Nationalism and Historiography: The Case of Nineteenth-Century Lithuanian Historicism by Virgil s> Krapauskas (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 347 Krapauskas,Virgil. Xationalism andHistoriography: TheCaseofJNineteenth-Centugy Lithuanian Historicism.Eastern European Monographs, Boulder, CO. Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2000. viii + 234 pp. Notes. Bibliography.$30.00. THE topic of this book, Dr Virgil Krapauskas'sdoctoral dissertation, is the contribution of a Lithuanian national historiographyto development of the Lithuaniannational movement in the nineteenth century. He firstreviewsthe historiography of the Lithuanian region before i 8oo and then focuses on the work of Lithuanians who wanted to produce ethnic Lithuanian history. He identifies Simonas Daukantas (I793-I864) as the only 'trainedhistorian' among his subjects;under the title 'scientifichistorians',he considersSimonas Staneviius (1799-I848) and Bishop Motiejus Valancius (I80I-I875); and then he groupslaterwritersaccordingto the publicationsthey contributedto, most notably Ausra,Varpas, and Tevynes Sargas. These intellectuals,he argues, played a key role in the development of an 'elite'Lithuaniannational culture. Although Krapauskas repeats several times that a historian should not impose his or her contemporary standardson nineteenth-century figures,he emphasizes that these intellectual pioneers' unscientificmethods skewed and corruptedthe historythat they wrote. What is more, he declares, they did not care:'Itmade littledifferenceifthey had distortedthathistory.What mattered most for the Lithuanian activistswas raising the national consciousness of a people' (p. 195). Looking critically at the use and even creation of myths, Krapauskasargues 'that scholarship and nationalism are essentially incompatible ' (p. 20). He concludes, 'Research and a critical approach to history may impede the development of a national consciousness'(p. I9I). The implicationsof these 'absolute'generalizationsareintriguing.Just how 'a critical approach to history' might have impeded the development of Lithuaniannational consciousnessremainsratherunclear.Just what might be the author's working definition of 'nationalism'? Would better scholarship have blockedthe development of Lithuaniannationalism?ShouldLithuanians have somehow realized that the effortsto separate Lithuanian history from Polishhistorywere based on fabrications? The author'sfocus on sourcesand mythsmisses,in my opinion, some of the basic issues in the development of the Lithuanian national consciousness. Nineteenth-century Lithuanianhistoriographydeveloped to a greatdegree as a reaction to Polish claims that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, destroyedby the partitionsof the eighteenth century, should be restoredin its boundaries of 1772. Lithuanians were by no means ready to discard the concept of 'statehood' implicit in the existence of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy. Ethnic Lithuanianswere clearly a minority of the population of the Grand Duchy, but the existence of this state was the key to considering Lithuaniansa 'historic'nation, and of course it constituteda majorelement in Lithuanianclaimsto the city of Vilnius. (Krapauskas'saccount makesno clear case for consideringVilnius the capitalof the Lithuaniannation.) Another major issue in the Lithuanian national consciousness was the question of the historicrole of Christianityin the nation'shistory.Krapauskas emphasizes the anti-Polish tenor in the accounts of the church's role in the 348 SEER, 8o, 2, 2002 polonization of the upper classin Lithuania,but he passesratherquicklyover the dilemma this raised for priests who wanted to write about the nation's history. (And the priests constituted an important segment of the Lithuanian intelligentsia at the turn of the twentieth century.) They wanted to give Christianitya positive role in Lithuania'shistory,and accordinglythey chose to emphasize Mindaugas's Christianizationin I 25I. (This is also a factor in the contemporary Lithuanian celebration of State Day, July 6, as the anniversaryof Mindaugas'sbeing crowned king.) In conclusion, it is not clear what effect the nineteenth-centuryLithuanian historians actually had on the development of Lithuanian national consciousness . With all their exaggerations, Krapauskas still considers them ineffective, essentially picturing them as generals without armies the peasantry, the mass of the Lithuanian nation, did not read their writings. 'Only after I9I8', the author declares, 'could the Lithuanian intelligentsia inculcate the masses with their notion of "Lithuanianism"' (p. I96). The development of the Lithuaniannational consciousness, for other reasons,was impeded despite the best creativeeffortsof the Lithuanianhistorians. Madison,Wisconsin ALFRED ERICH SENN Haywood, Richard Mowbray. RussiaEnterstheRailwayAge,I842-I855. East EuropeanMonographs, 493. EastEuropeanMonographs, Boulder,CO, and Columbia University Press,New York, I998. xxvi + 635 pp. Notes. Maps. Bibliography.Index. f58.oo: $9I.OO. THE development of railroadsin Russia has been an understudiedsubjectin imperialRussianhistoryformany decades. The beginning of railroadbuilding (or lack thereof) has usually been associated with the reign of Nicholas I (i 825- I855). Nicholas's image as a reactionary, authoritarian...