Pobaudžiavinio kaimo savivaldos iššūkiai, patirtys ir galių demonstravimas. XIX a. 7 dešimtmetis - XX a. pradžia

LTStraipsnyje aiškinamasi, kaip valstiečių savivalda veikė pobaudžiavinį kaimą. Analizei pasirinkti trys kaimo kismo aspektai, svarbūs dėl įtampų ir konfliktinių situacijų, kylančių kuriant naujus buvusių baudžiauninkų santykius su valdžia ir savivaldos pareigūnais. Remiantis pranešimais apie nesankcionuotus viršaičių ir kaimo seniūnų perrinkimus, valstiečių prašymais valdžiai ir skundais, kuriuose viršaičiai kaltinami įvairiais piktnaudžiavimais, parodoma, kad pobaudžiavinis kaimas demonstravo pasirengimą spręsti apie išsirinktos valsčių valdžios tinkamumą ir įvertinti jos veiklą. Nagrinėjama valsčiaus raštininko sociokultūrinė pozicija, nederanti su jo neaukštu socialiniu statusu, priklausymu nuo taikos tarpininko ir draudimu šias pareigas Vakarų gubernijose užimti katalikams. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į feodalinės pastotės prievolės virtimą smulkiu verslu, tapusiu rimtos valstiečių ir žydų konkurencijos objektu ir savivaldos pareigūnų neteisėtu pajamų šaltiniu. Raktiniai žodžiai: pobaudžiavinis laikotarpis, valstiečių savivalda, kaimo bendruomenės seniūnas, valsčiaus viršaitis, valsčiaus raštininkas, pastotės prievolė, konfliktas.

ENThe article elucidates how peasant self-government affected the post-serfdom village. It discusses the composition and competences of peasant self-government as defined in the General Statutes of 19 February 1861, which were addressed to peasants throughout the whole Russian Empire and focuses on the administrative board, leaving out the issue of the volost’ court, which was also part of selfgovernment as a separate paper will be devoted to it. The chronology of the study covers the period from the abolition of serfdom in the 1860s to the introduction of the institute of land captains, which changed the nature of self-government, in the early twentieth century. Three aspects in the change of the village were chosen for analysis, which are important due to the tensions and conflict situations that arose in the relations between peasants, the authorities, and self-government officials elected from among the peasants. Reports of unauthorised re-election of volost’ elders and village elders, peasants’ petitions to the authorities and complaints accusing elders of various abuses show that the post-serfdom village was ready to judge the adequacy of the elected volost’ authorities and to evaluate its performance. The socio-cultural position of the volost’ scribe, which was inconsistent with his low social status, his dependence on a peace arbitrator, and the prohibition for Catholics to occupy these positions in the Western governorates, is examined. Attention is drawn to the transformation of the feudal transport obligation into a small business, which became the object of serious competition between peasants and Jews and a source of illegitimate income for self-government officials.All this made it possible to highlight important internal tensions in the post-serfdom village of the Vilnius, Kaunas and Hrodna governorates, related to the practices of self-government, the peasants’ reaction to new daily life and to draw several conclusions: (1) Despite the fact that peasants remained cut off from the rest of society, self-government allowed them to build a socio-cultural community, the core of which was made up of strong farmers who assumed responsibility for the public life of the village, its rights, duties, and obligations. (2) The post-serfdom village was changing through conflict with their own elected volost’ elders, who had the power to regulate village life, dispose of community funds, and punish the transgressed. (3) The volost’ scribe could influence the post-serfdom village because he had a powerful tool that the illiterate peasant was unable to use; literacy was an important key to the modernisation of society. However, the power of the scribe was limited by his rather low social and official status. He earned little and depended on a peace arbitrator who could leave him unemployed. In the Western governorates, his power was undermined by the requirement to hire Russian Orthodox scribes. There was a shortage of them, however, and Catholics were employed as scribes, while conflicts between peasants and scribes were due to the disregard of the interests of community and the detriment caused to it. Over time, the peasants developed a sense that they needed a scribe of their own choosing whom they could rely on.(4) Peasants were allowed to outsource their feudal transport obligation to the state to contractors. This opened up space for small business in the post-serfdom village, which became a source of serious competition and conflict. The transport obligation was monopolised by Jews who were not part of the peasant self-government, but the peasant self-government officials also profited illegally from this business. Keywords: post-serfdom period, peasant self-government, elder of the village community, volost’ elder, volost’ scribe, transport obligation, conflict.

• Šiaulių universiteto studentų (vyrų) fizinio pajėgumo kaita. Kultūra - Ugdymas - Visuomenė 2005, 1, 348-350.
• Valsčiaus savivalda Lietuvos kaime po baudžiavos panaikinimo: atsilikimo ar pažangos veiksnys?. Vilniaus universiteto Istorijos fakulteto studentų mokslo darbai 2022, 2021, 64-83.