Pirmieji posukiliminiai metai Lietuvos istoriografijoje: kaip archeologus keitė slavistai ir folkloristai. Piotro Bezsonovo atvejis (1865–1866 m.)
The First Post-Uprising Years In Lithuanian Historiography: How Archaeologists Were Replaced By Slavists And Folklorists. The Case Of Pyotr Bezsonov (1865–1866)

Summary/Abstract: The events of 1863–1864 were a turning point in the intellectual life of Vilnius (Rus. Vil’na) and of all Lithuanian and Belarussian gubernias of the then Russian Empire, which were already commonly known as the North-Western krai, i.e. province. The consequences of the defeated uprising – the reorganisation of the Vilnius Museum of Antiquities, the closure of the Vilnius Temporary Archaeological Commission, and the establishment of the Vilnius Public Library – became a recognised fact. Vilnius Central Archives, founded in 1852 and significantly enriched by the archives of the estates confiscated after the uprising and of the closed Catholic monasteries, also played a significant role in the imperial policy, as did the archive of the books of the early acts of the gubernias of Vilnius, Kaunas (Rus. Kovno), Gardinas (Rus. Grodno) and Minsk, and the Vilnius Commission for the studies and publication of the books of the early acts. Since all these institutions operated in the premises of the closed Vilnius University, nowadays their history is justifiably or maybe unjustifiably (as the content of this article would suggest) treated as an integral part of the history of the alma mater. The aim of the newly created Russian centre of science and culture was to annihilate the historical memory of the ‘Polish’ intellectual life that had once been bustling within these walls. All four institutions – or rather all three, since after the reorganisation of the Vilnius Museum of Antiquities it became a division of the Vilnius Public Library – attracted scholars’ attention. Key personalities who used to work in these institutions were also mentioned and sometimes introduced in greater detail. The aim of the article was to take a deeper look at the first representatives of the newly emerging discipline of history in the North-Western Province, in particular, at Pyotr Bez sonov vel Bessonov (1827–1898), a Muscovite, a renowned Russian Slavist and folklore scholar, and a publisher of sources. He was the chair of the Vilnius Commission for the Study and Publication of the Early Acts (also, the headmaster of the Rabbi School and later of the 1st Boys’ Gymnasium in Vilnius). It was not so much the specific (practical) activities of this head of at least a several important institutions comprising the Vilnius Educational District that was important for the research, but rather his historical and political selfawareness and his ideological attitudes. The article discusses both Bezsonov’s lesser-known works and archival documents that remain in the margins. In other words, the aim was to describe the complex post-uprising situation in the Vilnius Educational District through the personality of one of the most prominent and controversial reformers of the then NorthWestern Province. The figure of Yakiv Holovatsky (1814–1888), originally from Galicia, who was an equally famous Slavic scholar, folklorist, and pedagogue (at one time even the rector of the University of Lviv), and who succeeded Bezsonov in his position, is briefly introduced against the background of the latter’s activities in Vilnius. After the uprising of 1863–1864, the Polish-writing Lithuanian historians, archaeologists, and ethnologists were replaced by new Russian-speaking historians and ethnologists who had to implement an important ideological mission: to substantiate the legitimacy of Russia’s presence in the North-Western Province with historical sources. The writing of the so-called new history took place in parallel with the reorganisation of memory institutions, in which the new historians, archaeologists, and ethnologists were actively involved. Special attention was paid to senior positions in research and cultural institutions. The search for new scholarly authorities was difficult because the Russian scholarly elite (as opposed to educators) was reluctant to move to the North-Western Province, let alone to write (with one exception or another) the history of that region (at best, they were consultants and reviewers). The new intellectual elite of the North-Western Province was divided into two camps: one was in favour of drastic measures of Russification, while the other supported gradual ones, using the work of the earlier historians and literary figures who wrote about the region in Polish but who had encouraged (not necessarily consciously) anti-Polish sentiments, such as Teodor Narbutt (1784–1864), Adam Honory Kirkor (1818–1886), and Eustachy Tyszkiewicz (1814–1873). Bezsonov was the most prominent representative of the latter camp. In fact, however, these were just two different tactics: both were convinced that the land had to be Russified. During the debate on Russification measures, the issue of the necessity of a university in Vilnius was raised once again, and Bezsonov made a significant contribution to the revival of this idea. The first historians and ethnologists of the North-Western Province (who were also the heads of important scholarly and cultural institutions in this region) were prominent figures in the Russian (Slavic) scholarly world. Moreover, this Russian-speaking descent had excellent pen-wielding skills and wrote with emotion and impact. Although they constantly emphasised that they represented the world of scholarship and not politics, not only Slavophilic but also pro-Russian rhetoric dominated their texts. The question of the addressee of their writings remains open. We know for sure that the texts by Bezsonov (especially by him) and Holovatsky were reflected not only by the officials in the North-Western Province and the Russian diaspora, but also by the intellectual elite in Moscow and St. Petersburg; we do not know what kind of resonance, if any, they had in the non-Russianspeaking circles of society. Neither the printed nor the unprinted word of the time shows this. However, if there was such a reaction, we can say a priori that this creative work did not stimulate a scholarly debate; rather, it provoked an ideological, cultural, and even linguistic and confessional conflict.

• Details
• Contents