Kurenivka: the area where Irynarh Shchogoliv conducted educational activities
Kurenivka: the area where Irynarh Shchogoliv conducted educational activities

Forgotten names: Irinarkh Shchogoliv


 Warning! This is the author’s material, spelling and punctuation of the author are preserved.

Kyiv Polytechnic Institute - alma mater of Irynarkh Shchogolev
Kyiv Polytechnic Institute – alma mater of Irynarkh Shchogolev

We do not have much information about the Ukrainian entomologist Irynarh Shchogolev, who went down in history as the organizer of agricultural science in Ukraine, the creator of the entomological Ukrainian nomenclature and one of the founders of the scientific systematic Ukrainian nomenclature. He was born in 1873 in the Ekaterinoslav region, graduated from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University and the agronomic department of Kiev Polytechnic Institute. In March-September 1903, as part of a scientific expedition, he traveled from Yakutsk to Ayan, collecting botanical and entomological collections. From 1923 he was a professor at the Kyiv Agricultural Institute, in 1919-1924 he worked at the Agricultural Scientific Committee of Ukraine (SGNKU),heading its zoological section and entomological subsection and for some time acting as chairman of the committee and director of the Central Entomological Station in Kyiv. In 1920 he headed the Sadkov Commission. He was the commissioner for the affairs of the SGNKU in Kyiv, headed its branch, and later – the bureau in the capital. In 1926 he was a member of the agricultural department of the Institute of Ukrainian Scientific Language of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, working in the zoological section. In the same year, SGNKU was liquidated as a “nationalist”.

The scientist left several scientific works on pest control: “Insects that harm our gardens” (published in Crimean Tatar in 1913), “Pests and plant diseases observed in the Tavriya province during 1914” (in Russian) , 1915), “Dictionary of Ukrainian entomological nomenclature” (1918, was the first attempt to systematize the available material and meet the needs of scientists and schoolchildren of Ukraine in entomological nomenclature), “Names of invertebrates” (series “Dictionary of zoological nomenclature”, 1928; lexicography, which is now considered a bibliographic rarity), “Control of plant pests in collective farms” (1932).

Some episodes of Irynarkh Shchogolev’s life related to Kyiv and Crimea remain undiscovered, or even unknown. In the Ukrainian capital, he contributed to the popular agricultural magazines “Zasiv” and “Rillya”, participated in folk readings for adults and children, which were held in Ukrainian on the initiative of the school-lecture commission of the society “Education”: in particular, in the press in 1909. we find his name among the leaders of such events that took place in the teahouse of the sobriety society in Kurenivka. In 1911, the scientist arrived in Simferopol at the invitation of the Tavriya Provincial Administration, holding the position of assistant provincial entomologist, introduced to the staff of the Natural History Museum of the Tavriya Provincial Zemstvo. In early 1914, Shchogoliv made a donation for the construction of a monument to Taras Shevchenko in Kiev. In 1915,during the First World War, he was mobilized into the army and left the Crimea, where he lived with his wife (no information about her, except for the initial “Yu”, could not be found). During the four years spent on the peninsula, the researcher collected entomological material, set up and conducted experiments, gave consultations to zemstvos and the population, gave lectures, prepared several posters about the pests of the Tavriya province.

Sources give only the year of Shchogolev’s death – 1943, without specifying the place and circumstances; none of his photos can be found.

In February 1913 in the Kiev daily newspaper “Rada” under the pseudonym “Ir. Every year. ” Irynarch Shchogolev’s article “Agronomists, specialists and local languages ​​in Tavria” was published, in which the author described his impressions of participating in the agronomic provincial meeting convened by the Tavria Provincial Land Management Commission. During this event, Shchogoliv raised the issue of using the native language in education among farmers, no matter what nation they belong to – but, unfortunately, found little support among colleagues. At the end of 1913, the Rada published a report on another agronomic meeting in the Tavriya province, which ended in late autumn of that year and had virtually the same consequences: the note was not signed, but stylistically it could be assumed that its author was also Irinarkh Shchogoliv.Both materials are presented without spelling and punctuation changes.

Agronomists, specialists and local languages ​​in Tavria

Kurenivka: the area where Irynarh Shchogoliv conducted educational activities
Kurenivka: the area where Irynarh Shchogoliv conducted educational activities

This is the end of the agronomic provincial meeting convened by the Tauride Provincial Land Management Commission, the central, higher, institution, where all agronomic forces from the province gather, the forces that stand directly next to the people and work side by side with them.

These meetings are known to include zemstvo and government agronomists and specialists, such as provincial, county, and “precinct” agronomists, provincial and county specialists (zootechnicians, garden instructors, specialists in dairy farming, tobacco, beekeeping, etc.). The meeting, which ended, had 45 members, including 3 government officials – members of the “land management” and the inspector of agriculture.

It is not often that we see such a large gathering of people who must take care of the dark people, bring them out of the darkness on a broad path of knowledge and improve well-being. The more interesting their views on the use of their native language .

This meeting of respected specialists came up with this question quite unexpectedly when discussing a report on subscribing to popular magazines and journals for farmers. But the more unexpected – the better, because everyone said what was on the mind.

The report was read by the well-known not only in Ukraine agronomist SK Oleksenkom.

The speaker advised to subscribe to magazines and journals (usually all Russian) between them were “Farmer” and “Farmer”.

To this proposal, the second, old agronomist Mr. Gubenko added that he already has such a subscription, and the villagers love to read magazines.

There was much talk about the shortest way to the heart and mind of the people, which is popular literature; talked about the great impression that this literature will make on the “fresh soul” of the people, who, living in the countryside, have almost no impressions. It was said that this literature accustomed the people to “agronomic thinking,” in short, it would remake almost man completely, and so on.

They talked about everything, but most importantly did not mention the language in which this literature will be written, which should turn the whole worldview of the peasant.

From the outside, it seemed that this question did not concern such an important matter as the popularization of special knowledge at all, or it went without saying that there was nothing to be said about it; and, thus, the secret of the rebirth of the human soul is invented: he bought a popular book (of course, written in Russian), or, even better, a poster blue or green, and from them, as from a magic chain, people immediately understand foreign languages.

This is probably how the whole meeting imagined, because somehow it is really strange that people who live among Ukrainians, Germans, Bulgarians, Tatars, etc., who have relations with them every day, not knowing the language of these peoples, so lightly make lists. popular literature, not remembering half a word even about those who tomorrow will read these books and on them to start the economy, and also to adjust the thought.

Natural History Museum of the Tavriya Provincial Zemstvo (1895-1917) in Simferopol, where Irinarkh Shchogoliv worked in 1911-1914 (now building 17 on Karl Marx Street)
Natural History Museum of the Tavriya Provincial Zemstvo (1895-1917) in Simferopol, where Irinarkh Shchogoliv worked in 1911-1914 (now building 17 on Karl Marx Street)

Therefore, it is not surprising that the meeting could not understand for a long time what we were talking about, when the opponent – the author of these lines expressed his deep surprise at the fact that such experienced agronomists as d.d. Oleksenko and Gubenko, neither in the report, nor in the speeches didn’t address a question of language of those books which have to subscribe for the people. And who, if not them, to know more about the obstacles that make the popularization incomprehensible language!

When he noted that giving people popular books in a language he did not understand was like showing illustrations to a blind person or singing arias to a deaf person; that he who does not use his native language deliberately blinds the people, makes them deaf. And when it was stated that such cultural leaders were committing a crime, some of those present laughed out loud.

It was further emphasized by the opponent that the matter of educating the people, the matter of imparting special knowledge to the people, and even more so of the duty imposed by the position of agronomist, is not a political matter at all, but only a pedagogical one.

It is ridiculous to see how our agronomists are greatly reduced in stature when they come to German villages, how they feel awkward there, and how politely they treat the Germans; how they try to chat in German. And how great they stand before the Ukrainian, Tatar and Bulgarian people; as for the language, does one of them consider it his duty to know the language of these peoples! No!

It is hard not to be ashamed and not to blush when in every German house you see on the table the agricultural calendar, the agricultural master. magazines on the walls are posters that people read, understand and use to organize their household, and our people roll cigarettes from the literature that comes to them, because it does not say anything to them, and agronomists only distribute this literature to distribute. Without touching on the importance of the native language for the real restructuring of the worldview, which is so concerned about agronomists, the importance of the native language was noted only for the acquisition of knowledge, etc., etc., the word was, as far as possible it is a pity!) educated specialists in the simple truth that the shortest way to achieve a great goal is in this case the easiest – native language.

Without touching on literature in other languages, it was noted that our agricultural magazine “Rillya” was recognized as useful for the people at many exhibitions and therefore agronomists in Ukrainian villages can and should distribute this magazine.

Probably, connoisseurs of literature in other languages ​​will point out this literature in those languages.

In vain! It was clear that the meeting was more interested in the question of why the opponent is so interested in this issue, rather than the question itself.

However, it should be noted that the speaker himself, agronomist Mr. Oleksenko, told the meeting that, with great respect for the views of his opponent on the importance of the native language, fully sharing them as well as generally sharing views on the nationalization of people’s lives, he did not Ukrainian literature in his report and list only because he is not familiar with this literature at all, with some it applies to “Rilly”. It is worth noting here the second statement of the speaker at the meeting that in his lectures and conversations with the peasants the speaker uses the Ukrainian language, especially when he wants to be well understood by his audience.

Cover of Shchogolev's book published in Simferopol
Cover of Shchogolev’s book published in Simferopol

Adhered to the views expressed by the opponent, two more agronomists (Great Russians). And the rest? The rest was silent. And compatriots? The compatriots did not recognize themselves because they were really in such an honorable meeting, at such solemn gatherings, where all the black sirtuks and they themselves are in black sirtuks… and a peasant’s language! not to be seen!

Even when the opponent specifically addressed them, emphasizing that there is no politics here, only pedagogy, no one let the steam out of their mouths.

Well, for countrymen such glory. But who drove the cart, as poets say, so is a foreign agronomist.

I think that the reader will forgive me when I tell in more detail about this fact, which is more like an anecdote, in addition, the argument against the use of local languages, still unheard of by an educated, Zemstvo agronomist, and even a foreigner.

As there are many foreigners in Tavria, it is supposedly harmful, because it turns out that everyone needs literature in their native language. It is impossible!

Hence, the agronomist must know these languages, and this is not normal since there is an “all-Russian language” and the only “state language” that everyone should know. The diversity of languages ​​is detrimental to the agronomic business itself.

But a more interesting further argument: the use of the native language develops chauvinism and here’s how (listen to the words of a foreign scientist agronomist!): When once this agronomist came to a village where Russians and Germans lived, and began to chat with Germans in German, so as soon as possible to communicate with him [and], then when he came to this village for the second time, no one wanted to talk to him in Russian, and everyone addressed him in German. Visible chauvinism!

And this is already harmful, because why develop all sorts of languages ​​there, they say, when there is a single “all-Russian”.

Even the government agronomist smiled at this argument, noting that it was impossible to treat the people in this way: when the people themselves gave tools to the agronomist, they had to use the tools and chat in German when they understood them better than “all-Russian.” But the Zemstvo agronomist was not ashamed of such attention. He remained in his thoughts.

What to say about the rest of the speakers, but there were not many of them. One of the government officials said, among other things, that as long as he lived in Tavria, he had not even heard of any Ukrainians speaking in Ukrainian. And before that, schools do not teach this language, especially since you can not subscribe to books in this language. The Ukrainian language is the only one in Poltava and Kyiv.

When it came to the speaker’s proposal and the opponent amended the local languages, the chairman said that it was better not to narrow the issue, but to talk about popular literature in general, without restricting languages. They chatted for a long time, almost quarreled.

Dictionary of Ukrainian entomological nomenclature, author I. Shchogoliv
Dictionary of Ukrainian entomological nomenclature, author I. Shchogoliv

The speaker himself agreed to settle the matter by making his second proposal instead of the first on popular literature: “taking into account the literature in local languages.”

They twisted for a long time, they twisted, because they didn’t want to understand such a simple matter, they twisted and twisted and failed the amendment.

It turned out that only two of the 33 agronomists and specialists present supported the amendment on local languages!

Would it have risen more if it had really been run?

No, perhaps.

The consequence of this long debate was that some agronomists (Great Russians) expressed a wish that books in local languages ​​be included in the lists that will be submitted to the Offices for subscription to popular literature.

Thus ended the case of local languages ​​in popular literature for the peoples of Tavria at the provincial agronomic meeting!

But this is the first attempt. Is there more to be hoped for among the “land managers”.

Maybe more could be demanded from the Zemstvo element. Probably possible!

Gutta cavat lapidem! [1]

Ir. What

Council. – №18. – February 5, 1913 – P. 2.


The agronomic meeting convened by the provincial zemstvo ended on November 27. Up to 40 souls of agronomists, instructors, specialists, board members and others gathered. The meeting lasted for two days, extremely sluggish: there were no interesting topics or exciting reports, no lively, hot work was felt. As in a rural school, agronomists stood up for exams, told about the number of instructors, agronomic elders, sections, points, and, having told stories, sat down, followed by others за No doubts, no questions! Everyone plows, sows, lectures with a lantern [2], hand out posters. They are read equally to all: Great Russians and Ukrainians, Germans, Tatars and Bulgarians in one language – “common Russian language”, literature is also distributed only in “common Russian language”. When these cultural leaders were asked how they were understood, for example, by the Tatars, one, for example, said that since the Russian language was not understood by the Tatars, and he did not understand Tatar, he chose a Tatar who knew both . ] language, he reads in Russian, and the Tatar translates. He still knows some Tatar words and therefore thinks that the translation of his lecture is done well. The second agronomist solved this difficult question even easier. When, he said, Tatars read in pure Russian, they do not understand anything, and when they “distort” it, for example,instead of “yours, mine” you say “yours, mine”, etc., and before that you also poke your finger, whether there is a picture or something, they say it’s a root, and it’s a letter, then everyone understands well .

When we equate the words of the chairman of the meeting, who is also the chairman of the board, with these confessions, that agronomists should come as close as possible to the people, understand their needs, it will turn out that agronomists have turned their backs on the people.

It is not surprising that the proposal to give lectures and literature in the native language of the people was a dissonance against the background of such prosperity in agronomy. The proposal was not even discussed, because the chairman stated that although the “hahly” in Tavria are fluent in their language, but they understand the Great Russian language very well.

Simferopol (Tavria). / Rada. – №278. – December 18, 1913 – P. 4.

[1] A drop of stone sharpens (Latin)

[2] This refers to the cinema, which was synonymous with the “magic lantern”.

If you have found a spelling error, please, notify us by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

The project was implemented with the support of the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation

Sergii Konashevich

Author of numerous culturological publications, editor of Ukrainian Culture Publishing House LLC

Spelling error report

The following text will be sent to our editors: