When the Vilnius supreme local government considered the issue of the periodical press in Polish, Lithuanian, Yiddish, and Hebrew, it took into account the influence of the latter on public opinion. On several occasions, the Vilnius Governor-General’s office, when discussing the issue of periodicals, recalled the times of the 1863–1864 uprising, when the multilingual press, defined by its mass appeal and readership, played a strong activist role. The Vilnius Governor-General’s office sought to limit the publishing initiatives of all ethnic groups (except Russians). It therefore delayed the resolution of the issue, especially when it came to periodicals in Yiddish, Hebrew and Polish. The only exception to this, in terms of the publishing situation in 1903–1905, was the case of Vilnius News. After the uprising of 1863–1864, it was the first periodical in Vilnius to be published in a language other than Russian. Moreover, it was granted permission surprisingly quickly. There were several reasons that could have led to this decision. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Vilnius Governor-General’s office had the intention of exploiting the press issue to increase and exacerbate conflicts between ethnic groups (primarily Lithuanians and Poles). The idea of the Lithuanian national movement as a counterbalance to the influence of the Poles is clearly expressed in the assessment of the candidacy of Kazimieras Prapuolenis. This is the only reference in bureaucratic correspondence (that is known so far). The idea of pitting Lithuanians against Poles by exploiting the press issue may have been expressed in private conversations. Especially since the person who was actively involved in the informal discussions on the suitability of editors for Lithuanian and Polish dailies was Andrei Stankevich, the head of the chancellery of the Vilnius Governor-General’s office, who was well aware of Piotr Sviatopolk-Mirsky’s views on the press issue and could have passed them on to Aleksandr fon Freze.
Journal:Lietuvos istorijos metraštis
Volume 2023, Issue 1 (2023): Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 2023 metai 1, pp. 129–153
Abstract
The article addresses the issue of how, following the manifest of 17 October 1905 of the Russian emperor Nikolai II, which declared the freedom of expression, the top authorities of Vilnius approached the influence of the periodical press on the spread of ideas and opinions and formation of respective attitudes, and to what extent they aimed (or did not aim) to restrict that influence.
Through the case study of life and creation of Jan Bobrowski (1777–1823), student at Vilnius university department of literature and free arts, the article analyses how the first generation of professional intelligentsia came to life. Personal life and creation of Jan Bobrowski show, how in the junction of the eighteenth–nineteenth centuries a society was gradually emerging, in which professional career rather than social background was considered the indicator of personal success of a human being. J. Bobrowski chose his life in accordance with his calling. Educational work helped him not only to realise his intellectual aspirations, but also permitted ensurance of his material wellbeing. Active professional intellectual work placed J. Bobrowski among the ranks of the emerging intelligentsia. Educational works of J. Bobrowski served as educational popularization of science, whereas his participation in Vilnius Charity Fellowship had signs of social messiahship. This new group, represented by J. Bobrowski, which did not belong to estate structure, created personal space that matched their expectations. Wife of J. Bobrowski could also realize her creative potential whereas independent educational work provided her with opportunities to leave traditional social role of a woman.
Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kokią vietą Davainio-Silvestraičio etnologiniai tyrimai ir darbai užima XIX a. pab.–XX a. pr. lietuvių modernios tautos
kūrimosi procesuose. Atskirai nagrinėjama, kokias reikšmes Davainis-Silvestraitis skyrė kalbos klausimui, kaip vyko šių reikšmių kaita renkant ir skelbiant lietuvių pasakojamosios kultūros kūrinius.
Journal:Archivum Lithuanicum
Volume 19 (2017): Archivum Lithuanicum, pp. 171–194
Abstract
The article presents the part of the written legacy of Davainis-Silvestraitis that had not yet been published and not included into the scientific circulation – his diary written in 1904–1911, aimed at overviewing the development of the Lithuanian national movement and to evaluate the national-social activities of the Lithuanian intellectuals in Vilnius. Davainis-Silvestraitis positioned himself as a public figure for whom the description of the events of the Lithuanian national movement had to be more important than himself or his personal experiences. However, the diary of Davainis-Silvestraitis that started as being written to others, very quickly became the diary for “self” which is primarily a more interesting material for reconstruction of his own life rather than the assessment of the Lithuanian national activities in Vilnius. The diary of Davainis-Silvestraitis perfectly reveals the difficult living and livelihood opportunities for Lithuanian intellectuals in Vilnius, whose main occupation was publicist activities. In his diary, Davainis-Silvestraitis simply “drowns” among the descriptions of his unsuccessful attempts to secure material well-being working in the Vilniaus žinios bookstore, writing articles and collecting adverts for the Lietuvių laikraštis newspaper. The descriptions of the Lithuanian national activities in Vilnius in the diary of Davainis- Silvestraitis are more like a documentary chronicle of events, rather than a deeper assessment of the phenomena and processes of the Lithuanian national movement, although he himself was often a participant of the events he was describing. Davainis-Silvestraitis presented his observations solely about the circumstances surrounding the signing of the “Lithuanian Memorandum to the Russian Prime Minister, Count S. Vitte” (1905), raising a hypothesis that the issue of the Suwalki Gubernia encouraged at least some of the Russian Empire representatives to have quite a favourable view on the appearance of this document. In his diary, Davainis-Silvestraitis suggested that some of the nobility representatives who supported the Lithuanian national movement had even visited the Great Seimas of Vilnius and that further cooperation was “deterred” by the position of some Lithuanian political parties and groups regarding the issue of land redistribution.