Everyday life in Vinnytsia at the turn of the 20th century: based on materials from the newspaper "Kievlyanin"

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to introduce into scientific circulation, systematize, and critically interpret reports from the newspaper "Kievlyanin" regarding Vinnytsia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Methodology. The research methodology is based on an interdisciplinary approach combining historical source analysis to evaluate the publications of the "Kievlyanin" newspaper as a historical source, discourse analysis to identify ideological biases—particularly anti-Semitic and imperial narratives—and the methods of the history of everyday life (analysis of daily practices, reconstruction of living conditions, and examination of social interactions) to reconstruct the socio-economic and cultural life of Vinnytsia. Scientific novelty. The scientific novelty lies in the dedicated, focused use of the newspaper "Kievlyanin" to study the history of the city during the specified period. Conclusions. The newspaper "Kievlyanin" serves as a valuable source for researching the socio-economic and cultural development of Vinnytsia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, given the virtual absence of a local daily press at that time. Publications concerning the activities of the District Psychiatric Hospital (1898), the progress of the agricultural exhibition (1901), assessments of urbanization processes (1900–1903), and the opening of the Vinnytsia City Theatre (1910) provide researchers with unique material for reconstructing the everyday life of the city, its economic growth, and its infrastructure modernization. They reflect an ambivalence in the perception of Vinnytsia: ranging from positive assessments of its transformation into a regional cultural center to criticism of infrastructure and sanitary issues, particularly in the Jewish quarter "Yerusalymka," frequently marked by anti-Semitic overtones aligned with contemporary Russian imperial discourse, within which "Kievlyanin" functioned as one of its structural instruments. Consequently, the subjectivity and bias of the authors, along with the fragmentary nature of the reports, require critical analysis and the integration of additional sources.