the educational influence of the national elites. It is not known how conscientiously this idea was followed in the Ukrainian homes of the city in practice. In the Hrushkevych family, the maids were not only Ukrainian, but also Polish. The name of one of them is known for sure: Agnieszka Chmilowska. According to the author of the diary, she was "a decent, humble, intelligent person belonging to the Latin rite, who anyway worked as a maidservant for the Ruthenians and was sympathetic to them."

The newspaper "Dilo" reported on the newly invented national life of maidservants in 1903, writing about a feast of "Ruthenian maids" dedicated to Taras Shevchenko and organized by the Circle of Ukrainian Girls (women's youth organization). The participants sang, recited poems and also presented a comedy performance entitled "A Duped Girl", "based,” as the publication reported, "on the well-known behaviour in our country, when a village girl, having gone to work in the city, abandons her native language and later, returning home, is ashamed of it." "Her relatives, however," the publication continued, retelling the story, "are sincere Ruthenian peasants, they don't want to know her at all, so then she repents and drops the "masters' tongue" and returns to her own [tongue]." The names of several performers are known: Parania Piven recited "A Kerchief" by Shevchenko, Hasiunia Milkush recited "The Orphan's Easter", and Kateryna Didukh recited "Shevchenko's Grave" by Borys Hrinchenko.

It is not known whether Maria Linchak had the desire and opportunity to attend similar events, and we also do not know whether she was a member of any of the city's professional unions, such as Dom opieki dla sług (Polish for the "House for the Care of Servants") or its Ukrainian counterpart, the Society for the Care of Maidservants and Female Workers. In spite of that Maria, probably, still lived some kind of social life. Due to her weekly stay within a large group of her peers in the church of the Basilian Fathers, as well as the participation in a celebration organized by one of the workers' organizations, namely the Association Syla, known to us, we can assume that she was at least familiar with possible options for spending her free time. The religious trend of her desired leisure time (the Association Syla was, by the way, headed by priests, at least in the first years of its existence), was obviously a priority for the woman.

What Maria did not have access to, however, was a regular work schedule. When the Hrushkevychs' little grandson, the son of their eldest daughter Sofia and Ivan Rakovsky, stayed in his grandparents' house, the conflicts between her and her masters became more frequent. Looking after the child was added to the usual household duties, so attending the church became more difficult, especially when she wanted to go to morning and evening services on the same day. Most likely, what Hrushkevych called her "fanatical piety" became the determining factor in the termination of their relations. In addition, in the autumn of 1909, Hrushkevych and his wife moved from Lviv to Yavoriv, where Teofil received the position of director of the Ukrainian Pedagogical Society gymnasium. However, they did not take Marynia with them or it was she who refused such a move.

It is not known how Maria Linchak's life turned out later: did she continue to work as a maid in another place, did she change the field of earning a livelyhood, mastering a more prestigious and better-paid position like a cook, perhaps became a "salaried worker" at a factory or manufacture, or did she get married and leave the service? Among the possible options for young and unmarried women, the last option was considered one of the most successful. From time to time the local press reported on competitions for funds that provided dowries for the poorest girls. The dowry significantly increased their chances on the matrimonial market, aimed at being a guarantee of a more certain future. The idea of the economic stability granted by the status of a married woman, whose guardian, according to the legal norms of Austrian family legislation, was her husband, who assumed the right to dispose of his wife's property, obviously had different readings in practice. According to the testimony of Anna Pavlyk, one of the authors of The First Wreath (a collection of works by women, published in Lviv in 1887 and sponsored by Natalia Kobrynska and Olena Pchilka, under the literary editorship of Ivan Franko), the financial maintenance of children in working families where both a man and a woman worked, was mostly left to women. Describing the marriage practices of her contemporaries, Anna Pavlyk claimed that for a working woman, "marriage is a double disaster, because in these circumstances the man's salary is almost entirely spent on his own needs, while the woman must strive not only for herself but also for her children. If the man is conscientious, he helps the woman; however, mostly men, in addition to their wives working so hard, still beat and disrespect them at night." Being a worker — a seamstress — herself, Anna Pavlyk probably knew about such women's experiences firsthand.

I could not find out where Maria Linchak came from. It is very likely that her family, like most of the Greek Catholic workers in the city at that time, descended from the villages or towns adjacent to the Galician capital. According to the population census of Lviv from December 31, 1890, most people came to the city from the Lviv, Horodok, Zhovkva, Zolochiv, and Brody counties. For newly arrived women from the province, the big city did not bode well. The image of "spoiled" and "corrupt" city life in contrast to the romanticized "ideal" village, in accordance with the then popular national narratives of both Polish and Ukrainian literature, may not have corresponded to reality, but still formed a powerful and recognizable public discourse on this topic. "Guardianship" of women, which in the patriarchal social matrix was considered necessary in view of both legal and customary norms, was made difficult by the city not only because of the distance between them and their guardians (parents, relatives, etc.), but also due to distances between them and the social environments to which they belonged and which could control them. In other words, the city granted a chance for anonymity, which was almost impossible in the narrow village circle.

For yesterday's peasant women, access to new urban experiences was at the heart of public anxiety about their insecurity as women in general and as poor women in particular. In popular journalism, the temptation of the city for "innocent village girls" could end in prostitution, which could be motivated, according to the authors of such texts, by the desire for an "easy life" or caused by coercion or deception from the city's others. As Judith Walkowitz demonstrates on the example of London in the late 19th century, on the mental map of urban participants, women had no autonomy, being rather bearers of meaning than its creators (Walkowitz, 1992, 21). In Lviv, this was noticeable, for example, in publications about human trafficking, which was a much-discussed problem in the Galician province at that time. According to these publications, poor women, deprived of subjectivity, necessarily had to be victims.

If we try to outline the urban experience from the perspective of the arriving female workers, it is obvious that it was not always seen in terms of threat. The city granted opportunities, formed platforms for wide networks of social contacts, became a source of information, created contrasts for comparisons, etc. Ultimately, the urban experience was becoming capital in itself. Marynia Linchak, after three years of working as a maid in the Hrushkevychs' house, "was becoming more and more defiant" (quote by Hrushkevych above); probably in affording behaviour of this kind she was guided by the thought of her ability to find another, more profitable job.

Having moved to Lviv in the autumn of 1894, Mykhailo Hrushevskyi must have had a good sleep. He had to sleep on a mattress made of sea grass and bought by Yevhenia Barvinska at Drucker's furniture factory just before his arrival, in September 1894. It was Yevhenia, the wife of Oleksandr Barvinskyi, a Ukrainian deputy of the State Council in Vienna, who had to take care of the preparations before the arrival of the famous guest. Her daughter Olha assisted her in this matter, telling her father in detail about all the efforts and funds spent. For "Mummy", as the Barvinsky children used to call their mother in their letters, arranging Hrushevskyi's daily life probably added to the already long list of her personal household chores. Seven children, of which five were common:  Danusia, Romtsia, Galiusia, Vasylko and Les , and two from Oleksandr Barvinskyi's first marriage:  Oliusia and Volodymyr , obviously took the lion's share of the mother's attention. Moreover, she had no one to share taking care of the children with as her husband Oleksandr was working in Vienna at that time, so he could not help her directly. Of course, Yevhenia had domestic servants at her disposal, who carried out all the necessary errands around the house. And yet, in the family correspondence of the Barvinskys, "Mummy's" constant troubles were always mentioned as the main reason for her poor health.

The Barvinskys got married in June 1879. By that time, Yevhenia managed to get a professional education, graduating from a teacher's seminary, actually the top of the educational options for women at that time. In Galicia, her generation was the first to get such an opportunity in principle. She studied piano privately with František Lorenz (a Czech organist and composer) and at the Lviv Conservatory of the Galician Music Society in the class of Karol Mikuli (a composer and virtuoso pianist, who studied under Chopin). Teaching experience probably came in handy in life, although Yevhenia did not have to use it for earning a livelihood. After marriage, she moved from Lviv to Ternopil, following her husband, under whose legal and economic guardianship, according to the norms of the then civil legislation, she now fell. The husband's financial responsibility for the family was a legal norm. Everyday life, obviously, knew different scenarios, usually providing for the presence of a wife's dowry as an obligatory start-up capital of a young couple. In the case of the Barvinskys, Yevhenia's parents' financial infusions into their daughter's family budget were quite regular: as evidenced by family correspondence, it was case during at least the first 10 years of married life. "Mum must have grudged a lot of things for herself," Yevhenia wrote feeling grateful to her mother Olena Liubovych (née Studynska) for what she had sent, "to collect the money sent to me." Along with the money transferred by her father Maksymilian Liubovych, some fabric for a dress, an umbrella or a hat sent by her mother were obviously supposed to replace her daughter's expenses for herself, which were not always affordable for the young family's budget.

In 1888, the Barvinsky family moved to Lviv. From that time on, Yevhenia Barvinska did not leave this city for a long time, though she had not wanted to return there. "Oles [so she called her husband] has hope for Lviv," she wrote to her parents in April 1888, "although I don't really miss this city; but for the sake of my children's education, I will move there." From the Ternopil period of her life, she retained the experience of conducting a choir, as well as participating in various national initiatives as a pianist and singer. In Ternopil, the woman also gained her first business experience, practiced at that time by a significant number of relatively wealthy female town residents: taking in tenants, usually students of local gymnasiums. The "science of household management" as a compulsory subject in women's educational institutions (by the way, Yevhenia passed it in the seminary with an excellent mark) was in this way applied directly.

The role of "housewife", for which women were prepared by their bringing up, schooling and environment, was not only a status one, it required considerable organizational skills (after all, it was no coincidence that, for middle-class women, the position of "household manager" was one of the most in-demand in the labour market of that time) that in the case of Yevhenia Barvinska were combined with more or less active public work. Together with her sister Hermina Shukhevych, she was a member of the Club of Ruthenian Women, the first secular women's organization of Ukrainian women in Lviv. Yevhenia was one of the initiators of the Boyan choral society, where she worked as a conductor in 1891-1894. Along with her musical talents, Barvinska also painted. According to the reaction of a guest of the house, which she shared with her mother, she was rather good at it: "Hardly had he entered the house, when my paintings caught his eye," she told her mother, "and he was really persuading me to continue because he saw artistry in them. Well, I'm in no mood for this now as I'm making live portraits, I'm going to finish the third one in a couple of months, so I don't know how it all will turn out," alluding to the third child that was about to be born.

For Oleksandr Barvinskyi, the managerial qualities of his wife were obviously more than desirable. After all, he could find role models of such a wife in the example of his mother, Dominika (Domicela, née Bilinska). According to his memories, it was she who was primarily responsible for the household economy in his family. "Father was never interested in the household, which he didn't like," Barvinskyi recalled, "after my mother's death, a woman kept visiting us to do the household chores." "My mother also visited us every week or more often," he wrote about his studies at the gymnasium, "to keep an eye on everything." His wife Yevhenia played approximately the same role in his own family.

5-year-old Olha and 7-year-old Volodymyr, children from the first marriage of Oleksandr Barvinskyi with Sofia Schumpeter, became the first children for 25-year-old Yevhenia Barvinska. Relations with the elder one, Volodymyr, as can be seen from the family's correspondence, were not always easy. Olha, however, always called Yevhenia "Mummy", and mentioned that she felt deep gratitude "to her, who did not spare her youth and freedom, taking upon herself the duty of raising two orphans." At the beginning of her family life with Volodymyr Bachynskyi, Olha defended her (step-)mother in an argument between her parents, which was caused by the desire of her father to settle the young couple in their house by expanding it. Olha explained her position to her father as follows: "Mummy really pays attention to the fact that this would cause a terrible destruction, a devastation of our small kitchen garden and the orchard and the workroom, which would fall on our heads; most importantly, she considers that two families living together is never going to be good. So let's leave this matter alone. We don't need it for being happy. Harmony in the family is more precious to me." At that time, the Barvinskys lived at ul. Sobieszczyzny (now vul. Barvinskykh) 5 in a mansion built under a project of Bronisław Bauer, commissioned by Oleksandr Barvinskyi in 1897.

In the correspondence of the Barvinskys, children were the main topic — together with relatives, in particular, older sister, Hermina. "Hermina wrote that Korytowska, Pierożyńska, and Paweńska all have daughters," Yevhenia, who was pregnant, retold her mother the latest gossip in 1883, "with the condition that Stefania [a midwife] misconceived. So let's hope it wouldn't come true for her either, because as for me, it doesn't matter, and I would even prefer a daughter." Yevhenia Barvinska was lucky enough to become the mother of a daughter: in addition to Olha, she had Haliusia (that was the name given by family members to Halyna-Olena Barvinska, whose married surname was later Savchuk).

Medical diagnoses could be made on the basis of Yevhenia's letters to the children. The woman read special literature, followed notes on the topic of medicine in the press and copied them for her children. Like many women of her time, she had the experience of losing children (infant mortality at that time was habitually high: for example, according to Lviv statistics of 1890, 40% of all deaths in the city were children under 5). In 1887, a boy named Steftsio was born to the Barvinskys. The baby died shortly afterwards, but as soon as 1888 Vasylko (Vasyl Barvinskyi) was born.

In her family life, Yevhenia Barvinska probably played the role of the stricter side, in contrast to her husband Oleksandr, who, according to her, was a much more "flexible nature", because "he would do everything the children wanted". Perhaps due to the fact that for a long period of his children's childhood, Barvinsky lived separately, disciplinary measures could only be carried out by letters. Yevhenia, on the other hand, considered herself a straight-forward person and, consequently, she often fell out of love. "I'm frank, I say what I think," she explained to her mother about her position in one of the family disputes. "Perhaps I can fall into still more disgrace due to this, but that's what my character is."

Interestingly, Barvinska wrote letters addressed to her parents with Latin characters, probably to make it easier for them to read: Maksym and Olena Liubovych corresponded with each other in Polish. It is possible that Polish was the language of communication in Yevhenia Barvinska's family home, at least before her marriage.

For the Galician Ruthenians, the "language question" became particularly acute in the second half of the 19th century. According to the interpretations of the national press, the percentage of Ukrainian families among the Lviv intelligentsia who spoke Polish at home, was very high. The newspaper Dilo proved this statistics with the example of Greek Catholic priestly families of the city: in 1880, out of 28 houses of priests, only 5, according to the publication, spoke Ukrainian. As an additional comment on these calculations, the newspaper emphasized that "everything should be a concession for women in most cases." The symbolically established "keepers of the hearth", it was women who were the first to be "responsible" for the language policy at home. The Ukrainian character of the house amidst Polish-speaking public space (in 1869, Polish became the official government language of the Galician province), in the interpretations of the national elites, played a key role in preserving the Ukrainian identity of its residents.

Whatever the linguistic background of Yevhenia Barvinska's family home, her own family, as well as the family of her sister Hermina, spoke Ukrainian. The active participation of both in the public life of the city — in addition to the mentioned Club of Ruthenian Women, in which they both participated, Hermina Shukhevych was also one of the creators of the Ukrainian Industrial Union Trud (a women's corporate organization that operated on the basis of mutual assistance) and a charitable society called Ukrainska Zakhoronka that took care of orphaned children, — was evidenced by the very distinct national choice of each.

Also embodied by both of them in practice was the public image of a nationally-conscious Ruthenian woman-patriot, the theoretical framework of which was created in the last third of the 19th century by Ukrainian political elites of almost all ideological orientations in response to the processes of emancipation or the so-called "women's question." Populists, Russophiles, radicals — obviously in line with ideological modifications of each trend's political programme — all repeated more or less the same things in their interpretations of the "women's question" and the social roles assigned to women.

In publications by populists, among which the Barvinskys included themselves, the topic of women's emancipation attracted the most attention in the context of the construction of a Ukrainian strategy of "organic labour" in which an active female position would find its application. According to the conceptual plan, "organic work" envisaged multifaceted, constant and persistent social work, primarily in the field of economy and education, for the benefit of every Ruthenian in particular and the Galician Ukrainians in general. Yevhenia's brother-in-law, Volodymyr Barvinskyi, the younger brother of her husband Oleksandr, greatly contributed to the development of the theory of Ukrainian "organic labour" of women. The outlines of Volodymyr Barvinskyi's vision of the "women's question" were sketched in his letters to Olha Huzar, published after his death in the Pravda (a Ukrainian folk literary and scientific magazine published in Lviv intermittently from 1867 to 1898). Criticizing his contemporaries for public inactivity, national unconsciousness and generally low education, Volodymyr Barvinskyi saw the main problem of this state of affairs in the fact that such women would not be able to raise nationally conscious children. Seeing the main need of Ukrainian women in their emancipation (usually in the sense of improving their educational level) for the needs of their future motherhood, Yevhenia's brother-in-law actually outlined the key thesis of most political discussions on the "women's" topic in Galicia before the First World War. With the continuation of the maternal mission of women as the key one, the populist concept of emancipation also envisaged their more active involvement in the public initiatives taken by the Ukrainians of the region. Work of this kind was especially expected from the wives of political activists.

"Vakhnianyn [Anatol Vakhnianyn] is to visit us together with Lviv singers," Yevhenia Barvinska told her relatives about her life in Ternopil, "and I think I will take part in it [concert]. In case of success, it will contribute largely to the revival of [national] spirit among the Ruthenians of Ternopil". An involvement of this kind in combination with family responsibilities was probably not always easy: "with our current relationship, where there are four children and two of them are small, it is a true sacrifice for me to perform," she, then a young mother, wrote about one of such concerts.

Yevhenia Barvinska's life ended abruptly in December 1913, really catching her family by surprise. Her daughter Haliusia was then treated in Saxony, her son Vasylko studied in Prague. Recalling those days, Vasyl Barvinskyi wrote that it was then that he was working on the "Thought", one of the miniatures of his famous sextet. "I dedicate the 5th variation of the "Thought" to the memory of my unforgettable mother Yevhenia of blessed memory,” noted Vasyl Barvinskyi in 1962, already in his late years. “It was at the time when I was composing this work in Prague (finished later in Lviv) that my mother died unexpectedly. And just during the work on the "Thought" I was thinking a lot about her and felt it all so deeply that I cried in emotion, and it was to this very variation that I wanted to place the second dedication (that this "Thought" is connected with episodes about my mother)".

• Teofil Hrushkevych (1846-1915) — a teacher, Ukrainian public figure, author of a diary kept intermittently from 1895 to 1915.
• Yaroslav Hrushkevych (1873-1964) — an ophthalmologist; during the First and Second World Wars, as well as the liberation struggles of 1917-1921, he was a military doctor, the head of the Ukrainska Besida Society in Stanislaviv.
• Liudmyla Hrushkevych (née Kligel) — wife of Teofil Hrushkevych (they married in 1872), mother of Yaroslav, Sofia and Maria Hrushkevych. She was buried at the Lychakivsky cemetery.
• Sofia Hrushkevych (married surname Rakovska, 1876-1955) — wife of Ivan Rakovskyi (they married in 1900), mother of Myroslav Rakovskyi. A member of the Union of Ukrainian Women, the Ukrainian Society for the Protection of Children and the Care of Youth, in particular, its sections such as the Mothers' Counselling and the Plast Friends' Circle. After the Second World War, she and her family emigrated to the USA.
• Ivan Rakovskyi (1874-1949) — an anthropologist and zoologist, head of the Shevchenko Scientific Society  (1935-1940), husband of Sofia Hrushkevych.
• Melania Hrushkevych (1872-1967) — a public figure, head of the Society of Ruthenian Women, member of the Prosvita and Ridna Shkola societies in Stanislaviv, sister-in-law of Maria Hrushkevych, wife of Yaroslav Hrushkevych.

• Bohdan Barvinskyi (1880-1958) — a historian, doctor of philosophy (1907), member of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (from 1914).
• Roman Barvinskyi (1881-1947) — an engineer and artist.
• Olena (Halyna) Barvinska (married surname Savchuk, 1883-1962).
• Vasyl Barvinskyi (1888-1963) — a composer, pianist and conductor, a doctor of art history (1940).
• Oleksandr Barvinskyi (1889-1957) — a doctor, member of the Ukrainian Medical Society, deputy minister of health in the Ukrainian State Administration.
• Olha Barvinska (née Bachynska, 1874-1955) — a teacher, co-founder of the Ukrainska Zakhoronka Society, head of the Association of Vacation Homes in Lviv (from 1901) and the Marian Congregation (Sodality) for Ladies (from 1904).
• Volodymyr O. Barvinskyi (1872-1899) — the eldest son of Oleksandr Barvinskyi and Sofia Schumpeter.
• Volodymyr Barvinskyi (1850-1883) — a historian, journalist, writer, literary critic, founder and first editor of the newspaper "Dilo".

• Ivan Kopach (1870-1952) — a teacher, linguist and literary critic, a member of the Shevchenko Scientific Society.
• Hermina Shukhevych (1852-1939) — a co-founder of the first Ukrainian women's societies in Lviv (Club of Ruthenian Women, Ukrainian Industrial Union Trud, Ukrainska Zakhoronka, etc.), wife of ethnographer Volodymyr Shukhevych, grandmother of UPA Commander-in-Chief Roman Shukhevych.
• Anatol Vakhnianyn (1841-1908) — a composer and educator.
• Olha Huzar-Levytska (1860-1933) — a translator and writer.

The first story:

1. Львівська національна наукова бібліотека ім. В. Стефаника (далі — ЛННБ ім. В. Стефаника), відділ рукописів, 41 (Грушкевичі)/57/3 (Листи до Ярослава Грушкевича від окремих осіб 1911-1915).
2. ЛННБ ім. В. Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 41/101/9 (Грушкевич Людмила. Листи до рідних 1909-1910).
3. ЛННБ ім. В. Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 41/123/24 (Грушкевич Т. Записні книжки [щоденник] за 1895, 1903, 1906, 1908-1915 рр. 1895-1915. Станіслав, Львів та інш.).
4. ЛННБ ім. В. Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 41/62/4, арк. 53 (Листи до Ярослава Грушкевича від окремих осіб (Раковських, сестри Мані, Марії Фредрової, Данусі… Олександра Козакевича та інш., 1931-1943).
5. Центральний державний історичний архів України у Львові, 841/1/156 (Статут товариства жінок робітниць поштових управлінь "Схроніско" у Львові, 1905).
6. "Новинки", Дѣло (Львів), 1880, Ч. 52. 
7. Соколик, "Наші соколи і панни (Окреме виховуваня хлопців і дівчат. — Наші забави і родини. — Соколи із селянського роду. Наші панни)", Дѣло, 1901, Ч. 281, 279 і 280.
8. Софія з Грушкевичів Раковська (спогад), Свобода: український щоденник (Джерзі Ситі і Ню Йорк), 1956, Ч. 67. 
9. Ярослав Грицак, Пророк у своїй вітчизні. Франко та його спільнота (1856-1886) (Київ: Видавництво "Критика", 2006), 549-550.
10. Eva Illouz, The End of Love: A Sociology of Negative Relations (Oxford University Press, 2019).
11. Martha Lampland, "Family portraits: gendered images of the nation in 19th century Hungary", Eastern Europe: Women in Transition // Eastern European culture, politics and society / ed. by Irena Grudzinska-Gross, Andrzej Tymowski, 2013, Vol. 3, 73-99.
12. Podręcznik statystyki Galicji wydany przez Krajowe biuro statystyczne, T. 8, Cz. 1 (Lwów: Krajowe Biuro Statystyczne, 1908). 
13. Włodzimierz Osadczy, Kościół i Cerkiew na wspólnej drodze. Concordia 1863: z dziejów porozumienia między obrządkiem greckokatolickim a łacińskim w Galicji Wschodniej (Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, 1999). 
14. Stebelski, "Rusin o Polce", Chwila. Tygodnik ilustrowany, 1907, №. 11. 

The second story:

1. Львівська національна наукова бібліотека ім. В. Стефаника (далі —  ЛННБ ім. В. Стефаника), відділ рукописів, 41 (Грушкевичі)/123 /24/арк. 160 (Запис у щоденнику Т. Грушкевича, 27 січня 1909 року).
2. ЛННБ ім. В. Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 41/123 /24/арк. 313 (Запис у щоденнику Т. Грушкевича, 6 січня 1912 року). 
3. Державний архів Львівської області, 350 (Дирекция полиции во Львове)/1/4794 "в", 4794 "д" (Реєстр домашних работниц і рабочих, прописанных в городе Львове, с указанием данных об их работе).
4. "Новинки. Шевченкові вечерницї для служниць", Дѣло, 1902, Ч. 92.
5. "Новинки. Шевченкове сьвято руских служниць", Дѣло, 1903, Ч. 121.
6. "Новинки. Конкурсъ на посагъ", Дѣло, 1899, Ч. 3. 
7. Товариство опіки над служницями і робітницями під покровом Матери Божої. Устав (Львів: Накладом товариства, 1910).
8. "Kronika. Wielmożna pani", Gazeta Lwowska, 1898, № 140. 
9. Анна П[авлик], "Зарібниця", Перший вінок: Жіночий альманах виданий коштом і заходом Наталії Кобринської і Олени Пчілки (Львів: Друкарня Товариства імені Шевченка, 1887), 361— 365.
10. Залця Ландман, Моя Галичина. Край за Карпатами, переклад з німецької та післямова Петра Рихла (Чернівці: Чорні вівці, 2020). 
11. Lwów w cyfrach,  Pod zarządem Fr. Kattnera  (Lwów: Z drukarni "Dziennika Polskiego", 1894).
12. Monika Piotrowska-Marchewa  "Trzech masz wrogów, który czyhają na zabicie twej duszy..." Zagrożenia moralne w ujęciu polskich poradników i prasy dla służby domowej na przełomie XIX i XX wieku", Kobieta i rewolucja obyczajowa. Społeczno-kulturowy aspekty seksualności. Wiek XIX i XX, 2006, T. 9, 247— 264.
13. Judith R. Walkowitz, City of Dreadful Delight. Narratives of sexual danger in Late-Victorian London (The University of Chicago Press, 1992).

The third story:

1. Львівська національна наукова бібліотека ім. В. Стефаника (далі - ЛННБ ім. В.Стефаника), відділ рукописів, 11 (Барвінські)/36/6, арк. 14-15, 108а, 158 (Барвінська Євгенія (уродж. Любович) Листи до родичів Любовичів (до батька і матері) 1879-1895).
2. ЛННБ ім. В.Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 11/6(Євгенія Барвінська (Любович). Шкільні свідоцтва 1872-1874).
3. ЛННБ ім. В.Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 11/45/8, арк. 33зв., 112-113 (Барвінська Ольга. Листи до батька Олександра Барвінського. 1905-1906); (Барвінська Євгенія (уродж. Любович) Листи до родичів Любовичів (до батька і матері) 1879-1895).
4. ЛННБ ім. В.Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 11/290/87, арк. 19-20 (Дзержинська А. Листи до Євгенії Барвінської).
5. ЛННБ ім. В.Стефаника, відділ рукописів, 11/43/7, арк. 31-34 (Барвінська Ольга. Листи до батька Олександра Барвінського).
6. Олександер Барвінський, Спомини з мого життя (Нью-Йорк – Київ: Видавництво "Смолоскип", 2004), 528. 
7. "Оголошення. Вдова", Дїло, 1903, Ч. 4. 
8. "Оголошення. Молода вдовиця", Дїло, 1908, Ч. 158.
9. "Новинки", Дѣло, 1880, Ч. 52.
10. "Матеріали до історії українсько-руського життя і письменства" (Листи Володимира Барвінського до панни Ольги Гузарівни (тепер пані Левицької)), Правда, 1892, Ч. 43.
11. Олена Аркуша, Олександр Барвінський (до 150-річчя від дня народження) (Львів: Інститут українознавства НАН України, 1997), 9-13. 
12. Василь Барвінський, З музично-письменницької спадщини. Дослідження, публіцистика, листи / Упор. В. Грабовський (Дрогобич: Коло, 2004), 210. (Цитата за: Німелович О. "Євгенія Барвінська: постать мисткині на тлі музично-культурного і громадського життя Галичини", Українська музика, 2018, 4(30), 129).
13. Lwów w cyfrach,  Pod zarządem Fr. Kattnera  (Lwów: Z drukarni "Dziennika Polskiego", 1894).