|
Belorussian Review
5
MUNICH
1957
The views expressed in the Review-are those of their authors. They are not bound by any single political philosophy nor are they to be construed as representing the point of view of the INSTITUTE.
*
Material contained herein may be reproduced, provided reference is made to this publication
*
All comments and inquiries are most welcome and should be addressed to:
Institute for the Study of the USSR
Editor, The Belorussian Review
Mannhardtstrasse 6
Munich, Germany
*
Verantwortlich fur den Inhalt: Dr. Stanislau Stankievic
Herausgeber und Verlag: Institut zur Erforschung der UdSSR, e. V., Munchen 22, Mannhardtstrasse 6, Telefon 2 06 81—4. Printed in Germany by Buchdruckerei Universal, Miinchen 5, Rumfordstrasse 29/31
The Belorussian Review is a publication of the Institute for the Study of the USSR. Its purpose is to present the free world an analysis of contemporary events and detailed studies of Belorussian history and culture by persons who know the system intimately.
The Institute for the Study of the USSR was organized on July 8, 1950. It is a free corporation of scientists and men and women of letters who have left the Soviet Union and are now engaged in research on their homeland.
Any member of the Soviet emigration, irrespective of his national origin, political affiliations or place of residence, is eligible to take part in the work of the Institute provided he is not a Communist Party member or sympathizer.
*
All comments and inquiries are most welcome and should be addressed to:
Institute for the Study of the USSR
Editor, Belorussian Review
Mannhardtstrasse 6
Munich, Germany
CONTENTS
H. NIAMIHA The Institute of Belorussian Culture
ALES BIERAZNIAK Recent Soviet Belorussian Literature
M. KULIKOVIC Soviet Belorussian Opera
S. KABYS Agriculture in Belorussia During the First Year of the Sixth Five-Year Plan
T. DAVLETSHIN Changes in Soviet Labor Laws
JALOVIC The Peat Resources of the Belorussian SSR and Their Exploitation
Reviews
JAN STANKIEVIC Some New Changes in the Belorussian Language as Used in the Belorussian SSR
JAN ZAPRUDNIK Komunist Bielarusi, 1957, Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5
JAN STANKIEVIC Ruska-Bielaruski Slounik
Obituary
Dr. A. G. Sorgenfrey
Contributors to this Issue
THE INSTITUTE OF BELORUSSIAN CULTURE
H. NIAMIHA
Research into Belorussian History and Culture Before the 1917 Revolution
Before the 1917 revolution there was no systematic or organized study of Belorussia. One of the many reasons for this was that Russia, after seizing the Belorussian lands at the end of the eighteenth century, announced to the world that the Belorussians were a Russian tribe and should therefore unite with the Russian people.
As this was untrue, the tsarist government began at once to suppress every manifestation of nationalism in the captured country. The use of Belorussian was forbidden in public and political life and was later banned in the press. A decree issued by Nicholas I on July 18, 1840 even prohibited the employment of the word "Belorussia." After 1840, not a single Belorussian national school or paper, nor even a Russian higher educational establishment, existed in Belorussia. All efforts were concentrated on the speediest possible Russification of the country. The common people were mostly illiterate and the few intellectuals oriented toward either Russia or Poland.
Some of the intellectuals who left Belorussia did not wholly lose their national feeling, and in the face of this injustice they began to show an intense interest in their country's past. Kalajdovic, for example, studied old Belorussian documents and in 1822 published a treatise on the "Belorussian dialect"; others were Zhileuski, Spileuski, Semenov and Kirkor. Books began to come out on the history, ethnography and geography of Belorussia, although, admittedly, they were but the efforts of private individuals and were not then as yet widely known.
Interest in the Belorussian question, even among the Russians, received its greatest impetus from the 1863 insurrection, led by Kastus Kalinouski, which was closely linked with the Polish rebellion of the same year. The best evidence of this may be found in the views of A. N. Pypin, the well-known Russian scholar of the nineteenth century, who wrote:
The Belorussian tribe came into the limelight at the time of the last Polish rebellion. Until then we showed scant interest in Belorussia and knew very little about her compared with the fairly numerous and often wonderful works on this territory written in particular in the seventies and eighties.1
It was the Slavophils in Moscow, concentrated in the learned societies of Moscow University, who first showed a scholarly interest in Belorussia, and not the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg, which was an official body close to the government. In Moscow, the idea was even broached of publishing a newspaper in Belorussian to provide a cultural and scientific survey of Belorussia. This scheme fell through because the tsarist government in 1867 forbade all printing in Belorussian.2
Tsarist government measures could not stop the interest which the Belorussian question had awaSened in academic circles. The most active in this cause was the Moscow Society of the Friends of Russian Literature, which came into being in 1811 and included many Belorussians among its members. Dmitriev, Bessonov, Pavel Sein, E. Ramanau, K. Dabravolski, Sierzputouski and INikifarouski collected and published thousands of specimens of Belorussian folklore, sometimes with the help of various academic establishments, and at other times at their own expense. One such publisher was A. Sapunoii, who produced seventy-two works devoted to the history of Belorussia. According to J. Vicbic,3 these may be divided into three groups: (1) collected historical documents; (2) studies based on these collections: and (3) articles intended for a wide circle of readers. With the help of Cracow University, M. Fiedarouski published ethnographical materials, collated under the title of Lud bialoruski (The Belorussian People). I. Nasovic compiled and published in Russian script the first comprehensive Belorussian-Russian dictionary. The works of Russian historians such as Antonovich, Batyushkov, Vladimirsky and Bez-Kornilovich also contained much objective material dealing with Belorussian history.
Toward the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, the study of Belorussian history expanded. The works of M. Lyubavsky supplied a wealth of factual material from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, while the eminent scholar, E. Karsky, later a member of Inbielkult, wrote a treatise of several volumes called Belorussy (The Belorussians). Professor M. Daunar-Zapolski, U. Piceta and Branislau Epimach-Sypila, subsequent members of Inbielkult, also wrote many works on the same subject.
Research by these historians^ established that Belorussian culture, prohibited by the tsarist government, had been highly developed in the past, particularly at the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and had also strongly influenced the course of Russian, Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian and Ukrainian culture. Education had for long flourished. With the adoption of Christianity in the tenth century, schools had appeared in the monasteries to teach candidates for the priesthood to read and write. About ИЗО, Prince Rostislav of Smolensk even founded a Greco-Latin-Russian academy in Smolensk and invited the Greek Manuil, later Bishop of Smolensk, to be its rector.4
In the sixteenth century the country contained two Jesuit academies. One of them, at Vilna, was founded in 1578, reorganized as a university in 1803 and closed down in 1832. The other, at Polotsk, was founded in 1581 and likewise reorganized as a university, to which all Jesuit schools were subordinated. The Vilna Academy grew out of the law school founded by Sigismund Augustus in 1566, where the Magdeburg Statute and Saxon law were taught. State law—the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, local privileges and the constitution— were taught in Belorussian, the language in which they had been written. Later, the professors of Vilna University—Danilovic, Babrouski, Jarasevic, Anacevic, Marcinouski, Sasnouski and others—not only themselves took an interest in their country and people, but imparted this interest to their students, including the poets Jan Cacot and F. Savic.
Attempts at an organized study of Belorussia were also made by Russian organizations for regional studies,* some of which aimed at covering the whole of ethnic Belorussia, while others confined themselves to individual districts. The most important of these were the North-Western Section of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society in Vilna, which was founded in 1867 and functioned intermittently in 1867-77 and 1910-15 (the principal task of this section was to demonstrate "by means of Russian academic activity" that this territory was "truly Russian" as opposed to the "Polish view that it was Polish or at any rate not Russian")5; the Vilna Society of Lovers of Natural History (1909-15); and the Minsk Church Historical and Archeological Committee (1907-17), which strove, on the basis of monuments of archeology, to prove "to all doubters that Minsk Province was a Russian, and not a Polish, region."6 This committee was assisted by the local Russian bishop and Russian authorities, and even received a contribution of five hundred rubles from the Russian Academy of Sciences. There were several other similar institutions, but they were not Belorussian in character, nor were they even research bodies, but merely private amateur societies. Generally speaking, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
... both Polish and Russian amateurs, scholars, government departments, etc., in their study of Belorussia, interpreted the facts tendentiously and . . . consciously or unconsciously pursued the practical purpose of presenting the Belorussians as the serfs of Polish magnates or the Russian Tsar and of proving to the entire academic world that there had never been a Belorussia as an independent nation.7
The country's productive forces and natural resources were hardly studied at all, for lack of suitable personnel. Only on the eve of World War I did two experimental agricultural stations come into being. These were the Minsk Marsh Station (1913) and the Benyakoni Agricultural Station (1910). As for higher educational establishments, the country possessed none until 1914.
When the Russian Empire began to crumble under the pressure of war, Belo-russian nationalists, politicians and scholars turned their attention, not only to proposals for the country's political organization, but also to the problem of creating a higher educational system, and later to the question of organizing research into the" history, culture and resources of their country. Professor Daunar-Zapolski drafted a constitution for a future independent Belorussian state, and also drew up plans for a Belorussian State University, but with eighty-five percent of the population illiterate and no elementary education available in Belorussian, it was as yet too early to think of organizing a higher institution for academic research. The Belorussian National Republic, founded in 1918, might have provided an opportunity for carrying through such a project, but the new regime was not destined to last long. Consequently, the plans to create a higher research institution had eventually to be realized under conditions drastically different from those of independence, exploiting for this purpose the breather supplied by NEP.
First Steps Toward the Creation of a Belorussian Research Organization
It fell to the lot of a handful of educated Belorussians, who found themselves during the first years after the Revolution in the center of the territory, in Minsk, to shoulder the particularly heavy burden of regenerating all sides of Belorussian national life. The difficulty of this gigantic task lay not only in having to start everything from scratch, but also in the need for a peculiar dynamism and resourcefulness in dealing with the forcibly imposed and alien Bolshevik regime, which pursued its own specific purposes and demanded their implicit execution. Skilful maneuvring was essential, not merely to consolidate and expand, but even to maintain, the national positions.
The predominantly peasant population, which for decades had been denied access to enlightenment in its native language, feeling a certain relaxation in the age-old process of denationalization, eagerly sought the founts of knowledge. In order to satisfy this cultural hunger, it was essential in the first place to provide elementary education for the people in the native language, without at the same time neglecting higher education. It was also necessary to set up an efficient administration and to provide for research into the homeland and its natural wealth and history.
The national pioneers of that time showed great flexibility, energy and boldness, for they soon scored seemingly unachievable successes. Thus the Belorussian Department, created on August 1, 1920, of the Belorussian People's Commissariat for Education, succeeded by the beginning of 1922 in transforming the entire commissariat into a Belorussian institution. On October 30, 1921, almost a century after the closing of Vilna University, the first State University came into being on Belorussian territory. The idea of creating a higher research institution was broached simultaneously with the difficult task of organizing a network of Belorussian primary and secondary schools and a university.
In 1921, S. Niekrasevic, later the first chairman of Inbielkult, read a paper on this subject to a conference of Belorussian public men. In it he advocated the "organization of a suitable laboratory for a Belorussian revival." Such a laboratory he saw in the form of an institute of Belorussian culture. He argued that this institution should "unite around it all Belorussian forces, wherever they [might] be, and ... be responsible for the cause of culture in Belorussia."8 As a result, the conference elected a commission, under the chairmanship of 2. Zylunovic, to draft a constitution for Inbielkult. This constitution laid more stress on cultural and social questions than on the need for conducting research. Parallel with this, the future rector of the Belorussian State University, Professor U. Piceta, prepared in Moscow a draft constitution for Inbielkult on the lines of existing research institutes.9 The problem of a higher research body in Belorussia was also discussed in February 1921, at the second session of the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR, at which it was proposed to set up two institutes— one for Belorussian and the other for Jewish culture—attached to the Belorussian State University.10
However, the day for opening a research institution had not yet come. Attention was mainly concentrated on getting the University working smoothly. An even greater obstacle was that there were not enough highly qualified workers to meet the needs of the University and to conduct research into Belorussia at the same time. The equipment and premises required for this purpose were also lacking. Thus the idea of setting up Inbielkult had to be shelved for a while.
Nevertheless, fresh problems cropped up daily. The rapid growth of Belorussian schools could not be contained within a normal framework without the provision of suitable textbooks, syllabuses and—most important of all—a scientific terminology. The Belorussian people, deprived as they had been of any opportunity of describing or of reading about scientific achievements in their native language, had been unable to create their own abstract and scientific terminology. Yet to transplant bodily from other languages terms that were alien to Belorussian in form and spirit would have been inexpedient.
For this reason, while the creation of research institutions was being discussed, a Commission on Scientific Terminology composed of three sections—humanities, natural sciences and mathematics—was set up on February 1, 1921 by the People's Commissariat for Education of the BSSR. The main task of the Commission was urgently to prepare and publish a scientific terminology, even if only for the use of elementary and secondary schools for a start, and also a number of Belorussian textbooks, beginning with an ABC.11 In one year, the Commission prepared and published Belorussian terminological lists relating to the humanities, natural sciences and mathematics, and also compiled and caused to be printed in Germany textbooks for Belorussian schools.
The Institute of Belorussian Culture
Activity of the Institute as Part of the People's Commissariat for Education of the BSSR. The work of the Commission on Scientific Terminology expanded so rapidly that it soon outgrew its original terms of reference, and by early 1922 the need had already arisen, without waiting for better times, to reorganize it as a research institution, temporarily under the People's Commissariat for Education of the BSSR, in order to use the academic personnel then available and later to augment them as need arose. So as not to set up two parallel institutes, as had been proposed earlier, it was agreed to draft a single constitution which would give the Institute of Belorussian Culture, or Inbielkult, as it was called, the character of both a research and a cultural-social body.
The ceremonial inauguration, fixed for February 20, 1922, did not take place because of the "departure of the People's Commissar for Education and other senior officials for Moscow and other districts."12 From this it is evident that even at that time Moscow did not show any particular consideration for the national feelings of the "independent" republics, although from time to time it tolerated, and still tolerates, them. Inbielkult, therefore, in its capacity of "higher research institution of Belorussia for the study of Belorussian culture in all its manifestations,"13 began its work on February 20, 1922, without this ceremony. Its membership was as follows: S. Niekrasevic (chairman); U. Carzynski (secretary); I. Lucevic (Janka Kupala), K. Mickievic (Jakub Kolas), Jazep Losik, M. Hramyka, A. Krutalevic, F. Burak, V. Michalski, C. Rodzievic, M. Azbukin, M. Hutkouski and M. Bajkou (section members). Later, these were joined by J. Dyla and Dr. I. Cvikievic, while Burak and Michalski left.
At first, the Institute consisted of two sections, one for natural sciences and the other for ethnology and linguistics, the latter of which had three commissions —one for terminology, a second for lexicography and a third for literary research. Soon the Institute published the first issue of its official organ, Viesnik Inbielkultu, which opened with a patriotic poem by Janka Kupala entitled "Pierad buducyniaj" (Before the Future). This issue was not only the first but also the last: evidently, the censorship was unable to tolerate the continued existence of such an "unrestrained" organ.
Inbielkult inherited from the Commission on Scientific Terminology immense uncompleted labors. Although the Commission had had the time to adopt 2,500 Belorussian terms and to propose a further 4,184, it remained for Inbielkult to™ complete this urgent and absolutely essential work. The Institute was also faced with the task of compiling a Russian-Belorussian dictionary, and during the first two years it concentrated on these two projects.
The former task was taken over by the terminological commission of the section for ethnology and linguistics: terminological reference books were compiled on mathematics, literary theory, logic and psychology, geography, zoology, cosmography, botany, physics and chemistry, and two textbooks were prepared for the press. The lexicographical commission examined existing Belorussian dictionaries (those of Nasovic, Dabravolski, Harecki and others), card-indexed 35,000 words and had a dictionary ready for the press by 1924. The literary research commission drew up a questionnaire for the purpose of collecting specimens of folklore and undertook the compilation of a collection of national tales. The natural sciences section adopted 2,481 terms, examined natural science syllabuses for schools and compiled several textbooks. In addition to this, the Institute supplied lecturers on Belorussia to higher educational establishments and for the "Higher Courses of Belorussian Studies" organized by the People's Commissariat for Education of the BSSR.
Beginning with the academic year 1923-24, the scope of Inbielkult's activity widened. New sections appeared, such as those dealing with agronomy, pedagogics, literature and the arts, culture and history, and medicine. Each section was given definite tasks. The terms of reference of the pedagogical section, which was set up on April 8, 1924 and consisted of Minsk educational specialists, some members of Inbielkult and teachers of Belorussian in Minsk seven-year schools, included examination of the following problems: (1) historical research into Belorussian education; (2) research into the present state of Belorussian education and teachers' living conditions; (3) medical inspection of schoolchildren; (4) the study of educational methods in Belorussian schools; (5) the compilation and revision of Belorussian textbooks; and (6) enquiry into the school environment.
In December 1923, a central bureau for regional studies was set up under the aegis of Inbielkult. Commissions, modelled on the sections, were also created for the compilation of a biographical dictionary and a dictionary of modern Belorussian, for dialectology, bibliography, historiography, pedology and geology, and other specialties.
First Reorganization of Inbielkult. When taking over from the Commission on Scientific Terminology in February 1922, Inbielkult did not possess a constitution, but its activity during the first two years of its existence, like that of its predecessor, grew so much that it could not manage without enlisting new recruits, acquiring a constitution and undergoing a general reorganization. By mid-1924 the Institute's presidium had grown from two (viz., chairman and secretary) to four persons. The People's Commissariat for Education drafted a constitution, which the Central Executive Committee and Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR confirmed on August 8,1924.14 The first two paragraphs of this document defined Inbielkult as a
... higher state academic institution forming part of the People's Commissariat for Education of the BSSR-, [established] for the purpose of conducting planned research on Belorussia as regards language, literature, ethnography, history, natural resources, economics, social and public movements, etc., and also for the purpose of coordinating all work undertaken in the above-mentioned fields by scientific and art institutions and by individuals.
Members of Inbielkult were divided into three categories—full members, associate members and corresponding members. True, the constitution did not then impose severe conditions for membership. For example, it was stated that persons who could prove that they had had research training could qualify as associate members, while the status of corresponding member was granted to persons who could "assist Inbielkult in the execution of a given concrete task." Thus, persons lacking formal qualifications could also take part in the Institute's work. At that time there were few highly qualified scholars in Belorussia, and as at the beginning the need was not so much for creating new academic values as for collecting examples of folk art, creating a terminology and compiling a dictionary of the living Belorussian language, every contribution was of value.15
The work of Inbielkult was at first exclusively devoted to the humanities. Work on the natural sciences and economics began in 1924, but even then, according to A. Cvikievic, "material conditions did not greatly help Inbielkult in its work in the fields of natural science and economics [because of] the particularly low pay of the staff and paltry funds compared with other analogous institutions in the USSR."
The enlargement-of the BSSR in 1924 and the Bolshevik nationality policy of the day, aimed at securing the extensive collaboration of national elements, caused the state and Party organs of Soviet Belorussia to take a great interest in the work of the Institute. The third session of the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR met at the beginning of November 1924. On November 4, Deputy People's Commissar for Education A. Balicki, in a report on the work of Inbielkult, stated that the Institute was developing into a permanent and efficient academic institution which might gradually become a Belorussian Academy of Sciences. He added that the greatest obstacle in the Institute's work was its difficult material situation resulting from the difficult material situation of the republic as a whole.
The republic's scanty means were devoted primarily to essentials, and the satisfaction of the needs of Inbielkult was postponed until better times. During the academic year 1923-24 it received no more than 7,186 rubles, and during the first two years even less. Lack of money prevented the publication pi abundant scientific material that had been collected and prepared, including a comparative Russian-Belorussian dictionary of over 50,000 words.
Balicki offered the folowing explanation of why Inbielkult was mainly concentrating on the elaboration of a Belorussian literary language:
In view of the absence in the popular Belorussian language of words designating abstract ideas, it was essential to create neologisms based on the elements and laws of the Belorussian language, but because of the dialectical confusion of terms, it was necessary to select from several words one which accurately conveyed the sense of the given idea. Terminological work within the scope of the secondary school may now be considered to have been completed. Six issues on terminology have already appeared in print and about as many are ready for the press. Over 15,000 Belorussian terms have been examined and approved.16
Balicki added that in 1923 Inbielkult had begun the ethnographical study of Belorussia and had conducted archeological excavations. In conclusion, he emphasized the need for a study of the BSSR's historical past and suggested the formation for this purpose of the following commissions: (1) a commission for the compilation of a biographical dictionary of prominent Belorussians from the tenth century up to the present; (2) a commission to deal with Belorussian ethnography; (3) a commission to work on Belorussian historiography; and (4) a bibliographical commission.17
In the subsequent debate Balicki's proposals were supported by linguist J. Losik and Rector of the Belorussian State University U. Piceta. The most original of the speeches was made in Russian by a Party member called Yasko:
I wanted to say that here in our Belorussia, culture flourishes. When I came to Minsk and called at a workers' faculty there was as yet little there. When I arrived now, it was apparent that culture flourished there for those people who had been neglected before. I called in at a school and was overwhelmed by Mozyr peasant people. Thus we see that we have culture here, but the speaker says that we should collect some sort of old materials on Belorussia. In my opinion this is probably superfluous, because in the old days there were exploiters and it seems to me that there is no point in collecting anything old. It seems to me that there is no better culture than the present in the whole world.18
Belorussian national public figures, including Balicki, Losik and Piceta, proved by their own experience in 1929 that under the Bolshevik dictatorship, alleged to be "the best culture in the world," it is extremely dangerous to engage in an objective study of the past of one's own people. At the time, however, Yasko's seeming warning remained unheeded.
The Central Executive Committee then passed the following resolution:
In connection with, the enlargement of the BSSR and the practical implementation of the nationality policy, the Institute of Belorussian Culture is acquiring especial political importance. On the basis of the foregoing and in connection with the new tasks of the Institute, the Session of the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR resolves:
1. To confirm all measures of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars directed at consolidating the Institute, expanding its activity and giving final form to its organization. In passing, the Session notes the correct reorganization of the Institute, designed to meet the cultural needs not only of the Belorussians, but of all the nationalities of Belorussia.
2. To recognize the need for reorganizing the Institute as a permanent state higher research institution of the academy of sciences type, for the purpose of dealing systematically with questions of science and culture applying to the BSSR.
3. To instruct the People's Commissar for Education to enlarge the establishment of the Institute by recruiting qualified Marxist theoreticians and creating suitable conditions for their work.
4. To draw the attention of all Soviet organs to the necessity of giving maximum support to the Institute in its work on the compilation of a Belorussian terminology in various fields of knowledge, which should facilitate the changeover of higher educational establishments to Belorussian as the language of instruction.19
On the basis of this decision, the People's Commissar for Education confirmed the new structure and establishment of Inbielkult. The following were now the Institute's main departments: the presidium, the library, the publishing department, the permanent commissions, the central bureau for regional studies, the sections and the Jewish and Polish departments. Commissions were created for dialectology, the compilation of a dictionary of modern Belorussian, terminology, history and archeology, the study of the revolutionary movement, the study of the country's natural resources and productive forces, the publication of Lenin's and Marx's works, the study of Soviet construction, ethnography and bibliography. The sections of the Institute comprised those for linguistics, literature, the Maladniak literary group, the arts, history and archeology, natural sciences, economics, agronomy and ethnography. The Jewish and Polish departments included three commissions and three sections—one each for the study of the national language, literature and history. Finally, fifty-one members of Inbielkult were approved by the board of the People's Commissariat for Education for a term of three years.20
The Work of Inbielkult After its Reorganization. At a general meeting of the Institute held on January 31, 1925, a new presidium consisting of the following members was elected: U. Ihnatouski (chairman), A. Smolic (deputy chairman),
2. Zylunovic, S. Geltman (chief of the Polish department), B. Arsanski (chief of the Jewish department) and J. Dyla (academic secretary).
Certain changes also took place in the sections. The presidium of the newly-created commission for the study of natural science was joined by Professor Blioducha, Professor Kasatkin and Rahavy. The commission took charge of all natural science research in Belorussia. In the Jewish department, Professor I. Sosis became head of the historical commission, Professor Vainger of the linguistic commission and Dr. Oislender of the literary commission.
The agricultural (former agronomical) section set up two commissions: one for compiling an agricultural terminology and the other for publishing agricultural literature, the latter of which organized a competition for writing forty-one brochures on agriculture. In addition, three subsections, on land melioration, the study of home crafts and forestry came into being, the latter of which began work at once on a terminology for forestry. 2. Pryscepau, A. Smolic and C. Rodzievic became members of the presidium of this section.
The arts section split up into three subsections—for the theater, fine arts and music. The theatrical subsection began work on improving the linguistic and artistic standards of Belorussian State Theater productions, in 1925-26 organized a dramatic seminar for fifty people and collected about 15,000 exhibits for the Belorussian Theatrical Museum. The musical subsection took steps to collect, study and harmonize Belorussian songs, for which purpose Procharau and Aladau, professors of the Minsk musical academy, were appointed and well-known harmonizers of Belorussian songs were invited from Moscow and Leningrad. J. Drejzin handed over to the terminological commission the musical terminology he had prepared.
The section for the study of the revolutionary movement in Belorussia prepared the following symposiums for the press: "Belorussia During the Polish Occupation," "Album of Revolutionaries Who Perished in the Revolution," and "The Year 1905 in Belorussia."
The assumption by Inbielkult of responsibility for preserving objects of antiquity and scientific and art exhibits prompted the question of transferring to Inbielkult the management of all BSSR museums.
The central bureau for regional studies, created in December 1923, enjoyed the rights of a permanent commission and acted not only as a body for the study of Belorussian folklore, but also as an organ of "liaison between Inbielkult and the broad masses."21 The organization itself of the Institute and the character of its work had the same aim in view:
Practice and the constitution did not give it the form of a closed academic institution, but that of a system of scientific societies, sections and commissions. The sections and commissions of the Institute were open to all ... who were interested in any particular academic question, and any person wishing to take part in a section commission could join without even being a member of Inbielkult.22
The chief practical results of regional studies during this period included the scores of twenty-six folk songs with melody for one voice, compiled by the head of the Kostsyukovichi seven-year school, the organization of a district museum at Klimovichi and the publication by the Vitebsk District Society of an economic outline of the BSSR, books on Belorussian literature, art and architecture and a small Belorussian-Russian dictionary (2,000 basic words).23
All departments and sections actively prepared for the convocation in Minsk of a world congress of Belorussian scholars, to which it was proposed to invite all those engaged in the study of life in Belorussia.
A "Scientific Society for the Study of Belorussia" functioned under the Agricultural Institute (from 1925 the Agricultural Academy) in Gorki (Mogilev Region), enjoying the rights of a section of Inbielkult. Until it was given its own premises and budget (in 1925-26), the Maladniak All-Belorussian Union of Poets and Writers also operated on the same footing.
Despite these successes, the reorganization of the Institute could not be completed because certain responsible academic positions remained vacant. Determined efforts were therefore made to attract scholars from elsewhere for permanent work in Minsk. As a result the well-known Belorussian scholar Professor B. Epimach-Sypita came from Leningrad, while the ethnographer Sierzputouski, the archeographer Dauhialla and the historian Daunar-Zapolski, formerly rector of Baku University, also joined the staff of Inbielkult. The linguist Professor Rastorguev was expected from Moscow.
The transfer to Minsk of additional scholars gave new life to the Institute's research work. Beginning from the second half of 1925, there were ten basic sections, excluding the three Jewish sections and NAP (Scientific Labor Organization), while work had begun in twenty permanent commissions.
The commission for history and archeology began functioning in September 1925 under the direction of Professor Daunar-Zapolski, who, together with Dauhialla, inspected archives and museums in Vitebsk, Smolensk, Mogilev and Kiev. Archeologist I. Serbau, academic secretary of the section for history and archeology and of the commission for the preservation of ancient monuments, visited Novobykhov, on the instructions of the section, to inspect and supervise excavations of the first habitation in the BSSR of primitive man on the banks of the Dnieper. Excavations of tumuli at Rylovshchina (two miles from Minsk) were also carried out under his direction.
Sierzputouski, after his transfer to Minsk, visited the Slutsk district to collect materials needed to complete his big work on its material culture, while the zoologist Professor Fiedziusyn completed the investigation of the fauna of Belorussia which he had planned for 1925. Fiedziusyn brought back to Minsk large quantities of zoological material, particularly on the birds of the BSSR. Together with previous collections and Fiedziusyn's private collection, over three thousand ornithological specimens were assembled. These collections provided the basis for the Museum of Belorussian Natural History, established under the aegis of Inbielkult in 1925.
The commission on orthography and terminology completed its revision of the historical and social terminology compiled by U. Carzynski. An official translating bureau, headed by Carzynski, came into being under this commission for the purpose of supplying all state and public institutions with official texts in Belorussian. The former chief of the Smolensk Provincial Department of Education submitted to the lexicographical commission his dictionary of the Smolensk dialect, on which he had worked for five years.
At the end of 1925 the publishing department had at its disposal about 6,600 [sheets of various manuscripts, including works on ethnography by Sierzputouski, Jslubski and Harecki, on climatology by Professor Kajharodau, and on history [by Professor Daunar-Zapolski. Although the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR allocated an additional 10,000 rubles to Inbielkult to complete its budgetary year, there was no money to publish these works, as the Institute's work had considerably expanded and expenditure had consequently increased.
On December 17, 1925, a bureau for cultural relations with foreign countries was set up which included Arsanski, Zylunovic and Smolic among its members.
In the academic year 1925-26, Inbielkult succeeded in uniting Belorussian painters and organizing the First All-Belorussian Art Exhibition, at which over 1,200 paintings and drawings by Belorussian artists were shown.
Instead of the previous fourteen commissions, only ten were now functioning. Those which stopped work were the commissions on dialectology, the history of the revolutionary movement, the national economy, Soviet construction, the publication of Lenin's works and ethnography. Two new commissions, however, were set up: a scientific bureau for agricultural questions and the commission on military terminology, which concentrated on work arising from the Belorussification of national military formations in the BSSR.24
On February 6, 1926, the Academic Council of Inbielkult approved the Institute's annual publishing program. This included works by Sierzputouski, Professor Daunar-Zapolski and Professor Fiedziusyn, and the first volume of the academic edition of the works of M. Bahdanovic. The natural science section prepared 3,000 zoological terms for a dictionary in three languages—Belorussian, Latin and Russian. By the summer of 1926, the Institute's publishing department had issued about forty book titles.
On February 16—18, 1926, a conference was held on Belorussian archeology. Papers were read by Professor Daunar-Zapolski and Deputy Chief of the Central Archives of the BSSR Mialeska (on Belorussian antiquities); by Dauhialla (on Litouskaja metryka [legal documents of the State Chancellery of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania]), and by Serbau (on archeological surveys on the Ukhlyast River). The conference decided that the documents comprising the Litouskaja metryka should remain within the frontiers of the USSR and be assigned to the BSSR as a historical Belorussian document.25
The commission on history and archeology began the compilation of an archeological map of the BSSR showing tumuli, tombs, the sites of ancient towns and other ancient monuments.26 The plan of the Minsk district was ready by the middle of 1926.
Professor Daimar-Zapolski's widespread activity in Minsk displeased the Bolsheviks and he was given to understand that he should leave Belorussia. (The time of mass arrests had not yet arrived.) In the summer of 1926, Professor Daimar-Zapolski left Minsk, after handind over to Inbielkult his valuable library of 11,000 volumes.
Inbielkult Becomes an Independent Research Institution. In connection with the reform of Inbielkult in 1927 Cvikievic wrote:
In order to lay the foundation for a large-scale development of Belorussian culture, Inbielkult had to perform the following tasks: firstly, to collect as far as possible all the forces which had taken part in this development; secondly, to collect everything that had already been done in this field; and, thirdly, to work on the further perfection of Belorussian culture, i.e., on the development of Belorussian scholarship.27
Much of this had been done by the beginning of 1926. Attention had now to be concentrated on the "further development of Belorussian scholarship."
The first year's work done by Inbielkult on the basis of the constitution confirmed on July" 25, 1924 showed that Inbielkult was beginning to outgrow the organizational forms laid down in this constitution. At the beginning of 1926, therefore, the Institute's presidium began a radical revision of the constitution, and proposed, after a discussion in the Academic Council, to submit the new constitution without delay for confirmation to the competent authorities. This question, however, lingered on into 1927 because of the emergence of new problems. First of all, the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR, recognizing the value and the ever-increasing scope of Inbielkult's work and its influence on the broad masses of the population, on February 12, 1926, resolved:
1. To remove the Institute of Belorussian Culture from the control of the People's Commissariat for Education, and establish it as an independent institution attached directly to the Council of People's Commissars.
2. To accord to the chairman of the presidium of the Institute of Belorussian Culture the right to submit directly to the Council of People's Commissars all questions and proposals concerning the Institute of Belorussian Culture.
3. To confirm the appointment of U. Ihnatouski as chairman of the presidium of the Institute and J. Karanieuski as his deputy.
4. In connection with the expansion of the work of the Institute, to accept the resignation of U. Ihnatouski from the post of People's Commissar for Education.28
In connection with these new demands, the structure of the Academic Council and the presidium was partly changed at a general meeting of the Institute. Beginning from April 1926, the Academic Council included the entire presidium of the Institute, the chairmen of all its sections, and, in addition, nine persons elected by Institute members, associate members and corresponding members (three from each group). The presidium now comprised nine people—the chairman, two deputy chairmen, two secretaries, two members and two representatives of the national departments. These were: U. Ihnatouski (chairman), J. Karanieuski and A. Smolic (deputy chairmen), A. Cvikievic (academic secretary), M. Bialuba (administrative secretary), 2. Zylunovic, A. Azhirej, B. Arsanski (representative of the Jewish department), and S. Geltman (representative of the Polish department).29
In mid-1926, the idea was first broached in Belorussian government circles of reorganizing Inbielkult as a Belorussian Academy of Sciences. On June 4, 1926, the government of the BSSR advocated this idea in its report to the All-Union Central Executive Committee. This resulted in the following resolution's being adopted by the Executive Committee:
Taking into account the complexity of the nationality question in Belorussia due to the mixed composition of its population, the Presidium of the All-Union Central Executive Committee notes that the Belorussian government has in the main succeeded in correctly solving the most important questions of nationality policy, by giving due attention to questions of Belorussian culture and ensuring its further development. The Presidium of the All-Union Central Executive Committee particularly stresses the great importance, for the above-mentioned purpose, of the Institute of Belorussian Culture, which in its further development should be transformed into a Belorussian Academy of Sciences.30
Having secured recognition of its work and enlisted the support of the supreme executive organ of the Soviet Union, the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR, in its turn, heard a report presented by Inbielkult and on July 10,1926 passed the following resolution:
[The Central Executive Committee of the BSSR] puts on record the consolidation of the influence of Inbielkult on all the scientific and research work in the republic and at the same time deems it essential as from the academic year 1926-27 to prepare Inbielkult for its gradual transformation into a Belorussian Academy of Sciences.31
Inbielkult as an Independent Institution. Inbielkult's changeover to independent status and its uncertain future structure arising from the above-mentioned government decisions caused discussion of the new constitution proposed at the beginning of 1926 by the Institute's presidium to be abandoned. The removal of Inbielkult from the system of the People's Commissariat for Education of the BSSR and the acquisition of an independent budget greatly strengthened its financial situation. Whereas in the academic year 1924-25 (the first year of its existence) Inbielkult received an allocation of 77,906 rubles, and in 1925-26, 205,272 rubles, in 1926-27 it received 329,530 rubles, including 90,000 rubles for the acquisition of its own printing house.32 The following auxiliary institutions of Inbielkult could now function: the editorial and publishing department, the library, which in 1927 had over 20,000 volumes, and the natural science museum.
An increase in the establishment of Inbielkult (77 members, 69 associate members and 60 corresponding members) contributed to the development of the entire activity of the Institute. In 1926 the staff consisted of 120 Belorussians, 40 Jews, 22 Poles and 24 Russians and others.33
The lexicographical commission organized liaison with Gomel (which was then outside the BSSR), Smolensk and Nevel with the aim of compiling dictionaries of Belorussian as spoken in these districts, and collected over 120,000 words of the contemporary language. Toward the end of 1926 it delivered to the printers a Belorussian-Russian dictionary by M. Bajkou and S. Niekrasevic, containing 360 pages and about 30,000 words.
The military commission issued a provisional military code and a provisional small arms manual in Belorussian and prepared for the press small practical military dictionaries of 10,000 words each (Belorussian-Russian and Russian-Belorussian). Lists of musical and forestry terms and the first part of a medical and anatomical terminology were also brought out. The musical subsection organized a Belorussian studio choir (which later became the state choir), while the theatrical subsection (under M. Krasinski) worked on the history of the Belorussian theater.
The activity of regional studies organizations was revitalized. By the end of 1926, they had a membership of six thousand. The central bureau for regional studies exchanged publications with Vilna, Kovno, Warsaw, Riga and Leipzig. In the second half of 1926 this bureau set up a Polish department, whose task was to organize and superintend the work of Polish sections in local societies for regional studies and local lore study groups in Polish village councils and schools.
In 1926 researchers from Inbielkult were sent abroad for the first time. Niekrasevic and Harecki went to Poland and Czechoslovakia, and Assistant Professor of the Agricultural Academy in Gorki Kislakou to Germany.
The most important event in the work of Inbielkult was the Academic Conference on Alphabetical and Spelling Reform, held in Minsk between November 14 and 21,1926, to which scholars from the USSR and abroad were invited. Although many of those invited could not for one reason or another attend the conference, it was nevertheless more broadly representative than previous Belorussian ac^ demic conferences and was in the nature of an all-Slav gathering. The best linguists of Inbielkult and the Belorussian State University, teachers of Belorussian in teachers' training colleges and academic representatives from the Soviet republics and abroad took part. The RSFSR was represented by Professor P. Rastorguev (Moscow University), Professor Garchynsky (Leningrad University) and A. Sierz-putouski; the Ukrainian SSR by Assistant Professor Nimchynov (Kharkov Institute of Education); Germany by Slavist Professor Vasmer (Berlin University); Poland by Professor Gol^bek (Warsaw University); Lithuania by Professor Birzyska (Rector of Kovno University); and Latvia by Assistant Professor Blese (Riga University) and the national poet of Latvia Jan Rainis.
The conference was also attended by representatives of the Belorussian national minorities in Lithuania (V. Lastouski, researcher into the Belorussian language and editor of the journal Kryvic, and A. Halavinski, chairman of the Belorussian National Committee in Kovno); Latvia (K. Ezavitau, editor of the Riga paper Holas Bielarusa, and V. Pihuleuski, head of the Belorussian school in Lyutsin); and Czechoslovakia (poet U. Zylka, editor of the Prague journal Pramien).
On the other hand, the well-known Belorussian linguists and pioneers in the creation of a Belorussian orthography B. Taraskievic and A. Luckievic could not come, as also Dr. J. Stankievic and Dr. M. Dvarcanin (who were refused passports by the Polish authorities). Most of those who were unable to attend sent their notes on Belorussian orthography.
The work of the conference proceeded at plenary sittings and in three commissions—for alphabetical reform, orthography and literature. In the course of a week the conference examined the most important questions of orthography and alphabetical reform and heard several papers on Belorussian language and literature. Papers on linguistics included "The Present State of the Study of the Belorussian Language," by S. Niekrasevic; "The Belorussian Language Among Other Slav Languages," by P. Buzuk, and "Belorussian Elements in the Polish Language," by L. Cviatkou.
The main subject dealt with by the conference was the reform of the Belorussian orthography and alphabet. Two papers on alphabetical reform were read by J. Losik and P. Rastorguev, and two on spelling reform by J. Losik and S. Niekrasevic. On Belorussian literature, the conference heard the following reports: "Fundamental Stages in the Development of the New Belorussian Literature," by Professor M. Piotuchovic; "The Nasa Niva Period in Belorussian Literature," by Assistant Professor M. Harecki; "Research into Belorussian Literature of the Nineteenth Century Until 1863," by Professor Golabek, and "Poetry on the Latest Period of Belorussian Literature," by Assistant Professor Vazniasienski.
Reform of Inbielkult in 1927. In 1926-27 Inbielkult further extended its activities, and the quality of the work done by all the sections and commissions improved. There was a more intensive study of Belorussian flora and fauna and geological surveys were undertaken on a wider scale. At the beginning of 1927 the Institute had 224 members, including 83 full members, 74 associate members and 67 corresponding members.
The Institute's organizational structure, the scope of its work and the new demands made on it made it impossible for it to remain on the basis of the old 1924 constitution. The need for its replacement was already felt in 1926, for at that time Inbielkult was still officially "not only a research institution, but also a cultural and social center, grouping around it the best cultural and social workers of the BSSR."34 Cvikievic aptly defined the role and importance of Inbielkult at that time as follows:
The main function of Inbielkult was that of an active fighting unit, which had cleared a path toward the recognition of the Belorussian idea in the face of prejudice, mistrust, skeptical criticism, or simply open hostility, which the idea of a Belorussian cultural revival had encountered among the mass of Russian- or Polish-oriented philistines, petty bourgeois and Black Hundreds.35
Now, however:
The former slogan, that of gathering around Inbielkult cultural forces irrespective of their academic qualifications, was relegated to history. The new slogan called for the provision of highly-qualified workers and of suitable technical conditions to facilitate their work.36
It was essential to transform Inbielkult from a primarily practical into an academic institution and to change the constitution to this end. For this purpose a special commission was appointed on January 27,1927. On April 10 the Academic Council examined the draft of the new constitution at a sitting attended by representatives of all the sections and commissions and adopted a resolution to reorganize the Institute as a Belorussian Academy of Sciences.37
The final transformation of Inbielkult into an Academy of Sciences was complicated by the different approaches to this question of the conscious Belorussian element grouped within Inbielkult and united by the main idea of the whole work—the national revival and the further extension of Belorussian national culture—and of the Belorussian National Bolsheviks (notably J. Adamovic, 2. 2ylunovic and A. Carviakou), who, without rejecting support for revived national activity, were more exposed to pro-Russian Bolshevik pressure. Neither side contested in principle the prestige value of reestablishing Inbielkult as an Academy; but the former tried to postpone the change, foreseeing the danger that the Institute would lose its national independence through an intensive onslaught by Bolshevik elements from the moment of its reestablishment, and that a pro-Russian Bolshevik program would be imposed in all fields of its activity. On the other hand, for the National Bolsheviks, concentrated in BSSR government circles, the principle of prestige was, in itself, the more important and they were anxious to speed up the transformation. For this, however, the approval of the Party was necessary.
As soon as the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR began to force the pace of transforming Inbielkult into an Academy of Sciences, the Communist Party started to show an interest in this question. On December 24, 1926, the bureau of the Belorussian Party Central Committee heard a report by Ihnatouski on the state and activity of Inbielkult. Ihnatouski, then an influential member of the Central Committee, succeeded in convincing the bureau of the prematureness of transforming Inbielkult into an Academy, thereby warding off for a while the main threat to Inbielkult. The bureau then appointed a committee to draft a suitable resolution. The resolution, adopted on December 31, 1926, unlike those of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR, found numerous "shortcomings" in the work of Inbielkult, including "the still inadequate enlistment of workers and peasants by regional study organizations, the unsatisfactory qualifications of some Inbielkult researchers, and the bad premises in which Inbielkult worked."
The Second All-Belorussian Congress on Regional Studies, held in February 1927, was attended by 187 delegates, including 82 from the districts, 34 from local regional study organizations, 21 from higher educational establishments, and 50 from central institutions. In all, these delegates represented about 9,000 members of regional study organizations. The First Regional Studies Congress, held in February 1926, had been attended by 147 delegates, representing Inbielkult, the central bureau for regional studies and 87 regional study organizations, embracing 5,000 members.
These figures refuted the "shortcomings" in regional studies pointed out in the December 1926 resolution of the Belorussian Party Central Committee. The Central Committee's bureau was consequently compelled on January 15, 1927 to return once more to the subject of Inbielkult and to adopt the following supplementary resolution:
1. To consider at present the reorganization of Inbielkult as an Academy of Sciences as untimely.
2. To prepare for the establishment of an Academy of Sciences in the BSSR by developing and extending the activity of Inbielkult.
3. To recognize as essential the reorganization of the Academic Council of Inbielkult [as a body] in which scholastic work should be concentrated by uniting workers who by virtue of their academic record are nearest to the rank of academician.38
On June 2, 1927, the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR approved a new constitution for Inbielkult similar to those of the All-Union and All-Ukrainian Academies of Sciences, but said nothing in its resolution about transforming the Institute into an Academy in view of the Belorussian Party Central Committee's decision that this was "untimely."
According to the new constitution, the Institute of Belorussian Culture was transferred to the control of the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR. Paragraph 2 defined the Institute's tasks as follows: (1) to expand the academic disciplines within its competence and enrich them through new discoveries and methods of research; (2) to conduct systematic research on Belorussia's natural productive resources, and on methods for their exploitation; to conduct research on the national economy, law, social movements, language, literature, history, ethnography, etc.; (3) to coordinate all work conducted in these fields by the academic institutions of the BSSR and by individual scholars; (4) to adapt treatises and the results of research for practical use in industry and in the cultural and economic projects of the BSSR.
The constitution provided for two basic departments—one for social sciences, the other for natural science and economics—and, as an autonomous unit, a central bureau for regional studies. Instead of national departments there were now national sectors, chairs and commissions, planning their work in collaboration with the basic departments.
The former organizational structure of Inbielkult, consisting of sections which were more like lecture halls than research departments, was finally abolished. Chairs replaced the sections as centers for research with strictly defined tasks, under the direction of responsible specialists and furnished with the necessary equipment. The commission, as a working organ of the Institute, was retained, but with narrower functions, as an auxiliary body attached to the chair. It contained a definite number of established workers with strictly defined functions . . . Each group of chairs closely related in the object of their research, together with the auxiliary institutions belonging to them, went to make up the corresponding Institute.39
As, during the first five years of its existence, Inbielkult had been unable to create reserves of young researchers, an institute of research studentships was set up.
At the end of 1927, the following presidium was approved in accordance with the new constitution: U. Ihnatouski (President of Inbielkult); M. Bialuha (Vice-President); S. Niekrasevic (Permanent Secretary and Chairman of the Department of Humanities); A. Smolic (Chairman of the Department of Natural Sciences and Economics); S. Geltman (Chief of the Polish Sector); and B. Arsanski (Chief of the Jewish Sector).
The Council of People's Commissars also approved a new list of Institute members, appointing them to individual chairs: Professor U. Ihnatouski (Belorussian history); S. Niekrasevic (Belorussian language); J. Losik (scientific Belorussian language); Professor A. Smolic (geography); Professor I. Zamocin (Belorussian literature); Professor A. Jasinski (world history); Professor U. Piceta (Belorussian legal and economic history); Professor M. Blioducha (geology); Professor J. Afanasjeu (soil science); V. Lastouski (ethnography); I. tucevic (Janka Kupala), K. Mickievic (Jakub Kolas) and 2. Zylunovic (belles-lettres); and Professor St. Matulaitis (history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania).40
Principal Aspects of Inbielkult's Work, 1926-27. In October 1925, long before the reform of Inbielkult, an instruction was printed on the collection of lexicographical material, and at the beginning of 1926, 7,500 copies of the Belorussian text and 800 copies of a Russian translation of this instruction were circulated. In the same year it was reprinted in Riga and Vilna newspapers. The material collected was to include dialectal words from all parts of Belorussia, and by February 1, 1927 the lexicographical commission had about 240,000 word cards in its files.41
During 1926-27 four ethnographical expeditions were undertaken. One, headed by A. Sierzputouski, covered the northern part of the territory, including the Sebezh, Nevel and Velizh districts of the former Vitebsk Province, at that time the Pskov Province. A year before, an ethnographical expedition led by I. Serbau had covered this area from the Latvian border to Velizh, and for this reason Sierzputouski confined himself to certain ethnographical observations and collected some folklore material. Another party, consisting of I. Serbau and A. Slubski, crossed the northeastern part of Belorussia along the route Smolensk— Porechie—Velizh—Shchuchie Lake—Bely—Rzhev. Its object was to undertake a general ethnographical survey of the territory as regards the spoken language, the way of life of the people and their material and spiritual culture. A third expedition, led by linguist P. Buzuk, covered the southeastern border of Belorussia along the route Roslavl—Bryansk—Gomel—Gorodnya—Chernigov—Loev -Rechitsa—Mozyr—Turov and up to the Chervonoe (formerly Knyaz) Lake district. Finally, an expedition organized by Inbielkult and the State Museum and led by V. Lastouski visited many villages in the Slutsk and Mozyr districts and collected many specimens of material culture and national art.
In the summer of 1927, some other departments and sections of Inbielkult undertook expeditions. Thus the department of language and literature organized two expeditions for the purpose of collecting dialectological and ethnographical material. One followed the ancient Smolensk—Porechie—Velizh road, delivering papers on Belorussian studies during its halts at these three places. The other followed the roads linking Unecha, Surazh, Mglin, Trubchevsk and Starodub. The arts section arranged expeditions to Slutsk, to study, copy and partially restore architectural monuments of the 16th-18th centuries; to the Upper Dnieper and Upper Dvina, to collect folk songs; and to the Lepel district, to study folk dances. the medical section carried out a study of goitrous diseases in the Orsha district and of scleroma in the Minsk district, and conducted a helminthological examination of workers in Minsk slaughterhouses. Agricultural expeditions investigated peasant agricultural techniques. One expedition was carried out with the cooperation of the Scientific Society for the Study of Belorussia attached to the Agricultural Academy in Gorki. Two expeditions were also undertaken to study Belorussian peasant weaving in the Vitebsk and Polotsk districts and pottery in the Borisov and Orsha districts. Archeological expeditions to the Sozh River near the village of Berdyzh, in the Gomel district, conducted extensive excavations to investigate the first site of human habitation in Belorussia during the ice age, discovered by Palikarpovic in 1926. The central bureau for regional studies arranged an expedition to investigate the fauna and flora of the Osipovichi district. The Jewish Department conducted a social-economic survey of small towns in the Mozyr Polesie and the Rechitsa district, and an expedition to collect Jewish folklore in the towns of Grozovo, Tsimkovichi and Pogost in the Slutsk district, while the Polish Department collected Polish songs and folklore in the Polish villages of the Slutsk, Bobruisk and Mozyr districts. Finally, the commission for the study of the productive forces of the BSSR conducted research in soil science under the direction of Professor Afanasjeu, geology under Professor Blioducha, geobotany under Palanskaja, geomagnetic surveys under Professor Sirocin, experiments with mineral fertilizers under Professor Skandrakou and medicinal waters etc. under Dr. Trampovic.
Inbielkult took part in the international musical exhibition at Frankfort-on-Main, where if: showed Belorussian folk musical instruments. The cymbalo or dulcimer player Zyvicki and the singer Aleksandrouskaja, sent there by Inbielkult, appeared at ten concerts.
As in the previous year, several scholars and scientists were sent abroad. Kaspiarovic went to Finland, Latvia and Lithuania to conduct regional studies; Professor Skandrakou went to Poland and Czechoslovakia to study agricultural techniques, and Arsanski went to Germany and America to study ancient documents of Jewish literature. Specialists were also invited to Minsk to join in the work of Inbielkult: Professor Jasinski came from Moscow to occupy the chair of world history, Professor Malusycki from Kiev to occupy the chair of botany and Professor Matulaitis from Leningrad to occupy the chair of Lithuanian history.
In the second half of 1927, certain changes were made in the Institute's organization. By the end of the year the humanities department had chairs of modern Belorussian, Belorussian literature, world history and the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and two chairs of Belorussian history; there was also an art institute, an institute for scientific terminology and commissions on ethnography, archeology, the history of education, and Latvian culture. The Scientific Society for the Study of Belorussia attached to the Agricultural Academy in Gorki became a branch of Inbielkult, while the work of the central bureau for regional studies, the library, the publishing department, the commission for the study of the country's productive forces and the bibliographical commission was directly supervised by the Institute's presidium.
In the department of natural science and economics a geological institute, a zoological museum and chairs of soil science, anthropology, botany (with a botanical garden at Velikie Lettsy, in the Vitebsk district) and the geography of Belorussia were set up. While the rearrangement of the humanities department proceeded smoothly, the reorganization of the department of natural science and economics was more complicated, as it called for the creation of new research institutions and the provision of the necessary equipment for them. Controversial questions were also troublesome. For example, the Institute proposed separate geological and soil science research institutes, but on July 19, 1927, Gosplan decided in favor of a geological institute with a soil science department.
Before the 1927 reform, Inbielkult succeeded in establishing extensive connections with leading scholastic institutions in the Soviet Union and abroad, such as the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, the Daghestan Institute of Culture, the Communist Academy, the Kiev Institute of Education, the Central Book Depot of Georgia, the Society for the Study of the Manchurian Territory, the Prussian Academy of Sciences, the Prague Academy of Sciences and the universities of Berlin, Prague, Warsaw, Lithuania and Latvia. In all, Inbielkult was in touch with fifty-five academic institutions in the Soviet Union and twenty abroad.42
On the Way from Institute to Academy (1927-28). By 1927-28 Inbielkult was functioning entirely in accordance with the new constitution and was continuing with its organizational reconstruction aimed at transforming it into a Belorussian Academy of Sciences. New chairs and commissions were being set up, additional researchers invited, and all departments finally staffed.
At the beginning of 1928, the presidium of Inbielkult approved the composition of the council of the humanities department, the council of the department of natural science and economics and the boards of the industrial commission and the commission for the study of handicrafts. The Institute now comprised a presidium; an academic council; institutions attached to the presidium; a humanities department, consisting of seven chairs, two institutes, eighteen commissions, and a museum; a department of natural science and economics, consisting or seven chairs, one institute, five commissions, a scientific society and four laboratories; two national sectors (Jewish and Polish); a chair of Lithuanian history and a commission for the study of Latvian culture. The Institute had 47 researchers of the first category and 23 of the second on its staff, and exchanged Publications with 96 academic institutions in the USSR and 32 abroad. As a result of Inbielkult's expansion, the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR agreed that it was essential to provide it with new premises. It was planned to erect three buildings with an area of 24,791 square meters costing 2,508,000 rubles.
In this year twelve expeditions were undertaken. During the summer of 1928, an archeological expedition worked on the excavation of 50 temporary sites, settlements, 42 forts and 128 tumuli.43 An ethnographical expedition under V. Lastoyski collected 70 valuable samples of Belorussian peasant woodcarving, about 500 pieces of embroidered fabric and clothing and some 100 woven belts.44 The dialectological commission arranged expeditions to the Parichi area of the Bobruisk district under S. Niekrasevic and Jahorau and to the Gomel and Mogilev districts under J. Losik and M. Aladaii; Professor P. Buzuk took part in both expeditions. Rahavy, a specialist on the staff of Inbielkult, completed work on a soil plan of the Mozyr district, for which surveys were carried out in the summer of 1927; surveys were also undertaken in the Minsk, Borisov and Orsha districts. Professor Salaujou investigated the fauna of the Gorki district, and some of the results of his researches were published in the Soviet and foreign press.
The lexicographical commission had in the past three years collected 375,000 word-cards and published a dictionary of the Vitebsk dialect. The institute for scientific terminology (formerly the terminological commission) finally worked out 35,663 terms, of which 22,316 were published in fifteen issues of a scientific terminology and 8,350 were being printed. The orthographical commission began work on a plan for introducing changes into Belorussian orthography.
The bibliographical commission, in conjunction with the State Library, was engaged in compiling a bibliography of the press in Belorussia, and in 1927 published the fourth volume of Mataryjaly da bielaruskaj biblijahrafii (Materials for a Belorussian Bibliography).
The archeological commission prepared for the press a symposium containing articles on the Institute's archeological expeditions and materials on the paleolithic site at Berdyshi, the Bantsyrov fort and the archeological surveys near Turov. A reprint of archeological materials on researches into ancient Zaslauje was brought out as a separate book under the title Zaslauje na Miens'cynie. The results of excavations and other evidence show that Zaslauje was the oldest settlement in Belorussia with purely Slav features.
In the research institute of art the most productive was the commission on the history of art, which by January 1, 1928 had prepared for the press a symposium devoted to the study of stone and timber buildings in Belorussia between the twelfth and eighteenth centuries. Another work prepared for publication was M. Scakacichin's comprehensive history of Belorussian art beginning from the tenth century. Through the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR the Institute received 3,000 rubles from Moscow for the study of Belorussian folk musical instruments, since their originality and value to science had become evident at the exhibition of musical instruments in Frankfort-on-Main.
The historical department handed over to the printers the second volume of Bielaruski archiu (Belorussian Archives). The commission for the preservation of ancient monuments was preparing for the press a description of Minsk and its environs which was to contain the following sections: natural phenomena; Minsk during the stone age; forts and tumuli; the period of the chronicles (eleventh and twelfth centuries); Minsk from the thirteenth century on, with its architecture, art, economics and industry; and a bibliography. It was proposed to illustrate this edition with drawings, sketches and photographs.
In addition to the foregoing, the most important works published by Inbielkult since its inception include the following:
As the result of dialectological expeditions: P. Rastorguev, Seversko-belorussky govor: Issledovanie v oblasti dialektologii i istorii belorusskikh govorov (The Severyane Dialect of Belorussian: Studies in Dialectology and the History of Belorussian Dialects), Leningrad, 1927, 224 pages, map; P. Rastorguev, Govory vostochnykh uezdov Gomelskoi gubernii v ikh sovremennom sostoyanii (Dialects of the Eastern Districts of Gomel Province in Their Present State), Minsk, 1927, 24 pages; A. Polevoi, О yazyke naseleniya Novozybkovskogo uezda Gomelskoi gubernii (The Language of the Population of the Novozybkov District of Gomel Province), Minsk, 1926, 47 pages; A. Serzhputovsky, Otchet о poezdke ъ Gomelskuyu gubemiyu (Report on a Visit to Gomel Province), Minsk, 1926, 16 pages; P. Buzuk, Da charaktarystyki bielaruskich dyjalektau: Havorki Nie-vielskaha i Vialiskaha pavietau (The Characteristics of Belorussian Dialects: The Dialects of the Nevel and Velizh Districts), Minsk, 1926, 15 pages; and E. Ramanau, "Havorki Mahilouskaj huberni" (Dialects of the Mogilev Province), 26 pages with map, in Volume I of Pracy Klasy filolohii (Works of the Philological Department).
The main task of the dialectological commission was to prepare a linguistic geography of Belorussia. In pursuance of this task, the commission in 1928 published the first instalment of Professor P. Buzuk's work under the title Sproba linhvistycnaj hieahrafii Bielarusi, torn I: Fanetyka i marfalohija, case I: Havorki Centralnaje j Uschodniaje Bielarusi i и susiednich miascovasciach Ukrainy i Vialikarasieji й piersaj cverci XX sth. (An Attempt at a Linguistic Geography of Belorussia. Volume I: Phonetics and Morphology, Part I: Dialects of Central and Eastern Belorussia and in Neighboring Localities of the Ukraine and Great Russia in the First Quarter of the Twentieth Century).
In 1927 the chair of ethnography began publication of a series of monographs on Belorussian ethnography, of which the most important were: A. Slubski, Mataryjaly da vyvueennia falklom i movy Viciebscyny (Materials for the Study of the Folklore and Language of the Vitebsk Province), Minsk, Part I, 1927, 198 pages, Part II, 1928, 259 pages; A. Slubski, Mataryjaly da bielaruskaje bibhjahrajii: Etnahrafija (Materials for a Belorussian Bibliography: Ethnography), Minsk, 1927, 104 pages; M. Harecki and A. Jahorau, Narodnyja piesni z melodyjami (Folk Songs With Melodies), Minsk, 1928; A. Sierzputouski, rymchi i zababony Bielarusau-Palasukou (Superstitions and Beliefs of the Belorussians of Polesie), Minsk, 1927, 270 pages.
The social-historical section, together with the commission on history and archeology, published the first issue of Histarycna-archealahicny zbornik (Historical and Archeological Symposium) (406 pages) in 1927 and a number of historical studies in Zbornik artykulau (Symposium of Articles) (307 pages) in 1928.
The first number of Bielaruski archiu (Belorussian Archives), published in 1927 under the editorship of Dauhialla (300 pages), was a substantial work, and included a number of documents of primary importance for the study of the social, economic and political history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. These were copies of documents collected by Daunar-Zapolski and Dauhialla and preserved in the archives of Cracow, Warsaw, Leningrad, Moscow and Mogilev. Volume II of this publication (1928, 396 pages) included material on the 16th— 18th centuries. Volume III, containing Minsk legal documents from the 15th—18th centuries, appeared in 1930.
The arts section in 1927 issued M. Scakacichin's work entitled Vasil Vascanka— Mahilouski hravior kanca XVII i pacatku XVIII sth. (Vasil Vascanka: Mogilev Engraver of the Late 17th and Early 18th Centuries), and in 1928 Volume I of the monograph Narysy z historyi bielaruskaha mastactva (Outline History of Belorussian Art) (370 pages), in which the author examines Belorussian ecclesiastical architecture of the 11th and 12th centuries, castles of the 12th—14th centuries and Belorussian gothic of the 15th and 16th centuries. In 1928 Zapiski Addzielu humanitarnych navuk (Proceedings of the Department of Humanities) included a volume on the history of art entitled Pracy Kamisii historyi mastactva (Works of the Commission on the History of Art) (216 pages), under the editorship of Scakacichin.
Articles by archeologists I. Serbau, K. Paiikarpovic, A. Laudanski and S. Dubinski appeared in collected editions such as Pracy piersaha zjezdu dasledcykau bielaruskaj archealohii i archeahrafii й 1926 h. (Proceedings of the First Congress of Researchers into Belorussian Archeology and Archeography in 1926), Minsk, 1926, 88 pages; History ka-archealahicny zbornik (Historical and Archeological Symposium), No. 1, Minsk, 1927, 397 pages; and Pracy Katedry archealohii (Works of the Chair of Archeology), Volume I, Minsk, 1928, 298 pages.
The department of natural science and economics published the results of its labors in a serial edition entitled Zapiski Addzielu pryrody i haspadarki (Records of the Department of Natural Science and Economics), Volume I, 1928, 308 pages, and Volume II, 1930, 288 pages, and in a special edition entitled Mataryjaly da vyvucennia flory i jauny Bielarusi (Materials for the Study of the Flora and Fauna of Belorussia), Volume I, 1927, 159 pages, Volume II, 1928, 180 pages, Volume III, 1929, and Volume IV, 1930. The department also published A. Fiedziusyn's Spis nazvau ptusak i niekatorych ryb (List of Names of Birds and Certain Fish), 1927, 284 pages.
In 1928 the geographical commission began publication of a serial edition entitled Mataryjaly da hieahrafii i statystyki (Materials on Geography and Statistics), of which Volume I (224 pages) appeared in 1928 and Volume II (176 pages) in 1930.
Pracy Navukovaha tavarystva pa vyvucenni Bielarusi pry Bielaruskaj Dziarzaunaj Akademii sielskaj haspadarki й Horkach (Proceedings of the Scientific Society for the Study of Belorussia Attached to the Belorussian State Academy of Agriculture in Gorki) appeared serially: Volume I (204 pages) in 1926, Volumes II (237 pages), III (292 pages) and IV (207 pages) in 1927, Volume V (245 pages) in 1928 and Volume VI (221 pages) in 1929.
The Polish sector published Rok 1863 na Minszczyznie: Materjaly archiwum III wydzialu Kancelarji carskiej (The Year 1863 in the Minsk Region: Materials from the Archives of the Third Department of the Imperial Chancellery), collected and edited by J. Witkowski, Janiewicz and L. Lech, Minsk, 1927.
The Institute also published the works of M. Bahdanovic, under the editorship of Professor Zamocin, as Volume I (Minsk, 1927, 517 pages) of Akademicnaja biblijateka bielaruskich pismiennikau (Academic Library of Belorussian Writers), and Praktycny bielaruski vajskovy slounik, case I, rasiejska-bieiaruskaja (Practical Belorussian Military Dictionary, Part I: Russian-Belorussian), Minsk, 1927, 251 pages.
An important publication by Inbielkult was the symposium Catyrochsotleccie bielaruskaha druku, 1525-1925 (Four Hundred Years of Belorussian Printing, 1525-1925), Minsk, 1926.
The Final Reorganization of Inbielkult in 1928-29 and the New Reform. The reorganization of Inbielkult begun in 1927 on the basis of the constitution was finally completed by the beginning of the academic year 1928-29. On October 1, 1928, another chair, that of Belorussian law under Professor Gredinger, was inaugurated. The institute of art and the chairs of historical geography and the history of the national economy were abolished. The ethnographical commission was replaced by a chair with three commissions—for the study of Belorussian folk art, music and drama. The archeological commission was reorganized as a chair with two commissions—for the study of the paleolithic and neolithic ages, and of the iron age. Sections for the humanities and natural sciences were created under the institute for scientific terminology.
The department of humanities now consisted of ten chairs, an institute, nineteen permanent and two temporary commissions and a museum; the department of natural science and economics comprised eight chairs, five commissions, an institute with two departments, a botanical garden, two museums, four laboratories and a scientific society. The chair of Lithuanian history became the chair of Lithuanian culture.
Thus, during the five years of its existence the Institute of Belorussian Culture had undergone two great reforms, established itself as a serious independent research institution and acquired authority and recognition, not only inside the country, but also abroad. This had been attested by the presence of outstanding Western scholars at the Academic Conference at the end of 1926, and by the invitation extended to the historians of Inbielkult to attend the world congress or historians in Oslo, where Professors U. Ihnatouski and U. Piceta went in the second half of August 1928.
To delay the transformation of Inbielkult into a Belorussian Academy of siences was no longer possible, but there was as yet no signal from the Central committee of the Belorussian Communist Party.
The Communist Party of Belorussia, which at its tenth congress launched the slogan "the Communist Party of Belorussia [stands] at the head of cultural construction," is continually strengthening and extending its influence over the activity of all our cultural institutions.... The teaching of social disciplines is being increasingly transferred to Communist professors and teachers, which greatly enhances Party and Bolshevik influence over pupils and students. But resistance against our line will continue for a long time, since because of a shortage of forces we cannot yet take over all the positions of the cultural front.... What a great fight our organs and workers have to wage in elaborating . . . curricula for schools, universities, academies and Inbielkult, in order to preserve their proletarian content.45
The President of Inbielkult, Professor Ihnatouski, being a member of the Communist Party and of the Central Committee, knew better than his colleagues how to orient himself and recognized the danger of surrendering "all positions on the cultural front" to the Bolsheviks. He had to withstand the greatest pressure from "Marxist forces" which were attempting to penetrate into Inbielkult and implant this "proletarian content" there. For this reason he was compelled to convene an organizational meeting of "Marxist" academic workers, at which it was resolved to set up a "society of Marxists of the BSSR" with sections for philosophy, economics, history and literature. Ihnatouski himself joined the board of the society as its chairman. In the work of the sections of this society it was decided to pay special attention to clarifying the national problem and to establish contact with the various sections of Inbielkult and the scientific societies of the Belorussian State University.46
The Belorussian Party Central Committee was now confident that the Communists' assumption of control over the work of Inbielkult would proceed more rapidly. Soon after, the bureau of the Committee resolved that the time for the transformation of Inbielkult into an Academy had arrived. The Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR thereupon passed the following resolution on October 13, 1928:
1. To reorganize Inbielkult as a Belorussian Academy of Sciences.
2. To complete this reorganization by January 1, 1929.
3. To set up a governmental commission composed of Chackievic (chairman), Ihnatouski, Balicki, Niekrasevic and Arsanski, which is to be instructed to submit for approval, by November 15, 1928, to the Council of People's Commissars the permanent establishment of the presidium and a list of members of the Belorussian Academy of Sciences, and also those changes in the constitution of the Academy that are essential and arise from the present resolution.47
From that moment Inbielkult ceased to exist as such and entered a new phase of organizational problems.
Of great importance for the expansion of the work of national revival itm Inbielkult was the enlistment, after their return from the West to the BSSR, of such Belorussian nationalist emigres as A. Cvikievic and Vaclau Lastouski. It should also be noted that a main role in the creation and development of Inbielkult was played by S. Niekrasevic and U. Ihnatouski, particularly by the former, on whose initiative the embryo of Inbielkult—the Commission on Scientific Terminology attached to the People's Commissariat for Education of the BSSR—came into being.*
RECENT SOVIET BELORUSSIAN LITERATURE
ALES BIERAZNIAK
A Review of Polymia for 1956
Until the end of 1931 there were three important literary and art journals published in the Belorussian Soviet Republic— Uzvyssa, Polymia and Maladniak, organs of three different literary organizations. It was not until the end of the twenties that literary life in Belorussia was brought under firm control of the Party. Relatively free discussion and a certain amount of political liberalism which marked the NEP period provided a creative stimulus to literary life over which the Party had, at the outset, only a watching brief. It was not until the end of the period that it began to interfere and bring writers' work under strict political control.
This coincided with the launching of the five-year plans and collectivization, which were accompanied by an attempt to impose strict control over people's minds and force all thought into one single channel. At this time Belorussia experienced unrelenting terror in the persecution of so-called national-democracy, which had been branded as a counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendency. The terror claimed as its victims not only those writers who were obviously in opposition, but even those whom the regime considered not particularly reliable. In order to establish complete control over it, literary life was confined to a single organization known as the Union of Soviet Writers of the Belorussian SSR, a branch of the all-Union organization of the same name.
In early 1932, when a committee was set up to launch the Writers' Union, instead of the three journals only one—Polymia revalucyi—began to appear. Other papers such as Bielarus kalhasnaja (eight issues in 1932) and Zaklik (four issues in 1933), specially brought out to popularize the slogans of the time summoning shockworkers to the cause of literature, were only short-lived. The launching of "large-scale socialist construction," as it affected the writers of this national republic, officially known as "the western outpost of socialism," meant that their chances of seeing their work in print were cut to a third.
Since the war there has been only one Belorussian literary monthly of any size—i.e., Polymia, which was apparently given this title to show its succession to its forerunner of the same name, since its title page for 1956 shows it to be in the thirty-fourth year of publication. The postwar literary-political monthly Bielarus, which resembles in style and format the Moscow weekly Ogonek, reserves a limited number of pages for verse and short stories, while a meager amount of space is given to literary articles in minor propagandist monthlies such as the Komsomol Maladosc and Rabotnica j kalhasnica Bielarusi. The children's monthly Biarozka and the humorous eight-page paper Vozyk, based on the Russian Kroko-dil, have, owing to their limited appeal, only a few literary contributors. To these we can add Litaratura i Mastactva, which prints some verse and the occasional™ short story. The limitations of these journals as a whole become even more apparent when we take into consideration the nature of Soviet conditions, under which the only writing submitted to the press is that which is ideologically acceptable and politically up to date.
Separate mention should be made of the Russian-language bimonthly Sovetskaya otchizna, which is of almost the same size and circulation as Polymia and which, too, is an organ of the Writers' Union of the BSSR. Its editorial board consist entirely of Belorussian writers with the sole exception of the secretary, who is a Russian. Previously, there were no such publications, except for sporadic journals which printed the works of local non-Belorussian authors. The publication of such a journal is intended to meet the requirements, not of Russian writers in the BSSR, who, by reason of their very small numbers, have no need for a separate periodical of their own, but of Russian readers, whose numbers are continually increasing thanks to the policy of filling all the important posts with Russians. Its policy is to Russify both Belorussian readers and Belorussian writers; to accustom the latter to seeing their own work in its Russian text and, perhaps, in time to make them switch over to Russian—the final aim of a one-language Communist society.
We cannot ask Soviet writers what stirs their imagination or moves them to write, since such a question presupposes individual creative freedom. This is something that the writers of the national republics particularly lack. Such a question, therefore, should be formulated otherwise: we should ask what demands are being made today of Belorussian Soviet literature, what compulsory themes are given to writers and, the all-important question, whether Belorussian writers have felt the so-called political thaw which is said to have affected the life of the Soviet subject peoples since Stalin's death through the shortlived and fear-inspired Party policy directed against the personality cult. The present review will attempt to provide an answer to these questions.
For the most part, literary texts never reach the West from Belorussia and those that do, inevitably arrive after considerable delay. Accordingly, this review of Belorussian literature during 1956 is, perforce, limited to a study of Polymia, which prints only those works that are officially considered worthy or the widest attention. As far as other publications are concerned, they would only fill in the picture quantitatively and would add nothing of essential importance.
Bare figures in themselves illustrate without need for comment the work of russian writers. During the year Polymia printed two novels, the second Part of a third, two plays, three stories and the first part of a fourth, twelve ort stones and eleven essays. Less the essays, which are mostly written in a journalistic style, the year's output amounts to twenty-one works by seventeen authors. In the same period it printed a hundred and thirty short and four long poems, and translations of verse by Heine, the Ukrainian Ivan Franko, and various English, Polish, Bulgarian and Russian poets.
In prose, the dominating theme is collective farming. Next comes urban production and, a poor third, the family. One constant theme is "the friendship of the Soviet Peoples" with emphasis on its political aspect. In verse, a leading part is played by the treatment of social problems. There are no examples of themes taken from history generally, let alone the history of particular peoples. As for questions of literary history, these are no longer treated purely negatively as something nationalist and reactionary, as they were a short while ago. Previously, all historical subjects were taboo. This led to the undesirable situation in which Soviet culture appeared to lack historical continuity, which became an unexpected argument in favor of the superficiality and alien character not only of Soviet culture but of the Bolshevik regime itself in Belorussia. A reappraisal was necessary in order to mend the break between Soviet culture and the past and to give Soviet literature some appearance of national continuity. It had another, purely political, purpose—namely, to prove that Belorussian culture was dependent on Russia, that Belorussians themselves aspired to absorb Russian culture, and that Belorussians derived positive advantages from their forcible annexation by Russia, even though this was contradicted by many historical facts such as the official ban on the Belorussian press in force right up to the 1905 Revolution.
Being wholly dependent on Party policy, Soviet literature is a reflection of that policy. Every political move makes itself felt, in literature, as in other spheres, and casts the mold for future writing. And the nearer to the periphery the uglier its aspect.
A general theme running through recent Belorussian literature has been the official slogan calling for "a new and improved economy for the kolkhozes." In point of fact, this is an old theme, the very persistence of which is the best proof that the peasantry, to this day, will not accept the kolkhozes. Here, as elsewhere, writers take their cue from official pronouncements. Khrushchev's speech on the catastrophic condition of kolkhoz agriculture and the decree of the Party Central Committee on measures to be taken for its improvement provide the beginning and end to all writing about the kolkhozes.
Verse, short stones, novels, plays and essays all became part of the "operative" contribution of writers toward the realization of the Party's decree. But official pronouncements, by referring to the setbacks of the kolkhoz economy, created an opening through which something of the truth, however timidly, began to seep into their writings. Tell-tale spots have appeared in the hitherto rosy picture of kolkhoz life. "The Bank of Nightingales," on which the people and the birds sing together in one voice, has begun to lose its idyllic nature.1 References to aggrieved and dissatisfied people creep in. Whereas before, the constant figure was that of the positive Party leader, the reader now meets Party leaders and administrators in a different make-up—that of the thief, the slovenly
drunkard, the selfseeker, the overbearing dictator, all free to reward or punish people according to their whims.
Works dealing with kolkhoz life include Makar Pasladovic's Z taboju pobac (Side by Side with You), of which the first part has appeared, Kastus Hubarevic's play Na krutym pavarocie (The Sharp Corner), Ivan Samiakin's novel Krynicy (Springs), several short stories, and Tar as Chadkievic's long essay Asviejskija zapiski (Notes from Osveya). The recurring theme of all these works is the purge of bad kolkhoz managers and the change for the better under new leadership. This change is used in an attempt to create a semblance of human conflict in literature. As a rule, the motive of conflict is reluctance on the part of the kolkhozniks to work, one which introduces an element of truth, sometimes even in sharp detail.
Nearly all these works contain something which breaks the illusion of orderliness and prosperity in kolkhoz life. Even Pasladovic, normally a guarded writer, brings into his story details of which previously there was no conscious notice, such as the filthy, tumbledown barn, the machinery left out in the open all winter, the squalid office building, the low thatched huts of the farm workers which contrast so effectively with the kolkhoz managers' "spacious and tall houses with their large windows and slate roofs."2 He presents the reader with conceited ignoramuses like the chairman of the district executive council or dictators like the first secretary of the district Party organization whose conversation with subordinates who have not carried out his orders invariably beings: "Who do you think you are—God Almighty— playing about with the state plans?"3 But a rank or two lower it becomes even uglier with the thieving, all-powerful kolkhoz chairman who regards the ordinary kolkhoznik as a Simple Simon. At the same time, however, the writer diplomatically passes over the daily life of the kolkhozniks in silence. His kolkhoznik sums up life quite shortly: "I'm no worse off than the others. I've potatoes and milk .. ."4
In Viasnovyja prataliny (Spring Thaw) by the young writer Ivan Naumienka, we find realistic sketches which, though not perhaps perfect, nevertheless seem to be taken from life.5 The reader gets an impression of the impoverishment of the economy, of the peasants' indifference toward the kolkhoz and their conviction, learned from their own experience, that "however hard you work, you will never get out of the mire."6 When an old kolkhoznik is ordered out into the fields by the new chairman, he says: "I've got to live, but so far the kolkhoz hasn't given me anything special... Don't you come to me with your agitating ... Brother, I've heard a lot of pretty words and promises, but if you were m my skin, you might be singing another tune."7 It is significant that peasants were expressing the same views in the thirties. The experience of twenty-five years has failed to root out their negative attitude toward the Soviet kolkhoz.
Hubarevic's play Na krutym pavarocie8 is also set in a kolkhoz, whose members' attitude is summed up in their "We still struggle along somehow or other."9 The conflict between the new chairman and the kolkhozniks arises from the same unwillingness of the latter to work since "our work-day only brings us Lenten rations,"10 as even a former partisan girl puts it. On Hubarevic's kolkhoz there are a couple of hundred "loafers," both old and young, whom the new chairman has to get working. Certain details in the play come near truth, but it is not here that its importance lies. The official resolution of the conflict inevitably strikes a false, rhetorical note. In the final scene the supposedly reeducated kolkhozniks go off to gather in the potato harvest to the strains of music. As they go, the chairman declaims to his wife: "Do you hear how they are going off to work? There you have the sharpest and most dangerous corner! It is not only they, it is their consciences on the march .. ."n The secretary of the district Party committee then joins in and, addressing the chairman, says: "Take over command, Lahuta, and lead them into battle. Let us dig up mountains of potatoes and tonight we'll bake them, we'll get in some vodka and herrings and have a party which will resound throughout the whole province ..." and, taking Lahuta's wife by the arm, "Come along, Ksana Kirylauna, you gather the potatoes in a basket and I'll cart them to the stacks! Make way, good people. Make way for the future Heroes of Socialist Labor!"12 Served as a psychological sauce to this propaganda-poster base, the play also has a happy ending to the family conflict arising out of the new chairman's suspected unfaithfulness to his wife and resolved by the Party secretary in his role of teacher.
When dealing with the darker side of kolkhoz life, not one author oversteps the permitted boundary, and they are all especially careful to shun the people's negative attitude. The general point of departure may be summed up in the statement that everything bad is but an unpleasant episode—"just potholes in the road"— and by no means typical of the kolkhoz system as such. As soon as an author brings in a bad kolkhoz he is at pains to show immediately, either in his stage directions or through the mouths of his characters, that things are bad only in this particular kolkhoz and that on the kolkhoz next door, in the words of one of Hubarevic's women kolkhozniks, "they have a turnover of millions every year"13—in itself proof enough that the kolkhoz is a good thing. Any unrest is portrayed as a purely local matter, and is directed against bad lower-grade leaders on whose shoulders the whole blame should rest. The solution, therefore, is simple: it is enough to provide a good leader, who, after overcoming a certain amount of opposition, will gain the people's confidence and lead them to the "great change." This substitution of the particular for the general leads not only to the portrayal of such conflicts as superficial and transient, but also to the offering of false solutions, and turns the writer's work into a piece of facile propaganda.
It is characteristic that more severe expressions of dissatisfaction in the kolkhoz are put into the mouths of the women, for many a woman can get away with things which a man would find it dangerous to say.
Although writers have begun, to a limited extent, to base their works on the element of conflict and do not always paint the scene in rosy colors, this is only a faint echo of the truth, and we can only regard it as a new departure if we compare it with the completely idyllic literature of the Stalin period, when the official aim was to eliminate from art and the national consciousness any illusions developed during the war. Not a single work gives the impression of an attempt to represent the darker sides of Soviet life in general. The dark aspect is used only as an exceptional and temporary background against which the positive hero acts. This is why there can be no talk of any fundamental change in literary trends. It is only the details, dictated by the times, that have changed in the accustomed framework of socialist realism.
The prose writer Samiakin made his first appearance in print in 1945. His novel of partisan life Hiybokaja plyn (Deep Currents) was awarded a Stalin Prize, and today he is one of the authors officially approved of in the BSSR. Samiakin is always one of the first to raise his voice in support of various Party directives without concern for style or purity of language. His novel Krynicy for example, is an attempt to depict the edict issued by the September plenum of the Central Committee regarding the kolkhozes as "raising the level of Party leadership in agriculture." This determines the character of the entire novel, to the point of identifying the Party line with the wellspring of national life. One of the characters, an old teacher nearing the end of his days, appeals to the younger generation to maintain the purity of that line.
The novel may be described in the words of one of the characters: "How little life . . . but how many truisms, how much officialdom and unnecessary ostentation!"15 All that the characters in the novel do is to take advantage of every opportunity to express their enthusiasm for the Party decree. In the latest political fashion, they exclaim, "This is the collective wisdom of the Party,"16 and assure the reader that, by implementing the decree, happiness will at last come to the people. True, this happiness may be only a very modest scale, for, as one woman kolkhoznik puts it, "Now we shall have bread."17 The question of bread and the most elementary human needs is a theme which runs through all writing with a kolkhoz setting.
Samiakin's emissaries to the countryside are given names with appropriate meanings, such as Lemiasevic (from the word lemeh, "plowshare") or Valatovic (from volat, "enormous," "powerful"). Instead of a genuine human character we a the forced, copy-book reasoning of the Party philosophizer, whose speech comes out of a well-worn propagandist's pamphlet with talk of his and others' responsibilities as Communists—as, for instance, "What a high and honorable post—that of Party leader,"18 or "You, the leader, represent the Party and stand on guard over its loftiest moral principles."19
All his characters talk in this moralizing tone and appear not as creations of an artist's mind but as tendentious illustrations of the unchanging formula: "The Party has issued decisions which have stirred the whole country and given rise to a great patriotic movement."20 The whole novel is written in a lifeless newspaper style. Even the young people, high school graduates, whom the author calls clever and resourceful, lend no refreshing touches to the novel, since they, too, live in the same atmosphere of political sermonizing.
Not even the "dethronement" of Barodka, the district Party committee first secretary, as an object of the personality cult brings any life to the book. This should have been something of a novelty, since, right up to Stalin's death, such a character was always sacrosanct and held up as an edifying example of human thinking and behavior; but in fact it merely reveals the purely conventional significance of the dethronement process, for it is carried out in strict accordance with "Party democracy," the subject of repeated tactically timed proclamations. Since genuine debunking would have brought the Party into disrepute, Samiakin presents him as deviating from the true role of a Bolshevik, and, in order not to cast any aspersions on the Party itself, makes an unsuccessful attempt to present Barodka as being outside the Party environment. He thus adopts the normal Soviet course of denouncing negative qualities as extraneous occurrences and presenting them quite simply without exposing the root causes, since Soviet life has to be accepted as something completely pure, only very seldom marred by "traces of the past" which have no foundation in it. Barodka is a dictator, ambitious to be regarded as "the first person," as the "law and power."21 He is vindictive toward his subordinates and cowardly in the face of his Party superiors, on whom his fate depends. We are given no explanation of the real significance of the nickname given to him, "The Thunder of the Raion."22 If thunder he was, he obviously did not confine himself to rumbling or "offering people a light,"23 as his subordinates said of him, for there was also lightning and its victims.
Nevertheless, in his attempt to topple a Party personage who, until yesterday, enjoyed immunity, the author acts with caution and sympathy. This turns into admiration for the very victim of his attack when he stresses his brainpower, his boundless energy and exceptional gifts as an orator. Having dismissed Barodka from his post of first secretary, he leaves him in the Party and, hesitating to demote him before the reader's eyes, transfers him to another district. It is certain that he will reform and again come to the top. No without reason Barodka tells his critics: "The devil take it, you've yet to see what Barodka is capable of !"24
Samiakin dislikes profound human discord, especially among the common people, and makes every effort to avoid portraying anything which might disturb the accepted thesis. The wind howling through the tumbledown kolkhoz cowshed does reach the author's ears, but he is deaf to it when describing the kolkhoznik's daily life and only permits one of his characters to remark casually that the wheat is "no good,"25 or the school cleaning woman to say, indifferently, that her life is "poor."26 His heroes are the leaders and not those who have to plow and sow. Their wordy discussions, which are part of the official side of life, are easily removed in subsequent editions or adapted on the appearance of new Party instructions. This is why every problem in the novel has such a simple and harmonious solution.
In Piatrus Brouka's novel Kali zlivajucca reki (The Junction of the Rivers),27 the latest aspect of kolkhoz life is linked with the theme of "the friendship of the Soviet peoples." Brouka is well known in Belorussia as a poet who faithfully follows the Party line, which gives a rhetorical, hymn-like quality to his verse. Since 1948 he has enjoyed official status as president of the Belorussian Writers' Union.
It is always the same Brouka, whether he writes in verse or prose. This novel is written in his usual style of excessive political preaching, which is carried right down to the minutest detail. Not having been written as a result of any creative necessity, it reveals no new literary traits, and cannot even be regarded as an event in the author's own life. In spite of its failure, however, Soviet critics acclaimed the novel as an achievement in Belorussian literature, taking as their cue the political importance and constant topicality of the "friendship of the peoples" line.
In writing this diffuse and threadbare work Brouka was faced not so much with a literary as a political task—that of showing that anything politics may require is good in itself.
The Party line, for example, demands that the people be politically conscious, and Brouka instills this quality into all his kolkhozniks—Belorussian, Lithuanian and Latvian—who have decided to build jointly a hydroelectric station to be called "The Friendship of the Peoples." The author points out that this is being done "in honor of the nationalities policy of the Party"28 and identifies this policy throughout the novel with the desires and aspirations of the people.
The Party line demands diligent and unflagging work for the state as part of the people's "socialist duty," and Brouka's characters, old and young, are all endowed with indefatigability and "enthusiasm" in their work, often beyond their powers, as if they recognized that their labor was for the common good.
The Party line requires thriftiness and Brouka obliges by making his kolkhozniks and leaders thrifty.
The Party line demands vigilance, and Brouka, by setting his novel in Western Belorussia, a territory only properly "brought under control" by the regime after the war, introduces such old, familiar characters as the kulak—probably the last of the species—and diversionists in the pay of a transatlantic power, described as bandits and robbers, who are out to blow up the power station and create havoc in the kolkhozes.
Finally, the Party line demands that it be glorified as the source of all happiness, and Brouka's characters are excessively zealous in supplying praise, often nothing but sickly sentimentality directed, naturally, toward the Kremlin, which they, nurtured by the author's official dogmatism, long to see with their own eyes.
Such, then, is the mold in which his characters are cast. They have, admittedly, different names and duties to perform, but cannot be considered for one moment as individuals reflecting life.
Brouka uses everything to give his novel political expression. Into his "friendship of the peoples" theme he introduces the latest Party decree on the "raising of the level of kolkhozes" and cannot even refrain from mentioning Khrushchev's corn, not only out of habit as an agitator, but in order to effect the economic reeducation of the drunkard ex-chairman of the kolkhoz.
The subordination of everything to political ends results in the author's losing all normal sense of proportion. This is especially noticeable in his attempt to see in every single action of his characters an expression of today's "friendship of the peoples," contrasted with the past when "our grandfathers fought one another with staves,"29 and in the constant declarations of thanks to the Party, "which has made us brothers for ever."30 Striking this pose of friendship, his people call each other only "friend" or "brother," while he qualifies all references to their work, jokes and laughter with the epithet "friendly." He throws a young Lithuanian girl into the icy waters of the flooding river so that the former bully, a Belorussian, can show that he has been reformed and save her from drowning while the seventy-year-old grandfather points to the moral: "Such friendship will go through fire and water."31 Even the incident in which a drunken Belorussian fights with a Lithuanian leads to tedious sermons at a Komsomol meeting, at which it is stated that such an occurrence "casts a shadow on ... our friendship," on "the brotherly family [which is] building its future," and that the "gentlemen over the water" (he means the Americans) "will not fail to exploit" such a trivial event. "Just look at what friendship means to them," he adds.32 Interracial weddings are organized to give further significance to this stilted friendship. Incessant talk finally dissolves into novelettish sentimentality with the lovers kissing against a background of the hydroelectric station being put into commission.
Soviet literary works are bound not only to a set standard of conduct and character, but also to a standardized set of characters best suited to resolving the problem posed in the work. In other words, the writer does not take life as his starting point but the line officially laid down, to which life has to be subordinated. Life is thus relegated from the category of the real to that of the relative. Only thus can we explain, for instance, the absolute necessity for all writers to bring in such characters as the old grandfather, a restless old hearty, whom they represent as the greatest of Soviet patriots in order to assert the tacit unity between the people and the regime. This secondary character, whose age alone is indicative of experience, is used by every author in the same way—as an authority for the younger members of the cast and as an indispensable means of persuading them to adopt a unified course of action. These old men only appear as positive characters. In Hubarevic's play the septuagenarian plays the part of the kolkhoz zealot. Samiakin's aged retired teacher helps the newly-appointed Party officials on their arrival in the country and becomes the novel's standard bearer of Soviet patriotism, which mus