ОБЩЕСТВО "ЕВРЕЙСКОЕ НАСЛЕДИЕ "

Серия препринтов и репринтов: Выпуск 54
©Y. Petrovsky
Москва, 1997 г.

Yohanan Petrovsky

LOST CHAPTERS OF RUSSIAN JUDAICA:
ABRAHAM HARKAVY AND SHLOMO ANSKY
( newly discovered documents from The Vernadsky Library, Kiev )

There is an English proverb "When there is a will, there is a way"; today I will try to provide a new interpretation of this proverb. But I want to begin by two last wills and testaments written shortly after the First World War. One will was written by the prominent Orientalist Abraham Harkavy (1835-1919), founder of Jewish Studies in Russia, prominent Orientalist, Jewish Historian and Linguist from St. Petersburg, who was among the first to publish, comment on and study now worldwide known letters form Chasdai ibn Shaprut to Yosef, Zar of Khasarian state. The other will was written by Shlomo Ansky ( 1863-1920), famous Russian-Yiddish writer and playwright, author of famous play "The Dibbuk" and well-known folklorist, whose collection is now travelling all over the world. In his testament Abraham Harkavy bequeathed his huge collection - which I will talk about later - to the Society of the Enlightment of Jews in Russia, in Russian Obshchestvo Prosveshchenia sredi evreev Rossii, abreviated OPE. Let me remind you that OPE was the biggest cultural Centre providing ideas of Haskalah ( Enlightment) within the Russian Jewry. Ansky's testament stated that his collection should be kept and studied in St.Petersburg at the Society on History and Ethnography. Seventy years passed and these two collections were discovered in Kiev, at the Jewish Department of the Central Scientific Library of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, named after V.I.Vernadsky; further I will refer to it as the Vernadsky. A question arises: how did these unique MSS get to Kiev in general and to the Vernadsky Library in particular? Why were these collections taken AWAY from St.Petersburg? So, we have a will, even two of them, and evidently there was a way to get the collections to Kiev. Let me explain briefly how it happened.

DAVID MAGGID AND HARKAVY'S COLLECTION

It was a known fact that OPE Library was hardly operating during the Civil War in Russia; due to the documents from the Vernadsky it became possible to grasp how and what happened there. At the climax of the Civil War, OPE Library found itself in a very difficult situation. Russia was in ruins, economy collapsed, and naturally it affected the situation in the Library. In November 1918 David Maggid (1962-1942), a prominent historian, who succeeded late Abraham Harkavy as a Librarian of the Jewish Department of The National Library in Petrograd, and Sergei Zinberg ( 1873-1939), a well-known historian of Jewish literature, wrote:

"... because of the fact that the people who did not quit their work at the Library are not able to do smth essential to financially support the Library the Librarians' Commission has to ... resume the responsibility of the care of the Library and to assume it to the immediate responsibility of the OPE Committee."

It was stressed that the Library had shortly before that bought the collection of A.Ya.Harkavy with "a great number of MSS" in it (or. 2770). Yet there was no possibility to start working on the collection since "rising prices and lack of food made it impossible for many members of the commission to go on working at the Library". D.Maggid was one of those who was forced to quit.

In May 1920 just after the Civil War, David Maggid wrote a report about the collection of MSS, that had been purchased from the late Dr. A.Ya.Harkavy by the OPE Library. According to the report, the collection consisted the following parts:

In Maggid's report it was written that a good deal of work had been already done by himself ( he did not signed the report and treated himself in the third person singular) to prepare a catalogue of the collection and to sort out the unidentified MSS. It was stressed that most letters, written by Western and local scholars are "of great literary and scientific significance".

Unfortunately, reminded David Maggid, because of the fact, that the OPE library was moved to a new building in Strelianaya Str., futher work on the MSS of the 1st part was interrupted; Maggid began to sort MSS of the 2nd and 3rd collection and in a couple of years managed to get the most important MSS from Harkavy and Firkovich collections bound and his own special imprints put on the cover. Almost all the MSS were bound in red cardboard cover with black ink inscriptions and Maggid's notes in square type and semiitalics. Usually Maggid put on the cover of the MSS an inscription "al-pe Harkavy be-yad Maggid", which means that the oral description was given by Abraham Harkavy and afterwards it was put down by David Maggid. This enormous work had been finished shortly before the beginning of a new crucial era in the political development of Russia.

ADVENTURES OF THE COLLECTION

There were several prominent scholars who had just begun to study these MSS, such as Yeheskiel Ravrebe, who in the beginning of Stalin's rule dare to speak out in favor of Hassidism. But in December 1929 these researchers had to interrupt their studies since the OPE was closed and the OPE Library - together with the archives of the Society of History and Ethnography - came in the possession Yosif Liberberg, an "ambicious director of the Institute of Jewish Proletarian Culture of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences", which the same year was transformed from the Chair of Jewish Culture into a major Jewish research institution in the USSR ( according to Abraham Greenbaum ). There were various governmental reasons for such a decision. One of them could be formulated thus: the new regime planned to turn Kiev into a new capital of Jewish proletarian culture and to concentrate in this city the most important scientific centres of Soviet Jewry. Liberberg led the battle against Minsk Division of the same institute of Jewish culture, which wanted to take care of Ansky's collection in St. Petersburg, and won it. Thus Ansky's collection from the archives of the Society on History and Ethnography and Harkavy archive from the collection of the OPE passed to the possession of the Institute of the Jewish Proletarian Culture. Thus two prominent figures of Russian Judaica aquired one and the same the posthumous destiny.

In comparison with what is known about the librarians of the Jewish Scientific Library of the Institute of Jewish Proletarian Culture very little is known about the staff which worked on the MSS. The former were mentioned in Saul Borovoy memories, described in the book by Rosenthal-Shneiderman and described in the monograph by Abraham Greenbaum, devoted to the history of Soviet Judaica, but staff which worked with MSS was not even recollected by anyone. Yet it is evident that one and the same person looked through all the MSS and put inside each one a slip of paper with a brief and sometimes inaccurate description of the contents, written in bad Russian. There were several talented scholars engaged in various forms of research - mostly in the field of linguistics - who collaborated with the Institute and the Library ( Abraham Kirzhnits, Yehuda Kvitny, Moshe Shapiro and Saul Borovoy to mention a few ) but they probably never dealt with the MSS. People who remember the staff of the Library of that time mentioned the name of Epstein, who compiled description of the MSS, but it seems that either Firkovich or Harkavy collection were never mentioned in the articles on Jewish bibliography which were written as a rule by the staff of the Institute. Thus the collection of MSS became unavailable for the scholarly world up to the beginning of the 90-s.

Probably the first depository which gave shelter to the collection was in the building of the Institute, 10 Levashovskaya ( then Karla Libknechta ) Str. This is, by the way, two blocks away from the house where in 1913 Baron Vladimir Guenzburg met Shlomo Ansky. In spring 1936 the Institute was closed and its heads arrested, imprisoned and shot. The collection of MSS was sent to the Manuscript Division of the Central Scientific Library of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 62 Vladimirskaya Str. According to Irina Sergeyeva, the Head of Jewish Department, the book collection suffered all sorts of misfortunes since that time: Nazis intended to ship it to Berlin but failed; in 1950 Soviet authorities ordered to take the books and put them in the damp Ionov Church of the Vydubetsk monastery, when no religious services had been conducted since it was closed by the Soviets. There the books and MSS were exposed to all sort of damage and even fire which actually destroyed part of the collection; in 1968 the collection was moved to a basement of an apartment house next to Lavra monastery and up to the end of 80-es the place of storage remained unknown. Meantime the MSS were kept in a tiny room in the basement of the same building of the Central Scientific Library and very few people new about this. When in 1991 two curious librarians were shown the collection of MSS they could hardly appreciate their value. Not because of lack of curiosity but because of the fact that official science managed to black out the names of Harkavy and Ansky out of the history of in Russian Philology.

ANSKY AND BARON GUENSBURG

It goes without saying and is especcially evident nowadays that Ansky's expedition 1912-1913 was one of the most important events in Ansky's life and a crucial point in the history of Jewish-Russian Judaica. Today one part of Ansky's collection travells throughout the world: it has already been to Jerusalem, Amsterdam, New York. But for Ansky it would have been impossible to grasp how life in the Pale look like. Due to his expedition there were collected thousands of issues of Jewish songs, folkstories and tales, pictures, MSS, photos, museum objects etc. Ansky's expeditions may be without exaggeration considered today as titanic effort to preserve material and spiritual values of traditional Jewish culture. Ansky's collection at the Vernadsky Library provides us with important documents on the expedition which reveal how many difficulties Ansky had to overcome before and during the expedition.

It is written in Enciclopaedia Judaica that Ansky's expedition was sponsored by Baron Horacio Guensburg; actually, that's not true, for Baron Guensburg passed away in 1909 and his son david in 1910. It was Vladimir, younger son of Baron Guensburg, who took care of the expedition. In January 1912 Ansky informed Vladimir Horacio (Gorastievich ) Guenzburg about his forthcoming plans regarding expedition. By this time Ansky visited Kharkov and Moskow where he was busy raising money for the expedition. He was going to visit Baku and Tsaritsin where he was assured he would raise around 2-3 thousand roubles. At that time Ansky relied on the help of Oskar Gruzenberg (1866-1940), one of the most prominent lawyers in Russia, the defendant of Beilis and Genrikh Borisovich Sliozberg (1863-1937), a prominent Russian jurist. He kept discussing with Baron Guensburg a possibility of submitting expedition to one of the Jewish cultural institutions. It looks like that circumstances pushed him to find an official shelter for the expedition, but Ansky thought there was no reason to legalise the expedition to please authorities. Certainly different organizations were eager to get this expedition submitted to them. One of them, Moscow Society of Enlightment, the most favorable challenger, was rejected by Ansky since as he himself stated it was in crisis ( f. 339, n. 944, op. 9270). The same year on the preliminary stage of the expedition Baron Guensburg offered to call future project after Horacio Osipovich Guenzburg, one of the founders of the Haskalah movement in Russia ( f. 339, n. 296, op. 7609). However, today we call this expedition after Ansky which from a certain point of view is unfair.

On March 24-25th a discussion took place in St. Petersburg on the major problems of the conference. Almost 20 people took part in the discussion. S.S.Vermel, Piotr Semionovich Marek (1862-1920 ), historian and folklorist, and Yuli Engel ( 1868-1927), a prominent composer and author of a suite for orchestra after Ansky's "The Dibbuk" in the future, arrived to Petersburg from Moscow. Several reports on anthropological and folklore surveys were made at the conference. Ansky complained to Baron Guenzburg that there was a lack of people who combined talents of scholars with good aquaintance with Jewish life. Ansky mentioned only Dubnov and Vermel, yet none of them took part in the expedition.

Ansky offered to begin the expedition from Volhyn Gubernia and to set up headquaters in Kiev to which artefacts could be brought. In winter-spring 1912 Ansky worked at the "Program for collecting materials on Jewish ethnography". He planned it as a gigantic monograph which covered some 10.000 questions regarding everyday life and beliefs of people. Ansky worked out a list of questions to cover this or that issue of Jewish culture in the Pale. Thus to explain the phenomenon of a synagogue one had to answer 100 questions and the same amount of questions was required by "yeshivat.'' ( f.339, n. 946, op. 9272).

Baron Guensburg was by no means a mere spectator who just contemplated Ansky's activities from Paris: he was involved in every single detail of the expedition. In May 1912 he gave 2.000 roubles for the expedition. He understood that there should be a responsable and reliable person dealing with financial side of the expedition. That is why he asked Ansky himself "to assume before donators responsibility for 30.000 roubles he hoped to get" ( f. 339, n. 298, op. 7610). Baron Guensburg inspired Ansky and cheered him up. He wrote that he should get down to business as soon as possible: "Begin acting, support would come afterwards".

Speaking about relationship between Baron Guenzburg and Ansky it should be pointed out that the latter's pressure on Ansky without doubt accelerated all the preparatory work. Guenzburg insisted on an immediate experimental (or test) expedition "to put the machine into gear". He believed so deeply in Ansky's abilities to organise and fulfil the project that he thought Ansky needed no organisation to support him. Vladimir Guenzburg wrote: "brake-downs both in scientific and financial part of the enterprise would spoil all the matter" ( f. 339, n. 300, op. 7613). He kept convincing Ansky to hurry up. In 1913 he again asked him to continue the expedition while the weather permits and forget about vague "Petersburg funds" ( probably, lack of money in these funds - f. 339, n. 307, op. 7620). In the end of May, 1913 Baron Guensburg wrote to Ansky that he is sharply against the decision of the commission to put the expedition off in case money from donators would not come in time. Only today it is quite understandable that on the eve of the First World War and Russian Revolution it was very wise to do so. Baron Guensburg was very well aware of the financial difficulties yet he told Ansky "not to let financial circumstances overcome him". He reassured him saying that the indifference of the people who surrounded him should not influence his spiritual energy ( f. 339, n. 306, op. 7619, p. 4-5 ).

Ansky probably needed to be cheered up. He was nervous and sometimes seemed to be afraid of an assumed responsibility. He wrote to Vladimir Guenzburg: "I am very excited, as if something extraordinary can happen. How will it go? Would I be able to gain trust of those poor and illiterate people, among who I grew up and from who I went far away for those years? At moments I feel terribly afraid. Yet I experience great and joyful feeling that the innermost dream of my life is becoming true." ( f. 339, n. 949, n. 9275 ).

Baron Guenzburg understood that Ansky's expedition would be very demanding from the financial point of view. Seeing that fund raising did not bring in enough money, he donated considerable sums to the project. In the end of June 1912 he transfered 3.000 roubles to I.M.Makhover for Ansky. A detailed plan of the test expedition was worked out. Ansky, Enguel and Shlomo Yudovin, an artist and disciple of Yehuda Pen from Vitebsk, gathered in Kiev and left for Ruzhin, Kiev Gubernia. Afterwards they went to Polonnoe, Slavuta, Novigrad-Volynsky and further. On Succot Ansky planned to visit Rovno, Ostrog, Zaslavl, Miropol, Ostropol, Staro-Konstantinov and Kremenets. It is quite obvious that Ansky started his expedition in the places where Hassidic influence was the strongest expecting that there he could find a real tradition not spoiled by the influence of civilization or Enlightment. It was not so easy to operate in these territories, taking into account deep religious prejudices and beliefs of the population. In spite of the fact that the population on the eve of High Holidays refused to sing songs, relate tales and legends, Ansky managed to write around 100 legends and tales ( f. 339, n. 950, op. 9270 ).

Difficulties appeared here and there. Engel had to leave the team because of his family problems. Ansky had to work with the photocamera and began to look for another colleague and participant. In his letter to Vladimir Guenzburg he wrote: "Meanwhile I met a well-known Hebrew poet Hayyim Bialik, who was so interested in the results of the trip and suggested to accompany me during this month. I hope, his participation in this trip, would be useful in various aspects. Besides the fact that he is a rare expert of certain sides of Jewish life, he worked a lot in this sphere ( recently he published 6 volumes of edited and sorted Jewish 'Aggadot'). Tomorrow he would come to Rovno."( f. 339, n. 951, op. 9277).

At the end of 1912 - beginning 1913 Ansky was busy raising funds for the next year of work. Influential figures of Russian Jewry who promised Asnky their assistance and support in money raising failed to help him. Michel Sheftel (1858-1922), MP and a noted lawyer, and Genrikh Sliozberg, in charge of money raising in St. Petersburg, hardly did anything for the expedition. Ansky suggested he himself should raise funds but Sliozberg forbade Ansky doing it. When Ansky went to Moscow to look for funds there, L.V.Vyssotsky warned him that "Moscow is 10 times poorer than Kiev and Petersburg" and almost refused to support the project ( f. 339, n. 954, op. 9280). There were other difficulties: In August 1913 Kisselgof, a member of the society of Jewish Music and professional folklorist had to cancel his work for the expedition and come to Staro-Konstantinov, since the Headmaster of musical school he worked at did had not given him leave to go on vacation. Ansky complained to Kisselgof that he had to stop collecting musical material since he there were no funds to pay the people who sent materials and asked for honorarium ( f. 339, n. 545-546, op. 8194-8195 ).

Meanwhile Guenzburg's family went on supporting Ansky. M.A.Guenzburg let Ansky have a big room in the building of his nursing house. This enabled Ansky to place there all the materials, library and his office.

It was an appropriate and considerable help. During 10 weeks and a half Ansky's expedition visited 25 places ( 8 regional centres and 17 shtetlakh), shot 500 pictures, recordered 1000 melodies, got 169 objects for the museum, brought two huge boxes of MSS with some 20 unpublished MSS of the 17th and 18th centuries and wrote down vast number of tales and legends. The collection of pictures enriched with a part of title pages of pinkasim, community record books. Photos were taken from more than 40 pinkasim, most of the pinkasim had unique illustrations. Now some 60 pinkasim from Ansky collection are stored at the Jewish Division of the Vernadsky Library, most of Ansky pinkasim have wonderful illustrations. Ansky figured that the collection was so fascinating that it should be exhibited in St.Petersburg even before the conclusion of the expedition ( f. 339, n. 958, op. 9283 ). Baron Guensburg supported the idea of removing the collection from Kiev to Petersburg and almost 80 years later Ansky's idea came true. In the beginning of 1991 Ansky's collection was shown to the public, first in Peterburg, than in Amsterdam, Jerusalem and New York.

Ansky entirely devoted himself to the expedition. From his letters we know that he made a single break in the work of the expedition. He used this break to work as a correspondent ofthe newspaper "Rech" at Beilis trial.

In June 1914 financial sources of the expedition were almost exhausted. Ansky tried to diminish expenditures and save money on his own expence. Guensburg admonished Ansky for that. The sum of money promised by Baron Guensburg came to an end. However Guensburg continued to support Ansky: "Yet you should not stop and I have given you a required 2.000."

Baron Guensburg understood very well what organizational and financial obstacles of the expedition are to be overcome. It was clear to him that there was no hope to hold the fourth and the fifth expedition. On the other hand he thought that after working in Podolia and Volhyn in 1915 Ansky should finish exploring Kiev Gubernia; so these three Gubernias would form an integral research in the Pale. From his side Ansky was eager to expand the expedition to the other territories of the Pale. That is why Vladimir Guensburg tried to convince Ansky that Poland and Lithuania should be excluded from his expeditions since these territories required many years of hard work and a good deal of financial support which could hardly be got ( f. 339, n. 314, op. 7627, p. 3 ).

In spite of being very busy with the expeditions Ansky did not forget to supply Vladimir Guensburg with his newly written pieces and newly published works. In May 1913 he sent to Paris 4th and 5th volumes of his "Selected Works" and in January 1914 sent to Baron Guensburg a MS of his famous dramatical play "The Dibbuk", which today is included in every anthology of best European plays after Shakespeare. Baron Guensburg replied at once; his letter with a detailed analysis of this play is worth publishing as it presents deep and witty criticism of Ansky's play. Guensburg's point of view may be regarded as the first appreciation of "The Dibbuk" in Western literature.

Baron Guensburg was overwhelmed with impressions while reading the text of the play. He did not stop reading until he finished it. Speaking about the most important features of the play Guensburg placed "The Dibbuk" in the context of the expedition. He considered the play as realistic and poetic representation of Ansky's personal experience in the recent years. He was exited and could not give his extensive analysis from artistic and theatrical point of view. Several times he repeated that "The Dibbuk" is without doubt perfect. Yet there were several critical considerations worth quouting. Baron Guensburg thought that "The Dibbuk" was written for a reader, nor for a spectator. Lack of action ( especcially in the first act) makes the piece difficult to be performed on the stage. Too much attention is paid to what the heroes say and too little to what they do. In general "The Dibbuk" seems to be an apology of life. There were almost no negative sides of life reflected in the play. Guensburg even mentioned that he personally as a reader did not believe in Ansky's zaddik. As for zaddik Guensburg wrote that to his mind zaddik himself did not feel his great role in the community and he did not seem to be a slave of his own calling ( f. 339, n. 312, op. 7625 ). [ Certainly, this paper is not the best place to set up argumets against Guensburg's point of view yet I would like to make two suggestions. First, that Goethe wrote that Shakespeare's theatre was created for a reader not for a spectator. And the second is that Ansky tried to create a myth which opposed reality. So it was no sense to blame him of unilateral image of life.]

The collection of Ansky's letters enables us to follow personal and historical circumstances of the expedition through letters. In October-November 1914 Vladimir Guensburg and Ansky met in Kiev: Baron Guensburg lived in 25 Levashovskaya Str., then 31, Ansky stopped at Hotel Palas, 9 Bibikovsky boulevard. Probably they discussed the program of the expedition which it was planned to publish. Besides Ansky proposal to arrange in Minsk "the central office" for collecting materials was discussed

( Guensburg and Ansky exchanged several postcards: f. 339, n. 315-316, op. 7628-7629. What has happened to the Minsk part of the collection is un known uptil now).

The amount of material gathered by Ansky's expedition - for we know it as named after Ansky, not Guensburg - was amazing. People compiled and sorted it years after. Kisselgof kept discussing with Ansky details concerning transliteration of words in Yiddish songs. Ansky continued giving instructions to all the participants of the expedition, and his letters passed from Yudovin to Kisselgoff, from Kisselgoff to Engel. In January 1917 Kisselgof wrote to Ansky that he began collecting hassidic songs for the first volume [of musical texts]. By September 1917 Kisselgof managed to write down words and music from some 90 wax cilinders with folklor music which were recordered during the expedition. ( Nowadays some 1200 wax cilinders from Ansky and Beregovsky expeditions are stored at the Vernadsky Library ).

In his letters to Ansky Kisselgof used to repeat the words of Guensburg: "Let an unexhaustable source of your eternal energy never dry up" ( f. 339, n. 547-550, op. 8196-8199). Actually, after the Civil War in Russia had finished, Ansky's energy dried up and he passed away in Warsaw. Here another chapter - that of the destiny of Ansky's collection - springs out and we are already familiar with what happened to it after 1920.

LOST AND FOUND

 In the current century in Russian literature there were several great books lost. Some of them were never found, like Golosovker's "MSS never burn"; another were found partially as Andrey Platonov's "A Travel from Moscow to St. Petersburg". But there are books still to be found. One of them is Ansky's book "Jews: their everyday and religious life". It was a summing up of all Ansky's activities in the field of Jewish studies. It comprised his personal memories and scientific analysis of Jewish tradition; it included a lot of information regarding Jewish customs; it was based on the author's profound knowledge - last not least - it was written by a prominent Russian-Jewish writer. This book was based on Ansky's experience he gained during his famous expedition. They say this book existed already in page-proofs but was not published for ideological and economic reasons. A well-known collectionist Alexander Kanzedikas told once to me that he still hopes to find traces of Ansky's page-proofs in one of the newly opened depositories of Jewish documents in Moscow or St.Petersburg. The Vernadsky collection enables to reconstruct what Ansky really intended to do. According to the plan traced by Ansky himself, it should be a gigantic monograph or even an enciclopedia of Jewish life in the Pale. In the first part, for instance, Ansky planned to touch upon following issues:

Peculiarities of the tradition: Abstinence of alcohol. Spirituality. Chastity.

Sources of the spirituality: The Book; Bible and Prophets...

The encyclopedic intentions of this plan are quite obvious. Besides it is clear enough from this little part of Ansky's plan that he intended to look at Jewish life as at a certain myth. Ansky's myth is based on a combination of two opposite things. Ansky exhibited two major aspects of life, that is, biological stages of the human being and popular legends about these stages, life in it's natural meaning and the reaction of human spirit to the naturalism of life. The peculiarity of Ansky'd access is that he never reduced his interest only to the legendary side of life, to the customs exclusively. He pointed out the combination of aspects and their integrity. Both prenatal history of the human being and the way this history is viewed in the tradition. This I would call "Ansky's myth": the intention to reflect two sides of life, legendary and naturalistic. But what is much more interesting, Ansky's creative activity was also based on a transit from the ugliest sides of Jewish experience to the spiritual beauty of the Jewish tradition. Ansky attempted at creating a modern mythology of Jewish life. His personal experience of a writer, journalist, folklorist - in a word, of a participant and narrator - assisted him in his endeavors.

AROUND BEILIS TRIAL

In most of his articles which are kept at the Vernadsky Library Ansky sharply criticised modern Jewish culture and modern Jewry. Though it is not so easy to define what are the standpoints which serve as a basis for Ansky's criticism. It partially corresponds to the ideology of Russian democratic intelligentsia ( narodniki), to some extend it is linked to a nihilistic mentality of maskilim, from another viewpoint it is penetrated with a fin du siecle vision of modernity. Thus, Ansky often reiterates an idea that Jewish literature reflects a decadance of the whole nation. "Lack of confidence and scepticism" he sees as a paradygm of Jewish life. Abundance of literatures in Jewish literature he calls "a sign of an ill existance." Ansky criticizes Jewish intelligentsia calling it "intelligentsia of the Book, not of life; of the past, not of the present." His deep democratic beliefs made him say that Jewish intelligentsia is "cut off the life and cut off the people." ( f. 339, n. 30, op. 2184).

Though all these vewpoints - of a maskil, narodnik or decadent writer - seem to be reference points to Ansky, not his viewpoints. I dare say that Ansky judges modern Jewry from the most traditional view, which is Hassidism. But this is not a traditional Hassidism, for it is rediscovered, reshaped and rearranged by Ansky. It is enriched by all his personal experiences, combining in a most unexpected form ideas of Jewish Enlightment, Russian populism, Decadance and Early Modernism. Thus, real representatives of Jewish intellectuals according to Ansky are provincial Rabbis and Hassidim. Not occasionally did Ansky plan to begin his famous expedition with Ruzhin, a birthplace of one of the most influential trends in Hassidic history. If we glance at the plan of Ansky's tour we would realize that the route followed major shtetlakh of Hassidim.

This concern for treasures of Hassidic intellectual and spiritual values is sometimes providential. Yet his interest towards Hassidism is not merely academic or artistic.

We mentioned that Ansky made only one break in his expedition - that is, to participate in Beilis trial. Ansky was much concerned about it. He prepared documents and historical surveys which enabled Korolenko, a prominent Russian writer, to provide ground at his defence of Beilis during the trial in Kiev. Ansky's article was titled "Blood libel accusations in Jewish Folkloric Art" and was published in January 1912 in "Russkoye bogatstvo" ( See f. 339, n. 944, op. 9270).

Beilis trial itself is reflected in almost all Ansky's writings of this period. For instance in Ansky's unpublished sketch "A Dreadful Riddle" ( f. 339, op. 2093, n.1). In four weeks after Beilis trial in Kiev was finished, in Fastov ( a town in so many miles from Kiev) a corpse of a son of Jewish tailor Efraim Pashkov was found. He was murdered exactly the same way Liutoslavsky and Shmakov used to kill Yushchinsky. Merchants in the local market spread gossip that it was a vengeance: "Oze za Yushchinskogo, This is for Yuishchinsky", they would repeat. A local Rabbi seemed to be even more explicit. He said: "We should praise God that it was a Russian boy. Otherwise we would have had here a new Beilis trial". Lately it turned out that a murderer was a read-haired Ukrainian who took advantage of Jewish hospitality and trapped one of tailor's kids.

In "The Dreadful Riddle" Ansky relates the story which a couple of months later he changed and expanded. Thus "A Dreadfull Riddle" became a source of a different philosophical short story based on a "blood libel" plot and connected with Hassidism, the topic so much important in Ansky.

According to Ansky's notes, it was Hassidism and accusations against it which caused a specific interest of Ansky towards Beilis trial. Beilis trial brought to life specific Hebrew words and expressions. Zaddik, hassid, matsa, talmud-tora entered the Russian Language aquiring mostly negative connotations. In 1913 people whose name was Shneerson became so suspicious that they were accused of blood libel even if they were Russian Germans. [ "Thus an officer, who sold straw, was suspected of participating in a blood label case only because of the fact, that his last name - to his misfortune - was Shneerson". ] In one of his articles written during the trial, Ansky mentions that Zamyslovsky and Shmakov, witnesses of the prosecution (?) at the trial, tried to convince the audience in the hall were Beilis trial was conducted took place, that Beilis himself was aquainted with Rebbe Shneerson's teaching. This was the political context in which Ansky charged himself of defending Hassidism.

When most Russian liberal journalist defended Beilis from false accusations, Ansky spoke openly on the immortal values of Hassidism. It was a challenge both against traditional 19th century humanism and Russian public opinion. Ansky treated Hassidism as a passionate advocate trying to defend its moral values and its philosophic ideas. In his article "Zaddik Zalman Shneerson" written just after the trial, he pointed out major points of Hassidic doctrine. Ansky believes that Hassidism spread out as a reaction against dead bookish knowledge and dry religious dogmatism, lacking poetic perception and inspiration. After Khmelnitsky pogroms there was a feeling of extreme desperation among Jews. Only a miracle could save the Jews people. Hassidism was a kind of a miracle. BESHT was a highly poetical figure, kind and sweethearted, whose parables were quite understandable for people. Hassidism had two sources: religious pantheism and communication between Man and God. The more righteous a man the nearer he comes to God. Wisdom and kindness is a striking feature of hassidic leaders, even when they talk about their enemies. When Zalman Shneerson 1747-1812) was asked what was the difference between misnagdim and Hassidim he answered in the folowing way: there are people of learning; there are people of dovening. Both are dear to God" ( f. 339, n. 10, op. 2095). Though this MSS is not finished we can presume that Ansky treats Hassidism in a peculiar way. To his mind Hassidism enables to combine opposite aspects of the tradition. He points out the integrative, not Heterodox features of it.

Ansky felt himself personally responsable for what is happening to Jews and Jewry. He found himself in the epicentre of a terrible national crisis and desperately looked for the way out. In his skethes he reiterated one and the same question: who will save Jewish legacy and what should be saved? Involved in folkloric studies of Hassidic legacy, he learned a lot of exiting details regarding Hassidic vision of Messianism. That is why his stories and essays are permeated with a deep feeling of the coming Messianic Era. In a short sketch "From the Book of Isaia" he presents these messianic strivings in a form of a monologue. The author tells his story and says that he lives amongst the people whose lips are dirty and he himself does not deserve "to be watching the King". A Seraph touches his lips with a burning charcoal and rubs off a stigma of an outlaw. Ansky writes:

"And I heard the voice of God saying: Who should I send? And who would go for our sake? Then I said: Here I am. Send me" ( f. 339, n. 44, op. 2156 ).

From a certain point of view Ansky was sent - to save from destruction Jewish tales and legends, beliefs and ways, musical and narrative folklore, objects of Jewish artesanry and Jewish manuscript legacy. Ansky was very well aware of what he was doing. Not occasionally he shaped his mission in a peculiar form of a modern Messiah. The more modern we would like to call this form, the more traditional, the more Hassidic it would seem.

ANSKY AND BESHT

Right after "A Dreadful Riddle" Ansky reiterated his attempts at denouncing beliefs of Ukrainian peasants. He composes a story which expresses both his deep concern for Hassidic legacy and blood label accusations. Ansky left several drafts of short stories on this topic. One of them is titled "A Story on BESHT and a murdered Christian" ( f. 339, n. 33, op. 2260). The plot is based on a story about a Christian who was found dead in Zaslav. Jews were frightened and in panic. BESHT would cheer people up but this time he did not. Usially he knew what it would happen but on this occasion he did not know. People believed that BESHT possessed a wonderful ability to spiritually communicate through time and space and forsee the future. This time he could not forsee anything. Some time later it turned out that the Christian died on his own. Certainly, Jews of Zaslav were puzzled that BESHT could not forsee the events and warn Jews that they should not be frightened. BESHT replied: "I was punished for my speach made at the coffin of Rabbi Hayyim from Brody". This mystical and rather ambiguous answer concludes the story. No wonder, that Ansky was not satisfied with it and immediately after finishing it wrote another version of the same story.

He titled it "A Story on BESHT and Saint Martyrs of the Blood Label" (f. 339, n. 32, op. 2261). Jews of Pavoloch were accused of blood label. Rabbi David decided to talk to BESHT and went to Medzibezh. BESHT told him that the righteous would be saved. On Shabbat eve a letter was brought to Medzibezh saying that the accused were tortured and then killed. BESHT washed himself in mikvah and cried. He kept crying at Kiddush. He could not swallow a bit of bread. He lied down on the floor and asked his wife to tell the guests that they should eat and go home.

At night angels and Rabbi Akiva himself came to see BESHT. They told him that his disappointment at Kiddush caused panic in Heavens. That is why they came to console BESHT. Among angels BESHT recognized saint martyrs, killed recently. BESHT was angry; he asked angels: "Why wasn't I informed that you would be killed?" They reply "At the Supreme Council they decided that if you cancel by your prayer everything that had been prescribed, much more terrible calamities could happen"...

The end of the version n. 33 evidently differs from the version n. 32: in the former BESHT is subordinated to the the superhuman powers in Heavens; in the latter he is even more influential than angels. In the first he is severely punished for a smallest sin, in the second his single wish may change the will of Providence. First he shapes the plot around a murder Christian and then around Jewish martyrs. Finally, Ansky's BESHT reads Sefer ha-Zohar during the calamity in the fist version and he suffers terribly and that's why brakes seder Shabbat in the next version. Thus, in every next version of the same story Ansky puts more accent on the Messianic features of BESHT and on his most democratic and human behavior. The nearer BESHT is to his people, the more powerful is his misticism. Ansky keeps strengthening this kind of mistical-democratic parallel which would be clearly evident in his famous "Dibbuk". Besides he points out Messianic allusions tracing BESHT personality.

Even in the cases when Ansky's hero is a Rabbi, not Hassid, Ansky attributes him special devices of Hassidic way of persuasion. In a short story "Meeting" Rabbi Moshe Montefiore, the wealthiest and the most influential Jew in the world, after visiting Minsk invites Rabbi Gershon Tankhum - a modest and brilliant scholar - to his apartment. After a sumptuous dinner Montefiore asks Rabbi Gershon to say divrei Torah; "let him tell us Toire", passiontely pronounces Moshe Montefiore. The modest Rabbi beggins his story in a low voice and makes a poor impression on the audience. But soon his voice gets stronger and he walks through the orchards and vineyards of Torah as a plenipotential master. Ansky concludes: "And Moshe Montefiore jumps up, and trembles, and his hands and shoulders shake with fear".

Thus Ansky places abilities and power of a poor Rabbi much higher than the power and abilities of Moshe Montefiore. But there is another hint in the story which I would like to point out. Ansky takes Western type of a Jew - wealthy, well-to-do, worlwide known and politically engaged - and Eastern or better to say, Russian one, who is not known, poor and far from politics. Ansky has no doubt as to his preferences in regard of these two personalities. He concludes with Rabbi's words and sees Montefiore by Rabbi's eyes. Real truth is on Rabbi's not Montefiore's side. This is from Minsk, not London were Torah comes out. So, Ansky adopts slavophilic pattern to shape the story about Jews from East and West. He stresses that if there is thruth on earth, it lies in Russia not in the West. This is another example of how Ansky adopted patterns of Russian culture to the tradition of Jewish literature.

ANSKY'S SOCIAL ACTIVITIES

Ansky was extremely active in all spheres of Jewish scientific, cultural and social life. Among the letters sent to Ansky there are several very interesting ones which help us to trace links between scholars and academics in the world of Russian science. Thus there is a letter from Agathangel Krimsky, a prominent Russian and Ukrainian orientalist, a mentor of Omelian Pritsak, Professor Emeritus of harvard University. Being a Head of the Oriental Commission of the Moscow Archealogical Society he greeted Ansky on behalf of the Commission on the occasion of his "highly useful scientific activity" ( op. 4649).

Letters to him which are kept at the Jewish Division of the Vernadsky Library testify to the fact that Ansky may be placed among the founders of the Jewish University in Jerusalem, or at least among people whose views influenced all the project. Long before Dr.Weizman put first five cornerstones into the foundation of Hebrew University Vladimir Zhabotinsky wrote to Semion Akimovich, that is, Shlomo Ansky:

"I was charged to inform you that a talk on the project of Jewish University in Palestine would take place on Thirsday, May 15 [ 1914], on 9.30 p.m at the office of G.B.Sliosberg, 14 Kovensky Str. On behalf of the organizers of the discussion let me express hope that considering the problem, so important to all of us, you would not refuse to take part in it. Respectfully, Yours V. Zabotinsky" ( f. 339, n. 447, op. 8096).

Ansky energetically promoted cultural activities. He gave hundreds of public lectures. People invited him from everywhere. Merchants from Vilna and tailors from Zhitomir, salesmen from Odessa and ordinary readers from Minsk... He never came to any city just for visiting. When he knew he is coming to Odessa he sent to Bialik a telegram asking him to organize for him a public lecture to praise talents of Mendele Moicher Sforim ( f.339, n.966, op. 9302). Ansky reacted to almost every event in the life of Russian Jewry. There was nothing less characteristic to Ansky as indifference. When he got to know about Mendele Moikher Sforim's death he sent a telegram to Bialik: "... I revere the memory of our great and dear grandfather, who was a crownkeeper of our literature, who was so modest and so talented, an inspired pantheist, who always defended poor and helpless and who embodied in his soul all beams and colors of national spirit." ( f.339, n.964, op. 9300).

Ansky got hundreds of letters. They were letters of his readers, relatives, friends. Several letters reveal the fact that Ansky was treated by his pen-friends as a confessor able to listen to and understand people's needs. He was in good terms with Shimon Dubnov, an outstanding Jewish Historian and an author of a monograph on the history of Hassidism. Dubnov emigrated from Russia after October Revolution of 1917 and was killed when Nazis occupied the Baltic States. In 1911 Dubnov forsaw his future in a letter to Ansky. Dubnov wrote him - probably from Warsaw - that he was moving to the West but actually something puled him to the North-East." ( f.339, n. 433, 8082).

CONTENTS OF HARKAVY COLLECTION

After two years of work on the collection - which was in mess - the librarians on the staff and I was among those who had been invited to help - managed to evaluate the collection and sort it according to its topics. Harkavy's MSS at the Vernadsky Library were divided into following sections: MSS by Harkavy. This part of the collection includes drafts of articles and various non-published materials which reveal the scope of Harkavy's interests. There are variety of articles on Russian history "Kiev, Kievans and Scandinavia in Arabic Literature" (.....), "Tatars' texts on Khans of Crimea and on Peter the Great's Wars with Khans" ( op. 983 ). Works on Jewish History abound, for example a research by Harkavy "On Khasars and Khasar Kingdom" ( op. 981 ). Most articles of this type provide substential additional material to the published works by Harkavy. These materials should be urgently published in view of the political situation in Israel and well-known ideological pretentions of Sefardic Jews.

Catalogues and bibliographical materials compiled by Harkavy. These are MSS of scientific importance. It was known that for several decades Harkavy worked on a full catalogue of Firkovich collection. This collection included unique MSS from Kairo geniza, previously unknown "sheelot u-teshuvot" of medieval Rabbis, polemics between Karaites and Rabbis, unpublished Responsas by Saadia Gaon, Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts etc. In recent years after Jewish studies in the former USSR had been renewed scholars from Moscow and St. Petersburg wanted very much to lay their hands on the catalogue since it contained full desription of Cairo genizah and Firkovich MSS of considerable importance. Everybody was aware that Harkavy's MS must have been a considerable monograph of several hundred - if not thousand - pages yet nobody managed to find it. Finally in 1993 this MSS was found at the Vernadsky Library in Kiev. It is titled "Reshimat kitvei-yad me-asifah rishonah shel Firkovich" ( op. 881). It consists of 21 notebooks, 810 pages total. Text is in Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic. Hebrew University together with Moscow Jewish University and the Vernadsky Library are planning to publish this work in one of the volumes of the Selected Works by Harkavy in three volumes. One of these volumes would include letters, indispensable source for what is called in Russian "a spiritual biography" of a person.

LETTERS TO HARKAVY AND BY HARKAVY

Some two thousand letters testify to the fact, that Harkavy established close relations with the most famous European scholars in Judaica. The scientific contacts of Harkavy were not a secret. However the peculiarity of the documents from the Vernadsky is that we can reconstruct methodology of paleographic research and even more - to grasp the origin of the text analysis in early european Judaica through these letters. Among the most important there are letters from Abraham Gottlober, a famous Haskalah leader, several from Peter Smolenskin, an outstanding Yiddish writer and journalist, letters from Moshe Gaster, khakham of Sefardic community in London, five letters from M.F. Guets, a Russian-Jewish philosopher and a friend of Vladimir Soloviev, about sixty letters from Solomon Buber, a prominent Rabbi, scholar and a grandfather of Martin Buber. There are many letters from such well-known scholars in Jewish Studies as Bershadsky, Derenbourg, Zunz, Luzzato. There are several dozens letters from Moris Steinsneider to Harkavy. Moris Steinsneider eagerly wrote to him inviting Harkavy to work together. Almost in every letter Steinsneider reiterated his invitation to Harkavy pointing out the importance of personal meetings. Steinsneider knew about Harkavy epistolary relations with Abraham Firkovich and informed him about his own meeting with this scholar. Sometimes Steinsneider asked Harkavy to look for an important MSS somewhere in Paris and London. Thus he wrote from Berlin, August 28, 1973: Ich wolle Sie bitten in Paris die hebraische-arabische [ MSS] zu fergleichen in welcher ich das Original entdekte ( op. 7021).

Steinsneider tried to introduce Harkavy to the intrincate network of private collectionists. He recommended him, for instance, A.Lowy in London. Up to 1876 Steinsneider discussed Harkavy's articles on Arabic and Samaritan MSS ( op. 7022). The epistolary conversation between Steinsneider and Harkavy reveals methodological and historical background of the early period of Jewish Studies and may be of interest to those who study history of Judaica and paleography.

MSS collected by Harkavy. Moshe Gaster, Morkovich ( 3-ed), David Kaspi, Izhak Luria, Moshe Zakuto, Hayyim Vital etc.

One of the most curious parts of Harkavy archive is composed by Firkovich MSS. Mostly these are Karaite MSS written by prominent Karaite scolars like Yerushalmi.This part of the collection deserves special attention since a dialogue - by no means tolerant - between Harkavy and advocates of Firkovich is of a certain historical importance. This dialogue - let me call it "a dispute" - is mentioned almost in every second book on Russian-Jewish history. Yet not so much is known about the contents and development of these polemics.

HARKAVY AND FIRKOVICH

Almost immediately after the death of Abraham Firkovich ( 1786-1874), Karaite leader and scholar, the famous polemics broke out between Daniel Chvolson ( 1819-1911), a well-known orientalist and paleograph, and Abraham Harkavy, who had been among his disciples, regarding Karaite MSS from Firkovich collection. These polemics were by no means strictly academic: moral, political, personal problems were as well involved. For next decades Firkovich became a notorious figure, sharply criticised by Harkavy for his desire to convince Russian government and Western scholars that Karaites where natives in Russia while Jews were not. Abraham Harkavy was number one critic of Firkovich concepts; there was no other person so familiar with the works by Firkovich as Harkavy and no other person so rigidly attacking him. It is hard to imagine, that a couple of months before Firkovich passed away, he personally received an exciting letter from a young scolar, called Abraham Harkavy, in which the latter almost worshipped Firkovich and praised him highly for great contribution to Judaic Studies. This epistolary conversation lasted for some time. Harkavy had already begun compiling materials regarding Khasars and asked Firkovich to send him Firkovich's version of a famous letter by zar Yossif to Chasdai ibn Shaprut. Since Firkovich had forgotten to do it, Harkavy reiterated his petition in his letter; so we may presume that there were at least several letters written from Harkavy to Firkovich. In one of these letters which is preserved at the Vernadsky, Harkavy wrote:

In this letter Harkavy highly estimated Firkovich's activities at collecting masevot from the Crimea. He expressed his sincere wish to visit Firkovich in his honorable residence and presumed that God would help to transport "these precious stones" (masevot), collected by him. In the same letter Harkavy asked Firkovich to provide him with a copy of forthcoming Avnei Zikkaron as soon as it was published. Harkavy had just received another book by Firkovich; he had no time to work at it, he managed only to look it through, yet he expressed his most sincere gratitude and looked forward to reading it attentively... Harkavy could not imagine that Karaite tombstones discussed in this book would cry out to Harkavy and would cause one of the most amazing polemics in Jewish studies of the previous century.

I would like to draw your attention to a short note in which Harkavy traced major milestones in development of his relationships with Firkovich and Khvolson. In the end of 1968 Harkavy expressed to Abraham Geiger ( 1810-1874), an outstanding representative of Wissenschaft des Judentums, his doubts regarding reliability of Firkovich's discoveries. It was rather risky thing to do since Geiger was a teacher and advisor of Chvolson and the latter defended Firkovich's forgeries passionately. In 1875 after aquiring a rank of Dozent Harkavy accepted position of a Librarian at the Emperor's Public Library. Certainly he would be glad to become Privatdozent at the University but due to Chvolson's intrigues he failed to become a member of the University staff. This failure affected Harkavy badly, not only because Chvolson had defended falsifications of Firkovich but also for other reasons which have nothing to do with science. These reasons were clearly expressed by Salo Baron.

Comparing Khvolson to Harkavy Salo Baron quoted Khvolson: "Yes I was convinced that it was much better to live as a Christian professor than as an elementary school Hebrew teacher." Afterwards he added: "However, Abraham Eliyahu (Albert) Harkavy (1835-1919) was able to make even more significant contributions to Jewish scholarship while serving as a custodian of the important Near-eastern collections at the Imparial Library in St. Petersburg without giving up his Jewish faith".

Thus, without giving up his Jewish faith, in 1874 Harkavy began working on Firkovich collection and compiled its brief catalogue in 1875. It was for the first time when Harkavy noticed "pripiski" (false colophones) in the MSS and revealed his discovery to the Western audience. Harkavy paid attention at a certain affinity - he called it "harmony" - between addings to the texts in Firkovich' MSS and inscriptions on the tombstones of the cemetery in Chufuk-Kale. Then the polemics with Chvolson began since the latter published his protests in Western journals...

Documents and MSS from Harkavy collection at the Vernadsky provide substential material illustrating the notorious mahkloket between Harkavy from one side and late Firkovich and Chvolson from the other. February 18, 1883 a sitting of the Philological Society in St. Petersburg took place. Harkavy delivered a report in which he revealed Firkovich's falsifications and concluded saying that to his mind he had convinced his audience that the inscriptions in the MSS dated back to the 14th and not to the 10th century. Yet Harkavy complained that it was "not convenient" for him to go on arguing with Khvolson since the latter avoided speaking on the topic and had not attack Harkavy's criterion. Khvolson tried to denigrate Harkavy's point of view by presuming several personal reasons of Harkavy for his anti-Karaitic position: he opined that an Orthodox Jew could not be either scholar nor expert.

Harkavy's reasons in this regard were much more powerful. Harkavy did not try to deny scientific value of the work done by Firkovich. Om the contrary, he demonstrated that there were economic and political reasons to falsify the MSS. He pointed out that the falsifications put forward by Firkovich had deep political ground. He shared with the audience his experience he had gained during his conversations with the Karaites in the Crimea. Harkavy told his audience that local Karaites had their own point of view on discoveries of Firkovich. They stated that these discoveries were beneficial both for them and for Firkovich. Karaites from the Crimea explained Harkavy that Firkovich got money from the government for the Karaites while the Karaites themselves got many civil advantages in comparison with orthodox Jews. Nevertheless they had never supported Firkovich's inventions and seemed to be ironical about them. Harkavy mentioned that he had met the heads of the Karaite community in Kherson - almost all Jews in this town were karaites: "amru li akhedim me-ha-edah shelakhem. Ki khol ma she katav Firkovich nidun ze ha-khol me-ziuf ve-sheker" ( op. 933, f. 6). Thus without getting a non-experienced audience in the intrinsec sphere of Jewish paleography Harkavy convinced it that there were lots of good intentions in Firkovich's actions.

Later after making these notes Harkavy studied the MSS and came across the falsified dates and names which immediately testified to his being right in the polemic against Khvolson. Thus in 1904 he wrote about the first collection of Firkovich: "Besides mistakes in identification of authors, titles of their works and dates... there is evidence that our MSS contain various falsifications and forgeries regarding Karaites in general and Crimean Karaites in particular." Harkavy had to constantly correct errors in old descriptions of MSS and thus change the widespread attitude to them among Western scholars. It turned out that in order to enlarge the amount of MSS Firkovich was witty enough to divide MSS into two parts; sometimes he changed words inorder to twist their meaning and transform them into Karaite names. Thus in MS n. 11 and 41 he changed the name Yosef ( Gorionidus) into Sall ( a wellknown Karaite writer of the 10th century ). More than that, "the falsificator" - Harkavy avoids calling Firkovich by name - publically claimed that this name was worthy paying attention at. In the colophon of the same MS the name Menahem is changed into Mangun, which is a place in the Crimea inhabited by Karaites. In n. 17 MS the date 1683 is changed into 1383. In MSS n. 22 the date 1254 is added. In n. 24 the date 1336 is changed which lead to the misunderstanding in Zunz

( Literaturgesch. syn. Poesie, 383) and Gross ( Galie Jud. 597) ( op.938, f. 5).

From Harkavy's explanations it is quite clear that Khvolson used personal attaks against Harkavy: this made the latter ask the Department of Oriental Languages to exclude all names from the Russian translation of Chvolson. Besides he demanded that the Department should disassociate itself from to the actions of Chvolson ( p. 4). That means that probably this polemics became the main event in the life of University of St. Petersburg. Besides we can presume that this polemic served as a pattern for many a disputes which took place in Russian science and Russian political life since that time. Up till now the destiny of Jews and Karaites is discussed in Russian literature as a model of relationships between Hetherodoxy and Orthodoxy within a particular community.

HARKAVY'S PROJECTS

It's difficult to overestimate Harkavy's place in Jewish Studies in Russia. He was among the first scholars who felt a vital necessity to sum up Russian Jewish history based on the original sources. This necessity Harkavy stressed at the sittings of the Commision on Jewish History. Moses Margolin ( 1862-?), an editor of a Zionist newspaper Evreiskaya Zhizn, Maxim Vinawer ( 1862-1926), a founder of the Jewish Society of History and Ethnography and Leonty Bramson ( 1869-1941), one of the OPE leaders, members of the Commision, usually took part in the discussion. Sometimes Serguei Bershadsky ( 1850-1896), a historian of Jews in Lita, and Hermann Barats ( 1835-1922), a notorious censor of Jewish books and a talented historian, participated as guests in the work of the meeting. April 27, 1893 Harkavy opened one of the sittings with a speach in which he put forward vital necessity for Jews in Russia to compile a profound historical survey of Jewish people in general and Russian Jewry in particular. He addressed OPE saying that a full and commented translation of Gretz' "History of Jewish People" should be published. He pointed out that History of Jews in Russia should be based on primary sources and that is why hardly could be shaped by foreign scholars. That is why compiling History of Russian Jewry would be the most important task of the commission ( op. 950). These documents contradict to the point of view once put forward by Isaiah Trunk. The latter in his work "Historians of Russian Jewry" writes that historical essays of Harkavy were "very modest by their contribution to science" when Bershadsky's research was fundamental and based on original sources. ( Russian Jewry (1860-1917). Ed. by Jacob Frumkin et al. NY, 1966. The Vernadsky Library documents testify to the fact that Harkavy's ideas were put forward before Bershadsky and probably influenced Bershadsky's research.

Several materials written by Harkavy and never published since then reflect Harkavy's everyday work at the Emperor's Library. These are annual reports concerning MSS and book collections, which allow to establish details of Harkavy's biography. Thus in 1896 Harkavy made catalogue of Rabbinic authors who wrote on lexicography and grammar of the Hebrew language ( Al-Fayyumi, beg. 10th century, Khayyiuz, beg. 11th cent., Gicatila etc.) as well as Karaite authors, like David Alfasi ( 10th century)( op.936).

In 1897 Harkavy was identifying "unique" MSS or rare MSS which are available only at British Museum or Bodleyana ( Oxford). The same year Harkavy worked on Saadia Gaon, Shmuel ibn Hofni, Yakub al-Kirkisani, and the most important Karaite commentaries by Hassan ( op. 937).

In 1903 Harkavy sharply criticised the then system of Library managing. According to the established practice books on Judaica, such as dictionaries, reference books, scholarly works and even texts in Hebrew, translated into one of the European Languages were given to the Department of Oriental studies. They were given to the mentioned Department even if the book contained only a title written in one of the European languages. Harkavy insisted that these books should be given to the Jewish Division of the Library. This point is of special importance for the Jewish collections of the former Soviet Union since they were dispersed among dozens of Divisions and need now to be given back. This is actually a matter of concern of the Vernadsky librarians.

In 1904 Harkavy identified 74 MSS from the first collection of Firkovich and compiled commentaries to Kohelet. He payed attention to the n. 71 MSS which is of special interest to me as a Kievan. Harkavy wrote: "the most interesting MSS from this bulk is titled Ozer Nehmad. It is a supercommentary written in 1514 by Moshe ben Yakov, a scholar from Kiev." Moshe ben Yakov was the first prominent rabbinical scholar after the Tartar invasion. It was because of his activities and activities of his pupils that the proverb "Me-Kiev teze torah" attested in 1515 came to the Western Ashkenaz. During one of the last Tartars attacks in 1482-3 Moshe ben Yakov lost his belongings and his children and works were captured by Tartars. In 1495 during an expulsion of Jews from Lithuania Moshe Yaakov left for Kaffa ( Feodosia) where he became a spiritual leader of krimchakim ( op. 939, p.4 ). I presume several MSS of this kind could change our impression of Kievan Jewry looked in the Medieval epoch.

CONCLUSIONS

The materials which I tried to cover in my talk and topics which I attempted to point out deserve a thorough study for they comprise a good deal of unknown facts regarding various fields of Jewish Studies. I hope I convinced the audience in the unique value of these MSS. No doubt that further exploration would bring results which would contribute to our understanding of the History of Jews in Russia and give us with a considerable amount of valuable documents.