Kaip tapti lenkų etnografu Lietuvoje? : recenzija
LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Ana Gomula; Biografija; Egodokumentai; Etnografija; Etnologija; Etnologija Lietuvoje; J. Vitartas; Jonas Vitartas; Lenkija (Lenkijos karalystė. Kingdom of Poland. Poland); Mokslo istorija; Anna Gomola; Biography; Egodocuments; Ethnography; Ethnology; Ethnology in Lithuania; History; J. Witort; Jonas Vitartas; Lithuania; Science.
ENPolish scientist Anna Gomóła’s historical anthropological study is dedicated to research on the status of Polish scientists in the second half of the 19th century. Based on the biography of Lithuanian ethnologist Jonas Vitartas (1853–1903) and through biographies of other scientists and the research of historians, the author seeks to construct a career scheme and collective picture of scientists of the time. The main issue that needs to be solved is what requirements had to be met by scientists in the second half of the 19th c. and what qualifications one had to have in order to be considered a scientist, how an individual could become one. In search of answers, the author uses narrow and smallscale egodocument sources: J. Vitartas’ Autobiography, the diary From the Shores of the White Sea (“Nuo Baltosios jūros krantų”), and 42 letters. A. Gomóła formulates a theoretical model of scientists from J. Vitartas’ generation. In her opinion, at that time scientific activity was considered a patriotic duty, helping to preserve the national identity, glorifying Poland’s name abroad, and leading to independence. A scientist was able to have such a status without being employed at a scientific institution, as well as without completing formal studies. They could engage in individual and independent studies, well-known authorities in science could supervise them, since this perceived as a patriotic duty, as work for the common cause.Scientists were characterized by messianism; they felt that they served the nation. Also manifested was religious indifferentism, which is perceived as a precondition for objectivity. Scientists have been characterized as being sceptical, enthusiastic, rational, and other features. A collective diagram of the biographies of scientists is formed: illegal activities in their youth–exile or time in prison–sickness–independent studies–research activities seem viable, although like every generalization it eliminates individual components. The examination of J. Vitartas’ scientific career did not take into consideration several important aspects. Unnoticed went the emotional support and help of family and relatives while he studied as he aimed for the status of scientist and finishing of his studies; support of the local community was not taken into account, without which the ethnologist’s work would be impossible. The author underestimated a very important process that was taking place in Lithuania during that time–the formation of modern nations, which had a significant impact on the development of J. Vitartas’ personality, activities, and well-being. [From the publication]
