Имперский режим в Литве в XIX веке (По литовским учебникам истории)

Abstract

SUMMARY: This article explores the historical narrative presented in Lithuanian school textbooks. More specifically, the author’s intent is to trace the image of the 19 th century Russian empire and its nationalities’ policy. The author breaks Lithuanian historical scholarship in to the following periods: the 19 th century to 1940; 1940 to the 1990s; and the 1990s to the present. In the first period, one of the most important tasks for Lithuanian historians was to oppose the “Polonization” of Lithuanian history. Correspondingly, historians were preoccupied with either the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before 1569, stressing the ethnic Lithuanian component of the state, or with the history of the ethnic Lithuanian population. During this period, Lithuanian scholarship viewed Lithuania’s inclusion in the Russian empire negatively and focused on combating the “Russification” of the 1860s and beyond. Although some texts saw imperial policy (such as the introduction of the Cyrillic alphabet) as primarily directed against ethnic Lithuanians, others perceived imperial policy as an attempt to contain Polish influences. During the second period, Lithuanian historians interpreted Lithuanian history as being in the first place the Lithuanian people and excluded other ethnic groups. The narrative was mostly focused on class struggle, while the Lithuanian national movement of the 19 th century was declared democratic for its exclusion of the Polonized nobility or “the feudal class.” This “feudal class” was perceived as being in cahoots with the Tsar and constituted an enemy against whom the democratic national movement fought. In this period, textbooks stressed the importance of Lithuania’s inclusion into the Russian empire for promoting the development of the market and preventing the assimilation of Lithuanians into the Polish culture, although it was admitted that the Russian empire was pursuing “reactionary goals” when incorporating Lithuania. At the same time, some textbooks mentioned “Russification” as a goal of Tsarist policies in Lithuania. The author argues that despite the Marxist-Leninist framework, dogmatic explanations gradually disappear from Lithuanian history textbooks during this second period. The third period, which began with the emergence of an independent Lithuania, the author portrays as a time of pluralism. Some historians continue to regard Lithuanian history first and foremost as the history of the Lithuanian people, paying little attention to Poles or Jews. At the same time, history textbooks have appeared, which give a fuller account of Lithuanian history including histories of Poles, Jews, Tatars, and other groups. Although most authors regard Lithuania’s incorporation into the Russian empire negatively and point to the slowdown of the social and economic development, many give a more nuanced view of inconsistent and hesitant imperial policies than their predecessors. In conclusion, the author regards recent developments in Lithuanian historical scholarship as generally positive with at least a few cases of Lithuanian history being regarded as the history of society, including all groups and nationalities.