The Past in the Clutches of Politics: Between “Pure Scholarship” and Russification

Bazhenova, Anna (2014).

Historians of the Imperial University of Warsaw, 1869-1915: Enlightenment, Scholarship, Politics.

Lublin: Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 408 pp.

Review prepared by Andrei Tsikhamirau
The past of educational institutions is not only a subject of interest for specialists in the history of education.

Different types of these institutions, from primary schools to universities, are distinctive mirrors of every era.

In 2016, the University of Warsaw celebrates its 200th anniversary. It not only influenced the Polish lands in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but was also an important educational and cultural center for the Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Lithuanian provinces during the period of the Russian Empire.

The book by Anna Bazhenova, a Ukrainian researcher working in Poland, draws readers’ attention to the work of historians at the University of Warsaw in the second half of the nineteenth and the early twentieth century.

For a long time, Polish historiography practically did not study this period in the university’s development, regarding it as “lost” for Polish historical scholarship.

Only in recent years has the “tsarist period” become the subject of close study and reassessment among Polish scholars (Schiller, 2008).

Russian historiography has also taken a major step in this direction in recent decades (Lapteva, 2005).

Anna Bazhenova’s work consists of an introduction, three large chapters, conclusions, and a foreword by Prof.

Mirosław Filipowicz.

The author used a large corpus of printed and archival sources from repositories in Poland, Russia, and Ukraine and took into account no less extensive literature on the subject.

It is also important that the author sought to rethink the work of the Imperial University of Warsaw (IUW) with regard to different historiographical traditions and tried to focus above all on the teaching and research process.

When the IUW was founded, the Russian authorities placed Russification goals first, but despite this the university did not perform only these tasks and was not always merely a conduit for exclusively Russifying ideas.

The author carefully traced the biographies of the historians who worked at the IUW and touched on the details of each personal story.

The use of rich visual material in the book, mainly portraits and photographs of lecturers, not only enriched the book but allows the reader to imagine the figures described and to look at them across a century.

The use of visual sources makes the book very attractive, and the publisher’s work on its aesthetic design can confidently be called exemplary.

In the foreword, Mirosław Filipowicz noted the complexity of Polish-Russian relations and the particular symbolism of the fact that the author of this book is Ukrainian and that the book itself appeared in 2014.

I would also add that the history of the IUW concerns not only Polish-Russian relations.

Among the university’s scholars were natives of all the “western provinces” of that time; therefore, its history is closely connected with the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands.

The introduction describes the main stages in the formation of the University of Warsaw: its opening in 1816 by Emperor Alexander I, its closure in 1831 by Nicholas I, its restoration in 1862 by Alexander II, and its transformation in 1869 into a Russian-language institution.

The historiography of the issue and the corpus of sources are also examined in great detail.

The first chapter, “The Imperial University of Warsaw: One’s Own for Russians, Alien for Poles,” consists of two sections. The first traces the history of the creation of the IUW against the background of the Russian academic milieu.

The author examines in detail not only the conditions of the university’s activity in 1862-1869, when it was called the Main School (Szkoła Główna), but also addresses problems of defining the processes of Russification.

The stages of the IUW’s development from 1869 onward and its differences from other universities of the Russian Empire are also traced.

It is also worth noting the description of the boycott of the university by Polish students during the 1905 revolution and the closure of the IUW, as well as the discussions after 1907 about its future, including proposals for Polonization or even relocation to other cities.

The author did not overlook the evacuation process of 1914 and the restoration of the IUW in Rostov-on-Don in 1915.

The second section of the chapter is devoted to the structure of the Faculty of History and Philology.

Bazhenova draws attention to differences in the faculty’s structure compared with other universities of the empire, for example, the absence of a separate department of Polish history, which, among other things, had even been proposed by Russian historians.

The author also analyzed the ethnic composition of the IUW’s professors and students.

It should be noted that, despite the large number of lecturers, frequent personnel changes were the faculty’s greatest problem.

The second chapter of the book, “Historians of the IUW: Teaching the Discipline,” consists of four sections.

The first section, “A Prosopographic Portrait,” was probably rather difficult to write.

The author pays attention not only to the personnel of the two departments, Russian history and universal history, but also writes about lecturers from other departments, mainly the Faculty of Law and the Philology Division, who worked part-time in the historical division or taught historical disciplines in other departments.

The author identified such points as the period of service at the university, political orientation, the structure of departments, and the rarity of privatdozents at the IUW, unlike at other imperial universities.

Bazhenova also emphasized that most lecturers of the faculty were Orthodox by confession, came from the “southwestern” (Ukrainian) provinces, and were graduates of St. Vladimir University in Kyiv and higher schools in St. Petersburg.

The IUW attracted lecturers primarily through its proximity to the border and the possibility of rapid academic careers, as well as a number of social privileges, such as retirement, directly connected with the policy of Russification.

The second section of this chapter is devoted to the curricula of the historical division.

Interestingly, the structure of the educational process at the IUW did not differ from that of the Main School.

The subjects of various courses are also listed in detail, among them “The History of Western Russia and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” in different periods, which should certainly attract the attention of other researchers.

The third section, “Teaching at the Departments of Russian and Universal History: From Programs to Practice,” draws attention to the practical side of teaching.

Among the lecturers, the author also mentions those who taught various courses on the history of the GDL and “Western Russia”: for example, the first professor of the Department of Russian History, Adrian Kopylov, who taught the corresponding course in the 1870/1871 academic year; Nikolai Barsov, who delivered a number of courses on this topic in the 1870s and 1880s; and Ivan Filevich, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Ivan Filevich and several other professors, including Yefim Karsky, were connected with the student boycott of lectures in 1897 after the professors signed a congratulatory telegram on the unveiling of the monument to Count M.

Muravyov in Vilnius.

The teaching activity at the Department of Universal History is also examined in detail; its staff included Józef Kowalewski, an outstanding Orientalist and native of Vialikaya Berastavitsa in today’s Grodno region, Adolf Pawiński, Nikolai Kareev, and several others.

The fourth section of the chapter, “Historical Disciplines in Other Departments,” is devoted to the active cooperation of historians with representatives of the Philology Division and the Faculty of Law.

Historical research was conducted in the departments of Greek and Roman literature, Slavic philology, and comparative grammar of Slavic and other related languages.

Ancient history was actively studied in the corresponding departments, where scholars such as Jan Wolfram, Ignacy Kassowicz, and Oskar Baziner should be singled out, while Slavic history was studied by staff of the Department of Slavic Philology, including Vikenty Makushev, Vladimir Frantsev, and Alexander Pogodin.

An important distinction of the IUW from other universities was also that only there, from 1884, did a separate Department of the History of Slavic Legislations exist, although according to the university statute it was supposed to exist at every university.

A staff member of this department, Ioaniky Malinovsky, also taught a course on the “History of Western Rus’.”

The third chapter, “The Research Activity of IUW Historians,” the largest part of the book by volume, consists of five sections.

The first section discusses the flourishing of Russian historiography in the second half of the nineteenth century against the background of the liberal reforms of Alexander II.

The author also emphasizes the specificity of the IUW and examines the problem of its “secondary” status among other universities of the empire, showing the development of scholarly societies in Warsaw and elements of cooperation between Russian and Polish scholars.

In the second section, “The History of Russia in the Works of Warsaw Scholars,” the scholarly achievements and academic careers of historians not only of the corresponding department but also of other structural units of the university are examined in detail.

The author drew attention not only to the aforementioned Nikolai Barsov and Ivan Filevich, but also to Grigory Pisarevsky, Dmitry Tsvetaev, Ivan Kozlovsky, and Dmitry Samokvasov.

Fyodor Leontovich made a brilliant career at the IUW above all as a historian of the law of the GDL and as publisher of the first volume of the Lithuanian Metrica, while his student Fyodor Taranovsky studied the history of Magdeburg law in the towns of the GDL.

The third section, “Works on the History of Poland,” also concerns studies of the history of the GDL and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in different periods.

The author emphasizes the conflictual nature of Polish-Russian relations, which were influenced by the uprisings of 1830-1831 and 1863-1864, and the fact that in the second half of the nineteenth century a stable narrative about Polish history emerged in Russian historiography.

This narrative significantly influenced contemporary reality and political practice with regard to the “Vistula Land” and the “western provinces.”

An important research topic at the IUW was the Reformation in Poland, the crisis and partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at the end of the eighteenth century, and the history of nineteenth-century Polish literature.

The most striking figure was Nikolai Kareev, who worked at the IUW from 1879 to 1885 and wrote most of his works on Polish topics in Warsaw, learned Polish, and expressed liberal views on the “Polish question.”

In addition to a very detailed analysis of Kareev’s views, the author turns to the works of representatives of the clearly anti-Polish “camp”: Vikenty Makushev, Platon Kulakovsky, Ivan Filevich, and Anton Budzilovich, emphasizing that they were natives of the “western provinces” and even had Polish origins.

Among the clear advocates of Russian-Polish understanding were Alexander Pogodin, a professor of the Department of Slavic Philology and a researcher of nineteenth-century history, and Vladimir Frantsev, a student, scholarship holder, and professor of the IUW, who studied Polish Slavic studies.

The fourth section, “Studies in Universal History,” is devoted to the most diverse aspects of studying the history of antiquity, the Western European Middle Ages and the modern period, as well as the history of the Slavic peoples.

Ancient history at the IUW is described in great detail. In addition to the researchers already mentioned above, Bazhenova addresses the work of Ivan Tsvetaev, Sergei Vekhov, Alexander Pridik, and the researcher of Lithuanian mythology Anton Mierzyński.

The Middle Ages were actively studied by Dmitry Petrushevsky and Nikolai Kareev, as well as the historian of English law Vasily Aleksandrenko.

Research in the field of historical Slavic studies is described in considerable detail.

The author mentions Vikenty Makushev, Konstantin Grot, and Iosif Pervolf; here one can notice the clear influence of the works of the Russian researcher Lyudmila Lapteva.

In my opinion, it would have been worth adding at least a brief analysis of the scholarly activity of Yefim Karsky and Anton Budzilovich during their work at the IUW precisely in this section.

They were not historians in the strict sense, but they were closely engaged with the history of language and literature.

Yefim Karsky is rarely mentioned in the work, although it was in Warsaw that he wrote and published the first volumes of The Belarusians (Jankowiak, 2010).

Somewhat more attention is given to Anton Budzilovich (Kurstak, 2010).

Perhaps this was influenced by a certain difficulty of access to contemporary studies by Belarusian scholars, or perhaps by reliance on a Russian historiographical narrative that excludes Belarusian studies and Ukrainian studies from historical Slavic studies and examines them within the framework of Russian history and philology.

From the standpoint of historicism, such an approach may be justified, but why, for example, are studies of the history of the Serbs described within “foreign” Slavic studies, while the history of the GDL is described within Russian history?

The fifth section, “International Connections,” is devoted to various forms of contacts and cooperation with foreign researchers and institutions.

The author describes foreign research trips, primarily to Germany, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Great Britain, France, and other countries; participation in international congresses and conventions of historians; anniversary celebrations; and translations of foreign authors into Russian.

In her conclusions, Bazhenova emphasizes the specificity of a “Russian university” on Polish lands, the very complex intertwining of governmental intentions and the real capacities of the teaching staff in the matter of Russification and the educational mission, and writes that “life in Warsaw did not change views of Poles, but only contributed either to radicalization or to liberalization.”

Anna Bazhenova’s book is undoubtedly an example of a thorough historical study.

The author sought to study the past while avoiding simplified assessments and taking into account a wide range of views on the problem.

For the Belarusian reader, the book will be of interest not only because some scholars of the Imperial University of Warsaw were connected with the Belarusian lands or studied the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but also in connection with the problem of the political use of education and the coexistence of different cultural traditions in one geographical space.

Literature mentioned in the review
Kurstak, Yuri Iosifovich (2010).

History of Slavic Studies in the Work of A.

S.

Budzilovich (1846-1908).

Author’s abstract of a Candidate of Historical Sciences dissertation.

Grodno.

Lapteva, Lyudmila Pavlovna (2005).

History of Slavic Studies in Russia in the Nineteenth Century.

Moscow.

Jankowiak, Mirosław (2010). “Professor Yefim Karsky, Rector of the Imperial University of Warsaw,” ARCHE, no. 4, : 298-308.

Schiller, Joanna (2008).

Universitas rossica: koncepcja uniwersytetu rosyjskiego 1863-1917.

Warszawa.