{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021893491124260357, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015384615384615385, 'mean_word_length': 5.08273381294964, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The debate on the publishing of the memoirs of Mikhail Muravyov and its impact on the development of the historiography of the 1863–1864 Uprising

The Uprising of 1863–1864 is one of the most controversial issues in Belarusian history of the period when Belarus was a part of the Russian Empire. This issue started being controversial in the 19th century; one of the important reasons for discussions was the source study factor. One of the most commonly used sources on the events of 1863–1864 was the memoirs of the Vilna Governor-General Mikhail Muravyov, published in the Russian Antiquity (Russkaya Starina) magazine. They sparked heated debate among historians and publicists; the subject of the debate was numerous cases of biased interpretation of historical facts by M. Muravyov; self-glorification and lies. Such figures as Mikhail Semevsky (the publisher of the memoirs); Nikolai Berg; Yevgeniy Karnovich; Pyotr Valuev; Sergei Yuzhakov; Alexandr Pavlov; Ivan Aksakov; Alexandr Mosolov and others were the participants of the discussion. In general; the participants were divided into two groups – critics and supporters of Muravyev. The firsts sought; based on the critic of the Muravyov postulates; to reveal the distortions and to present more objective picture of what had been happening; the seconds supported and justified everything that had been written in every possible way. The discussion confirmed the presence in the Russian historiography of the polar views and assessments of M. Muravyov as a person and as a statesman in the position of the Governor-General of Vilna; as well as attracted additional attention of historians to the issue of the Uprising in general.