Significance of the „khrushchev thaw” for the history of ethnological science in the MSSR

Abstract

„Khrushchev Thaw” in the USSR covers the period from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s and was manifested through the diminishing of the Soviet dictatorship, including the weakening of censorship. It seemed that even in the union republics the necessary premises were created for the objective investigation of some historical issues. But the „thaw” was pretty shallow. In the MSSR, the works of writers from the 19th century (G.Asachi, C. Stamati, C. Negruzzi, V. Alecsandri, Al. Russo, M. Kogălniceanu, M. Eminescu etc.) were published, specifying however that they were the classical writers from Molodova. Currently, the idea is accepted that in the 1950s Moldovans were considered those people who were born in Moldova, until the Union of 1859, but in 1960, G. Ibrăileanu was also included in this category, appreciated as an eminent Moldovan literary critic, although he was born in Romania on May 23, 1871. In 1958, the Institute of History was organized, which included the sector of archaeology and ethnography. The issue of ethnogenesis of the „Moldavian people” was to be studied by archaeologists and ethnographers, who also had to investigate the early Slavic and Old Russian cultures on the territory of Moldavia. The notion Romanian, as well as the phrase Romanian language, were almost totally avoided. In the article devoted to Metropolitan Varlaam, it was stated that he printed the first book in Moldovan language, although it was originally written in Romanian, the author entitles the book as Teaching Book, despite the fact that this work is called Romanian Teaching Book. There is a remarkable article devoted to the establishment of Moldavian press through the founding by Gh. Asachi in 1829 of the Albina Românească (Romanian Bee) periodical. The author was focused on the term Albina (Bee), invoking the Russian influence, because in the periodicals appeared in Russia the term Albina (bee) was used, but the term Romanian remained unexplained. This neglection attracted the attention of some specialists from Moscow, who accused the authors from the MSSR of neglecting the word Romanian in their studies and even resorting to the trick of replacing some notions with others, i.e. replacing the term Romanian with the phrase „Moldovan people”. The Soviet author`s observations were absolutely correct, but in the MSSR, where the intense work was being done on „proving” the existence of the „Moldovan people”, different from the Romanian people, they had no chance of success. In this respect, the „Khrushchev Thaw” was totally limited - the MSSR specialists had to „prove” at any cost the existence of the „Moldovan people” and „Moldovan language”, distinct from the Romanian people and the Romanian language.