Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century 9781618115331

Citation preview

SPATIAL CONCEPTS OF LITHUANIA IN THE LONG NINETEENTH CENTURY

Lithuanian Studies without Borders Series Editor Darius Staliūnas (Lithuanian Institute of History) Editorial Board Zenonas Norkus (Vilnius University) Shaul Stampfer (Hebrew University) Giedrius Subačius (University of Illinois at Chicago)

SPATIAL CONCEPTS OF LITHUANIA IN THE LONG NINETEENTH CENTURY Edited by

DARIUS STALIŪNAS

Boston 2016

The research for this book was funded by the European Social Fund under the Global Grant Initiative (Grant No. VP1-3.1-ŠMM-07-K-03-005). The publication of this book was supported by the Lithuanian Research Council. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Staliunas, Darius. Title: Spatial concepts of Lithuania in the long nineteenth century/edited by Darius Staliunas. Description: Brighton, MA : Academic Studies Press, 2016. Series: Lithuanian studies | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016037745 (print) | LCCN 2016039841 (e-book) | ISBN 9781618115324 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781618115331 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Lithuania—Historical geography. | Lithuania—Name—History— 19th century. | Geographical per­ception—­Lithuania—History—19th century. | Spatial behavior—Political aspects—Lithuania—History—19th century. | Spatial behavior— Social aspects—Lithuania—History—19th century. | Territory, National— Lithuania— History—19th century. | ­Lithuania—Foreign public opinion. | Lithuania—History— 1795–1918. Classification: LCC DK505.28.S63 2016 (print) | LCC DK505.28 (ebook) | DDC 911/.479309034—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016037745 ISBN 978-1-61811-532-4 (hardback) ISBN 978-1-61811-533-1 (electronic) ©Academic Studies Press, 2016 Cover design by Ivan Grave Book design by Kryon Publishing www.kryonpublishing.com Published by Academic Studies Press 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

Table of Contents List of Illustrations Introduction

vi 1

CHAPTER 1: Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map Darius Staliūnas

23

CHAPTER 2: Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Zita Medišauskienė

96

CHAPTER 3: The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory” Darius Staliūnas CHAPTER 4: “Lithuania—An Extension of Poland”: The Territorial Image of Lithuania in the Polish Discourse Olga Mastianica and Darius Staliūnas CHAPTER 5: Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: How Belarusian Nationalism Created Its “National Territory” at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Olga Mastianica CHAPTER 6: Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps Vladimir Levin and Darius Staliūnas

189

239

279 312

CHAPTER 7: Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians Vasilijus Safronovas

371

CHAPTER 8: In Lieu of a Conclusion

443

Index

450

List of Illustrations INTRODUCTION Provinces and districts of the western borderlands of the Russian Empire (1838) Provinces and districts of the western borderlands of the Russian Empire (1850) Provinces and districts of the western borderlands of the Russian Empire (1900) CHAPTER 1

Ethnographic map of the former PLC from Roderich von Erckert, Atlas Ethnographique des Provinces Habitées en Totalité ou en Partie par des Polonais Ethnographic map of the Vilnius Province from Anton Korevo, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii Catherine II monument in Vilnius Murav’ev monument in Vilnius

CHAPTER 3

Map of Lithuania from Juozas Adomaitis-Šernas, Geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas Map of Lithuania from Antanas Alekna, Lietuvos istorija Map of Lithuania from Juozas Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis skiriamas Lietuvos mokyklai Map of Lithuania in the times of Vytautas the Great (1350–1430) from Pranas [Pranas Klimaitis], Lietuvos istorija Map of Lithuania that decorated all 1908 issues of the newspaper Litwa

CHAPTER 4

Mykolas Römeris, “Mapa etnograficzna Litwy” (Ethnographic Map of Lithuania) Czesław Jankowski’s map of ethnographic Poland

CHAPTER 5

Evfimii Karskii’s “Etnograficheskaia karta belorusskogo plemeni” (Ethnographic Map of the Belarusian Tribes)

CHAPTER 6

Zamet and Raysn on the Jewish mental maps

CHAPTER 7

Northeastern part of East Prussia in the early twentieth century

Introduction Question: What is Lithuania? Answer: Lithuania is a country, in which Lithuanians, Poles and Belarusians, and Latvians in Inflanty have lived for ages, coming to terms among themselves and they all compose one Lithuanian nation. Question: What area does Lithuania encompass? Answer: At this time Lithuania encompasses six provinces, officially called the Northwestern provinces, they are the Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodna, Minsk, Mahileŭ, and Vitsiebsk provinces. Caution—the real Lithuanians at this time still live in the full range of the Naumiestis, Vilkaviškis, Marijampolė,1 and Kalvarija districts and in part of Sejny District of the Suwałki Province, as well as in the Palanga District of the Courland Province. Real Poles, except for those in the provinces of Poland, live in the Belsk, Białystok, and Sokolsk districts of the Grodna Province. Question: Why is the country called Lithuania? Answer: This country is called Lithuania because in the thirteenth century the dukes of Lithuania had already begun to be concerned with the union of the abovementioned six provinces into one country; from the fourteenth century, this country carried a uniform fate with Poland until the latter days.2 —Bolesław Jałowecki (1907) 1 At the beginning of the twentieth century Senapilė in Lithuanian. 2 B. J.....is [Bołeslaw Jałowecki], Lietuva ir jos reikalai ... Tautiškas Lietuvos katekizmas (Vilnius, 1907), 1–2. All place names are written according to their present nomenclature. Another solution would be to use official terminology from the nineteenth century but that would create more problems, since it was not adopted in some discourses (Lithuanian, Polish), and it had been changed over time (e.g., Vil’no was typically used in the first half of the century, and Vil’na, in the late imperial period).

2

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

This above quote from a small booklet published in 1907 by Bolesław Jałowecki—a Pole living in Vilnius—is one of many nineteenth-century “national catechisms,” in which the leaders of national movements tried, as simply as possible, to convey national ideology to grassroots. The text is important as much for what it says as for what it leaves unspoken. On the one hand, the interpretation presented essentially reflects the Polish nationalist attitude that no independent Lithuanian, and even more so Belarusian, nation exists; though the society of (ethnographic) Lithuania and Belarus is uniform, Lithuania’s fate was closely tied with Poland’s. On the other hand, Jałowecki was forced to take into account other (non-Polish) concepts of Lithuania. From practical considerations, he used the imperial terminology and explained to the reader that Lithuania was the (Russian Empire’s) Northwest Region (NWR); at the same time, he reacts in a peculiar way to the program of Lithuanian nationalism, and the northern part of the Suwałki Province (Kingdom of Poland)—where Lithuanians composed a majority— entered the geographic concept of Lithuania. Yet Jałowecki did not include Prussian Lithuania, which at this time in the Lithuanian discourse was usually treated as the Lithuanians’ “national territory.” Jałowecki also does not mention the territories beyond the borders of the NWR, to which Belarusian nationalism sometimes expressed claims; nor did he include the Jews and Russians when talking about “national territory.” Jałowecki’s text shows that the present-day concept of Lithuania differs from the one that existed at the beginning of the twentieth century, when more than one geographic image of it existed. Although they were not clearly explicated in the text—but the author, even if indirectly, pointed out that the concept of ethnic Lithuania also existed, and its presented image was ideologically motivated. Because Jałowecki was forced to take into account other concepts of “national territory,” a sort of a polylogue occured among the different discourses. Finally, the images created by the elite were spread among the masses (in this case, the Polish concept of Lithuania was instilled in the minds of Lithuanian speakers). For a long time, historians in Lithuania, as in many other countries, did not raise the question about the borders of investigated regions.

Introduction

In those cases, when the object of the research was the state of Lithuania, it was as if the problem did not exist: here were the borders of the country, which determined the geographic coverage of the research. In other cases, it was usual to extrapolate the spatial concepts of the present to the past: for example, the nineteenth-century history of Lithuania researched in the Soviet period covered the territory corresponding to the borders of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. Only relatively recently did Lithuanian historians direct their attention to Lithuania’s changing spatial concept. In the mid-1990s, Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas raised the question: What was Lithuania in the nineteenth century?3 In their book Carų valdžioje: XIX amžiaus Lietuva (Under the rule of the tsars: Nineteenth-century Lithuania), these two authors showed that in the first half of the nineteenth century, local society understood Lithuania as the territory that encompassed the former lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL), while at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, Lithuanian society gave priority to the concept of ethnographic Lithuania. The authors also briefly touched on the Russian discourse of “national territory.” In this volume, we analyze the question of the spatial concept of Lithuania.4 For the greater part of the nineteenth century, there was no political or administrative derivative such as Lithuania, although various concepts of Lithuania existed and often competed among themselves.5 Moreover, looking at the wider context, essential changes in 3 Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas, Carų valdžioje: XIX amžiaus Lietuva (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1996), 21–25. 4 Separate aspects of the problem were also later analyzed by Zita Medišauskienė, “Lietuvos samprata XIX a. viduryje,” in Praeities baruose (Vilnius: Žara, 1999), 175–182; Medišauskienė Zita, “Lietuva ir jos ribos 1795–1915 metais,” in Lietuvos sienos: Tūkstantmečio istorija (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2009), 66–75; Tamara Bairašauskaitė, Zita Medišauskienė, and Rimantas Miknys, Lietuvos istorija, vol. 8, pt. 1, Devynioliktas amžius: Visuomenė ir valdžia (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011), 34–55; Vytautas Petronis, Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800–1914 (Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007); and Vasilijus Safronovas, “Apie istorinio regiono virsmą vaizduotės regionu: Mažosios Lietuvos pavyzdys,” Istorija 86 (2012): 66–80. 5 In this book, the spatial concept of Lithuania that functioned in various discourses of the nineteenth century (1795–1914) is analyzed in detail. The spatial images functioning in earlier or later periods are only discussed episodically; for example,

3

4

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the understanding of Europe’s internal borders occurred specifically in the nineteenth century, as the language-ethnic criteria gradually became more important. In the nineteenth century, Lithuania was treated not only as a territory belonging to the Russian Empire; the name was also associated with part of the Kingdom of Prussia’s lands (German Empire). However, we cannot limit this research to the analysis of the spatial concept of Lithuania, because other space names always existed that either “competed” with the term Lithuania or were of a different taxonomic level. That is, they were understood as an integral part of Lithuania (Samogitia, Prussia’s Lithuania, Lithuania Minor), or a larger unit (Poland, the Western Region, the NWR, Lita/Lite, East Prussia, and so on) of which Lithuania was also a part. This problem of changing geo-images is related to the discussion that began during the late twentieth century about the spatial turn6 that ensued after the earlier linguistic and cultural turns. Some researchers assert that the spatial turn is more characteristic of the German academic tradition, while in other academic traditions, for example, the French, the spatial dimension has never been forgotten.7 Moreover, sometimes it is emphasized in scholarly literature that different disciplines understand this “discovery” of space in different ways, so perhaps it would be more correct to talk not about the spatial turn but about spatial turns.8 Some researchers, for example, Karl Schlögel, understand it as quite streamlined, as the necessity to focus attention on the social space in which “history takes place.”9 Others emphasize that not every mention

6

7 8 9

when it is clear that the concepts that functioned in the nineteenth century were formed earlier. Jörg Döring and Tristan Thielmann, “Einleitung: Was lessen wir im Raume? Der Spatial Turn und das geheime Wissen der Geographen,” in Spatial Turn: Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften, ed. Jörg Döring and Tristan Thielmann (Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2008), 7–9. Frithjof Benjamin Schenk, “Der spatial turn und die Osteuropäische Geschichte,” H-Soz-Kult, June 1, 2006, accessed October 15, 2014, http://www.hsozkult.de/article/ id/artikel-736. Döring and Thielmann, “Einleitung,” 10–13. Karl Schlögel, “Kartenlesen, Augenarbeit: Über die Fälligkeit des spatial turn in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften,” in Was sind Kulturwissenschaften? 13

Introduction

of “space” is considered an integral part of the spatial turn. Often this new paradigm is related to the approach of the French Marxist Henri Lefebvre.10 This new approach understands (social) space as a product of social creativity, and it emphasizes the relation of space and power.11 Lefebvre’s theory claims that three dialectically related processes—“spatial practice,” “representations of space,” and “spaces of representation”—create (social) space. The first process encompasses social activities and interactions, for example, the formation and action of various social networks in everyday life; material production happens here. The second creates space with characterizing images; usually these are various discursive practices, encompassing not only written texts but also areas such as the planning of spaces, pictures, and maps. In other words, the creation of knowledge, where science (primarily geography) can fill an important role. The third process in the creation of space—that is, the symbolic dimension of space—embodies a more general idea. These symbols can be both objects of nature and creations by human hands (buildings, monuments); in this way, space is endowed with meaning.12 Lefebvre’s approach is especially valuable when we are investigating how the elite of non-dominant national groups (Lithuanians, Belarusians, etc.) created “national territories.” The contributions to his volume address whether the region of national elites’ “spatial practice” corresponded to the concept of the “national territory.” This problem will appear somewhat different when we analyze the Russian imperial case. Then we compare various discursive practices with nationality policy and explain what various projects of territorial-administrative reform tell us about the Russian mental map. Antworten, ed. Heinz Dieter Kittsteiner (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2004), 261–83. 10 Doris Bachmann-Medick, Cultural Turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften (Reinbek: Rowohls Enzyklopädie, 2007), 291; Barney Warf and Santa Arias, “Introduction: The Reinsertion of Space into the Social Sciences and Humanities,” in The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Barney Warf and Santa Arias (London: Routledge, 2009), 3. 11 Bachmann-Medick, Cultural Turns, 292. 12 Christian Schmid, “Henri Lefebvre’s Theory of the Production of Space: Towards a Three-Dimensional Dialectic,” in Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre, ed. Kanishka Goonewardena et al. (New York: Routledge, 2008), 27–45.

5

6

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

The topographical turn—research that is interested in the techniques of the representation of space, primarily with the creation of maps— was an integral part of the spatial turn.13 In the 1980s, new impulses arrived from the science of geography, more specifically, the postmodern approach, which says that maps are not neutral or objective reflections of reality but complex semiotic creations that have to be deconstructed in the same way as texts. This approach, whose most famous founder was John Brian Harley,14 states that the creation of maps is one of the instruments for acquiring power.15 Researchers emphasize that in the creation of every map, selection is unavoidable (e.g., choosing the “topic,” the language in which the objects are named, and what is pictured, as well as was is not); moreover, the very technique of its preparation is biased (selecting the sizes of the symbols and letters, the thickness of the lines, the colors). This approach is widely applied in historical studies: analyzing the role of maps in German propaganda campaigns in 1918–45,16 creating and instilling the image of Finland within the minds of the masses in 1899–1942,17 politically instrumentalizing the maps in Central and Eastern Europe in the long nineteenth century.18 In this study we analyze several aspects of maps. First, we treat them as an integral part of the appropriate national discourse, so we look at what territory is defined as “one’s own” using the instruments that legitimized the claims to a “national territory.” Moreover, the maps are analyzed as visual material used in the process 13 Bachmann-Medick, Cultural Turns, 299. 14 John Brian Harley, “Maps, Knowledge, and Power,” in The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments, ed. Denis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 277–312; John Brian Harley, “Deconstructing the Map,” Cartographica 26, no. 2 (1989): 1–20. 15 “Maps are preeminently a language of power, not of protest”: Harley, “Maps,” 301. 16 Guntram Henrik Herb, Under the Map of Germany: Nationalism and Propaganda 1918–1945 (London: Routledge, 1997). 17 Katariina Kosonen, “Making Maps and Mental Images: Finnish Press Cartography in Nationbuilding, 1899–1942,” National Identities 10, no. 1 (2008): 21–47. 18 Petronis, Constructing Lithuania; Steven Seegel, Mapping Europe’s Borderlands: Russian Cartography in the Age of Empire (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

Introduction

of nationalizing the masses. For example, the illustration on the book’s cover is taken from the satirical publication Garnys (Heron) in 1913: this caricature-map not only “reminds” the reader of ethnographic Lithuania’s borders19 but also explains visually who Lithuanians’ and Lithuania’s main enemies were.20 The term “map” is not only used to describe a specific physical object in scholarly literature. Behavioral psychology, investigating an individual’s ability to orient himself in space, uses terms such as cognitive map, while human geography uses mental map.21 A cognitive map is usually defined “as a process composed of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes, stores, recalls, and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in the everyday spatial environment.”22 The cognitive map is a subjective reflection of the environment surrounding us. Psychologists are interested, for example, in how people become acquainted with a new environment, how they orient themselves in a familiar environment, how they draw a map of a locality from memory, how they indicate a road, and what images of the environment they rely on to make decisions for their place of residence, work, or rest. These images also have qualitative characteristics, that is, they also have value. Therefore, the term “map” does not have to be understood literally; in other words, a 19 This caricature-map essentially reproduces the map of ethnographic Lithuania prepared by V. Verbickis and financed by “Lietuvos ūkininkas” (Lithuania’s farmer) published somewhat earlier. Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 262. 20 Along with the caricature-map an explanation was provided for who these neighbors were, that is, Lithuania’s enemies: the Poles-National Democrats, Germans, perhaps the Jews, and even the leftist Lithuanians: Smidras [Adomas Jakštas (Aleksandras Dambrauskas)?], “Iliustruotas Lietuvos žemlapis,” Garnys 1 (1913): 6. Russia, or Russians, is not mentioned in this list, most likely for two reasons: censorship and the unwillingness of the Lithuanian rightist figures (in this case, Catholics) to confront the imperial government, which they often even saw as an ally in the fight against their main enemy, the Poles. 21 These terms specifically were most often used, although researchers count at least twenty other, similar terms used to describe the same or similar processes: Rob Kitchin and Mark Blades, The Cognition of Geographic Space (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002), 1–2. 22 Roger M. Downs and David Stea, “Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products,” in Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior, ed. Roger M. Downs and David Stea (London: Edward Arnold, 1973), 9.

7

8

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

cartographic or other type of map does not exist in an individual’s brain. The term serves as an accurate metaphor because the phenomena discussed, as with maps, are spatial representations.23 Clearly, historians cannot investigate such phenomena. However, they adopted the metaphor of mental maps. Though they have adopted that metaphor, historians understand that their research objects and methods differ from those applied in psychology and geography. Historians are interested in what factors (or, more broadly, worldviews) influence an individual’s images of space, how they are transferred culturally, and how they affect the formation of group identities. If psychologists and geographers are usually interested in individual cognitive representations “of the immediate environment,” then historians usually focus on spaces, going far beyond the experiences of a specific individual,24 for example, concepts such as Europe, the West, Central and Eastern Europe, and Siberia. Research sources also appropriately differ: if psychologists and geographers undertake observation studies and surveys, then historians’ main sources are historical documents—both written and various visual materials. In other words, historians investigate various discursive practices.25 In review articles on the study of mental maps, postcolonial studies is also mentioned. According to Edward Said, in his book Orientalism, when this concept was created in Western societies, it was not neutral but biased—that is, Eurocentric—and had imperialistic connotations pointing to the all-encompassing Orient, which was viewed as “Other” from the West.26 Said’s work inspired many studies, for example, those by Larry Wolff and Maria Todorova. Wolff states that the current 23 Kitchin and Blades, The Cognition of Geographic Space, 2. 24 Andreas Langenohl, “Mental Maps, Raum und Erinnerung: Zur kultursoziologischen Erschließung eines transdisziplinären Konzepts,” in Mental Maps—­ Raum—Erinnerung: Kulturwissenschaftliche Zugänge zum Verhältnis von Raum und Erinnerung, ed. Angelika Hartmann, Béatrice Hendrich, and Sabine Damir-Geilsdorf (Münster: LIT, 2005), 67. 25 Frithjof Benjamin Schenk, “Mental Maps: The Cognitive Mapping of the Continent as an Object of Research of European History,” European History Online, July 5, 2013, accessed December 12, 2013, http://www.ieg-ego.eu/schenkf-2013-en, 6–7. 26 Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978).

Introduction

Western world’s concept of Eastern Europe appeared at the time of the Enlightenment, and it, like similar concepts, was not neutral but had clear value connotations and was an instrument of power, expressing the West’s domination over Eastern Europe.27 In Todorova’s analysis of the concept of the Balkans, this concept, used over the course of two centuries, was nothing other than the image of an “incomplete self” created in the discourse of the West—as the underdeveloped, half-­ civilized, and eastern-like West. In other words, the Balkans were treated as a bridge or crossroad between the West and the East; that is, unlike the Orient, the Balkans are not comprehended as the “other.”28 Having looked over studies dealing with this group of problems, Frithjof Benjamin Schenk noted that they are not distinguished by any clearly defined research method or theory. The research methods used in these works on mental maps are borrowed from other fields: research into borders and stereotypes, discourse history, cartographic history, or history of travel.29 Studies of mental maps are similar to those that we see in studies of nationalism. In them—in the summarizing works of Anthony D. Smith30 as well as in the journal National Identities—attention is drawn to the importance of territoriality in the ideologies of identities, when nationalists seek to define the specific social space—the “national territory” or the “geo-body”31—that “belongs” to the nation. As studies of nationalism indicate, the modern nation cannot be envisioned without 27 Larry Wolff, Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994). For critical remarks about this book, see Schenk, “Mental Maps,” 22. According to Hans Lemberg, Russia in the Western discourse “was moved” from the “North” to the “East” only in the first half of the nineteenth century, between the Congress of Vienna and the Crimean War: Hans Lemberg, “Zur Entstehung des Osteuropabegriffs im 19. Jahrhundert: Vom ‘Norden’ zum ‘Osten’ Europas,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 33, no. 1 (1985): 48–91. 28 Maria Todorova, Imagining the Balkans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 29 Schenk, “Mental Maps,” introduction. 30 Anthony D. Smith, National Identity (London: Penguin, 1991). 31 Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994), x. See, for example, the map on the cover of this book: the map of Lithuania is drawn as a human skull.

9

10

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the real, or at least the imagined, “holy” or “historical” lands.32 And this modeling of the “national territory” occurs in the same way as in the case of imagining the nation.33 In Peter Haslinger’s opinion, the imagined territory theoretically has greater potential to demonstrate immutability than the imagined community,34 so “one’s own territory” becomes an important attribute of the modern nation.35 Nationalist ideology demands that the “national territory” acquires clear contours and not “overlap” with other “geo-bodies.” A more complicated situation is when we encounter nationalism, which is “equated” with the empire, for example, with Russian nationalism in the Romanov Empire. Then, the “national territory” does not necessarily have to coincide with the politically controlled territory.36 Researchers of nationalism have noticed that “geo-ideological” concepts, especially their competition or change, reflect the dominant values, goals, or fears of the time.37 Rogers Brubaker talks about certain cultural idioms, or in a more narrow sense, idioms of nationhood, which determine the nature of national identity along with spatial images.38 As we have seen, scholars engaged in the research of mental maps, 32 David H. Kaplan and Guntram H. Herb, “How Geography Shapes National Identities,” National Identities 13, no. 4 (December 2011): 349. 33 Michael Billig, Banal Nationalism (London: Sage, 1995), 74. 34 Peter Haslinger, Nation und Territorium im tschechischen politischen Diskurs 1880– 1938 (Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2010), 31. 35 Historians have analyzed in detail different cases of the creation of “national territories”: Helen Schmitt, “No Border, No Nation? Raumkonzepte im Nationalisierungsprozess von Letten und Finnen,” Neues Osteuropa 1 (2010): 9–25; Haslinger, Nation und Territorium; Anton Kotenko, “The Ukrainian Project in Search of National Space, 1861–1914” (PhD diss., Central European University, Budapest, 2013). 36 Alexei Miller, The Romanov Empire and Nationalism: Essays in the Methodology of Historical Research (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008), 163; Stefan Berger and Alexei Miller, ed., Nationalizing Empires (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2015). 37 Mark Bassin, “Imperiale Raum/Nationaler Raum. Sibirien auf der kognitiven Landkarte Rußlands im 19. Jahrhundert,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28, no. 3 (2002): 379. 38 Idioms of nationhood, according to Brubaker, are methods of thinking and speaking, which can be quite different (in France it is more oriented to the state, the civic nation; in Germany, ethno-cultural values are stressed). The cultural idioms, differing from ideologies, “have a longer-term, more anonymous, and less

Introduction

which we can consider an integral part of studies of nationalism, comprehend these interactions in a similar way. Discussing the case of Lithuania, we not only search for those cultural idioms that influenced the formation of spatial images but also ask whether there was a “reverse” impact: did the images of “national territory” have an influence on the definitions of national identity? The arguments formulated by nationalists justifying pretensions to a certain territory, in our understanding, can be divided into three groups.39 To the first we would assign arguments of a cultural nature (ethnicity, civilizational or cultural mission, various types of historical right); to the second, arguments related to power (the goal to take over an ever-greater territory and strategically important habitats or economically important centers); and to the third, geographic arguments (references to “natural” borders, which allegedly mark objects of nature such as bodies of water, mountains, being on an island).40 In this book, we clarify which criteria leaders of non-dominant national groups or officials chose. However, we do not limit ourselves to the analysis of these criteria, because we also discuss whether the arguments stated in the “competing” discourses were taken into account. In this book, we will also look at another observation found in the studies of nationalism, which say that the imagined “national territory” is often not uniform, that its core and semi-core, as well as its periphery, can be distinguished. The nationalists associate themselves more with the core than with the periphery, thus they put the most effort into the partisan existence”: Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and German (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 14, 16, 162–63. 39 Colin Williams and Anthony Smith, “The National Construction of Social Space,” Progress in Human Geography 7 (1983): 502–18; Brian A. Porter, “Who Is a Pole and Where Is Poland? Territory and Nation in the Rhetoric of Polish National Democracy before 1905,” Slavic Review 51, no. 4 (Winter 1992): 639–53; Robert Gehrke, Der polnische Westgedanke bis zur Wiedererrichtung des polnischen Staates nach Ende der Ersten Weltkieges: Genese und Begründung polnischer Gebietsansprüche gegenüber Deutschland im Zeitalter des europäischen Nationalismus (Marburg: Herder Institut), 356–58. 40 Many of these arguments were seen not only in nationalistic arguments but also in other argumentation, when claims to a certain territory underwent attempts at justification.

11

12

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

preparations to fight for this zone.41 However, when the “national body” (geo-body) is finally constructed, for example, after creating a nation state, then each one of its parts becomes sacred and cannot be handed over under any circumstance.42 At the same time, researchers draw attention to the fact that nationalists not only define the “national territory” but also designate certain “sacred centers,” which reveal the “moral geography” of the nation— what Paulius Subačius has dubbed “space-gathering centers.”43 Such centers, according to the nationalistic logic, become the targets of pilgrimages. Sometimes such centers are even more important than the clear delimitations of “national territory.”44 As is emphasized in the scholarly literature, the national construction of social space usually takes place with the assistance of two tools: the nationalizing of the landscape and historical narrations.45 The appropriation of the landscape occurs when certain objects of nature or works created by people (such as buildings) are given value connotations, making these objects historical or humanizing or relating them with certain historical episodes,46 for example, proclaiming the Nemunas “the father of Lithuania’s rivers.” The national landscape and the territory of the imagined homeland became the “sacred space.”47 In this way, says Mark Bassin, the geographic concept of homeland is not of constant and 41 Andrew F. Burghardt, “The Bases of Territorial Claims,” Geographical Review 63 (1973): 225–45. 42 George W. White, Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). 43 Anthony D. Smith, “Sacred Territories and National Conflict,” Israel Affairs 5, no. 4 (1999): 17. 44 Paulius Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė: Tautinio išsivadavimo kultūra (Vilnius: Aidai, 1999), 153. 45 Béatrice von Hirschhausen, “Zwischen lokal und national: Der geographische Blick auf die Erinnerung,” in Europäische Errinerungsräume, ed. Kirstin Buchinger, Claire Gantet, and Jacob Vogel (Frankfurt: Campus, 2009), 23. 46 Guntram H. Herb, “National Identity and Territory,” in Nested Identities: Nationalism, Territory, and Scale, ed. Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999), 18–19; Sverker Sörlin, “The Articulation of Territory: Landscape and the Constitution of Regional and National Identity,” Norsk geografisk Tidsskrift—Norwegian Journal of Geography 53, nos. 2–3 (October 1999): 103–12. 47 Smith, “Sacred Territories,” 18–21; Bassin, “Imperiale Raum,” 379.

Introduction

objective size but rather the discursive topos, which is constantly being reinterpreted.48 Meanwhile, the nationalist historical narrative morally obligates people to equate themselves with the historical homeland49 it was emphasized especially often that the land was “drenched in the blood of ancestors.” When a certain territory was “nationalized” in different discourses, then a sort of race began, in which each side strived to prove that it had been settled in this territory the longest.50 As Smith observes, these two processes, the nationalizing of the space and the creation of the historical narratives, were tightly related because of the “territorialization of memory”—separate elements of the national landscape become the embodiment of the national past.51 At the same time, ethno-symbolists emphasize that modern nationalists usually are not radical inventors: they simply take over the existing images in the ethno-culture and adapt them to new ideology.52 Therefore, in this book we compare certain geo-images in different periods. For example, we look into whether the spatial images in the first half of the nineteenth century were also seen at the beginning of the twentieth century. Studies on nationalism reiterate that in the process of the creation of “national territory,” not only were certain border signs determined but significant efforts were made to create strong emotional ties between the “national territory,” which the specific individual most likely had not seen, and the national community. As we have already mentioned, historians investigating mental maps borrowed approaches from the other sciences as well as from the research on discourse used by historians. In this book, we also address the discourses about the relationship between nation (and the state) and territory. Historical discourse studies53 offer a look at communication in the public space as an arena in which the hierarchization of values occurs and 48 Bassin, “Imperiale Raum,” 380. 49 Haslinger, Nation und Territorium, 18. 50 Haslinger, Nation und Territorium, 31. 51 Smith, “Sacred Territories,” 13–31. 52 Smith, National Identity, 78. 53 Haslinger, Nation und Territorium, 22–30.

13

14

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the normative frames for speaking on a particular topic are formed. The setting of these frames is nothing less than the manifestation of power.54 An important question for Lithuania, as for other multiethnic societies, is how the different discourses in a multilingual society interact. That is, it must be determined how the “younger” nationalisms (Lithuanian, Belarusian) reacted to Polish or Russian discourses on “national territory”; or vice versa—did the “old” narratives change in response to the challenges of “younger” nationalisms? This book shows that the different discourses on Lithuania not only had a certain internal logic and dynamics but were also in a constant dialogue or polylogue with one other. The book opens with Darius Staliūnas’s chapter, “Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map,” in which an answer is sought to the question of whether the ruling and intellectual Russian elite treated the former GDL lands, and more narrowly, ethnic Lithuania, as an imperial holding of the Romanovs or if it was also part of the Russians’ “national territory.” The answer to this question is explored by analyzing the renaming of this territory, historical writings and ethnographic descriptions, the projects of territorial-administrative reforms, and the practices of symbolic appropriation of space. Zita Medišauskienė’s chapter, “Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” analyzes the variety of the concepts of Lithuania in the first half of the nineteenth century. This study reveals that the coexistence of different collective identities led to Lithuania (like Samogitia or Lithuanian Rus’) being perceived in different ways during this period. Among other geographic images in the middle of the nineteenth century, the concept of Lithuania as a region in which Lithuanian speakers dominate can be clearly seen. In the Lithuanian discourse, according to Medišauskienė, only this area was given the name of Lithuania.55 At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, defining Lithuania by linguistic and ethnographic criteria developed 54 The concepts of “frame” and “mental maps” or discourses about territory are often used as synonyms: Maria Todorova, “Der Balkan als Analysekategorie: Grenzen, Raum, Zeit,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28, no. 3 (2002): 470–71. 55 An earlier version of this chapter, as well as the chapters by Mastianica and Staliūnas on Lithuanian “national territory,” was published in Ab Imperio 16, no. 1 (2015).

Introduction

into a political program. Staliūnas’s “The Pre-1914 Creation of L ­ ithuanian National Territory” explains why the Lithuanian intelligentsia focused on “ethnographic Lithuania” and what criteria helped them argue for such a choice. The same issues are raised in the next two chapters: Olga Mastianica and Staliūnas’s “Lithuania: An Extension of Poland” and Mastianica’s “Between the Restoration of Ethnographic Belarus and the GDL.” The authors analyze Lithuania’s functioning and other geographic images in the Polish and Belarusian discourses. Meanwhile, Vladimir Levin and Staliūnas’s “Lite in the Mental Maps of the Jews” analyzes how and why the historically formed Jewish geographic images (Lite/Lithuania, Zamet/Samogitia, Raysn/Rus’) changed in the nineteenth century, influenced by the official territorial-­ administrative nomenclature as well as by the cultural differences among the Jews. Here the question of whether the Jews “saw” a Lithuanian Lithuania is raised as well. Unlike the discussed research, which speaks about the competing spatial images in the Russian Empire, Vasilijus Safronovas’s study examines how and why the concept of Lithuania in Prussia (in both the German and Lithuanian speakers’ discourses) underwent change. More specifically, he asks the following questions: How did the main social strata representing Lithuania in Prussia change? How was the concept of Lithuania nationalized and included in the system of geographic and ethnographic knowledge of East Prussia? And what space could Prussia’s Lithuanians treat as their own?

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aleksandravičius, Egidijus, and Antanas Kulakauskas. Carų valdžioje: XIX amžiaus Lietuva. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1996. Bachmann-Medick, Doris. Cultural Turns: Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften. Reinbek: Rowohls Enzyklopädie, 2007. Bairašauskaitė, Tamara, Zita Medišauskienė, and Rimantas Miknys. Lietuvos istorija, vol. 8, pt. 1: Devynioliktas amžius: visuomenė ir valdžia, 34–55. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011. Bassin, Mark. “Imperiale Raum/Nationaler Raum. Sibirien auf der kognitiven Landkarte Rußlands im 19. Jahrhundert.” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 28, no. 3 (2002): 378–403.

15

16

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Berger, Stefan, and Alexei Miller, eds. Nationalizing Empires. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2015. Billig, Michael. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage, 1995. Brubaker, Rogers. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Burghardt, Andrew F. “The Bases of Territorial Claims.” Geographical Review 63 (1973): 225–45. Colin, Williams, and Antony D. Smith. “The National Construction of Social Space.” Progress in Human Geography 7 (1983): 502–18. Döring, Jörg, and Tristan Thielmann. “Einleitung: Was lessen wir im Raume? Der Spatial Turn und das geheime Wissen der Geographen.” In Spatial Turn: Das Raumparadigma in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften, ed. Jörg Döring and Tristan Thielmann, 7–45. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2008. Downs, Roger M., and David Stea. “Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products.” In Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior, ed. Roger M. Downs and David Stea, 8–26. London: Edward Arnold, 1973. Gehrke, Roland. Der polnische Westgedanke bis zur Wiedererrichtung des polnischen Staates nach Ende der Ersten Weltkieges. Genese und Begründung polnischer Gebietsansprüche gegenüber Deutschland im Zeitalter des europäischen Nationalismus. Marburg: Herder Institut, 2001. Harley, John Brian. “Deconstructing the Map.” Cartographica 26, no. 2 (1989): 1–20. ____. “Maps, Knowledge, and Power.” In The Iconography of Landscape: Essays on the Symbolic Representation, Design and Use of Past Environments, ed. Denis Cosgrove and Stephen Daniels, 277–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Haslinger, Peter. “Diskurs, Sprache, Zeit und Identität—ein Plädoyer für eine erweiterte Diskursgeschichte.” In Historische Diskursanalysen: Genealogie, Theorie, Anwendungen, ed. Franz X. Eder, 25–50. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2005. ____. Nation und Territorium im tschechischen politischen Diskurs 1880–1938. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 2010.

Introduction

Herb, Guntram Henrik. “National Identity and Territory.” In Nested Identities: Nationalism, Territory, and Scale, ed. Guntram H. Herb and David H. Kaplan, 9–30. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. Herb, Guntram Henrik. Under the Map of Germany: Nationalism and Propaganda 1918–1945. London: Routledge, 1997. Kaplan, David H., and Guntram H. Herb. “How Geography Shapes National Identities.” National Identities 13, no 4 (December 2011): 349–60. Kitchin, Rob, and Mark Blades. The Cognition of Geographic Space. London: I.B. Tauris, 2002. Kosonen, Katariina. “Making Maps and Mental Images: Finnish Press Cartography in Nationbuilding, 1899–1942.” National Identities 10, no. 1 (2008): 21–47. Kotenko, Anton. “The Ukrainian Project in Search of National Space, 1861–1914.” PhD diss., Central European University, Budapest, 2013. Langenohl, Andreas. “Mental Maps, Raum und Erinnerung: Zur kultursoziologischen Erschließung eines transdisziplinären Konzepts.” In Mental Maps—Raum—Erinnerung. Kulturwissenschaftliche Zugänge zum Verhältnis von Raum und Erinnerung, ed. Angelika Hartmann, Béatrice Hendrich, and Sabine Damir-Geilsdorf, 51–69. Münster: Lit, 2005. Lemberg, Hans. “Zur Entstehung des Osteuropabegriffs im 19. Jahrhundert: Vom ‘Norden’ zum ‘Osten’ Europas.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 33, no. 1 (1985): 48–91. Medišauskienė, Zita. “Lietuva ir jos ribos 1795–1915 metais.” In Lietuvos sienos: Tūkstantmečio istorija, 66–75. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2009. ____. “Lietuvos samprata XIX a. Viduryje.” In Praeities baruose, 175–82. Vilnius: Žara, 1999. Miller, Alexei. The Romanov Empire and Nationalism: Essays in the Methodology of Historical Research. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008. Petronis, Vytautas. Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800−1914. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007.

17

18

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Porter, Brian A. “Who Is a Pole and Where Is Poland? Territory and Nation in the Rhetoric of Polish National Democracy before 1905.” Slavic Review 51, no. 4 (Winter 1992): 639–53. Safronovas, Vasilijus. “Apie istorinio regiono virsmą vaizduotės regionu: Mažosios Lietuvos pavyzdys.” Istorija 86 (2012): 66–80. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978. Schenk, Frithjof Benjamin. “Mental Maps: The Cognitive Mapping of the Continent as an Object of Research of European History.” European History Online, July 8, 2013. Accessed December 12, 2013. http://www.ieg-ego.eu/schenkf-2013-en. ____. “Der spatial turn und die Osteuropäische Geschichte.” H-Soz-Kult, June 1, 2006. Accessed October 15, 2014. http://www. hsozkult.de/article/id/artikel-736. Schlögel, Karl. “Kartenlesen, Augenarbeit: Über die Fälligkeit des spatial turn in den Geschichts- und Kulturwissenschaften.” In Was sind Kulturwissenschaften? 13 Antworten, ed. Heinz Dieter Kittsteiner, 261–83. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2004. Schmid, Christian. “Henri Lefebvre’s Theory of the Production of Space: Towards a Three-Dimensional Dialectic.” In Space, Difference, Everyday Life: Reading Henri Lefebvre, ed. Kanishka Goonewardena et al., 27–45. New York: Routledge, 2008. Schmitt, Helen. “No Border, No Nation? Raumkonzepte im Nationalisierungsprozess von Letten und Finnen.“ Neues Osteuropa 1 (2010): 9–25. Seegel, Steven. Mapping Europe’s Borderlands: Russian Cartography in the Age of Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Smith, Anthony D. National Identity. London: Penguin, 1991. ____. “Sacred Territories and National Conflict.” Israel Affairs 5, no. 4 (1999): 13–31. Sörlin, Sverker. “The Articulation of Territory: Landscape and the Constitution of Regional and National Identity.” Norsk geografisk Tidsskrift—Norwegian Journal of Geography 53, nos. 2–3 (October 1999): 103–12. Subačius, Paulius. Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė: Tautinio išsivadavimo kultūra. Vilnius: Aidai, 1999.

Introduction

Todorova, Maria. “Der Balkan als Analysekategorie: Grenzen, Raum, Zeit.” Geschichte und Gsellschaft 28, no. 3 (2002): 471–92. ____. Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. von Hirschhausen, Béatrice. “Zwischen lokal und national: Der geographische Blick auf die Erinnerung.” In Europaeische Errinerungsräume, ed. Kirstin Buchinger, Claire Gantet, and Jacob Vogel, 23–32. Frankfurt: Campus, 2009. Warf, Barney, and Santa Arias. “Introduction: The Reinsertion of Space into the Social Sciences and Humanities.” In The Spatial Turn: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Barney Warf and Santa Arias, 1–10. London: Routledge, 2009. White, George W. Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2000. Winichakul, Thongchai. Siam Mapped: A History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1994. Wolff, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.

19

20

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 1.  Provinces and districts of the western borderlands of the Russian Empire (1838). Map by Vasilijus Safronovas.

Introduction

Figure 2.  Provinces and districts of the western borderlands of the Russian Empire (1850). Map by Vasilijus Safronovas.

21

22

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 3.  Provinces and districts of the western borderlands of the Russian Empire (1900). Map by Vasilijus Safronovas.

CHAPTER 1

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map Darius Staliūnas One can look at Lithuania in two ways: as a part of Russia or Poland. The third option— autonomous—contradicts history and the nature and purpose of the events. The pure Lithuanians are barely noticeable and blend in with the Belorussians, Poles, and Latvians.1 —Vilnius governor Ivan Shestakov

This quotation tells us that, according to Vilnius governor Ivan Shestakov, in the 1860s there were at least two competing discourses on Lithuania, the Polish and Russian, while the potentially Lithuanian one was immediately marginalized as illegitimate. Also important in this quotation is the fact that the Lithuanian factor was understood in the modern, that is, ethnic sense. This chapter deals with the question of whether and how the concept, declaring that Lithuania was not only a possession of the Russian Empire but also Russian “national territory” appeared in the Russian   1 I. Shestakov, Memoirs, pt. 5, Otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi natsional’noi biblioteki (Manuscript division of the Russian National library; OR RNB), f. 856, d. 5, l. 418. The terms “Belorussia” and “Belorussians” (Belorussiia, belorussy), as was common for the nineteenth-century Russian discourse, are used rather than the contemporary ones “Belarus” and “Belarusians” in this chapter.

24

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

discourse. Specifically, the chapter starts from the way the imperial government changed the name of this region. It then determines what scientific, ideological, and political instruments were used by imperial officials and different experts to support the thesis that this land belonged to Russia. Next, it explains the impact of the Russian mental maps on the redrawing of administrative boundaries. The last part of the chapter focuses on how imperial government symbolically appropriated this space. None of these issues are entirely new in the historical literature, but here they are examined more deeply and systematically. Alexei Miller emphasized the differences between the nationalisms of imperial and non-dominant national groups. The latter, as Ernest Gellner observed, usually sought the congruence of national and political boundaries; in other words, the national “geo-body” needed to correspond to the political boundaries (in the ideal case—of an independent state). Meanwhile, in the empire, and specifically in the tsarist state, the core needed to be distinguished—the national (Russian) territory from the rest of the empire. Miller also noted that the core was not of fixed size; its boundaries could also change. Miller believed that the ethnic Lithuanian lands were not treated as Russian “national territory.”2 And we see changing concept of Russian “national territory” in the other western borderlands of the empire.3 The concept of the Russian “national territory” expanded in the late imperial period: at the end of the nineteenth century, some Russian officials started to perceive the Baltic provinces as the Russian “national territory” because apparently the first religion established there was Eastern Christianity;4 and from the second half of the nineteenth   2 Alexei Miller, The Romanov Empire and Nationalism: Essays in the Methodology of Historical Research (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008), 163, 170.   3 Earlier studies on the treatment of the former lands of the GDL on the Russian mental maps are mentioned in the book’s introduction.   4 Karsten Brüggemann, “Das Baltikum im russischen Blick: Russland und sein Anspruch auf die baltischen Staaten in der Perspektive des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Nordosteuropa als Geschichtsregion: Beiträge des III. Internationalen Symposiums zur deustchen Kultur und Geschichte im europäischen Nordosten vom 20.–22. September 2001 in Tallinn (Estland), ed. Jörg Hackmann and Robert Schweitzer (Helsinki: Aue-Stiftung; Lübeck: Verlag Schmidt-Römhild, 2006), 392–411; Karsten Brüggemann, “The Baltic Provinces and Russian Perceptions in Late Imperial Russia,” in Russia

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

century, the idea that Chelmian Rus’ should be torn away from the Kingdom of Poland escalated ever more intensely in the Russian discourse.5

RENAMING THE REGION The geo-image of Lithuania in the mental map of Russia’s ruling and intellectual elite can begin to be analyzed from a discussion of the changing term naming this region6 and identification of those periods when the treatment of this land changed in the official Russian discourse. The lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) ended up in the composition of the Russian Empire as a consequence of the three partitions (in 1772, 1793, and 1795) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC).7 At the end of the eighteenth century the GDL’s former lands, as well as Right-bank Ukraine, which until the partitions belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, were named “the provinces annexed from Poland”;8 this term did not have any additional ideological connotations but simply meant a fait accompli. Sometimes these territories were simply named the “Polish provinces,” but in this

  5

  6

  7   8

on the Baltic: Imperial Strategies of Power and Cultural Patterns of Perception (16th– 20th Centuries), ed. Karsten Brüggemann and Bradley D. Woodworth (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2012), 111–41. Theodore R. Weeks, Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the Western Frontier, 1863–1914 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996), 172–92; Andrzej Szabaciuk, “Rosyjski Ulster”: Kwestia Chełmska w polityce imperialnej Rosji w latach 1863–1915 (Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 2013). For the earlier research on the topic, see Zita Medišauskienė, “Laikas-Erdvė-žmogus,” in Lietuvos istorija, vol. 8, pt. 1: “Devynioliktas amžius: Visuomenė ir valdžia” (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011), 45–55. Published sources are as important to our analysis as the unpublished correspondence between officials. See Khronologicheskii ukazatel’ ukazov i pravitel’stvennykh rasporiazhenii po guberniiam zapadnoi Rossii, Belorussii i Malorossii za 240 let s 1652 po 1892 god, ed. S. Rubinshtein (Vilnius, 1894); Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii. The GDL’s former lands became Russian provinces. Similar terms also could have been used, such as “the new provinces annexed from Poland,” “the former Polish provinces,” “the region returned from Poland,” and so on. In Lithuanian historiography it is sometimes claimed, not quite accurately that the term “annexed provinces” was used.

25

26

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

case it was most likely not the cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or any other (Polish) nature of these territories that was perceived but only historical fact—the earlier belonging of these lands to the PLC, which at that time in the Russian discourse was called nothing other than Poland. In other words, this term was a shortened version of “the provinces annexed from Poland.” Such identification of those areas was not entirely accurate, because in the Pskov Province created after the 1772 partition there was also some territory that had belonged to the Russian Empire before the first partition. However, such details were not reflected in the naming of the provinces. In the historiography there is a disagreement about which particular partition the Russian imperial government allegedly argued that it had taken its “own” territory after. Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas asserted that the Russian government used such “demagogy” only after the first two partitions of the PLC;9 Mikhail Dolbilov and Miller wrote that such argumentation was used after all three partitions. They also emphasized that the message written on the “Ottorzhennaia vozvratikh” (To recover what was torn away) medal has to be understood in accordance with dynastic and not nationalist logic, that is, that Catherine II proclaimed that she recovered those lands that had once belonged to Russia, while the fact that most of the inhabitants of the annexed land were eastern Slavs and ethnically close to the Great Russians, did not play a more important role;10 other authors wrote that such reasoning about historical rights and the ethnic affinity of the population of the annexed lands was encountered after the second and third partitions.11 In the latest research, Aleksander Kamenskii affirmed that the kontseptsiia sobiraniia russkikh zemel’   9 Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas, Carų valdžioje: XIX amžiaus Lietuva (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1996), 56–57. 10 Mikhail Dolbilov and Alexei Miller, Zapadnye okrainy Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2006), 77. 11 Viktor N. Gajdučik and Matthias Barelkowski, “Die Gouvernements Vicebsk und Mahilëǔ nach den Teilungen Polen-Litauens (1772–1830/31),” in Die Teilungen Polen-Litauens: Inklusions- und Exklusionsmechanismen—Traditionsbildung— Vergleichsebenen, ed. Hans-Jürgen Bömelburg, Andreas Gestrich, and Helga Schnabekl-Schüle (Osnabrück: fibre, 2013), 261.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

(concept of the gathering of the Russian lands) began to be formed in the last quarter of the fifteenth century and was necessary so that Muscovy could express its rights to part of the GDL lands, relying on the patrimonial right and appealing to the circumstance that those lands were home to believers of the same faith. Later this concept was at times forgotten, and then again actualized (this occurred in the middle of the seventeenth century as well as the beginning of the eighteenth century). Moreover, the ideological origins changed: in the eighteenth century, the monarch, no longer relying on the right of inheritance, made claims to these territories, but the state became the holder of these rights. From the 1720s on, this concept was again no longer used, but was reintroduced in 1792, specifically, on the eve of the second partition. In 1793 the concept of the “returned lands” also became part of the public discourse.12 It is important to discuss whether: (a) the imperial government relied not only on historical but confessional and ethnic arguments; and (b) after which of the partitions the Russian Empire’s government specifically “recollected” their old rights to the annexed lands. After the first partition, Russia’s historical rights to the annexed lands were already mentioned in the official discourse, that is, they were called the “old heritage of Russia.”13 Then the application of the term Belorussia to the newly annexed territories also had to affirm that this region was part of Russia.14 12 Aleksandr Kamenskii, “Razdely Pol’shi i vozrozhdenie istoricheskoi pamiati v Rossii XVIII veka” (unpublished manuscript). 13 Ramunė Šmigelskytė-Stukienė, ed., Lenkijos-Lietuvos valstybės padalijimų dokumentai, pt. 1: Sankt Peterburgo konvencijos (Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2008), 129–30, 179. Yet it seems that at that time such ideas were not transferred to public discourse. 14 Topograficheskiia primechaniia na znatneishie mesta puteshestviia Eia Imperatorskogo Velichestva v Belorusskiia namestnichestva 1780 ([St. Petersburg], 1780), 44–45. The use of the term White Rus’ (Belaia Rus’) in earlier centuries was discussed by the Belarusian historian Ales’ Belyi, who noted that in the eighteenth century it spread via Russian documents and from that time on had clear ideological connotations, which Moscow made use of to justify its rights to this territory. Often this term had more cultural-religious than geographic connotations; moreover, it was applied to different regions: first to the territory of current Ukraine and later to what is today considered eastern Belorussia or even the

27

28

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

In the context of the second partition, along with the argument of the necessity to end the anarchy and to be protected against revolutionary ideas coming from France and similar rhetoric, ethnic/confes­ sional arguments do occasionally appear in official documents. In her decree of December 8, 1792, addressed to General M. Krechetnikov, Catherine II argued that this territory “from olden times belonged to Russia, the cities [here] were built by Russian dukes, and the population [narody] had a common origin and common faith with the Russians.”15 Conversely, the thinking of Russia’s political elite at that time was not yet nationalistic and ethnicity had not become an important political category. In the documents associated with the third partition, the prevailing anarchy of the PLC was emphasized, and we find no clear links to Russia’s historical or ethno-confessional rights to this territory, but in some official documents of 1799 and 1800 the entire territory that fell to the Russian Empire after the partitions was identified as the “the land returned from Poland”16 or something similar that unambiguously presupposed the idea that all this territory had belonged earlier to Russia.17 Although it must also be noted that at that time this conceptualization about Russia’s historical rights to all the lands of the former GDL was rarely used. At the beginning of the 1810s, a new term appeared to identify the annexed territory in official documents: the western provinces, which at that time did not yet have any additional historical-ideological entire ethnographic Belorussia: Ales’ Belyi, Khronika Belai Rusi: Narys gistoryi adnoi geagrafichnai nazvy (Minsk: Entsyklapedyks, 2000), 162–65; Ales’ Belyi, “Belaia Rus’,” in Vialikaia kiastva Litouskae: Entsyklapedyia (Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 2005), 306–8. 15 “Catherine II’s decree of December 8, 1792, addressed to General M. Krechetnikov,” in Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkago Geograficheskago obshchestva 47 (1885): 473. 16 Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii s 1649 goda, vol. 25: 1798–1799 (St. ­Petersburg, 1830), 542; Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii s 1649 goda, vol. 26: 1800–01 (St. Petersburg, 1830), 131. 17 In the statistical presentation of the Russian Empire published in 1808, it was noted that the former lands of the GDL and Right-Bank Ukraine were the “old property of Russia”: Evdokim Ziablovskii, Statisticheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii v nyneshnem eia sostoianii, s predvaritel’nymi poniatiiami o Statistike i o Evrope voobshche v statisticheskom vide (St. Petersburg, 1808), 94–95.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

connotation, but directly meant the localization of this territory in the western part of the Romanov Empire.18 In addition, not only the former GDL territory but also some other areas of the Romanov Empire were named the western provinces. Only later did this term begin to mean the former GDL lands that were directly included in the empire as well as Right-bank Ukraine. The new term (the western provinces) co-existed with the old one (the provinces annexed from Poland) for several decades. Later the latter term was “corrected”: these provinces became not “annexed” but “returned.” The new version of the identification of the provinces not only stated the fact of partitions but justified it by historical right. It is interesting that this term appeared before the 1830–31 uprising,19 with which the change in imperial nationality policies is usually associated.20 This would allow the hypothesis to be raised regarding the ideas that matured in the minds of the empire’s ruling elite about the necessity to change the nationality policy in this land even before the uprising. For several years both terms (the “annexed” and the “returned” provinces from Poland) appeared in bureaucratic correspondence, but after the suppression of the uprising only the second one was used. For about a decade, the new term declaring the “returning” was used along with the term western provinces until finally, at the beginning of the 1840s, it almost disappeared from use.21 Under the influence of the historical concepts created in the 1830s, discussed later in this chapter, the term “[Russia’s] Western Region” 18 In historiography, the claim that the term “the western provinces” (“the Western Region”) appeared in the 1810s (Medišauskienė, “Laikas-Erdvė-žmogus,” 54) has to be corrected. The latter term, as his chapter shows, appeared later. 19 “The imperial decree of September 30, 1830,” in Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii s 1649 goda, vol. 5: 1830, otdelenie vtoroe (St. Petersburg, 1831), 89. 20 Jörg Ganzenmüller, Russische Staatsgewalt und polnischer Adel: Elitenintegration und Staatsausbau im Westen des Zarenreiches (1772–1850) (Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2013). 21 Although it was sometimes seen in the 1860s. See a report presented to the tsar by State Secretary Vladimir Butkov, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Historical Archives; [RGIA]), f. 940, op. 1, d. 3, l. 18–19. For more on this document, see Darius Staliūnas, “Between Russification and Divide and Rule: Russian Nationality Policy in the Western Borderlands in mid-19th Century,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 3 (2007): 358–73.

29

30

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

also appeared,22 encompassing at first eight, and later (after 1843) nine provinces of the former GDL lands and Right-bank Ukraine.23 We find the term “the Western Region” occurring in the mid-1830s, in correspondence about a history textbook designed for this region, although this terminology had not yet stabilized at that time.24 Sometimes the former GDL lands and Right-bank Ukraine were called the “Southwest provinces” or “Southwest Russia.” Only later, after 1863, the usage of this terminology stabilized and meant the mentioned six provinces.25 The Western Region also had two subregions—the NWR (which encompassed six provinces created from the GDL’s former lands)26 and the Southwest Region (the three Right-bank Ukraine provinces). Such terminology essentially did not change until the end of the empire’s existence. 22 It was often used by one of the creators of this historical concept. See Nikolai Ustrialov, Issledovanie voprosa, kakoe mesto v russkoi istorii dolzhno zanimat’ Velikoe Kniazhestvo Litovskoe? (St. Petersburg, 1839). 23 The provinces of Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodna, Minsk, Vitsiebsk, Magileŭ, Kiev, Volhynia, and Podolia. 24 Konstantin Arsen’ev, one of earlier nineteenth century’s greatest experts on statistics, geography, and similar issues in the Russian Empire, also included the province of Smolensk in the concept of the Western Region in 1845: K. Arsen’ev’s report to the minister of the interior, May 25, 1845, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 1, d. 149, l. 1. 25 Vestnik Iugo-zapadnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii (Messenger of southwestern and western Russia), a renowned Polonophobe journal, issued between 1862 and 1864, which was supported by some of the empire’s officials, is an interesting example in this context. Relying on the name of this publication we could conclude that the Western Region encompassed not nine but six provinces. In 1855 the minister of internal affairs wrote in his official capacity that Vladimir Nazimov had been appointed to the post of governor-general of the “western provinces,” although at that time the governor-general of Vilnius, to which position Nazimov was appointed, there were only four subordinate provinces (Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodna, and Minsk): Official letter from the minister of the interior to the minister of education, December 12, 1855, RGIA, f. 733, op. 62, d. 1307, l. 17. This once again confirms that this terminology was still not stabilized. 26 The term “northwestern provinces” was used as early as the December 18, 1842, decree on territorial-administrative reorganization: Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii, vol. 17, pt. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1843), 229; Antanas Kulakauskas, Kova už valstiečių sielas: Caro valdžia, Lietuvos visuomenė ir pradinis švietimas XIX a. viduryje (Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, 2000), 28. In that case, however, it could have implied only the geographical localization of the provinces in question.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

At first Lithuania’s name was not a problem for the imperial government. After the first partition, the provinces annexed to Russia were identified as Belorussian, after the third, as Lithuanian. For a brief time (1797–1802), parts of the territories that found themselves under the authority of the Romanovs were separated into two provinces, those of Belorussia and Lithuania.27 Later they were divided into smaller territorial-administrative units still retaining the name of Lithuania in the names of the provinces—Lithuania’s Vilnius and Lithuania’s Grodna provinces (united into the governor-generalship of Vilnius) and Belorussia’s Vitsiebsk and Belorussia’s Magileŭ provinces (also united into one governor-generalship). In this way the tradition of earlier centuries seemingly continued—that is, Moscow saw the duality of the GDL’s lands, recognizing the non-Russian character of the GDL core. The tsar’s 1840 order forbade the use of Lithuania and Belorussia in the province names. Without any doubt, Nicholas I’s decision was associated with the policies that had begun in the 1830s in the empire’s western borderlands. In the same year, the synod of the Reformed Evangelicals of Lithuania was renamed the synod of the Vilnius Reformed Evangelicals, while the Samogitian Diocese became the Telšiai Diocese (in 1847, after Russia and the Holy See signed a concordat, the diocese became known under the dual name—the Samogitian [Telšiai]).28 It should be noted that the tsar’s directive was not equal to prohibition of using the name Lithuania. The term Lithuania was used further in the Russian discourse. In the documents of the ethnographic expedition conducted in the ethnic Lithuanian lands in the second half of the nineteenth century, the term Russia’s Lithuania (Russkaia Litva) was mentioned many times.29 The mention of Russia in this case meant that there was also another 27 Minsk Province was created after the second partition. 28 Aldona Prašmantaitė, 1863 metų sukilimas ir Katalikų Bažnyčia Lietuvoje (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2014), 12. 29 The program created by Maikov and corrected by Piotr Semenov to Iulian Kuznetsov (with comments from Alexandr Gil’ferding), Arkhiv Russkogo geograficheskogo ­obshchestva (Archives of the Russian Geographical Society [ARGO]), f. 1-1862, op. 1, d. 26, l. 286. This term is also often used in the texts by Iulii Kuznetsov, a participant of the expedition.

31

32

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Lithuania (territory inhabited by Lithuanians), which was in another country (Prussia). At the beginning of the twentieth century, the local Orthodox brotherhood in Kaunas began to publish the newspaper Lithuanian Rus’ (Litovskaia Rus’),30 thus making the term “Lithuanian Rus’” more popular, which essentially had the same meaning—the ethnic Lithuanian lands that were a part of Russia.31 The term Lithuania also remained in the titles of some institutions; for example, the Vilnius and Lithuania Orthodox Diocese operated for the duration of the empire’s existence. In fact, in this case there was no danger that the name Lithuania could be instrumentalized for anti-imperial activities. It seems that no one so far has tried to explain why the term Belorussia disappeared from the province names. As mentioned in this chapter, the Russian Empire authorities used this term to claim the Russian nature of some parts of the former GDL. Available sources lead me to think that the term Belorussia was removed from the province names for consistency with removing the term Lithuania, even though the very term Belorussia did not raise negative connotations for the imperial government. At the same time, while the word Lithuania was being removed from institution names, Belorussia remained in the title of an education district.32 Minister of Education Sergey Uvarov, taking into account the tsar’s order for the titles of provinces, also proposed changing the name of the education district from Belorussian 30 This term was also used in earlier years. Alexander Potapov, then assistant to the Vilnius governor-general, appears to have used the term Lithuanian Rus’ as a synonym for Lithuania or the NWR, although in the very same document he also talked about “Lithuania and Belorussia” (which is tantamount to the NWR). Potapov’s proposals, Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archives [LVIA]), f. 378, ap. 219, b. 80, d. 1, l. 11–13. 31 According to the editorial board, the term “Lithuania” is used because a Lithuanian state once existed but also because in this territory, a large part of the population consisted of Lithuanians and Samogitians. This was the “Lithuanian Rus’,” which consisted of the greater part of the province of Kaunas, almost the entire province of Suwałki, and some districts of the provinces of Vilnius and Grodna: “Kovna, 31 dekabria 1910 g.,” Litovskaia Rus’ 1 (1911): 2. Kaunas Province officials required the self-government institutions of the cities and districts to subscribe to this newspaper; see “O vypiske mestnoi gazety ‘Litovskaia Rus’,’” Kauno apskrities archyvas (Kaunas County Archives [KAA]), f. 50, ap. 1, b. 24334. 32 In 1850 the Vilnius Education District was established in its place.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

to Vilnius, but Nicholas I at that time ordered the postponement of such a decision.33 Later, until the very end of the empire’s existence, officials simply called the territories annexed after the third partition “Lithuanian,” specifically, the provinces of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Grodna. However, from the middle of the nineteenth century, the ethnic categories would often be significant in the official Russian discourse, and then sometimes only the provinces of Vilnius and Kaunas were called Lithuanian.34 As a consequence of the second partition, the newly created province of Minsk sometimes belonged neither to the Belorussian nor the Lithuanian group, but in other cases it would fall into the composition of the Lithuanian provinces.35 Furthermore, from the second half of the nineteenth century on, it was increasingly often identified with the Belorussian provinces. The Belorussian provinces (at first, two [Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ], and later, three [the addition of Minsk]) had a seemingly exceptional status with respect to the other former lands of the PLC. I have already mentioned that the Russian Empire declared that it had historical rights to the lands annexed during the first partition, but at the same time there were also important geopolitical considerations. In 1763 Minister of War Zakharii Chernyshev proposed that Russia annex the PLC lands, located east of the Dnepr and Dauguva rivers. It is interesting that Chernyshev spoke against Russia’s greater expansion, because it would require the transfer of part of the human resources from the core (seredina) to the new territories; the army would have to be moved there; and the taxes collected in the core would be used in the frontier region, which would make the center poorer. Meanwhile a little expansion would be useful on the whole, specifically because in the west, 33 “Ob otsrochke pereimenovaniia Belorusskogo Ucheb. Okruga v Vilenskii,” RGIA, f. 733, op. 66, d. 483. 34 Report presented to the tsar by State Secretary V. Butkov, RGIA, f. 940, op. 1, d. 3, l. 6–7. 35 Voenno-statisticheskoe obozrenie Rossiiskoi imperii, vol. 9, pt. 2: Vilenskaia guberniia (St. Petersburg, 1848), 24.

33

34

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Russia would have “natural borders.” As is known, in 1772 the Russian Empire expanded to these “natural borders.”36 Most often at the end of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries, the Belorussian provinces were included in the “Polish” (“annexed from Poland”) group of provinces. However, there were instances when they did not fall into this category and were mentioned separately as “Belorussian.” Therefore, they had the status of “Russian” or “almost Russian”—similar to that of the “Little Russian provinces.” The naming of these provinces shows that this territory was not seen on the Russian mental map as an integral part of the former GDL lands. In 1811 Emperor Alexander I discussed a plan suggesting that, under his rule, the restoration of Poland would take place, in which the former PLC lands, except for Belorussia, would enter;37 in 1817 a special military unit was created, which later was planned to be joined to the army of the Kingdom of Poland, in which the population of the provinces of Vilnius, Grodna, Minsk, and Podolia, as well as Volhynia, but not of the Belorussia, had to serve;38 the composition of the education districts often changed until the middle of the nineteenth century, but for a considerable period of time the Belorussian and Lithuanian provinces belonged to different education districts;39 the operation of the Statute of Lithuania in the Belorussian provinces was repealed earlier (in 1831) than in the Lithuanian (1840).40 And the Russian historian Nikolai Karamzin, in his famous letter to Alexander I, 36 One should not regard Chernyshev’s suggestions to be the equivalent of partition because in this case the spoils had to be shared with other countries: John P. LeDonne, The Grand Strategy of the Russian Empire, 1650–1831 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 31–32; Gajdučik and Barelkowski, “Die Gouvernements Vicebsk und Mahilëǔ,” 248. 37 The border would have followed the Daugava, Biarezina and Dnepr rivers: Andrei Lukashevich, “Proekty vosstanovleniia Rechi Pospolitoi i Velikogo kniazhestva Litovskogo i ikh mesto v voennostrategicheskom planirovanii Rossiiskoi imperii (1810–1812 gg.),” accessed January 14, 2014, http://www.museum.ru/1812/Library/ Lukashevich/index.html; Gajdučik and Barelkowski, “Die Gouvernements Vicebsk und Mahilëǔ,” 273. 38 Gajdučik and Barelkowski, “Die Gouvernements Vicebsk und Mahilëǔ,” 278. 39 Meilė Lukšienė, Lietuvos švietimo istorijos bruožai XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje (Kaunas: Šviesa, 1970), 37, 200. 40 Dolbilov and Miller, Zapadnye okrainy, 104.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

argued that Russia had extraordinary rights to Belorussia (along with Ukraine): “Belorussia, Volhynia, and Podolia along with Galicia belonged to Russia once in olden times.”41 Along with the changing of the region’s name, some officials were interested in the “correction” of allegedly Polonized place names. More or less consistent efforts of the officials to “return” to the real names, as one can see from the available sources, began in the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1868, Governor Shestakov undertook the initiative to change the Polish names of locations to Russian ones, but at the end of the century local officials stated that his undertaking was not totally successful “perhaps because this changing in many instances was not made by relying on historical documents, which could have been . . . the official acts of the former state of Lithuania as well as documents written in the Russian language.”42 In 1893, the Ministry of Education became concerned with the fact that in the “people’s schools” of Vilnius Province, a map of this province published by the Iljin Company was being used, in which “Orthodox Russian historical settlements and villages are written with Polish endings.”43 Since Iljin was prepared to “correct the mistakes,” officials in the Lithuanian provinces hastened to draw up lists of the names of locations to be revised. In Grodna Province, the officials did not find any Polonized Russian place names at all. The Kaunas governor stated that the Russian names of localities could have only existed in Novoaleksandrovsk (Zarasai) District, “where the Belorussians are living,” whereas the remaining parts of the province, “as the science of history proves,” had been from olden times inhabited by Lithuanians —close to the Slavs, but nevertheless not combining with them to form a single ethnic group; therefore, the authentic names here were “Lithuanian-Samogitian,” which it would be possible to restore by relying on the people’s dialect 41 Nikolai Karamzin, “Mnenie russkogo grazhdanina,” accessed May 1, 2015, http:// dugward.ru/library/karamzin/karamzin_mnenie_russkogo_grajdanina.html. 42 Report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, January 28, 1895, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 2, d. 396, l. 5–6. 43 Official letter from the minister of education to the minister of the interior, December 16, 1893, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 2, d. 396, l. 1.

35

36

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

and historical documents.44 The Lithuanians specifically were most often treated as the autochtons in this province, although there were other interpretations. Nikolai Novikov, Vilnius Education District Inspector for Kaunas Province and therefore not a participant of the scholarly discourse but a very important person in the implementation of the nationality policy, had a different opinion on this question: “At the beginning of Russian history, the entire area of the current Kaunas Province was occupied by Russian inhabitants. In the eleventh century, emigrants of Lithuanian origin began to settle here from Prussia, from where they were pushed by the Poles and Germans.”45 From the several instances discussed by the Kaunas governor, the name of the province’s center can be distinguished. The governor requested that the center of the province would be called Kovna, and not, as often happened, Kovno, because in the past Lithuanians called it Kauna; moreover, that name for the city is seen in the collections of sources published by the Vilnius Commission of Archeography. The preparation of information about Vilnius Province was assigned to this commission. The commission came to the conclusion that nine times out of ten, the Russification of the names of locations was possible only by relying “on philological arguments” (changing “the Polish sounds izna, ds’, dz, rzh, and etc. to Russian [ones]”) because in the past these places did not exist and received names only at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries; meanwhile, some of the Polish names needed not to be corrected, but translated into the Russian language (for example, cegielna—brick factory); and historical sources could be relied on only for one-tenth of the localities. The officials stated at the same time that these changes would become accepted only if an edict were issued by the tsar.46 44 Report from the Kaunas governor to the Vilnius governor-general, June 9, 1894, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1894 m., b. 382, l. 6. In the 1880s the Russified Latvian Ivan Sprogis was also concerned with the restoration of authentic Lithuanian names: Ivan Sprogis, Istoricheskii slovar’ drevnej Zhomoitskoi zemli, XVI stoletiia (Vilnius, 1888), 5. 45 Nikolai Novikov, [Geographic and ethnographic] Description of the province of Kaunas, presented to the supervisor of the Vilnius Education District I. Kornilov, OR RNB, f. 523, d. 188, l. 5. 46 “O vosstanovlenii na osnovanii istoricheskikh dannykh o naselennykh mestakh, russkikh nazvanii mestnostei v Severo-Zapadnom krae,” RGIA, f. 1290, op. 2,

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

This problem was also relevant to officials of the empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1903 in St. Petersburg, there was concern over the fact that instances still occurred when official institutions—for example, the Ministry of Transport—used the Polish, not the Russian, version of the “capital” of the NWR (“of old a Russian” [iskonno russkii] city): Vil’no but not Vil’na.47 In the documentation of the Education District, Vil’na replaced Vil’no in the 1860s and 1870s.48 In the maps published in the empire it was usual to write Vil’no until the 1870s,49 but later Vil’na was adopted.50 And even just before the World War I, the imperial government, among the more important measures directed against Polish influence, became embroiled in conflicts over Polish place or street names as well as over signage and other public displays of the Polish language.51 After the World War I began, in the context of the anti-German campaign, a plan arose in St. Petersburg to replace the German names of localities with Russian ones, but the Vilnius, Grodna, and Suwałki governors found no such names to change.52

47 48 49

50 51 52

d. 396; “Po otnosheniiu Ministra Vn. Del. o vozstanovlenii russkikh nazvanii sel i dereven’, kotoryia poluchili pol’skiia nazvaniia,” LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1894 m., b. 382. A short note from January 31, 1903, presented to the minister of internal affairs, RGIA, f. 1282, op. 1, d. 1094, l. 17. The minister gave the order to use only the Russian name of the city. In this instance we are relying on information collected by Mastianica. See, for example, A. Obolenskii, Atlas Rossiiskoi imperii, prisposoblennyi k geograficheskim uchebnikam v gimnaziiakh i uezdnykh uchilishchakh (St. Petersburg, 1849); Aleksandr Rittikh, Atlas narodonaseleniia Zapadno-Russkogo kraia po ispovedniiam: Sostavlen pri Ministerstve vnutrennikh del v Kantseliarii zavedyvaiushchego ustroistvom pravoslavnykh tserkvei v zapadnykh guberniiakh, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1864); Podrobnyi atlas Rossiiskoi imperii s planami glavnykh gorodov: 70 kart (St. Petersburg, 1876). See, for example, Aleksandr Rittikh, Etnograficheskaia karta Evropeiskoi Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1875). The program of the meeting in which the fight against Polish propaganda in the NWR was discussed, RGIA, f. 821, op. 150, d. 172, l. 35; Measures against Polish propaganda in the Grodna Province, RGIA, f. 821, op. 150, d. 167, l. 51. “O pereimenovanii gorodov, posadov i drugikh poselenii nosiashchikh nemetskiia nazvaniia v russkiia,” RGIA, f. 1288, op. 5, 1914, d. 83. I have found no information for Kaunas Province.

37

38

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

So a turning point occurred in the 1830s, when the ruling elite of the Romanov Empire changed naming conventions in the region. In that decade, the imperial government also initiated the creation of a historical concept to serve this purpose.

THE HISTORICAL CONCEPT From the four Russian discourses about the GDL distinguished by the Russian historian Aleksandr Filiushkin—its lack of viability; its aggressiveness; the need to regain their [Russian] historic and ethnic lands; and the GDL as the “correct,” the only true Rus’ (i.e., the treatment of the GDL as the state that chose a more just road than the Muscovy Rus’)53—only the last is almost entirely absent in the nineteenth-century Russian discourse. All the others were used with varying intensity by nineteenth-century Russian historians and even in official documents; moreover, these discourses are frequently encountered together. The first discourse treated the GDL as a “historical misunderstanding,” a weak state. In the documents published in the context of the second partition justifying the annexation, it was stated that the Russian Empire was forced to annex lands it had previously possessed as a result of the anarchy and absence of peace and order there, and the infiltration of Godless ideas coming from France.54 One often meets this concept in Russian historiography in the second half of the nineteenth century: However, regardless of the purportedly mighty, huge, and abundantly populated territories that ended up in its [the 53 Aleksandr Filiushkin, “‘Drugaia Rus’’ v russkoi istoriografii,” in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir paveldo “dalybos,” ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis, and Grigorijus Potašenko (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008), 93–113. 54 “Edict of December 8, 1792; Manifest of March 27, 1793 issued by General Krechetnikov in the name of Catherine II,” in Khronologicheskii ukazatel’ ukazov i pravitel’stvennykh rasporiazhenii po guberniiam zapadnoi Rossii, Belorussii i Malorossii za 240 let s 1652 po 1892 god, ed. S. Rubinshtein (Vilnius, 1894), 151, 152. Similar arguments also appeared after the third partition. Such rhetoric is also characteristic of the international treaties whereby the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned: Šmigelskytė-Stukienė, ed., Lenkijos-Lietuvos valstybės padalijimų dokumentai, 16, 36, 129–30, 147, 154, 179, 229, 240–41, 259.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

GDL’s] composition, the energy of the ruling tribe, and the old culture of the subjugated tribe, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania also swiftly weakened and collapsed, just swiftly as it formed. It seems that an internal lack of strength befell that powerful political organism; just after it found time to be formed, it was already looking for outside support, was under the influence of a bordering state.55 The second discourse stresses the wrongs that the Russians in the GDL experienced. In fact, it was more anti-Polish than anti-Lithuanian because all the misfortunes were associated with the Poles (the Polonized nobility) or influences from Poland. The beginnings of such an interpretation we find in the abovementioned documents that appeared in the context of the second partition.56 This interpretation was nurtured especially after the 1863–64 uprising, when the officials of the empire had to justify the aggressive discriminatory policies being directed against “persons of Polish origin.” Specifically, in this context, Vilnius Governor-General Mikhail Murav’ev initiated a contest for a new history textbook, aimed at the Western Region. In this narration of history, the greatest attention was devoted: to the fate of the Russian nationality in the Northwest Region, its efforts to defend its Orthodox religion, its language, and Russian national customs from the pretensions of Polish-­Catholic propaganda; the uninterrupted fight with the Polish szlachta that dictated to the local populace customs foreign to them; the excellent personalities of the history of this land among the Orthodox population, which with all their resources opposed the oppression and the forced measures of Polish-Catholic propaganda and, finally, had to fall as martyrs for the Faith and the Russian word, conquered by the entrant Polish parties, which took into their 55 Quoted from Aleksandr Filiushkin, “‘Drugaia Rus’,” 101. 56 “Manifesto of 27 March 1793 issued by General A. Krechetnikov in the name of Catherine II,” in Khronologicheskii ukazatel’, 152

39

40

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

own hands all the arteries of the life of the local populace and intellectual development.57 According to Filiushkin, this “translatio servilium” was also characteristic of Russian academic historiography devoted to GDL history—written by Matvei Liubavskii, Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolskii, and others—at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.58 The third narrative based Russia’s historical rights to the GDL’s territory. Because this is most important for the theme discussed in this chapter, it will be dealt with in more detail. Up to the 1830s, the Russian historians Mikhail Shcherbatov and Nikolai Karamzin, writing about the GDL, treated it as a neighboring state that had seized considerable Russian territories over time.59 The uprising of 1830–31 forced the ruling and intellectual elite of the empire to search for new forms of legitimacy. In 1831, Osip Senkovskii, at that time a censor in St. Petersburg and hailing from Lithuania, initially in the newspaper Tygodnik Peterburgski (Petersburg Weekly)60 and later in a separate booklet61 that was published in various languages, and finally as a reprint in the Vilnius newspaper Kuryer Litewski (The Lithuanian Courier),62 began to promote the concept that the GDL was also a Russian state.63 According to him, in 57 “Ob uchebnike Russkoi Istorii dlia uchebnykh zavedenii Severozapadnogo kraia,” LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1864 m., b. 1672, l. 1–2. 58 Aleksandr Filiushkin, “‘Drugaia Rus’,” 98–99. 59 Katarzyna Błachowska, Wiele historii jednego państwa: Obraz dziejów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego do 1569 roku w ujęciu historików polskich, rosyjskich, ukraińskich, litewskich i białoruskich w XIX wieku (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2009), 52–71. 60 “Dzieje Społeczne,” Tygodnik Peterburski 24 (1831): 170–72; 25 (1831): 177–78. 61 [Osip Senkovskii], Neskol’ko zamechanii na posledniuiu pol’skuiu revoliutsiiu (St. Petersburg, 1831). No author was indicated in this publication, but Senkovskii is mentioned as its author in the catalogue of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, and the same concept can be found in Senkovskii’s later ­publications: Biblioteka dlia chteniia 33 (1839): 1–30; Biblioteka dlia chteniia 60 (1843): 23–39. 62 “Wiadomości Krajowe,” Kuryer Litewski 60, 64, 65 (1831); Kulakauskas, Kova už valstiečių sielas, 28. 63 He also claimed that he had broadcast these ideas for the first time in the 1820s during a lecture read in French at St. Petersburg University: Biblioteka dlia chteniia 33 (1839): 27; Biblioteka dlia chteniia 60 (1843): 25.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

the fourteenth century “two worlds” existed, Europe and the “Slavic-Russian” world, and the dividing line followed the Nemunas and Bug rivers. The strongest part of the “Slavic-Russian” world at that time was Lithuania, the greater part of which comprised the “Slavic-Russian district areas.” In this state, just as in the remaining “Slavic-Russian” lands, the same customs, political rules, language, and religion persisted. Ethnic Lithuania (“seven or eight districts of Vilnius Province”) was also in that state. However, as Senkovskii wrote later, Lithuanians were only “a drop in the sea”; the capital had been founded in the “Slavic-­Russian” lands, and it might be that even the ruling dynasty was descended from the Rurikids.64 Lithuania as the strongest Russian state had every possibility of becoming an established part of the “Slavic-­Russian” world. However, it made a fatal error when it united with Poland.65 At that time, this concept did not catch on in the Russian discourse. An important reason could be that part of Russia’s ruling elite, first of all, Minister of Education Sergei Uvarov, did not trust the “Pole” Senkovskii.66 But swiftly this idea became official in the Russian Empire, with Uvarov taking the initiative. Uvarov entrusted this task to his personal friend Mikhail Pogodin, but the manuscript handed in by Pogodin, due to complaints more of a technical than ideological nature, did not please the minister.67 Then it was decided to announce a contest for the preparation of the textbook. Uvarov decided to clearly set out what the new textbook should be in 64 [Senkovskii], Neskol’ko zamechanii, 60–61; Sobranie sochinenii Senkovskogo (barona Brambeusa), vol. 6 (St. Petersburg, 1859), 46–48 (written in 1835). The capitals of this state—Vilnius, Trakai, and Grodna—were on “Russian land”: Biblioteka dlia chteniia 60 (1843): 27. 65 Sobranie sochinenii Senkovskogo (barona Brambeusa), vol. 6, 53. 66 The January 16, 1834, diary entry, in Aleksandr Nikitenko, Zapiski i dnevnik, vol. 1 (Moscow: Zakharov, 2005), accessed March 11, 2015, http://www.imwerden.info/ belousenko/books/memoirs/nikitenko_dnevnik_1.htm; Daria Ambroziak, ‘Każdy baron ma swoją fantazję.’ Józef Sękowski: Polak z pochodzenia, Rosjanin z wyboru (Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, 2007), 11, 45. 67 David B. Saunders, “Historians and Concepts of Nationality in Early NineteenthCentury Russia,” Slavonic and East European Review 60, no. 1 (January 1982): 44–62; Darius Staliūnas, “Imperial Nationality Policy and the Russian version of the History of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Central Europe 8, no. 2 (November 2010): 146–57.

41

42

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the announcement of the competition. On the one hand, the approach to history had to be “pragmatic.” In addition, it had to comply with the principles of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality (narodnost’).” Uvarov needed this triad as a response to the ideas of nationalism that were popular in Western Europe at that time. For him, Orthodoxy and autocracy were the institutions that reflected Russia’s distinctive development, while nationality was a certain idea whose historical embodiment could be seen particularly in the triad’s other institutions—Orthodoxy and autocracy.68 Uvarov not only wanted the importance of Orthodoxy for the Russian nation and its harmonious relations with the government to be shown in the new version of Russian history but also needed the role of autocracy and nationality in the past to be presented consistently. Along with this, the commonality of the Russian lands in the past had to be shown: the mutual conflicts of the dukes in the period of fragmentation and their conflicts were only “family disputes” because “the idea of state unity had never disappeared” and only an “incidental circumstance” hindered the unification of the Russian lands in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. Poland, having no other alternative, “had to turn” to “Western Russia” and therefore inevitably had to become a component of the Russian Empire. Hence a history of Russia had to cover the past of both Russian lands. Of course, “East Russia” was the one that developed on the correct path: “when everything in East Russia acquired a better, more properly managed shape, especially under the rule of the Romanovs, everything in West [Russia] and Poland declined and collapsed due to the lack of fundamentals and the fanaticism.”69 The winner of the contest was Nikolai Ustrialov, and in 1836 the first volume of his work began to be used, with the approval of the tsar, as a temporary textbook in middle schools.70 In Ustrialov’s history, the 68 Andrei Zorin, Kormia dvukhglavogo orla . . . Literatura i gosudarstvennaia ideologiia v Rossii v poslednei treti XVIII–pervoi treti XIX veka (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2004), 337–74. 69 The program of the preparation of a guide for the teaching of Russian history, RGIA, f. 733, op. 66, d. 172, l. 32–36. 70 The most submissive announcement of the education minister on December 27, 1836, to the tsar with a favorable resolution by Nicholas I; the January 7, 1837,

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

GDL in its state structure and confessional and ethnic composition was the very same Russian state as the Muscovy, and the small Lithuanian nation also participated in its formation.71 These two states’ territorial rivalry was simply a “family argument” between two dynasties. The Lithuanian dukes had adopted Russian culture and belonged to the Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Church, so to the GDL’s Russians they were “their own.”72 The idea about the joining of the two Russian states was always alive,73 and it did not happen only by “chance,” that is, the union with Poland, which the latter needed more than Lithuania.74 Ustrialov did not neglect the other condition of the contest: he emphasized that Orthodoxy and autocracy ensured continuity in Russia’s history.75 We see here that Ustrialov’s work not only utilized Uvarov’s main ideas but even his rhetoric.76 In his publications Ustrialov also defined the ethnic territory of the Russians—Rus’, which was formed under the Rurikid dynasty and whose western border was the Carpathian Mountains, Brest, Grodna, and Dinaburg (Daugavpils);77 he localized the Lithuanians to the provinces of Vilnius and Kaunas. Lithuanians thus comprised one twelfth of the state’s population and Russians, the remaining part.78 Ustrialov directive of the education minister to the supervisors of the education districts and other officials of educational establishments, RGIA, f. 733, op. 66, d. 172, l. 85–87, 90–91. 71 Nikolai Ustrialov, O sisteme pragmaticheskoi russkoi istorii (St. Petersburg, 1836), 42; Nikolai Ustrialov, Russkaia istoriia, 2nd ed., pt. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1839), 15; Ustrialov, Issledovanie voprosa, 34. 72 Ustrialov, O sisteme pragmaticheskoi, 64–68; Ustrialov, Issledovanie voprosa, 17; Ustrialov, Russkaia istoriia, 279, 280. 73 Ustrialov, Issledovanie voprosa, 14, 20. 74 Ustrialov, O sisteme pragmaticheskoi, 43, 74. 75 Ustrialov, Russkaia istoriia, 19–20. 76 In his memoirs, Ustrialov wrote that he himself had drawn up the contest conditions: Nikolai Ustrialov, “Vospominaniia o moei zhizni,” Drevniaia i novaia Rossiia (August 1880), 626. 77 Ustrialov, Issledovanie voprosa, 13–14. 78 Nikolai Ustrialov, Russkaia istoriia, 5th ed., pt. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1855), 193. This description was not accurate. Ustrialov specified that the Lithuanians lived in Vilnius Province, while the Samogitians lived in the Telšiai, Šiauliai, and Raseiniai districts of Kaunas Province, while forgetting to mention that Lithuanians lived elsewhere in Kaunas Province.

43

44

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

knew that there existed an ethnic habitat of Lithuanians that was not an integral part of Rus’; however, at the same time, he called all of the GDL the Lithuanian Rus’ or Western Rus’. This identification of the GDL as Litovskaia Rus’ (the Lithuanian Rus’), Zapadnaia Rossiia (Western Russia), or Litovsko-russkoe gosudartsvo (the Lithuanian-Russian state) was also characteristic in later, less ideologized historical works, for example, the publications of Liubavskii.79 In Liubavskii’s works we already see an attempt to identify not ethnic habitats but “political-geographic” regions. Liubavskii assigned the principalities of Vilnius, Trakai, and Grodna, as well as Navahrudak, to Sobstvennaia Litva (the real Lithuania).80 This was the core of the state dominating the GDL. However, the elite of this core—the “military class” of Lithuanian origin, “due to the ethnic and cultural rapprochement with the Russian nationality, became Russified.”81 Initially the imperial government did not try to impose the historical interpretation elaborated by Uvarov and Ustrialov on historical literature written in Polish,82 and some historical works published with the endorsement of the tsarist government did not draw in their entirety from Ustrialov’s writings.83 However, this interpretation eventually became established and canonical in the Russian discourse.84 The abovementioned 79 Matvei Liubavskii, Oblastnoe delenie i mestnoe upravlenie Litovsko-russkago gosudarstva ko vremeni izdaniia pervago Litovskago statuta (Moscow, 1892). 80 Ibid., 1–12. Liubavskii also saw that the territory of the current ethnographic Belorussia had been in a very close relationship with that (narrowly understood) Lithuania: “Rus’ (in the narrow sense), Podlasie, Turov-Pinsk duchy”: ibid., 6. 81 Ibid., 7. 82 Zita Medišauskienė, Rusijos cenzūra Lietuvoje XIX a. viduryje (Kaunas: VDU, 1998), 177–83. 83 A commission attached to the Vilnius Province Statistics Committee selected documents from the GDL Supreme Tribunal archive. Historian Teodor Narbutt worked on this commission, and his history of Lithuania was also the source of that collection of documents. The published text about Lithuania’s history at the beginning of the book mentions the close ties between the Lithuanians and Russians as well as the great influence of Orthodoxy in the GDL up to the Union of Krewo; Ustrialov’s works, however, were overlooked as sources: Sobranie Drevnikh gramot i aktov gorodov: Vil’ny, Kovna, Trok, pravoslavnykh monastyrei, tserkvei, i po raznym predmetam, pt. 1 (Vilnius, 1843). 84 Sergei Solov’ev, one of the most famous nineteenth-century Russian historians, held a different position. For him, the GDL was a foreign, (i.e., not Russian) state: Błachowska, Wiele historii jednego państwa, 189–210.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

historian Dolbilov notes the differences between the historical interpretations of Ustrialov and St. Petersburg Orthodox Spiritual Academy professor Mikhail Koialovich: the first had focused his attention on the dukes and dynastic relations, while the second was mostly interested in the people, who were important to the modern understanding of nationality, although he mainly discussed social and geographic, not ethnographic, criteria.85 However, from the viewpoint of our theme, Koialovich did not depart from the dominating narrative. However, when Governor-General of Vilnius Mikhail Murav’ev issued his directives on reorganizing the Vilnius museum of antiquities discussions arose over which period of GDL history was considered Russian and exactly when the GDL came under Polish rule—in 1385 (the Union of Krewo) or 1569 (the Union of Lublin).86 However, the main idea about the Russian nature of the GDL was never questioned in the Russian discourse. Both ethnic statistics and ethnographic research were adduced to justify this thesis.

ETHNIC STATISTICS AND ETHNOGRAPHIC ARGUMENTS As already mentioned in this chapter, at the end of the eighteenth century, historical and ethnic arguments would occasionally occur in the rhetoric of the imperial government that ostensibly supported the right of imperial Russia to annexed territories. However, at that time such argumentation was not yet dominant. The ethnic argument for political legitimacy was, as we shall see, invoked later. The interest in the ethnic composition of the annexed lands, like other parts of the empire, was conditioned less by the political conjuncture, especially in the first half of the nineteenth century, than by other considerations.87 85 Mikhail Dolbilov, Russkii krai, chuzhaia vera: Etnokonfessional’naia politika imperii v Litve i Belorussii pri Aleksandre II (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2010), 204–9. 86 Staliūnas, “Imperial Nationality Policy,” 154–55. 87 The collection of information about the ethnic composition of the population had already received the attention of researchers. Vytautas Merkys, for one, sought to ascertain the reliability of those data (Vytautas Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai Vilniaus vyskupijoje 1798–1918 m. [Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2006], 31–126). Other researchers were more interested in the change of the criteria of ethnicity (Vladas Sirutavičius, “Tautiškumo kriterijai multietninių visuomenių statistikoje. XIX a. vidurio Lietuvos

45

46

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

To mid-century, the state institutions had almost no interest in the ethnic composition of the population. In 1837–40, lower-ranking officials of the Vilnius Province Statistics Committee sent information about separate localities, stating that “the population according to origin and religion was varied, the majority being Christians as well as Jews.”88 Even when more accurate information reached the statistics committee, the criteria for its collection and processing were very different from those applied by contemporary scholarship: all Catholics, Uniates, and the “new Orthodox” (i.e., former Uniates) were considered in those documents to be Lithuanians, and only those originating from the Kingdom of Poland were classified as Poles.89 The statistical as well as geographic descriptions of the empire also provided often very inaccurate information about the ethnic composition of the population. In Karl German’s statistical description of the Russian Empire, all the inhabitants of the former GDL lands and Right-bank Ukraine were identified as Poles90 because only nations that had “a significant impact on the welfare of the state” were important for him.91 Evdokim Ziablovskii, the author of many books, including textbooks, on geography, wrote about the Lithuanian-populated space in a very streamlined way: “Lithuanians [Litva] live in the provinces of Vilnius, Grodna, and Minsk, as well as in all the locations of the former Duchy of Lithuania.”92

88 89 90 91

92

pavyzdys,” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis, 1998 metai [Vilnius, 1999]: 74–85; Staliūnas, “National Census in the Service of the Russian Empire: The Western Borderlands in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1830–1870,” in Defining Self: Essays on Emergent Identities in Russia. Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Branch [Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society], 435–48). Vytautas Petronis has also analyzed in detail the creation of the maps depicting the ethnic composition of the population (Vytautas Petronis, Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800−1914 [Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007]). LVIA, f. 388, ap. 1, b. 24, ll. 2, 11; ibid., b. 38, ll. 25, 31. LVIA, f. 388, ap. 1, b. 17, l. 6, 37; b. 38, l. 27, 46, 48–49, 51, 54, 57–58, 59, 64; ibid., b. 48, l. 44–45. Karl German, Statisticheskiia issledovaniia otnositel’no Rossiiskoi imperii, pt. 1: O narodonaselenii (St. Petersburg, 1819), 65–71. Ibid., 62. At the same time, German stressed that a completely different view would have been presented by an ethnographer who “is engaged in research of the origin of nations: in his eyes even the least numerous nation comprises a separate class, if it has any kind of distinguishing feature”: ibid. Evdokim Ziablovskii, Kratkoe zempleopisanie Rossiiskogo gosudarstva v nyneshnem ego sostoianii dlia pol’zy uchashchikhsia (St. Petersburg, 1807), 47. In later published

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

The first scholarly attempt of significance to the imperial discourse not only to ascertain who the Lithuanians were and where they lived but also to depict this information on a map93 was conducted by Pavel Jozef Šafárik, who worked in the Habsburg Empire and was in contact with many experts in the Romanov Empire.94 Importantly, his works were translated into Russian almost immediately after they first appeared; they were used in many later publications (and cartographical studies) on the Slavs and Lithuanians. Šafárik considered language the most important criterion of ethnicity and categorized all those groups that we would call Balts today (the Latvians also fall into this group) as Lithuanians. Lithuanians, according to Šafárik, were closer to the Slavs than any other ethnic group. In his famous “Slovanský nàrodopis” Šafárik described the areas he assigned to the Lithuanians and Latvians.95 Šafárik found ­Lithuanians throughout almost all of Vilnius Province (only in three of the eastern and south-eastern districts—Bratslavskii, Zavileiskii, and Ashmyany [Oshmianskii]—did he see any Belorussian dominance), in the northern part of Grodna Province (that is, in Lida and Grodna districts), in the northern part of Augustów Province (the Marijampolė, Kalvarija, and Sejny districts up to the towns of Sejny and Suwałki), and in a “significant part of East Prussia,” where Lithuanians lived all the way up to Norkyčiai near Toplaukis, seven miles up to Königsberg.96 books, other provinces were also named, but this did not diminish the confusion. In the 1842 publication, the Lithuanians (just like the Latvians) were not mentioned at all: Evdokim Ziablovskii, Rossiiskaia statistika, pt. 1, 2nd ed. (St. Petersburg, 1842). Diverging from the later tradition, Ziablovskii called the Lithuanians and Latvians by the presumptive term of Latvians; yet, in an 1815 publication, he called the language used by Lithuanians and Latvians “Lithuanian”: Evdokim Ziablovskii, Statisticheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii v nyneshnem eia sostoianii i s obshchim obozreniem Evropy v statisticheskom vide (St. Petersburg, 1815), 148. 93 Mastianica’s chapter in this book discusses the scholarly interest in Belorussians in the Russian Empire. 94 Šafárik received information on the western borderlands of the empire from Lithuanian public figure Dionizas Poška and Piotr Koeppen, the empire’s most prominent expert in ethnography. 95 That part of the maps was re-published by Petronis: Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 179. 96 Pavel Shafarik, Slavianskoe narodopisanie (Moscow, 1843), 105–106; Pavel Shafarik, Slavianskie drevnosti, vol. 1, book 2 (Moscow, 1847), 276–81.

47

48

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Meanwhile, Lithuanians were shown on a map in the Russian Empire for the first time by Piotr Koeppen in his “Ethnographic Atlas of European Russia” (1848)97 and “Ethnographic Map of European Russia” (1851).98 There had been similarities in the approaches of Šafárik and Koeppen: Koeppen also saw language as the main identifier of ethnic groups and categorized the Latvians as Lithuanians. However, Koeppen’s research, which took place over the course of several decades, offered completely different results from Šafárik’s as far as the Lithuanians were concerned; moreover, his interpretation had changed significantly since his first publication on the subject in 1827. In 1827 Koeppen had seen “in the Lithuanian tribe” (which he held to be of Slavic or “Slovenian” origin99 that only later had intermingled with other tribes) three components of equal importance: Latvians, Prussia’s Lithuanians, and the Lithuanians (along with the Samogitians) living in the Russian Empire.100 But after several decades, the “separateness” of Prussia’s Lithuanians had been minimalized. By this point, Koeppen was identifying two groups—Lithuanians and Latvians—“in the Lithuanian tribe.” The most outstanding group among Lithuanians were the Samogitians, to which were also assigned the Lithuanians living in the Kingdom of Poland.101 Koeppen’s interpretation significantly changed the concept of Lithuanian-inhabited territories. Because Šafárik, also received information from Koeppen, it is not surprising that Koeppen’s 1827 definition of the territory of the Lithuanians was essentially that which later appeared in Šafárik’s work.102 However, after several decades, Koeppen found a   97 A fragment of the atlas in which the territory populated by the Lithuanians was represented: Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 189. Koeppen was collaborating with Šafárik.   98 http://dacoromania.net/sites/default/files/maps/Koeppen-Ethnic_map.jpg, accessed on May 24, 2015.   99 Mikhail Lomonosov also held the Lithuanians to be Slavs: Yurii Slezkin, “Naturalists versus Nations: Eighteenth-Century Russian Scholars Confront Ethnic Diversity,” Representations 47 (1994): 189. 100 [Piotr Keppen], O proiskhozhdenii, iazyke i literature Litovskikh narodov (St. Petersburg, 1827), 3. 101 Piotr Köppen, “Der litauische Volksstamm. Ausbreitung und Stärke desselben in der Mitte des XIX. Jahrhunderts,” Bulletin de la classe historico-philologique de L’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg 8, nos. 18–19 (1851): 274. 102 [Keppen], O proiskhozhdenii, 94–96. Here mention was also made of individual villages in other provinces whose inhabitants spoke Lithuanian.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

significantly smaller area to be inhabited by Lithuanians.103 Initially the eastern border from the north south direction resembled that shown in Šafárik’s work, but beyond Švenčionys, the Lithuanian-inhabited area was significantly smaller and Vilnius, along with Ashmyany, was ascribed to the Slavs.104 Koeppen made these changes because, over the course of several decades, he had gathered significant information not only from such people as Poška and Vilnius University Professor Wacław Pelikan but also from various state institutions and Russia’s Academy of Sciences. Koeppen’s commitment to scholarly rigor makes it most unlikely that there were any direct political motives for decreasing the area of the Lithuanian-inhabited territory.105 Nevertheless, the collection of ethnographic information should not be looked at as a sphere totally separated from politics. Koeppen was one of the founders of the Russian Geographical Society, established in 1845 (from 1850 it became the Imperial Russian Geographical Society [IRGS]). This society cannot be treated as a “purely” scholarly institution or one whose purpose differed totally from than that of a governmental institution. As mentioned repeatedly in the historical literature, the tensions within the IRGS operated to the benefit not of the “German” but of the “Russian” group, which wanted to direct the activity of the society towards investigations needed for the solution of practical tasks arising in the empire. This “Russian” group, which was associated primarily with Nikolai Nedezhdin, concentrated initially on the eastern Slavs (“Russians” in the parlance of the time), but later other subjects of the empire rose in importance. However, it is important that the approach whereby it was sought to reveal the nationality (narodost’) of the Russians was later adapted to the investigation of other ethnic groups. Descriptive 103 The division of Lithuanians and Latvians was quite stable and followed the administrative border (the line between the Lithuanians and Latvians was significantly thinner than the one that delimited the Lithuanians, and the Latvians, from the Slavs, which also showed a Lithuanian-Latvian kinship) separating the provinces of Vilnius (later, Kaunas) and Courland. In the Ilūkste District Koeppen counted 5,023 Lithuanians, and in Palanga, 321. Because this was an ethnographic map only of the Russian Empire, the Lithuanians in Prussia were not counted. 104 http://dacoromania.net/sites/default/files/maps/Koeppen-Ethnic_map.jpg. 105 Merkys seeks to prove that Koeppen’s information was inaccurate: Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai, 44–51.

49

50

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

practices prevailed in the activity of the IRGS: the uniqueness of specific ethnic groups was emphasized, they were rarely compared with each other, and evaluative summaries were avoided.106 So in the mid-nineteenth century, the Russian approach to ethnography stipulated a quite tolerant attitude toward various ethnic groups. An article by Mikhail Lebedkin published in an 1861 society publication clearly showed the author’s ideological bias.107 The article presented a history of this region that followed Ustrialov in treating the GDL as another Rus’—a Western Rus’ that Catherine II legally regained in its totality in the eighteenth century. He emphasized, moreover, that only the Slavs and Lithuanians were indigenous, and all the others (primarily the Poles) were new arrivals, while the majority of the population of this land were Russians. Despite this interpretation of the country’s history, the ethnic statistics presented in the article provided some unexpected data. Compared with Koeppen’s data of 1851, Lebedkin found significantly more Lithuanians in the area.108 His article declared that the province of Vilnius, except for the districts of Vileika and Dzisna, was a Lithuanian-dominated habitat and that significantly more Lithuanians than eastern Slavs lived here (almost 419,000 and less than 162,000 respectively).109 If Lebedkin had been guided by the more usual criteria for ethnography and statistics at that time, specifically the criterion of language or even religion, the most

106 Nathaniel Knight, “Science, Empire, and Nationality: Ethnography in the Russian Geographical Society, 1845–1855,” in Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, ed. Jane Burbank and David L. Ransel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998), 108–41; Nathaniel Knight, “Seeking the Self in the Other: Ethnographic Studies of Non-Russians in the Russian Geographical Society, 1845–1860,” in Defining Self, 117–38. 107 Mihkhail Lebedkin, “O plemennom sostave narodonaseleniia zapadnogo kraia Rossiskoi imperii,” Zapiski Imperatorskogo russkago geograficheskogo obshchestva 3 (1861): 131–60. Lebedkin, like many later experts, used the data supplied in 1856 and 1857 by parish clergy in response to a questionnaire prepared by Koeppen: Medišauskienė, “Laikas-Erdvė-žmogus,” 103. 108 Lebedkin was not alone in considering Lithuanians and Latvians members of the same group. 109 Even in Grodna Province he found more than 46,000 Lithuanians, most of whom were Orthodox.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

commonly used and officially endorsed marker of ethnicity, he most likely would have found a significantly smaller number of Lithuanians. The dispute over the criteria of ethnicity evaporated after a decade. At that time, the ruling and intellectual elite needed information about the ethnic composition of the empire for practical reasons (when planning to introduce native-language instruction into the elementary schools, for example, it was essential to know what language the local population spoke) and for ideological reasons, i.e., to prove that this is the Russian and not the Polish territory. The instrumentalization of ethnic statistics for political purposes was revealed in many official and semi-official publications of the 1860s, as well as in the published descriptions of the provinces by officers of the general staff. Bobrovskii, collecting news about Grodna Province, wrote that his results were expected to deny the Polish “lies” about that area.110 Other authors also stressed that their statistics on national composition showed that the land was Russian, not Polish. Admittedly, while in one instance the strongest argument was the confessional make-up of the population (in Minsk Province, the Orthodox population was in the majority),111 elsewhere (in Grodna Province) ethnic origin and language were more strongly emphasized.112 More difficult to interpret is the case of the atlas created by Roderik Erkert in Russian and French. Petronis wrote that in the French version, the territory of the Belorussians and Ukrainians (who, according to the prevailing concept in the Russian discourse of the time comprised, along with the Great Russians, “the tripartite Russian nation”) occupied a greater area than was seen in the Russian atlas. Meanwhile, the Poles occupied a greater area in the Russian edition than in its French counterpart. According to Petronis, the reason for this was that the atlas whose target readership was in Western Europe was called on to refute the 110 P. Bobrovski’s letter to the dean of Vlodav, December 9, 1859, LVIA, f. 605, ap. 8, b. 249, l. 63. 111 I. Zelenskii, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba, vol. 3: Minskaia guberniia (St. Petersburg, 1864), 418. 112 Pavel Bobrovskii, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba, vol. 2: Grodnenskaia guberniia (St. Petersburg, 1863), 619–20.

51

52

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Polish propaganda that affirmed the land as Polish, while the Russian edition of the atlas aimed to demonstrate how great was the danger posed by the Poles and thus encouraged the taking of appropriate steps against them.113 The desire to show a greater area populated by “Russians” and to diminish the Polish habitat in the French-language atlas was well understood.114 However, in the case of the Russian atlas such a logic, as presented by Petronis, would seem very strange. The reason was that most “Russifiers” believed that Russian society lacked information on the Western Region and propaganda considered appropriate for Western Europe was also needed in the Romanov Empire. Yet a comparison of the atlases does not confirm this statement. In the Russian edition, the Russian-dominated territory in the Białystok District takes up a significantly greater area than in the French atlas, while in the “Lithuanian” territory in the districts of Švenčionys, Vilnius, and Lida in the Russian atlas many “Russian” islands appeared that were not in the French edition.115 Thus, these examples show that the “Russian” presence in the Russian version is even higher than in the French one. Meanwhile, the other atlas published at the same time, the Atlas narodonaseleniia Zapadno-Russkogo kraia po veroispovedaniiam (“Atlas of the Population of Western Russia According to Faiths”), evidently raised no such difficulties of interpretation. The civil servant and historian Pompei Batiushkov began the design, but Aleksandr Rittikh, an 113 Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 203. 114 Roderick Erkert, Vzgliad na istoriiu i etnografiiu Zapadnykh gubernii Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1864), 1. It may be assumed that Erkert, in fact, believed strongly in the appropriateness of his selected methodology, because he openly admitted that the number of Poles provided was too large (Ibid., 11; Roderick Erkert, Etnograficheskii atlas zapadno Russkikh gubernii i sosednikh oblastei (St. Petersburg, 1863), second map. There would have been no such admission if he had been guided only by ideological considerations. On the other hand, as was also usual in the Russian discourse of that time, Erkert treated the GDL as a Russian state: Erkert, Vzgliad na istoriiu i etnografiiu, 12–53. 115 See the comparison of both atlases: Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 201. We also take issue with Petronis’s hypothesis the increased area occupied by the Lithuanians “served Erkert’s intention of strengthening his anti-Polish argument.” The Lithuanian area could have been increased only at the expense of the Eastern Slavs, and that would in no way have served Russian propaganda. We will return later to a visualization of the area occupied by the Lithuanians in Erkert’s atlases.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Figure 4.  Ethnographic map of the former PLC from Roderich von Erckert, Atlas Ethnographique des Provinces Habitées en Totalité ou en Partie par des Polonais (St. Petersburg: 1863).

officer of the general staff, did the greatest amount of work. This atlas is a clearer example of statistical manipulation.116 Dolbilov, comparing the two editions of this publication (in 1863 and 1864) noted that the Slavic Catholics increased in exactly the same proportion as the Lithuanian Catholics decreased, that is, by 268,178. It is obvious that no new investigation was carried out, but with a light stroke of the pen several hundred Catholics found themselves under a different rubric.117 116 The atlas received a favorable reaction from Russian journalists: “Zametka, po povodu izdaniia Atlasa narodonaseleniia zapadno-Russkago kraia po veroispovedaniiam,” Vestnik Iugo-zapadnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii. Istoriko-literaturnyi zhurnal 2 (second year, December 1864): otd. 4, 287–301; “Atlas Rittikha (Bibliograficheskaia zametka),” ibid. 3 (March 1864): otd. 3, 314–17; “Eshche bibliograficheskaia zametka ob atlase zapadnoi Rossii, po veroispovedaniiam,” ibid. 4 (May 1864): otd. 4, 272–76. 117 Dolbilov, Russkii krai, chuzhaia vera, 191–92.

53

54

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

The argument regarding the Russian ethnic composition of the Western Region became a very frequent tool of political rhetoric at that time, whenever imperial officials had to justify any kind of anti-Polish measures. In the infamous December 10, 1865, edict, according to which “persons of Polish origin” were forbidden to acquire land, such a step was justified by the proportions of the national groups, in which a relatively small number of Poles were hindering the normal development of Little Russians, Belorussians, and Lithuanians-Samogitians, who comprised the majority among “the ten-million-strong population of nine provinces.” The radical nationality policies of Vilnius Governor-General Murav’ev were also based on the idea that “Russians” dominated in the region: here five-sixths of the population, he claimed, were “real Russians, practicing the Orthodox faith.”118 There is almost no doubt that the governor-general of Vilnius got such results, assigning the five provinces of the NWR subordinate to him to the “Russian”-dominated habitat. The remaining one-sixth was just the Kaunas Province, where Lithuanian speakers were in the majority. Imperial officials sometimes overlooked the Lithuanians in the other provinces of the NWR. (We see this approach, for example, in the area of primary education after the suppression of the 1863–64 uprising.) Experts on statistics and ethnography, of course, would be expected to present more accurate data about the Lithuanians. There would still have been those who persisted in thinking that the Latvians also belonged to “the Lithuanian nation.”119 However, the more serious experts of the time, such as Aleksandr Gil’ferding, clearly emphasized that the Latvians “according to origin and language are in a close kinship with the Lithuanians; however, they comprise a separate nation from the [Lithuanian] nation.”120 Gil’ferding also stressed that the Lithuanian language was very close to the Slavic language and that there had 118 “Chetyre politicheskie zapiski grafa M. N. Murav’eva Vilenskogo,” Russkii arkhiv 6 (1885): 186. 119 Dmitrii Afanas’ev, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba, vol. 1: Kovenskaia guberniia (St. Petersburg, 1861), 1–2. 120 Aleksandr Gil’ferding, “Neskol’ko zamechanii o litovskom i zhmudskom plemeni,” in Sbornik statei, raz’iasniaiushchikh pol’skoe delo po otnosheniiu k zapadnoi Rossii, ed. S. Sholkovich (Vilnius, 1885), 108.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

been times when the “Slavic tribes and the Lithuanians comprised one group in Europe.”121 This theory of the affinity between the Slavs and Lithuanians was also used in the Cyrillization of the Lithuanian script.122 Although Gil’ferding123 as well as earlier experts of ethnography and statistics (Šafárik, Koeppen) held language to be the fundamental criterion of ethnicity, in ethnographic descriptions and maps from the 1860s, this was not the most important criterion. Erkert said that he relied on religion as the clearest indicator distinguishing Poles from Russians in the Western Region, although the Lithuanians and Russians differed according not only to religious but also to the linguistic criterion.124 The criteria used in the abovementioned “Atlas” are not clear.125 Korevo, the general staff officer responsible for the description of Vilnius Province, in which following historian Teodor Narbutt,126 differentiated the Slavs and Lithuanians not only by dialect but also by topography, customs, historical legends, and, partially, religion.127 In this instance the most important was ethnic origin, which was determined by various parameters. The ethnographic map created by Korevo and added at the end of his book, mostly corresponded to that drawn by Narbutt, which divided the Lithuanians from the eastern Slavs.128 Thus, parts of the eastern Švenčionys and southeastern Ashmyany districts, part of the Lida District, and all of Vileika District ended up in the Slavic part of Vilnius Province, while the remainder (the districts of Trakai and Vilnius, parts of the districts of Švenčionys, Ashmyany, and Lida) was classified as Lithuanian territory.129 An essentially but greatly simplified (i.e., straight-line) border dividing 121 Ibid., 109. 122 Darius Staliūnas, Making Russians: Meaning and Practice of Russification in Lithuania and Belarus after 1863 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007), 264. 123 Gil’ferding, “Neskol’ko zamechanii,” 108. 124 Erkert, Etnograficheskii atlas, third map; Erkert, Vzgliad na istoriiu i etnografiiu, 2, 6–10. 125 Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 198–99. 126 Adam Honory Kirkor also followed Narbutt: Adam Honory Kirkor, “Statisticheskii vzgliad na Vilenskuiu guberniiu,” Istoricheski-statisticheskie ocherki Vilenskoi gubernii (Vilnius, 1853), 13. 127 Anton Korevo, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba: Vilenskaia guberniia (St. Petersburg, 1861), 5, 286–88, 321. 128 Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai, 56–57. 129 Korevo, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki, 287.

55

56

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the Lithuanians from the eastern Slavs was also drawn in the “Atlas.”130 We see a very similar Lithuanian-inhabited territory in Erkert’s atlas, especially in the northwest. The difference is that Erkert’s atlas is significantly more nuanced—in the national territories of a given ethnic group, many islands of people of other nationalities are shown.131 The expert knowledge of local “Poles”132 who exerted an influence on the Russian discourse therefore attributed a larger area to the Lithuanians than would have been the case if the linguistic criterion, which was becoming ever more popular in contemporary ethnography and statistics, had been followed.133 Thus, since the mid-nineteenth century, and especially after 1863, the ruling and intellectual elite of the Russian Empire increasingly applied ethnic criteria in attributing this territory to the Russian Empire (and the Russian “national territory”). We shall see in the next section how useful these criteria were in establishing territorial-­ administrative units.

TERRITORIAL-ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS AS A TARGET OF NATIONALITY POLICY Changes in the territorial-administrative division of the Russian Empire were caused by various factors: the desire for more efficient management, for example, by making province size by area and population more equal, 130 http://elib.shpl.ru/ru/nodes/6115-karta-narodonaseleniya-zapadno-russkogo-kraya-po-ispovedaniyam-1864-g#page/1/mode/inspect/zoom/9, accessed February 13, 2015. See also Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 199. 131 I would think that it was not quite correct to treat that part of Erkert’s atlas that displayed only Lithuanians and Latvians as a source indicating where, in the opinion of the author, the territory of Lithuanians was located, because Erkert here noted the districts in which there was a significant number of Lithuanians, even when they constituted a minority. See Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 208. Erkert placed Lithuanians in Augustów Province very much as in Koeppen’s “Ethnographic Map of European Russia.” 132 Both Narbutt and Kirkor were treated as Poles in the Russian discourse despite the fact that they regarded themselves as Lithuanians (although of course not in the modern sense). 133 Namely that this criterion had to adhere to the opinions of Latvian experts Iulian Kuznetsov (Kalējs), and, later, Eduard Volter, but due to lack of space we will not discuss that here.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Figure 5.  Ethnographic map of the Vilnius Province from Anton Korevo, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba: Vilenskaia guberniia (St. Petersburg, 1861).

or “rounding off” the territories of the provinces and establishing their centers in the middle of the administrative unit. In this case, however, we are interested only in the plans for the new territorial-administrative divisions, which were influenced by the mental map of the empire’s ruling elite and especially by existing images of Russia’s “national territory.”

The 1830s and 1840s In the 1830s the government of imperial Russia, seeking to make the size of the provinces more equal, to “round them off,” and to place the center of the province much closer to the geographical center of the

57

58

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

administrative unit, began to discuss territorial-administrative reform.134 The proposed transformations in the western part of the empire, as one of their initiators, then Minister of Internal Affairs Dmitrii Bludov, noted, also had other objectives which were, it is true, formulated very glibly: the plans for the reform included talk of the need to “merge” the western provinces and “move [them] closer” to the central part of Russia.135 The proposals of the Minister of Internal Affairs show some territorial gradation: there were genuinely Russian provinces in the area (such as Pskov and Smolensk), and it would have been very useful to annex part of the former (PLC) territories to them, thus tying them more closely to the center of the empire. Then there was Belorussia, which had already assimilated the Russian management system and would benefit by the addition of part of Lithuania’s territory (adding a portion of Vilnius and Minsk provinces to the province of Vitsiebsk).136 In this scenario, Lithuania was more foreign while Belorussia was closer to Russia.137 As we will see, a comparable evaluation of the territories of the former GDL on the Russian mental map would appear again in subsequent years. One of the programs discussed by the special committee established to create this reform envisaged a significant increase in the size of the province of Vilnius (two new districts, Grodna and Lida, were to be connected to it). And so, in terms of population and area, that large province would become even larger. But the problem, from the government’s viewpoint, was related not only to the size of the province: “Apart from the fact that the province of Vilnius has more inhabitants than the other Lithuanian [provinces], it is the center of Lithuania, and due to 134 For more detail on this reform, see Leonid Gorizontov, “In Search of Internal Balance: Debate on Changes in the Territorial-Administrative Division of the Russian Empire in the 1830s and 1840s,” in Imperiology: From Empirical Knowledge to Discussing the Russian Empire, ed. Kimitaka Matsuzato (Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University 2007), 179–98. 135 Program for the [administrative] redistribution of the western provinces, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 4, d. 59, l. 133, 138. 136 Ibid., l. 134, 138. 137 Gorizontov, “In Search of Internal Balance,” 183–84.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

other circumstances, raises more management problems.”138 From where those problems of management arose is not explained here, but it can be inferred that this discussion concerned Vilnius as the capital of a former state, in which the government saw a very strong Polish influence. Therefore, the aforementioned special committee proposed creating a new province out of the northwestern districts of Vilnius Province.139 Those districts, according to committee members, “differ from the others in the people’s everyday life [narodnyj byt], their dialect, and the historically developed habits that the inhabitants respect more than the laws.”140 The new province was to match the territory of Samogitia.141 Now it must be asked: What kind of Samogitia was this to be—the former lands of the Samogitian Principality or the habitat of the Samogitian language, which was smaller than the borders of the principality? Imperial officials had earlier recorded various distinguishing characteristics of Samogitia in comparison with the remainder of the former GDL. After the suppression of the 1830–31 uprising, on the initiative of the governor-general of Vilnius, proposals were discussed to provide special attention to Samogitia. Considered but rejected was an option that foresaw the founding of a district of Samogitia by analogy with the 138 Report from the minister of the interior to the tsar, September 7, 1841, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 4, d. 71, l. 65. 139 For more on this, see Darius Staliunas, “Problema administrativno-territorial’nykh granits v ‘natsional’noi politike” imperskoi vlasti: Kovenskaia guberniia v seredine XIX veka,” in Rossiiskaia imperiia: Strategii stabilizatsii i opyty obnovleniia (Voronezh, 2004), 147–66. 140 The 3 May 1841 journal of the committee formed by the tsar on April 16, 1838, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 4, d. 71, l. 18–22. The districts of Raseiniai, Telšiai, Šiauliai, Upytė, Vilkomir (Ukmergė), and Novoaleksandrovsk (Zarasai) were to comprise the new province. Raseiniai, “as the best and wealthiest city of Samogitia,” was envisaged as the center of the province. In addition to the province of Raseiniai, the part of the province of Kaunas located on the right bank of the Neris (the cited document errs in indicating that it was the Šventoji) needed to be added and combined with the part of the district of Raseiniai situated between the Dubysa and Šiauliai District. It was to comprise the new district, whose center would be in Kėdainiai: RVIA, f. 1290, ap. 4, b. 59, l. 142–43. 141 In Bludov’s proposals another possibility can be seen: to annex the Samogitian districts to the province of Courland (RGIA, f. 1290, op. 4, d. 59, l. 142). This also confirms that the officials of Russia saw Samogitia as a distinct region.

59

60

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

district of Białystok, but a temporary solution that required smaller expenditures was implemented instead: the districts of Samogitia (four in this case: Šiauliai, Telšiai, Raseiniai, and Upytė)142—were made the responsibility of a temporary district head.143 Viewing formally both the abovementioned considerations about the need for special management in Samogitia and the references to “historically formed customs” when establishing Kaunas Province, it may be assumed that the officials were giving special consideration to the principality of Samogitia. The fact that Raseiniai was to become “the capital” of the province in the initial plans also demonstrates that historical traditions were being taken into account: until the mid-1760s, Samogitia’s only juridical center was located in Raseiniai. The finance minister’s warning that “recalling previously existing names of the principalities could trigger historical memories,”144 was most probably a reaction to the formation of a province named either Šiauliai or Samogitia, as outlined in the program. The principality of Samogitia also came up in later official correspondence. After the 1863–64 uprising, Governor-General Eduard Baranov affirmed that his government knew well that the principality of Samogitia persisted in local memory: “Samogitia,” as the past name of the land, meant the area inhabited by Samogitians and Lithuanians. It remained as an old term of historical geography and was ruled by the Diocese of Telšiai. The law until now recognizes the title of the Diocese of Telšiai or of Samogitia. This simple title often reminds Lithuanians of the times of free life and therefore is hostile

142 Although only three districts (Telšiai, Raseiniai, and Šiauliai) were referred to as Samogitian in the governor-general’s report. 143 “Po otnosheniiu Upravliaiushchego Glavnym shtabom Ego Imperatorskogo Velicehstva otnositel’no uchrezhdeniia v samogitskikh uezdakh osoboi oblasti, i o proch,” RGIA, f. 1286, op. 5, d. 137; “Ob uchrezhdenii v 4 Samogitskikh Uezdakh Samogitskoi oblasti,” LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1831 m., b. 610. 144 The response of the minister of finance about the program for changing the territorial-administrative boundaries, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 4, d. 59, l. 45–46.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

and harmful to the unity of the state because it can serve as a propaganda slogan for national and political liberation.145 Officials sometimes believed that Samogitia had a different dialect than the rest of Lithuania. In fact, the necessity for special rule after the suppression of the 1830–31 uprising was based not only on the stepped-up activities of the “rebels” in these districts but also on “taking into account the differences of dialects and the very way of life [byt] of the population of Samogitia.”146 So at that time, the principality of Samogitia and the habitat of the Samogitian dialect was understood to be the same territory.147 Even more confusion sometimes arose, when all ethnic Lithuanians were identified as Samogitians. Usually there was no such disarray in the academic discourse,148 but in the world of bureaucracy, misunderstandings did occur. During the “Pupils’ Affair” in 1852–54,149 instructions came from St. Petersburg to separate the “Samogitian youth” from the Poles in the schools. There is no doubt that all ethnic Lithuanians were being called “Samogitians” here but local officials understood the instructions literally and started to record the Poles and Samogitians only “in the Samogitian districts.”150 145 “Vilniaus generalgubernatoriaus grafo Edvardo Baranovo nuomonė apie Motiejų Valančių,” Žemaičių praeitis 1 (1990): 128. 146 Letter of Adjutant-General Prince Dolgorukov to the head of the General Staff, November 15, 1831, RGIA, f. 1286, op. 5, d. 137, l. 9. 147 Gorizontov believes that, by proposing to split Vilnius Province into two parts, the empire’s officials wanted to separate the Lithuanians (whom he calls Samogitians) from the eastern Slavs: Gorizontov, “In Search of Internal Balance,” 184, 195, 196. In fact, in later decades, all ethnic Lithuanians were sometimes called Samogitians in the bureaucratic correspondence, but in the bureaucratic correspondence discussed here (for 1838 to 1843), the Samogitians were clearly distinguished from the Lithuanians. 148 Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 150, 157; Petras Kalnius, Žemaičiai. XX a.–XXI a. pradžia (Vilnius: Mintis, 2012), 45–47. 149 Lukšienė, Lietuvos švietimo istorijos bruožai, 222–25; Egidijus Aleksandravičius, “Tautinio identiteto link: 1852–1854 m. ‘mokinių byla’,” Kultūros barai 7–8 (1990): 96–99; Leszek Zasztowt, Kresy 1832–1864: Szkolnictwo na ziemiach Litewskich i Ruskich dawnej Rzeczypospolitej (Warsaw: Instytut Historii Nauk PAN, 1997), 247–49. 150 “Po Vysochaishemu poveleniiu o proiskhozhdenii vospitannikov tel’shevskoi Rimsko-katolicheskoi Seminarii,” LVIA, f. 378, 1852 m., PS, b. 52.

61

62

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Going back to the circumstances of the creation of Kaunas Province, it should be noted that Samogitia, no matter how it was understood, was apparently too small to constitute a province. It was therefore extended at the expense of other Lithuanian-populated areas. Kaunas was initially left outside the newly created province on the grounds that it “does not belong to Samogitia, but to Lithuania.”151 Nevertheless, the program designed in St. Petersburg had to be adjusted. Neither Kėdainiai nor Raseiniai met the requirements of a center of a province, so Kaunas became the province’s “capital city” (being simultaneously incorporated into the new province).152 So the Russian government, seeking to make local governance more efficient, reorganized the administrative boundaries of the provinces. The restructuring itself—and most relevant to us in this case—the creation of Kaunas Province, had already been implemented in part by taking into account historical and ethno-cultural criteria.153 Incidentally, some imperial officials pointed to the diversity of the population (the ethno-cultural differences, that is) as one reason for splitting up Vilnius Province in later years.154 The available documentary information shows that the selection of the provincial center was determined by practical considerations, in other words, that the largest 151 Letter of the Minister of Internal Affairs of September 7, 1841, to the tsar, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 4, d. 71, l. 67. 152 The first administrative plan for the division of the GDL lands as the third partition of the PLC provided for, in addition to the administrative units of Vilnius and Grodna, a third unit centered on Kaunas or Kėdainiai: “Decree of Catherine II on October 30, 1790,” in Khronologicheskii ukazatel’, 159. Later, according to the 1847 Concordat, the boundaries of the Samogitian Diocese, which encompassed the provinces of Kaunas and Courland, were adapted to the boundaries of the provinces. Merkys has written more broadly about the change in the diocesan boundaries: Vytautas Merkys, Motiejus Valančius: Tarp katalikiško universalizmo ir tautiškumo (Vilnius: Mintis, 1999), 162, 200–1. 153 It is interesting that in the original program, the boundaries of some districts were plotted according to rivers: Program for the [administrative] redistribution of the western provinces, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 4, d. 59, l. 143. 154 Letter of Central Statistical Committee official K. Arsen’ev of June 23, 1845, to the Minister of Internal Affairs, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 1, d. 149, l. 9; Konstantin Arsen’ev, Statisticheskie ocherki Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1848); Afanas’ev, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki, 22–23.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

city with convenient communications was selected. However, it is also possible that there were certain ethno-political reasons for making that decision. At that time, the government was trying in all possible ways to diminish the influence of Vilnius in the empire’s western borderlands. In the mid-1840s some influential experts were claiming that its role had already declined significantly, due not only to the closure of Vilnius University and the transfer of the Roman Catholic Theological Academy to St. Petersburg but also to the separation of its northern reaches and the formation of Kaunas Province.155 Simultaneously it was noted that Kaunas could well become the most important city in the empire’s western borderlands.156 Thus, at least in later years, the establishment of Kaunas Province was seen by some imperial officials as the creation of a counterweight to Vilnius.

The 1860s In 1863 in order to make the fight against the “rebels” more effective, two additional Belorussian provinces—Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ—were added to the governor-generalship of Vilnius (Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodna, and Minsk). From then on, those six provinces also made up the Vilnius Education District.157 For the same reasons, four districts of Augustów Province were also temporarily brought under the jurisdiction of the governor-general of Vilnius in 1863.158 This territorial expansion of the governor-general’s authority was inspired by certain practical considerations (making it easier to combat the “rebels”), but at the same time this action showed that the NWR (along with part of Augustów Province) was seen, at least in some respects (the hostility to imperial power), as a separate region on the Russian mental map. 155 Letter of Central Statistical Committee official K. Arsen’ev of July 5, 1845, to the Minister of Internal Affairs, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 1, d. 149, l. 13. 156 Letter of Central Statistical Committee official K. Arsen’ev of June 23, 1845, to the Minister of Internal Affairs, RGIA, f. 1290, op. 1, d. 149, l. 9. 157 “O prisoedinenii Vitebskoi i Mogilevskoi gubernii k Vilenskomu uchebnomu okrugu,” LVIA, f. 567, ap. 3, b. 1279. 158 “O podchinenii Generalu ot Infanterii Murav’evu chasti Avgustovskoi gubernii,” Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi voenno istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Military Archives; RGVIA), f. 1, op. 1, d. 25919.

63

64

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

However, in the minds of the imperial political and intellectual elite at that time, there was also another, equally powerful inclination, which was to divide up the region. The demonstrations that began in the territory of the former PLC in 1861, and even more so the uprising in 1863–64 forced the imperial government to seek new anti-Polish policies. One of the most intensively discussed ideas in the 1860s was a change in the territorial-administrative division of the Western Region.159 One of the purposes of those programs was “to split the Polish nationals committing hostile actions against the government,”160 although there were some high officials who questioned if those administrative changes would make an impact on the Polish influence in the region at all.161 At that time, several tactical directions for the reshaping of the administrative borders—often in one and the same document—are seen in the programs discussed in the corridors of power. There were proposals to include some districts from the “Great Russian” provinces in the Belorussian provinces, to strengthen the Russian element in the Belorussian areas. However, that logic did not prevail. Most of the ideas discussed among officials had one common feature, which was to reduce the size of the Polish-dominated area. Early in 1864, Murav’ev suggested annexing some of the districts of Magileŭ and Vitsiebsk provinces to the “Great Russian” provinces and forming a new Dinaburg Province, which would consist of several districts of Latgale (in Vitsiebsk Province) and of Novoaleksandrovsk (from Kaunas Province) and Dzisna (from Vilnius Province), as well as 159 “Po predlozheniiu o novom razgranichenii gubernii Severo zapadnogo kraia,” LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1864, b. 2427, “Po voprosu o razgranichenii gubernii,” LVIA, f. 378, PS, 1863, b. 490; “‘Vsepoddanneishye’ predstavleniia P. A. Valueva s prilozheniem zapiski i vypiski iz predstavlennogo iz v zapadnyj komitet ocherka o sredstvakh obruseniia zapadnogo Kraia,” RGIA, f. 908, op. 1, d. 185; “O peresmotre nastoiashchego razgranicheniia Zapadnykh gubernii,” RGIA, f. 1282, op. 2, d. 339; “Kratkii ocherk miatezhnogo sostoianiia Litvy,” LVIA, f. 378, ap. 219, b. 80, d. 1. 160 Official letter from F. Kornilov to the minister of the interior, February 5, 1863, RGIA, f. 1282, op. 2, d. 339, l. 1–2. 161 Report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, March 14, 1863, ibid., l. 36.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

incorporating some districts of Minsk Province into the provinces of Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ, and the districts of Rezhitsa and part of Mazyr into Chernigiv and Kiev provinces.162 Some other proposals under consideration at that time also envisaged reducing the territory of the Lithuanian provinces, sometimes called the “Polish-Lithuanian” provinces163 by transferring some of their districts into the Belorussian provinces. Both the reduction of the territory of the Western Region overall, and the Lithuanian provinces in particular, as a means of increasing Russian influence were not, in fact, new ideas. Such proposals, as mentioned in this chapter, were already being discussed in the 1830s. In the understanding of officials, the development of a given region was very dependent on the kind of city that dominated there—if Russian, then the area would likely follow the “correct” path, if Polish, then the danger that the region would remain in the orbit of a hostile culture increased. The empire’s ruling and intellectual elite had a very specific image of the cities in question. At that time, the Russian discourse viewed Vilnius as a center of Polish influence. Thus, the government’s goal was to bring as large as possible a territory under the influence of Moscow and other of the “internal centers” of Russia, rather than under the sway of Vilnius and similar cities. The Russian discourse held that the further a city was to the east, the stronger the Russian and the weaker the Polish influence. An important goal, therefore, was to “push” the boundaries of districts or provinces outward, so that increasingly more of them would fall under the influence of cities further east.164 As Murav’ev wrote, this would make it possible “to draw 162 Report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, January 5, 1864, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1864 m., b. 2427, l. 1–3. 163 Report on how to change administrative units in the Western Region, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1864 m., b. 2427, l. 29. Meanwhile, Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces were described in the same document as “Russian from olden times” (drevle russkie): ibid. 164 “[N]ot only the administrative but also the organic reforms implemented seeking to Russify the Western Region will not reach their goal and may even become harmful to the government and the Russian nationality, if the dominating political-­ administrative centers are not moved from the West to the East.”: Unsigned letter

65

66

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

off [those territories] from the local administrative centers that are still dominated by the supremacy of the Polish party.”165 The influential Slavophile Ivan Aksakov demonstrated this logic more broadly. The transfer of the part of the Minsk Province to Magileŭ Province, in his opinion, was justified by the fact that there was a significantly higher Russian population in Magileŭ than in Minsk, and Minsk Province should be compensated by the addition of Vileika and Ashmyany districts from Vilnius Province, because “Minsk, being the center of Belorussia and perpetuating many historical legends of Belorussia, could be a much more useful administrative center for some districts of Vilnius Province than Vilnius.” Meanwhile, Vilnius, according to Aksakov, was a symbol of Polish “power and civilization” in Lithuania, a kind of “Petersburg of Lithuania”;166 and the influence of Vilnius—“the main center of Polonicity in Lithuania”—over Minsk Province should be avoided.167 There was a similar logic (specifically, the desire that the easternmost centers of power in this region should dominate) behind the idea of founding a university in the area early in the 1870s, when Polatsk and Vitsiebsk were considered suitable locations for such a school of higher education.168 In the opinion of Dmitrii Tolstoi, then Minister of Education, Polatsk was more appropriate than Vilnius because in the latter “memories of the former university there are still alive, hostile to us, and the city, despite the significant spread of the Russian spirit, is still one that, more than other cities of this land, has a Polish hue, while Polatsk, an almost Russian city, belongs to a more Russified province and is not on the new administrative divisions of the NWR, RGIA, f. 908, op. 1, d. 226, l. 1–2. 165 Report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, January 5, 1864, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1864 m., b. 2427, l. 2. 166 St. Petersburg was often considered in the Russian discourse of the time to be the incarnation of cosmopolitanism, whereas Moscow, embodied “real Russianism.” 167 “Ob izmenenii granits Zapadnogo kraia,” in Sochineniia I. S. Aksakova, vol. 3: Pol’skii vopros i Zapadno-russkoe delo. 1860 –1886: Stat’i iz Dnia, Moskvy, Moskvicha i Rusi (Moscow, 1886), 260–71. 168 Darius Staliūnas, Visuomenė be universiteto? (Aukštosios mokyklos atkūrimo problema Lietuvoje: XIX a. vidurys–XX a. pradžia) (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2000), 98–99.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

far from the Smolensk Province; in addition, it is more connected to the “inner” Russian provinces than the western borderlands.”169 This was also the logic behind a proposal made in 1865 by Aleksandr Potapov, the assistant to the Vilnius governor-general who became governor-general himself in 1868–74, after the borders of Vitsiebsk Province were changed. His idea was to house the new center not in Vitsiebsk, but in Polatsk. In addition to arguments of a more technical nature (the railway line through Polatsk, its status as the newly designated center of the province, and so on), there was also the fact that Polatsk embodied Russianness better than Vitsiebsk because it was home to as many as 15 Orthodox churches and monasteries, thus ensuring the restoration of “the purely Russian principality of Polatsk.”170 The placement of all of Kaunas Province or only the three Samogitian districts under the Baltic governor-general would also have led to the reduction of the territory of the Western Region.171 Officials based that “transfer” not only on geographic considerations and economic relations but also on the desire to protect the “Lithuanians-Samogitians” from the influence of the “Polish element.”172 The “Polish” zone of Vilnius’s influence could have been reduced not only by changing the governing authority of several districts but also by restoring the boundaries of the governor-generalship’s jurisdiction to those that existed until 1862. Potapov formulated such a proposal in 1865, and in 1869 and 1870 it was implemented. This decision was based on arguments put forward in the early 1860s, chief among which may have been to reduce the influence of Vilnius: “The subordination of six provinces to the central authority in Vilnius creates common interests in the population of those provinces, leads to frequent meetings of the half-Poles of Magileŭ [Province] with the real Poles of Vilnius and Kaunas [provinces], and forces the former to look to Vilnius, from 169 Report from the minister of education to the tsar, December 23, 1872, RGIA, f. 733, op. 147, d. 1073, l. 1–3. 170 Potapov’s proposals, 1865, LVIA, f. 378, ap. 219, b. 80, d. 1, l. 15. 171 We will discuss later the idea of subordinating the Samogitian districts to Courland Province. 172 Report on how to change administrative units in the Western Region, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1864 m., b. 2427, l. 28.

67

68

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

which they receive favors and punishments, as the real capital of the whole region. Vilnius as the center of government runs counter to healthy political origins and provides an opportunity for the centers of the borderlands to assimilate such provinces as Magileŭ and Vitsiebsk.”173 The subordination of those provinces to the Ministry of Internal Affairs would also bring benefits “because the center of attraction will no longer be Vilnius, but Petersburg, and in this way the number of provinces will be reduced, which seemingly make up a separate region in the empire.”174 At the same time, the boundaries of Vilnius Education District remained unchanged, because the imperial officials felt that the center of educational institutions did not have the same symbolic integrative power as the center of the governor-generalship.175 Thus, at the end of the 1860s, imperial officials looked on the former GDL lands as they had in 1838–43: the three Belorussian provinces were regarded as almost Russian, and the remaining three provinces of the NWR as “Polish-Lithuanian,” although Vilnius Province, which accounted for the strongest Polish presence, was singled out among them. It is important to note, however, that most of the plans for territorial-administrative reform discussed in the mid-nineteenth century erased the memory of the GDL’s former borders. Another direction taken in these territorial-administrative changes involved the territorialization of ethnicity, pursuing the aim of matching the administrative boundaries to the ethnic ones. Two versions of this approach were discussed in the 1860s. The first provided for the separation of the Lithuanians and Belorussians,176 the second of the Lithuanians and Samogitians. The author of the first was Vilnius Governor-General Vladimir Nazimov, in whose opinion territorial-administrative reform would not 173 Letter from the Magileŭ governor about the separation of Magileŭ Province from the North-West Region, April, 21 1869, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1869 m., b. 66, l. 12–13; same document: RGIA, f. 1282, op. 1, d. 356, l. 6. 174 Report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, June 12, 1869, ibid., l. 25–26. 175 Official letter from the minister of education to the minister of the interior, February 7, 1870, RGIA, f. 1282, op. 2, d. 356, l. 158–163. 176 In this case the Samogitians meant Lithuanians.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

reduce the Polish influence “unless the two nationalities [narodnosti]— Lithuanians-Samogitians and Russians—were separated.” 177 The governor-­general, “in accordance with the ethnographic map,” concretized this proposal and defined exactly where that dividing line should go in Vilnius Province. Nazimov’s proposed border for the Lithuanians and Belorussians was similar to the defined habitats of those two ethnic groups in the ethnographic works of that time and kept Vilnius Lithuanian.178 Nazimov seems to have taken this proposal seriously, because he drew the border separating the two ethnic groups quite accurately. At about the same time, similar programs in the office of education in Vilnius were discussed, according to which the Lithuanian language would replace the Polish language as a teaching language in high schools in the Lithuanian-populated territory, so that “the Samogitian element, well-disposed toward the government and apt to gradually push out the Polish one, would be elevated.”179 This idea of Vilnius Education District Supervisor Alexander Shirinskii-Shikhmatov, which corresponded to the nationality policy principle of “divide and rule,” logically matched Nazimov’s proposal to separate the Lithuanians and Belorussians territorially and administratively, even though the governor-general doubted that such measures would diminish the influence of the Poles in the region.180 On the other hand, it can be surmised that the governor-general of Vilnius himself was not certain of the advisability of this measure. These doubts are betrayed not only by the weak formulation “unless” in the quotation above but also by fact that the proposal did not provide further details, because the governor-general did not explain what was supposed to happen after separating the Lithuanians from the Belorussians—whether two new provinces were to replace Vilnius Province, or if those ethnic parts were to be connected 177 Report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, March 14, 1863, LVIA, f. 378, PS, 1863 m., b. 490, l. 10. 178 See Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai, 45. 179 Secret report from the supervisor of the Vilnius Education District to the minister of education, April 19, 1863, LVIA, f. 567, ap. 21, b. 15, l. 22. 180 Report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, March 14, 1863, LVIA, f. 378, PS, 1863 m., b. 490, l. 10.

69

70

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

respectively to the “Lithuanian” Kaunas and the “Belorussian” Minsk provinces. Meanwhile, Potapov, the assistant to the governor-general of Vilnius, whose proposal mentioned inter alia the need to take into account the “ethnographic criteria” (etnograficheskiia soobrazheniia),181 also suggested separating the Lithuanians and the Samogitians. In his opinion, in order to neutralize the most dangerous hotbed of anti-­ government sentiment—Kaunas Province, which was dominated by Lithuanian Catholics—had to be split up: the Lithuanian districts (Vilkomir, Kaunas, and Novoaleksandrovsk) had to be attached to Vilnius Province, while the three Samogitian districts (Šiauliai, Telšiai, and Raseiniai) must be transferred to Courland Province.182 In this way, the Lithuanians would end up under the supervision of Vilnius as a Russian center,183 while the Samogitians would be under the influence of the Baltic Germans, who were at the time usually considered loyal to the empire.184 Another habitat where signs of the territorialization of ethnicity can be seen in the plans for territorial-administrative reorganization was the Lithuanian-dominated districts of Augustów Province. As mentioned above, military expedience led to the districts of Marijampolė, Kalvarija, Augustów, Sejny, and Lomża being placed under the governor-general of Vilnius in the autumn of 1863.185 Although this move was declared temporary, Governor-General Murav’ev was inclined to leave those districts in the governor-generalship of Vilnius because their “people are Samogitians, so justice would require that 181 A. Potapov’s proposals, LVIA, f. 378, ap. 219, b. 80, d. 1, l. 15. 182 As mentioned above, a similar idea was also proposed during the reforms of the 1830s and 1840s. 183 Potapov’s view of Vilnius as a potentially Russian center was more likely an exception to the general rule. 184 Potapov’s proposals regarding Kaunas Province, June 7, 1863, Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archives of the Russian Federation; [GARF]), f. 109, secret archives, op. 2, d. 758a, l. 52–54. 185 “O podchinenii Generalu ot Infanterii Murav’evu chasti Avgustovskoi gubernii,” RGVIA, f. 1, op. 1, d. 25919; “O podchinenii Avgustovskoi gubernii Vilenskomu general-gubernatoru i o peredache onoi obratno v zavedyvanie namestnika TsP,” LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1863 m., b. 1549.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

[they] belong not to Poland but to the land of Lithuania.”186 The importance of ethnic criteria in this case was well illustrated by Murav’ev’s instruction to one of the officials to prepare an ethnographic overview of Augustów Province.187 The anonymous author of a program drawn up after 1867, who was well acquainted with the ideas discussed earlier by various government officials appears to have endorsed similar changes in the territorial-­ administrative division of the NWR. Without going into all the nuances of that program, I will draw attention to the proposals connected with Vilnius Province and adjacent territories: this individual proposed the transfer of the districts of Vileika and Ashmyany, which belonged to Vilnius Province, to Minsk Province, Dzisna to Vitsiebsk, and Lida to Grodna. Thus, the new province would be formed out of the remaining districts of Vilnius Province (Vilnius, Trakai, and Švenčionys in which, according to some national statistical and ethnographic data of that time, Lithuanians dominated), the remodeled Novoaleksandrovsk District, and all of Suwałki Province.188 In this way, a new province with a majority of Lithuanians would have been formed adjacent to the Lithuanian-dominated Kaunas Province. Thus, in the 1860s programs foreseeing the equating of ethnic and administrative borders were becoming a normal tool for the reorganization of the administrative units, although there had been glimpses of this phenomenon in the programs of the 1830s. Some of those programs, such as the one proposed by Nazimov, might contain elements of the policy of “divide and rule,” but in other cases there were no such trends: Potapov clearly declared that the Lithuanians were too weak to form a counterweight to the Poles, while no such policies were typical of the measures carried out by Murav’ev after the 1863–64 uprising. 186 Copy of a report from the Vilnius governor-general to the minister of the interior, October 2, 1863, RGIA, f. 1282, op. 3, d. 769, l. 156. 187 Letter about the inclusion of Suwałki Province into the governor-generalship of Vilnius prepared in 1900 in the Chancellery, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1900 m., b. 246, l. 18. Also in the official press, articles appeared in which, based on the ethnic composition of Augustów Province, it was questioned whether it was right that it belonged to the Kingdom of Poland: Vilenskii vestnik 12 (1865). 188 Letter of an unidentified person about the administrative division of the NWR, RGIA, f. 908, op. 1, d. 226, l. 4.

71

72

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

The Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries The concept of the NWR as a more or less solid region encompassing six provinces still occurred in the Russian discourse in the late imperial period. What that means is that this whole region was taken into account when officials discussed anti-Polish measures in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. At the same time, though, proposals would sometimes emerge that provided for the placement of the Belorussian provinces under the jurisdiction of the governor-general of Vilnius—that is, the return to the “experience of Count Murav’ev.”189 However, the trend of splitting this region into smaller areas was increasingly more pronounced in the Russian discourse at that time. As in the previous decades, officials divided the NWR into two parts: Lithuania and Belorussia. Yet those two regions were sometimes defined differently than in the past. Here, when considering the issue of the establishment of a school of higher education in the NWR early in the twentieth century, Vasilii Popov, supervisor of the Vilnius Education District, strongly opposed the establishment of such an institution in Vilnius, which was in the “Lithuanian region.” Popov attributed the provinces of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Suwałki and the western part of the province of Grodna to this region. Meanwhile, the “Belorussian region” was deemed to consist of the provinces of Vitsiebsk, Minsk, and Magileŭ, the eastern part of the province of Grodna, and some of the “Great Russian” provinces. With the structure of this region in mind, Popov argued that a “University of Belorussia” should be established in one of the “almost purely Russian provinces” (Minsk, for example) rather than in Vilnius, which was dominated by other nationalities.190 As we can see, the regions were here distinguished by combining ethnic criteria (the inclusion of the Suwałki Province into the “Lithuanian region”) with confessional benchmarks (Catholics comprised a majority in the “Lithuanian region”). 189 K. Drutskii-Liubetskii’s proposal with regard to reform in the NWR, GARF, f. 543, op. 1, d. 467, l. 23. 190 Reports from the supervisor of the Vilnius Education District to the minister of education, November 29, 1903; November 19, 1904; and December 22, 1905, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1908 m., b. 340, l. 21–25, 26–28, 29–33.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Another outstanding feature of the official Russian mental map in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries was the territorialization of ethnicity, which was significantly stronger than it had been before. The most striking example is the abolition of the governor-generalship of Vilnius early in the twentieth century. Over-arching imperial processes also had an influence on such a decision, as tsarist officials became increasingly convinced that this institution was ineffective, so it should be abolished.191 Speaking more specifically about the Western Region, proposals came from officials affirming that these institutions had already done their job and that the region was now tightly integrated into the empire,192 even though it is unlikely that any government official sincerely believed such arguments. Another reason mentioned in these discussions—that the existence of the governor-generalship gave a territory the status of a separate region—is easier to accept.193 Perhaps it is for this reason that the Russian Council of Ministers in its January 29, 1911, meeting ordered that, in the law on the abolition of the governor-generalship of Vilnius, the terms Western Region and NWR should not be mentioned,

191 K. Sokolov, “Ocherk istorii i sovremennogo znacheniia general-gubernatora,” Vestnik prava (October 1903): 45–56, 76; “Goremykin, mr.Vn.D., po voprosu o neobhodimosti dal’neishego sokhraneniia Gen. Gubernatorskago pravleniia v shesti guberniiakh Sev. Zapadnago kraia,” GARF, f. 543, op. 1, d. 470; Copy of a report from the director of the Department of Foreign Faiths at the Ministry of the Interior with regard to the governor-generalships in Kiev and Vilnius, RGIA, f. 1284, op. 185, 1910, d. 36, l. 9–32. 192 “Goremykin, mr.Vn.D., po voprosu o neobhodimosti dal’neishego sokhraneniia Gen. Gubernatorskago pravleniia v shesti guberniiakh Sev. Zapadnago kraia,” GARF, f. 543, op. 1, d. 470, l. 17; The legislative proposal of 40 members of the Russian Duma to dissolve the position of governor-general in Kiev Volhynia, and Podolia, as well as of the Steppes and the chancelleries existing thereby, GARF, f. 102, 2 deloproizvoidstvo, 1909, d. 14, chast’ 2, l. 5. 193 Copy of a report from the director of the Department of Foreign Faiths at the Ministry of the Interior with regard to the governor-generalships in Kiev and Vilnius, RGIA, f. 1284, op. 185, 1910, d. 36, l. 31; “Goremykin, mr.Vn.D., po voprosu o neobhodimosti dal’neishego sokhraneniia Gen. Gubernatorskago pravleniia v shesti guberniiakh Sev. Zapadnago kraia,” GARF, f. 543, op. 1, d. 470, l. 16; Sokolov, “Ocherk istorii,” 72. Strangely, it seems that the Ministry of Internal Affairs avoided this argument when it was preparing to abolish the governor-­ generalship of Vilnius in the early 1910s.

73

74

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

and all the provinces, Vilnius, Kaunas, and Grodna, should be listed separately.194 It should be noted that the empire’s ruling elite had strongly overvalued that institution’s ability to influence the mental maps of the non-dominant groups (Poles, Lithuanians, Belorussians, and Jews). To these non-dominant national groups, the presence of a given territory within the composition of the governor-generalship of Vilnius was irrelevant, and it is not surprising that the non-Russian press devoted very little attention to the news of the governor-generalship’s abolition early in the 1910s. However, the mere desire to destroy the ostensible regional identity of the NWR, which the existence of the governor-generalship gave it, is insufficient to provide an understanding of the imperial bureaucrats’ thinking. After all, this logic would mandate the simultaneous abolition of the governor-generalship of Kiev, which from the official viewpoint was undoubtedly better integrated into the empire than the NWR but was not abolished until much later, during World War I. It was, in fact, in Kiev, with no fear of any possible impact on the Poles, that the university moved from Vilnius operated. Of course, chance may have determined the chronology of abolition, initially in Vilnius and only later in Kiev, but the place of a given region in the Russian mental map may have influenced that chronology. Ministry of Internal Affairs ultimately justified the abolition of the governor-generalship of Vilnius as follows: “The further presence of the provinces of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Grodna, which differ in ethnic and confessional composition, under the supervision of the Vilnius governor-general is undesirable. At the time Grodna Province is almost all Russian and Orthodox, Kaunas [Province], Lithuanian and Catholic, and in Vilnius [Province] the majority are Belorussian Catholics.”195 In this case, the imperial officials seemingly wanted to “nationalize” the separate provinces—which is not, of course, equivalent to politicizing ethnicity. Here, this description of 194 Copy of the January 29, 1911, journal of the special meeting of the Council of Ministers, GARF, f. 102, 2 deloproizvodstvo, 1911, d. 37, l. 20. 195 Official letter from the minister of the interior regarding the revoking of the Vilnius governor-generalship, March 2, 1911, GARF, f. 102, 2 deloproizvodstvo, 1911, d. 37, l. 4.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

the provinces was more instrumental in nature and sought to justify the heterogeneity of the region; it was not related to attempts to construct territorial-administrative units based on an ethnic or confessional principle. Yet there was more than one example of such thinking in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. For part of the ruling elite of the empire, the territorialization of ethnicity seemed an appropriate instrument to help solve at least some of the national problems. Perhaps the most striking example of such thinking was the separation of “Chelm region” from the Kingdom of Poland and the creation of the Chelm Province in direct subordination to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. One historiographical account holds that Prime Minister Piotr Stolypin had been planning to join the “Polish” Belsk and Białystok districts (Grodna Province) to the Kingdom of Poland, in a consistent implementation of the idea of the consolidation of “national territories,” but he did not attempt to implement this program because he feared resistance from the Russian nationalists.196 Discussions among the empire’s officials on the fate of the non-Polish regions of the Kingdom of Poland also brought up the question of Suwałki Province. In 1898 Governor-General Vitalii Trotskii revived the idea of annexing Suwałki Province to the governor-generalship of Vilnius. In addition to various other arguments (the military rationale, the “rounding off” of the Kingdom of Poland, and the desire to humiliate the Poles), the ethnic argument was also presented, since Lithuanians comprised the majority of the population in this province. It cannot possibly be claimed that Trotskii was seeking to exercise the policy of “divide and rule,” that is, to strengthen the national consolidation of Lithuanian influence and thereby weaken the influence of the Poles in the region. Rather, he most likely mistakenly thought that these territorial-administrative reorganizations would reduce Lithuanian “separatism.” The empire’s officials followed a similar logic also in their discussions of other territorial-administrative reorganizations. Among the proposals that fell under their purview at the very end of the nineteenth 196 Aleksandra Bakhturina, “P. A. Stolypin i upravlenie okrainami Rossiiskoi imperii,” Rossiiskaia istoriia 2 (2012): 108–20.

75

76

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

century was the idea attaching “a few localities of Vilnius Province and some districts of Suwałki Province inhabited by Lithuanians,” to Kaunas Province.197 It is likely that the consolidation of the ethnic Lithuanian territories into one administrative compound would have only strengthened Lithuanian nationalism. Some high officials of the empire understood that very well. Warsaw Governor-General Aleksandr Imeretinskii warned that in addition to the various difficulties attendant on the implementation of such an idea, this congruence of ethnic and administrative borders might also entail untoward consequences “for the state interests of Russia”: “the government, by artificially creating special ethnographic units and grouping administrative centers by nationality, would only emphasize at the state level the existence of separate nationalities and would run counter to the tsar’s precepts, which safeguard the state interests of Russia.”198 Some of these territorial-administrative reorganizations, both proposed and implemented, had the goal of reducing the role of Vilnius in the region, which was usually considered a hotbed of Polish influence. A Russian university had not been established there after 1832 precisely because it was feared that the Poles would establish themselves in that institution. The role of Vilnius as a regional center would also have been lessened had the idea of abolishing the Roman Catholic diocese of Vilnius, joining part of it to the Telšiai (Samogitian) Diocese and the rest to the Lutsk-Zhytomyr Diocese, been implemented, but government-level discussions of this proposal ended without a decision.199 197 K. Drutskii-Liubetskii’s proposal with regard to reform in the NWR, GARF, f. 543, op. 1, d. 467, l. 17. 198 Top secret report from the Warsaw governor-general to the minister of the interior, January 4, 1899, RGIA, f. 1284, op. 185, 1898, d. 55, l. 8. The underlying logic of the various explicit and implied arguments against this idea in the correspondence of various officials should receive some attention. It could be helpful for the empire’s ruling elite to leave the ethnically non-Polish territory inside the Kingdom of Poland so that when the Poles began to demand national autonomy, they could be “reminded” of the kingdom’s non-Polish territories and thus have their right to such autonomy denied. 199 “Proekt uprazdneniia Vilenskoi rimsko-katolicheskoi eparkhii,” RGIA, f. 821, op. 138, d. 47.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Thus we see that specific actions pursuant to the nationality policy clearly showed the imperial government’s approach to Vilnius as a Polish city. Meanwhile, though, the city has a completely different persona in the official discourse.

THE SYMBOLIC APPROPRIATION OF SPACE Nowhere else can the efforts of the imperial government to symbolically appropriate the NWR be seen so well as in Vilnius, especially after the suppression of the 1863–64 uprising. Although after the establishment of Kaunas Province in 1843, Arsen’ev predicted the decline of Vilnius as a regional center,200 this forecast did not materialize, and in the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it retained its status as the “capital” of the NWR. Mikhail Murav’ev’s brother Andrei even called Vilnius “Lithuania’s heart.”201 In the Russian discourse, Vilnius was without doubt seen as a historically Russian city: the origin of its name was Russian;202 from its very founding a significant part of its population had been Russians;203 and Eastern Christianity first established itself here.204 The past of Vilnius in the Russian discourse was placed into the same (“Uvarov-­ Ustrialov”) historical narrative and has been briefly discussed earlier in this chapter. In guidebooks to Vilnius and similar literature, the second half of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the idea that at the beginning of history, Lithuanians came under the civilizational influence of the Russians, that the then-pagan Lithuania was “merged” with Rus’ and later “formed an indivisible unit” with it was impressed

200 Konstantin Arsen’ev, “Putevye zametki o Zapadnoi i Iugo-zapadnoi Rossii,” Vilenskie gubernskie vedomosti, 21 (May 25, 1846): 166. 201 [Andrei Murav’ev], Russkaia Vil’na: Prilozhenie k puteshestviiu po sv. mestam Russkim (Vilnius, 1865), 3. 202 Vil’na i okrestnosti: Putevoditel’ i istoricheskaia spravochnaia knizhka. S planom goroda Vil’ny, 9-iu risunkami i kartoiu Vilenskoi gubernii (Vilnius, 1883), 2; “Beloruss,” in Bibliograficheskaia zametka po povodu III toma Zhivopisnoi Rossii (Litva i Belorussiia—soch. Kirkora) (Vilnius, 1884), 25. 203 Vil’na i okrestnosti, 49; A. Vinogradov, Putevoditel’ po gorodu Vil’ne i ego okrestnostiam, 2nd ed. (Vilnius, 1907), 5. 204 Iu. Kriuchkovskii, Staraia Vil’na do kontsa XVII stoletiia (Vilnius, 1893), 5.

77

78

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

upon readers.205 To Andrei Murav’ev, Vilnius was undoubtedly one of Russia’s sacred places.206 He claimed that in the time of Grand Duke Gediminas, Eastern Christianity was already strong in Vilnius and strengthened further under Grand Duke Algirdas, but with the Union of Krewo, and even more so with the Union of Lublin, the Orthodox fell under persecution; and it was not until those areas (“Russian lands of old”) were attached to the Russian Empire did they find any relief.207 In accordance with this historical narrative, the imperial government tried to “restore” to Vilnius its purportedly authentic Russian and Orthodox aspect. Orthodox churches were foregrounded in the Vilnius guidebooks, thus creating the impression that Russians were predominant in the city.208 Some specific measures to change the city’s cultural landscape—the renaming of streets,209 the reconstruction or new construction of churches, the building of monuments in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (to Governor-General Murav’ev, the poet Alexander Pushkin, and Empress Catherine II)—served the same purpose. Since these efforts were most distinctly visible during the building of the monument to Murav’ev, we will discuss this episode in greater detail.210 According to the official history regarding the monument, the idea to honor Murav’ev in this way had arisen at the end of the 1880s,211 and after receiving the blessing of the tsar in 1891, a committee of tsarist officials was set up and funds were collected empire-wide.212 Construction 205 Ukazatel’ goroda Vil’ny, sostavlen po rasporiazheniiu g. glvanogo nachal’nika kraia (Vilnius, 1864), 119–120. 206 [Murav’ev], Russkaia Vil’na. 207 See, for example, Vil’na i okrestnosti; Pavel Lavrinec, “Rusiškasis Vilniaus tekstas,” in Naujasis Vilniaus perskaitymas: Didieji Lietuvos istoriniai pasakojimai ir daugiakultūrinis miesto paveldas, ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis and Grigorijus Potašenko (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2009), 257–277. 208 Vil’na i okrestnosti; Pavel Lavrinets, “Russkie putevoditeli po Vil’niusu XIX– nachala XX vv.: printsipy kompozitsii i otbora ob’’ektov,” in Putevoditeli kak semioticheskii ob’’ekt (Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2009), 219–39. 209 Ukazatel’ goroda Vil’ny, 5–7. 210 The scope of this study does not, unfortunately, allow the discussion of other similar episodes. 211 Kak sozdal’sia v g. Vil’ne pamiatnik Grafu M. N. Murav’evu (Vilnius, 1898), 5, 8. 212 Theodore R. Weeks, “Monuments and Memory: Immortalizing Count M. N. Muraviev in Vilna, 1898,” Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Figure 6.  Catherine II monument in Vilnius. Reproduced with permission

from the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Retų spaudinių skyrius (Rare Books Department), Fg. 1-1093 2.

of the monument began in 1897, and in 1898 the monument was officially unveiled in the square in front of the governor-general’s palace, at which time Palace Square was renamed Murav’ev Square.213 The unveiling ceremonies involved local and the central government officers along with relatives of Murav’ev, military units, Orthodox clergy, and pupils of local schools: “representatives from the city of Vilnius, townspeople, and peasants” also participated.214 The congratulatory telegrams sent to Vilnius to mark the start of construction and the monument’s unveiling sometimes intimated that Murav’ev was a great credit to the entire Russian Empire. During the first ceremony, some Ethnicity 27, no. 4 (1999): 551–64. 213 Extract from the minutes of the December 3, 1898, meeting of the Vilnius City Duma, RGIA, f. 1293, op. 128, b. 11, l. 42–43. 214 The ceremonial unveiling of M. Murav’ev’s monument, LVIA, f. 380, ap. 55, b. 692, l. 41.

79

80

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

speakers stressed that the monument should not be construed as a “rebuke to the Polish nation,” because Murav’ev had never fought with the Poles but had instead acted against “traitors who raised a weapon against their ruler.”215 The historian Theodore R. Weeks has even asserted that the rhetoric of the officials and of those sending the congratulatory telegrams “was not overtly anti-Polish.”216 These circumstances alone create the impression that the imperial government was seeking to instrumentalize the unveiling of this monument in a way that would emphasize traditional imperial patriotism. The monument committee actually utilized rhetoric very similar to that used in Uvarov’s definition of Russian imperial patriotism (“Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality”): in a letter written by the chairman of the monument committee, Murav’ev was described as a “fighter for Faith, Tsar, and Homeland.”217 When funds were being collected and construction launched, however, as well as during the unveiling ceremony, the prevailing rhetoric of the officials and other monument supporters displayed new features that had not typified the official Russian discourse in the first half of the nineteenth century. Weeks was to some extent correct in saying that this history of the construction of Murav’ev’s monument contained no “overtly antiPolish” propaganda. In 1891, when the emperor authorized the collection of funds for the Murav’ev monument, Metropolitan Platon of Kiev prepared a sermon primarily addressed to the Poles, reminding them that their claims to areas that were “Russian land of old” were illegal and that they should accept the fact that the Russians were the “legitimate heirs of the old rulers’ land.”218 However, Procurator of the Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev, taking into account the “political circumstances of the period,” did not approve the distribution of this sermon, saying that “it would be wise to refrain from reminders about 215 Kak sozdal’sia, 46. 216 Weeks, “Monuments and Memory,” 558. 217 Letter of the chairman of the monument to M. Murav’ev on August 10, 1898, to the Vilnius governor, LVIA, f. 380, ap. 55, b. 692, l. 2. 218 Sermon of the Orthodox Metropolitan Platon of Kiev, written after receiving permission to collect funds for M. Murav’ev’s monument in Vilnius, RGIA, f. 797, op. 61, 2 otd., 2 stol., d. 249, l. 3–12.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Figure 7. Murav’ev monument in Vilnius. Reproduced with permission

from the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Retų spaudinių skyrius (Rare Books Department), Atv-103 1283.

the unfortunate uprising and the vicious attitude of the Poles toward Russian faith, power, and nationality [narodnost’].”219 But even with no frankly anti-Polish rhetoric, the monument did have clear anti-Polish connotations, because the figure of Murav’ev in both the Russian and Polish historical narratives had clear symbolic meanings related to the suppression of the 1863–64 uprising. The difference was that in the Russian discourse, that activity was valued as a restoration of justice and a great credit to the empire and the Russian nation, while the Polish discourse classified it as the brutal suppression of a fight for freedom. Commenting on the unveiling of the monument, the governor of Vilnius remarked that “Polish society had not yet abandoned its hostile feelings in regard to the activities of Count Murav’ev.”220 The authors of some of the congratulatory telegrams identified the governor-general’s 219 Letter from the Ober-procurator of the Holy Synod to the Metropolitan Platon, August 22, 1891, RGIA, f. 797, op. 61, 2 otd., 2 stol., d. 249, l. 14. 220 Vilnius governor’s report for 1898, LVIA, f. 378, BS, 1898 m., b. 47, l. 2.

81

82

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

greatest achievement as the fight against the Poles221 while only the officials who had worked with Murav’ev to “suppress the last insurrection of the Poles” (rather than all who had served in the NWR in 1863 to 1865) were invited to the unveiling ceremony.222 In the end, the principal underlying message was that this region had been “Russian of old” and that Murav’ev deserved a great deal of praise for restoring its true origins. But from the point of view of Polish society (as the imperial officials understood very well), that message was inherently anti-Polish because it denied Polish rights to this territory. As Richard Wortman has noted, the representation of the Russian Empire as a national (Russian) monarchy that began in the reign of Alexander III (1881–94) was still strong when Nicholas II (1894–1917) came to power.223 The conceptualization of the Romanov Empire as a state of Russians is also visible in the history of Murav’ev’s monument. The most radical expression of this interpretation can be seen in the greeting that Grigory Kulchinskii sent on the occasion of the monument’s unveiling, which ended with “Russia first of all for the Russians, hurrah!”224 Most often in the Russian discourse of that time, the construction of the monument to Murav’ev was interpreted as a matter of “real Russians.” We also find this same kind of rhetoric in the telegram sent by Tsar Nicholas II to mark the occasion.225 Furthermore, this region was identified quite frequently during this episode as Western Rus’, Northwest Rus’, the Lithuanian Rus’ or Rus’.226 221 Letter from the Warsaw University Professor P. Kulakovskii to Vitalii Nikolaevich [Trotskii], November 1, 1898, LVIA, f. 439, ap. 1, b. 92, l. 18; Kak sozdal’sia, 37 (Telegram from professors at Warsaw University). 222 Letter from the chairman of the [committee on the] monument to M. Murav’ev on August 10, 1898, to the Vilnius governor, LVIA, f. 380, ap. 55, b. 692, l. 2. 223 Richard Wortman, “The Tsar and the Empire. Representation of the Monarchy and Symbolic Integration in Imperial Russia,” in Comparing Empires: Encounters and Transfers in the Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Jörn Leonhard and Ulrike von Hirschhausen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 266–86. 224 Kak sozdal’sia, 37–38. 225 Alexander II’s telegram, LVIA, f. 439, ap. 1, b. 93, l. 46. For similar rhetoric see LVIA, f. 439, ap. 1, b. 91, l. 7–8; LVIA, f. 439, ap. 1, b. 93, l. 2. 226 Letter from Vitsiebsk high school pupils, November 8, 1898, LVIA, f. 439, ap. 1, b. 91, l. 7–8; letter from Professor Ivan Filevich to Vitalii Nikolaevich [Trotskii], October 31, 1898, LVIA, f. 439, ap. 1, b. 92, l. 21; Telegram from Archbishop

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

* * *

In the nineteenth century, the imperial government and its experts in the fields of statistics, ethnography, and history were able to identify new arguments in support of Russian rights to the GDL’s former lands. From the 1830s, on the initiative of Minister of Education Uvarov, Russia’s historical rights to the GDL as a Russian state began to find systematic expression. The symbolically crucial moment came just before the 1830–31 uprising when the term “the provinces returned from Poland” was first used. The term the Western [Russian] Region established this trend even more strongly. The ethnic composition of the territory was not systematically used as an argument by tsarist officials until later, beginning in the 1860s, which was when tsarist officials also began making persistent efforts to “restore” the correct (Russian) names of places. Still later, at the junction of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the symbolic appropriation of space also intensified. At the same time, the following facts show that the ruling and intellectual elite of the empire saw Belorussia as a separate region within the lands of the former GDL: the existence of the distinct space name (Belorussia), which was applied to the territories annexed after the first and second partitions; plans discussed at the highest imperial levels for the restoration of Poland, including the lands of the former GDL but not Belorussia; the practice of nationality policies; and even the texts of such influential historians like Karamzin. That said, Belorussia was not yet a one hundred percent Russian “national territory.” Various projects of territorial-administrative reform discussed from the 1830s serve to clarify the exclusive place of Belorussia within the territory of the former GDL; those projects often recommended the transfer of some territories of the Belorussian provinces to the provinces of “inner Russia” and part of the “Lithuanian-Polish” provinces to the Belorussian provinces. These oft-repeated plans clearly show that the Belorussian provinces were more Russian in the eyes of officials than their Ieronim of Warsaw, November 7, 1898; Telegram from Archbishop Modest of Zhitomir, November 8, 1898, LVIA, f. 439, ap. 1, b. 93, l. 26–27.

83

84

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Lithuanian counterparts but were still not quite the same as the inner reaches of the empire. The Russian discourse also discussed the Lithuanian-populated area. The habitat of ethnic Lithuanians or even Lithuania Propria (embracing not only the ethnic Lithuanian lands, excluding Samogitia, but also the territories included in Lithuania in the thirteenth century) was well described in historical writings. Further, the territory inhabited by Lithuanians was first shown on ethnographic maps during the nineteenth century. Often that Lithuanian ethnic territory (in the 1863 and 1864 Batiushkov-Rittikh, Korevo, and Erkert maps) was larger than that determined according to the linguistic criteria accepted by ethnographers of the time (see Koeppen and the later works of Rittikh). This is because in the former case, imperial experts used the publications of “Polish” experts (Narbutt and Kirkor), in which the most important criterion determining ethnicity was origin. This approach, which could be considered favorable to Lithuanians, was most probably related to the fact that the Russian viewpoint did not class Lithuanians as a political problem (or at least as a problem less fraught than the “Polish question”); moreover, Russian scholars usually treated the Lithuanians (along with the Latvians) if not as Slavs, then at least as the ethnic group closest to the Slavs. Imperial officials also recognized that Lithuanian place names were legitimate in Kaunas Province. Some territorial-administrative programs repeatedly proposed the territorialization of ethnicity, as a measure directed against the domination of the Poles in the western borderlands of the empire—combining, for example, the Lithuanian-dominated areas into one province. However, these plans did not foresee the politicization of ethnicity, that is, the recognition of those new administrative units as “belonging” to the Lithuanians with all the ensuing consequences (the granting of some degree of self-government). On the administrative map, moreover, Lithuania did not even exist as a territorial unit. The imperial government and Russian nationalists also saw no place for Lithuanians in the cultural landscape that was being constructed according to the Uvarov-Ustrialov historical narrative discussed earlier in this chapter. The most important elements of this landscape were the Orthodox churches and the monuments to heroes (Murav’ev and Catherine) that symbolized the Russian rule over this territory.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Was the territory inhabited by Lithuanians therefore a Russian “national territory” or only part of the Romanov Empire? This study does not and cannot provide a clear answer to the question. “Lithuania” found no place in the official place-names, and ethnographic experts were stressing the Lithuanians’ ethnic kinship to the Slavs. In addition, historical and certain other texts (primarily the works of Ustrialov) used the term “Rus’” for all the lands of the former GDL, and thus for the territory of ethnic Lithuanians, although it usually implied an ethnically and confessionally homogenous East Slavic territory. In this way, the impression was being created that the Lithuanians were also part of the Russian ethnic habitat. Finally, some influential local tsarist officials were declaring that the first settlers in the territory of what was now Kaunas Province had been Russians, while the Lithuanians arrived only in the eleventh century. Thus, in certain contexts, the ethnic lands of the Lithuanians might not always be treated as a Russian “national territory,” but were at least potentially capable of being categorized as such. Also favorable to this reasoning were the Russian Empire’s nationality policies after the 1863–64 uprising, whose purpose was the acculturation of the Lithuanians, which was to be followed by assimilation.227 Seen from the perspective of Russian nationalism, this assimilation policy could only be conducted in Russian “national territory,” rather than elsewhere in the empire. On the other hand, the Lithuanian-inhabited territory was clearly recorded on ethnographic maps, and the Lithuanian factor was taken into account in the planning of the territorial-administrative reforms. Additionally, in the mid-nineteenth century and even sometimes during the late imperial period, the most important element of national affiliation in the Russian discourse was the confession of faith (only the Orthodox, and the Old Believers, were perceived as Russians). Following this reasoning, as long as most Lithuanians were Catholics, their residential habitat could never be regarded as a Russian “national territory.” Thus, there are more arguments in favor of than against the thesis that the ethnic Lithuanian territory 227 Staliūnas, Making Russians.

85

86

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

on the Russian mental map was not a Russian “national territory.” Yet in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Russian discourse was already viewing the territory “belonging” to the Lithuanians without Vilnius, as can be seen in Rittikh’s 1875 map, in the historical texts that claimed that the city was founded on the land of the Slavs, and in the strategy of the symbolic appropriation of space.

Archival Sources

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arkhiv Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva (Archives of the Russian Geographical Society; ARGO) f. 1 Kantseliariia Russkogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archives of the Russian Federation; GARF) f. 102 Departament Politsii Ministerstva Vnutrennikh Del f. 109 III otdelenie s. e. i. v. kantseliarii f. 543 Kollektsiia Rukopisei Tsarskosel’skogo Dvortsa Kauno apskrities archyvas (Kaunas County Archives; KAA) f. 50 Kauno gubernatoriaus kanceliarija (Chancery of the Governor of Kaunas) Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archives; LVIA) f. 378 Vilniaus generalgubernatoriaus kanceliarija (Chancery of the Governor-general of Vilnius) f. 380 Vilniaus gubernatoriaus kanceliarija (Chancery of the Governor of Vilnius) f. 388 Vilniaus gubernijos statistikos komitetas (Vilnius Province S ­ tatistics Committee) f. 439 Grafo Michailo Muravjovo muziejus (Count Mikhail Murav’ev Museum) f. 567 Vilniaus Švietimo apygardos valdyba (Vilnius Education District Administration) f. 605 Vilniaus stačiatikių vyskupystės dvasinė konsistorija (Vilnius Orthodox Diocesan Consistory)

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Otdel rukopisei Rossiiskoi natsional’noi biblioteki (Manuscript Division of the Russian National Library; OR RNB) f. 523 N. Novikov f. 856 I. A. Shestakov Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Historical Archives; RGIA) f. 733 Departament narodnogo prosveshcheniia Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia f. 797 Kantseliariia Ober-prokurora Sinoda f. 821 Departament dukhovnykh del inostrannykh ispovedanii f. 908 P. Valuev f. 940 A. Zablotskii-Desiatovskii f. 1282 Kantseliariia Ministra vnutrennikh del f. 1284 Departament obshchikh del Ministerstva vnutrennikh del f. 1286 Departament politsii Ministerstva vnutrennikh del f. 1288 Glavnoe upravlenie po delam mestnogo khoziaistva MVD f. 1290 Tsentral’nyi statisticheskii komitet Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi voenno-istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Military Archives; RGVIA) f. 1 Kantseliariia voennogo ministerstva

Periodicals Biblioteka dlia chteniia, Kuryer Litewski, Litovskaia Rus’, Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkago Geograficheskago obshchestva, Tygodnik Peterburski, Vestnik Iugo-zapadnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii, Vilenskie gubernskie vedomosti, Vilenskii vestnik.

Books and Articles Afanas’ev, Dmitrii. Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba. Vol. 1, Kovenskaia guberniia. St. Petersburg, 1861. Aleksandravičius, Egidijus. “Tautinio identiteto link: 1852–1854 m. ‘mokinių byla’.” Kultūros barai 7–8 (1990): 96–99. Aleksandravičius, Egidijus, and Antanas Kulakauskas. Carų valdžioje: XIX amžiaus Lietuva. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1996.

87

88

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Ambroziak, Daria. “Każdy baron ma swoją fantazję.” Józef Sękowski: Polak z pochodzenia, Rosjanin z wyboru. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski, 2007. Arsen’ev, Konstantin. Statisticheskie ocherki Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1848. Bakhturina, Aleksandra. “P. A. Stolypin i upravlenie okrainami Rossiiskoi imperii.” Rossiiskaia istoriia 2 (2012): 108–20. “Beloruss.” In Bibliograficheskaia zametka po povodu III toma Zhivopisnoi Rossii (Litva i Belorussiia—soch. Kirkora). Vilnius, 1884. Belyi Ales’. “Belaia Rus’.” In Vialikaia kiastva Litouskae: Entsyklapedyia, 306–8. Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 2005. ___. Khronika Belai Rusi: Narys gistoryi adnoi geagrafichnai nazvy. Minsk: Entsyklapedyks, 2000. Błachowska, Katarzyna. Wiele historii jednego państwa: Obraz dziejów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego do 1569 roku w ujęciu historików polskich, rosyjskich, ukraińskich, litewskich i białoruskich w XIX wieku. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Neriton, 2009. Bobrovskii, Pavel. Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba. Vol. 2, Grodnenskaia guberniia. St. Petersburg, 1863. Brüggemann, Karsten. “Das Baltikum im russischen Blick: Russland und sein Anspruch auf die baltischen Staaten in der Perspektive des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Nordosteuropa als Geschichtsregion: Beiträge des III. Internationalen Symposiums zur deustchen Kultur und Geschichte im europäischen Nordosten vom 20.–22. September 2001 in Tallinn (Estland), ed. Jörg Hackmann and Robert Schweitzer, 392–411. Helsinki: Aue-Stiftung, Lübeck: Verlag Schmidt-Römhild, 2006. ___. “The Baltic Provinces and Russian Perceptions in Late Imperial Russia.” In Russia on the Baltic: Imperial Strategies of Power and Cultural Patterns of Perception (16th–20th Centuries), ed. Karsten Brüggemann and Bradley D. Woodworth, 111–41. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2012. “Catherine II’s decree of December 8, 1792, addressed to General M. Krechetnikov.” In Sbornik Imperatorskogo Russkago Geograficheskago obshchestva 47 (1885): 473–82.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

“Chetyre politicheskie zapiski grafa M. N. Murav’eva Vilenskogo.” Russkii arkhiv 6 (1885): 161–99. Dolbilov, Mikhail. Russkii krai, chuzhaia vera: Etnokonfessional’naia politika imperii v Litve i Belorussii pri Aleksandre II. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2010. Dolbilov, Mikhail, and Aleksei Miller. Zapadnye krainy Rossiiskoi imperii. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2006. Erkert, Roderick. Etnograficheskii atlas zapadno Russkikh gubernii i sosednikh oblastei. St. Petersburg, 1863. ___. Vzgliad na istoriiu i etnografiiu Zapadnykh gubernii Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1864. Filiushkin, Aleksandr. “‘Drugaia Rus’ v russkoi istoriografii.” In Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir paveldo “dalybos,” ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis, and Grigorijus Potašenko, 93–113. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008. Gajdučik Viktor N., and Matthias Barelkowski. “Die Gouvernements Vicebsk und Mahilëǔ nach den Teilungen Polen-Litauens (1772– 1830/31).” In Die Teilungen Polen-Litauens: Inklusions- und Exklusionsme­chanismen—Traditionsbildung—Vergleichsebenen, ed. Hans-­Jürgen Bömelburg, Andreas Gestrich, and Helga SchnabeklSchüle, 245–89. Osnabrück: fibre, 2013. Ganzenmüller, Jörg. Russische Staatsgewalt und polnischer Adel: Elitenintegration und Staatsausbau im Westen des Zarenreiches (1772–1850). Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 2013. German, Karl. Statisticheskiia issledovaniia otnositel’no Rossiiskoi imperii. Pt. 1: O narodonaselenii. St. Petersburg, 1819. Gil’ferding, Aleksandr. “Neskol’ko zamechanii o litovskom i zhmudskom plemeni.” In Sbornik statei, raz’iasniaiushchikh pol’skoe delo po otnosheniiu k zapadnoi Rossii, ed. S. Sholkovich, 106–27. Vilnius, 1885. Gorizontov, Leonid. “In Search of Internal Balance: Debate on Changes in the Territorial-Administrative Division of the Russian Empire in the 1830s and 1840s.” In Imperiology: From Empirical Knowledge to Discussing the Russian Empire, ed. Kimitaka Matsuzato, 179–98. Sapporo: Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University 2007.

89

90

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Kak sozdal’sia v g. Vil’ne pamiatnik Grafu M. N. Murav’evu. Vilnius, 1898 Kalnius, Petras. Žemaičiai. XX a.–XXI a. pradžia. Vilnius: Mintis, 2012. Kamenskii, Aleksandr. “Razdely Pol’shii vozrozhdenie istoricheskoi pamiati v Rossii XVIII veka.” [unpublished manuscript]. Karamzin, Nikolai. “Mnenie russkogo grazhdanina.” Accessed May 1, 2015. http://dugward.ru/library/karamzin/karamzin_mnenie_ russkogo_grajdanina.html. [Keppen, Piotr]. O proiskhozhdenii, iazyke i literature Litovskikh narodov. St. Petersburg, 1827. Kirkor, Adam Honory. “Statisticheskii vzgliad na Vilenskuiu guberniiu.” In Istoricheski-statisticheskie ocherki Vilenskoi gubernii. Vilnius, 1853. Knight, Nathaniel. “Science, Empire, and Nationality Ethnography in the Russian Geographical Society, 1845–1855.” In Imperial Russia: New Histories for the Empire, ed. Jane Burbank and David Ransel, 108–41. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. ___. “Seeking the Self in the Other: Ethnographic Studies of Non-Russians in the Russian Geographical Society, 1845–1860.” In Defining Self: Essays on Emergent Identities in Russia. Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Branch, 117–38. Helsinki: Finnish Society, 2009. Köppen, Piotr. “Der litauische Volksstamm. Ausbreitung und Stärke desselben in der Mitte des XIX. Jahrhunderts.” Bulletin de la classe historico-philologique de L’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg 8, nos. 18–19 (1851): 273–92. Korevo, Anton. Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba: Vilenskaia guberniia. St. Petersburg, 1861. Kriuchkovskii, Iu. Staraia Vil’na do kontsa XVII stoletiia. Vilnius, 1893. Kulakauskas, Antanas. Kova už valstiečių sielas: Caro valdžia, Lietuvos visuomenė ir pradinis švietimas XIX a. viduryje. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, 2000. Lavrinec, Pavel. “Rusiškasis Vilniaus tekstas.” In Naujasis Vilniaus perskaitymas: Didieji Lietuvos istoriniai pasakojimai ir daugiakultūrinis

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

miesto paveldas, ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis, and Grigorijus Potašenko, 257–77. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2009. ___. “Russkie putevoditeli po Vil’niusu XIX–nachala XX vv.: printsipy kompozitsii i otbora ob’’ektov.” In Putevoditel’ kak semioticheskii ob’’ekt, 219–39. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus, 2009. Lebedkin, Mikhail. “O plemennom sostave narodonaseleniia zapadnogo kraia Rossiskoi imperii.” Zapiski Imperatorskogo russkago geograficheskogo obshchestva 3 (1861): 131–60. LeDonne, John P. The Grand Strategy of the Russian Empire, 1650–1831. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Liubavskii, Matvei. Oblastnoe delenie i mestnoe upravlenie Litovsko-­ russkago gosudarstva ko vremeni izdaniia pervago Litovskago statuta. Moscow, 1892. Lukashevich, Andrei. “Proekty vosstanovleniia Rechi Pospolitoi i Velikogo kniazhestva Litovskogo i ikh mesto v voenno-strategicheskom ­planirovanii Rossiiskoi imperii (1810–1812 gg.).” Accessed January 14, 2014. http://www.museum.ru/1812/Library/Lukashevich/index.html. Lukšienė, Meilė. Lietuvos švietimo istorijos bruožai XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje. Kaunas: Šviesa, 1970. Medišauskienė, Zita. “Laikas-Erdvė-žmogus.” In Bairašauskaitė, Tamara, Zita Medišauskienė, and Rimantas Miknys. Lietuvos istorija. Vol. 8, pt. 1, Devynioliktas amžius: Visuomenė ir valdžia, 15–176. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011. ___. Rusijos cenzūra Lietuvoje XIX a. viduryje. Kaunas: VDU, 1998. Merkys, Vytautas. Knygnešių laikai: 1864–1904. Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras, 1994. ___. Motiejus Valančius: Tarp katalikiško universalizmo ir tautiškumo. Vilnius: Mintis, 1999. ___. Tautiniai santykiai Vilniaus vyskupijoje 1798–1918 m. Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2006. Miller, Alexei. The Romanov Empire and Nationalism: Essays in the Methodology of Historical Research. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2008.

91

92

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

[Murav’ev, Andrei]. Russkaia Vil’na: Prilozhenie k puteshestviiu po sv. mestam Russkim. Vilnius, 1865. Nikitenko, Aleksandr. Zapiski i dnevnik. Vol. 1 (Moscow: Zakharov, 2005). Accessed March 11, 2015, http://www.imwerden.info/ belousenko/books/memoirs/nikitenko_dnevnik_1.htm. Obolenskii, A. Atlas Rossiiskoi imperii, prisposoblennyi k geograficheskim uchebnikam v gimnaziiakh i uezdnykh uchilishchakh. St. Petersburg, 1849. Petronis, Vytautas. Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800−1914. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007. Podrobnyi atlas Rossiiskoi imperii s planami glavnykh gorodov: 70 kart. St. Petersburg, 1876. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii. Prašmantaitė, Aldona. 1863 metų sukilimas ir Katalikų Bažnyčia Lietuvoje. Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2014. Rittikh, Aleksandr. Atlas narodonaseleniia Zapadno-Russkogo kraia po ispovedniiam: Sostavlen pri Ministerstve vnutrennikh del v Kantseliarii zaveduiushchego ustroistvom pravoslavnykh tserkvei v zapadnykh guberniiakh. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1864. Rittikh, Aleksandr. Etnograficheskaia karta Evropeiskoi Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1875. Rubinshtein, S., ed. Khronologicheskii ukazatel’ ukazov i pravitel’stvennykh rasporiazhenii po guberniiam zapadnoi Rossii, Belorussii i Malorossii za 240 let s 1652 po 1892 god. Vilnius, 1894. Saunders, David B. “Historians and Concepts of Nationality in Early Nineteenth-Century Russia.” Slavonic and East European Review 60, no. 1 (January 1982): 44–62. [Senkovskii, Osip]. Neskol’ko zamechanii na posledniuiu pol’skuiu revoliutsiiu. St. Petersburg, 1831. Shafarik, Pavel. Slavianskie drevnosti. Vol. 1, Book 2. Moscow, 1847. ___. Slavianskoe narodopisanie. Moscow, 1843. Sirutavičius, Vladas. “Tautiškumo kriterijai multietninių visuomenių statistikoje. XIX a. vidurio Lietuvos pavyzdys.” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis, 1998 metai (1999): 74–85.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Slezkin, Yurii. “Naturalists versus Nations: Eighteenth-Century Russian Scholars Confront Ethnic Diversity.” Representations 47 (1994): 170–195. Šmigelskytė-Stukienė, Ramunė, ed. Lenkijos-Lietuvos valstybės padalijimų dokumentai. Pt. 1, Sankt Peterburgo konvencijos. Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2008. Sobranie Drevnikh gramot i aktov gorodov: Vil’ny, Kovna, Trok, pravoslavnykh monastyrei, tserkvei, i po raznym predmetam. Pt. 1. Vilnius, 1843. Sobranie sochinenii Senkovskogo (barona Brambeusa). Vol. 6. St. Petersburg, 1859. Sochineniia I. S. Aksakova. Vol. 3: Pol’skii vopros i Zapadno-russkoe delo. 1860–1886: Stat’i iz Dnia, Moskvy, Moskvicha i Rusi. Moscow, 1886. Sokolov, K. “Ocherk istorii i sovremennogo znacheniia general-­ gubernatora.” Vestnik prava (October 1903): 39–76. Sprogis, Ivan. Istoricheskii slovar’ drevnej Zhomoitskoi zemli, XVI stoletiia. Vilnius, 1888. Staliūnas, Darius. “Between Russification and Divide and Rule: Russian Nationality Policy in the Western Borderlands in mid-19th Century.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 3 (2007): 358–73. ___. “Imperial Nationality Policy and the Russian Version of the History of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Central Europe 8, no. 2 (November 2010): 146–57. ___. Making Russians: Meaning and Practice of Russification in Lithuania and Belarus after 1863. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. ___. “National Census in the Service of the Russian Empire: The Western Borderlands in the Mid-Nineteenth Century, 1830–1870.” In Defining Self: Essays on Emergent Identities in Russia. Seventeenth to Nineteenth Centuries, ed. Michael Branch, 435–48. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society. ___. “Problema administrativno-territorial’nykh granits v ‘natsio­ nal’noi politike’ imperskoi vlasti: Kovenskaia guberniia v seredine

93

94

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

XIX veka.” In Rossiiskaia imperiia: Strategii stabilizatsii i opyty obnovleniia, 147–66. Voronezh, 2004. ___. Visuomenė be universiteto? (Aukštosios mokyklos atkūrimo problema Lietuvoje: XIX a. vidurys–XX a. Pradžia) Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2000. Szabaciuk, Andrzej. “Rosyjski Ulster”: Kwestia Chełmska w polityce imperialnej Rosji w latach 1863–1915. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 2013. Topograficheskiia primechaniia na znatneishie mesta puteshestviia Eia Imperatorskogo Velichestva v Belorusskiia namestnichestva 1780. [St. Petersburg], 1780. Ukazatel’ goroda Vil’ny, sostavlen po rasporiazheniiu g. glvanogo nachal’nika kraia. Vilnius, 1864. Ustrialov, Nikolai. Issledovanie voprosa, kakoe mesto v russkoi istorii dolzhno zanimat’ Velikoe Kniazhestvo Litovskoe? St. Petersburg, 1839. ___. O sisteme pragmaticheskoi russkoi istorii. St. Petersburg, 1836. ___. Russkaia istoriia. 2nd ed. Pt. 1. St. Petersburg, 1839. ___. Russkaia istoriia. 5th ed. Pt. 1. St. Petersburg, 1855. ___. “Vospominaniia o moei zhizni.” In Drevniaia i novaia Rossiia (August 1880): 603–86. Vil’na i okrestnosti: Putevoditel’ i istoricheskaia spravochnaia knizhka. S planom goroda Vil’ny, 9-iu risunkami i kartoiu Vilenskoi gubernii. Vilnius, 1883. “Vilniaus generalgubernatoriaus grafo Edvardo Baranovo nuomonė apie Motiejų Valančių.” Žemaičių praeitis 1 (1990): 128–37. Vinogradov, A. Putevoditel’ po gorodu Vil’ne i ego okrestnostiam. 2nd ed. Vilnius, 1907. Voenno-statisticheskoe obozrenie Rossiiskoi imperii. Vol. 9, pt. 2: Vilenskaia guberniia. St. Petersburg, 1848. Weeks, Theodore R. “Monuments and Memory: Immortalizing Count M. N. Muraviev in Vilna, 1898.” Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity 27, no. 4 (1999): 551–64. ___. Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the Western Frontier, 1863–1914. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996.

Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map

Wortman, Richard. “The Tsar and the Empire. Representation of the Monarchy and Symbolic Integration in Imperial Russia.” In Comparing Empires: Encounters and Transfers in the Long Nineteenth Century, ed. Jörn Leonhard and Ulrike von Hirschhausen, 266–86. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Zasztowt, Leszek. Kresy 1832–1864: Szkolnictwo na ziemiach Litewskich i Ruskich dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Warsaw: Instytut Historii Nauk PAN, 1997. Zelenskii, I. Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba. Vol. 3: Minskaia guberniia. St. Petersburg, 1864. Ziablovskii, Evdokim. Kratkoe zempleopisanie Rossiiskogo gosudarstva v nyneshnem ego sostoianii dlia pol’zy uchashchikhsia. St. Petersburg, 1807. ___. Rossiiskaia statistika. Pt. 1. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1842. ___. Statisticheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii v nyneshnem eia sostoianii, s predvaritel’nymi poniatiiami o Statistike i o Evrope voobshche v statisticheskom vide. St. Petersburg, 1808. ___. Statisticheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii v nyneshnem eia sostoianii i s obshchim obozreniem Evropy v statisticheskom vide. St. Petersburg, 1815. Zorin, Andrei. Kormia dvukhglavogo orla . . . Literatura i gosudarstvennaia ideologiia v Rossii v poslednei treti XVIII–pervoi treti XIX veka. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2004.

95

CHAPTER 2

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Zita Medišauskienė At the end of the twentieth century, historians Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas raised an unexpected question that might appear to be a slap in the face for many readers: What was Lithuania in the nineteenth century?1 The question was shocking because from the beginning of the twentieth century—without significant changes during Soviet times—Lithuanian historiography aspired to look for Lithuanians in the history of Lithuania. At the same time, the space of Lithuania’s history was studied essentially by trying to squeeze it into the ethnic territory of the Lithuanians or the borders of Lithuania established after World War II. Meanwhile, these two historians argued, in the first half of the nineteenth century, Lithuania was perceived not as an ethnic space, but as a historical space encompassing the territory of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). Only after 1863 did this   1 Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas, Carų valdžioje: XIX amžiaus Lietuva (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1996), 21–25. Even earlier Egidijus Aleksandravičius posed this question: Egidijus Aleksandravičius, “Politiniai lietuvių siekiai 1863–1914 m.,” Metmenys 61 (1991): 22–41; Egidijus Aleksandravičius, XIX amžiaus profiliai (Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla, 1993), 133–148; Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas, “Lietuva XIX amžiuje,” Baltos lankos 1 (1991): 61–73. Vincas Trumpa also wrote about competing concepts of the territory of Lithuania: Vincas Trumpa, Lietuva XIX-tame amžiuje (Chicago: Algimanto Mackaus knygų leidimo fondas, 1989), 31.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

space “split” into ethnographic Lithuania and Belarus.2 Subsequent works emphasized not only Lithuania’s different image in the first half of the nineteenth century compared to the middle of the twentieth century, but also the intensive change in this image that occurred in the nineteenth century in various communication networks (in different segments of Lithuanian society).3 This chapter analyzes in detail what image or images of Lithuania existed in Lithuanian society in the first half of the nineteenth century, more precisely from 1795 to 1864, and how these images were affected by political, social, and cultural processes.4 Using Henri Lefebvre’s theory about the social construction of space, the chapter mostly deals with the representation of space—the functioning of the image of Lithuania and the definition of Lithuania’s space in different communication networks. First, I will explore how Lithuania’s image changed in the eyes of its nobility, who used the Polish language. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Lithuania had a feudal society with a very weak class of townspeople, so the nobility dominated the economic, social, and cultural life of the land. Only at the beginning of the nineteenth century at Vilnius University—until the university’s closure in 1832—did an actively manifested group of people of science and culture create an influential intellectual center developing and promoting new ideas and   2 Aleksandravičius and Kulakauskas, Carų valdžioje, 21–25.   3 Tamara Bairašauskaitė, Zita Medišauskienė and Rimantas Miknys, Devynioliktas amžius: Visuomenė ir valdžia, vol. 8, pt. 1 of Lietuvos istorija (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011), 34–55; Zita Medišauskienė, “Lietuva ir jos ribos 1795–1915 metais,” in Lietuvos sienos: Tūkstantmečio istorija (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2009), 66–75; Zita Medišauskienė, “Lietuvos samprata XIX a. viduryje,” in Praeities baruose (Vilnius: Žara, 1999), 175–82.   4 Selected chronological limits mark the nineteenth-century period of Lithuania’s history, beginning with the incorporation of the lands of the GDL into the Russian Empire and ending with the defeat of the 1863–64 uprising. During the uprising and especially after it the conditions under which social and cultural activities took place essentially changed. The social and cultural practices that began before the uprising ceased and post-uprising repression scattered many of society’s most active members. After the abolition of serfdom in 1861 significant changes in the social structure took place, new social groups were formed, old ones were transformed, and new ideas were introduced to reexamine the relationship with tradition.

97

98

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

values that contributed substantially to the reconstruction of the image of Lithuania at that time. Another communication network, a group made up of educated nobility and commoners from the ethnic Lithuanian lands, focused on the restoration of the Lithuanian language in the public space and the creation and dissemination of Lithuanian writings. The image of Lithuania functioning in these networks will be reconstructed at the level of discourse by analyzing Lithuanian writings in Polish and Lithuanian in the first half of the nineteenth century across a range of genres.5 However, political restrictions placed on social and cultural activities in the first half of the nineteenth century served to limit the range of genres being published in Lithuania. This study will therefore focus on fiction and travel descriptions, and a smaller share of source material will consist of geographical, historical, statistical, and economic works. Didactic and religious writings, as well as calendars for the populace, were prevalent within Lithuanian discourse. Fiction and travelogues also provide material about the symbolic dimension of space and the emotional experience of space—topics that are only cursorily addressed in this chapter. Documents issued by the leading institutions of the uprisings in 1830–31 and 1863–64 and the publications (newspapers, leaflets, etc.) distributed during the uprisings are of particular interest. Geo-images of Lithuania and the whole former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) can be found within them. Furthermore these documents encouraged specific spatial practices. However, before beginning the reconstruction of the image of Lithuania, I will discuss the factors that shaped this image in the nineteenth century. I will discuss both the political process and important developments in the spheres of culture and values. The content of Lithuania’s image and the changes this content underwent during the nineteenth century, as well as the symbolization   5 In the first half of the nineteenth century, authors writing in Lithuanian were usually bilingual: they wrote in the Lithuanian and Polish languages or used Polish as the means of personal communication. Thus, in this chapter Lithuanian discourse is being defined as the discourse of authors pursuing the objective of returning the Lithuanian language to public life but not writing exclusively in the Lithuanian language.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

of Lithuania’s space and its emotional experience, are increasingly attracting the attention of scholars of various fields. While examining the change in Lithuanians’ consciousness with regard to national identity in the nineteenth century, literary historian Paulius Subačius also analyzed changes in the thinking about Lithuania’s space.6 The author points out that, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the historical principle was followed in plotting Lithuania’s contours; meanwhile, the poet Antanas Baranauskas was drawing Lithuanian borders for the first time “according to the later validated criteria of nationalism.”7 Brigita Speičytė analyzed the image of Lithuania and spatial imagination in the mid-nineteenth century based on writings of marginal genres. She was not as concerned with the borders existing in noble or peasant cultures, to which little attention was paid, as she was with the character of the spatial imagination. In Speičytė’s opinion, the space in this period’s most important component was history.8 Vladas Sirutavičius also noted efforts to associate the landscape with history in descriptions of mid-nineteenth-century travels through Lithuania.9 The importance of history, noted by both authors, in forming Lithuania’s image and imbuing it with symbolic meanings is especially significant for this study. One case study is an article by Saulius Pivoras on the territorial identity of Eustachy Tyszkiewicz and Lithuania’s image in his works.10 It should be noted that the Lithuanian, Polish, or Belarusian researchers—Oleg Łatyszonek, Sergei Tokt’, Ales’ Bely, Grzegorz Błaszczyk, Vacys Vaivada, Egidijus Aleksandravičius, and Eugenijus Saviščevas—examined Lithuania’s image not as an evolving complex,   6 Paulius Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė (Vilnius: Aidai, 1999), 149–61.   7 Ibid., 150, 153.   8 Brigita Speičytė, “Kraštovaizdis ir erdvinė vaizduotė XIX amžiaus vidurio Lietuvoje,” Metmenys 79 (2000): 115–46.   9 Vladas Sirutavičius, “Simbolinės geografijos: kelionės po XIX a. vidurio Lietuvą ir jų aprašymai,” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis (1999): 110–24. 10 Saulius Pivoras, “Teritorinis tapatumas Eustachijaus Tiškevičiaus visuomeniniame— politiniame pasaulėvaizdyje,” in Eustachijus Tiškevičius: Darbai ir kontekstai, ed. Žygintas Būčys and Reda Griškaitė (Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus, 2014), 41–55.

99

100

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

but as separate parts of GDL lands, primarily Belarus and Samogitia and the changing relationships between their territory and name.11 Scholars of Belarus and Lithuania have remarked on the importance of the ethnic factor in the nineteenth century as the image of White Rus’ or Samogitia was changing along with its increasing influence. Sirutavičius, who has studied the application of nationality in statistics describing the Lithuanian population in the first half of the nineteenth century, notes that in both official and unofficial statistics the criterion of language is given greater weight than social status and religion in determining nationality.12 Research demonstrates the increasing importance of the language criterion not only for the identification of individuals, but also for the drawing of territorial borders. The evidence, however fragmentary and sparse up to now, points to the importance of two factors—the historic and ethnic—in shaping the geo-image of Lithuania in the mid-nineteenth century. After the three partitions of the PLC, almost all GDL territory was incorporated into the Russian Empire. The general model of administrative divisions (into provinces, etc.) used in the other parts of the Russian Empire was applied to former GDL lands. The GDL did not remain as a single administrative unit of the Russian Empire, unlike the Kingdom of Poland, which, although territorially cropped, at least nominally retained the name of one of the former Polish-Lithuanian state members. Following the emperor’s orders, a Managing Senate decree dated July 18, 1840, removed the word “Lithuania” from the names of Vilnius and Grodna provinces (and “Belarus’” 11 Oleg Łatyszonek, Od Rusinów Białych do Białorusinów: U źródeł białoruskiej idei narodowej (Bialystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2006); Aleksandr Kravtsevich, Aleksandr Smolenchuk, and Sergei Tokt’, Belorussy: Natsiia Pogranich’ia (Vilnius: EGU, 2001), 98–108; Ales’ Bely, Khronika Beloi Rusi: Chronicon Russiae Albae. Narys historyi adnoi geagrafichnoi nazvy (Minsk: Entsyklapedyks, 2000); Grzegorz Błaszczyk, Żmudź w XVII i XVIII wieku: Zaludnienie i struktura społeczna (Poznan: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1985), 5–6; Adomas Butrimas et al., Žemaitijos istorija (Vilnius: REGNUM fondas, 1997), 103–105; Eugenijus Savisčevas, Žemaitijos savivalda ir valdžios elitas 1409–1566 metais (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2010). 12 Vladas Sirutavičius, “Tautiškumo kriterijai multietninių visuomenių statistikoje. XIX a. vidurio Lietuvos pavyzdys,” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis (1998): 74–85.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

from Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces).13 Soon “Lithuania” was removed from the names of most institutions. By the end of the 1830s, censorship began to erase references to Lithuania from literary works. Furthermore all references to the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL were removed from prayers with the justification that mentioning the former states would imply their actual existence.14 This lasted until the easing of Russian administrative policy at the start of Tsar Alexander II’s rule. There is no doubt that the Russian government strove to erase all traces of the former GDL. Yet the famous invocation of Adam Mickiewicz’s poem Pan Tadeusz: “Lithuania, my country! You are like good health,” echoed by other writers, suggests that the government’s efforts did not produce the desired results. The image of Lithuania continued to exist in the public discourse of the former GDL.

THE SOLUTION TO THE IDENTITY CRISIS: THE DECOUPLING OF THE STATE AND THE NATION After the destruction of the PLC, the GDL’s society survived the identity crisis triggered by the collapse of the state.15 This phenomenon can be partly attributed to the galvanizing effect on the social elite the collapse itself had and partly to the conception of a political nation that had existed in the eighteenth century, a conception that linked the state and the nation and incorporated the idea of a social contract. In the era of the Enlightenment the PLC’s nobility perceived the nation as a community of citizens held together by mutual obligations, in particular the obligation to act “for the common good” (pro publico bono), as well as certain fundamental values. In the rhetoric of the 13 Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii. Sobranie vtoroe, vol. 15, pt. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1841), 515. On the territorial-administrative reforms, see also: Vytautas Petronis, Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800–1914 (Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007), 58–83, 100–8. 14 Zita Medišauskienė, Rusijos cenzūra Lietuvoje XIX a. viduryje (Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 1998), 186–87. 15 Brigita Speičytė, Poetinės kultūros formos. LDK palikimas XIX amžiaus Lietuvos literatūroje (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2004), 69–73.

101

102

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

nobility the most important of these values was civil liberty, that is, the right to participate in public affairs and determine the fate of the state.16 Civil liberty was considered not only a condition for the existence of the nation: it created the nation. In 1790 Zieliński, deputy of the Warsaw Sejm, expressed this using the short formula: “the nation is a nation only in the small parliaments,” that is, only through the exercise of fundamental rights by its citizens.17 No less important was the rule of law and the inviolability of person and property; in texts by preachers the value of the traditional religion of “parents, ancestors” is also recalled.18 At the end of the eighteenth century, the identification of the nation with the noble class dominated the public discourse of the nobility, particularly in parliamentary speeches. The homeland was equated with the state, and the nobility defined their conception of the state through their rhetoric. The homeland was not just any kind of state (not just the one in which one is living), but specifically a state that cared for the happiness of its citizens and created the conditions under which citizens could express their patriotism or love of homeland. The conditions that the homeland had to create were as follows: freedom, rule of law, inviolability of person and property, compensation for sacrifice for the sake of the homeland, and an opportunity to develop talents and to use them for the common good. In other words, the homeland and its government were required to ensure the nation and its citizens certain freedoms, which, in turn, created the nation. A state unable to confer political rights on groups of people (for example, townspeople) who lived there was not yet a homeland.19 16 Anna Grześkowiak-Krawicz analyzed the usage of the concept of freedom in the PLC in the eighteenth century: Anna Grześkowiak-Krawicz, Regina libertas: Wolność w polskiej myśli politycznej XVIII wieku (Gdansk: Słowo / obraz, terytoria, 2006). 17 “Naród zaś na Seymikach narodem”: The speech by deputy Zieliński at the 304 session of the 1790 Warsaw Sejm. Dziennik czynności Seymu Głównego Ordynaryinego Warszawskiego, pod związkiem Konfederacyi Oboyga Narodów agituiącego się 1790 (n.p., n.d.). 18 Kristina Mačiulytė, Kad Tėvynė gyvuotų . . . XVIII amžiaus antrosios pusės Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos proginiai pamokslai (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2005), 148–9; Janusz Tazbir, Kultura szlachecka w Polsce: Rozkwit—upadek—relikty (Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2002), 58–66. 19 Mačiulytė, Kad Tėvynė gyvuotų, 130.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

The safeguarding of liberties became a condition for the love of the homeland, the patriotism of citizens. Thus, the relationship between the nation or the community of citizens and the state, the homeland, was of a contractual nature.20 If the homeland did not guarantee freedoms and “honor, glory, and benefits” to its citizens, they could refuse to be loyal to their country, could leave their homeland or disregard the welfare of the homeland, and that would destroy the state/the homeland.21 However, judging from the speeches in the sejms, the nobility largely believed in an even closer link between the nation and the homeland; both concepts were almost fused: the homeland of the nation could be only a Republic, but the Republic was the nation.22 In other words, in the political consciousness of the nobility at the end of the eighteenth century there was a very strong tendency to identify the noble class with the nation, and the nation with the whole country/ republic/homeland.23 Such a conflation of the nation and the state was characteristic of the republican tradition during the Age of Enlightenment. 20 Speičytė, Poetinės kultūros formos, 65–69. 21 Mykolas Pranciškus Karpavičius, “The sermon [said] updating the work of the Lithuanian term of office of the GDL S[upreme] Tribunal in Vilnius on November 15, 1781, [About love of the Homeland],” in Mykolas Pranciškus Karpavičius, Rinktiniai pamokslai (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2003), 270–74. 22 Trakai deputy Zaleski at the 1790 Warsaw Sejm stated that “The deputies are only part of the Republic, while the Republic is sitting at home,” Dziennik czynności Seymu Głównego Ordynaryinego Warszawskiego, pod związkiem Konfederacyi Oboyga Narodów agituiącego się 1790, Sessya CCCXI (IX) (n.p., n.d.); Mykolas Karpavičius in one of his sermons explained that the homeland (ojczyzna) is: “the rights, freedom, the king and the citizens having the rights in the land, which one government rules. . . . It is an empty matter to separate the homeland from the citizens, the citizens from the king, and the king from the homeland and the citizens,” cited from: Magdalena Ślusarska, “Litewskie kaznodziejstwo trybunalskie czasów stanisławowskich o miłości ojczyzny, zgodzie i jedności obywatelów,” in Lietuvos valstybė XII–XVIII a. (Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 1997), 206. 23 The Polish scholar Edward Opaliński notes that the unity of the state, the regime, and the citizen was considered a trait of the Polish nobility’s political culture at the end of the sixteenth and during the first half of the seventeenth centuries, Edward Opaliński, Kultura polityczna szlachty polskiej w latach 1587–1652 (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 1995), 295; and in the GDL—Darius Kuolys: Darius Kuolys, Res Lituana: Kunigaikštystės bendrija. Pirmoji knyga: Respublikos steigimas (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2009).

103

104

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

This close interconnection between the nation and the state meant that after the collapse of the state, the nation and homeland also disappeared. After the third partition of the PLC, this was clearly evident in the identity crisis experienced by its citizens. Society saw the collapse of the former state as the nation’s disappearance.24 Even in 1805 the famous Polish and Lithuanian politicians Tadeusz Czacki and Aleksander Chodkiewicz affirmed its loss. In October 1805, Czacki, in a speech inaugurating the Kremenets lyceum, addressed the audience: “Assembled countrymen! Almost all of us were born in that land whose name, which was known to the world for so many ages, has been removed from the number of the names of nations.”25 Speaking at the same occasion, Chodkiewicz echoed him: “The eternal right of the Lord removed our name from the space of the living nations.”26 By emphasizing the rights and freedoms of its members as the element forming the nation, the danger arose that on the basis of the same rights it was easy to integrate into other nations. That possibility emerged in the sermon of the famous Catholic preacher Reverend Mykolas Pranciškus Karpavičius, given in 1796 while making a loyalty oath to the King of Prussia. Recognizing that “the Polish nation, once a great nation” had perished, the preacher called the Prussian kingdom the “new homeland” in which Poles were uniting with the old Prussian nation. The name of the state changed “a little,” and the Poles become subjects of the king. However, the recognition of the new homeland in the sermon was closely linked to the rights and freedoms that had to be safeguarded, and this was expected from the new ruler. If the rights, freedoms, and privileges of the nobility, religion, and the church were 24 Andrzej Feliks Grabski, Myśl historyczna polskiego Oświecenia (Warsaw: PWN, 1976), 259; Egidijus Aleksandravičius, “Tautos samprata ir pilietinės savimonės raida Lietuvoje XVIII a. pabaiga–XIX a. pradžia,” in Egidijus Aleksandravičius, XIX amžiaus profiliai, 20–21. 25 “Mowa J. W. Tadeusza Czackiego . . . dnia 1 Pazdziernika 1805 Roku, przy otwarciu Gimnazyum wołyńskiego w Krzemieńcu miana,” Dziennik Wileński 3, no. 8 (1805): 363. 26 “Mowa Alexandra hrabi Chodkiewicza od Towarzystwa Warszawskiego przyiaciól nauk,” Gazeta literacka wileńska, 3 March 1806, 131. For more examples see: Mačiulytė, Kad Tėvynė gyvuotų, 150–51.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

ensured, property was guaranteed, judges would be elected by the citizens, and the rights to the mother tongue would be guaranteed to the new subjects—in that case, this would not be a case of foreign domination.27 And as we remember, the homeland was not disconnected from the rights of the citizens, in other words, Prussia could become a new homeland. Similarly, in 1811 Michał Kleofas Ogiński, in the program for the creation of Poland, and, as its interim variant, the creation of the GDL, indicated that the restoration of the homeland was not only inseparable from the restoration of the “name” to the new autonomous political structure within the Russian Empire; it was also inseparable from the granting of certain rights to its inhabitants. Those rights recall the rights the nobility enjoyed during the PLC: the maintenance of the rights and privileges of the nobility, participation in the work of government bodies, its own judicial system, and the maintenance of language, customs and habits. According to Ogiński, the preservation of these rights, freedoms, and language was a prerequisite for the Poles to forget their old homeland and become loyal to the new ruler.28 Halina Beresnevičiūtė-Nosálová’s study also showed that at the beginning of the nineteenth century the Russian emperors could earn the loyalty of the Lithuanian nobility by giving its members certain rights, of which the most important was the opportunity to serve in parliament, as well as by ensuring the inviolability of person and property for citizens and the restoration of the territorial integrity of the former state.29 However, none of the countries that annexed the PLC at the end of the eighteenth century were able to replace the lost homeland for the “Poles.” The restoration of the former state for several decades became an immortal idea driving the efforts of very many active public figures. 27 Speech by Mykolas Pranciškus Karpavičius, delivered while swearing loyalty at the time of the granting of a patent of His Most Enlightened Majesty the King of Prussia in Gumbinnen on July 6, 1796. Karpavičius, Rinktiniai pamokslai, 384–92. 28 Michał Ogiński, Pamiętniki Michała Ogińskiego o Polsce i polakach od roku 1788 aź do końca roku 1815, vol. 3 (Poznan, 1871), ix–x, 34–37. 29 Halina Beresnevičiūtė-Nosálová, Lojalumų krizė: Lietuvos bajorų politinės sąmonės transformacija 1795–1831 metais (Vilnius: Vaga, 2001), 47–48.

105

106

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

According to Ogiński the “Homeland” (Ojczyzna) became a political idea, a slogan, uniting all the inhabitants of the partitioned lands, to whom the concepts of honor and honesty were familiar.30 The homeland in the entire first half of the nineteenth century was an idea embodying the PLC, an independent state with its own political system, with the rights and freedoms of the nobility, and the desire to restore it. This was a political idea, as the entire population of the former lands of the PLC, as well as the government, understood it.31 Historical memory, without doubt, supported the idea of the homeland. The more hopes faded that the rulers of Russia would ensure the rights held by the nobility of Lithuania and would implement the most important goals of society (among them uniting the lands of the former GDL and the Polish Kingdom into one administrative unit), the less likely loyalty to the Russian emperors became; the more palpable and severe oppression by the foreign government became, the stronger the role of history in Lithuanian society grew. In 1803 Czacki suggested fostering “the memory of the dead homeland” by promoting interest in family history, because the history of families created the history of the nation and offered excellent examples of virtue for educating youth. At the same time the history of families as a phenomenon of private life should not have bothered the Russian government.32 At the dawn of the nineteenth century, the intellectual elite of Lithuania, primarily professors and students of Vilnius University, perceived history mainly as a cognitive tool. By collecting and analyzing historical facts based on sources and by searching for, verifying, and publishing new sources, the history of the state and nation could be known, as well as the causes of the state’s collapse. Meanwhile in the mid-nineteenth century history became one of the major signifiers of the national identity, uniting the citizens of the former state into a single community, and a therapeutic measure used to provide self-confidence to the citizens of the former state, to protect 30 Ogiński, Pamiętniki, vol. 3, 60. 31 Medišauskienė, Rusijos cenzūra Lietuvoje, 190–91; Speičytė, Poetinės kultūros formos, 78. 32 Beresnevičiūtė-Nosálová, Lojalumų krizė, 154.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

the dignity of the nation. The former professors of Vilnius University, amateur historians, and other persons studying the history of the land continued the publication of sources, seeking to save all documents testifying to the past from deterioration or destruction, and for the same purpose tried to find and capture by all available means (archives, museum collections, local studies, travelogues enriched with history, historical literature, etc.) material testaments to the past. The historical narrative became less important in the cognitive sense (although this function also remained), but in the psychological sense it served to help preserve the nation’s dignity, self-esteem, and faith in the future. Writings that undermined a positive historical narrative received a vigorous response.33 By the mid-nineteenth century, history was felt to be of the utmost importance. It became one of the most important factors uniting the population of the former state and preventing mingling with the population of the incorporating state. In 1811 Ogiński emphasized this idea in his memorial to Alexander I, in which he clearly stated that only memory would prevent the former nations of the incorporated state from merging into the empire with the “nation of Moscow.” Ogiński wrote: “The words homeland and citizenship, which the current system adopted in the greater part of Europe is trying to eradicate, are still dear to their hearts, the remembrance of the previous existence is still engraved in their memory, and one should not have any illusions: the Poles who have become subjects of Russia as a result of military conquest never wanted to cease being called Poles.”34 The history of the former 33 For more information see: Egidijus Aleksandravičius, “Socialinės ir psichologinės Lietuvos romantinės istoriografijos prielaidos,” in Egidijus Aleksandravičius, XIX amžiaus profiliai, 29–41; Reda Griškaitė, Mykolas Balinskis: kova dėl istorijos? (Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2005); Reda Griškaitė, Simono Daukanto raštai: Laiškai Teodorui Narbutui. Epistolinis dialogas (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1996); Reda Griškaitė, Konstantinas Tiškevičius ir Neris, arba Kelionė ir knyga (Vilnius: Žara, 2009); Katarzyna Błachowska, Wiele historii jednego państwa: Obraz dziejów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego do 1569 roku w ujęciu historyków polskich, rosyjskich, ukraińskich, litewskich i białoruskich w XIX wieku (Warsaw: Neriton, 2009); Ewa Semenowicz, Kreacja tożsamości kulturowej Litwy w pracach Wileńskiej Komisji Archeologicznej i Muzeum Starożytności w latach 30.–70. XIX wieku (Warsaw: Semper, 2012). 34 Ogiński, Pamiętniki, vol. 3, 59–60.

107

108

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

state of Poland-Lithuania, as well as the history of the GDL, was nurtured by all possible means. Particular attention was focused on maintaining historical memory in the family and in public discourse. On the other hand, the Polish-Lithuanian state was not a social reality anymore. It was more of a historical image that evolved into a political program. In the same way, the concept of the nation also experienced significant changes. After the partitions of the PLC and the loss of the political freedoms and rights guaranteed by it, rights and freedoms that also formed and supported the nation and national identity, the local elite had to look for other common links and values connecting members of the former nation. In this critical situation, renewed attention was paid to such elements as territory and genealogy/origin constructing identity (rather, these elements were actualized and made prominent). In the abovementioned text by Czacki in which he describes the death of the nation, he also addresses his compatriots (współrodacy) born in the same land whose name was once famous throughout the world. In most of the texts from the beginning of the nineteenth century, the aspect of living in one territory (land) was emphasized. Czacki is obviously using the word “compatriots” for all the members of the former nation and citizens of the state although they were only united through the land of their birth, a land that not so long ago was the territory of their state. In this way, origin was linked to a common territory, and these two factors became elements uniting a certain community. This was not an entirely new thing. In the eighteenth century, the concept of the homeland also sometimes covered the place of birth, the land to which one was intuitively tied.35 Origin was perceived as a stable primordial element, a bond of blood, passed down from generation to generation. Dionizas Poška, a noble landowner and historian as well as linguist and writer, wrote in Polish in 1829: “Every ruler and every government replaces not only the title of the conquered land, but splits it into territories according to their desire 35 Mačiulytė, Kad Tėvynė gyvuotų, 148; Speičytė, Poetinės kultūros formos, 68, 70.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

and will, but nations live on in future generations. A careful historian and an educated writer is able to recognize and express an opinion about the tribe from which it is derived.”36 In the texts from that time we see that the factor of origin from the same territory was the most important one in defining national identity, and this transformed the concept of the nation. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the community of people bound by a common history, related by origin from a common territory, changed the nation formed of political rights and freedoms. Ogiński’s abovementioned text spoke about the nations of the Poles and Lithuanians, never once doubting their existence. According to Andrzej Walicki, the change in the concept of the nation, whereby nation and state became separate concepts, began in the first half of the nineteenth century in the former lands of the PLC. The process of the change in the concept of the nation, according to Walicki, ended only after the uprising of 1830–31, when Maurycy Mochnacki proposed the cultural concept of nation (kulturalystyczna koncepcija narodu). According to this concept, the domination of the culture of the Poles defined the territory of the Polish nation. Claims to the restoration of the territory of the historical state were thus based on cultural arguments.37 From the 1830s through 1860s, the trend grew stronger to define the national community as one that was united by common history as well as cultural elements such as language, religion, customs, and traditions in works by authors writing about Lithuania’s history, culture, ethnography, and similar topics. So the Lithuanian public began to perceive the national community primarily as a community of common culture. Enlightenment ideas regarding how education, science, and the intellect influenced the progress of countries and nations had a significant 36 Dionizas Poška, “Rozmyślania wieśniaka rolnika (Dionizego Paszkiewicza byłego Pisarza P. R.) O narodzie i języku Litewsko-Źmudzkim poprzedzone wierszem do X. Bohusza i Joachima Lelewela. Podane do Dziennika Warszawskiego, przez Wspoł-rodaka i Przyjaciela Żmudzinów,” in Dionizas Poška, Raštai (Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla, 1959), 649. 37 Andrzej Walicki, Kultura i myśl polska: Prace wybrane, vol. 1: Naród, nacjonalyzm, patriotyzm (Cracow: Universitas, 2009), 74, 188–96. Also see: Joanna Nowak, Duchowe piętno społeczeństw. Złożoność i przeobrażenia polskiej refleksji nad narodem w XIX wieku (Warsaw: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy, 2008), 31–33.

109

110

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

impact on these changes. Texts published in Vilnius periodicals by Vilnius University professors claimed that after the partitions of the PLC, its society (the former nation), driven by the desire to preserve its honor and glory, turned to cultural creativity. The history of Greece and Rome was taken as an example for the intellectual elite of Lithuania. Earlier and current achievements in culture and science were meant not only to preserve the memory of the nation but also defend its dignity in the eyes of the new rulers.38 The most significant conclusion drawn by the intellectual elite of society immediately following the partitions was that the society of the former PLC would be able to return to the world of living nations through science and culture.39 The conviction prevailed among intellectuals that only the realized cultural potential of the nation makes it immortal, and the existence of the nation is connected to cultural individuality and cultural power rather than political/state forms.40 At the same time, as Speičytė noted, “after the tradition of writing and public (especially written) communication became the main field of the expression and dissemination of the community’s identity (civic nationalism), to the forefront of problems confronting cultural institutions arose the question of the language, which should organize the power of society to ensure communication, as well as the standardization and development of the tradition of writings.”41 In the late eighteenth century in the PLC, ideas were sometimes expressed about the role of language in defining the nation and maintaining national identity. In studies about the development of the idea of the nation, researchers often mentioned and quoted the Polish public figure Franciszek Salezy Jezerski, who understood the nation as all classes of the population of a certain territory subject to common laws who were 38 Tadeusz Czacki, “Rzecz o dziełach Elementarnych a szczególniey o dziele Jana Sniadeckiego pod tytułem Jeografia Matematyczna,” Dziennik Wileński 1, no. 2 (1805): 4–5; Filip Nereusz Golański, Review of Słownik języka polskiego, vol. 1–6, by Samuel Bogumil Linde, Dziennik Wileński 2, no. 9 (1815): 294–95. 39 Vincas Maciūnas, Lituanistinis sąjūdis XIX amžiaus pradžioje (Vilnius: Petro ofsetas, 1997), 34–37; Speičytė, Poetinės kultūros formos, 74–78. 40 Speičytė, Poetinės kultūros formos, 360. 41 Ibid.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

distinguished from others by their language, customs, and traditions.42 In the lands of the GDL at approximately the same time, Karpavičius’s sermon mentioned language and religion alongside the civil political values of the former PLC nation. The preservation of language is identified as a condition for a homeland to exist.43 But language, unlike rights, freedoms, and privileges, did not disappear with the collapse of the state. In 1805 Vilnius University professor, linguist, and prominent intellectual Jędrzej Sniadecki promoted the idea that the inherited language in former Polish lands should become the language of education and intellectual development. For Sniadecki, native Polish was important as the most effective tool of public education. He claimed that the experience of other nations demonstrated the importance of the mother tongue in disseminating scientific information to society as a whole and its members individually and that the use of a population’s native language in education was even more important having than a large scholarly community.44 Sniadecki saw a link between the fate of language and that of the nation, believing that the renunciation of the mother tongue was an easy way for people to accept the customs, nature, and values of foreign nations, as well as the collapse of their own state. He wrote: “In this way the young people themselves gradually became the worst foreigners in their own land, while the nation advanced in huge steps towards destruction. Poland is already erased from the space of living nations and will remain a memorable example among every political society that has lost its national customs and way in the pursuit of foreign words.”45 Lipiński exalted the mother tongue as a legacy, as an ancestral heritage imbibed with mother’s milk, in the poem “To the Mother Tongue” published in 1806.46 The poet linked the fate of the language and the homeland (the idea being that language thrived only in a free country), but the enemy could not overtake language, unlike 42 Tomasz Kizwalter, O nowoczesności narodu: Przypadek Polski (Warsaw: Semper, 1999), 104–5. 43 Mačiulytė, Kad Tėvynė gyvuotų, 151. 44 J.S. [Jędrzej Sniadecki], “Przemowa,” Dziennik Wileński 1, no. 1 (1805): 2–3. 45 J.S. [Jędrzej Sniadecki], “Przemowa,” 4. 46 Lipiński, “Do mowy oyczystey,” Dziennik Wileński 6, no. 8 (1806): 222–23.

111

112

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

states and nations. Language, in his opinion, connected the living with past generations and ensured the continuation of tradition, so the task of the living was to protect language and its purity. At the beginning of the nineteenth century a particular role was granted to language in the public discourse of the lands of the former PLC. Language was not just a simple means of communication; it was perceived as an expression of thought and emotion, as ancestral heritage, maintaining the link between past and future, conveying tradition. In linguistic, demographic, and ethnographic research, language began to be considered that fundamental feature that separated one nation from another. The preservation of the language began to be identified with the saving of the nation.47 There is no doubt that linguistics in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries—Johann Gottfried Herder’s and Wilhelm von Humboldt’s theories, which considered language and nation as a single whole—had the greatest impact on the perception that language was the main attribute of the nation; the nation and language were thought to be identical, and the genesis and evolution of a language signaled the emergence of a nation and the start of its history. In the spirit of these theories, in 1814 Jan Sniadecki wrote about language: “That, without a doubt, is a law determined by the needs of the community, confirmed due to the talent of the first inventor, but sanctioned by contractual acceptance and the global consumption of all the people. A language introduced in this way is a sign, separating nations and their tribes, just as names, surnames, coats of arms, and nicknames separate individuals and families in society.”48 Linguistics at that time formulated and solidified the ethnolinguistic concept of the nation, which began to be applied not only in linguistics, but also in ethnography, demographic, and other sciences; it had an ever greater influence on the public discourse. Pavel Jozef Šafárik’s Slovanský národopis (Slavic ethnology) translated into 47 Maciūnas, Lituanistinis sąjūdis, 132–39. 48 Jan Sniadecki, “O języku polskim,” Dziennik wileński 1 (1815): 9. About the connection between thinking and language also see: Jan Sniadecki, “O słowach jako wyrazach pojęć i o języku jako instrumencie myślenia,” in Dzieła Jana Sniadeckiego, wydanie nowe Michała Balińskiego, vol. 5 (Warsaw: nakład A. E. Glücksberga, 1837), 187–203.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Russian in 1843, in which humanity and nations were divided into groups on the basis of anthropological characteristics and language, made it even more popular.49 Both demographers of Russia and the local intellectuals that studied the ethnography and demography of Lithuania knew Šafárik and relied on him in their research. While in the first two decades of the nineteenth century unofficial ethnic statistics were still based on social and religious criteria (the work of Ignacy E. Lachnicki)50 and the criterion of language arose infrequently, beginning in the 1820s it became the main criterion used in plotting ethnic boundaries. Stanisław Plater divided nations primarily according to language, only occasionally using customs and religion as additional determinants in the Jeografia wschodniey części Europy (Geography of the eastern part of Europe), published in 1825. He delineated the geographical borders of ethnic groups (“nations”) based on the language of the rural population.51 Peter Koeppen, writing contemporaneously, also defined ethnic groups and their residential territories on the basis of language.52 Incidentally, the Lithuanian-inhabited territory drawn by both Plater and Koeppen was the same, although Koeppen had more accurate data. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, folk culture studies intensified. Zorian Chodakowski (Czarnocki), an ethnographer and archaeologist and one of the first experts on the Slavic people, spread an idea radical for that time: that folk culture was the source of national identity and real national culture was folk culture (an idea that strongly influenced Romanticism in former PLC lands)53 and encouraged the 49 Pavel Shafarik, Slavianskoe narodopisanie (Moscow: V universitetskoi tipografii, 1843), 1–2. 50 Ignacy Emanuel Lachnicki, Statystyka guberni litewsko-grodzieńskiej (Vilnius: J. Zawadzki, 1817). 51 [Stanisław Plater], Jeografia wschodniey części Europy czyli opis krajów przez wielorakie narody sławiańskie zamieszkanych, obejmujący Prussy, Xięztwo Poznańskie, Szląsk Pruski, Galliciją, Rzeczpospolitę Krakowską, Krolestwo Polskie, i Litwę, przez S.H.P. (Wroclaw: u Wilhelma Bogumiła Korna, 1825). Also see: Sirutavičius, “Tautiškumo kriterijai,” 77. 52 [Petr Keppen], O proiskhozhdenii, iazyke i literature Litovskikh narodov. Stat’ia, pomeshchennaia Petrom Keppenom[ . . . v 3-i knizhke sobiraemykh im materialov dlia istorii prosveshcheniia v Rossii (St. Petersburg: tip. Karla Kraia, 1827). 53 Julian Maślanka, Zorian Dołęga Chodakowski: Jego miejsce w kulturze polskiej i wpływ na polskie piśmiennictwo romantyczne (Warsaw: Zakład Narodowy im.

113

114

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

supplementation of the linguistic definition of the nation with such elements as customs, traditions, and religion, insofar as religion affected forms of culture. In describing the “land and the nation” it became inevitable to focus on folk culture, customs, and way of life. Therefore, while describing ethnic territories in the mid-nineteenth century, sometimes a whole series of criteria—language, place names, folk customs and traditions, religion—was used.54 The official collection of ethnic data was based either on language or, much less frequently, religion, but in some cases also origin, if local people (mostly the clergy of various religions) collected the data.55 The instrumental use of language as one of the fundamental criteria of nationality in statistical censuses also strengthened the concept of the ethnolinguistic nation and the importance of the language criterion in forming geo-images. The fact that the language criterion was used in disassociating “one’s own” territory and “one’s own” land from others also shows the growth of language as the most important attribute of a nation. At the beginning of the 1820s there was already talk about the area of the Polish language, perceived as the territory of the former GDL dominated by Polish-speaking nobility. Language became a kind of mark unifying the territory, distinguishing it from others.56 However, an Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1965), 29–33. 54 Teodor Narbutt, “Oznaczenie granic Litwy właściwej od strony sławiańszczyzny,” in Teodor Narbutt, Pomniejsze pisma historyczne szczególnie do historyi Litwy odnoszące się (Vilnius: T. Glücksberg, 1856), 268–69; Adam Gonorii Kirkor, “Etnograficheskii vzgliad na Vilenskuiu guberniiu,” Vestnik Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva IV (1857): 236–57. 55 For more information see: Sirutavičius, “Tautiškumo kriterijai,” 74–85; Darius Staliūnas, Making Russians: Meaning and Practice of Russification in Lithuania and Belarus after 1863 (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007), 105–20. 56 Tamara Bairašauskaitė quotes the letter of Józef Michał Römer to Kazimierz Grabowski at the beginning of 1819 in which he thanks the latter for inviting him “to unite in a matter that concerns the whole land speaking the same language”: Tamara Bairašauskaitė, Lietuvos bajorų savivalda XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2003), 154; the well-known social commentator Franciszek Grzymała in 1822 called the Polish language the most important attribute setting apart the territory: Vincas Trumpa, “Šubravcai ir senasis Vilniaus universitetas,” Metmenys 47 (1984): 11. Also see: Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Wieczory Wołyńskie (Lviv: druk Zakładu im. Ossolińskich, 1859), 33. Even in a booklet for children published in

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

important stipulation must be made: the ethnolinguistic concept of the nation was primarily used in discursive practices; meanwhile, the nobility, which was to a smaller degree involved in public life and especially culture, still followed the concept of the political (civic) nation. In this way after the partitions, due to the prominence of historical memory and language, and more broadly, national culture, the emergence of the concept of the ethnolinguistic nation was the most significant factor that in one way or another influenced the image of Lithuania and its development in the first half of the nineteenth century.

IMAGES OF LITHUANIA In 1847 geographer and scholar of Slavic languages Plater published the Mała encyklopedya Polska (Little Polish encyclopedia), in which he described Lithuania and the Lithuanians. In the first very sentence the author accurately and perceptively noted that the names of Lithuania and the Lithuanians in history and geography had various meanings. He pointed out at least three different concepts of Lithuania—historical Lithuania, which was formed after the 1569 Union of Lublin; that which was “popularly but not officially” called Lithuania, that is, the Lithuania of the reality of the first half of the nineteenth century; and “primal Lithuania.”57 The author quite accurately described the concepts of Lithuania encountered and relevant to society. All three images of Lithuania functioned in parallel simultaneously.

Historical Lithuania: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania Historical literature, historical studies, and sources supported the image of historical Lithuania or the GDL. In the first half of the nineteenth century writings of this type represented a significant part of printed output. Although the borders of the GDL changed constantly from the moment of the state’s creation, society’s image of the territory of the 1829 explaining the concept of state it was written: “Its population is called fellow citizens, speaking one language, helping one another in the time of peace and war, they love one another as the children of the same mother. The king rules them”: Feliks Wrotnowski, Upominek dla dzieci litewskich z 15 kolorowemi rycinami przez F. W, vol. 3 (Vilnius: nakł. Fr. Moritza, druk. B. Neumana, 1829), 37–38. 57 [Stanisław Plater], Mała encyklopedya Polska przez S.P, vol. 2 (Leszno, 1847), 18.

115

116

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

GDL was related to the contours that existed between the Union of Lublin (and to some extent, the Truce of Andrusovo in 1667) and the first partition in 1772.58 The baptism of Lithuania and the Union of Lublin were the most significant events in the history of Lithuania and Poland for almost all historians of Lithuania and the majority of Lithuanian society. Michał Baliński, Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Ignacy Żegota Onacewicz, Justyn Narbutt, and others affirmed that the Union of Lublin marked the end of the independent state of Lithuania and the history of the Lithuanian nation (the Lithuanian people were only the remnants of the former nation). The GDL became part of the Kingdom of Poland, one of its three provinces, along with Great and Little Poland.59 This was the result of historical development. The society of Lithuania considered the existence of the GDL in the joint state of the PLC to be of the greatest historical value. Therefore, the territory of the GDL in 1772 was the foundation of not only political aspirations (more about these later), but also historical memory. In historical studies, descriptions of locations and journeys, or even texts about economic problems, authors regularly referred to the territory of the former country and its administrative units for spatial orientation. Baliński and Lipinski’s Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, jeograficznym i statystycznym opisana (Ancient Poland in historical, statistical and geographic detail) showed how actual needs were intertwined and interlaced with historical reality. The aim of the three-volume 58 For more information about the changes in the borders of the GDL see: Ramunė Šmigelskytė-Stukienė, “Lietuvos valstybės teritorija ir sienos XIII–XVIII amžiuje,” in Lietuvos sienos: Tūkstantmečio istorija (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2010), 8–25. 59 Michał Baliński and Tymoteusz Lipiński, Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, jeograficznym i statystycznym opisana, vol. 3 (Warsaw: nakł. i druk. S. Orgelbranda, 1850), 104–6; Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Litwa. Starożytne dzieje, ustawy, język, wiara, obyczaje, pieśni, przysłowia, podania i t.d., vol. 2, Historia do XIII wieku (Warsaw: druk. Stanisława Strąbskiego, 1850), I–II, 393–94; Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, “Litwa za Witolda. Opowiadanie historyczne,” Athenaeum 1–6 (1849) (especially vol. 6: 55); Speech of Ignacy Żegota Onacewicz given at the end of the 1827 school year in Vilnius University: Żegota Onacewicz, “Rzut oka na dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego,” Pamiętnik naukowo–literacki 1 (1849): 8; Justyn Narbutt, Krótki rys pierwiastków Narodu Litewskiego z Różnych dawnych Autorów zebrany przez Justyna Narbutta (Grodna: druk. u Zymela, 1820), 52.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

book, according to the authors, was to provide historical information about their land’s particular localities (usually cities) that the readers had visited or planned to visit or even those where they themselves lived.60 So the aim was pragmatic, associated with the growing need to know their own land and the increasingly popular practice of traveling around it.61 Furthermore, the structure of the book itself was based on the historical structure of the former state. As the authors wrote, “the division of old Poland into three provinces: Great Poland, Little Poland, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,” to each of which a separate volume was devoted, determined the division of the book into three volumes.62 The historic principle was followed inside the volumes: descriptions relied on the voivodships and historic regions that existed in 1772. “The province of Lithuania,” according to Baliński, who wrote the volume on the GDL, comprised the Vilnius, Trakai, Smolensk, Polatsk, Navahrudak, Vitsiebsk, Brest-Litovsk, Mstsislaŭ, and Minsk voivodships, the principality of Samogitia, and the Inflanty, which was co-managed by Lithuania and Poland.63 It is interesting that Smolensk Province, which in 1772 no longer belonged to the PLC, maintaining and nurturing the memory of the previously ruled lands, also appeared in the list of voivodships. The authors thought that it was worth reminding the reader of the other former ethnic or regional names. Therefore they succinctly describe the territories of “Lithuania proper,” Belarus, Black Russia, the Trakt Zapuszczanski, and Palesse.64 Other encyclopedic publications maintained a similar position in describing the territory of Lithuania. In the volume of the Encyklopedyja powszechna (Universal encyclopedia) published in 1864 in Warsaw, a long article about Lithuania was included by Leon Rogalski. To describe the ­ territory of Lithuania in the period of the sixteenth through eighteenth century, he chose the year 1772, listed the voivodships ­ 60 Michał Baliński and Tymoteusz Lipiński, Starożytna Polska pod względem ­historycznym, jeograficznym i statystycznym opisana, vol. 1 (Warsaw: nakł. i druk. S. Orgelbranda, 1843), 5. 61 Sirutavičius, “Simbolinės geografijos,” 111. 62 Baliński and Lipiński, Starożytna Polska, vol. 1, 7. 63 Baliński and Lipiński, Starożytna Polska, vol. 3, 116. 64 Ibid.

117

118

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

constituting it, and recalled at that time the former historical regions— the same ones as Baliński and Lipinski.65 Baliński and Lipinski’s work, as well as other historical studies, and the encyclopedic publications, were popular with the public. They were read and cited and other papers were based on them. These publications played a role in ensuring that places would continue to be referred to by their historical names across many genres. Also frequently used were the historical names of the regions. For example, authors often reminded readers that the province of Kaunas was the former principality of Samogitia, and three districts of Vitsiebsk Province, Polish Inflanty and provinces of Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ were White Rus’.66 Without doubt, the use of historical names was more common in the early decades of the nineteenth century (it happened that Lithuania was still called the Duchy of Lithuania). Force of habit and the fact that new official names had not caught on caused this phenomenon. The names of the historical principality of Samogitia or the Polish Inflanty were resistant and enduring. Speičytė, by studying representations of the landscape, found evidence that history shaped the spatial imagination of Lithuania’s population in the first half of the nineteenth century. She concluded that “history is the main content of the landscape, uniting the space of the land.” That also determined the duality of the land’s space: “From the various descriptions of the land by members of the nobility, one can clearly see the overlaying it maps: the existing— the inter-state or divisions of the territory of the land established by the Russian administration—and the historical with the old borders of the GDL.”67

65 L.R. [Leon Rogalski], “Litwa,” in Encyklopedyja powszechna, vol. 17 (Libelt-Marek) (Warsaw: nakład, druk i własność S. Orgelbranda księgarza i typografa, 1864), 293. Authors from Lithuania also participated in preparing this encyclopedia; it was considered a joint phenomenon of the culture of the lands of the former state. 66 An example of such usage of the names of historical administrative units: “Here in Lithuania, earlier in the Navahrudak voivodship, now in the province of Grodna;” Filip Nereusz Golański, Review of Słownik ięzyka Polskiego, Dziennik Wileński 2, no. 10 (1815): 429. 67 Speičytė, “Kraštovaizdis ir erdvinė vaizduotė,” 128, 130.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

While agreeing with Speičytė that history was widely used by local intellectuals in developing the image of Lithuania, I continue to ask whether the image of Lithuania created in the first half of the nineteenth century by the residents of Lithuania really reproduced the image of historical Lithuania—the GDL? So I will discuss what was, according to Plater, not officially, but popularly called Lithuania. Doing so is not easy. There are almost no texts in which the space of Lithuania during the discussed period was consistently described, except for a couple of encyclopedic publications. Therefore, the image of Lithuania, from the designation of specific localities to various general geographic spaces, will have to be reconstructed.

Lithuania “in the Popular Sense” Plater, in his Mała encyklopedya Polska, in describing Lithuania “in the popular sense,” wrote that it “extends (including White Rus’) from the banks of the Nemunas River and the Baltic Sea, even up to the Dnepr and includes the provinces of Vilnius, Grodna, Minsk, Magileŭ, and Vitsiebsk.”68 It is obvious that this description of Lithuania was written before 1843, when the province of Kaunas was created. Plater’s borders of Lithuania only partially coincide with the territory of historical Lithuania, and political developments at the end of the eighteenth century, as well as changes to the state borders and administrative division, had already altered them. The abovementioned five provinces encompassed almost all the territory of the GDL in 1772, including Inflanty—the former joint holding of Poland and Lithuania. But the trans-Nemunas region (Lith. Užnemunė), which belonged to the GDL and became an integral part of the Kingdom of Poland (Augustów Province, and later Suwałki Province) during Russia’s rule remained beyond the borders of Lithuania. Within such borders of Lithuania the trans-Nemunas region, which belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, was often called “Poland’s Lithuania,” thus was still considered part of Lithuania. Two arguments were used by local elites to support this idea: the historical—the trans-Nemunas region up to the 68 [Plater], Mała encyklopedya Polska, 19.

119

120

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

partitions at the end of the eighteenth century was part of the GDL; and the ethnographic—the Lithuanian peasants living “in Poland’s Lithuania” did not differ in any way from the Lithuanian peasants “in Russian Lithuania.”69 Nevertheless, the existing political and administrative division had a great influence on geo-images. Apparently, most of the public did not consider the trans-Nemunas region a part of Lithuania. Authors who believed it had to remind readers that the region was also Lithuania. In 1860 a Vilenskii vestnik/Kuryer Wileński (Vilnius news) correspondent from Suwalki wrote: “Starting my letters from Suwałki, first of all I have to remind you, fellow Lithuanians, that this is still Lithuania and up to now the same Saints Casimir and George are watching over us. . . . In a word, from here it is still four miles to Neta Creek where the border with the Crown [i. e. Kingdom of Poland] went; that here we are in the old voivodship of Trakai, that the Nemunas (Neman) has been separating us from Lithuania for only sixty years.”70 During those sixty years the Nemunas (except for the part that formed the border with Prussia) became the frontier separating the “nations” of the former state from an internal river of the GDL, the crossing of which was a symbolic act demonstrating the unity of both parts of the former PLC71 and even the boundary of civilizations beyond which another world began.72 The Smolensk voivodship, which for some time was part of the GDL, was also excluded from that understanding of Lithuania, although 69 Ludwik Kondratowicz (Władysław Syrokomla), Podróż swojaka po swojszczyźnie. Z rękopisu ogłosił Władysław Korotyński (Warsaw: wyd. Warszawskiej spólki nakładowej, 1914), 22; A . . . P . . . i [Andrzej Podbereski ?], “Podróże po Kraju (Wyjątek z listów do przyjaciółki),” Rubon VI (1845): 94, 126; Aleksandr Połujański, Wędrówki po gubernji Augustowskiej w celu naukowym odbyte (Warsaw: druk. Gazety Codziennej, 1859), 6–10 and elsewhere. 70 “Korrespondencja Kuryera Wileńskiego. Suwałki d. 6/18 kwietnia 1860 r.,” Vilenskii vestnik/Kuryer Wileński, May 6, 1860, 355. 71 For example, in 1861, commemorating the anniversary of the Union of Lublin, processions from Kaunas, i.e., the Russian side, and from Aleksotas, i.e., the side of the Kingdom of Poland, were due to meet on the bridge over the Nemunas. For more information see: Ieva Šenavičienė, Lietuvos katalikų dvasininkija 1863 metų sukilimo išvakarėse (Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2010), 241–45. 72 Kondratowicz (Syrokomla), Podróż swojaka po swojszczyźnie, 22–24.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

in historical memory the link with this territory was still also maintained, albeit not as intensely.73 Such a concept of Lithuania covering five and, after 1843, six provinces was the nobility’s arena for public undertakings. In 1856 petitions to the emperor were organized by local elites in which concessions to the nobility of NWR were demanded, and the campaign included nobility from all the six provinces, which also had support from the Southwest Region.74 In 1862, representatives of the six provinces—­Vilnius, Grodna, Kaunas, Minsk, Magileŭ, and Vitsiebsk—­ participated in a congress of the nobility in Vilnius.75 So there was an image of Lithuania covering almost the whole historical territory of Lithuania, except its part in the trans-Nemunas region. The public actions of the nobility of former GDL lands primarily used such an image of Lithuania. On the other hand, there was a different image of Lithuania, one that included only four provinces—Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodna, and Minsk. The table of the geographical position of certain localities in the third edition of Jan Sniadecki’s Jeografija (Geography, 1818) was one of the earliest testimonies to this understanding of Lithuania. In this table, localities from only three provinces were assigned to Lithuania—Vilnius, Grodna, and Minsk, but not Samogitia. Meanwhile, Vitsiebsk, Magileŭ, and other smaller cities in these provinces were included in “White Rus’.”76 Such an image of Lithuania covering four (initially three) 73 Such a dialogue, possibly having taken place in 1864, is included in the biography of Helena z Skirmuntów Skirmunttowa: “So it should already be Smolensk Province, an integral part of Great Russia?” “Oh no! This is the Smolensk voivodship!” Z źycia Litwinki, 1827–1874. Z listów i notatek złożył Bronisław Zaleski (Poznan: nakł. księgarni Jana Konstantego Źupańskiego, 1876), 154. 74 Bairašauskaitė, Lietuvos bajorų savivalda, 83–92. 75 Jakób Gieysztor, Pamiętniki Jakóba Gieysztora z lat 1857–1865: Poprzedzone wspomnieniami osobistemi prof. Tadeusza Korzona oraz opatrzone przedmową i przypisami, vol. 1 (Vilnius: nakł. Tow. Udz. “Kurjer Litewski,” 1913), 165. 76 Jan Sniadecki, “Jeografija czyli opisanie matematyczne i fizyczne ziemi przez Jana Sniadeckiego podług wydania trzeciego na nowo od Autora przejrzanego, znacznie powiększonego z tablicą wyrażającą położenie jeograficzne znakomitszych miejsc na ziemi i z 3 tablicami,” in Dzieła Jana Sniadeckiego, wydanie nowe Michała Balińskiego, vol. 7 (Warsaw: nakł. Augusta Emmanuela Glücksberga, 1838), 243–64.

121

122

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

provinces was the most popular in this period. As I mentioned, there are hardly any systematic descriptions of Lithuania consisting of four provinces, but across a range of texts, the places that the authors attributed to Lithuania were located precisely in these four provinces that constitute Lithuania in the narrow sense. Two provinces were not included in Lithuania in the narrow sense—Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ— which were considered Belarusian not only officially (until 1840), but also by society, and the region formed by them was considered White Rus’ or Belarus. According to an opinion expressed by Belarusian scholar Ales’ Bely, it can be assumed that Lithuanian society still followed a tradition dating back to the seventeenth century when the term “White Rus’” began to be used for these territories within the GDL. White Rus’ was perceived as a distinct territory in terms of the confessional (Orthodox) composition of the majority of the population.77 Although the situation in the nineteenth century had changed, White Rus’ remained somewhat distinct in everyday consciousness, so in common usage, the image of Lithuania in the narrow sense, without the Belarusian provinces, which formed a separate unique region of Poland, was more popular. At the same time, the image of Lithuania in the narrow sense was not monolithic. Even such a Lithuania was perceived as made up of separate regions possessing their own characteristics—of “Lithuania proper,” Samogitia and Lithuanian Rus’.

Lithuania Proper Almost all the authors writing about the history of Lithuania in the first half of the nineteenth century chose “primeval Lithuania” as their starting point. The Lithuanians, along with the Latvians, Prussians, and Yotvingians, were usually described as originating from the group of Lithuanian or Latvian tribes that settled the Baltic coast from the 77 Bely, Khronika Beloi Rusi, 154–61. Oleg Łatyszonek also holds a similar opinion, although, in his view, the situation was not so clear cut: in some cases, White Rus’ and Lithuania comprised the GDL, but sometimes White Rus’ was separated not only from Lithuania but also from the GDL: Łatyszonek, Od Rusinów Białych, 251–54.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

mouth of the Vistula River to the Daugava (or even further to the north) and along the Neris, Nemunas, and Bug rivers. The primeval territory of Lithuania was synonymous with the territory inhabited by the Lithuanian tribes, who created the Lithuanian state. The Lithuanian tribes merged into one nation. Due to their different geographical locations, the two parts of this nation became known as Samogitia (in the lower part of the land by the Baltic Sea) and Aukštaitija (Highland).78 The territory populated by the Lithuanians was defined very roughly, with the Baltic Sea generally representing its western border; in the south their territory was situated on both sides of the Nemunas River down to Grodna; in the east it covered the basin of the Neris River up to the Upper Neris until its contact with Krivichian land, according to Jaroszewicz,79 or bordered with the Vilkmergė (Ukmergė) and Vilnius districts, covering half of the Ashmyany and Lida districts, according to Narbutt and, later, Kraszewski.80 In the context of this study, it is important that the territory inhabited by the Lithuanian tribes was associated with “Lithuania proper,” as it had already been identified in Kraszewski’s work. Kraszewski recognized that it was impossible to determine the former borders of “Lithuania proper” due to the processes of assimilation that took place when “the influence of neighbors even erased the traces of the Lithuanian language and customs in places where they had formerly predominated.”81 The image of “Lithuania proper” was stable, although also not dominant in certain nineteenth-century writings in Lithuania, primarily descriptions of the land. This Lithuania was generally associated with the ethnic territory of the Lithuanians. However, specific characterizations of the territory of “proper” or ethnic Lithuania were very rare and they varied. Vilnius University historian Onacewicz believed that 78 Józef Jaroszewicz, “Zarysy z czasów pogańskich Litwy,” in Pismo zbiorowe wileńskie na rok 1859 (Vilnius: drukiem Teofila Glüksberga, 1859), 84; Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Litwa: Starożytne dzieje, vol. 1: Historia do XIII wieku (Warsaw: druk. Stanisława Strąbskiego, 1847), 68–69. 79 Jaroszewicz, “Zarysy z czasów pogańskich Litwy,” 84. 80 Kraszewski, Litwa, vol. 1, 68–69; Narbutt, “Oznaczenie granic Litwy właściwej,” 268–69. 81 Kraszewski, Litwa, vol. 1, 68–69.

123

124

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

“Lithuania proper” consisted of almost all of Vilnius Province (such as it was until the administrative reorganization in 1843), the greater part of the Ashmyany District, and part of Augustów Province.82 Another historian, Baliński, discussing the territory of the GDL in 1772, assigned to “Lithuania proper” the territory to the east—the entire Vilnius Voivodship and part of the Trakai Voivodship with Samogitia.83 He thus assigned to ethnic Lithuania lands to the east of the border between Lithuanians and Slavs recognized in the nineteenth century. However, later Baliński, specifically describing each voivodship and county accurately and in great detail, based that description on the vernacular and the names of the populated places, and chronicled the territories populated by different ethnic groups, including the Lithuanians. Only three fourths of the population and settlements of the Vilnius voivodship were allocated to the Lithuanians. Lida was on the border of “Lithuania proper and Lithuanian Rus’,” although even beyond it there were ­Lithuanian-speaking villages. A small corner of Grodna District was also assigned to “Lithuania proper.”84 The existing part of the Kingdom of Poland’s Augustów Province beyond the Nemunas—Marijampolė, Kalvarija, and the greater part of the Sejny districts, where the majority of the rural population was made up of Lithuanians—was also designated part of “Lithuania proper.”85 One of the few who tried to precisely define the borders of “Lithuania proper” was Narbutt, a historian and the author of Dzieje starożytne narodu Litewskiego (Old history of the Lithuanian nation). He acknowledged that because of the mixing of the population this task was complex, but based on ethnographic and topographical research and on the descriptions of the roads of the Teutonic Knights, he drew, as he himself says, a “very approximate” border between the 82 Speech by Ignacy Żegota Onacewicz at the end of the 1827 school year in Vilnius University: Onacewicz, “Rzut oka,” 8. 83 Baliński and Lipiński, Starożytna Polska, vol. 3, 116–17. 84 Ibid., 121 et passim. 85 “Korrespondencja Kuryera Wileńskiego. Suwałki d. 6/18 kwietnia 1860 r.,” 355; Kondratowicz (Syrokomla), Podróż swojaka, 22; A . . . P . . . i [Andrzej Podbereski?], “Podróże po Kraju,” 126; Połujański, Wędrówki po gubernji Augustowskiej, 6–10 et passim.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Lithuanian and Slavic nations starting from the town of Bakalarzewo by the Prussian border in Augustów Province and ending at the border of Courland Province, which formed the northern border of Lithuania.86 The border of the ethnic Lithuanian area drawn by Narbutt went far to the east of Vilnius, leaving this city well within Lithuanian territory. Analogous was Baliński’s decision to include the historical lands of the ethnic Lithuanians, based not so much on the realities of the spoken language (in Vilnius and to its south the Polish language dominated) as on the criterion of origin.87 The borders between “Lithuania proper” and the Slavic population drawn by Baliński and Narbutt were popular, and authors of scholarly works and travelogues used them. “Lithuania proper” was generally defined as the part of former GDL lands populated (and earlier inhabited) by ethnic Lithuanians (the rural population—“the people” or the “tribe” of Lithuanians). The most obvious and most popular criterion encountered in the practice of that time to distinguish the boundaries of this Lithuania was language. Those researching ethnic statistics that described the Lithuanians as a nation understood that part of the Lithuanian people, speaking Lithuanian and differing primarily by faith (they were Protestant) and material culture, lived in East Prussia.88 However, the relationship between Prussian Lithuania and “Lithuania proper” is not so easy to decipher from the writings of that time. In fact, it was recognized that Lithuanians also lived in East Prussia or Prussian Lithuania, but I could not find any definite testimonies confirming that Prussian Lithuania was a part of “Lithuania proper.” Only the ethnographer and cultural historian Liudvikas Adomas Jucevičius, who was from ethnic Lithuanian lands and wrote in Polish and Lithuanian, not only included Prussian Lithuania in the territory of the Lithuanian nation but also considered it a part of Lithuania.89 However, 86 Narbutt, “Oznaczenie granic,” 268–69. The border drawn by T. Narbutt is described: Medišauskienė, “Lietuvos samprata XIX a. viduryje,” 220–21. 87 Baliński and Lipiński, Starożytna Polska, vol. 3, 122–23. 88 [Plater], Jeografia wschodniey części Europy, 10–23. 89 L. A. Jucevičius wrote: “The current Vilnius Province, Samogitia, Prussian Lithuania and the old voivodship of Augustów, inhabited by pure-Lithuanian folk, have common traditions and customs for the whole family of a great nation”: [Liudvikas

125

126

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

unlike the previously mentioned authors writing in Polish, he identified Lithuania exclusively with the territory of the Lithuanian nation (in the understanding of that time). In his work Litwa pod względem starożytnych zabytków, obyczajów i zwyczajów (Lithuania, its monuments to the past, mode of life and customs) he described how he understood Lithuania. He wrote about the economy “in all the lands in which now live people of the nation (szczepu) of the Lithuanians, that is, in ‘Lithuania proper’ (the provinces of Vilnius and Grodna, half of Augustów [Province], the Trakt Zapuszczanski), in Samogitia, Prussia [districts of Memel (Klaipėda), Gumbinnen (Gusev) and Königsberg (Kaliningrad)] and in Courland.”90 So, for Jucevičius, in this case, Lithuania was what Polish-speaking authors considered to be “Lithuania proper.” Meanwhile, the concept of “Lithuania proper” in his writings acquired a different meaning. In general, it must be noted that the concept of “Lithuania proper” seen in the mid-nineteenth century in Lithuanian writings was not monosemantic. As mentioned earlier, in the work of Jucevičius, whom we can unquestionably consider a mid-nineteenth-century expert on Lithuanian writings and ethnography, there existed another, let us say, narrow conception of “Lithuania proper.” In this case, the concept applied to only the small Lithuanian-populated territory lying between Samogitia (from the Nevežis River) and the Slavic part of the lands of the former GDL. Jucevičius named Vilnius and Grodna Provinces and part of the Augustów voivodship as belonging to “Lithuania proper” and sometimes mentioned specific districts: Kaunas, Vilkmergė (Ukmergė), Upytė (Panevėžys), Trakai, Zavileiskii, and Vilnius.91 From hints in the texts it can be seen that he also assigned parts of the Braslaŭ (later Novoaleksandrovsk [Zarasai]), Lida, Ashmyany, or Grodna districts to this territory. Edward Chłopicki, who likewise adhered to the narrower definition of “Lithuania proper,” also included the area between Vilnius Adomas Jucevičius], Litwa pod względem starożytnych zabytków, obyczajów i zwyczajów skreślona przez Ludwika z Pokiewia (Vilnius: w druk. M. Romma, 1846), 167. 90 Ibid., 347. 91 Ibid., 347; Ludwik Adam Jucewicz, Przysłowia ludu litewskiego: Zebrał i objaśnił ks. Ludwik Adam Jucewicz (Vilnius: druk. A. Marcinowskiego, 1840), 4.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

and Lida.92 It is interesting to note that Jucevičius often called “Lithuania proper” simply “Lithuania” when he contrasted it to Samogitia,93 but both these Lithuanian-populated territories as a whole were called “Lithuania proper” when they were being distinguished from another region, for example, Little Russia.94 In general, Samogitia was a strong competitor for the concept of “Lithuania proper.” Almost all the authors recognized that Lithuanians as an ethnic group and a common territory populated by this group existed, and the names of Samogitia, like Aukštaitija, they see as geographic markers for parts of the Lithuanian nation. But in practical usage the concept of “Lithuania proper” was reduced to the territory between Samogitia and the areas inhabited by the Slavic population. The image of historical Samogitia was too strong to be diminished by a growing sense of ethnic realities. While the works attempting to define the territory of “Lithuania proper” I have discussed drew its eastern border with the Slavic Ruthenian population quite late—in the 1840s–1850s—such a border was comprehended in a similar way much earlier: in an 1819 letter to his brother, Chodakowski mentioned the border of “Lithuania proper” in Zawilejski District, where Baliński and Narbutt drew it. This raises the question of who helped shape the image of “Lithuania proper” as ethnic Lithuania, for at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when Chodakowski wrote the letter, ethnic statistical data had begun to be collected only recently and was still a novelty. Plater’s work, in which the territories populated by isolated ethnic groups were shown based on a linguistic principle, appeared in 1825. Two years later Koeppen’s work with ethnic statistical data came out. In archival sources hints can be found that indicate that Vilnius University professors in the late 1810s encouraged students to collect data about the language of the local population during their holidays. 92 Edward Chłopicki, Notatki z różnoczasowych podróży po kraju (Inflanty, Żmudź, Litwa, Pobereże) (Warsaw: druk. Ch. Keltera i S. Rothmühla, 1863), 75–76. 93 [Jucevičius], Litwa, 347–62; Ludwik Adam Jucewicz, Rysy Żmudzi (Warsaw: druk. Maxymiliana Chmielewskiego, 1840), 1. 94 [Jucevičius], Litwa, 227.

127

128

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Meanwhile, Chodakowski’s letter would seem to suggest that even before these works appeared there was a perception of “Lithuania proper” in society. There is no explanation for this phenomenon so far, but it can be noted that an eighteenth-century geography dictionary mentioned “Lithuania proper” within the GDL, yet attributed to it only Vilnius and Trakai voivodships.95 Analogously, Mikalojus Akelaitis defined “Lithuania proper” in his work written in 1862 as one of the regions of the GDL mentioned in everyday usage “to distinguish it from Samogitia.”96 Although these two voivodships were larger than the ethnic territory of the Lithuanians in the east, the region defined in this way had something in common with the concept of “Lithuania proper” in the narrow sense. On the other hand, the increased popularity of the concept of ethnolinguistic nations and the research on ethnic composition contributed to defining this Lithuania more precisely. Baliński, Narbutt, and most other authors relied primarily on linguistic data, supplementing them with other criteria—place names, the ethnic origin and customs of the population, and the forms of material culture. In the mid-nineteenth century, an almost mandatory aspect of the especially popular travelogues was descriptions of the people of various social groups, especially the members of the local peasant population. The authors that travelled in “Lithuania proper” emphasized that the Lithuanians living here spoke their own language and usually devoted significant space to Lithuanian folk culture, way of life, customs, and farming techniques, often comparing them with other ethnic groups living in the vicinity. These travelogues created a living, vibrant image enriched with the realities of the Lithuanian-speaking people of “Lithuania proper.” However, there seemed to be a tendency not to 95 Hilarion Karpiński, Lexykon geograficzny dla gruntownego poięcia gazet i historyi z rożnych awtorow zebrany, przetłumaczony i napisany przez X. Hilaryona Karpińskiego (Vilnius: w drukarni J. K. M. XX. Bazylianow, 1766), 327. 96 Mikołaj Akielewicz, Opisanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego [1862], Biblioteka Polska w Paryżu, bp. 208, 1–511. A copy is held in the manuscript collection of the Lithuanian Institute of History’s library. Also see: Reda Griškaitė, “Mikalojaus Akelaičio rankraščio Opisanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (1862) istorija,” Archivum Lithuanicum 11 (2009): 228.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

go beyond the historically developed borders of countries. The trans-Nemunas region that belonged to the GDL was more easily included in the concept of “Lithuania proper” than the Prussian Lithuania that was part of Prussia for centuries.

Samogitia This, probably, was the least changing, most consistent of the images of the regions of the former GDL. However, the status of Samogitia, that is, its situation with respect to Lithuania, taking into account the different definition of the latter, was complicated. For some authors Samogitia was an independent region within the lands of the former PLC, equivalent to Lithuania or White Rus’. For example, Chłopicki named his account of his travels around the former lands of the GDL Notatki z różnoczasowych podróży po kraju (Inflanty, Żmudź, Litwa, Pobereże) (Notes of travels through the land: Inflanty, Samogitia, Lithuania, and the sea coast).97 He considered Samogitia “one of the provinces of old Poland,” so looking from Warsaw as the center of a centralized state, Samogitia, Lithuania, and White Rus’ were only the provinces of a former large country with certain distinguishing traits. Meanwhile, for other authors Samogitia was a part of Lithuania or “Lithuania proper.” As mentioned, Baliński considered Samogitia the lower part of “Lithuania proper.”98 Stanisław Czerski, who wrote about the Samogitia Diocese, called Samogitia “a celebrated part of Lithuania.”99 Ignacy Buszyński called it “low Lithuania.”100 Kraszewski, having tried to define the territories inhabited by the Lithuanian tribes in ancient times, separated Samogitia from “Lithuania proper” (Highland, Aukštaitija), even though Samogitia was also a land of Lithuanians. According to Kraszewski, people of the Lithuanian tribe only slightly   97 Chłopicki, Notatki z różnoczasowych podróży po kraju.   98 Baliński and Lipiński, Starożytna Polska, vol. 3, 116.   99 Stanisław Czerski, Opis Żmudzkiey dyecezyi (z trzema mapkami) przez kanonika katedralnego Stanisława Czerskiego doktora teologii członka wielu towarzystw uczonych (Vilnius: druk. Dworca, 1830), 1. 100 [Ignacy Buszyński], Dubissa główna rzeka w dawnem Ksęstwie Źmujdzkiem dziś w gubernji kowieńskiej z mappą tej rzeki opisana przez I. B. (Vilnius: druk. Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1871), 7.

129

130

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

differing from the Highlanders also lived there. 101 In general, whether authors considered Samogitia a part of “Lithuania proper” or a region on a separate level, it was always recognized that Lithuanians lived in both “Lithuania proper” and in Samogitia. As mentioned, for a very long time in descriptions of Samogitia the region’s historical name—the principality of Samogitia—was preserved. Even in 1839 in Paris, free of the constraints of Russian censorship, Włodzimierz Gadon wrote Statystyka Xięstwa Żmudzkiego (Statistics of the Principality of the Samogitia) and in the text constantly referred to the principality of Samogitia, of course, recalling that it now consisted of the Raseiniai, Telšiai, and Šiauliai districts.102 Often beside the name of Samogitia, authors provided a reminder of its historical name, the principality of Samogitia, and also explained the realities of the administrative division of the nineteenth-century empire. Samogitia was one of the few regions with borders whose definition did not pose major problems. More than one author described which districts made up Samogitia and tried to draw the borders of the land. Authors consistently refer to the Nevežis River as the eastern border of Samogitia. “I went to the border of Lithuania and Samogitia, where the shining Nevėžis separates the once separate principalities,” Julian Moszyński wrote of his travels.103 The authors indicated that in the west Samogitia bordered the Baltic Sea, in the north Courland, and in the south Prussia and the Kingdom of Poland.104 In the first half of the nineteenth century, the borders of Samogitia almost coincided, on one hand, with the borders of the former principality of Samogitia or the pre-partition Samogitian Elderate and, on the other, with the borders of the Samogitian Diocese. Bishop of Samogitia Motiejus Valančius in his history of the Samogitian Diocese named the Baltic Sea, Courland, the Nevežis River, and the Kingdom of Poland in 101 Kraszewski, Litwa, vol. 1, 69–70. 102 Włodzimierz Gadon, Statystyka Xięstwa Żmudzkiego . . . na posiedzeniu Towarzystwa Literackiego Polskiego w Paryżu, dnia 2 czerwca 1839 roku odczytna (Paris: Drukiem Adolfa Bastiena, 1839), 48. 103 Julian Moszyński, Podróż do Prus, Saksonii i Czech odbyta w roku 1838–1839, vol. 1 (Vilnius: druk. M. Romma, 1844), 3. 104 Czerski, Opis Żmudzkiey dyecezyi, 1.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

defining the border of the Medininkai (Samogitian) Diocese up to the seventeenth century, just as Czerski had done in the nineteenth century describing Samogitia.105 However, Valančius, like Gadon, who discussed the borders of the diocese, recognized that the borders of both the principality of Samogitia and the Samogitian Diocese had changed: they lost a small part of the territory beyond the Nemunas River, which after the partitions went to Prussia and finally ended up in the Russian Empire, but within the Kingdom of Poland. From then, the southern boundary of Samogitia was delineated by the Nemunas.106 In 1819 the imperial government separated a strip of the coast—Palanga and its surroundings—from Samogitia (Vilnius Province) and transferred it to the province of Courland. However, this territory remained a part of the Samogitian Diocese. The Samogitian poet Silvestras Valiūnas called this action of the government an act of violence against the Samogitians. In the first half of the nineteenth century Palanga and its Birutė Hill became part of the national mythology. Consider the romantic story about the Grand Duke of Lithuania, of Kestutis, the hero of the battle for Lithuania’s freedom against the Teutonic Knights. As the story goes, Kestutis met Birutė, a “simple girl,” near Palanga, and she became the grand duchess, giving birth to Grand Duke Vytautas, another hero and defender of Lithuanian independence. This tale was perhaps the most popular and widespread legendary story of the first half of the nineteenth century. In terms of Palanga’s significance to Lithuanian mythology, it is telling, for example, Jucevičius, who wrote essays on Samogitia and undoubtedly related the history of Birutė, did not even mention that Palanga from an administrative point of view no longer belonged to Samogitia (Vilnius Province).107 This fact was completely ignored in other writings as well. Most often Samogitia was identified with three districts: Telšiai, Raseiniai, and Šiauliai. Up to the 1843 administrative restructuring, 105 Motiejus Valančius, Raštai, vol. 6: Žemaičių vyskupystė (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2013), 15. 106 Ibid., 15; Gadon, Statystyka Xięstwa Żmudzkiego, 50–51. 107 Ludwik Adam Jucewicz, Wspomnienia Żmudzi (Vilnius: nakład i druk T. Glücksberga, 1842), 110–22; Jucewicz, Rysy Żmudzi, 24–34.

131

132

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

when the borders of certain districts were changed as the province of Kaunas was being created, these districts almost perfectly matched the territory of the principality or elderate of the Samogitia that existed before the partitions. However, after 1843 this border was changed and part of Samogitia went to the significantly enlarged Kaunas District. This fact had no great influence on the image of Samogitia. The Nevėžis River was still considered the border of Samogitia, although it now almost cut the Kaunas District in half and was not the border of the Raseiniai District as up to then. No administrative reorganizations could ignore the Nevėžis River, for centuries considered the border of Samogitia. However, the expansion of the territory of the diocese of Samogitia had a greater impact on the image of Samogitia. According to Gadon, several parishes of the Upytė (Panevėžys) region were included in the diocese of Samogitia. And apparently, Valančius had in mind the territory occupied by those parishes, noting that in 1794, after Samogitia became part of the Russian Empire, it was divided into four districts: Raseiniai, Telšiai, Šiauliai, and Panevėžys.108 It could be that, because of this change, a part of the Panevėžys District was considered a part of Samogitia. Laurynas Ivinskis, the author of the first Lithuanian calendars, also reacted to the administrative changes that took place. In the 1860 calendar, explaining where the “tribes of Lithuania” lived, he noted that the Samogitians lived in parts of the Kaunas and Panevėžys districts.109 Which parts of these districts were allocated to Samogitia is unclear. According to the population distribution, it can be surmised that the border of the Nevėžis River was still relevant and that the area occupied by the abovementioned parishes were taken into account. There is substantial evidence that historical arguments primarily determined the forming of the image of Samogitia: in the nineteenth century, the image of Samogitia matched the image of the historical principality of Samogitia or the Samogitian Elderate, with minor differences determined by political events. Unlike definitions of the borders of “Lithuania proper,” the ethnic or linguistic factor did not have great 108 Valančius, Žemaičių vyskupystė, 27. 109 Kalendorius arba Metskajtlus ukiszkasis nuog uźgimima Wieszpaties 1860 m . . . paraszitas par. Ł. Iwiński (Vilnius: Kasztu ir sp. J. Zawadzkia, 1860), 56.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

meaning. The people of Samogitia were separated from the others not by language, but by the way of life, cultural characteristics, material well-being, and customs—in other words, not so much by the criterion of nationality, but more by geographical location that had an impact on ways of life and livelihood. Many authors emphasized the linguistic unity of Samogitia and Lithuania, or treated the Samogitian language as a dialect of the Lithuanian language.110 The priest and linguist Ambraziejus Pranciškus Kašarauskis was probably the first to present Samogitia to Polish-speaking society as an ethnic (or more accurately subethnic) territory rather than a historical one. In 1862, in an article on the Lithuanian language and the dictionaries of the Lithuanian language, he distinguished two concepts of Samogitia: the historic Samogitia, which “in the past as a principality” continued to the Nevėžis River; and the territory of Samogitia “as a nation,” which he considered to extend from the border with the Latvians in the north and from Žagarė to the south, through Šakyna, Kuršėnai, Kurtuvėnai, and Šiluva, in the direction of Tauragė and up to the Nemunas.111 Kašarauskis drew a reasonably accurate border around the area of the Samogitian dialect that was close to the current one.112 Of course, it should be noted that in the 1820s Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža had already outlined the eastern border of Samogitia on the basis of the range of the Samogitian language in a letter.113 In the first half of the nineteenth century, Samogitia as a historical region, the tradition of which lasted until the first centuries of Lithuanian statehood, thus acquired an alternative: Samogitia as the territory of a 110 Czerski, Opis Żmudzkiey dyecezyi, 4. 111 K. A. K. [Ambraziejus Pranciškus Kašarauskis], “Rzecz o Litewskich słownikach i ogólny pogląd na kraje Litewskie przez K. A. K.,” in Pismo zbiorowe Wileńskie na rok 1862 (Vilnius: druk. A. H. Kirkora, 1862), 146. 112 For more information about the current areas of Lithuanian dialects see: XXI amžiaus pradžios lietuvių tarmės: Geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai (Vilnius: Briedis, 2014). 113 Giedrius Subačius, “Jurgio Ambraziejaus Pabrėžos žemaičių kalba,” in Asmuo: Tarp tautos ir valstybės, vol. 8 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996), 51–53. Pabrėža distinguished “proper Samogitia” and “real Samogitians,”as if opposing them to their historical perception. Ibid., 53 and footnote 99.

133

134

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

subethnic group (for Kašarauskis, a “nation”). Samogitia acquired its own ethnic dimension, which in the second half of the nineteenth century grew ever stronger, displacing the historical dimension.

Lithuanian Rus’ The term Lithuanian Rus’ applied to the part of Lithuania inhabited by Slavic tribes (usually referred to as Krivichians, or in rare cases, Drehovichians) or populated by people or tribes of Slavic origin in the first half of the nineteenth century, who were called Ruthenians. The term is most often encountered in travelogues and works by historians. Lithuanian Rus’ stretched east from “Lithuania proper,” but it is not easy to say exactly what areas were assigned to it. Władysław Syrokomla wrote about the territory between the Dvina (Daugava) and the Pripyat rivers and the source of the Dnepr and Nemunas rivers inhabited by tribes of Krivichians and Drehovichians that spoke the Ruthenian dialect.114 However, in the descriptions written at a similar time as his travels from Vilnius we find that the Ruthenians were also living much farther west than the source of the Nemunas, even to the west of Vilnius. When driving towards the village of Airėnai in the direction of Kernavė, according to the writer, “the border of the Lithuanian and Ruthenian languages and tribes” could be found.115 Syrokomla did not go into detail how the border of the Ruthenian tribes moved from the headwaters of the Nemunas so far to the west, noting only that where Lithuanian Rus’ bordered with “Lithuania proper,” the young generation was becoming more Polish.116 There were similar problems with the western border of Lithuanian Rus’, that is, its contiguity with “Lithuania proper” generated problems for Konstanty Tyszkiewicz, another traveling nobleman. Describing his trip on the Neris River from its sources in Minsk Province to its 114 Władysław Syrokomla, “Mińsk [II]. Kronika miasta Mińska,” Teka Wileńska 1 (1857): 224. 115 Władysław Syrokomla, Wycieczki po Litwie w promieniach od Wilna (do Oszmiany—do Kiernowa—do Kowna), vol. 2 (Vilnius: Nakładem księgarza A. Assa, 1860), 89–90. 116 Ibid., 96, 138.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

confluence with the Nemunas near Kaunas, Tyszkiewicz noted that from its source to the Ashmyany River (a tributary of the Neris) along the left bank and along the right bank to the mouth of the Žeimena River it flowed through the land of the Krivichians, in other words, through Lithuanian Rus’, while from the Ashmyany to the mouth of the Žeimena “Lithuania proper” began. The Ashmyany River was the “natural border” of two dialects, those of the Lithuanians and the Ruthenians.117 Lithuanian and Ruthenian tribes or folk speaking these dialects differed by language as well as “race,” that is, anthropological traits, clothing, and customs. However, quite unexpectedly, after passing Vilnius and well beyond it to the village of Grabijolai, Tyszkiewicz again said that here was where “Lithuania proper” began, as if he was drawing a new border of “Lithuania proper.” Incidentally, he was echoing Syrokomla’s sentiments in this regard.118 But unlike Syrokomla, Tyszkiewicz explained why “Lithuania proper” had disappeared for a while. Local people who lived along the shores of the Neris around Vilnius for generations were no longer there, while the recently arrived gentry that worked rented land were wanderers, having brought with them their specific culture and customs.119 Both authors recorded the assimilation processes due to which, in the mid-nineteenth century around Vilnius, especially to the south and southeast, the majority of inhabitants comprised a population speaking Slavic languages that had migrated there. But it seems that the changes around Vilnius were not considered to have a major impact on the image of the territory of Lithuanian Rus’. In this case, the facts of the historical ethnic territory and the origin of the population (albeit Slavicized by the mid-­nineteenth century) had great weight. That ethnic origin was more important than the ongoing linguistic assimilation processes is also reflected in the comments of Chłopicki about the people living between Vilnius and Lida: although they partially used Lithuanian and partially Polish, they 117 Konstantinas Tiškevičius, Neris ir jos krantai hidrografiniu, istoriniu, archeologiniu ir etnografiniu požiūriu, ed. Reda Griškaitė, trans. Irena Katilienė (Vilnius: Mintis, 2013), 130, 138, 282. 118 Ibid., 224. 119 Ibid., 224–25.

135

136

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

were purely of “Lithuanian origin,” having preserved their Lithuanian traits. Therefore, he considered this territory to be part of “Lithuania proper.”120 So this somewhat inaccurate border of Lithuanian Rus’ was drawn from the town of Braslaŭ, and then along the Ashmyany River in the east to Grodna and Lida in the south. From Vilnius to Lida the territory was assigned to “Lithuania proper,” but beyond Lida it was ascribed to Lithuanian Rus’, although Lithuanian-speaking villages were also located there.121 In general, it must be stated that, as in the case of many other geographic localities that did not coincide with the borders of administrative units, the borders could not be defined more precisely due to lack of data. The same applied to Lithuanian Rus’: fragments of its borders in the west were more known, especially in relation to “Lithuania proper,” but the borders in the east were totally unclear: did they end with the eastern border of Minsk Province or did they also encompass the Belarusian provinces of Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ? We can find individual facts to support either approach. This uncertainty may be explained by changes occurring in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and observed by Łatyszonek, that shaped the image of the territories of Lithuania and White Rus’, as well as the changing content of the concept of “Russian land” after the first partition.122 However, the most important meaning given to Lithuanian Rus’ was that it was a Ruthenian-populated territory and, from a historical point of view, the lands of Rus’ occupied by the Grand Dukes of Lithuania. The Ruthenians—the folk or tribe speaking the Ruthenian language—descendants of the ancient tribes, which for the traveling nobility were of ethnographic interest, gave a degree of specificity to visited localities. Historians and authors of travelogues recalled that the Ruthenian language was taken over from the conquered lands of Rus’, and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania used it as an official language for yearbooks and state documents, for example. The peasant dialect of Lithuanian Rus’ was thought to have originated out of the old Ruthenian language, 120 Chłopicki, Notatki z różnoczasowych podróży po kraju, 75–76. 121 Ibid.; Baliński and Lipiński, Starożytna Polska, vol. 3, 252. 122 Łatyszonek, Od Rusinów Białych, 261–64.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

also called the Belarusian language.123 The language or dialect of the Belarusians (as it is more commonly known), which the rural inhabitants of Lithuanian Rus’ spoke, connected this area with Belarus, particularly Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ Provinces, where the peasants and the lower nobility also spoke Belarusian. And it was specifically the Belarusian language that became the criterion that began to connect people of different classes living in a common territory. In 1859 landowner and poet Wincenty Dunin Marcinkiewicz translated into the Belarusian language Mickiewicz’s epic poem “Pan Tadeusz.” In the preface of the book, explaining and justifying his idea, he wrote that he wanted his translation to contribute to the enlightenment of the lower nobility and peasants who spoke only the Belarusian dialect and had no access to education. Now, “having dressed Pan Tadeusz in a peasant overcoat,” he dedicated this translation to landlords and the simple folk from the areas around the Dnepr, Dvina, Biarezina, Svislach, Vilia (Neris), and parts of the Neman rivers.124 The territory of the Belarusian-speaking people was thus drawn by invoking the “geography of rivers,” which also covered Lithuanian Rus’ with its Ruthenians and the Belarusians of Belarus living within this area. True, the author did not yet give it a common name, although in this work he outlined the space occupied by “Old Lithuania.” However, in 1846 the Lithuanian ethnographer and cultural historian Ludwik Adam Jucewicz drew the border of Belarus through the districts of Švenčionys and Ashmyany and the province of Grodna. In this way the lands to the east of “Lithuania proper” received the name of Belarus.125 Within Belarusian historiography, the discussion is currently taking place about when and by whom the lands inhabited by the Belarusians were initially called “Belarus”: Belarusian poet Frantsishak Bagushevich at the end of the nineteenth century or Mikhail Koialovich

123 Syrokomla, “Mińsk,” 224. 124 [Wincenty Dunin Marcinkiewicz], Pan Tadéusz: Dwanátcać szlachéćkich bylic napisáu Adám Mickiéwicz. Piarawiarnúu na białarúśkuju hawórku Wincénty Dúnin Marcinkiéwicz (Vilnius: druk. A. Syrkina, 1859), 8. 125 Jucewicz, Litwa, 200.

137

138

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

in 1863?126 However, it is not worthwhile to draw hasty conclusions about who assigned Belarus its name. Both the practice of the usage of “White Rus’” and the history of the formation of the common ethnonym “Belarusians” have not been researched enough. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the efforts to unite and identify the whole region speaking Belarusian were sporadic and random. The old names were used due to inertia—Ruthenians, Black Russians, or even tribal names such as Krivichians, Drehovichians, and so on. There were even efforts to emphasize the political affiliation of the Ruthenian peasant to the former state of Lithuania.127 On the other hand, at the beginning of the 1860s, Belarusians rather than the Ruthenians (as in the description of Vilnius Province prepared by Anton Koreva) began to be more frequently mentioned in statistical works, and in descriptions of the provinces.128 In the opinion of the Belarusian scholar Sergei Tokt’, these works became an important factor “in the process of the formation of the modern Belarusian nation” and contributed to the creation of the image of the Belarusian “national territory.”129 Thus, Lithuanian Rus’, despite its insufficiently clear borders, was associated with the ethnic territory of the Belarusians and was excluded from the territory of Lithuania in the narrow sense (that which covered 126 Mikhas’ Bich, Belaruskae adradzhenne u XIX–pachatky XX st. Histarychnyia asablivastsi, uzaemaadnosiny z inshymi narodam (Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1993), 14; Ales’ Smalianchuk, Pamizh kraevastsiu i natsyianal’nai ideiai: Pol’ski rukh na belaruskikh i litouskikh zemliakh 1864–liuty 1917 g. (St. Petersburg: Neuski prastsiag, 2004), 49, 121; Sergei Tokt’, “Belorusy v epokhu formirovania modernykh evropeiskikh natsii (XIX–nachalo XX v.),” in Kravtsevich, Smolenchuk, and Tokt’, Belorussy: Natsiia Pogranich’ia, 102; Valer Bulgakau, Historyia belaruskaga natsyianalizmu (Vilnius: Instytut belarusistyki, 2006); Valer Bulgakau, “Zlyia demany belaruskai historyi,” Arche / Pachatok 9 (2007): 97–178. 127 An example might be the Belarusian poem by Wincenty Korotyński “Najjaśniejszamu Jaho Miłości Haspadarú Imperataru Aleksandrú Mikałájawiczu, piéśnia z pakłónam ad litóvsko-rusínskai mużýckai hramády. Spisáv Vincéś Korotýński” (Vilnius: tip. Osipa Zavadzkago, 1858), dedicated to Emperor Alexander on the occasion of his visit to Vilnius. 128 Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami General’nago shtaba: Vilenskaia gubernia. Sost. kapitan General’nago shtaba A. Кoreva (St. Petersburg: Tip. I. Ogrizko, 1861), 290, 321. 129 Kravtsevich, Smolenchuk, and Tokt’, Belorussy: Natsiia Pogranich’ia, 107.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

four provinces). This distinction was made according to the understanding of that time, on the basis of the elements defining nationality—the language of the folk, an anthropological type (a criterion applied only to the folk), clothing, customs, and folklore. Lithuanian Rus’ was not an invention of the nineteenth century—such a region was distinguished in the times of the GDL. However, in the nineteenth century, the definition of Lithuanian Rus’ was focused on elements of ethnic culture rather than the historical origin of the region.

POLITICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF THE IMAGE OF LITHUANIA To this point, this chapter has analyzed the images of Lithuania in Polish-language discourse that existed “in time of peace” in the common usage and daily routine. Moving on, this section of the chapter will analyze the image of Lithuania in political programs. Here, political considerations obviously drove the shaping of geographical images, so it is interesting to discover the extent to which the images of Lithuania and other regions determined by political aspirations correlated with the geographic images that existed in everyday life. Especially during the 1830–31 and 1863–64 uprisings, the ideas of the local rebels as well as the instructions coming from the center of the uprising in Poland significantly affected the content of the uprising’s documents. This section will also deal more with “spatial practice” (using Lefebvre’s terminology), in other words, with concrete actions used in attempts to take control of a specific territory. The idea of the restoration of the PLC, or at least its autonomy, was supported by various social groups. Geopolitical changes, as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, affected the lands of the former PLC and strengthened such hopes. It was no secret that the Polish society of the occupied lands founded their hope of restoration of the state on Napoleon’s military victories. Seeking to eliminate anti-Russian sentiments and to ensure the favor of Lithuania’s nobility, Emperor Alexander I put forward the idea of restoring the GDL as an autonomous derivative within the Russian Empire. This was to be the first step in restoring the PLC.The GDL’s pro-Russian inclined group of nobles took advantage of the emperor’s stance. Ogiński, the famous

139

140

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

GDL political figure who was acting in the name of this pro-Russian group of noblemen (and who had been appointed a senator by A ­ lexander I) presented a memorandum outlining the program for restoring the GDL as an autonomous territory in the Russian Empire with its capital in Vilnius. The GDL had to comprise eight regions—the p ­ rovinces of Vilnius, Grodna, Minsk, Vitsiebsk, Magileŭ, Kiev (Kyiv), Volhynia, and Podolia, as well as the districts of Białystok and Ternopil.130 This territory actually covered all the lands of the former GDL up to the Union of Lublin, when the provinces of Kiev, Volhynia, and Podolia went to the Kingdom of Poland. However, because in Ogiński’s vision the restoration of the GDL was only an intermediate step in restoring the autonomous Kingdom of Poland, into which would also enter the lands of the GDL, Ogiński’s proposal should not be considered a revision of the borders of the GDL. The elite of both Lithuania and Poland, following the concepts of the state borders of the GDL and the entire joint state of Poland-Lithuania, in formulating the goal of restoring the former state, wanted to use 1772 borders as their framework. New, armed efforts to restore the state were undertaken in 1830–31 by its former inhabitants. An uprising against Russian rule in the Kingdom of Poland began on November 29, 1830, in Warsaw, and is now, as it was then, often called the Polish-Russian War. Lithuania joined the uprising on March 25, 1831, when the rebels began military actions in Samogitia. The aim of the uprising in the former lands of the PLC was to restore the former state, or as the participants in the Lithuanian uprising wrote in contemporaneous documents or their

130 Bronius Dundulis, “Projektas atkurti Lietuvos Didžiąją Kunigaikštystę Rusijos imperijos sudėtyje (1811–1812 m.),” Lietuvos TSR Aukštųjų mokyklų mokslo darbai. Istorija 8 (1) (1972): 57–73; Vladas Sirutavičius, “Konstituciniai sumanymai Lietuvoje XIX a. pradžioje (1806–1812 m.),” in Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.–XX a. pradžia), (Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991), 7–28; Aliaksandr Erashevich, “Palitychnyia praekty adradzhennia Rechy Paspalitai i Vialikaga Kniastva Litouskaga u palitytsy raseiskaga tsaryzmu napiaredadni vainy 1812 g.,” Histarychny al’manakh 6 (2002): 84–96; Vytautas Petronis, “Political projects for the restoration of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1806–1815),” in Vytautas Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 90–94.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

memoirs, to “rebuild” and “recover” the lost “Homeland.”131 Lithuania’s rebels did not create a permanent leadership for the uprising, the documents of which could reveal its political program. The Lithuanian historian Feliksas Sliesoriūnas, who has researched the uprising most thoroughly, claimed that the rebels of Lithuania sought to restore the federal state of Lithuania-Poland, but that some were also promoting an independent state of Lithuania on the basis of the acts and proclamations announced by the rebels and the publications of the former rebels of Lithuania operating in exile.132 However, the published documents of the uprising and the memoirs of the rebels clearly reveal a preference for the restoration of a joint state. Lithuania, seen as the territory of the former GDL, was imagined as a constituent part of that re-established state. The political center of Lithuania would be Vilnius. This was reflected in the efforts of the Supreme [uprising] Committee that operated in Vilnius for a short time to organize an uprising in the provinces of Vilnius, Grodna, and Minsk and the western counties of Vitsiebsk Province (i.e., Polish Inflanty). However, the territory in which the uprising was encouraged did not entirely overlap with the former territory of the GDL—there was no talk about an uprising in Magileŭ Province and the eastern parts of Vitsiebsk Province, in so-called Belarus.133 Because there is no reliable information to explain the reasoning of the Supreme Committee, it can only be surmised that there were doubts about the prospects for an uprising in the Belarusian provinces, except for the Polish Inflanty, in which there was a higher percent of Polish-speaking nobility, while the majority of the local population consisted of Latvian Catholics. The course of the uprising only confirmed these doubts: the greatest number of rebel squads operated in Vilnius Province (especially in Samogitia) and the tensest fighting took place there. The uprising developed successfully in Grodna 131 “Akt powstania Powiatu Trockiego,” in Pamiętniki polskie, ed. Xawery Bronikowski, vol. 2 (Paris: Lacour i Cie, 1845), 191–92; “W powiecie Wilejskim,” in Powstanie 1831 roku na Litwie: Wspomnienia uczestników, ed. Henryk Mościcki (Vilnius: nakł. i drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1931), 115. 132 Feliksas Sliesoriūnas, 1830–1831 metų sukilimas Lietuvoje (Vilnius: Mintis, 1974), 416. 133 Ibid., 64.

141

142

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Province, as well as in some districts of Minsk Province (particularly in the northwestern part). However, much lower participation occurred in the central and eastern parts and was especially weak in the southern counties of this province (Minsk, Slutsk, Babruisk, Igumen [Chervyen’], Mazyr, Rechytsa, and Pinsk).134 Although part of the nobility in Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces also showed sympathy for the rebels,135 the uprising did not develop here. There were rare encounters with the Russian army, and only groups of rebels coming from other provinces were active in these areas. Researchers emphasize the following reasons for such a situation: the large military and administrative presence of the Russian government,136 the importance of the confessional factor (a greater part of the population was Orthodox), and that after the first partition of the PLC the distinctiveness or exclusiveness of the so-called Belarusian provinces of Magileŭ and Vitsiebsk was manifested in other aspects as well. The rebels not only fought for Lithuania, which was seen as essentially identical to the GDL in 1772, but also sometimes tried to restore its former administrative divisions, including the voivodships that were considered to be a certain part of the political program.137 However, the new administrative division introduced by the Russian government was particularly resilient—the provinces, as administrative units describing 134 Virgilijus Pugačiauskas, “Lietuva ir 1830–1831 m. sukilimas,” in Lietuvos karai: Lietuvos XIX–XX a. nacionalinių karų sisteminė—kiekybinė analizė, ed. Gediminas Vitkus (Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2014), 48–50. 135 One of the participants in the uprising attests to this, remembering how the Vilnius Committee, which prepared the uprising in Lithuania, encouraged opposition activities in Minsk Province, “but Vitsiebsk Province, invited to contribute to the overall effort, let one feel that in that earlier land conquered by Moscow the Poles had not ceased to be Poles”: “Powstanie powiatu wilejskiego. Pamiętnik przez naocznego świadka krótko spisany,” in Zbiór pamiętników o powstaniu Litwy w roku 1831 ułożony przez Feliksa Wrotnowskiego, vol. 2 of Historja powstania w 1831 roku na Wołyniu, Podolu, Ukrainie, Żmudzi i Litwie przez Feliksa Wrotnowskiego (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1875), 191. 136 Pugačiauskas, “Lietuva ir 1830–1831 m. sukilimas,” 50–51. 137 In the act of the confederation of the nobles of Upytė County it is indicated that the county was part of the Kingdom of Poland’s Trakai Province, as it had been before the partition: “Pamiętnik obywatela powiatu upitskiego,” in Zbiór pamiętników o powstaniu Litwy, 112.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

the territory, were used more often. It can be assumed that habit and practical considerations determined this. It is also worth noting that during the 1830–31 uprising, different approaches to the fate of the GDL after the uprising became evident in the Kingdom of Poland’s Sejm. Representatives of the conservative wing spoke in favor, like the Lithuanian nobility, of the restoration of a confederated state in which Lithuania would be ensured autonomy. Meanwhile, the left-wing and liberal representatives were in favor of a centralized Poland, in which the provinces of the former GDL lands would turn into provinces of the Kingdom of Poland, with a status equal to that of other provinces of Poland. The September 1831 elections to the Kingdom of Poland’s Sejm showed that in the projected political and administrative arrangement of the future independent state, Lithuania as a unit did not exist at all.138 In spite of such centralizing trends coming from the eighteenth century, which were opposed by part of the Lithuanian political elite during the adoption of the May 3, 1791, Constitution, the nobility of Lithuania also continued to maintain a deep sense of state unity and of a common historical fate with the Kingdom of Poland, which with new force was manifested in the next uprising’s attempt to win independence. On January 22, 1863, an uprising began in the Kingdom of Poland. In the first days of the uprising, several units of rebels moved into the province of Grodna. On January 29 the National Central Committee, as the Interim National Government, issued a proclamation, Do braci Litwinów (To brother Lithuanians), inviting the whole Republic (an allusion to the PLC), using the example of the Kingdom of Poland, to rebel and “restore an independent Poland.”139 Lithuania joined the uprising in early February. The frequently emphasized goal of the uprising that was declared both in documents and in the press was the restoration of the “Homeland,” the achievement of independence, the creation of an independent Poland. Although the borders of the future state were not described in detail, the common understanding 138 Sliesoriūnas, 1830–1831 metų sukilimas, 405–6. 139 David Fajnhauz, 1863: Litwa i Białoruś (Warsaw: Instytut historii PAN, Wydawnictwo Neriton, 1999), 116.

143

144

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

was that it should coincide with the territory of the PLC in 1772. However, due to the political situation, the primary focus was the liberation of the lands of the former state that were part of the Russian Empire, which also should form the nucleus of a free state. The re-­established state, consistently referred to as Poland, unlike the dual pre-­partition Polish-Lithuanian state, had to be three-fold and consist of three parts: the Kingdom of Poland, Rus’ (during the uprising Rus’ was the term used for the Ukrainian provinces of Kiev, Volhynia, and Podolia), and Lithuania (the former GDL). The structure of the central government of the uprising also corresponded to this structure of a future state. This image of the future state was being created in the rebel press. For example, the unofficial newspaper of the rebels in Augustów Province, published in the Polish and Lithuanian languages, supposedly in East Prussia, Wiadomości o naszej wojnie z moskalami/ Žinia apej lenku wajna su maskolejs (News of our war against the Muscovites), defined which provinces and lands formed the “Polish land, our Homeland,” “where our (people) are fighting,” which they indicated were Augustów, Płock, Podlasie, Lublin, Mazury, Kalisz, Cracow, and Sandomierz provinces. The provinces considered Lithuania were Grodna, Minsk, Vilnius, and Livonia, although there was no such province, and Kaunas with Samogitia. They referred to Volhynia, Podolia, and Ukraine as “Rus’.” It was also noted that Galicia, under Austrian rule, and Poznan, under Prussian rule, were also Poland.140 The geo-image of Lithuania described in the newspaper, which covered only the provinces of Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodna, and Minsk, and only part of Vitsiebsk Province, the Polish Inflanty, that is, the western part of the province, partially matched the concept of Lithuania that was functioning in local discourse before this uprising, which covered only four provinces, although the former conceptualization also included part of Vitsiebsk Province. However, the leaders of the uprising in Lithuania, both of the Whites and the Reds, adhered to a modified concept of historical Lithuania, which included six provinces. First of all, that 140 “Wiadomości o naszej wojnie z moskalami / Žinia apej lenku wajna su maskolejs, 1864-02-01,” in Prasa tajna z lat 1861–1864, vol. 3 (Warsaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1970), 195–96.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

attests to the division of the territory of Lithuania into voivodships: the voivodships of Vilnius, Grodna, Kaunas, Magileŭ, Inflanty, Vitsiebsk, Minsk, Navahrudak, and Palesse were to be established, and although they did not coincide with the Russian provinces, they covered the territory of the six provinces of the NWR.141 However, the former lands of the GDL, which after the partitions became part of the Kingdom of Poland, did not enter into this territory. Thus, the historical principle was sacrificed to the actual situation. In the documents of the uprising, the issue of territory was not raised, just as the territorial-administrative structure of a restored Poland was not described. However, the actual situation of territorial-administrative divisions was defended, as evidenced by the efforts of the Reds to keep the rebels in Białystok (part of the Grodna Province at that time) in their control, but not that of Warsaw.142 The texts of Wiadomości and naszej wojnie z moskalami/ Žinia apej lenku wajna su maskolejs, in which Lithuania and Samogitia were “over there,” or beyond the Nemunas and beyond Augustów Province, the rebel government of which the publication represented,143 also attested to a preference for the actual situation. The rebel government of Lithuania wanted the uprising to spread over the whole territory of Lithuania. In preparing the uprising, Whites organizations were established in all the provinces of Lithuania, although their activities in Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces were weak. Meanwhile, the Reds failed to establish organizations in these provinces.144 However, the strategic plans of the rebels in Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces had an important role not only for military reasons, but also because it should have helped to expand the uprising into Russian provinces. On the other hand, rumors spread among the rebels suggesting the prospect of intervention by foreign countries, primarily France, and that allegedly former French Foreign Minister Alexandre Colonna Walewski had said that the boundaries of independent Poland would be drawn with the blood spilled for her. This story allegedly 141 Fajnhauz, 1863: Litwa i Białoruś, 137. 142 Ibid., 84. 143 Wiadomości o naszej wojnie z moskalami, 198. 144 Fajnhauz, 1863: Litwa i Białoruś, 98.

145

146

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

prompted even greater insurgent activity in all the territories of the former PLC, in an effort to show the countries of Europe that all the lands of the former state sought independence and territorial integrity.145 However, despite these efforts, the activity of the uprising in various territories was not uniform. Again, as in 1830–31, the most active was Kaunas Province and Grodna Province, especially its western part. Meanwhile, the uprising in Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces was shortlived and weak, the actions of the rebels lasted only a month, and the rebels did not receive the support of the folk.146 Lithuania, now that it was intended to comprise one of the three parts of the restored state of Poland (for those parts the Whites had foreseen the status of provinces, while the Reds, especially the Reds of Lithuania, discussed the possibility of political self-determination for Lithuania), in some contexts lost its integrity and was split into Lithuania and Belarus, as shown in the documents of the leadership of the uprising in Lithuania and the propaganda literature. It can be assumed that the terms Lithuania and Belarus, often associated with the nation names Lithuanians and Belarusians, were already associated with ethnic rather than historical territories.147 In the rebel press, especially in the ­propaganda literature for the peasants, they were often addressed as “Samogitians,” “Lithuanians,” and “Belarusians.” These documents were 145 Letter from a member of the leadership of Lithuania’s uprising to F. Visłouch, the leader of a squad of rebels that operated in the Trakai county, Vilnius, June 28(16), 1863, in Vosstanie v Litve i Belorussii 1863–1864 gg. (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 34. For more information about another version of this legend and its origin see: Władysław Czartoryski, Pamiętnik 1860–1864: Protokoły posiedzeń Biura Hotelu Lambert, cz. I i II. Entrevues politiques (Warsaw: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1960), 130; Stefan Kieniewicz, Powstanie styczniowe (Warsaw: PWN, 1983), 476. 146 Battle statistics are provided in: Ieva Šenavičienė, “Lietuva ir 1863–1864 m. sukilimas,” in Lietuvos karai, 115–16. 147 An example might be the June 11, 1863, document, supposedly prepared by Kastus’ Kalinouski: “Prykaz ad rądu polskaho nad cełym krajem litouskim i biełoruskim da narodu ziemli litouskoj i biełoruskoj,” in Vostanie v Litve i Belorussii, 29–30. In the January 1, 1863, issue of the 1st Lithuanian Provincial Committee newspaper Chorągiew swobody (Banner of Freedom) the Committee presents itself as the “organizational government in Lithuania and Belarus”: Chorągiew swobody, Wilno, 1863 01 01, in Prasa tajna z lat 1861–1864, vol. 1 (Warsaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1970), 400.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

not only published in the Lithuanian and Belarusian languages, but also specifically mentioned its audience—people of Lithuania or Belarus.148 In all cases there was a greater political entity common to all—the Ojczyzna, the Homeland, that is, Poland. Such literature (especially in the Belarusian language) was primarily related to the activities of the Reds, who, in keeping with democratic ideas, were particularly attentive to social issues, the freedom of the press and religion, and the development of the free individual and the question of the peasant becoming a full-fledged citizen, as well as the free expression of national identity. The National Government of the uprising also guaranteed the widest opportunities for the development of national identity and language to Lithuania and Rus’.149 It can be supposed that the Reds, who were active among the peasants, were well acquainted with the ethnic situation both from statistical and ethnographic studies, as well as from their own experience, and used it in their work. However, during the uprising, ethnicity was still compatible with the civic model of the imagined future state. Thus, political programs, as well as such radical political action as the uprisings, reflected basic needs and objectives, setting themselves apart from less far-reaching tendencies or alternatives. These objectives show that up to the beginning of the 1860s, Lithuanian society had remained faithful to the idea of the restoration of the historical state of Poland-Lithuania with its historical borders. In this country, Lithuania was imagined within its historical borders as well, but the political and administrative decisions of the nineteenth century changed 148 The text announced in the Belarusian language, “Hutorka staraho Dzieda na Biełarusi,” and the free translation of the same text or the common prototype in the Polish language into the Lithuanian language, called “Pasaka senelio. Surasze Wargdienelis isz Lietuwos,” can be considered such a case: Augustinas ­Janulaitis, ed., “Spausdintieji ir nespausdintieji 1863–64 m. sukilimo raštai,” Karo archyvas 1 (1925): 214–19. Also the “Gromata Wylniaus Senelio” (Letter from a Vilnius Grandfather) written by Mikalojus Akelaitis, beginning with the address “Greetings, my dear brother Lithuanians. Greetings, grandfathers and ­grandmothers, boys and girls, all, and yes, all children of our beautiful little Lithuania!” (ibid., 213). 149 Proclamation of the Central Committee as the Interim National Government, May 10, 1863, in Karo archyvas 1 (1925): 225–26.

147

148

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the borders. Therefore, Lithuania was deprived of the trans-Nemunas region that was included in the Kingdom of Poland. The question of the subordination of this part of the GDL was not raised during the time of the uprising, although in 1863–64 the Reds of Lithuania defended the autonomy of their authority in answering questions about the uprising in Lithuania, seeking to avoid subordination to Warsaw, and striving for cooperation between equal partners. The increasingly weaker ties of interests, based on real actions, linked the eastern outskirts of Lithuania—Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces or so-called White Rus’—with the remaining part of Lithuania. While during the uprising of 1830–31 the historical regions of Lithuania (Samogitia or the principality of Samogitia) were still mentioned, during the uprising of 1863–64 the contours of two different parts of Lithuania emerged— ethnic Lithuania and ethnic Belarus, inhabited by Lithuanians and Belarusians. Propaganda addressing audiences in each region in their own language actualized the ethnic diversity of these parts and raised it to the level of political life.

THE IMAGE OF LITHUANIA IN LITHUANIAN DISCOURSE I have thus far analyzed the various images of Lithuania that functioned in the Polish language in public communication representing the culture of the nobility in Lithuania. However, the first half of nineteenth-century Lithuanian history is considered the period of the so-called Lithuanistic movement when local intellectuals—the nobility, at the beginning, and later commoners— became concerned about the survival of the Lithuanian language, its social role, and the creation of Lithuanian literature and the culture of writing in general.150 In this environment of concern for Lithuanian language and writing, the image of Lithuania was actualized and new content was provided for it. First should be discussed one important aspect that P. Subačius, who studied the development of Lithuanian national identity, called “the validation of the nation.” I mentioned that almost all the writing 150 For more information, see Vincas Maciūnas, Lituanistinis sąjūdis; Paulius Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

by historians of Lithuania in Polish in the first half of the nineteenth century expressed the opinion that after the Unions of Krewo and especially of Lublin, Lithuania as a state no longer existed but had merged with Poland, and that the Lithuanian nation disappeared while the nobility of Lithuania joined the Polish nation. In the nineteenth century, in the former lands of the GDL, remnants of the Lithuanian nation lived on—the Lithuanian and Ruthenian folk or tribes, but no nations. There was one nation: the Poles. It was imagined in the discourse of that time, that in the future, the folk would become part of the Polish nation. Scholars talk about the multi-stage identity of Lithuania’s nobility, that of the Polish-Lithuanian identity (the Polish-Belarusian identity of the Belarusian nobility can also be mentioned),151 when a person could feel both Polish and Lithuanian simultaneously. Nevertheless, in the first half of the nineteenth century in many cases, the Lithuanian, Belarusian, or Inflanty component was less indicative of national identity than territorial identity, the tie with the geographical region (province).152 As the cultural concept of the nation became increasingly more established, the Polish identity of Lithuania’s nobility became stronger, more defined. Under these circumstances, one of the first aims (not necessarily clearly understood and declared) of Lithuanian cultural figures was legalizing the existence of the Lithuanian nation. The first participants in this movement were still close to Polish discourse in their views. Dionizas Poška, one of the first authorities of this movement, recognized that “among these old ancient nations that perished together with their languages one can also include the principalities of Lithuania and Samogitia, Podlasie, Trakt Zapuszczanski, Courland, Zemgale, and Prussian Lithuania, then our brothers, but now divided between different states and 151 For more information about this type of identity, see: Juliusz Bardach, “Wieloszczeblowa świadomość narodowa na ziemiach litewsko-ruskich Rzeczypospolitej w XVII–XX wieku,” in Materiały z międzynarodowej konferencji naukowej w Instytucie Historii UAM w Poznaniu (11–12 maja 1998), ed. Jan Jurkiewicz (Poznan: Instytut Historii UAM, 1999), 11–34. 152 For analysis of a case of such territorial identity, see: Saulius Pivoras, “Teritorinis tapatumas Eustachijaus Tiškevičiaus visuomeniniame—politiniame pasaulėvaizdyje.”

149

150

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

administrative units.” After the two unions, he continues, these lands lost their political being, and at the same time abandoned their mother tongue, leaving it to the rabble, and they began to learn the Polish language. The history of the former state was for him an object of interest and curiosity because awareness of an individual’s own ancestors was an inborn and honorable striving.153 It was also necessary for everyone to know the mother tongue. He considered the restoration of “the most precious monuments of the antiquity of our nationality” the concern for the language and literature of the Lithuanians, which was in line with being a part of a unionist state. In Speičytė’s opinion, Poška, like Simonas Stanevičius, represented a transformed political national identity (national identity in a form that also existed before the partitions of the state—the civic/political nation). However, Poška expressed the idea that the commonality of the members of the nation was supported through public cultural life, mutual contacts, and Lithuanian communication.154 Stanevičius, according to Speičytė, “extended and developed the concept of the civic national identity of the Lithuanians, linking them with scholarly, creative activities, the creation of a medium of communication.”155 Poška particularly emphasized the importance of the togetherness of the Lithuanians and Samogitians, and only the products of their shared culture would help overcome the dangers raised by the political crisis. The subsequent activists of the Lithuanistic movement not only rejected the theory of the extinction and death of the Lithuanian nation, but began to create the idea of the modern Lithuanian nation. The author of the first history of the Lithuanian nation in the Lithuanian language, Simonas Daukantas, believed in the existence of “our nation,” and for him language was the main sign of the distinctiveness of nations. While still maintaining the division of the Lithuanian nation into the Samogitians and Aukštaičians (Highlanders), he nevertheless spoke about “the world of Lithuania”—the joint world of the 153 [Dionizas Poška], “Rozmyślania wieśniaka rolnika,” 632–33, 649–50. 154 Speičytė, Poetinės kultūros formos, 92–93, 360–61. 155 Ibid., 147.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Lithuanian nation.156 Daukantas and other Lithuanian cultural figures in the 1820s and 1830s tried to prove the existence of the Lithuanian nation, as well as its uniqueness (based on history, language, and ethnic culture).157 Kašarauskis went even further in asserting the inherent nature of nations and languages. In 1859 he wrote: “Providence itself divided mankind into nations, granting equally to each the same freedom to use the language which went to their [nation]; so why is it not appropriate for the Lithuanian nation to use that which birthright sanctioned?”158 Thus, language was recognized as the essential sign of a nation. Of course, up to the mid-nineteenth century, a unified Lithuanian ethnonym had not yet stabilized. Although the vast majority of authors acknowledge that the Lithuanians and Samogitians were parts of the same Lithuanian nation named according to their populated locality, there was no rush to renounce the individual identification of the Samogitians or Lithuanians. During the first half of the nineteenth century, both names, Lithuanians and Samogitians, were equally dominant. The same situation applied to language: even though the language of the Samogitians or Lithuanians was written about, they were seen as dialects derived from a single Lithuanian language. Symptomatic is the title of Simonas Stanevičius’s Lithuanian language grammar book Short Teaching of the Language of the Lithuanians or Samogitians, in the foreword of which it is mentioned that the Lithuanian language is spoken by the Samogitians.159 For Juozas Čiulda, who wrote a grammar of the 156 [Simonas Daukantas], Pasakas Phedro iszguldę isz łotiniszkos kałbos i żamajtiszką Motiejus Szauklys, o apskelbę Ksaveras Kanapackis (St. Petersburg: E. Pratz, 1846), xvii. About the concept of the nation in the works of Daukantas see: Saulius Pivoras, “‘Vargo pelė’: Lietuvos nacionalinės istoriografijos pradininkas Simonas Daukantas,” in Simonas Daukantas, vol. 5 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos (Vilnius: Viltis, 1993), 69–89 (especially, 78–80). 157 Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė, 33–40. 158 K. A. K. [Kašarauskis], “Znaczenie języka Litewskiego,” 164. 159 Trumpas pamokimas kałbos lituwyszkos arba Żemaytyszkos, nuo nekurio nobażna ysz draugistes Jezaus kunyga łotinyszkay paraszîtas yr spâustas Wyjlniuj‘ metùse 1737, dabarcziu atrastas yr ysznauja swiêtuy parodîtas (Vilnius, 1829), I, III; Juozas Čiulda, Trumpi samprotavimai apie žemaičių kalbos gramatikos taisykles, ed. Giedrius Subačius, vol. 6 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos (Vilnius: Mokslo ir

151

152

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Lithuanian language, there was also “a nation of Lithuanians or Samogitians” and “language of the Lithuanians or Samogitians.”160 Throughout the entire first half of the nineteenth century, intensive work was undertaken towards the development of a standardized Lithuanian language, which was based on the dialects of the Samogitians or the Lithuanians (i.e., Highlanders), or to harmonize the two dialects.161 Despite the retained dual name of the Lithuanians—the Samogitians and the Lithuanians—and even some visible separateness, the unity of the Lithuanian nation was not challenged by all who wrote on the topic. While at the beginning of the century Poška was still encouraging the unity and mutual respect of the Samogitians and Lithuanians, Stanevičius welcomed the joint activities of the Samogitians and Lithuanians. Then Daukantas spoke, as mentioned, about “the world of Lithuania,” which was the land of the nation of the Lithuanians, in which the Samogitians and Highlanders lived.162 All Lithuanians and Samogitians, or the nation of the Lithuanians, began to be comprehended as a community bound by ties and feelings of kinship or brotherhood. The trans-Nemunas region educator, Reverend Antanas Tatarė, in booklets in the Lithuanian language published in 1849 and 1851 for the Lithuanian peasants of the trans-Nemunas region, addresses them in the foreword: “dear brothers, my Lithuanians (lietuvninkai).” Later in the text, the Lithuanian peasants were called “Lithuanians” (lietuvninkai), “beautiful little children of Lithuania,” and “little children of Lithuania,” and their inhabited land was enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993), 28–29, 83, 91, 360; Kalixt Kossakowski, Grammatyka języka żmudzkiego ułożona przez X. Kalixta Kossakowskiego, plebana ­Kołtynianskiego doktora teologii / Kałbrieda leźuwio żiamaytiszko (Vilnius: nakł. i druk. Manesa i Zymela, 1832), vii. 160 Juozas Čiulda, Trumpi samprotavimai, 83, 91, 360. A completely analogous position was taken by Kalikstas Kasakauskas, the author of another grammar, who explained: “I call Samogitian a Lithuanian language because that is one and same thing. The stress in some words, of course, differs, but the difference is less than that between a Great Pole and a Mozurian”: Kossakowski, Grammatyka języka żmudzkiego, vii. 161 Giedrius Subačius, “Žemaičių mąstymo apie bendrinę kalbą istorijos metmenys,”Metmenys 72 (1997): 125–48; Giedrius Subačius, Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos. XIX a. pradžia (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998). 162 [Daukantas], Pasakas Phedro, xvii.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

called the “land of Lithuania,” and the “little land of Lithuania.”163 The priest and poet Klemensas Kairys also appealed to his audience in a rhymed letter: “Dear Brother Lithuanian priest Pranciškus,” as if emphasizing their belonging to the society of “brother Lithuanians” (not only brother priests), in other words, to an ethnic community or an emerging nation.164 P. Subačius emphasized the consistent drift in the texts of Baranauskas “from the stated Samogitian and Lithuanian identities towards the designed, enlightened, and uniform Lithuanian national identity.”165 Even more expressively, the feeling of national community was expressed in the poetry of Jokūbas Daukša, a poet who wrote in both Lithuanian and Polish. For him Lithuania was “our Homeland,” which chiefly was “the soul of all Lithuanians,” but also the land, history, past and present, legends, customs and folk songs, and the mother tongue spoken by Gediminas. The nation for him was the family, which blissfully accepted returning wanderers into its embrace. Peace of mind and comfort were found only among a person’s own national community, where Lithuanians were like brothers to each other. To be in Lithuania among Lithuanians was the greatest happiness for the poet. But those worthy of being sons of the homeland were not only those who loved Lithuania but also knew the Lithuanian language. Lithuanians were only those, Daukša believed, that thought like Lithuanians, felt Lithuanian, spoke in the Lithuanian language, and worked as Lithuanians. Therefore, the nation of the Lithuanians for the poet was not only a spiritual community, but was distinguished by linguistic and cultural features as well as history. The poet foretold future strength and prosperity for Lithuania. He probably was the first to express the idea of 163 [Antanas Tatarė], “Pamokslaj iszminties ir tejsibes iszguldineti priliginimajs gałwocziu wisu amżiu deł Lietuwos wajkielu: Ispausti Suwałkuose, 1851 metuose,” “Pamokslai gražių žmonių, geriems jų vaikeliams ir iščėslyvais padarintie tame ir ateinančiame gyvenime. Išspausti Suvalkuose 1849 metuose,” in Antanas Tatarė, Pamokslai išminties ir teisybės (Vilnius: Vaga, 1987), 25, 27, 68, 102, 214, 228 et passim. 164 Klemensas Kairys, “‘Mielas brolau lietuvi kunige Pranciškai,’ 1858, Petaburkas,” in Ant upės krašto blindelė auga. Eilėraščiai lietuvių ir lenkų kalbomis (Vilnius: Vaga, 1987), 125. 165 Paulius Subačius, Antanas Baranauskas: Gyvenimo tekstas ir tekstų gyvenimai (Vilnius: Aidai, 2010), 51.

153

154

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

political independence for Lithuania—when the time came to fight for independence, the fight would have to take place “not on behalf of Moscow, or on behalf of Poland, but on behalf of Lithuania.”166 The poetry of Jokūbas Daukša was almost an archetypal example of the emerging national idea. Lithuanian cultural figures tried to identify a certain territory for the newly drawn nation. P. Subačius was of the opinion that Baranauskas was the first person to define the borders of such a Lithuania in his poetic letters Kelionė Peterburkan ( Journey to ­ ­Petersburg), written in the fall of 1858.167 Traveling to St. Petersburg, for him that border was the widest river of Lithuania, the Daugava. Baranauskas, according to P. Subačius, consistently adhered to an integral concept of the “land of Lithuania” not divided into the Samogitians and Lithuanians.168 However, as we have seen, Tatarė already referred to the land of the Lithuanians (lietuvninkai) and “the little land of Lithuania.” Meanwhile, Samogitian Bishop Motiejus Valančius in his pastoral letters still mentioned the ­Lithuanians and the Samogitians, but he clearly implied that the region in which the Lithuanians and the Samogitians lived was the same overall. He referred to it as “our region,” “our land,” or even “our forgotten homeland.”169 Of course, the bishop’s letters to the faithful of the diocese, in which he addressed the population of the diocese of the Samogitia, hinted at the possibility that the land would match the contours of the diocese. However the possibility also remained that the land in the consciousness of the listener would be linked with the Lithuanian- and Samogitian-inhabited land, if such an image could be formed earlier. Such alternatives do not usually arise in the writings of laymen. 166 Poems of Jokūbas Daukša “Do Litwy,” “My z jednego bukietu dwa kwiatki . . . ,” “Niech żyje Litwa . . . ,” and others, in Ant upės karšto blindelė auga, 172–83, 186, 188; Bronius Genzelis, Socialinės ir politinės minties raida Lietuvoje: Būti ar nebūti Lietuvai? (Vilnius: Margi raštai, 2005), 166–68; Virgilijus Savukynas, Istorija ir mitologijos: Tapatybės raiškos XVII–XIX amžiaus Lietuvoje (Vilnius, 2012), 291–93. 167 Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė, 153. 168 Ibid., 155; Subačius, Antanas Baranauskas, 49–50. 169 Motiejus Valančius, Ganytojiški laiškai, ed. Vytautas Merkys and Birutė Vanagienė (Vilnius: Žara, 2000), 119, 159.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Daukša described his native land with the help of the “geography of rivers”: the Nevėžis, Neris, Nemunas, Apaščia, and Agluona rivers flowing in ethnic Lithuania marked the territory of Lithuania.170 Of course, such an image of Lithuania was still very vague. However, in the 1850s and 1860s, Lithuanian discourse had already seen attempts to draw the borders of Lithuania more precisely. In a booklet written in Lithuanian for a folk audience by Akelaitis and published in 1860, the main narrator, a Bernardine monk, lists all the administrative units that made up the “whole of Lithuania.” All Lithuania, according to the narrator, stretched from Vilnius to Palanga, Klaipėda, and Königsberg, and from Žeimiai and Žagarė to Sejny and Leipūnai. These points roughly marked the Lithuanian land of the mid-nineteenth century. But when Akelaitis began to name specific provinces and districts that constituted Lithuania, he included Kaunas Province as well as the entirety of Vilnius Province and the three Lithuanian-populated districts of Augustów Province. Akelaitis thus broadly assigned to Lithuania the territories of Vilnius Province, which at that time were already inhabited by Slavic-speaking people. However, this area was close to that which was identified in historical works as primal Lithuania or “Lithuania proper.” Akelaitis also mentioned the fact that Lithuanians lived in Prussia, in other words, in so-called Prussian Lithuania. He called this Lithuania “Our Little Land,” in which “our people” lived. The image of one’s own land was supplemented with cities, in which stood the most beautiful churches. Of course, it was recognized that the most beautiful churches were in Vilnius, but beautiful (churches) were also in Kaunas, Kėdainiai, Šiauliai, Žemaičių Kalvarija, Kretinga, and Šiluva. All these cities fell into the area of the Lithuanian language. But the list of Lithuania’s rivers (mentioned were the Dvina [Dauguva], Dzisna, Ashmyany, and Lielupė and all the main rivers flowing in the territory of ethic Lithuania) implied that Lithuania was much larger than it was according to aforementioned criteria because it covered the whole province of Vilnius.171 A similar territory between four points—Labiau (Labguva 170 Jokūbas Daukša, “Dumka o rodzinie,” in Ant upės krašto blindelė auga, 164–66. 171 Mikalojus Akelaitis, Kwestorius po Lietuwą waźinedamas żmonis bemokinąsis (Vilnius: spaustuweja A. H. Kirkora, 1860), 18–23. Also see: Sirutavičius, “Simbolinės geografijos,” 121.

155

156

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

[Prussia] in Lithuanian, Polessk), Liepaja, Dinaburg (Daugavpils), and Grodna—was drawn by Juozapas Želvavičius, who called it the Lithuanian- and Samogitian-inhabited land. This land was also “our native land,” that is, the homeland, with which the authors associated filial love and feelings of commitment.172 The same commitment to work for fellow compatriots, brother Lithuanians, and the land of Lithuania was also expressed by Valerijonas Ažukalnis, another poet writing in Lithuanian at that time.173 It is interesting that Vilnius also fell into the territory of Lithuania defined by these authors. Akelaitis was not the only one to mention it as the center of power that came from a variety of directions; Bishop Valančius recalled Vilnius as well. For Tatarė, this city was the center from which technical innovation and education came, and to which the daughters of Lithuanian farmers were sent for education. In Tatarė’s unpublished work, he called Vilnius the largest city of Lithuania, told the history of the Vilnius Academy (i.e., university), and showed how the image of Vilnius was being created as the center of Lithuania’s education, from which the “little children of Lithuania” drew wisdom.174 In the mid-nineteenth century, the intelligentsia writing in Lithuanian (usually in Lithuanian and Polish) created the idea of the modern Lithuanian nation, marked the cultural borders of the nation—which were based on forms of folk culture and the Lithuanian language—created a historical narrative, cherished plans for the development of high culture, and, of course, began to look for its own territory, the nation’s homeland with which ties of loyalty would link the nation. Although the national community being created was still fragmented into Lithuanians and Samogitians, and it was not yet decided what dialect—that of the Lithuanians or the Samogitians— would be used to write grammars and create a common Lithuanian 172 Ivan A. Krylov, Pasakas. Pardėjo Jozepas Źelvovicz (Vilnius: spaustuwieje Juzapa Zawadzkia, 1863), 5. 173 Genzelis, Socialinės ir politinės minties raida, 166. 174 Ibid., 81; [Antanas Tatarė], “Šventa ir pagirta roda dėl išmintingų gražių ir dievobaimingų žmonių, kurie su rūpesčiu klausinėja kelio in amžiną ir iščėslyvą gyvenimą, o dideliai bijos prapulties dūšios savo. Parašyta metuose 1849 nuog užgimimo Kristaus Pono,” in Antanas Tatarė, Pamokslai išminties ir teisybės, 321, 339–40.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

language, there were already significant efforts to define the territory of the Lithuanian nation. The borders of this territory were still not clear. Only milestones were placed, marking the areas where the Lithuanian tribes once lived and where people speaking Lithuanian now lived. Only the name Lithuania was given to this land. Also important was the historical (the territory inhabited by the Lithuanian tribes or “primeval” Lithuania) principle justifying the historical rights to “one’s own” land as well as the linguistic principle (the land of people speaking Lithuanian). The territory of Lithuania envisioned in Lithuanian discourse was close to the “proper” Lithuania described in Polish-­language texts, but the difference was that it was the only geo-image named Lithuania in Lithuanian discourse and not many like it was in the Polish-language one.

The Dissemination of the Image of Lithuania As mentioned, in the first half of the nineteenth century, Lithuanian cultural figures created a new concept of a (democratic) nation, defined the fundamental characteristics of the nation, tried to depict its territorial boundaries, and strove to standardize the language. Czech historian Miroslav Hroch includes all these actions among the first (scholarly) stage of national movements.175 According to Hroch, in this stage those involved in the national movement are still not concerned about national agitation.176 In the case of Lithuania, he postponed the stage of national agitation to the end of the nineteenth century.177 Lithuanian scholars Antanas Tyla and Antanas Kulakauskas questioned the validity of such a chronology.178 This chapter on creation and dissemination of 175 Miroslav Hroch, Mažosios Europos tautos, trans. Vytautas Deksnys (Vilnius: Mintis, 2012), 131. 176 Miroslav Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 22–23. 177 Ibid., 86–87. 178 Antanas Tyla, Review of Die Vorkämpfer der nationalen bewegung bei den kleinen Völkern Europas, by Miroslav Hroch, Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 1971: 143–46; Antanas Kulakauskas, “Apie tautinio atgimimo sąvoką, tautinių sąjūdžių epochą ir lietuvių tautinį atgimimą,” in Tautinės savimonės žadintojai: nuo asmens iki partijos, vol. 1 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos (Vilnius: Sietynas, 1990), 137–42.

157

158

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the image of Lithuanian “national territory” supports their thesis. Of interest here are efforts by cultural figures active in Lithuania in the mid-nineteenth century to acquaint members of the national community being created with the populated territory of the nation, the homeland of the nation, and to establish the name indicating this common territory: Lithuania. Lithuania’s researchers usually affirm that in the first half or even throughout the entire nineteenth century and later, religious, parish, and regional self-consciousness was typical among Lithuanian peasants.179 Although Pivoras, having studied the rudiments of the civic self-consciousness of Lithuanian peasants in the first half of the nineteenth century, admitted that “in addition to local identity, there existed a certain memory of the most important moments in the history of the state, when the peasants also played a role.”180 Not only folklore, but also the hymns of the most popular hymnals supported this memory. It is interesting that in some hymns we find hints of historical events along with names of spaces that might have contributed to forming both the regional and state identities of the peasants. The most popular hymnal at the beginning of the nineteenth century until 1818 was perhaps “Balsas širdies” (Voice of the heart), written in the seventeenth century by Pranciškus Šrubauskis and used throughout the eighteenth century. After 1818 the priest Vincentas Valmikas revised, supplemented, and published this hymnal. Later this hymnal was repeatedly revised and published under new titles.181 These hymnals, as well as others, included the hymn “Diewe małonus, Diewe ” (Giesmie nepakaju) (Kind God, Almighty God [The hymn of times of turmoil]), written in response to the internal unrest in the PLC in

179 Subačius, Antanas Baranauskas, 48; Savukynas, Istorija ir mitologijos, 266–287 and others; Virgilijus Savukynas, “Apie lietuvių religinį ir kalbinį tapatumą,” Kultūros barai 5 (1996): 49–53. 180 Saulius Pivoras, Lietuvių ir latvių pilietinės savimonės raida. XVIII a. pabaiga–XIX a. pirmoji pusė (lyginamasis aspektas) (Vilnius: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, 2000), 44. 181 Mikas Vaicekauskas, Lietuviškos katalikiškos XVI–XVIII amžiaus giesmės (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2005), 77.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

1654–1656.182 The hymn mentions the “lands of the Poles, Lithuania and the Samogitians touched by the wrath of God” as well as the perishing of “our Kingdom.”183 Additionally, the hymn “Būk pagarbinta švenčiausia Marija” (Giesmie waynu Lituwoy) (Be praised Most Holy Mary [The hymn of the past war time in Lithuania]) also mentions “our Kingdom,” the “land of Lithuania,” and the Swedes and Muscovites devastating it. The Blessed Virgin Mary was asked to inspire the Senators to mutual peace and “to stand firmly for the homeland.” There was also an appeal to St. Casimir, the patron saint of Lithuania and Poland.184 So the hymns recall historical events associated with many disasters, as well as the former state and its parts: Lithuania, Poland, and Samogitia. Russian censors around the 1830s drew attention to such hymns and blocked their printing, but in the newly compiled or revised books of hymns that were dedicated to St. Casimir,185 he was referred to as a prince of the Poles and the patron of Lithuania and Samogitia, the celebrity of the kinsfolk of the Jagiellonian princes.186 One hymn dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary asked her “to keep the Catholics of the Samogitian Principality, as her true possession, in grace.”187 Meanwhile, the hymns “Karalieny małoninga, Kałwaryjoy stebuklinga” (Gracious queen, [who was] magical at Calvary) and “Karalene dangaus Motina Szwęcziausi” (Queen of Heaven Mother Most Holy) were devoted to Žemaičių Kalvarija [Samogitian Calvary], a holy place.188 In the first hymn the principality of Samogitia was mentioned as the real “possession” of the Holy Mother of God. And 182 Ibid., 178. 183 Bałsas Sirdies pas Pona Diewa Szwęciausy Marya Panna yr Szwętus Danguy Karalaujencius, Szaukancis par Giesmes pagal Iszpazinima Baźnicios S. Katalikiszkos Rima sudietas, o dabar naujey su pazwaliimu Wiresnuju Dwasiszku iszdotas par wiena kuniga Soc. J. Metuose . . . 1798 (Vilnius: Drukarniey pri Akademios, 1798), 214 [?]. 184 Ibid., 214–18; Vaicekauskas, Lietuviškos katalikiškos giesmės, 178–79. 185 Mikas Vaicekauskas, “Šv. Kazimierui skirtos lietuviškos giesmės XVII–XIX a.,” in Šventas Kazimieras istorijos vyksme: Įvaizdis ir refleksija (Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus, 2006), 85–112. 186 Tadas Juzumas and Juozas Račkauskis, Senas auksa altorius arba surynkimas iwairiu maldun ir giesmiun (Vilnius: Zavadzkio sp., 1853), 467–68, 557–58. 187 Ibid., 414–15. 188 Auksa Ałtorius arba Afieras kwiepanczias ant Auksa Ałtoriaus prisz Majestota Diewa tay ira małdas skutecznas Bażnicziay Szwętay zwyczaynas Kures Afektas meyły Diewa degąs Ponuy Diewuy ant kwapo saldibes garbies ją afierawoty gał. Su pridotku naujos

159

160

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

in the second hymn, according to Mikas Vaicekauskas, “we hear patriotic motives ringing”: “it is stressed that the land of the Samogitians is happy, because here true Christians glorify the Mother of God, . . . one is proud that the sacred and magical place is in its own land.”189 The books of hymns were undoubtedly the most popular book of the peasants; they were in almost every home. True, the hymns that mentioned Lithuania or the principality of Samogitia were usually in the second half of the hymnals, which were referred to less frequently. Therefore, their impact on the preservation or dissemination of traditional geographical images should not be overestimated. On the other hand, during the first half of the nineteenth century, the content of these books changed little. The old hymnals were reissued and the old hymns were included in new hymnals. In this way, the hymnals and the prayers printed in them may have contributed to the preservation of the names of Lithuania and the principality of Samogitia or the land of Samogitia in folk tradition, and at the same time served to support the image of Lithuania as “the land of Lithuania” or “our kingdom.” However, the first half of the nineteenth century also stands out for the appearance of non-religious writings for peasants and the development of its repertoire. Didactic literature, the calendars that were issued by Ivinskis, economic advice booklets, literary works, and translations supplemented the primers known from previous centuries that focused on teaching the rudiments of writing and religion. Some of these publications offer a window onto the names of places that were used, which ones were affirmed to the reader of the booklets, or whether the image of a solid Lithuania and a single Lithuanian nation was being created. In the era of nationalism, the school was where national identity and the image of one’s country was most actively formed and the idea of the homeland created. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the situation in that respect was not favorable for the Lithuanian national program. From the 1820s the imperial government increasingly Nobażeństwos, yr su iszguldymu Sena yr Nauje Kalendoriaus (Vilnius: Drukarniey Diecezijos, 1843), 581–83. 189 Vaicekauskas, Lietuviškos katalikiškos giesmės, 184–85.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

controlled the content of education in secondary as well as elementary schools with the goal, inter alia, of instilling the official image of the Russian Empire, divided into provinces, into the minds of children. The primers used only in non-state elementary schools allowed their authors to behave more freely and according to their own wishes. However, the very genre of the primers, in which most space was devoted to religion and hyphenation, did not provide great opportunities. Nevertheless, the first steps, including those related to the formation of children’s national identity, were taken. In 1824 Kajetonas Nezabitauskis published a pedagogically innovative primer.190 However, maintaining the normal duality of Lithuanians and Samogitians, it was intended for Samogitian and Lithuanian children. This duality was maintained in the text of the primer, although occasionally the salutation “brother Samogitians” slipped in, showing that the Samogitians were the primary addressees of the primer. On the other hand, the emphasis that the same textbook was aimed at Lithuanians and Samogitians, the salutation “Youth of the Samogitians and Lithuania” impressed upon the student that Samogitia and Lithuania were one and the same country; the writing the primer taught was suitable for both. The impression of togetherness was also strengthened by the list provided in the primer of writings published in the “Lithuanian, Samogitian, and Lithuanian-Prussian” languages. However, not far from this list was another, naming the men from “all the lands of the Samogitia” who strove to keep the mother tongue from being forgotten.191 It is significant that in the primer there was an attempt to explain some of the more general concepts. Among them were “home,” which was explained in two ways: as the residential home and as the wider territory directly known to the peasant, attesting to the narrow outlook 190 Kajetonas Nezabitauskis, Naujas Moksłas skaityma diel mażū waykū Żemaycziu yr Lietuwos su 5 paweyksłays: Teypogi Atsyrand czion wysokias reykalingas Małdas, Moksłas Krykszczionyszkas yr ministratura par Kajetona Niezabitawski Mokityni Akademios Wilniaus (Vilnius: Drukarnioy Dyecezalno Kunigu Missionoriu pri Bażniczes S. Kazimiero, 1824); Kajetonas Nezabitauskis, Naujas Mokslas skaitymo dėl mažų vaikų Žemaičių ir Lietuvos, rev. ed. (Vilnius: Alma littera, 1996). 191 Ibid., 55.

161

162

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

of the peasant.192 A proverb provided in the textbook, “Worship God, be just, and love your homeland,” may have proved useful in promoting an understanding of the concept of home.193 At the beginning of the primer, maxims also urged love of the homeland and the mother tongue, and a quatrain by Dionizas Poška also called for love of the mother tongue.194 Thus, Nezabitauskis’s primer should have helped shape children’s sense of belonging to their native language community or form, according to Hroch, their ethnic identity.195 Although it featured significantly expanded content, Abeciela (Alphabet), published in 1842196 and written by Simonas Daukantas, was not significantly different from Nezabitauskis’s primer: it was designed for “the language of the highland Lithuanians and Samogitians,” but duality was maintained. However, in the section of exhortations and proverbs, the ethnonym “lietuwinykas” [Lithuanian] was mentioned.197 Meanwhile, Elementarius (Alphabet book)198 by Kajetonas Aleknavičius, released in 1846, only explained the unique features of the Lithuanian language. Here, there was none of the previous duality—the Lithuanian primer was designed for children of the Lietuvininkai (Lithuanians). But in addition to the examples of words in the primer there was the place name “Lithuania.”199 Of course, the primer did not explain what that Lithuania consisted of, but it was 192 “The home is the place where a Man lives, where his land and meadows, relatives, friends, and known neighbors are, where the trails and roads, trees and mountains, rivers and lakes are familiar and well-known to him” (ibid., 23). 193 Ibid., 50. 194 Ibid., 2. 195 Hroch, Mažosios Europos tautos, 133. 196 [Simonas Daukantas], Abeciela Lîjtuwiu—Kalnienû ir Żiamajtiû kałbos, Torinti sawiep: Małdas, tikybôs—istatimus, dôrybęs pamoksłus, mĩstrenturą, pasakàs, patarlès, senosès ir nauiosès Gódu rodbalsès arba litaràs só parodymó lykiaus arba skajtlaus ukĩszkû, Rimĩszkû îr Gódîszkû żęnkłû (St. Petersburg: iszspausta pas K. Kraju, 1842). 197 Ibid., 49. 198 Kajetonas Aleknavičius, Elementarius arba lengwus moksłas skaytit raszto szwento: Lietuwiszkay del wayku lietuwniku par kunigu K. Olechnowicziu. Apie reykału moksło ir wieżliwu apsiejmu kalbiasieys paraszitas (Vilnius: pas Dworca pinigays Raszitojaus iszspaustas, 1846). 199 Ibid., 35.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

inserted between words for concepts usual for a peasant child such as fair weather, dawn, and yard. Similar was Lamentorius (“Alphabet book”) by Mikalojus Akelaitis, published in 1860,200 in which by the examples of syllabification were written “Lie-tu-wa” (Li-thu-ania) and “Lie-tu-wi-ni-kas” (Li-thu-anian),201 and in another place the ethnonym “Lithuanian” was used in a lesson on tolerance for people of other faiths.202 “Lithuania” was also syllabified in the primer Moksłas letuwiszko skajtimo (Science of Lithuanian reading), published in 1852 for the peasants of Užnemunė.203 Thus, the Lithuanian primers, strengthening the self-perception of belonging to the Lithuanian-language community, laid the foundation for the formation of a national identity and simultaneously presented the label for a new identity—Lithuanian. The place name “Lithuania” appeared in primers beginning in the 1850s, and the context of its use could explain to the child that this was the land of Lithuanians, in which the Lithuanian language was spoken. However, not all primers addressed these issues; traditional primers did not even attempt, according to Meilė Lukšienė, “to acquaint the child with such public concepts as homeland, the state, etc.,”204 and space was not even found for ethnonyms or geographical names. In 1846 Laurynas Ivinskis released the first Lithuanian calendar. Until publications using the Latin alphabet were banned, Ivinskis’s Calendar,205 having reached a press run of 8,000 copies, was the most

200 Lamentorius arba pradżia moksło sudeta mażiems wajkeliems (Vilnius: spaustuweja A. Syrkina. Kasztu kunigaikszczia Ireneusza Oginskia isz Rytawa, 1860). 201 Ibid., 17–18. 202 To the question “A good farmer or only working for himself?” the response was, “No person works only for himself; all work must also benefit the near ones. So the Lithuanian sowing grain makes the sign of the cross and says: God, give a part to all people, little birds and bugs, poor men, Prussians and Jews” (ibid., 45). 203 Moksłas letuwiszko skajtimo ir Katechizmas arba Moksłas krykszczioniszkas apej artykułus wieros szwęntos katalikiszkos per kuniga J. Dydyński paraszyta (Vilnius: drukarnioy M. Zymełowicza Typografa, 1852), 6. 204 Meilė Lukšienė, Lietuvos švietimo istorijos bruožai XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje (Kaunas: Šviesa, 1970), 345. 205 About the change in the title of the calendar see: Danutė Petkevičiūtė, Laurynas Ivinskis (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988), 122.

163

164

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

popular secular book read by Lithuanian-speaking peasants.206 Although the calendar was intended for Samogitians, this fact was not announced in the book itself. Both the Ivinskis’s text and the majority of other texts were in the Samogitian dialect. The list of church feasts and fairs in every issue was intended only for the “land of the Samogitians” and covered the cities and towns in historic Samogitia up to the Nevėžis River. Only starting in 1855 did Ivinskis begin to give the list of church feasts and fairs in the diocese of the Samogitia, including in it the towns of Lithuania and Courland that were beyond the Nevėžis. The Samogitian nature of the calendar was also demonstrated in other ways: after 1855, each year the list of Samogitian bishops was given; in 1859 the list of “Samogitian books” published by the printing house of Józef Zawadzki and sold in Varniai was announced; in 1861 an address by the publisher was placed in the calendar, which was intended only for the scribes of the “land of the Samogitia.” Some stories, in addition to the Kingdom of Poland, mentioned the “land of Samogitia” but made no mention of Lithuania, and the descriptions of various events were also usually only from historic Samogitia. These facts seem to indicate that Ivinskis’s calendars could have contributed to shaping the Samogitian identity and the image of the land of the Samogitians (coinciding with the borders of the diocese of the Samogitia). However, this was not the case. In parallel with the emphasis on Samogitia, the “Lithuanian nature” of the calendar was clearly declared. First of all, from the second issue Ivinskis proudly began to count the year of the publication of “the first calendar published in the Lithuanian language,” although Bishop Motiejus Valančius, who censored them, noted that the calendar was in the Samogitian language. But in 1859 the counting of the calendars began to be numbered from the first calendar issued in the Samogitian language. It is worth noting that Ivinskis held 206 The press run for every year is not known, but in most cases it hovered around 3,000 copies, perhaps 8,000 after 1860 (ibid., 124–25). However, it should be borne in mind that at that time the book could be read aloud among the peasants and, therefore, there could have been more real readers of the book. For more information see: Džiuljeta Maskuliūninenė, XIX a. lietuvių didaktinė proza: adresatas ir tekstas (Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 2005), 29–30.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

the opinion that the language of the Samogitians differed very little from Lithuanian.207 However, from about 1855 (after the censors banned the 1853 and 1854 calendars), there was a noticeable focus on the “Samogitian identity.” The first (1846) calendar contained the significant section “Famous incidents heard in Lithuania,” which featured the most important dates in the history of Lithuania. In the first year this section was relatively short and the first historic events listed were the appearance of the “Lithuanian tribe of heruli,” the first mention of the name of Lithuania, and the death of Jogaila, who baptized Lithuania and “united” it with the Kingdom of Poland. After that, the dates jump to the birthday of the ruling Russian emperor.208 Events from all the lands where Lithuanians lived—Prussia, Lithuania, and Latvia—were mentioned. And with each new calendar, this section was expanded with new dates and continued beyond the year of the death of Grand Duke Jogaila. From 1850, and especially after 1852, the Lithuanian history section of the calendars was divided into subsections, which were entitled “The Beginning of Lithuania,” “Divided Lithuania,” “The Principality of Lithuania beyond the Vilija River,” “United Lithuania,” “Lithuania under the Polish Kings,” and “Lithuania under the Russian Empire.”209 The historical dates were extended until the incorporation of Lithuania into the Russian Empire and even up to the revocation of the Lithuanian Statute (in the 1858 calendar, the latter events were no longer there). And although in later years the list of mentioned events and names of the princes was not expanded, a large number of the dates included commentaries. For example, by the date for the death of Duke Gediminas it was written that by the Neris (Vilija) and Vilnelė Rivers he founded the city of Vilnius and died in battle with the “Knights of the Cross” in the Samogitian land near Veliuona. Commemorating King 207 Kalendorius arba Metu skajtlus ukiszkas ant metu nuog użgimima Wieszpaties 1851 . . . (Vilnius: spaustuwieje Juozapa Zawadzkia, 1850), 41 (comment on the poem of Silvestras Valiūnas “Raszantem Lietuwiszka Źodini”). 208 Metu skajtlus ukiniszkas ant metu Wieszpaties 1846 . . . (Vilnius: spaustuwej‘ Jozapa Zawadzki, 1846), 6. 209 Kalendorius arba Metskajtlus ukiszkas nuog uźgimima Wieszpaties 1852 Metu . . . (Vilnius: spaustuwieje Juozapa Zawadzkia, 1851), 9–11.

165

166

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Žygimantas Augustas, a quotation was included about the fact that at that time Lithuania was united with the Kingdom of Poland and that from that time until 1794 eleven Polish kings bore the title of Grand Duke of Lithuania. Among the earlier dates were some for events in Prussia and Latvia, but in general, the dates outlined the history of Lithuania and the GDL, including Samogitia. Calendar readers were thus introduced to Lithuania and the GDL as historical entities with their own rulers and where the faith of the Christians replaced that of the pagans and were informed that the country united with the Kingdom of Poland and only six decades before it was annexed by the Russian Empire. Thus, the reader could find Lithuania and the GDL in the calendars again, as in the hymns. After 1860 less space was allotted to the history of Lithuania. It was replaced by a chapter titled “Kaunas city and events in its environs.” Specifically, it was a chapter dedicated to the history of Samogitia, but in 1863 its focus was narrowed down almost exclusively to the history of the city of Kaunas. Begun in 1025 and ending in 1843 with the founding of Kaunas Province, the history of Kaunas was also narrated chronologically, identifying the most important dates and events. However, there were many more events, not only of a political nature, touching various areas of life, and the descriptions of these events were more detailed. The history of Kaunas and Samogitia was presented as a part of the history of Lithuania, often weaving historical events into the wider context of the PLC. Literary works supplemented the sparse historical section of the calendars. In this regard, the little poem “Suwejga girtoklu” (The meeting of drunks) by Antanas Baranauskas published in the 1861 calendar was significant. Although designed for the promotion of temperance and describing disasters confronting Lithuania and its people caused by drunkenness, the poem told the story of Lithuania from the life of Lithuanians along the Danube up to the collapse of Lithuania.210 The work repeated the facts mentioned in all the histories 210 Kalendorius arba Metskajtlus ukiszkasis nuog uźgimima Wieszpaties 1861 Metu . . . (Vilnius: Kasztu ir spaustuwe Juozapa Zawadzkia, 1861), 51–58.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

of Lithuania, that the Lithuanians, Samogitians, Prussians, Latvians, and Yotvingians all belonged to the Lithuanian tribe. However, due to the conquests of foreigners and the acceptance of a foreign religion (Protestantism) the Prussians and Latvians broke away from Lithuania and the Yotvingians disappeared. Thus, in the subsequent narration Lithuania was made up of the Lithuanians and Samogitians. The poet told about the pagan faith of the Lithuanians, the death of Adalbert, who was propagating Christianity, the baptism of Lithuania when the “Lithuanian Jogaila, our Duke” erected crosses on the hills of Vilnius, the merger of Lithuania and Poland, the expansion of the borders of Lithuania, and the wars with the Tatars and Turks. Also mentioned were the conflict with the Swedes and the miracles invoked by the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Casimir, as well as the problems of the PLC. In this way, the plots of the poem responded both to the plots of the hymns and the stories of the historical part of the calendar, yet significantly expanded them thematically. Most importantly, the author created an immediate emotional tie for the reader with the history of Lithuania, emphasizing that this was “our Lithuania,” our dear land. Although Lithuanians and Samogitians were distinguished in the poem, it told their common history, evolving in Lithuania. Statistics measuring the number of people belonging to the Lithuanian language group collected by Koeppen were published in an article in Ivinskis’s 1860 Calendar.211 Readers could learn from this article that the Lithuanian “tribe,” that is, the Lithuanian language group, was composed of the Lithuanians, Samogitians, and Latvians. However, Ivinskis later provided data for only two nations (tribes)— the Lithuanians and the Latvians. This could mean that the Lithuanians and Latvians were higher-category groups and more distinct from one another. The subsequent text, in which it was written that the Lithuanian nation split into two groups—the Lithuanians and the Samo­gitians—further helped to confirm this assumption.212 The basis of their separateness was language because the Samogitians were the 211 Kalendorius arba Metskajtlus ukiszkasis nuog uźgimima Wieszpaties 1860 Metu . . . (Vilnius: Kasztu ir spaustuwe Juozapa Zawadzkia, 1860), 56–59. 212 Ibid., 56.

167

168

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Samogitian-speaking Lithuanians.213 The author offered separate figures for the number of Lithuanians, Latvians, and Samogitians in both the Russian Empire and Prussia. He detailed the populated territories of each of his mentioned tribes using the administrative boundaries that existed at the time. The Samogitians, as was written in the calendar, lived in the districts of Telšiai, Šiauliai, Raseiniai, in part of the districts of Panevėžys and Kaunas of Kaunas Province (i.e., the concept of Samogitia up to the Nevėžis River was retained)214 and the Marijampolė, Kalvarija, and Sejny districts of the Kingdom of Poland’s Augustów Province.215 Lithuanians were living in the Vilkmergė and Novoaleksandrovsk (Zarasai) districts, in part of Kaunas and Panevežys districts of Kaunas Province, in Lida, Švenčionys, Trakai, and Vilnius districts of Vilnius Province, and were scattered throughout Ashmyany district as well as the Grodna and Slonim districts of Grodna Province.216 The number of Lithuanians living in Courland Province was also shown, in this case without dividing them into Lithuanians and Samogitians. The districts of Prussia in which Lithuanians were living were also listed.217 These statistical data, even though the duality of the Lithuanians and Samogitians was still present, demonstrated to the reader that the Lithuanians and Samogitians were a single Lithuanian nation (tribe) and delineated the territory in which the people of this nation lived, even measuring it in miles. At the same time, it was important that the author submitted statistical data on the distribution of Lithuanians categorized by religion, thus showing that Lithuanians were not only Catholics and Protestants, but also Orthodox.218 In general Ivinskis’s calendars, by stressing differences between the Lithuanians and Samogitians, could have contributed to strengthening the Samogitian identity. On the other hand, some of the texts in the calendars illustrated for the reader that the Lithuanians and 213 Ibid., 57. 214 Ibid., 56. 215 Ibid., 57. 216 Ibid. 217 Ibid., 58. 218 Ibid., 59.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Samogitians were one nation that had a common language and a common history and delineated the territory populated by this nation. Historical narratives gave a historical dimension to this territory, while the descriptions of various events, economic issues, and literary works describing the nature and customs of the people added vividness and concreteness to the narrative. All these texts were intended to create an emotional bond with the native land. In the first half of the nineteenth century, didactic prose began to make up the greater part of the literature directed at the folk, although its popularity, of course, could not compete with the calendars. According to literary historian Džiuljeta Maskuliūnienė, “The author of didactic literature is faced with elevated standards for his texts: that which is written has to be useful to the reader, necessary (the enlightenment tendency) and accessible, understandable, and expressed as simply as possible.”219 The image of Lithuania was not among the most relevant topics dealt with by the authors of didactic works, but this type of writing also contributed to both strengthening the Lithuanian ethnonym among the readers and shaping the image of Lithuania. A number of such works deserve mention. Earlier, I mentioned Tatarė, who in his booklets aimed at the Lithuanian peasant of the trans-Nemunas region, helped readers form the perception that they were Lithuanians and members of the Lithuanian community, whose language was Lithuanian and whose land was Lithuania. In a very fragmentary way a historical perspective also appeared—the GDL was mentioned. The fictional place of action does not allow for the creation of a territorial image of Lithuania, so the idea was established that Lithuania was where the Lithuanians lived. However, Vilnius was mentioned as a center of knowledge where “little children of Lithuania” were developing wisdom.220 The reader could also learn that in addition to the land of Lithuania, there were also the land of the Poles and the land of the French, and in Gumbinnen, a Prussian city, Lithuanian could be used for communication with others.221 219 Maskuliūnienė, XIX a. lietuvių didaktinė proza, 27. 220 [Tatarė], “Pamokslaj iszminties ir tejsibes,” 81, 216. 221 Ibid., 64, 215, 243, 256.

169

170

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Petras Gomalevskis’s story “Aplankimas seniuka” (“An old man’s visits”), published in 1853, dedicated to “brother Samogitians and Lithuanians,” emphasized this fraternal relationship between the author and Samogitians and Lithuanians.222 Though the traditional regions remained in the book and the author mentioned both Samogitia and Lithuania, the old man’s travels covered all the territory of the Lithuanian nation in which the Lithuanians and the Samogitians lived. There was also Vilnius with its sacred places, and the similar customs of the Lithuanians and Samogitians were emphasized. In “Šiaulėniškis senelis” (The old man of Šiaulėnai) by Juozapas Silvestras Dovydaitis, dedicated to promoting the idea of temperance, the itinerary of the traveling old man was mainly within the borders of the diocese of Samogitia, and the descriptions of the localities of Samogitia and its towns were often particularly detailed and specific.223 In a story by Dovydaitis, like in that of Gomalevskis, the traditional separation into Samogitians and Lithuanians, and Samogitia and Lithuania, remained. That separation was also visible in Valančius’s letters about temperance that were inserted into the text. On the other hand, Lithuanians and Samogitians always came as a pair, unless they were compared with each other, while Lithuania and Samogitia was “our land” as opposed to the “other land,” which was Zemgale, and Vitsiebsk, Polatsk, and Dinaburg. Lithuania and Samogitia were connected by their belonging to one diocese and the common concern, temperance. The temperance letters of Bishop Valančius, except those intended for a single parish, were always addressed to “Lithuanians and Samogitians.” Similarly, a story by Dovydaitis, although it also maintained the traditional separation of the Lithuanians and the Samogitians, suggested that the Lithuanians and the Samogitians were part of a single community. Moreover, Dovydaitis listed the basic values of that

222 Petras Gomalevskis, Aplankimas seniuka dieł brolu żemajcziu ir lietuwiu par kunega Gomalewski komendoriu bażniczes Iłłuksztas apraszitas ir ing spaustuwe paduotas (Daugavpils: spaustuwiej M. B. Neumana, 1853). 223 Juozapas Silvestras Dovydaitis, Šiaulėniškis senelis (Panevėžys: E. Vaičekausko leidykla, 2009).

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

community, a moral community: “our holy land,” “our beautiful language,” “the clothing of our country,” and “holy faith.”224 However, none of these authors attempted to define either Lithuania or Samogitia, even if they spoke about it. The only one to do so was Akelaitis, as already mentioned, in the booklet for the folk Kwestorius (Questor, i.e., collector of donations to the monastery), which somewhat more accurately defined the territory of Lithuania, specifically, what Russian or Prussian administrative units composed it. Additionally, Akelaitis expressed the idea that it was important to know “our people and the countries of the land where I was born,”225 which would become particularly relevant in the era of nationalism, but that until then had seemed important only to people of the upper social strata. The way to know Lithuania was by collecting and sharing information about its territory and history. The narrator of the story by Akelaitis concisely outlines the history of the Lithuanians,226 with plots repeating, supplementing, and expanding those that could be found in Ivinskis’s calendars. By the mid-nineteenth century, Lithuanian peasants thus had the opportunity to learn from writing intended for them that all people speaking Lithuanian and Samogitian were Lithuanians and that they were one brotherly community. The essential values of one’s own community were specified: its land, language, dress (material culture), and religion. This community had its own land—the land of Lithuania— with its long and illustrious history, and an effort was made to delineate its territory. Despite this, the tradition of distinguishing between 224 In the story on the bad daughters-in-law it was written, “In the meantime, the old man knelt, raised his hands to heaven, and said: Lord King, God of Abraham, rescue our earth from such daughters-in-law, as here, that Mrs. Stepas! Do not let them grow, let them not be born at all, but if born, let them not grow, let them die in infancy, so that their feet do not trample on our holy land, that their tongues do not make ugly our beautiful language, that they do not wear the clothes of our land, that they do not tread with their feet the good things of our holy faith. You yourself know what is the end of such daughters-in-law for the disregard for the old lady mothers!” (ibid., 115). 225 Akelaitis, Kwestorius, 18–19. 226 Ibid., 19–20.

171

172

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Lithuanians and Samogitians, between Lithuania and Samogitia, was still very strong. * * * Speaking about the images of Lithuania that existed in the society of the former lands of the GDL, it is worthwhile to use Speičytė’s excellent metaphor of overlaid maps. Indeed, several different “maps of Lithuania,” in other words, different images of Lithuania, including the historical, “in popular sense,” and ethnic, were envisioned simultaneously. In parallel, the emerging image of ethnic Belarus functioned in the first half of the nineteenth century in Lithuanian society. The image of historical Lithuania or the GDL, formed primarily in historical works, was associated with the 1772 borders of the GDL. Historical Lithuania was perceived as a part or a province of the PLC or “Homeland” (Ojczyzna). Such a Lithuania was the focus of political activities and goals (the restoration of the former state) of part of the nobility, as well as social activities, which showed the common interests of the nobility of all the former lands of the state and, simultaneously, the integrity and unity of these lands. However, social and political practice (the intensity of uprisings) showed that the bond with the eastern part of historical Lithuania—so-called Belarus (i.e., the provinces of Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ)—was weaker, and the efforts of the Lithuanian nobility did not always extend to these two provinces. The actual image of Lithuania functioning in Polish-language discourse showed the distancing and separation of Belarus (the so-called Belarusian provinces of Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ) from Lithuania. This Lithuania covered only part of the former historical Lithuania and was synonymous with the official Grodna, Kaunas, Vilnius, and Minsk provinces, that is, it did not include the part of the GDL within the Kingdom of Poland and White Rus’. This image of Lithuania was emotionally the most acceptable to society and the strongest emotional connection was felt for the nature and people of such a Lithuania. On the other hand, practical economic activity was also most often associated with this image of Lithuania. It must be noted that the image of both historical Lithuania and “in popular sense” Lithuania was generally perceived as part of Poland.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Perhaps that was why the region of Belarus was so painlessly separated as a specific independent region. Poland “embraced” it with Lithuania as a separate province. From the 1830s and 1840s, the image of “Lithuania proper” or ethnic Lithuania was increasingly encountered in Polish-speaking discourse. The definition of “Lithuania proper” was based, on one hand, on a history (the area that was inhabited by Lithuanian tribes), and on the other, on the ethnic principle (the territory inhabited by Lithuanian peasants) and according to the language of the majority of the population and the ethnic culture. The territory of “Lithuania proper” was not comprehended unambiguously due to the unclear relationship it had to Samogitia and Prussian Lithuania. Vaguely articulated was the eastern border of “Lithuania proper,” that is, the territory where the collision with the Belarusians (Ruthenians) occurred, where the processes of assimilation were taking place. It seems that the historical principle was adhered to more strongly in drawing the border, while in discussing the people living in the territory the ethnolinguistic aspect was given greater weight. However, for the participants of Polish discourse, “Lithuania proper” was just one part of the homeland distinguished by the language and ethnic culture of the majority of the population—the folk—and it did not endanger the integrity of historical Lithuania. Another form of folk culture provided only specifics and additional charm to the landscape of historical Lithuania. The participants in Lithuanian discourse, the secular and spiritual intelligentsia writing in Lithuanian or in Polish and Lithuanian, from the 1840s to the 1860s applied the term Lithuania only to the ethnic territory of Lithuanians. The definition of Lithuania as the land of the Lithuanians, as in the case of the Polish discourse, was based on a historical principle, language, and folk culture. Such a Lithuania included lands inhabited by Lithuanians not only in the Russian Empire (in the Northwestern provinces and the Kingdom of Poland), but also in Prussia. Vilnius was also within the ethnic territory of the Lithuanians. Although the distinctiveness of Samogitia was still very strong, the duality of the Lithuanian nation and Lithuanian language (Lithuanians and Samogitians, the dialects/languages of the Lithuanians and Samogitians) was a topic of discussion, however, an integral image of Lithuania

173

174

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

as the land of the Lithuanians, with which the Lithuanians were associated by feelings of duty and loyalty, was created. In Lithuanian discourse, the term Lithuania was applied only to ethnic territory, the territory to which part of the Lithuanian intelligentsia began to link not only cultural, but perhaps also political aspirations (Daukša). In the writings directed at the folk, the first steps were taken in strengthening the ethnonym Lithuanian to denote the Lithuanian- and Samogitian-speaking people, forming one community. This linguistic (cultural) community enjoyed a long history not only as a community, but also as a state. It was also linked to its own territory—the “land of Lithuania” or “Lithuania”—the contours of which only a few attempted to trace. But the emotional connection between the Lithuanians and their “little land of Lithuania” was already being emphasized. So in the mid-nineteenth century the efforts to develop a Lithuanian national ideal were already apparent. In the mid-nineteenth century, the contours of ethnic Belarus emerged as well. In the first half of the nineteenth century, in Polishspeaking discourse the historic region of White Rus’ as part of Lithuania or an autonomous province was traditionally distinguished. The authors of travelogues or research of an ethnographic, historical, folklore, or other scholarly nature in Lithuania often distinguished Lithuanian Rus’ as the territory populated by the folk of the Ruthenians. Belarus and Lithuanian Rus’ sometimes were perceived as one land due to the folk culture and language the two regions shared. Until the uprising of 1863–64 the two Belarusian territories were still rarely connected, but during the uprising the democratic wing of the leadership of Lithuania’s uprising consistently used the toponym Belarus, linking it to the territory of the community of the Belarusian-speaking people. Repression after the 1863–64 uprising scattered the intelligentsia, who developed and circulated the images of ethnic Lithuania and Belarus. In a certain sense after the uprising, a new generation of the intelligentsia had to start anew to create the images of Lithuania and Belarus in other political, social, and cultural circumstances.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

BIBLIOGRAPHY XXI amžiaus pradžios lietuvių tarmės: Geolingvistinis ir sociolingvistinis tyrimas. Žemėlapiai ir jų komentarai. Vilnius: leidykla Briedis, 2014. A . . . P . . . i [Podbereski, Andrzej?] “Podróże po Kraju (Wyjątek z listów do przyjaciółki).” Rubon VI (1845): 84–127. Akelaitis, Mikalojus. Kwestorius po Lietuwą waźinedamas żmonis bemokinąsis. Vilnius: spaustuweja A. H. Kirkora, 1860. Aleknavičius, Kajetonas. Elementarius arba lengwus moksłas skaytit raszto szwento: Lietuwiszkay del wayku lietuwniku par kunigu K. Olechnowicziu. Apie reykału moksło ir wieżliwu apsiejmu kalbiasieys paraszitas. Vilnius: pas Dworca pinigays Raszitojaus iszspaustas, 1846. Aleksandravičius, Egidijus. XIX amžiaus profiliai. Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla, 1993. ____. “Politiniai lietuvių siekiai 1863–1914 m.” Metmenys 61 (1991): 22–41. ____, and Antanas Kulakauskas. Carų valdžioje: XIX amžiaus Lietuva. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1996. ____. “Lietuva XIX amžiuje.” Baltos lankos 1 (1991): 61–73. Ant upės krašto blindelė auga: Eilėraščiai lietuvių ir lenkų kalbomis, ed. Regina Mikšytė. Vilnius: Vaga, 1987. Auksa Ałtorius arba Afieras kwiepanczias ant Auksa Ałtoriaus prisz Majestota Diewa tay ira małdas skutecznas Bażnicziay Szwętay zwyczaynas Kures Afektas meyły Diewa degąs Ponuy Diewuy ant kwapo saldibes garbies ją afierawoty gał. Su pridotku naujos Noba­ żeństwos, yr su iszguldymu Sena yr Nauje Kalendoriaus. Vilnius: Drukarniey Diecezijos, 1843. Bairašauskaitė, Tamara. Lietuvos bajorų savivalda XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 2003. Bairašauskaitė, Tamara, Zita Medišauskienė, and Rimantas Miknys. Devynioliktas amžius: Visuomenė ir valdžia, vol. 8, pt. 1 of Lietuvos istorija. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2011.

175

176

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Baliński, Michał, and Tymoteusz Lipiński. Starożytna Polska pod względem historycznym, jeograficznym i statystycznym opisana, vol. 1, 3. Warsaw: nakł. i druk. S. Orgelbranda, 1843, 1850. Bałsas Sirdies pas Pona Diewa Szwęciausy Marya Panna yr Szwętus Danguy Karalaujencius, Szaukancis par Giesmes pagal Iszpazinima Baźnicios S. Katalikiszkos Rima sudietas, o dabar naujey su pazwaliimu Wiresnuju Dwasiszku iszdotas par wiena kuniga Soc. J. Metuose ... 1798. Vilnius: Drukarniey pri Akademios, 1798. Bardach, Juliusz. “Wieloszczeblowa świadomość narodowa na ziemiach litewsko-ruskich Rzeczypospolitej w XVII-XX wieku.” In Materiały z międzynarodowej konferencji naukowej w Instytucie Historii UAM w Poznaniu (11–12 maja 1998), ed. Jan Jurkiewicz, 11–34. Poznan: Instytut Historii UAM, 1999. Bely, Ales’. Khronika Beloi Rusi: Chronicon Russiae Albae. Narys historyi adnoi geagrafichnoi nazvy. Minsk: Entsyklapedyks, 2000. Beresnevičiūtė-Nosálová, Halina. Lojalumų krizė: Lietuvos bajorų politinės sąmonės transformacija 1795–1831 metais. Vilnius: Vaga, 2001. Bich, Mikhas′. Belaruskae adradzhenne u XIX–pachatky XX st. Histarychnyia asablivastsi, uzaema adnosiny z inshymi narodam. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1993. Błachowska, Katarzyna. Wiele historii jednego państwa: Obraz dziejów Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego do 1569 roku w ujęciu historyków polskich, rosyjskich, ukraińskich, litewskich i białoruskich w XIX wiek. Warsaw: NERITON, 2009. Błaszczyk, Grzegorz. Żmudź w XVII i XVIII wieku: Zaludnienie i struktura społeczna. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1985. Bulgakau, Valer. Historyia belaruskaga natsyianalizmu. Vilnius: Instytut belarusistyki, 2006. ____. “Zlyia demany belaruskai historyi.” Arche / Pachatok, no. 9 (2007): 97–178. [Buszyński, Ignacy]. Dubissa główna rzeka w dawnem Ksęstwie Źmujdzkiem dziś w gubernji kowieńskiej: Z mappą tej rzeki opisana przez I. B. Vilnius: druk. Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1871.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Butrimas, Adomas et al. Žemaitijos istorija. Vilnius: REGNUM fondas, 1997. Chłopicki, Edward. Notatki z różnoczasowych podróży po kraju (Inflanty, Żmudź, Litwa, Pobereże.) Warsaw: druk. Ch. Keltera i S. Rothmühla, 1863. Czacki, Tadeusz. “Rzecz o dziełach Elementarnych a szczególniey o dziele Jana Sniadeckiego pod tytułem Jeografia Matematyczna.” Dziennik Wileński 1, no. 2 (1805): 1–19. Czartoryski, Władysław. Pamiętnik 1860-1864: Protokoły posiedzeń Biura Hotelu Lambert, cz. I i II. Entrevues politiques. Warsaw: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1960. Czerski, Stanisław. Opis Żmudzkiey dyecezyi (z trzema mapkami) przez kanonika katedralnego Stanisława Czerskiego doktora teologii członka wielu towarzystw uczonych. Vilnius: druk. Dworca, 1830. Čiulda, Juozas. Trumpi samprotavimai apie žemaičių kalbos gramatikos taisykles, ed. Giedrius Subačius, vol. 6 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. [Daukantas, Simonas]. Abeciela Lîjtuwiu—Kalnienû ir Żiamajtiû kałbos, Torinti sawiep: Małdas, tikybôs—istatimus, dôrybęs pamoksłus, mĩstrenturą, pasakàs, patarlès, senosès ir nauiosès Gódu rodbalsès arba litaràs só parodymó lykiaus arba skajtlaus ukĩszkû, Rimĩszkû îr Gódîszkû żęnkłû. St. Petersburg: iszspausta pas K. Kraju, 1842. ____. Pasakas Phedro iszguldę isz łotiniszkos kałbos i żamajtiszką Motiejus Szauklys, o apskelbę Ksaveras Kanapackis. St. Petersburg: E. Pratz, 1846. Dovydaitis, Juozapas Silvestras. Šiaulėniškis senelis. Panevėžys: E. Vaičekausko leidykla, 2009. Dundulis, Bronius. “Projektas atkurti Lietuvos Didžiąją Kunigaikštystę Rusijos imperijos sudėtyje (1811–1812 m.).” Lietuvos TSR Aukštųjų mokyklų mokslo darbai. Istorija 8 (1) (1972): 57–73. Dziennik czynności Seymu Głównego Ordynaryinego Warszawskiego, pod związkiem Konfederacyi Oboyga Narodów agituiącego się 1790. (n.p., n.d.)

177

178

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Erashevich, Aliaksandr. “Palitychnyia praekty adradzhennia Rechy Paspalitai i Vialikaga Kniastva Litouskaga u palitytsy raseiskaga tsaryzmu napiaredadni vainy 1812 g.” Histarychny Al′manakh 6 (2002): 84–96. Fajnhauz, David. 1863: Litwa i Białoruś. Warsaw: Instytut historii PAN, Wydawnictwo Neriton, 1999. Gadon, Włodzimierz. Statystyka Xięstwa Żmudzkiego . . . na posiedzeniu Towarzystwa Literackiego Polskiego w Paryżu, dnia 2 czerwca 1839 roku odczytna. Paris: Drukiem Adolfa Bastiena, 1839. Gaučas, Petras. Etnolingvistinė Rytų Lietuvos gyventojų raida: XVII a. antroji pusė–1939 m. Vilnius, 2004. Genzelis, Bronius. Socialinės ir politinės minties raida Lietuvoje: Būti ar nebūti Lietuvai? Vilnius: Margi raštai, 2005. Gieysztor, Jakób. Pamiętniki Jakóba Gieysztora z lat 1857–1865 : Poprzedzone wspomnieniami osobistemi prof. Tadeusza Korzona oraz opatrzone przedmową i przypisami, vol. 1. Vilnius: nakł. Tow. Udz. Kurjer Litewski, 1913. Golański, Filip Nereusz. Review of Słownik języka polskiego, vol. 1–6, ed. Samuel Bogumil Linde. Dziennik Wileński 2, no. 9 (1815): 287–318; no. 10 (1815): 401–39; no. 11 (1815): 526–573. Gomalevskis, Petras. Aplankimas seniuka dieł brolu żemajcziu ir lietuwiu par kunega Gomalewski komendoriu bażniczes Iłłuksztas apraszitas ir ing spaustuwe paduotas. Daugavpils: spaustuwiej M. B. Neumana, 1853. Grabski, Andrzej Feliks. Myśl historyczna polskiego Oświecenia. Warsaw: PWN, 1976. Griškaitė, Reda. Konstantinas Tiškevičius ir Neris, arba Kelionė ir knyga. Vilnius: Žara, 2009. ____. “Mikalojaus Akelaičio rankraščio Opisanie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego (1862) istorija.” Archivum Lithuanicum 11 (2009): 205–76. ____. Mykolas Balinskis: kova dėl istorijos? Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2005. ____. Simono Daukanto raštai: Laiškai Teodorui Narbutui. Epistolinis dialogas. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996. Grześkowiak-Krawicz, Anna. Regina libertas: Wolność w polskiej myśli politycznej XVIII wieku. Gdańsk: słowo/obraz, terytoria, 2006.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Hroch, Miroslav. Mažosios Europos tautos. Vilnius: Mintis, 2012. ____. Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. J. S. [Sniadecki, Jędrzej]. “Przemowa.” Dziennik Wileński 1, no. 1 (1805): 1–5. Jaroszewicz, Józef. “Zarysy z czasów pogańskich Litwy.” In Pismo zbiorowe wileńskie na rok 1859, 83–117. Vilnius: drukiem Teofila Glüksberga, 1859. Jucewicz, Ludwik Adam. Litwa pod względem starożytnych zabytków, obyczajów i zwyczajów skreślona przez Ludwika z Pokiewia. Vilnius: w druk. M. Romma, 1846. ____. Przysłowia ludu litewskiego: Zebrał i objaśnił ks. Ludwik Adam Jucewicz. Vilnius: druk. A. Marcinowskiego, 1840. ____. Rysy Żmudzi. Warsaw: druk. Maxymiliana Chmielewskiego, 1840. ____. Wspomnienia Żmudzi przez X. Ludwika Adama Jucewicza. Vilnius: nakład i druk T. Glücksberga, 1842. Juzumas, Tadas, and Juozas Račkauskis. Senas auksa altorius arba surynkimas iwairiu maldun ir giesmiun. Vilnius: Zavadzkio sp., 1853. K. A. K. [Kašarauskis, Ambraziejus Pranciškus]. “Rzecz o Litewskich słownikach i ogólny pogląd na kraje Litewskie przez K. A. K.” In Pismo zbiorowe Wileńskie na rok 1862, 133–212. Vilnius: druk. A. H. Kirkora, 1862. Kalendorius arba Metskajtlus ukiszkas nuog uźgimima Wieszpaties 1852 Metu . . . . Vilnius: spaustuwieje Juozapa Zawadzkia, 1851. Kalendorius arba Metskajtlus ukiszkasis nuog uźgimima Wieszpaties 1860 m . . . . paraszitas par. Ł. Iwiński. Vilnius: Kasztu ir sp. J. Zawadzkia, 1860. Kalendorius arba Metskajtlus ukiszkasis nuog uźgimima Wieszpaties 1861 Metu . . . Vilnius: Kasztu ir spaustuwe Juozapa Zawadzkia, 1861. Kalendorius arba Metu skajtlus ukiszkas ant metu nuog użgimima Wieszpaties 1851 . . . Vilnius: spaustuwieje Juozapa Zawadzkia, 1850.

179

180

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Karpavičius, Mykolas Pranciškus. Rinktiniai pamokslai. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2003. Karpiński, Hilarion. Lexykon geograficzny dla gruntownego poięcia gazet i historyi z rożnych awtorow zebrany, przetłumaczony i napisany przez X. Hilaryona Karpińskiego. Vilnius: w drukarni J. K. M. XX. Bazylianow, 1766. Keppen, Petr. O proiskhozhdenii, iazyke i literature Litovskikh narodov. Stat′ia, pomeshchennaia Petrom Keppenom . . . v 3–i knizhke sobiraemykh im materialov dlia istorii prosveshcheniia v Rossii. St. Petersburg: tip. Karla Kraia, 1827. Kieniewicz, Stefan. Powstanie styczniowe. Warsaw: PWN, 1983. Kirkor, Adam Gonorii. “Etnograficheskii vzgliad na Vilenskuiu guberniiu.”Vestnik Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva IV (1857): 236–57. Kizwalter, Tomasz. O nowoczesności narodu: Przypadek Polski. Warsaw: Semper, 1999. Kondratowicz, Ludwik (Syrokomla, Władysław). Podróż swojaka po swojszczyźnie. Z rękopisu ogłosił Władysław Korotyński. Warsaw: wyd. Warszawskiej spólki nakładowej, 1914. Korotyński, Wincenty. Najjaśniejszamu Jaho Miłości Haspadarú Imperataru Aleksandrú Mikałájawiczu, piéśnia z pakłónam ad litóvsko-rusínskai mużýckai hramády. Spisáv Vincéś Korotýński. Vilnius: tip. Osipa Zavadzkago, 1858. “Korrespondencja Kuryera Wileńskiego. Suwałki d. 6/18 kwietnia 1860 r.” Vilenskii vestnik/Kuryer Wileński. May 6, 1860. Kossakowski, Kalixt. Grammatyka języka żmudzkiego ułożona przez X. Kalixta Kossakowskiego, plebana Kołtynianskiego doktora teologii / Kałbrieda leźuwio żiamaytiszko. Vilnius: nakł. i druk. Manesa i Zymela, 1832. Kraszewski, Józef Ignacy. Litwa: Starożytne dzieje, ustawy, język, wiara, obyczaje, pieśni, przysłowia, podania i t.d. Vol. 2, Historia do XIII wieku. Warsaw: druk. Stanisława Strąbskiego, 1850. ____. “Litwa za Witolda. Opowiadanie historyczne.” Athenaeum 1 (1849): 3–43; 2 (1849): 3–74; 3 (1849): 1–76; 4 (1849): 1–54; 5 (1849): 1–74; 6 (1849): 1–55.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

____. Wieczory Wołyńskie. Lviv: druk Zakładu im. Ossolińskich, 1859. Kravtsevich, Aleksandr, Aleksandr Smolenchuk, and Sergei Tokt′. Belorussy: Natsiia Pogranich′ia. Vilnius: EGU, 2001. Krylov, Ivan. Pasakas. Pardėjo Jozepas Źelvovicz. Vilnius: spaustuwieje Juzapa Zawadzkia, 1863. Kulakauskas, Antanas. “Apie tautinio atgimimo sąvoką, tautinių sąjūdžių epochą ir lietuvių tautinį atgimimą.” In Tautinės savimonės žadintojai: nuo asmens iki partijos, vol. 2 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, 132–42. Vilnius: Sietynas, 1990. Kuolys, Darius. Res Lituana: Kunigaikštystės bendrija. Pirmoji knyga: Respublikos steigimas. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2009. L. R. [Rogalski, Leon]. “Litwa.” In Encyklopedyja powszechna, vol. 17 (Libelt-Marek), 179–212. Warsaw: nakład, druk i własność S. Orgelbranda księgarza i typografa, 1864. Lachnicki, Ignacy Emanuel. Statystyka guberni litewsko-grodzieńskiej. Vilnius: J. Zawadzki, 1817. Lamentorius arba pradżia moksło sudeta mażiems wajkeliems. Vilnius: spaustuweja A. Syrkina. Kasztu kunigaikszczia Ireneusza Oginskia isz Rytawa, 1860. Łatyszonek, Oleg. Od Rusinów Białych do Białorusinów: U źródeł białoruskiej idei narodowej. Bialystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2006. Lipiński. “Do mowy oyczystey.” Dziennik Wileński 6, [no. 8] (1806): 222–23. Lukšienė, Meilė. Lietuvos švietimo istorijos bruožai XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje. Kaunas: Šviesa, 1970. Maciūnas, Vincas. Lituanistinis sąjūdis XIX amžiaus pradžioje. Vilnius: Petro ofsetas, 1997. Mačiulytė, Kristina. Kad Tėvynė gyvuotų . . . XVIII amžiaus antrosios pusės Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos proginiai pamokslai. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2005. [Marcinkiewicz Dunin, Wincenty]. Pan Tadéusz: Dwanátcać szlachéćkich bylic napisáu Adám Mickiéwicz. Piarawiarnúu na białarúśkuju

181

182

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

hawórku Wincénty Dúnin Marcinkiéwicz. Vilnius: druk. A. Syrkina, 1859. Maskuliūnienė, Džiuljeta. XIX a. lietuvių didaktinė proza: adresatas ir tekstas. Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto leidykla, 2005. Maślanka, Julian. Zorian Dołęga Chodakowski: Jego miejsce w kulturze polskiej i wpływ na polskie piśmiennictwo romantyczne. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1965. Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami General′nago shtaba: Vilenskaia gubernia. Sost. kapitan General′nago shtaba A. Koreva. St. Petersburg: Tip. I. Ogrizko, 1861. Medišauskienė, Zita. “Lietuva ir jos ribos 1795–1915 metais.” In Lietuvos sienos: Tūkstantmečio istorija, 66–75. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2009. ____. “Lietuvos samprata XIX a. Viduryje.” In Praeities baruose, 175–182. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 1999. ____. Rusijos cenzūra Lietuvoje XIX a. viduryje. Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, 1998. Metu skajtlus ukiniszkas ant metu Wieszpaties 1846 . . . Vilnius: spaustuwej Jozapa Zawadzki, 1846. Miknys, Rimantas. “Le metamorfosi dell‘identita lituana nella prima meta del XX secolo.” In Confini della modernita: Lituani, non-lituani e stato nazionale nella Lituania del XX secolo, ed. Andrea Griffante, vol. 4 of Studi Mitteleuropei, 43–64. Gorizia: ICM, 2010. Miknys, Rimantas, and Darius Staliūnas. “The ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Lithuanians: Collective Identity Types in Lithuania at the Turn of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” In Forgotten Pages in Baltic History: Diversity and Inclusion, ed. Martyn Hausden and David J. Smith, 35–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2011. Mikšytė, Regina. Silvestras Valiūnas. Vilnius: Vaga, 1978. Moksłas letuwiszko skajtimo ir Katechizmas arba Moksłas krykszczioniszkas apej artykułus wieros szwęntos katalikiszkos per kuniga J. Dydyński paraszyta. Vilnius: drukarnioy M. Zymełowicza Typografa, 1852. Moszyński, Julian. Podróż do Prus, Saksonii i Czech odbyta w roku 1838– 1839, vol. 1. Vilnius: druk. M. Romma, 1844.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

“Mowa Alexandra hrabi Chodkiewicza od Towarzystwa Warszawskiego przyiaciól nauk.” Gazeta literacka wileńska, March 3, 1806. “Mowa J. W. Tadeusza Czackiego . . . dnia 1 Pazdziernika 1805 Roku, przy otwarciu Gimnazyum wołyńskiego w Krzemieńcu miana.” Dziennik Wileński 3, no. 8 (1805): 361–82. Narbutt, Justyn. Krótki rys pierwiastków Narodu Litewskiego z Różnych dawnych Autorów zebrany przez Justyna Narbutta. Grodna: druk. u Zymela, 1820. Narbutt, Teodor. “Oznaczenie granic Litwy właściwej od strony sławiańszczyzny,” in Narbutt, Teodor. Pomniejsze pisma historyczne szczególnie do historyi Litwy odnoszące się, 268–70. Vilnius: T. Glücksberg, 1856. Nezabitauskis, Kajetonas. Naujas Moksłas skaityma diel mażū waykū Żemaycziu yr Lietuwos su 5 paweyksłays: Teypogi Atsyrand czion wysokias reykalingas Małdas, Moksłas Krykszczionyszkas yr ministratura par Kajetona Niezabitawski Mokityni Akademios Wilniaus. Vilnius: Drukarnioy Dyecezalno Kunigu Missionoriu pri Bażniczes S. Kazimiero, 1824. Nowak, Joanna. Duchowe piętno społeczeństw. Złożoność i przeobrażenia polskiej refleksji nad narodem w XIX wieku. Warsaw: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy, 2008. Ogiński, Michał. Pamiętniki Michała Ogińskiego o Polsce i polakach od roku 1788 aź do końca roku 1815, vol. 3. Poznan, 1871. Onacewicz, Żegota. “Rzut oka na dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego.” Pamiętnik naukowo—literacki, pismo zbiorowe umiejętności, literatury i sztuki 1, no. 1 (1849): 7–28. Opaliński, Edward. Kultura polityczna szlachty polskiej w latach 1587– 1652. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Sejmowe, 1995. Pamiętniki polskie, ed. Xawery Bronikowski, vol. 2. Paris: Lacour i Cie, 1845. Petkevičiūtė, Danutė. Laurynas Ivinskis. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988. Petronis, Vytautas. Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800–1914. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007.

183

184

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Pivoras, Saulius. Lietuvių ir latvių pilietinės savimonės raida. XVIII a. pabaiga–XIX a. pirmoji pusė (Lyginamasis aspektas). Vilnius: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, 2000. ____. “Teritorinis tapatumas Eustachijaus Tiškevičiaus visuomeniniame—politiniame pasaulėvaizdyje.” In Eustachijus Tiškevičius: Darbai ir kontekstai, ed. Žygintas Būčys and Reda Griškaitė, 41–55. Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus, 2014. ____. “‘Vargo pelė’: Lietuvos nacionalinės istoriografijos pradininkas Simonas Daukantas.” In Simonas Daukantas, vol. 5 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, 69–89. Vilnius: Viltis, 1993. [Plater, Stanisław]. Jeografia wschodniey części Europy czyli opis krajów przez wielorakie narody sławiańskie zamieszkanych, obejmujący Prussy, Xięztwo Poznańskie, Szląsk Pruski, Galliciją, Rzeczpospolitę Krakowską, Krolestwo Polskie, i Litwę, przez S.H.P. Wroclaw: u Wilhelma Bogumiła Korna, 1825. ____. Mała encyklopedya Polska przez S.P., vol. 2. Leszno, Gniezno, 1847. Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii. Sobranie vtoroe, vol. 15, 1. St. Petersburg, 1841. Połujański, Aleksandr. Wędrówki po gubernji Augustowskiej w celu naukowym odbyte. Warsaw: druk. Gazety Codziennej, 1859. Poška, Dionizas. “Rozmyślania wieśniaka rolnika (Dionizego Paszkiewicza byłego Pisarza P. R.) O narodzie i języku Litewsko-Źmudzkim poprzedzone wierszem do X. Bohusza i Joachima Lelewela. Podane do Dziennika Warszawskiego, przez Wspoł-rodaka i Przyjaciela Żmudzinów.” In Poška, Dionizas. Raštai, 615–664. Vilnius: Valstybinė grožinės literatūros leidykla, 1959. “Powstanie powiatu wilejskiego. Pamiętnik przez naocznego świadka krótko spisany.” In Zbiór pamiętników o powstaniu Litwy w roku 1831 ułożony przez Feliksa Wrotnowskiego, vol. 2 of Historja powstania w 1831 roku na Wołyniu, Podolu, Ukrainie, Żmudzi i Litwie przez Feliksa Wrotnowskiego, 189–210. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1875. Prasa tajna z lat 1861–1864, vol. 1–3. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1970.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Pugačiauskas, Virgilijus. “Lietuva ir 1830–1831 m. Sukilimas.” In Lietuvos karai: Lietuvos XIX–XX a. nacionalinių karų sisteminė—kiekybinė analizė, ed. Gediminas Vitkus, 35–88. Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2014. Radzik, Ryshard. Belarusy (Pohliad z Pol`shchy). Minsk: Ėntsyklapedyks, 2002. Savisčevas, Eugenijus. Žemaitijos savivalda ir valdžios elitas 1409–1566 metais. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2010. Savukynas, Virgilijus. “Apie lietuvių religinį ir kalbinį tapatumą.” Kultūros barai 5 (1996): 49–53. ____. Istorija ir mitologijos: Tapatybės raiškos XVII–XIX amžiaus Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Viešosios politikos strategijų centras, 2012. Semenowicz, Ewa. Kreacja tożsamości kulturowej Litwy w pracach Wileńskiej Komisji Archeologicznej i Muzeum Starożytności w latach 30. –70. XIX wieku. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper, 2012. Shafarik, Pavel. Slavianskoe narodopisanie. Moscow: V universitetskoi tipografii, 1843. Sirutavičius, Vladas. “Konstituciniai sumanymai Lietuvoje XIX a. pradžioje (1806–1812 m.)” In Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.–XX a. pradžia). Vol 3 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, 7–28. Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991. ____. “Simbolinės geografijos: kelionės po XIX a. vidurio Lietuvą ir jų aprašymai.” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 1999: 110–24. ____. “Tautiškumo kriterijai multietninių visuomenių statistikoje. XIX a. vidurio Lietuvos pavyzdys.” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 1998: 74–85. Sliesoriūnas, Feliksas. 1830–1831 metų sukilimas Lietuvoje. Vilnius: Mintis, 1974. Smalianchuk, Aleś. Pamizh kraevastsiu i natsyianal′nai ideiai: Pol′ski rukh nabelaruskikh i litouskikh zemliakh 1864–liuty 1917 g. St. Petersburg: Neuski prastsiag, 2004. Sniadecki, Jan. “Jeografija czyli opisanie matematyczne i fizyczne ziemi przez Jana Sniadeckiego podług wydania trzeciego na nowo od Autora przejrzanego, znacznie powiększonego z tablicą wyrażającą położenie

185

186

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

jeograficzne znakomitszych miejsc na ziemi i z 3 tablicami.” In Dzieła Jana Sniadeckiego, wydanie nowe Michała Balińskiego, vol. 7, 243–64. Warsaw: nakł. Augusta Emmanuela Glücksberga, 1838. ____. “O języku polskim.” Dziennik wileński 1 (1815): 7–20, 101–26. ____. “O słowach jako wyrazach pojęć i o języku jako instrumencie myślenia.” In Dzieła Jana Sniadeckiego, wydanie nowe Michała Balińskiego, vol. 5, 187–203. Warsaw: nakład A.E. Glücksberga, 1837. “Spausdintieji ir nespausdintieji 1863–64 m. sukilimo raštai,” ed. Augustinas Janulaitis. Karo archyvas 1 (1925): 207–32. Speičytė, Brigita. “Kraštovaizdis ir erdvinė vaizduotė XIX amžiaus vidurio Lietuvoje.” Metmenys 79 (2000): 115–46. ____. Poetinės kultūros formos. LDK palikimas XIX amžiaus Lietuvos literatūroje. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2004. Staliūnas, Darius. Making Russians: Meaning and Practice of Russification in Lithuania and Belarus after 1863. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. Subačius, Giedrius. “Jurgio Ambraziejaus Pabrėžos žemaičių kalba.” In Asmuo: Tarp tautos ir valstybės, vol. 8 of Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, 10–113. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996. ____. Žemaičių bendrinės kalbos idėjos. XIX a. pradžia. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998. ____. “Žemaičių mąstymo apie bendrinę kalbą istorijos metmenys.” Metmenys 72 (1997) 125–48. Subačius, Paulius. Antanas Baranauskas: Gyvenimo tekstas ir tekstų gyvenimai. Vilnius: aidai, 2010. ____. Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė. Vilnius: aidai, 1999. Syrokomla, Władysław. “Mińsk [II]. Kronika miasta Mińska.” Teka Wileńska 1 (1857): 173–232. ____. Wycieczki po Litwie w promieniach od Wilna (do Oszmiany— do Kiernowa—do Kowna), vol. 2. Vilnius: Nakładem księgarza A. Assa, 1860. Šenavičienė, Ieva. “Lietuva ir 1863–1864 m. Sukilimas.” In Lietuvos karai: Lietuvos XIX–XX a. nacionalinių karų sisteminė—kiekybinė analizė, ed. Gediminas Vitkus, 89–143. Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2014.

Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

____. Lietuvos katalikų dvasininkija 1863 metų sukilimo išvakarėse. Vilnius: Eugrimas, 2010. Ślusarska, Magdalena. “Litewskie kaznodziejstwo trybunalskie czasów stanisławowskich o miłości ojczyzny, zgodzie i jedności obywatelów.” In Lietuvos valstybė XII–XVIII a., 187–217. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 1997. Šmigelskytė-Stukienė, Ramunė. “Lietuvos valstybės teritorija ir sienos XIII–XVIII amžiuje.” In Lietuvos sienos: Tūkstantmečio istorija, 8–25. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2010. Szpoper, Dariusz. Gente Lituana, Natione Lituana: Myśl polityczna i działalność Konstancji Skirmuntt (1851–1934). Gdansk: Arche, 2009. Tatarė, Antanas. Pamokslai išminties ir teisybės. Vilnius: Vaga, 1987. Tazbir, Janusz. Kultura szlachecka w Polsce. Rozkwit—upadek—relikty. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2002. Tiškevičius, Konstantinas. Neris ir jos krantai hidrografiniu, istoriniu, archeologiniu ir etnografiniu požiūriu, ed. Reda Griškaitė, tr. Irena Katilienė. Vilnius: Mintis, 2013. Trumpa, Vincas. Lietuva XIX–tame amžiuje. Chicago: Algimanto Mackaus knygų leidimo fondas, 1989. ____. “Šubravcai ir senasis Vilniaus universitetas.” Metmenys 47 (1984): 9–27. Trumpas pamokimas kałbos lituwyszkos arba Żemaytyszkos, nuo nekurio nobażna ysz draugistes Jezaus kunyga łotinyszkay paraszîtas yr spâustas Wyjlniuj‘metùse 1737, dabarcziu atrastas yr ysznauja swiêtuy parodîtas. Vilnius, 1829. Tyla, Antanas. Review of Die Vorkämpfer der nationalen bewegung bei den kleinen Völkern Europas, by M. Hroch. Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 1971: 143–46. Vaicekauskas, Mikas. Lietuviškos katalikiškos XVI–XVIII amžiaus giesmės. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2005. ____. “Šv. Kazimierui skirtos lietuviškos giesmės XVII–XIX a.” In Šventas Kazimieras istorijos vyksme: Įvaizdis ir refleksija, 85–112. Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus, 2006.

187

188

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Valančius, Motiejus. Ganytojiški laiškai, ed. Vytautas Merkys and Birutė Vanagienė. Vilnius: Žara, 2000. ____. Raštai. Vol. 6, Žemaičių vyskupystė. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2013. Vosstanie v Litve i Belorussii 1863–1864 gg. Moscow: Nauka, 1965. “W powiecie Wilejskim.” In Powstanie 1831 roku na Litwie: Wspomnienia uczestników, ed. Henryk Mościcki, 111–129. Vilnius: nakł. i drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1931. Walicki, Andrzej. Kultura i myśl polska: Prace wybrane. Vol. 1, Naród, nacjonalizm, patriotyzm. Cracow: Universitas, 2009. Wrotnowski, Feliks. Upominek dla dzieci litewskich z 15 kolorowemi rycinami przez F.W., vol. 3. Vilnius: nakł. Fr. Moritza, druk. B. Neumana, 1829. Z źycia Litwinki, 1827–1874. Z listów i notatek złożył Bronisław Zaleski. Poznan: nakł. księgarni Jana Konstantego Źupańskiego, 1876.

CHAPTER 3

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory” Darius Staliūnas Juozas Gabrys, a Lithuanian public figure and perhaps the largest contributor to the issue of the internationalization of Lithuania before World War I, relates the following story in his memoir. When he was enrolling in Sorbonne University in 1911, they wanted to record his nationality as Russian. Only after pointing to a map of Europe hanging on the office wall that showed, in small print, the word “Lithuanie” did he manage to get the entry “nationalité lithuanienne” to appear, along with “sujet russe,” next to the name.1 In this case, it is not so important whether such an event, in fact, occurred or was the fruit of Gabrys’s imagination. Gabrys’s story is primarily interesting because it reflects an important task that the nationalisms of non-dominant national groups in Central and Eastern Europe undertook: to create the image of a “national territory” and to introduce it not only to the masses but to the international community as well. One of the tools used to inculcate this image was maps. This chapter is an attempt to analyze the Lithuanian image of “national territory” in late imperial Russia. First, following Rogers Brubaker, I will   1 Eberhard Demm and Christina Nikolajew, ed., Auf Wache für die Nation: Erinnerungen. Der Weltkriegsagent Juozas Gabrys berichtet (1911–1918) (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2013), 24–25.

190

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

have to ascertain what kind of cultural idioms or, in a narrower sense, idioms of nationhood, determined the ideology of Lithuanian national identity. Here I will try to ascertain what role the abovementioned idioms of nationhood played in defining Lithuanian “national territory” and what other factors (arguments of power, economics, “natural frontiers,” and so on) were involved. Later I will analyze the process by which the image of “national territory” was created during the first (cultural) stage of the Lithuanian national movement. However, the most attention will be devoted to the so-called political stage, when Lithuanian political parties introduced into their programs the aspiration of achieving territorial autonomy for Lithuania (and the objective of creating an independent nation state). This political goal inevitably forced Lithuanian politicians to define, as precisely as possible, the contours of an imagined Lithuania. By exploring the discursive practices of Lithuanian nationalism, I will also attempt to gain insight into the role these practices play in shaping the contours of Lithuania’s imagined borders. The final section of this chapter will analyze how Lithuanian nationalist leaders have sought to introduce this image to the masses. This study relies not only on numerous primary sources (in particular, Lithuanian periodicals from the discussed period as well as other printed literature) but also historiography. Recently, significant research has been devoted to analyzing the creation of “national space” in the pre-political stage of the national movement,2 the evolution of the concepts of “Samogitian” and “Lithuanian,”3 and efforts by the intelligentsia to define the Lithuanian “national territory” in the east4 or to distribute maps depicting Lithuania.5 Another aspect of our topic discussed time and again in the historical literature is the   2 Paulius Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė: Tautinio išsivadavimo kultūra (Vilnius: Aidai, 1999).   3 Giedrius Subačius, “Žemaičių mąstymo apie bendrinę kalbą istorijos metmenys,” Metmenys 72 (1997): 125–48; Paulius Subačius, “Antanas Baranauskas apie žemaitišką ir lietuvišką tapatybę,” in Žemaičių istorijos virsmas iš 750 metų perspektyvos (Vilnius: Aidai, 2004), 183–89; Petras Kalnius, Žemaičiai. XX a.–XXI a. pradžia (Vilnius: Mintis, 2012), 54–68.   4 Vytautas Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai Vilniaus vyskupijoje 1798–1918 m. (Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2006), 103–10.   5 Vytautas Petronis, Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800–1914 (Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007).

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

territorial concept of modern Lithuania embraced within different Lithuanian political currents.6 A couple of theses from earlier historical studies will be challenged in this chapter: (a) the claim that Lithuanian left and right politicians relied on different principles in modeling their territorial concepts of modern Lithuania and (b) that leaders of the Lithuanian national movement gave priority to the concept of Lithuania covering four provinces of the Russian Empire.7

MODERN LITHUANIAN IDENTITY The attempt to describe briefly how modern Lithuanian nationalism defined Lithuanian identity is not an easy task because of the political and ideological diversity characteristic of this movement. However, certain dominant idioms of nationhood can be distinguished. It is customary in Lithuanian historiography to divide the Lithuanian political world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries into two parts: the right (conservatives) and the left (radicals). Such a distinction is very conditional, particularly in regard to the understanding of modern Lithuanian identity. Often figures associated with different Lithuanian political currents would focus on a common undertaking (publishing periodicals, such as Aušra (Dawn) or Vilniaus žinios   6 Rimantas Miknys, Lietuvos demokratų partija 1902–1915 metais (Vilnius: A. Varno personalinė įmonė, 1995); Egidijus Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas (Vilnius: Saulabrolis, 1996); Rimantas Miknys and Darius Staliūnas, “Das Dilemma der Grenzen Litauens am Ende des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts,” in Landschaft und Territorium: Zur Literatur, Kunst und Geschichte des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts im Ostseeraum: Finnland, Estland, Lettland, Litauen und Polen, ed. Yrjö Varpio and Maria Zadencka (Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis, Studia Baltica Stockholmiensia, 2004), 196–215.   7 Česlovas Laurinavičius, Lietuvos-Sovietų Rusijos taikos sutartis (1920 m. liepos 12 d. sutarties problema) (Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras, 1992), 98, 103; Česlovas Laurinavičius, “Moderniųjų lietuvių raida nuo kalbinės link teritorinės bendruomenės,” in Epochas jungiantis nacionalizmas: Tautos (de)konstravimas tarpukario, sovietmečio ir posovietmečio Lietuvoje, ed. Česlovas Laurinavičius (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2013), 22–23; Edmundas Gimžauskas, “The Rada of Vilnius Belarusians and the Council of Lithuania: Allies or Adversaries?,” Lithuanian Historical Studies 13 (2008): 121; Edmundas Gimžauskas, “Pirmasis pasaulinis—didysis ‘tautų vadavimo’ karas: Ką jis reiškė Lietuvai?” in Lietuvos istorija, vol. 10, pt. 1 (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2013), 66–67.

191

192

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

(News of Vilnius), and the differences, in defining national identity, as will be shown here, were not so essential.8 An exception here could be, perhaps, some Social Democrats. At the beginning of the twentieth century it is possible to find ideas that perfectly match the definition of a civic nation in texts by Lithuanian public figures: “One who recognizes Lithuania as his homeland, the history of Lithuania as his [history], one who has been living in this land since ancient times—that is a Lithuanian, whether he knows Lithuanian well or does not understand it at all.”9 In accordance with the logic of this quotation, we should believe that the editorial board of the first Lithuanian language daily newspaper in Vilnius, Vilniaus žinios, ­considered loyalty to Lithuania as a historical and potentially political structure as being the most important attribute of modern Lithuanian identity. Although further similar quotations could be presented, they do not reflect the approach that dominated Lithuanian discourse of the time. From the era of the first illegal newspaper Aušra (1883–1886), Lithuanian activists very clearly identified the main distinctive feature of modern Lithuanian identity–language.10 Later, in one form or another, this idea was repeated many times in different contexts.11 Perhaps Lithuania’s future president, Antanas Smetona, expressed this idea most eloquently: In one way or another, the concept of ancient nationality derived from the native land is disappearing. In its place stands a society guided by the distinctness of the language. In this same progression, historical Lithuania is replaced by   8 The differences between the right and left flanks of Lithuanian nationalism are, in fact, essential when political tactics and strategy are considered.   9 [Editorial], “Vilnius, 21 gr.,” Vilniaus žinios, 1904, no. 12. 10 Darius Staliūnas, “Lietuvos idėja ‘Aušroje,’” Archivum Lithuanicum 15 (2013): 271–92. 11 Let us provide only one example. “Tėvynės sargas” (Homeland guard) a Catholic publication, answered the question about who is a Lithuanian succinctly and clearly: “Everyone speaking Lithuanian from infancy is a Lithuanian”: A. J. [Adomas Jakštas – Aleksandras Dambrauskas], “Keletas žodžių apie lietuvius, jų padėjimą ir jų reikałus,” Tėvynės sargas, 1897, no. 9, 1.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

ethnographic Lithuania. . . . For us the current Lithuania is no longer six, but only three, provinces, and its borders stretch only so far as the living signs of our language are evident.12 Such a linguistic concept of the nation has worked well as a factor integrating the group (the imagined Lithuanian nation), but in the ­Lithuanian case it also causes many problems. Lithuanian nationalist leaders envisioned a nation with a “full” social structure incorporating not only peasants but also other social groups, in particular, the nobility. The “nationalization” of the latter, relying solely on the linguistic ­criterion, was problematic, because most of the nobility considered Polish their “national” language. The second problem was related to what Lithuanian activists perceived as “their” “national territory.” In line with the principle expressed in the aforementioned quotation asserting that Lithuania was where “the living signs of our language are evident,” they would have had to give up the historical capital, Vilnius, where at the end of the nineteenth century an absolute majority of the ­population was made up of Jews and Poles rather than Lithuanians. The inclusion of Vilnius into the imagined Lithuania was based on both historical (this was the historical capital of Lithuania) and, what is most important to us in this case, ethnographic arguments.13 The latter were also important in trying to “return” the nobility to the Lithuanian nation. Thus, modern Lithuanian identity was constructed according to the typical logic characteristic of primordialistic nationalism: nationality is innate and passed down from generation to generation through blood—it cannot be cast aside. That is why the ethno-nationalists often equated the nation with family and relatives; loyalty to national ideals was compared with loyalty to parents/ancestors.14 “Foreign” collective identity could not be deep; after “scraping off the paint,” true national identity could be seen.15 Therefore, in keeping with the ethnographic 12 Antanas Smetona, “Lietuvio žymės,” Viltis, 1912, no. 136. 13 Darius Staliūnas, “Making a National Capital out of a Multhiethnic City,” Ab Imperio 1 (2014): 157–75. 14 Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė, 115. 15 Maironis [Jonas Mačiulis], Raštai, vol. 2 (Vilnius: Vaga, 1988), 321.

193

194

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

argument,16 it was demanded that the nobility “return” to their historical roots, to learn the Lithuanian language and support the Lithuanian national movement. In accordance with the ethnographic arguments (“the customs of the population, the melodies of songs, the method of building farmhouses, the names of ancient tools, the types of crosses, and all folk art”),17 it could be argued that territories that were home to a population that did not speak Lithuanian belonged to the Lithuanian “national territory.” Sometimes, albeit infrequently, anthropological arguments were resorted to suggesting that different skull types testified to the separation of the Lithuanians from the Slavs.18 It is important to note that such a primordial approach—the use of blood ties to determine membership in a nation—was characteristic not only for the Lithuanian right but also for left-flank figures.19 The “ethnographic” interpretation of national identity was also characteristic of some Social Democrats: “The Polish-speaking workers of Lithuania are also the same kind of Lithuanians as the others. . . .  They are tied to the Lithuanian-­ speaking Lithuanians by economic and political life, the land, even history, and finally by the very blood and nature of the people.”20 In fact, it should be stressed that for Lithuanian Social Democrats, ethno-cultural aspects (education in the mother tongue, the development of Lithuanian culture) were clearly secondary to the social and economic needs of Lithuania’s working people, as they wrote in their own press, for example, in Darbininkų balsas (Workers’ voice). The problem that the majority of Christian workers spoke in another 16 The term “ethnographic” here is borrowed from the terminology of the Lithuanian nationalists of the time under discussion and refers to a method that, allegedly with the assistance of objective criteria (origin, customs, and so on), enables a determination of the nation to which a person, group of people, or a certain territory belongs. 17 A. Sm. [Antanas Smetona], “Skaitmenų šviesoje,” Vairas, 1915, no. 2, 25. 18 Jonas Basanavičius, “Iš lenkiškai-lietuviškų prietikių,” Šviesa, 1906, no. 5, 76. 19 “Among us, apart from the Lithuanians who speak Lithuanian, there are many Lithuanians who have forgotten their intrinsic language, the language of their parents, who speak a mixed language comprised of three parts (Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish). In fact, there are many such, but by their blood and body they are Lithuanians; they are inseparably connected by their present and past life with Lithuania.”: “Mųsų reikalavimai,” Ūkininkas, 1905, no. 6, 145. 20 “Šis-tas apie Lenkų Socijalistų Partiją,” Darbininkų balsas, 1905, no. 6, 177.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

language was perceived by Social Democrats as a rather technical problem.21 Such a conception of national identity prevailing in Lithuanian nationalism at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, coordinating internally the linguistic and “ethnographic” criteria, created preconditions for defining “national territory.” However, as we will see later, in the initial stage of the Lithuanian national movement a more precise definition of “national territory” was not yet a topical political issue.

THE IMAGE OF LITHUANIA IN THE INITIAL (CULTURAL) PHASE OF THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT Although in the middle of the 1870s the Lithuanian intelligentsia was already interested in the contours of Lithuania22 and sometimes quite specifically delineated the territory in which the people from old times spoke Lithuanian,23 there were not many public efforts to define the borders of Lithuania more precisely at the end of the nineteenth century. One such effort was an 1880 article by Jonas Basanavičius published in the newspaper Naujasis keleiwis (The new passenger)— which was issued in Prussia—in which all of Kaunas Province, almost all of Vilnius Province (excluding Ashmyany and Vileika districts), Suwałki Province’s Marijampolė, Vilkaviškis, Kalvarija, Vladislavov (today Kudirkos Naumiestis), and Seiny districts, and part of Grodna Province’s Lida and Grodna districts were identified as being Lithuanian, 21 As one of the founders of the social democratic movement in Lithuania, Alfonsas Moravskis, wrote: “Lithuanian Social Democrats held their major challenge to be raising the political awareness of all the segments of Lithuania’s workforce in a specified direction, regardless of what language they called their mother tongue.”: A. Lietuvis [Alfonsas Moravskis], “Lietuvos darbininkų judėjimo istorija sąryšy su Lietuvos valstybės atgimimo judėjimu. Pirmas dešimtmetis: 1892–1902 m.m.,” Kultūra 4 (1931): 200. 22 January 12, 1875, letter from Stanislovas Raila to Nikodemas Venckavičius-Baukus, Mūsų senovė 2, no. 3(8) (1938): 502. 23 [Reasoning of J. Žebras about the borders of Lithuania], Litauische Mundarten gesammelt von A. Baranowski, vol. 1: Aus dem webereschen Nachlass, ed. Franz Specht (Leipzig, 1920), 108–9.

195

196

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

as well as a part of East Prussia, although earlier the Lithuanian territory had been significantly larger.24 From Basanavičiaus’s description it is obvious that he used information from the first half of the nineteenth century because by 1880, when he published this article, the composition of the provinces had changed: Lida District already belonged to Vilnius (and not the Grodna) Province; moreover, this description did not mention that Dzisna District was already a part of Vilnius Province. In fact, Basanavičius’s description of the habitat of Lithuanians was taken almost word for word from an 1843 publication by Pavel Šafárik.25 However, it must be stressed that this publication, which was printed in Gothic letters, was not targeted for the Lithuanians of the Russian Empire and did not reach them. There was no attempt to specify the borders of Lithuania in the abovementioned newspaper Aušra, but much effort was put into highlighting certain places symbolizing Lithuania. Both in this publication and other texts at the end of the nineteenth century, the centers that “congregated” Lithuania were the historical capitals Vilnius as well as Trakai and Birutė Hill in Palanga.26 In addition to these symbolic places, a particular role, especially in poetry, fell to “hydrography.”27 P. Subačius noted while analyzing prose and poetry that “the territorial comprehension of the ethnographic nation could only be and was begun to be formed by bringing to light not the boundary signs, but that which ‘congregated’ space around itself, was the ‘middle’ of it.”28 While, on the 24 Jon’s Bassenowicz, “Rubeźej ir skajtlus Lietuwiû tautôs,” Beilage zu Nro. 17 des Naujasis Keleiwis, 1880, 103. 25 Pavel Shafarik, Slavianskoe narodopisanie (Moscow, 1843), 105. For more about Šafárik’s works delineating the space inhabited by Lithuanians see the article by Staliūnas devoted to the Russian mental map in this collection. The fact that Basanavičius did not adapt the information provided by Šafárik to the territorial-administrative boundaries existing at that time can be interpreted in different ways. It is possible that Basanavičius was not well aware of the relevant situation. 26 Veversys [Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis], “Musu rupesczei,” in Lietuviszkas “Auszrôs” kalendorius . . . 1884: . . . ant metû 1884, turincziu 366 dienas, visai Lietuvai ir Źemaitijai pritinkantis, [1883], 47; Maironis, Raštai, vol. 2, 339; Brigita Speičytė, Anapus ribos: Maironis ir istorinė Lietuva (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2012), 116–17. 27 Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė, 151. 28 Ibid., 156.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

other hand, rivers sometimes simply played the role of boundary signs, that is, Lithuania was “placed” between rivers.29 The absence of attempts in the press or other publications to define more precisely the Lithuanian borders in the last decades of the nineteenth century can be easily explained. At that time, apart from individual statements, the Lithuanian national movement had not yet formulated the clear aspiration to political autonomy (an independent state), and so there was no need to define more precisely the area that was considered “one’s own.” At that time, questions of the nationalization of the masses as well as the abolition of national and confessional discrimination dominated Lithuanian nationalism’s agenda. A potential obstacle for the Lithuanian national program was regional differences in Lithuania. Just in that period, that is, in the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the Lithuanian intelligentsia tried to resolve this problem. The Samogitians/Samogitia stood out the most in imagined Lithuania.30 Even during World War I, Petras Klimas a Lithuanian politician and an expert on “national territory,” raised the hypothesis that, even at that time, under certain circumstances, it could turn out that two—Lithuanian and Samogitian—nations would be formed.31 Contemporary scholars also often voice the assumption that in the first half of the nineteenth century there was a trend that could have led to the formation of different ideologies of identity—Lithuanian and Samogitian: “Reading nineteenth-century texts, we can clearly see that ‘Lithuan-Samogitia’ or ‘Samog-Lithuania’ (cf., ‘Czechoslovakia’) were realistic possibilities, that behind the usage of dual ethnonyms and landscapes, in today’s terms, two identities were lurking.”32 Language 29 Adomas Jaksztas, “Rauda Lietuvos,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1892, no. 19, 148; Speičytė, Anapus ribos, 64. 30 The northwestern part of Lithuania. 31 “Now we know that among the Lithuanians are the Samogitians and the Highlanders who, if they were to begin to live totally separately, might, perhaps, again form two nations.”: Petras Klimas, Lietuva, jos gyventojai ir sienos (Vilnius, 1917), 8. 32 Paulius Subačius, Antanas Baranauskas: Gyvenimo tekstas ir tekstų gyvenimai (Vilnius: Aidai, 2009), 46. See also: Kalnius, Žemaičiai, 76. P. Subačius wrote that such a trend in the end, as is stated in the historiography, prevailed due to various

197

198

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

historian Giedrius Subačius claimed that until the mid-nineteenth century, while a standard language was being formed, in addition to attempts to take into account the several main Lithuanian dialects, there were various ideas for developing Samogitian as the standard language—as the language that would be common to all ethnic Lithuanians, as well as equivalent to the two other standard languages of the Highlanders (Aukštaičiai) and the Lithuanians of Prussia.33 The latter program might have been the most radical example of Samogitian separatism (from the Lithuanians). However, Jurgis Pabrėža, who designed this program, was alone in his activities; efforts to create a standard language for all the Russian Empire’s Lithuanians were dominant. Nevertheless, a model of Lithuanian identity that included the Samogitians had already taken distinct form by the end of the nineteenth century, but in the publications of the Lithuanian national movement it was not uncommon to encounter a dual designation. Such a duality was even reflected in the name of one newspaper: Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga (Review of Samogitia and Lithuania), which ran from 1889 to 1896. It is likely that the use of exact or similar dualistic terminology reflected a reality of which readers were well aware. It is no coincidence that we most often found such terminology in the Catholic press, which, first, was less affected by the ideology of modern nationalism and, second, responded more strongly than the liberal press to the habits of the grassroots (this press, for example, was much slower than other publications in modernizing Lithuanian orthography and employed the traditionally used Polish alphabet for a longer time).34 Thus, the use of such dualistic terminology indicates the existence of two subgroups using different dialects. However, this did not mean in circumstances, including the fact that the nineteenth-century Samogitian Diocese had expanded to the east and covered not only Samogitian but also Highlander areas, and this expansion was determined by the greater mingling of the clergy and the spread of the “cultural and confessional Samogitian identity” beyond the lands of Samogitia: Subačius, Antanas Baranauskas, 47. 33 Subačius, “Žemaičių mąstymo,” 125–48. 34 Jurgita Venckienė, “Dvejopa XIX a. pabaigos lietuviškų laikraščių rašyba,“ in Raidžių draudimo metai, ed. Darius Staliūnas (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2004), 207–12.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

any way the existence of two national identities. The term “Lithuania” in the usage of that time had two meanings: it could be used to mean “not-Samogitia,” but in the very same texts it could be used as a term enveloping all Lithuanians (Samogitians as well). In the very first issue of the abovementioned newspaper Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga the article “Kałba dwieju susiedu Źemajcziu Lietuvoje. Kokę naudą gałi atneszti łajkrasztis (gazieta)” (Two Samogitian neighbors are talking in Lithuania. What benefits can the newspaper [gazette] bring”) appeared—the title clearly implies that Samogitia was part of Lithuania.35 In other words, even though in the name of the newspaper “Lithuania” is understood as “not-Samogitia,” in the texts this term was often used with a different meaning—as enveloping all the territories inhabited by Lithuanians. In exactly the same way in this newspaper and in other similar publications the ethnonym Lithuanian had two meanings. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this thesis might be an 1893 article about the value of women for the national movement. In this text women and girls were initially encouraged to foster the “Lithuanian or Samogitian language,” but immediately afterwards mention was made of one “Lithuanian language” common to all.36 When history, persecution by the Russian government, the fostering of language, or the homeland was being talked about, a dual term was not usually used and a term already characteristic of nationalistic thinking—“Lithuania”/“Lithuanians”— took its place.37 Therefore, at that time the Samogitian identity was already reduced to a dialectal or regional level. However, the usage of such terminology was potentially dangerous to the integrity of the imagined Lithuania. The term Aukštaitija/aukštaičiai (Highland/highlanders), instead of Lithuania/Lithuanians, occurred increasingly in the abovementioned Catholic press in the last decade of the nineteenth century; 35 Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1889, no. 1. 36 “Uždůtis musų mergelų ir moterelų,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1893, no. 17, 119. 37 Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1889–96; Subačius, “Antanas Baranauskas apie žemaitišką ir lietuvišką tapatybę,” 186–87; Subačius, Antanas Baranauskas: Gyvenimo tekstas ir tekstų gyvenimai, 48; Kalnius, Žemaičiai, 65–66.

199

200

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

this usage could attest to the gradual rejection of the dualistic terminology (“Lithuania and Samogitia”/“Lithuanians and Samogitians”), and in this way destroy any ambiguities concerning the subordination of the “Samogitians”/“Samogitia” to “Lithuania”/“Lithuanians.”38 Furthermore, at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century we see determined efforts by the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement to eliminate the use of the dual (Lithuania and Samogitia) terminology. We can already see the beginning of such efforts in 1880, when one future Lithuanian priest theorized about the etymology of the term “žemaitis” (Samogitian). This ethnonym purportedly comes from the word “žemė” (“earth”) and refers to a person of the same land (analogous to the Russian word “zemliak”), so the Samogitians were the same as Lithuanians.39 In the Lithuanian periodicals of that time, articles appeared in which it was explained that, despite the use of different dialects, a single Lithuanian language existed.40 Furthermore, more than one published text (in Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, Tėvynės sargas, Vilniaus žinios) argued against the use of dual terminology because it purportedly supported the folk belief about the “alienation” of Lithuanians and Samogitians and the existence of different languages, which was illogical.41 Proponents of the understood logic of nationalism explained that it was better to simply use “Lith38 “Isz Lietuvos,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1893, no. 1, 5; “Mus užmirszo: důkime apie savę žinią!” ibid., 1895, no. 13, 97. Likewise, in the works of Maironis it is also clearly stressed that despite the usage of different dialects, there was one Lithuanian nation: Maironis, Raštai, vol. 2, 310. The description of the boundaries between Highlanders and Samogitians in scholarly texts by Lithuanians was based on a linguistic criterion, although there were also reflections about ethnographic and anthropological methods. However, it was not possible to pursue these ideas because of the lack of data: Povilas Višinskis, Antropologinė žemaičių charakteristika, ed. Gintautas Česnys (Vilnius: Seimo leidykla “Valstybės žinios,” 2004), 21–22. 39 A March 1, 1880, letter by Samogitian (Telšiai) Roman Catholic Seminary student Marcijonas Jurgaitis to Jonas Šliupas, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas (Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore; LLTI), f. 1-4105, the sheets are not numbered. 40 A.J. [Adomas Jakštas], “Keletas žodžių apie lietuvius, jų padėjimą ir jų reikałus,” Tėvynės sargas, 1897, no. 9, 1–2. 41 “Therefore one does not need to say ‘Lithuanians and Samogitians,’ because if one says ‘Lithuanians’ then with that word one is saying ‘Highlanders and Samogitians,’ so one already includes the Samogitians”: Dėdė [Marcijonas Povilas Jurgaitis],

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

uanians” rather than the dual term Highlanders and Samogitians.42 The appearance of similar texts not only at the end of the nineteenth century but also at the beginning of the twentieth century shows that in the late imperial period, such dual terminology still found its way into Lithuanian texts43 even though it was a marginal phenomenon, most often seen in the publications of authors less affected by Lithuanian nationalism. Besides the “internal” needs of Lithuanian nationalism, there were also “external” incentives to avoid the use of the “Samogitians” ethnonym, since some Poles, especially the more conservative and National Democrat groups, derived the Lithuanian national movement only from the “Samogitian folk” and alleged that this movement was illegally claiming the name “Lithuanians.”44

THE POLITICAL STAGE OF THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT The Lithuanian nationalists based the right of Lithuania for political autonomy or an independent state on not only self-determination but also historical continuity. At the same time the Lithuanian intelligentsia did not seek to identify the borders of modern Lithuania with the historic borders of the GDL. Although left-wing Lithuanian figures participated many times in meetings with representatives of the other nations of historical Lithuania—the Poles, Belarusians, and Jews— about the future of this land at the beginning of the twentieth century, as far as we know, Lithuanian activists never agreed to the restoration “Kas tai yra lietuvei ir kas žemaiczei?,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1896, no. 7, 52–53. 42 Ibid.; Šatrijos Ragana, “Apie Tėvynę,” Tėvynės sargas, 1903, no. 7–8a, 12; Senis [?], “Mųsų kalendoriai,” Vilniaus žinios, 1905, no. 22. 43 V. Vegis, Lietuvos ir Žemaičių kalendorius 1905 metams (Riga, 1904); “Žvaigždės bazaro ir lioterijos komitetas,” in Užprašymas (Riga, 1911); “Broliai lietuviai-žemaičiai!” Viltis, 1914, no. 255. The terms Samogitians/Samogitia are also used separately, but normally in those contexts that did not raise doubts that this was an integral part of the Lithuanian nation/Lithuania. 44 Krzysztof Buchowski, Litwomani i polonizatorzy: Mity, wzjajemne postrzeganie i stereotypy w stosunkach polsko-litewskich w pierwszej połowie XX wieku (Białystok Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu w Białymstoku, 2006).

201

202

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

of the GDL.45 This of course does not mean that Lithuanian discourse at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century did not feature texts in which the lands that once upon a time belonged to the GDL were remembered, as, for example, in the poems of Maironis (Jonas Mačiulis),46 but that memory was not extrapolated into political programs. In other words, the existence of the GDL as a state of Lithuanians was important for the Lithuanian intelligentsia as a fact, showing that Lithuanians could be an independent political nation, but the borders of this state were, as a rule, not used as an argument for constituting a similar “national territory.” We must now turn to the aforementioned idea that Lithuanian nationalism envisioned a Lithuania centered on four provinces of the Russian Empire. In fact, Lithuanian politicians had set forth such a demand,47 and not just at any time, but in 1905, at the culmination of the national revolution: just before the Lithuanian congress (Great Seimas of Vilnius [GSV]) they included such a proposal for Lithuania in a memorandum addressed to the government of the Russian Empire.48 Here, however, we need to ask whether this concept of Lithuania was a typical postulate of Lithuanian political programs at the beginning of the twentieth century or determined by a certain situation, specifically, the circumstances surrounding the memorandum addressed to the imperial government, which compelled its authors to at least to some extent conform to that government’s thinking. More simply stated, the Lithuanian politicians drafting the memorandum had to adopt the terminology of the empire’s ruling elite and talk in terms of provinces rather than territories defined by linguistic or “ethnographic” criteria. 45 Rimantas Miknys, “Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904–1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projektai,” in Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.–XX a. pradžia) (Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991), 173–98; Rimantas Miknys, “Vilnius and the Problem of Modern Lithuanian Statehood in the Early Twentieth Century,” Lithuanian Historical Studies 2 (1997): 108–20. 46 Maironis, Raštai, vol. 2, 302. 47 It should be noted that a small portion of Courland was also included in the definition of Lithuania. 48 Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 85, 282. In fact, it should be noted that the document was signed by only four National Democrats and serious debate concerning its content had arisen in the organizing committee: ibid., 78–79.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

At the time, Vilnius, Kaunas, and Grodna provinces, and, in some cases, Suwałki Province, were being called Lithuanian in Russian discourse of that time. In fact, the memorandum is clearly tuned to official terminology, referring to the “so-called ‘Lithuanian provinces’ of the Northwest Region.”49 We can find other examples of this terminology, a terminology typical for the addressee, being used in Lithuanian texts. For example, Antanas Maciejauskas’s “Map of the Lithuanian-Latvian Land” was issued in 1900, but the government decided to confiscate that map because it was published in the Lithuanian language, using the Latin alphabet. Maciejauskas referred to the “geographical map of some Western and Baltic region lands” or the “geographical map of the Lithuanian provinces of the Northwest Region” in his claims for compensating damages addressed to the government rather than the title actually used; in other words he used the terminology commonly used by imperial officials.50 The group whose concept for Lithuania most closely matched the contours of the four provinces was the Lithuanian Social Democrats. If we believe memoirs of the Lithuanian Social Democrat Andrius Domaševičiaus, written much later, Lithuania “was understood as the Kaunas, Vilnius and Grodna provinces with the Suwałki region.”51 It is not easy to confirm such a thesis with contemporary sources. Perhaps most clearly we see the claims of the Lithuanian Social Democrats to the four provinces in 1906–1907 after the Lithuanian Social Democratic 49 Ibid., 282. The official terminology is presented in greater detail in another text by the author of this chapter devoted to Russian discourse, included in this book. 50 See the file “Ob unichtozhenii 1175 egzemliarov karty litovskikh gubernii, ­otpechatannoi na litovskom iazyke inzhinerom tekhnologom A. Matseevskim,” Rossiiskii ­gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Historical Archives; [RGIA]), f. 777, op. 21, chast’ 1, d. 463. 51 Andrius Domaševičius, LSDP pradžia 1896 m., Lietuvos ypatingasis archyvas (Lithuanian Special Archives), f. 3377, ap. 38, b. 53, l. 3–4; Rimantas Miknys, “Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos valstybingumo tradicija lietuvių tautinio judėjimo politinėje programoje (teorinis ir praktinis aspektai),” in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir tautiniai naratyvai, ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas and Grigorijus Potašenko (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2009), 130; Vytautas Merkys, “Lietuvos socialdemokratai ir nacionalinio išsivadavimo judėjimas (ligi 1904 m.),” in Mintys apie Lietuvos komunistų partijos kelią, ed. Alfonsas Eidintas, Vanda Kašauskienė, Vygintas Pšibilskis (Vilnius: Mintis, 1989), 16.

203

204

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Party and the Social Democratic party in Lithuania (the former Polish Socialist Party of Lithuania [PPS na Litwie]) united. At that time, there were several episodes where the Lithuanian Social Democrats talked about the four provinces as their field of activity.52 However, they were not inflexible on this point: in the documents uniting the parties there was talk about a smaller territory than the four provinces.53 Moreover, a study of the Social Democratic press of the period reveals that Lithuanian-speaking Lithuania and Vilnius was their central focus.54 Analysis of other records of the Lithuanian national movement, especially those marked for “internal consumption” and not external representation, shows that a Lithuania comprising the four provinces was not a standard Lithuanian political requirement. In the aforementioned resolutions adopted by the GSV, the question of the borders of a future autonomous Lithuania was left open; only the principles that would be used to determine how those borders would be drawn had been decided on.55 Both at the very beginning of the twentieth century and during the period of the 1905 revolution in general, the tendency to define the principles that would guide the drawing of Lithuania’s borders was assigned greater importance than specifics about the borders themselves. An exception could be the program of the not officially established Association of Lithuanian Christian Democrats. This program included not only the aspiration to obtain autonomy within the country’s “ethnographic borders,” but the borders drawn up based on the linguistic principles were to be revised. However, in this case as well, only the “Lithuanian-speaking” territories of Suwałki, Courland, Grodna, and Vilnius provinces were claimed.56 There was no talk of 52 Bendraitis, “Naujieji rinkimų įstatymai,” Žarija, 1907, no. 2, 20; “Lietuvos socijaldemokratų-atstovų kuopos laiškas,” Skardas, 1907, no. 9, 129. 53 “Partijos konferencija (Rugsėjo 14-19 d. 1906),” Lietuvos socijaldemokratų partijos žinios, 1906, no. 1, 5; Kipras Bielinis, Penktieji metai: Revoliucinio sąjūdžio slinktis ir padariniai (New York: Amerikos lietuvių socialdemokratų sąjungos literatūros fondas, 1959), 416. 54 This can be said, for example, about the letters published in the newspapers Žarija (Ember) and Skardas (Echo). 55 Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 297–98. 56 “Lietuvių Krikščionių Demokratų susivienijimo programo projektas,” Draugija, 1907, no. 1, 72.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

designing the state around the four provinces. Meanwhile, an illustration of the uncertainty of the abovementioned thesis on territorial claims could be the 1902 program of the Lithuanian Democratic Party, which includes very abstract talk about the autonomy of Lithuania “within ethnographic borders.” Another would be the speeches by the Lithuanian clergy at the GSV, which appear, based on surviving sources, to mention autonomy “within ethnographic borders” without offering any details.57 This reluctance to exactly define the area to which claims were made can be explained not so much by a lack of precise information about the linguistic/“ethnographic” composition of the population, but by the understanding that, for example, the linguistic boundaries were changing. The area in which the Lithuanian-speaking population predominated, in view of the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement, was still shrinking. As one of the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement, Jonas Vileišis, wrote to another activist of this movement, Juozas Tumas (Vaižgantas), while preparing maps for the 1900 world exhibition: “With this arises the question of what our ethnographic border used to be and what it is today. It is known that Belarusian and Polish culture has flooded and still floods many places that 10–20 years earlier were purely Lithuanian.”58 At the beginning of the twentieth century Lithuanian activists began to express the hope that Lithuanians would be successful in recapturing the “ethnographic” borderlands so that after a few decades it would become possible to make claims to a much larger territory.59 In general, in the documents of Lithuanian political parties of that time, Lithuania was composed of three parts. The program of the 57 [Liudas Gira], “Lietuvių susivažiavimas Vilniuje,” Vilniaus žinios, 1905, no. 275; Pranas Klimaitis, “Didysis Vilniaus Seimas,” Židinys 2 (1931): 153. 58 Quoted according to: Vilma Žaltauskaitė, “Apie lietuvybės idėją kunigo Juozo Tumo-Vaižganto pažiūrose: Iki 1904 metų,” in Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 8, Asmuo tarp tautos ir valstybės (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996), 255–56. 59 Pilyps, “Autonomija ar savivalda,” Vilniaus žinios, 1907, no. 41; Draft of the article “Ze spisu jednodniowego. (gub. Wilenska)” by Lithuania’s son [Povilas Višinskis], LLTI, f. 1–697, l. 1–3.

205

206

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

yet-to-be-established National Lithuanian Democratic (NLD) Party, formed in the period of the 1905 revolution, describes the borders of autonomous Lithuania as follows: “The NLD Party understands the name ‘Lithuania’ to signify the region of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL), with the capital Vilnius, the population of which up to then had their own old Lithuanian language and to which, as to their ancient homeland, the Belarusianized and Polonized Lithuanians living on the borderlands would for cultural, economic, and other reasons again want to belong.”60 In this definition Lithuania was understood as a territory that consisted of several parts: the habitat in which the Lithuanian language dominates; Vilnius, which was not included in the Lithuanian language-dominated territory (although the above quotation implies that Vilnius falls into the Lithuanian language-dominated habitat), but was the historical capital; and those parts of the former GDL in which denationalized Lithuanians were living. Admittedly, membership of denationalized Lithuanians in the Lithuania being imagined depended on that population’s self-determination.61 The Lithuanian Democrats’ press also wrote, in fact, about the right of self-determination of such borderlands but only after the Lithuanian intelligentsia had carried out its work.62 It is interesting that after 1905 there was less talk about the right of self-determination for such borderlands and increasingly frequent attempts to define more precisely the borders of Lithuania. This, for example, is clear in the programs of the Lithuanian (later—of Lithuania) Democratic Party (LDP), which also declared that “The borders of autonomous Lithuania will be formed in compliance with the native 60 “Tautiškosios lietuvių demokratų partijos programos projektas,” in Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 1, Tautinės savimonės žadintojai: Nuo asmens iki partijos (Vilnius: Sietynas, 1990), 185. 61 A similar tripartite conception was recorded in a statement by the representatives of the Lithuanian population of Kaunas, Suwałki, and Vilnius provinces to the office of the Congress of Zemstvos and Cities in Moscow: “The territory in which Lithuanians live and also the places inhabited by a nationally heterogeneous population, that is, those oriented toward Vilnius, as the center and want to join, were considered to be the basis of an autonomous Lithuania”: Miknys, Lietuvos demokratų partija, 90. 62 Demokratas [Povilas Višinskis], “Demokrato balsas,” Varpas, 1905, no. 9–10, 90.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

population’s composition and their desire,” but at the same time indicated which districts or parts should be included. Here there were claims to only part of Vilnius and Suwałki provinces, and only a “small part” of Courland and Grodna provinces.63 In other words, the right of self-determination was left only to the populations of border zones pre-determined by Lithuanian activists, but not to those of larger areas. It is also important that this paragraph on the self-determination of the peripheral population was on the LDP program in 1906, but it did not remain on the program in 1914. By the same token, one of the leaders of the LDP, Kazys Grinius, pointed out the borders of “ethnographic Lithuania” very precisely at the beginning of 1914, and left no space for self-determination of the borderlands.64 This desire by Lithuanian politicians on both the left and the right not to leave the decision on the border regions to the free self-determination of the population of these territories and instead to draw these borders in advance, based primarily on the “ethnographic” criterion, was most probably determined by the clear understanding that free choice for these inhabitants might not be in favor of Lithuanian Lithuania.65

The Core and Periphery In Lithuanian discourse at the beginning of the twentieth century it was not unusual to encounter the formulation “Lithuania and its periphery.” This phrase, for example, was used by Povilas Matulionis as the title for his unfinished map released after the 1905 revolution.66 This or a similar formulation was used many times in the 1905 revolutionary period. It implied that Lithuania actually consisted of two parts. This distinction begs the question: where is the core, and where the periphery? It is not easy to provide a clear answer to this question. Furthermore, sometimes it was not entirely clear to the Lithuanian intelligentsia itself where to draw these boundaries. 63 Miknys, Lietuvos demokratų partija, 199–200, 212. 64 K.Gr.[Kazys Grinius], “1913 met.,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 16. 65 The Lithuanian press also wrote about this: P. Zonis, “Lietuvos autonomija ir lietuviai-­ rytiečiai,” Vilniaus žinios, 1906, no. 277. 66 Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 261.

207

208

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 8.  Map of Lithuania from Juozas Adomaitis-Šernas, Geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas (Geography, or Description of Earth) (Chicago, 1899).

In 1899 Adomaitis-Šernas used the map of “Tikroji Lietuva” (Real Lithuania) by Petras Vileišis, published the previous year, in one of the first Lithuanian geography textbooks.67 However, it was difficult to reconcile the map with the text. In the map “Real Lithuania” also included “Prussian Lithuania,” but the text of Adomaitis-Šernas’s textbook stated: “From the East the Nemunas [River] separates the land of Prussia from Real Lithuania”68—implying that “Prussian Lithuania” was not “Real Lithuania.” The confusion is exacerbated by the fact that the word “real” on the map marks the area where “Prussian Lithuania” is depicted. 67 Neris [Petras Vileišis], Trumpa geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas (Chicago, 1898), 102. 68 Juozas Adomaitis-Šernas, Geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas (Chicago, 1899), 426, map on p. 427.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

In other cases, inconsistencies were subtler, but Lithuanian discourse of that time could hardly be said to have a unified conception of the borders of an independent Lithuania. Here, the phraseology used by prominent LDP members was quite ambiguous. Sometimes they referred to the core as the territory “in which the Lithuanians live.”69 The problem is that the conception of Lithuanian in the rhetoric of the Lithuanian nationalists was not constant; it, as was already mentioned, depended on the context. In defining the most important aspects of modern Lithuanian identity, the main role, as already mentioned, fell to language (a Lithuanian is a person who speaks Lithuanian), but in the debate with the nobility, origin was emphasized (a Lithuanian is someone whose ancestors were Lithuanian). Some texts left the impression that the core was ethno-linguistic Lithuania and the periphery the remaining part of “ethnographic” Lithuania (i.e., territories predominated by Lithuanians by origin who no longer spoke the “native” language).70 Povilas Višinskis, according to whom the “periphery of Lithuania” was a territory-type area in which the “Lithuanians have adopted a foreign language,” also published such a conception in 1905 in the newspaper Varpas, but at the same time he noted that “there are still people there who remember that their parents or grandparents spoke Lithuanian, and the type, customs, various relics of antiquity, last names, and place names attest that they are Lithuanians, only speaking a different language.”71 If the core of Lithuania was considered to be the territory dominated by the Lithuanian-speaking population, then Vilnius should also have been considered to be part of the “periphery.”72 There were even cases when Lithuanian social 69 Interview of P. Višinskis, K. Grinius, and V. Bielskis for the newspaper Novoe Vremia; the statement of the same persons to the representatives of the zemstvo and cities, LLTI, f. 1–704, l. 1. See also the resolution adopted by the Lithuanian Social Democrats after the GSV: Kipras Bielinis, 1905 metai: Atsiminimai ir dokumentai (Kaunas, 1931), 146. 70 “Lietuviai miestuose,” Tėvynės sargas, 1899, no. 10, 21; “Tautiškosios lietuvių demokratų partijos,” 185. 71 Demokratas [Višinskis], “Demokrato balsas,” 90. 72 At the beginning of the twentieth century, Povilas Matulionis published a text about Lithuanians in Vilnius Province in which he defined the territory populated by Lithuanian speakers. The line he drew was similar but not identical to

209

210

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

commentators admitted that “Lithuanian speakers in the province of Vilnius have remained only on the periphery and in the interior there are only islands.”73 However, for ideological reasons, such acknowledgements were considered unacceptable by Lithuanian activists. In other cases the core of Lithuania was considered all “ethnographic” Lithuania, and it was not explained in more detail where the borderlands were. Such a conception most likely factored in the GSV decisions, which stated that “autonomous Lithuania has to consist of contemporary ethnographic Lithuania as the core and those peripheries that, due to economic, cultural, national, or other reasons, are drawn to that core and whose inhabitants will wish to belong to it.”74 One can see this conception reflected in the 1914 map by Smetona, in which Lithuania consists seemingly of four parts, each with a different percentage of Lithuanians, who in this case were identified with the help of “ethnographic” criteria. Those areas in which Lithuanians made up more than 50 percent were also to be regarded as part of the core.75 In those deliberations Kaunas Province was always undoubtedly considered part of the core of Lithuania. If we were to look at the spatial practice (Henri Lefebvre) of the Lithuanian intelligentsia, in particular, for example, the activities of Lithuanian educational that which we see on the map by Rittich in 1875. In some places (to the south of Vilnius) Lithuanians were shown to inhabit a greater area than on Rittich’s map, but the differences were not very large and Vilnius does not fall into the territory dominated by Lithuanian speakers. Matulionis drew the eastern boundary of the Lithuanian language–dominated area from the northeast corner of Kaunas Province initially along the Medil River to the town Pastovys, then through Strunaičiai along the Strėčia River until the Neris River by Bistryčia, then along this and the Žeimena rivers to Lake Dubingiai; then the line leads through Musninkai, Kernavė, and Rūdininkai and then turns towards the Nemunas River at Pervalka. On the right side the Lithuanians represented 50–90 percent of the population, on the left 1–20 percent: Povilas Matulionis, “Litovskoe plemia v Vilenskoi gub.,” in Pamiatnaia knizhka Vilenskoi gub. za 1902 g. (Vilnius, 1901), 53. About the cooperation of Matulionis with the IRGS and his later map see: Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 161–63, 260–61. 73 Kg. [Kazys Grinius?], “Keletas žodžių delei ‘L. Ukininko’ Žemlapio,” Lietuvos žinios, 1911, no. 102. 74 Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 297. 75 A. Sm. [Antanas Smetona], “Lietuvos etnografijos ribos,” Vairas, 1914, no. 16, 2–8.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

societies, then we would see that their branches and established schools, although not always with the same density, were scattered throughout Kaunas Province.76 Problems arose in drawing the borders of Lithuania in other provinces. The fewest problems arose for the Lithuanian intelligentsia in defining where the Lithuanian “national territory” was in the north, the most, in the east.

“Lithuania’s East” While there were instances where the term “Lithuania’s East” was applied to the Minsk Diocese,77 most often it or any other similar term (for example, simply “East”) characterized Vilnius Province. In fact, the most attention was devoted to the western part of Vilnius Province, which had areas where the majority of the population spoke Lithuanian.78 There were even Lithuanian activists who considered the Lithuanian language spoken in Trakai District to be the most authentic. In the opinion of Stanislovas Raila, “in the woods of this land you will find Lithuanians retaining the picture of Lithuania as they had in the days of Kęstutis! We have to turn our eyes to that land—there we will find the heart of Lithuania!”79 Sometimes it appeared that “East” did not refer to the whole province, but only its Lithuanian-speaking part.80 “Lithuania’s East” was perceived as a territory the inhabitants of which were “asleep” (as Maironis wrote, “And the brothers are sleeping

76 Vida Pukienė, Lietuvių švietimo draugijos XX amžiaus pradžioje (1906–1915 metais) (Vilnius: A. Varno personalinė įmonė, 1994), 124–26. 77 Vaižgantas [Juozas Tumas], “Liudna istorija Rytų Lietuvos,” Tėvynės sargas, 1897, no. 12, 1–16. Sometimes Minsk is mentioned as one of the cities of Lithuania (Adomaitis-Šernas, Geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas, 437), but that was most likely a historical reminiscence rather than an integral component of the designed political program. 78 Kg., “Vilniaus gubernijos lietuvių kalbos ribos,” Lietuvos žinios, 1910, no. 89; K., “Lietuvių kalbos ribos 1900 m.,” Lietuvos žinios, 1910, no. 94. 79 The January 12, 1875, letter of Stanislovas Raila to Nikodemas Venckavičius-Baukus, in Mūsų senovė II, no. 3 (8) (1938), 502. Kęstutis—the grand duke of Lithuania (around 1297–1382). 80 For example, in those cases when there is talk that the “Eastern borders are shrinking”: P. R., “Rytai vis tirpsta . . . ,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 82.

211

212

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

there until now”),81 that is, an area that had “forgotten” their true Lithuanian national identity, but also one that was economically backward. A direct causal link was assigned to “authentic” national self-consciousness and economic well-being.82 However, as already mentioned, imagined Lithuania included not only the area linguistically dominated by Lithuanians, but those territories where Lithuanian dominance could be proven with the help of “ethnographic” evidence. According to the 1897 general census of the Russian Empire, the findings of which Lithuanian public figures were well aware, Lithuanian speakers formed a solid majority only in the Trakai District. It is not surprising that the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement rejected this data as unreliable. Basically, the Lithuanian argument was that an objective national census was not even possible because of the native language fixed in 1897, which was not identical to nationality.83 The eastern and southeastern border of the “national territory” of Lithuania was probably the most difficult to define for Lithuanian activists.84 In Antanas Maciejauskas’s 1905 map, which was later also inserted into the “History of Lithuania” by Reverend Antanas Alekna, a line was drawn in the north separating the Lithuanians and Latvians, but in the east and south the situation remained undefined; it was only clear that the Lithuanians certainly did not claim the territories beyond Smarhon’ (Smorgon’), Grodna, or Lida, because beyond these towns no places at all were marked.85

81 Maironis, Raštai, vol. 2, 332. 82 A. Sm. [Smetona], “Lietuvos etnografijos ribos,” 8. 83 Draft of the article “Ze spisu jednodniowego. (gub. Wilenska)” by Lithuania’s son [Povilas Višinskis], LLTI, f. 1–697, l. 3–4. As we have already mentioned, the linguistic criterion in defining national identity was applied selectively, when it served the purposes of Lithuanian nationalists. 84 Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai, 109. 85 Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 245; Antanas Alekna, Lietuvos istorija (Kaunas, 1911). Map at the end of the book.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

Figure 9.  Map of Lithuania from Antanas Alekna, Lietuvos istorija (History of Lithuania) (Kaunas, 1911).

Based on “ethnographic” criteria, Lithuanians claimed Vilnius Province’s districts of Švenčionys, Vilnius, and Trakai.86 If we look at the spatial practice of Lithuanian activists, we will see that only in these three districts were there branches of Lithuanian educational societies and schools.87 In some cases part of the Lida, Ashmyany, or 86 K.Gr., “1913 met.,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 16. In fact, in this case, reference was made not to whole districts, but their parts “without the Belarusian peripheries.” 87 Pukienė, Lietuvių švietimo draugijos, 124–26.

213

214

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Dzisna districts were also included in the imagined Lithuania.88 Based on a historical argument (that these territories belonged to the GDL) as well as ethnographic logic, Maironis also included these areas within Lithuania in his poem “Lithuania.”89 There were instances when the correspondence from these southeastern districts of Vilnius Province got into the column “from Lithuania,”90 but such instances were very rare. Absolutely no claims were made to Vileika District.91 The maps of Lithuania prepared by the Lithuanian intelligentsia then portrayed the eastern border of the “national territory” of Lithuanians in various ways. The map of Povilas Vileišis published in 1898 and 1905 basically replicated the contours of Koreva’s 1861 map.92 From the northeast the line from the Druia River was drawn straight down to the southwest through Svir, then through Žodiškiai, Ashmyany in the direction of Lazduny, then in a northwest direction towards Subotniki. From Subotniki the line continues in a southwest direction and turns to the west before reaching Lida.93 Meanwhile, we see quite a different picture on the map by Verbickis published in 1911. Here the border of ethnographic Lithuania was shown running immediately east of Vilnius, but the areas of Dieveniškės-Radun’ and Lazduny were depicted not as Lithuanian enclaves in a predominantly Slavic area, but as an integral part of the Lithuanian “national territory.”94 88 Miknys, Lietuvos demokratų partija, 199, 212; Neris [Petras Vileišis], Trumpa geografija arba Żemės apraszymas (Chicago, 1898), 46; Sergei Mech’, Trumpas žemės aprašymas: Piemieji geografijos uždaviniai su apsakymėliais ir kitais pasiskaitymais, translated by Juozas Tūbelis (Vilnius: Aušra, 1906), 34 (here, there is no mention at all of Dzisna District). Rev. Stanislovas Stakelė argued that in Ashmyany District there were still many Lithuanian speakers, but he identified the Disna and Vileika districts as Belarusian: Kunigas Stasys [Stanislovas Stakelė], “Liaukimės klaidinę!,” Vilniaus žinios, 1907, no. 119. 89 Maironis, Raštai, vol. 2, 332–34. 90 For example, Vilniaus žinios, 1905, no. 156, 1906, no. 4, 1907, no. 133. 91 The Lithuanian Social Democratic Party did not make claims to the Vileika and Disna districts even after their merger with the Polish socialists: “L.S.D.P su S.D.P.L. (buvusiąja Lietuvos P.P.S.) susidėjimo sumanymas,” Lietuvos ­socijaldemokratų partijos žinios, 1906, no. 1, 5. 92 Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai, 103. 93 “Lietuvių kalbos ploto žemialapis,” Vilniaus žinios, 1905, no. 149. 94 Merkys, Tautiniai santykiai, 109.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

This terminology (“Lithuania’s East,” “East”) became more popular in Lithuanian discourse, especially after the 1905 revolution, during contention over which language—Polish or Lithuanian—to use in the supplementary services in the Catholic churches in linguistically mixed parishes. The fight for the entrenchment of Lithuanians in Vilnius Province was understood as desperate—if it was lost, it was doubtful that the imagined core of Lithuania would withstand the “surges of the Slavic seas.”95 From the point of view of spatial practice (Lefebvre’s terminology), the conscious efforts of the Lithuanian intelligentsia to establish itself in Vilnius, which, thanks to these efforts, became the center of the Lithuanian national movement from 1905, were important.96

Suwałki Province The inclusion of the larger part of Suwałki Province in imagined Lithuania did not raise any doubts within even a single Lithuanian political current, although there was no consensus on Lithuania’s southern borders. Claims were generally made to the five northern districts of this province (Vladislavov, Marijampolė, Vilkaviškis, Kalvarija, and Seiny).97 In other cases, when the official administrative borders were not adhered to, the border was adjusted, with only part of Seiny District and part of Suwałki District included in Lithuanian territory.98 It was only in this part of Suwałki Province that Lithuanian educational societies had expanded their activities.99 However, in this case, another problem arose. Suwałki Province belonged to the Kingdom of Poland (at the end of the nineteenth it was 95 Liudas Gira, “Mūsu rytai ir vakarai,” Viltis, 1913, no. 2; Liudas Gira, “Iš visų pastangų rūpinkimės Vilniaus gub. lietuviais,” Viltis, 1910, no. 149. 96 Staliūnas, “Making a national capital,” 157–75. 97 “L.S.D.P su S.D.P.L. (buvusiąja Lietuvos P.P.S.) susidėjimo sumanymas,” Lietuvos socijaldemokratų partijos žinios, 1906, no. 1, 5; statement by P. Višinskis, K. Grinius and V. Bielskis to the Zemstvos and the Cities Congress, LLTI, f. 1–704, l. 1. 98 Draft of the article “Ze spisu jednodniowego. (gub. Wilenska)” by Lithuania’s son [Povilas Višinskis], LLTI, f. 1–697, l. 1. It is interesting that, in preparing this text, Višinskis corrected the borders of the Lithuanian-populated area in the south. Initially he had recorded the five districts as Lithuanian, but later excluded Seiny District and corrections indicated a more accurate border. 99 Pukienė, Lietuvių švietimo draugijos, 124–26.

215

216

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

officially called the Vistula Region), while the larger part of the territory inhabited by Lithuanians in the Russian Empire were in the governor-generalship of Vilnius, that is, from an administrative point of view it was an integral part of the empire. At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, Lithuanian activists had to resolve the dilemma over whether or not to seek the administrative consolidation of all Lithuanian-populated territories. At the end of the nineteenth century the Lithuanian intelligentsia tended to oppose such an administrative reform;100 around the time of the 1905 revolution they supported it enthusiastically;101 later, in 1909–1912, this idea had supporters,102 opponents,103 and those who were undecided;104 but on the eve of World War I or after it began, the voices of those who supported the integration of Suwałki Province into the NWR were heard again more strongly.105 In fact, the differences between backers of territorial-administrative reform and those opposing it had more to do with tactics than principle. At the end of the nineteenth century the Lithuanian national movement, as already mentioned, had not yet reached the political phase, that is, it 100 J. M., “Quo usque tandem . . . ,” Varpas, 1891, no. 5, 69; –j-a [?], “Naujos kilpos,” Ūkininkas, 1891, no. 9, 386–90; “Ką mums Maskoliai žada,” Ūkininkas, 1893, no. 4, 25–26. 101 Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 85–86, 103, 293, 298; “Vilniaus, sausio 25 d.,” Lietuvis, 1907, no. 3, 38; Petition of the Lithuanian Roman Catholics Alliance of America dated December 22, 1906, to Russian Prime Minister Stolypin, RGIA, f. 1284, op. 187, d. 88, l. 61. 102 Iks [?], “Dėl Suvalkų gubernijos atskyrimo,” Viltis, 1909, no. 62; Iks. [?], “Dar apie Suvalkų gubernijos atskyrimą,” Viltis, 1909, no. 99; Jonas Basanavičius, “Apie Suvalkiškių lietuvių dalykus,” Viltis, 1909, no. 103, no. 104. 103 “Iš laikraščių,” Lietuvos žinios, 1909, no. 1; “Iš laikraščių,” Lietuvos žinios, 1909, no. 8; “Atstovo A. Bulotos kalba, pasakyta svarstant klausimą apie Cholmijos išskyrimą, sausio 13 d.,” Lietuvos žinios, 1912, no. 13, no. 14, no. 15. 104 Editorial postscript to the article: Iks [?], “Dėl Suvalkų gubernijos atskyrimo,” Viltis, 1909, no. 62; “Draugėj, ar išsiskyrus?,” Viltis, 1909, no. 64; “Dėl Suvalkų gubernijos,” Viltis, 1909, no. 73, no. 74, no. 75. In fact, in the last articles there was more of a tendency to agree with this administrative reform. 105 L. V-kas [Kazys Grinius], “Apie šalies neprigulmybę,” Varpas, 1914, no. 3, 105; Pašeimeniškis [?], “Rašykime į rusų laikraščius apie save ir apie dabartinius Lietuvos vargus,” Viltis, 1914, no. 225; Juozas Gabrys, Lietuva ir Lenkijos autonomija: Ar gali but Lietuva priskirta prie autonominės Lenkijos? Liuosas “Išeivių Draugo” vertimas iš anglų kalbos (The British Review, February, 1915) (Bellshill, Scotland: Spauda “Išeivių Draugo,” 1915), 8.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

basically (with the exception of Social Democrats and certain individuals) was not yet promoting the idea of an independent state or political autonomy. The Lithuanian intelligentsia thought that, given the current situation, it would be more beneficial for Lithuanians if Suwałki Province still remained within the Kingdom of Poland, since the imperial regime there was milder than in the territory subordinate to the Vilnius governor-general.106 Some Lithuanian politicians, for example, the Duma member Andrius Bulota, followed the same logic after the suppression of the 1905 revolution. Meanwhile, in the years of the 1905 revolution, or as the World War I approached, the aspiration for political independence of one kind or another became one of the most important in the programs of Lithuanian political parties, and in that context the desire to reconcile national and territorial-administrative boundaries was understandable. Moreover, the possible granting of autonomy to the Kingdom of Poland also encouraged Lithuanian intelligentsia to raise the issue of the status of Suwałki Province, since it was feared that the more power the Poles gained in the kingdom, the more they would discriminate against Lithuanians.107 This aspiration to separate Suwałki Province from the Kingdom of Poland and to make it the same as the other provinces of the so-called NWR was motivated by its “ethnographic” composition, the will of the people, and historical arguments. The Lithuanian intelligentsia stressed that most of the population of Suwałki Province were “ethnographically Lithuanians” who expressed the will to unite with other Lithuanians; moreover, this territory belonged to the GDL until the end of the eighteenth century, and thus, from the point of view of historical rights as well, its place was not within the Kingdom of Poland.108 This aspiration was also reflected in the resolutions of the GSV. Congress documents referred to all of Suwałki Province,109 although in 106 It should be recalled that specifically after the 1863–64 uprising the main center of the Lithuanian national movement was in Suwałki Province. 107 Intelligence report dated November 11, 1914, Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archives of the Russian Federation; GARF), f. 102, osobyi otdel, 1914 g., d. 149L, l. 8. 108 “Suvalkiečių atydai,” Vilniaus žinios, 1907, no. 45; “Draugėj, ar išsiskyrus?,” Viltis, 1909, no. 64; Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 293. 109 Motieka believes that the memorandum’s reference to all of Suwałki Province appeared inadvertently (Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 85–86). However, in the

217

218

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

other cases only the Lithuanian-dominated part of Suwałki Province was included in aspirations for an autonomous (independent) Lithuania.110 Taking into account how Lithuanian nationalism defined the borders of the imagined Lithuania, there is no doubt that only the Lithuanian part of Suwałki Province was considered a top priority for inclusion. Those cases when the whole province was mentioned could have been inadvertent; or, as mentioned earlier, could have resulted from efforts to adopt the categories of thought usual for officials.

Prussian Lithuania (Lithuania Manor) Undoubtedly, within all Lithuanian political currents, so-called Prussian Lithuania in East Prussia (from 1870–1871, in the German Empire) was an integral part of the “national body.”111 For the publishers of Aušra, membership of the Prussian Lithuanians (“Lithuanians under the Prussians”) in the Lithuanian nation did not raise any doubts,112 and neither did the membership of the old Prussians who had become Germanized with passing time.113 At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, this region was usually called “Prussian Lithuania”

110

111

112 113

resolutions adopted by the Lithuanians of Suwałki Province during the conference there were clear references to the whole of Suwałki Province (ibid., 293); only in resolutions by the conference as a whole is the wording rather ambiguous: “The Lithuanians of Suwałki Province must be included in autonomous Lithuania” (ibid., 298). There were also other documents in which the Lithuanian intelligentsia referred to the whole of Suwałki Province: draft in Russian of the article by P. Višinskis, LLTI, f. 1–695, the sheets are not numbered. Without parts of Suwałki and Augustów districts: Miknys, Lietuvos demokratų partija, 199, 212; without Augustów District and parts of Suwałki and Sejny districts: K. Gr. [?], “1913 met.,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 16. A similar territory was also drawn in the maps prepared by Lithuanians at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. In other cases, without specifying, there was talk about the Lithuanian part of Suwałki Province: V. Karuža, “Savyvalda Lenkijoje,” Vilniaus žinios, 1906, no. 245; Paparonis [?], “Lietuvos reikalai ir reikalavimai,” Viltis, 1914, no. 247. gk. [?], “Tautų rytojun bežiūrint,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 170. Some Lithuanian publications claimed that there were around one hundred thousand Lithuanians there (“Truputis Mažosios Lietuvos statistikos,” Viltis, 1914, no. 192); in other cases the figure of two hundred thousand was mentioned. (Juozas Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis skiriamas Lietuvos mokyklai [Tilsit, 1910], 71). Parplis [Jurgis Mikšas], “Isz Lietuvos,” Aušra, 1883, no. 8, 9, 10, 289. J. Szl. [Jonas Šliūpas], “Lietuviai kitą gadinę ir szendien,” Aušra, 1883, no. 8, 9, 10, 222.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

in Lithuanian discourse, and the term “Lithuania Minor” came into common usage only with the approach of World War I,114 whereas the Lithuanian-populated territory of the Russian Empire was referred to as “Lithuanian Major.” This term came into usage around 1904–1905.115 Sometimes, seeking to create a coherent image of the Lithuanian world, this region was defined as “Lithuania’s West” (if there was a “Lithuanian East,” then there must be “Lithuanian West”).116 Just as “Lithuania’s East” was a problematic region from the point of view of Lithuanian nationalism, so was the “West,” although in the economic sense it was a more advanced land than “Lithuania Major.” However, Lithuanian national identity there was weak and the area inhabited by Lithuanians was constantly decreasing. One of the activists of the Lithuanian national movement, Petras Rimša, described that situation vividly: “Prussian Lithuania is an economic mirror of our future. We, for Prussian Lithuania, are a good national mirror of the future.”117 In some Lithuanian periodicals (such as in Ūkininkas (Farmer), Darbininkų balsas), news from this region appeared under the heading “From Prussian Lithuania,” and in other instances it would come under the heading “In Lithuania” (for example, in Varpas, or Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga). It is difficult to explain this inconsistency with different mental maps. Theoretically, it would be possible to imagine that in those instances when “Prussian Lithuania” was thought of as a more or less integral part of the imagined Lithuania, then news, for example, from Tilsit (now Sovetsk) would be placed under the heading “From Lithuania,” but when major regional differences were brought to mind, then a separate heading would appear. However, available examples even in periodicals of 114 For example, in Lietuvos žinios (Lithuania’s news) or the geography textbook written by Gabrys: Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis, 61. In East Prussia the more frequent use of the term “Lithuania Minor” begins at a similar time—in 1910: Vasilijus Safronovas, “Apie istorinio regiono virsmą vaizduotės region: Mažosios Lietuvos pavyzdys,” Istorija 86 (2012): 66–80. 115 A. Adata [Antanas Macijauskas], Pradinė geografija (1905), 60; Draugas, 1904, no. 1, 1; 1905, no. 3, 97; draft of an article by P. Višinskis in Russian, LLTI, f. 1–695, pages unnumbered; letter of August, 15 (28), 1905, from P. Višinskis to J. Šaulys, LLTI, f. 115–511, no. 29. 116 Zigmas Žviksas, “Mažoji Lietuva ir mes,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 93. 117 Petras Rymša, “Kelionės įspūdžiai,” Lietuvos žinios, 1912, no. 115.

219

220

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the very same Lithuanian political leanings (liberal publications such as Varpas and Ūkininkas) show these two different ways of categorizing news from “Western Lithuania.” This suggests that a given way of categorizing news items (the separate treatment of news from “Prussian Lithuania” instead of placing it under the general Lithuanian heading) did not reflect different models of “national territory.” “Prussian Lithuania” was rarely mentioned in Lithuanian political programs, despite the fact that it was certainly perceived as being within the borders of Lithuania. The reason for this was that Lithuanian political programs most often dealt with territorial autonomy within the Russian Empire during the period discussed, so there was no need to mention the territories that were beyond the borders of the Romanov Empire. The question of the political inclusion of “Prussian Lithuania (Lithuania Minor)” in Lithuania became a more heated issue after the beginning of World War I (in the so-called “Amber Declaration” in the periodicals),118 when the “redrawing of the map” of Europe was expected. In Lithuanian discourse of that time, we can detect two definitions of the territory “Prussian Lithuania.” One of them followed a linguistic principle; the other an “ethnographic” one.119 Although due to the abovementioned circumstances, the inclusion of “Lithuania Minor” as an integral part of Lithuania in Lithuanian political programs “was delayed,” the attention to this region was great from the very beginning of the national movement. To the leaders of the Lithuanian movement, East Prussia was an important territory of the Baltic habitat, a place where Lithuanian literature was written and a type of Piedmont—the place from which, at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, illegal Lithuanian publications in the Latin alphabet reached “Lithuania Major.”120 The national aspiration to unite all Lithuanian-populated territories was not the only factor attracting greater attention to Prussian Lithuania. The Lithuanian intelligentsia believed that by uniting the “Minor” and “Major” Lithuanias one could 118 “Lietuvių deklaracija,” Viltis, 1914, no. 187; “Vilnius, rųgpiučio 27 d.,” ibid. 1914, no. 191; “Vilnius, rugpiūčio 31 d.,” ibid. 1914, no. 195. 119 See as well: Vasilijus Safronovas, The Creation of National Spaces in a Pluricultural Region: The Case of Prussian Lithuania (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2016). 120 Maironis, Raštai, vol. 2, 318, 320–21, 323.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

stop the penetration of German culture among the Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor; that is, such a merger would strengthen the national identity of the Lithuanians in East Prussia.121 Moreover, this Lithuanian-populated territory was seen as a kind of outpost, protecting the rest of Lithuanians from the penetration of the Germans.122 Finally, this territory was needed so that Lithuania would have wider access to the Baltic Sea (and not only the narrow stretch of coast near Palanga).123

Grodna Province We can find only a few episodes when Grodna Province was perceived as a part of Lithuanians’ “national territory.” As we have already mentioned, Grodna Province “from an ethnographic standpoint” was assigned to autonomous Lithuania in the memorandum sent to the Russian government before the GSV.124 Such an idea sometimes slipped by in the Lithuanian press,125 but very rarely. As already mentioned, reference to the provinces, rather than any ethnographic territory in the memorandum, probably reflected an effort to adopt the terminology of the empire’s ruling elite. One exception would be the Lithuanian Social Democrats,

121 M. M. [?], “Prūsų Lietuva,” Lietuvos ūkininkas, 1914, no. 35, 327. 122 Zigmas Žviksas, “Mažoji Lietuva ir mes,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 9. 123 “Dumos atstovo M. Yčo pasikalbėjimas,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 164; A. Sm. [Antanas Smetona], “Karo ženkle gyvenant,” Vairas, 1914, no. 14, 2. 124 Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 282. 125 Gabrys, Lietuva ir Lenkijos autonomija, 8. The Committee of the Lithuanian Society to Assist Victims of the War indicated four provinces as the focus of its activity, thus including Grodna Province: Lietuvių Draugijos nukentėjusiems del karo Šelpti Komitetas, “Lietuvos visuomenei,” Viltis, 1914, no. 275.The Gabrys’s 1910 geography textbook should also be mentioned since it discusses Grodna Province separately based on the following reasoning: “Although the majority of the province today is populated by Belarusians or Belarusianized Lithuanians, we cannot neglect it in this description of Lithuania, because it always has been and remains tightly bound to other parts of Lithuania.”: Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis, 70. However, from this explanation one should not make the unqualified conclusion that Gabrys assigned the whole province to Lithuania, because: (1) he understood Lithuania as “the land where Lithuanians are still living” (p. 61), and from the above quotation we saw that, in the author’s opinion, the greater part of the province was populated by Belarusians; (2) Lithuania, according to Gabrys, “lies . . . between 54° and 56° latitude geographically,” while “Grodna Province lies south of Lithuania between 51° 30’ up to 54° 3’ north latitude” (p. 70), so it does not fall within the contours of Lithuania.

221

222

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

who, as already mentioned, in 1906–1907 corrected the spatial image of Lithuania after they united with a rival—the former PPS na Litwie. It was more typical for Lithuanians to demand a small part of Grodna Province,126 which, in their minds, usually included the surroundings of Druskininkai.127 There were instances, too, when Grodna was seen as part of Lithuania,128 but such cases were rare, while the clear problem of the this city can be seen from Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, where news from Grodna was sometimes placed under the heading “From Lithuania”129 and sometimes “From Abroad.”130 Moreover, there had been cases when even this small part of Grodna Province was not included in Lithuanians’ ethnographic territory.131 Another fact is telling: in 1906 a group of prominent Lithuanians, in preparing to publish the “Map of Lithuania and Its Borderlands,” decided that place names needed to be written in the way local people pronounced them, and to that end questionnaires were sent to Vilnius, Kaunas, and Suwałki provinces,132 to those areas included in the imagined Lithuania. Grodna Province, as we can see, was not included in that list.

Latvia The ethnic closeness of the Lithuanians and Latvians and the similarities between their languages was a focus of attention for Lithuanian cultural figures already in the first half of the nineteenth century.133 This closeness was also addressed in works by the author of the first history 126 With rare exceptions, this territory was not defined more precisely: Neris ­[Vileišis], Trumpa geografija, 46; Embė . . . [?], “Serbai-Lužiecziai ir Lietuviai,” Tėvynės sargas, 1899, no. 3, 8–9; Liūdžius [?], “Lietuvos etnografinių ribų k ­ lausimas. (Maskvos “Leidimo Komisijos” Susirinkimas),” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 191; Miknys, Lietuvos demokratų partija, 199, 212. Druskininkai was assigned to Lithuania: “Karas Lietuvoje,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 163. 127 See Verbickis’s 1911 map: Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 262. 128 Mech’, Trumpas žemės aprašymas, 34; [Jadvyga Juškytė], Vaikų skaitymeliai su Lietuvos žemėlapiu (Vilnius, 1905), 240. 129 “Isz Lietuvos,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1895, no. 11, 85. 130 “Isz svetur,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1892, no. 20, 159. 131 K. Gr. [?], “1913 met.,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 16. 132 “Atsišaukimas į visuomenę,” Vilniaus žinios, 1906, no. 104. 133 Subačius, Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė, 77.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

of Lithuania in the Lithuanian language, Simonas Daukantas.134 In Aušra the idea of the unity of the Lithuanians and Latvians began to be discussed publicly;135 for Basanavičius the Lithuanians and Latvians were one nation.136 From some works of poetry in which there was talk about unity with the Latvians, the impression could be formed that the territory inhabited by the Latvians was also Lithuania.137 Such an impression was probably created by the most influential Lithuanian poet of that time, Maironis, in his short poem “Lithuania,” although at the same time this poem mentions that the Latvians, in a way, have another homeland.138 Certain occurrences in the late nineteenth century, when Latvians were factored into a calculation of the total number of Lithuanians,139 or treatment of items in the Lithuanian press (Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, Ūkininkas, Varpas, or Viltis [Hope]) coming from various cities of Latvia (Riga, Liepaja, or Jelgava) that were placed under the heading “From Lithuania,” reinforced that impression. During the 1905 revolution “unity with the Latvians” was also intensely debated by the Lithuanian intelligentsia.140 At the beginning of the twentieth century there even appeared several maps on which Lithuania is joined with Latvia.141 Sometimes the Daugava River was drawn as the northern border of Lithuania, or, as already mentioned, it was identified as the widest river of Lithuania.142 All this supported an impression that the Latvians were considered an integral part of the Lithuanian nation. 134 Dangiras Mačiulis, “Jonas Šliūpas ir lietuvių-latvių vienybės idėja,” Acta Humanitarica Universitatis Saulensis: Mokslo darbai 12 (2011): 85. 135 Ibid., 86. 136 Bassenowicz, “Rubeźej,” 103. 137 Veversys [Davainis Silvestraitis], “Musu rupesczei,” 47–50. 138 Maironis, Raštai, vol. 2, 312–14. 139 J. S. Anžuolaitis, “Isz Lietuvos,” Aušra, 1884, nos. 7–8, 275; Adomaitis-Šernas, Geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas, 423. At the beginning of the twentieth century Latvians were usually no longer counted when the total number of Lithuanians was submitted. A rare exception: A. Adata [Macijauskas] Pradinė geografija, 60. 140 Rimantas Miknys and Egidijus Motieka, “Tautiškoji lietuvių demokratų partija: Idėjinės-politinės kūrimosi aplinkybės,” in Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 1, Tautinės savimonės žadintojai: Nuo asmens iki partijos (Vilnius: Sietynas, 1990), 101. 141 Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 236, 245; Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis, 65. 142 A. B. [Antanas Baranauskas], “Tikri szirdies jausmai,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1892, no. 12, 92–93; Adomas Jaksztas, “Rauda Lietuvos,” Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga, 1892, no. 19, 148.

223

224

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 10. Map of Lithuania from Juozas Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis skiriamas Lietuvos mokyklai (Geography Textbook for Lithuania’s Schools) (Tilsit, 1910).

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

However, a closer look shows that the idea that the historical territory of the Baltic tribes was an indivisible territory, an idea seen especially in belles-lettres, was not projected onto the political program of Lithuanian nationalism. Only a part of Courland Province,143 primarily Palanga and the surrounding area (Lithuanian ethnic lands that at the beginning of the nineteenth century were separated from then Vilnius Province and joined to Courland) and sometimes a small area near Daugavpils (Dinaburg) were claimed by Lithuanian activists. Small segments of Kaunas Province that could arguably be considered Latvian were also vaguely alluded to.144 And even in the joint maps of Lithuania and Latvia mentioned above they were in one way or another still separated. In Maciejauskas’s map of 1900, Lithuania obviously differed from Latvia: the density of marked Lithuanian settlements was much higher than in Latvia, and in the 1910 map by Gabrys the two nations were separated by a special line, showing that they were still two different “national territories.” Palanga was always included in maps of Lithuania’s territory prepared by the Lithuanian intelligentsia.

THE ROLE OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGE IN INSTILLING A SENSE OF NATIONHOOD The diversity of tools that the Lithuanian intelligentsia could use in the process of instilling a sense of nationhood in the masses to introduce an image of “national territory” was small. Official schools, the press, and the army introduced other, Russian, images of this land.145 In fact, after the 1905 revolution, Lithuanian educational societies also began to 143 Miknys, Lietuvos demokratų partija, 199, 212. 144 Draft of the article “Ze spisu jednodniowego. (gub. Wilenska)” by Lithuania’s son [P. Višinskis], LLTI, f. 1–697, l. 1. 145 More than half of Maciejauskas’s maps published in St. Petersburg in 1900 were confiscated because they were advertised in the underground Lithuanian press and used forbidden Latin letters: see the file “Ob unichtozhenii 1175 egzempliarov karty litovskikh gubernii, otpechatannoi na litovskom iazyke inzhinerom tekhnologom A. Matseevskim,” RGIA, f. 777, op. 21, d. 463; Rimantas Vėbra, Lietuviškos spaudos draudimas 1864–1904 metais: Istorijos bruožai (Vilnius: Pradai, 1996), 199–200; V. Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 237. Tourism as a tool to mobilize the Lithuanian (peasant) masses was problematic. In fact, descriptions of trips

225

226

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

e­ stablish schools that taught both geography and history. The first Lithuanian geography textbooks and maps appeared (underground, at first) only at the very end of the nineteenth century. Some of them were also used in Lithuanian schools.146 In books by Maironis, Antanas Alekna, or Pranas Klimaitis devoted to the history of Lithuania, the Lithuanian intelligentsia also presented the image of “national territory,” and these books played an important role in the process of the nationalization of the masses. These texts not only bound the different generations of the imagined community (the nation as “one big family”) but also firmly linked that community with a specific territory, the homeland, which “is drenched with the blood and sweat of ancestors.”147 In books devoted to the history of Lithuania, the historic domain of the Lithuanian nation was also defined. The rights of Lithuanians to that “national territory” were based on the fact that they were the oldest inhabitants of this region: Scholarly investigations have shown that before the coming of the Lithuanians to this region, no one lived here; that the Lithuanians themselves worked to cultivate the land; and that later the Slavs arriving from the east and south and the Germans from the west found the Lithuanians in those places where the history of the Middle Ages encountered them and where they are now still living.148 While Maironis and Klimaitis did this rather perfunctorily, mentioning the rivers near which the ancient Lithuanians lived,149 Alekna was more precise: “in ancient times they [the Lithuanians] had taken over all of what is now Kaunas Province, almost all of today’s around Lithuania were featured in the pages of periodicals. Moreover, pilgrimages to religious centers also took place, one of which, for example, was Vilnius. 146 Pukienė, Lietuvių švietimo draugijos, 47, 49–50. 147 Alekna, Lietuvos istorija, 3. 148 “Lietuvių Memorandumas Rusijos Ministrų Tarybos pirmininkui grafui S. Vitei (1905 m. lapkričio 5 (18) d.),” in Motieka, Didysis Vilniaus seimas, 281. 149 Stanyslovas Zanavykas [Jonas Mačiulis], Apsakymai apie Lietuvos praeiga (1886), 11; Pranas [Pranas Klimaitis], Lietuvos istorija: Pradedamosioms mokykloms vadovėlis. Su paveikslėliais ir spalvuotu žemėlapiu (Vilnius, 1912), 5–6.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

Suwałki and Vilnius provinces and the part of Grodna Province that in the north reached Minsk Province, and had occupied the area of today’s Courland Province around Dinaburg, and here reached the Daugava River. Moreover, the Lithuanians populated the eastern part of what is now Prussia along the Nemunas.”150 From other places in the book one can see that in Vilnius Province, Vileika and Disna districts were not seen as Lithuanian in a historical sense.151 When writing about areas populated by Lithuanians in the past, some leaders of the Lithuanian national movement saw a sort of nationalistic ideal because in that land at that time there was not a single non-Lithuanian speaker.152 The historical narrative, along with historical maps, also fostered pride in Lithuania’s past. Alekna placed a map of the GDL in the times of Vytautas next to the current map of Lithuania, while in the book by Klimaitis the map depicting that period was the only one. The Lithuanian reader could only take pride when looking at the borders of the GDL, which stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea; it should also be recognized that the state was about two times larger than Poland.153 The periodical press also presented the contours of Lithuania as an ideological homeland, making the greatest contribution to intensifying communication within the Lithuanian-speaking community. The territorial image of Lithuania was fostered not only in the programmatic texts already quoted numerous times in this chapter but also in the 150 Alekna, Lietuvos istorija, 4. At the beginning of the twentieth century Matulionis, facilitating the reader’s orientation, also described the Lithuanian-and-Latvian-inhabited area in the Middle Ages in terms of the administrative-territorial units existing in tsarist Russia: Lithuanians [along with other Balts] lived “in what is now Prussia, Kaunas, and Courland provinces, and part of today’s Livonia and Vitsiebsk provinces; later they occupied almost all of Vilnius and Grodna provinces, the northwestern part of Minsk Province, and the larger half of Suwałki Province”: Matulionis, “Litovskoe plemia,” 49. 151 In several places the books refer to Lithuanians “who had forgotten their ancestors’ language” in the Vilnius Province’s Ashmyany, Lida, and Švenčionys districts, while the Vileika and Disna districts, where at that time there were even fewer Lithuanians, were not mentioned at all: Alekna, Lietuvos istorija, 4, 69–70. Probably Vilnius District was not mentioned deliberately, since, as is well known, the Lithuanian habitat in the course of the nineteenth century also decreased significantly there. 152 Bassenowicz, “Rubeźej,” 103. 153 It is interesting that Klimaitis mistakenly attributed to the GDL a long stretch of the Baltic seacoast up the point at which the Nemunas flows into the Curonian Lagoon.

227

228

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 11.  Map of Lithuania in the times of Vytautas the Great (1350–1430)

from Pranas [Pranas Klimaitis], Lietuvos istorija: Pradedamosioms mokykloms vadovėlis. Su paveikslėliais ir spalvuotu žemėlapiu (History of Lithuania: For Elementary Schools. With Illustrations and Color Map) (Vilnius, 1912).

less blatantly ideological, but in fact deliberately constructed, news items that was usually placed under headings like “From Lithuania” or “From Abroad.” These columns instilled daily in readers the territorial concept of Lithuania, clearly indicating what was included in the imagined Lithuania and what was not. The number of such items was determined by quite trivial circumstances, that is, in order for items to come in from a particular place, there had to be Lithuanians there who were literate and reading the periodical. The small number of items from Vilnius in the underground Lithuanian press at the end of the nineteenth century was largely determined by the fact that in the historical capital of Lithuania there were very few Lithuanian activists. However, the placement of

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

items under a particular heading was a conscious decision by the publishers and helped shape the contours of modern Lithuania. Another tool that was used to disseminate the territorial image of Lithuania was the maps of Lithuania created by Lithuanian activists at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, which Vytautas Petronis has analyzed in detail.154 It is important that the maps included the name Lithuania. On the 1898 map, and later, on the 1899 map, it ended up above the entry “The Russian Empire” as if forming a hierarchy.155 On Gabrys’s 1910 map, the Russian Empire was not mentioned at all.156 An element of the symbolic appropriation of space was the designation of toponyms and hydronyms in the Lithuanian language. The naming of some city or a river in one of the languages of the national groups also meant the symbolic appropriation of that object. That is why the Lithuanian intelligentsia, both on the maps discussed here, as well as in the articles in the periodic press, tried to name the objects of the imagined Lithuania in Lithuanian.157 All of the 1908 issues of the newspaper Litwa (Lithuania), which was directed at the Polish-speaking society of Lithuania and published in the Polish language, featured on the front page a map of Lithuania on which all the place names were written in the Lithuanian language. In 1906 in the initial preparation of the “Map of Lithuania and Its Periphery” there was an effort to include Lithuanians from various places, who had to fill out questionnaires that asked them to insert Lithuanian names next to the Russian place names.158 Another visual tool 154 V. Petronis, Constructing Lithuania, 222–69. 155 Neris [Vileišis], Trumpa geografija, 102; Adomaitis-Šernas, Geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas, 427. 156 Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis, 65. 157 Such a tendency is evident on all the maps, although sometimes strange decisions were made by their creators. In the 1898 map mentioned above, unlike the other Lithuanian cities, whose names were written in ways familiar to Lithuanians, Vilnius was labeled “Wilne”—a name that was difficult to assign to any of the languages used in the land: “Rengiamas Lietuviszkasis Atlaselis,” Tėvynės sargas, 1899, no. 2, 55–56; “Lietuviškas Atlasēlis,” Ūkininkas, 1899, no. 7, 111; Redakcija, “Nuo ‘Vilniaus Žinių’ redakcijos,” Vilniaus žinios, 1905, no. 44. 158 The questionnaires, both sent and received, of the group of the publishers of the map of Lithuania, Lietuvos mokslų akademijos Vrublevskių bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius [Manuscript Division of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences], f. 255–1239, 1241, 1242; “Atsišaukimas į visuomenę,” Vilniaus žinios,

229

230

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

was the marking of the Lithuanian border with the help of bright lines or different colors, distinguishing Lithuania from the other areas visible on the map, as was done in the abovementioned maps from 1898 or on those of Juškytė in 1905 and Verbickas in 1911.159 Moreover, usually the line marking the borders of Lithuania was much more pronounced than the line marking the borders of the states existing at that time. This visual effect also created a hierarchical conception: the borders of the imagined Lithuania were more important than, for example, the border between Russia and Germany.

Figure 12.  All 1908 issues of the newspaper Litwa (Lithuania) were decorated

with the map of Lithuania, where all places names were written in Lithuanian.

1906, no. 104; “Lietuvos žemėlapio leidėjų burelis,” Vilniaus žinios, 1906, no. 104; Kun. Vladas Mironas, “Prie atsišaukimo į visuomenę dėlei Žemėlapio leidimo reikalų,” Vilniaus žinios, 1906, no. 115; “Iš Vilniaus Lietuvių gyvenimo,” Vilniaus žinios, 1907, no. 21. 159 [Jadvyga Juškytė], Vaikų skaitymeliai, 262.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

The Lithuanian intelligentsia not only created a territorial image of Lithuania, in particular, with the help of maps, but also made significant efforts to ensure that this image reached the addressee—the grassroots. Sometimes maps from geography textbooks would end up in the pages of the periodic press, which immediately increased the circle of potential readers.160 As already mentioned, a map of Lithuania was published in all the 1908 issues of the publication Litwa. Geography textbooks were promoted in the Lithuanian press. For example, the 1898 textbook by Petras Vileišis was advertised in Ūkininkas, Vienybė Lietuvininkų (Unity of the Lithuanians), Lietuva (Lithuania) as well as Tėvynės sargas in the same year; Juškytė’s 1905 textbook with map was advertised many times in 1907 in Vilniaus žinios; the map by Verbickis released in 1911 was advertised very intensively in Lietuvos žinios. The schools established by Lithuanian educational societies also had maps, but, in fact, we do not have any specific information about which ones.161 The Lithuanian intelligentsia would also find other ways to advertise these publications. For instance, the abovementioned Rimša, in one of his travel descriptions, related the story of a peasant from Zapyškis not only subscribing to the Lithuanian press but also buying a map of Lithuania.162 Undoubtedly, this story had not only a documentary function, that is, the desire to capture the impressions of the trip, but also was meant to act as an example to be followed. * * * At the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century, Lithuanian nationalism was solving the same problems as many other nationalisms of non-dominant national groups in Central and Eastern Europe. One of the most important tasks was the construction of its own “geo-body,” that is, the symbolic homogenization of “its 160 The first Lithuanian newspaper in Vilnius, Vilniaus žinios, reprinted the map from the textbook of Juškytė: “Lietuvių kalbos ploto žemialapis,” Vilniaus žinios, 1905, no. 149. 161 Pukienė, Lietuvių švietimo draugijos, 51. 162 Petras Rymša, “Iš kelionės po Lietuvą,” Lietuvos žinios, 1912, no. 15.

231

232

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

own” “national territory,” and ensuring that it was distinct from the territories of neighboring nationalities. The Lithuanian intelligentsia solved the first task quite successfully by reducing Samogitia to a dialectal or regional level. Resolving the second task was more difficult because, in the process of creating “national territory,” the Lithuanian intelligentsia could not rely on the most important criterion it otherwise used in defining the modern Lithuanian identity, specifically, language—since this criterion placed the historic capital, Vilnius, beyond the imagined borders of Lithuania. All the versions of the Lithuanian “national territory” that the Lithuanian intelligentsia modeled in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century included all areas where Lithuanian was the dominant language plus Vilnius. The ethnographic criterion was also invoked, making it possible to define a larger territory as Lithuanian than the area dominated by Lithuanian speakers. Important sources for the delimitation of “ethnographic borders” were ethnographic studies and maps of the middle and second half of the nineteenth century. By the early twentieth century, the contours of an imagined Lithuania on which most Lithuanian political currents agreed were already clear. The dominant view within Lithuanian discourse at the beginning of the twentieth century was that modern Lithuania had to include all areas where Lithuanian speakers were in the majority (all of Kaunas Province; the Palanga area of Courland Province; the larger, northern part of Suwałki Province; Druskininkai in Grodna Province; and part of East Prussia), as well as the western part of Vilnius Province with the historical capital. The border of the “national territory” was least clear in the east. Nevertheless, in general terms at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Lithuanian mental map was similar to the one that we find in the mid-nineteenth-century publications of Narbutt, Koreva, and Erckert. As studies of the activities of Lithuanian educational societies in the Russian Empire show, in the abovementioned parts of the Kaunas, Vilnius, and Suwałki provinces, education was developed; therefore, based on Lefebvre, we can say that Lithuanian spatial practice matched, in principle, the representations of space.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

The reason the program of Lithuanian nationalism envisioned Lithuania not in four provinces, but within a smaller area, is simple. The ideal of both the Lithuanian right and the majority of left-leaning politicians was a national Lithuania in which the status of the titular nation was ensured for the Lithuanians, while other nationalities would have minority status, although the principle of equality of all before the law was also important. 163 Such an ideal could become reality only if the Lithuanians would be in the majority.

Archival Sources

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (State Archive of the Russian Federation; GARF) f. 102 Departament politsii Ministerstva Vnutrennikh del Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas (Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore; LLTI) f. 1 Įvairūs rašytojai ir kalbininkai (Various Writers and Linguists) Lietuvos mokslų akademijos Vrublevskių bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius (Manuscript Division of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; LMAVB RS) f. 255 Lietuvių mokslo draugijos rankraščių rinkinys (Collection of Manuscripts of the Lithuanian Scientific Society) Lietuvos ypatingasis archyvas (Lithuanian Special Archives) f. 3377 Lietuvos Komunistų partijos istorijos institutas (The Lithuanian Communist Party Institute of History) Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Historical Archives; RGIA) f. 777 Peterburgskii tsenzurnyi komitet (St. Petersburg Censorship Committee) f. 1284 Departament Obshchikh del MVD (The Ministry of Internal Affairs, Department of General Affairs) 163 This can be seen clearly even in LDP programs, which, for example, advocated that Lithuanian should enjoy the status of official language.

233

234

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Periodicals

Aušra, Darbininkų balsas, Draugija, Lietuvos socijaldemokratų partijos žinios, Lietuvos žinios, Mūsų senovė, Naujasis Keleiwis, Skardas, Šviesa, Tėvynės sargas, Ūkininkas, Vairas, Varpas, Vilniaus žinios, Viltis, Žarija, Żemajczių ir Lietuwos apżvałga.

Books and Articles Adata, A. [Macijauskas, Antanas]. Pradinė geografija. 1905. Adomaitis-Šernas, Juozas. Geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas. Chicago, 1899. Alekna, Antanas. Lietuvos istorija. Kaunas, 1911. Bielinis, Kipras. 1905 metai: Atsiminimai ir dokumentai. Kaunas, 1931. ___. Penktieji metai: Revoliucinio sąjūdžio slinktis ir padariniai. New York: Amerikos lietuvių socialdemokratų sąjungos literatūros fondas, 1959. Buchowski, Krzysztof. Litvomanai ir polonizuotojai: Mitai, abipusės nuostatos ir stereotipai lenkų ir lietuvių santykiuose pirmoje XX amžiaus pusėje. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2012. Demm, Eberhard, and Christina Nikolajew, eds. Auf Wache für die Nation: Erinnerungen. Der Weltkriegsagent Juozas Gabrys berichtet (1911–1918). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2013. Gabrys, Juozas. Geografijos vadovėlis skiriamas Lietuvos mokyklai. Tilsit, 1910. ___. Lietuva ir Lenkijos autonomija: Ar gali but Lietuva priskirta prie autonominės Lenkijos? Liuosas “Išeivių Draugo” vertimas iš anglų kalbos (The British Review, February, 1915). Bellshill, Scotland: Spauda “Išeivių Draugo,” 1915. Gimžauskas, Edmundas. “Pirmasis pasaulinis—didysis ‘tautų vadavimo’ karas: Ką jis reiškė Lietuvai?” In Lietuvos istorija, vol. 10, pt. 1, 23–95. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2013. ___. “The Rada of Vilnius Belarusians and the Council of Lithuania: Allies or Adversaries?” Lithuanian Historical Studies 13 (2008): 119–25. [Juškytė, Jadvyga]. Vaikų skaitymeliai su Lietuvos žemėlapiu. Vilnius, 1905.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

Kalnius, Petras. Žemaičiai. XX a.–XXI a. pradžia. Vilnius: Mintis, 2012. Klimas, Petras. “Didysis Vilniaus Seimas.” Židinys 2 (1931): 146–60. ___. Klimas, Petras. Lietuva, jos gyventojai ir sienos. Vilnius, 1917. Laurinavičius, Česlovas. Lietuvos-Sovietų Rusijos taikos sutartis (1920 m. liepos 12 d. sutarties problema). Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras, 1992. ___. “Moderniųjų lietuvių raida nuo kalbinės link teritorinės bendruomenės.” In Epochas jungiantis nacionalizmas: tautos (de) konstravimas tarpukario, sovietmečio ir posovietmečio Lietuvoje, ed. Česlovas Laurinavičius, 13–55. Vilnius: LII leidykla. Lietuvis, A. [Moravskis, Alfonsas]. “Lietuvos darbininkų judėjimo istorija sąryšy su Lietuvos valstybės atgimimo judėjimu. Pirmas dešimtmetis: 1892–1902 m.m.” Kultūra 4 (1931): 193–201. Lietuviszkas “Auszrôs” kalendorius . . . 1884: . . . ant metû 1884, turincziu 366 dienas, visai Lietuvai ir Źemaitijai pritinkantis. [1883]. Mačiulis, Dangiras. “Jonas Šliūpas ir lietuvių-latvių vienybės idėja.” Acta Humanitarica Universitatis Saulensis: Mokslo darbai 12 (2011): 83–98. Mačiulis, Dangiras, and Darius Staliūnas. Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question, 1883–1940. Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2015. Maironis [Mačiulis, Jonas]. Raštai, vol. 2. Vilnius: Vaga, 1988. Matulionis, Povilas. “Litovskoe plemia v Vilenskoi gub.” In Pamiatnaia knizhka Vilenskoi gub. za 1902 g., 45–56. Vilnius, 1901. Mech’, Sergei. Trumpas žemės aprašymas: Piemieji geografijos uždaviniai su apsakymėliais ir kitais pasiskaitymais, tr. Juozas Tūbelis. Vilnius: Aušra, 1906. Merkys, Vytautas. “Lietuvos socialdemokratai ir nacionalinio išsivadavimo judėjimas (ligi 1904 m.).” In Mintys apie Lietuvos komunistų partijos kelią. Sudarė Alfonsas Eidintas, Vanda Kašauskienė, Vygantas Bronius Pšibilskis, 4–22. Vilnius: Mintis: 1989. ___. Tautiniai santykiai Vilniaus vyskupijoje 1798–1918 m. Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2006. Miknys, Rimantas. Lietuvos demokratų partija 1902–1915 metais. Vilnius: A. Varno personalinė įmonė, 1995.

235

236

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

___. “Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos valstybingumo tradicija lietuvių tautinio judėjimo politinėje programoje (teorinis ir praktinis aspektai).” In Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir tautiniai naratyvai, ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas and Grigorijus Potašenko, 117–43. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2009. ___. “Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904–1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projektai.” In Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX–XX a. pradžia), 173–98. Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991. ___. “Vilnius and the Problem of Modern Lithuanian Statehood in the Early Twentieth Century.” Lithuanian Historical Studies 2 (1997): 108–20. Miknys, Rimantas, and Egidijus Motieka. “Tautiškoji lietuvių demokratų partija: Idėjinės-politinės kūrimosi aplinkybės.” In Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vol. 1: Tautinės savimonės žadintojai: Nuo asmens iki partijos, 80–125. Vilnius: Sietynas, 1990. Miknys, Rimantas, and Darius Staliūnas. “Das Dilemma der Grenzen Litauens am Ende des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts.” In Landschaft und Territorium: Zur Literatur, Kunst und Geschichte des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts im Ostseeraum: Finnland, Estland, Lettland, Litauen und Polen, ed. Yrjö Varpio and Maria Zadencka, 196–215. Stockholm, 2004. Motieka, Egidijus. Didysis Vilniaus Seimas. Vilnius: Saulabrolis, 1996. Neris [Vileišis, Petras]. Trumpa geografija, arba Żemēs apraszymas. Chicago, 1898. Petronis, Vytautas. Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800−1914. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007. Pranas [Klimaitis, Pranas]. Lietuvos istorija: Pradedamosioms mokykloms vadovėlis. Su paveikslėliais ir spalvuotu žemėlapiu. Vilnius, 1912. Pukienė, Vida. Lietuvių švietimo draugijos XX amžiaus pradžioje (1906– 1915 metais). Vilnius: A. Varno personalinė įmonė, 1994.

The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian “National Territory”

Safronovas, Vasilijus. “Apie istorinio regiono virsmą vaizduotės region: Mažosios Lietuvos pavyzdys.” Istorija 86 (2012): 66–80. ___. The Creation of National Spaces in a Pluricultural Region: The Case of Prussian Lithuania. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2016. Shafarik, Pavel. Slavianskoe narodopisanie. Moscow, 1843. Specht, Franz, ed. Litauische Mundarten gesammelt von A. Baranowski, vol. 1: Aus dem webereschen Nachlass. Leipzig, 1920. Speičytė, Brigita. Anapus ribos: Maironis ir istorinė Lietuva. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2012. Staliūnas, Darius. “Lietuvos idėja ‘Aušroje.’” Archivum Lithuanicum 15 (2013): 271–92. ___. “Making a National Capital Out of a Multhiethnic City.” Ab Imperio 1 (2014): 157–75. Staliūnas, Darius, ed. Raidžių draudimo metai, 207–12. Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2004. Subačius, Giedrius. “Žemaičių mąstymo apie bendrinę kalbą istorijos metmenys.” Metmenys 72 (1997): 125–48. Subačius, Paulius. “Antanas Baranauskas apie žemaitišką ir lietuvišką tapatybę.” In Žemaičių istorijos virsmas iš 750 metų perspektyvos, 183–89. Vilnius: Aidai, 2004. ___. Antanas Baranauskas: Gyvenimo tekstas ir tekstų gyvenimai. Vilnius: Aidai, 2009. ___. Lietuvių tapatybės kalvė: Tautinio išsivadavimo kultūra. Vilnius: Aidai, 1999. “Tautiškosios lietuvių demokratų partijos programos projektas.” In Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vol. 1, Tautinės savimonės žadintojai: Nuo asmens iki partijos, 80–125. Vilnius: Sietynas, 1990. Vėbra, Rimantas. Lietuviškos spaudos draudimas 1864–1904 metais: Istorijos bruožai. Vilnius: Pradai, 1996. Vegis, V. Lietuvos ir Žemaičių kalendorius 1905 metams. Ryga, 1904. Venckienė, Jurgita. “Dvejopa XIX a. pabaigos lietuviškų laikraščių rašyba.” In Raidžių draudimo metai, ed. Darius Staliūnas, 207–12. Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2004.

237

238

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Višinskis, Povilas. Antropologinė žemaičių charakteristika, ed. Gintautas Česnys. Vilnius: Seimo leidykla “Valstybės žinios,” 2004. Žaltauskaitė, Vilma. “Apie lietuvybės idėją kunigo Juozo TumoVaižganto pažiūrose: Iki 1904 metų.” In Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vol. 8: Asmuo tarp tautos ir valstybės, 248–60. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996. Zanavykas, Stanyslovas [Mačiulis, Jonas]. Apsakymai apie Lietuvos praeiga. 1886.

CHAPTER 4

“Lithuania—An Extension of Poland”: The Territorial Image of Lithuania in Polish Discourse Olga Mastianica and Darius Staliūnas “Lithuania—an extension of Poland.” (1899)1 “Nevertheless, part of Polish society in Lithuania and Belarus perfectly understood that this land is not Poland and has its own, separate interests.” (1912)2

These two quotes are from leaders of the same Polish national movement—the Socialists. The first statement was made by Józef Piłsudski, one of the leaders of the Polish Socialist Party (Polska partja socjalistyczna, PPS), the second, by Leon Wasilewski, perhaps the movement’s main expert on nationality questions. These quotes alone are enough to create an impression that Poland’s borders were envisioned in more than one way (with or without Lithuania) in the Polish discourse of that time.   1 Leon Wasilewski, Piłsudski jakim go znałem (Warsaw: Muzeum Historii Polski, 2013), 130.   2 Leon Wasilewski, Litwa i Białoruś: Przeszłość-teraźniejszość-tendencje rozwojowe (Cracow: Książka, 1912), 354.

240

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

In truth, despite the decade-long interval between these statements, their authors envisioned the Polish boundaries in a very similar way. This topic—the territorial image of modern Poland—has attracted the focused attention of researchers. Perceptions involved in the drawing of borders for the new Poland and the criteria used for establishing these borders have been investigated in the works of Brian A. Porter, Roman Wapiński, Piotr Eberhardt, and others.3 The topic of “borderlands” (kresy, in Polish) has also attracted the attention of historians, who have examined not only the territorial image of modern Poland but also the transformation of this image and the functioning of “the myth of borderlands” in Polish cultural memory.4 In this chapter, relying on the abovementioned historiography and primary sources (periodicals, political party programs, correspondence, educational literature, and maps) from the late nineteenth and early   3 Brian A. Porter, “Who Is a Pole and Where Is Poland? Territory and Nation in the Rhetoric of Polish National Democracy before 1905,” Slavic Review 51, no. 4 (1992): 639–53; Roman Wapiński, Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków: Z dziejów ksztaltowania się świadomosci narodowej w XIX i XX wieku po wybuchu II wojny światowej (Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, 1994); Piotr Eberhardt, Polska i jej granice. Z historii polskiej geografii politycznej (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2004).   4 Między Polską etniczną a historyczną: Polska myśl polityczna XIX i XX wieku (Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1988); Stefan Kieniewicz, “Kresy: Przemiany terminologiczne w perspektywie dziejowej,” Przegląd Wschodni 1 (1991): 3–13; Daniel Beauvois, “Mit ‘kresów wschodnich,’ czyli jak mu położyć kres,” in Polskie mity polityczne XIX i XX wieku (Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1994), 93–105; Leonard Smołka, “Kresy—dylemat Wschodu i Zachodu w myśli i polityce polskiej,” in Kresy i pogranicza: Historia, kultura, obyczaje (Olsztyn: Wyższa szkoła pedagogiczna, 1995), 34–45; Jacek Kolbuszewski, Kresy (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1996); Roman Wapiński, “Kresy w polskiej myśli politycznej w XIX i XX wieku (po roku 1945),” in Kresy— pojęcie i rzeczywistość (Warsaw: Sławistyczny ośrodek wydawniczy, 1997), 97–106; Werner Benecke, “Die Kresy—ein Mythos der polnischen Geschichte,” in Politische Mythen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert in Mittel-und Osteuropa (Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2006), 253–60; Tadeusz Bujnicki, “Litwa na polskich kresach. Przemiany znaczeń,” in Dziedzictwo kresów—nasze wspólne dziedzictwo (Cracow: Międzynarodowe Centrum Kultury, 2006), 97–116; Robert Traba, “Zróżnicowanie interpretacyjne pojęcia ‘Kresy’ i jego społeczna funkcja w Polsce na przełomie XX i XX wieku,” in Przeszłość w teraźniejszości: Polskie spory o historię początku XXI wieku (Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2009), 284–92; Alexandra Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten: Polnische Ostkonzepte der späten Teilugszeit (1890–1918) (Marburg: Verlag Herder-Institut, 2014).

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

twentieth century, we will not only briefly discuss the territorial image of Poland dominating Polish discourse but will pay particular attention to those aspects of the problem that have so far received less attention from researchers. These aspects include: the image of Lithuania as part of the “borderlands” of Poland; the mental map of Poland reflected in Polish-language discourse in Lithuania; and how the territorial images of Poland created by the Polish elite were used in the nationalization of the masses, above all, in the former lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). As mentioned in the book’s introduction, imagined national territory was closely related to the way the imagined community was understood. We will therefore start our discussion of the Polish case with an examination of how the modern Polish community (nation) was conceptualized by the Polish elite in the late imperial period.

WHAT IS A POLE? There were many situations in which Polish public figures, for example, in the former lands of the GDL, promoted the idea that language was the most important criterion for Polish nationality. In the programmatic article published in Vilnius in the newspaper of the National Democrats, Dziennik Wileński (Vilnius Daily), it was clearly stated that “we” are those speaking the Polish language.5 The prominent Polish activist Jan Bułhak answered this rhetorical question in the same way: “Czy jesteśmy Polakami?” (“Are we Poles?”).6 The newspaper Kurjer Litewski (The Lithuanian courier) published in Vilnius eloquently proposed that in those cases when Poles undertook discussions with other nationalities, national identity should be primarily defined using the criterion of language.7 These examples show that at least in the ideology of identities advocated by the Poles in Lithuania, language occupied a very important, if not the most important, place among the criteria defining national identity. Such a narrative can indeed be found in Polish discourse, but it   5 In the first issue of this newspaper it was written that it would strive to work “in accordance with the principles of unconditional justice for themselves and for their compatriots, even if they speak another language” (emphasis added): Jan Ursyn, “Nasz program,” Dziennik Wileński, 1906, no. 1, 1.   6 Jan Bułhak, “Czy jesteśmy polakami?,” Goniec Wileński, 1908, no. 55, 1.   7 “P.S. Red.” Kurjer Litewski, 1913, no. 73, 2.

241

242

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

must be noted that identity ideologies are a situational phenomenon: nationalists at times varied their definition of nationality depending on the circumstances. In historical literature it has been rightly observed that, for example, the Polish National Democrats (Endencja), in defining the modern Polish nation, avoided pointing out any objective criteria for (not) belonging to the Polish nation. According to Brian Porter, in the conceptualizations of the National Democrats the Polish nation was a transcendent social entity, and being a Pole meant the acceptance of Polish “consciousness,” that is, everything that was Polish, including the nation’s past and its future mission. According to such a concept of the nation, new borders of Poland had to be drawn: “The borders of Poland were therefore not limited by ethnography or history, but were determined by the transcendent needs of the living nation—needs tied to an eternal international struggle for physical (i.e., state) existence and national expansion.”8 Obviously, if language was the main criterion for belonging to the Polish nation, it would have been difficult for the leaders of the Polish national movement to justify the areas where Polishspeaking residents were a minority as belonging to Polish “national territory.” In other words, the hypothesis might be raised that the leaders of Polish nationalism who were making claims to areas where Poles were a minority were interested in not stressing language or ethnic origin as the main criteria for characterizing modern Polish identity. Now we will look at which of the idioms of nationhood used in Polish discourse were employed in the creation of “national territory.”

TERRITORIAL IMAGES IN POLISH DISCOURSE There is no doubt that in the first half of the nineteenth century, at the end of the nineteenth century, and at the beginning of the twentieth century, the Polish mental map was dominated by a conception of Poland that covered the territory of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) as it existed before the first partition of the state in 1772. In fact, often “the borders in 1772” or “historical Poland” were more a symbol than a   8 Porter, “Who Is a Pole and Where Is Poland?,” 644–45. A similar interpretation can be found in Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 56–57, 76, 157.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

concept, one that represented the idea that modern Poland should be defined within exactly the same borders that existed before the first partition of the PLC.9 There have been cases where Polish politicians avoided defining these borders more precisely,10 and sometimes designs for Poland “transcended” the “1772 borders,”11 while others encompassed a somewhat smaller territory.12 In addition, one can find the nucleus—ethnographic Poland13—within that broader concept of Poland.14 Sometimes proposals to consider only the ethnographic core of Poland were heard,15 but they were very rare and considered a marginal phenomenon. Over time, especially by the beginning of the twentieth century, in addition to the term Litwa (Lithuania), used for all the former lands of the GDL and associated with the concept of Poland’s borderlands, the compound term Litwa i Białoruś (Lithuania and Belarus) was used with increasing frequency, a testament to Polish society’s   9 Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 157. 10 Porter, “Who Is a Pole and Where Is Poland?,” 651; Wapiński, Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków, 217–18. 11 Porter, “Who Is a Pole and Where Is Poland?,” 651–52; Eberhardt, Polska i jej granice, 59. 12 Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 45, 60. 13 Often the ethnographic territory of Poland was defined even in works of a statistical or geographical nature, in which modern Poland was defined as existing “in the 1772 borders.” Examples include studies by historian and member of the first, second, third, and fourth State Duma Alfons Parczewski and geographers Edward Czyński, Józef Dąbrowski, and Stanisław Majerski: Alfons Parczewski, O zbadaniu granic i liczby ludności polskiej na kresach obszaru etnograficznego polskiego: Referat przedstawiony na III zjeździe historyków polskich w Krakowie przez Alfonsa J. Parczewskiego. Odbitka z Dziennika Poznańskiego (Poznan: Skład w księgarni Gebethnera i Sp. w Krakowie. Czcionkami Drukarni Dziennika Poznańskiego, 1900), 3–5; Edward Czyński, Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej (Warsaw: Druk braci Jeżyńskich [Dawniej J. Ungra], 1887), 29–30; Edward Czyński, Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej: Wydanie drugie, uzupełnione i rozszerzone z mapami etnograficzno-statystycznemi (Warsaw: Druk Piotra Laskauera i S-ki, 1909), 115; Józef Dąbrowski [J. Grabiec], Współczesna Polska w cyfrach i faktach (Chicago: Nakładem księgarni ludowej, 1912), 25, 116; Stanisław Majerski, Geografia kraju ojczystego i monarchii Austryacko-Węgierskiej (Lviv: Nakładem polskiego towarzystwa pedagogicznego, 1912), 52–55. 14 Wapiński, Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków, 196, 230. 15 Left-wing politician Bolesław Wysłouch and one of the founders of the Polish Ethnographic Society Aleksander Janowski had submitted such a proposal: Eberhardt, Polska i jej granice, 65–67, 69–71.

243

244

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

awareness of the growing Lithuanian and Belarusian national ­movements.16 In cases where the compound term was used, these regions were defined according to ethnic criteria: as regions in which Lithuanian- or Belarusian-speaking inhabitants comprised a majority. These two—historical and ethnic—concepts of Lithuania were found most often in Polish discourse. So, in Polish discourse, as a rule, the historical lands of the GDL were treated as an integral part of Poland—a “further extension of Poland,” as Piłsudski wrote, although they had their own name and a certain (from the Polish point of view, regional) distinctness. Most Poles in Lithuania saw Lithuania and Belarus as an integral territorial unit. In 1899 Piłsudski had taught Wasilewski that Lithuania and Belarus should be treated as an indivisible region.17 When Polish social commentators or politicians spoke in terms of existing territorial-administrative units, they equated “Lithuania and Belarus” with the six provinces of the NWR. This, for example, was the case when Polish politicians and social commentators spoke about territorial autonomy within the Russian Empire.18 In other cases, sometimes Suwałki Province, which until the end of the eighteenth century belonged to the GDL, was also assigned to “Lithuania and Belarus.”19 It should be noted that the Poles in Lithuania treated Lithuania and Belarus as one space, above all relying on the argument of historical continuity. Therefore, this territorial unit was often called not only “Lithuania” but also “historical Lithuania” (Litwa historyczna), although the ethnographic fragmentation of this region was also noted.20 16 The authors of this chapter raised such a hypothesis relying on a review of primary sources. However, these sources are numerous, so we cannot lay claim to final conclusions. 17 Wasilewski, Piłsudski jakim go znałem, 130. 18 “Odezwa Polskiego Stronnictwa Demokratyczno-Narodowego na Litwie,” Kurjer Litewski, 1906, no. 55, 1; Józef Hłasko, “Dążenia autonomiczne,” Dziennik Wileński, 1906, no. 37, 1; B. J. . . is [Boleslovas Jaloveckis], Lietuva ir jos reikalai... Tautiškas Lietuvos katekizmas (Vilnius: M. Kuktos spaustuvė, 1907), 1. 19 Wasilewski, Litwa i Białoruś, 78. 20 Historian and ethnographer Aleksander Jelski was one of the first who sought to establish the name of “historical Lithuania” in works of an encyclopedic nature intended for a wide circle of readers: Aleksander Jelski, “Litwa,” in Słownik

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

This position was reflected perfectly in the calendar, published in Vilnius, of the periodical Kurjer Litewski intended for a wide circle of readers. The editors of the publication declared that the multilingual population of the six provinces consisted of Lithuanians, Belarusians, Poles, Latvians, Russians, and Jews. However, the “region”—the NWR—“constitutes a single unit” connected by common “hardships” and common “interests.”21 The common historical past also implied identical prospects for future activities. The unifying symbol of Lithuania and Belarus was Vilnius, “the heart of Lithuanian-Belarusian territory—the capital of the old Dukes.”22 The Polish National Democrats active in Lithuania were fond of using the image of historical Lithuania when it was necessary to justify that this land belonged to the new Poland. Therefore, they devoted particular attention to the research of historical geography and its popularization.23 geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich, vol. 5 (Warsaw: Nakładem Wladysława Wałewskiego, Druk “Wieku,” 1884), 330. Edward Maliszewski and Józef Dąbrowski also studied the distribution of Poles only in two regions: “Lithuania” and “Rus’.” “Lithuania” was understood as “historical Lithuania,” which consisted of the six provinces of the NWR. Although separately, like Jelski, they show the distribution (by provinces) of Lithuanian and Belarusian speakers: Edward Maliszewski, Polacy i polskość na Litwie i Rusi (Warsaw: Skład główny w księgarni Geberthnera i Wolfa, 1914), 25; Dąbrowski [J. Grabiec], Współczesna Polska w cyfrach i faktach, 116. 21 “Litwa i Białoruś. Zarys geograficzno-historyczny,” in Kalendarz Iliustrowany “Kurjera Litewskiego” na rok 1909 (Vilnius: Nakładem “Kurjera Litewskiego,” 1910), 68. That the National Democrats held such a position was eloquently testified to by a map released by the editorial staff of Kurjer Litewski in 1909 entitled: Mapa sześciu gubernji Litwy i Białej Rusi (Map of the Six Provinces of Lithuania and White Ruthenia). Mapa sześćiu gubernji Litwy i Białej Rusi, ed. Benedekt Hertz (Vilnius: Wydawnictwo “Kurjera Litewskiego,” nakład Edmund Nowickiego, 1909). 22 “Litwa i Białoruś,” 68. 23 Also deserving mention is Zygmunt Gloger‘s Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski (Cracow: Spółka wydawnicza polska, 1900), which Polish bookstores and reading rooms of Vilnius also popularized. Stanisław Kościałkowski, exploring state land ownership in the times of the GDL called “Lithuania” the territory “of Lithuania and Belarus” on his map. In Kościałkowski’s map of the PLC in 1772 only such regions as Poland (Polska) and Lithuania (Litwa) were distinguished. See Stanisław Kościałkowski, “Ze studjów nad dziejami ekonomji królewskich na Litwie,” in Rocznik Towarzystwa przyjaciół nauk w Wilnie, 1911–1914 (Vilnius: Druk Józef Zawadzkiego, 1914), 168. The conception of Lithuania and Belarus as a single territorial unit was also actively promoted in calendars intended for a wide

245

246

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

The concept of Lithuania and Belarus as one space was also characteristic of the so-called krajowcy (from the Polish word kraj [land]), who cherished the idea of restoring the GDL on democratic principles. On the eve of the World War I, one of the activists of this group, Ludwik Abramowicz, also considered Lithuania and Belarus as an integral territorial unit. He based his position primarily on the argument of historical continuity and argued the value (not just in the historical sense) of Vilnius as the common cultural and political center for Lithuanians and Belarusians. However, in the end he was convinced, along with Józef Dąbrowski24 in his own time, that “the Poles, distributed throughout the whole land, would be like cement, binding the different parts of the land into one whole.”25 Such were the spatial images that dominated Polish discourse at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century. Next, we turn to discussion of the reasoning used in Polish discourse of the late imperial period to justify treating Lithuania as part of Poland.

The Argument for Including Lithuania within Poland In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the primary argument encountered in Polish discourse for incorporating former GDL lands into the concept of Poland was related to the common historical past, that is, to the fact that for a long time (since at least 1569, although often traced back to the Union of Krewo and Lithuania’s Christianization in the late fourteenth century)26 Lithuania had circle of readers, for example, Kalendarz Wileński (for 1906–14), in which statistical data were reported for the entire territory of these six provinces. Historical iconographic material (the military fortress of the GDL era) also served to strengthen the impact of this conception on the reader. 24 For example, Józef Dąbrowski, in addition to arguments relating to the historical past, joined “Lithuania and Belarus” into one territorial unit relying on the distribution of Poles. According to Dąbrowski, in “Lithuania,” i.e., in the six provinces of the NWR, the Poles were living in a “dense mass.” Meanwhile, in “Rus’,” i.e., in the Southwest Region, the Poles “live more in enclaves, although these enclaves are quite densely distributed among the local population.” Dąbrowski [J. Grabiec], Współczesna Polska w cyfrach i faktach, 116. 25 Liudwik Abramowski, “Problemat litewsko-białoruski,” Strażnica, 1914, no. 1, 10. 26 B. J. . . is [Jałowecki], Lietuva ir jos reikalai, 2–3.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

apparently been an integral part of the PLC, then commonly referred to simply as Poland. Even earlier, Lithuania had also been under the influence of Polish civilization.27 That common past caused the formation of a homogeneous region from an economic point of view as well.28 Related to this thesis (of historical continuity) was the argument pointing to the civilizational merits of the Poles and their mission in this region, which, in addition to the historical argument, the Poles in Lithuania used especially often.29 According to one of the Polish National Democrats in Lithuania, “the evolution of civilization requires ages; only after many generations will the Lithuanians create their own literature, which basically will meet only the needs of an average intellectual. Until this comes, every Lithuanian exceeding elementary-level education will have to be in the spiritual sphere of another nation.”30 This argument for the merit/potential of Polish civilization became especially important when the Belarusian and Lithuanian intelligentsia began assigning more importance to ethnicity.31 At that time the Polish social commentators not only began, with even greater zeal, to emphasize the merits of Polish civilization in this region32 but also tried to downplay the legitimacy of 27 Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 35, 40, 91, 158, 162; Leon Wasilewski, “Wspóldziałanie czy walka?,” Gazeta wileńska, 1906, no. 87, 2. 28 Wasilewski, “Wspóldziałanie czy walka?,” 2; Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 35; Dąbrowski [J. Grabiec], Współczesna Polska w cyfrach i faktach, 120; Izabella Moszczeńska, “Polska etnograficzna,” Prawda, 1914, no. 10, 9–10; Wacław Orłowski, “Naród bez Ojczyzny?,” Myśl Polska, 1914, no. 3, 64; Edward Abramowski, “Pomniejszyciele ojczyzny,” Kurjer Warszawski, 1914, no. 84, 2. 29 Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 93, 158. Almost every Polish public figure involved in shaping the new Poland mentioned this (the benefits of civilization) argument. An exception was the famous geographer Eugeniusz Romer, who wrote his most important works during World War I and the Second Republic of Poland: ibid., 131. 30 Wacław Studnicki, “Nasze cywilizacyjne znaczenie,” Dziennik Wileński, 1906, no. 1, 1. 31 See chapter 1 by Darius Staliūnas in this book devoted to the Lithuanian mental map. 32 For example, Ludwik Abramowicz, one of the leaders of the krajowcy, claimed “the Poles in Lithuania [he had “historical Lithuania” in mind] always served as a vehicle of civilization, while the local residents would voluntarily take over the high culture from the Poles.” Abramowicz, “Problemat litewsko-białoruski,” 1. Therefore, Ludwik Abramowicz, like Czesław Jankowski (and many other Poles in Lithuania), promoted the idea that the Poles in the former GDL lands primarily represent the intelligentsia and nobility, whose distinctive feature was an

247

248

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the ethnic principle.33 Articles appeared in the Polish press that called into question the authenticity of Lithuanian ethno-culture.34 Such articles suggested that the “race” of the Lithuanians was not pure because through the ages many Poles had settled in Lithuania, and the current “Lithuanian anthropological type” was quite different from the old one and was, moreover, no different from that of the Poles. The Polish language had a great influence on the Lithuanian language, and it, as well as the Belarusian language, was never a “scientific, literary, or court language.”35 The abovementioned presence of a large number of Poles in Lithuania dates from the twelfth century when “the Lithuanians, constantly attacking the Polish lands, would seize many slaves of both genders, who eventually would intermingle with the Lithuanians.” The number of these slaves allegedly reached “tens of thousands of people of both sexes” and “no corner of Lithuania was without Polish slaves.” Therefore, “from time immemorial the blood of Poles mingled with the blood of Lithuanians and Belarusians. Perhaps up to the time of Jogaila, throughout Lithuania no man existed who was without blood from one of those three nations.”36 Moreover, Wasilewski and others asserted that, from an ethnographic point of view, there were no homogeneous areas.37 This statement could appropriate education and level of culture. Jankowski was even inclined to interpret the Polish-Lithuanian conflict as a social antagonism between the nobility (Poles) and peasants (Lithuanians). Czesław Jankowski, “Na Litwie i Białejrusi,” Tygodnik Iliustrowany, 1909, no. 22, 432. See also Dariusz Szpoper, Sukcesorzy Wielkiego Księstwa: Myśl polityczna i działalność konserwatystów polskich na ziemiach litewsko-białoruskich w latach 1904-1939 (Gdansk: Arche, 1999), 42–47. 33 For example, Edward Czyński and Włodzimierz Wakar considered the Belarusians of Vilnius Province, who professed the Catholic faith, to be Poles: Czyński, Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej, 67; Włodzimierz Wakar, Ludność polska: Ilość i rozprzestrzenienie (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta w Warszawie, 1914), 22. 34 Or it was argued that only the Poles could ensure the “natural and free” development for the Lithuanian ethno-culture: Wakar, Ludność polska, 22. 35 Hipolit Korwin-Milewski, Uwagi o konflikcie języków poskiego i litewskiego w Dyecezji Wileńskiej: Przekład z francuzkiego (Vilnius: Druk Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1913), 11. 36 B. J. . . is [Jałowecki], Lietuva ir jos reikalai, 4–5. Such statements were also popularized in the works of Lucyan Tatomir and Edward Maliszewski. 37 Wasilewski, “Wspóldziałanie czy walka?,” 2; Wasilewski, Litwa i Białoruś, 78–80, 85; Leon Wasilewski, Drogi Porozumienia: Wybór pism. Wyboru dokonała, wstępem

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

be strengthened by intelligently establishing the size of Lithuania’s territory. An article by Narcyz Ogończyk on ethnographic relations in Lithuania spoke of four provinces, Vilnius, Kaunas, Suwałki, and Grodna; the first three are Lithuanian from an ethnographic point of view, while the fourth was home to the extinct Yotvingian tribe. Nevertheless, an autonomous Lithuania featured prominently “in the dreams of the majority of Lithuanians.”38 But in such a Lithuania, ethnic Lithuanians would not constitute a majority of the population. Related to the abovementioned civilization argument was the geopolitical argument. Some Polish politicians, the National Democrats in particular, viewed the historical lands of the GDL as a region in which Polish colonization projects could also be successfully implemented. In addition, both the Belarusians and the Lithuanians were considered to be, from the civilization point of view, an undeveloped nation (or simply “ethnographic material, not a nation”),39 incapable of creating “their own” states. Therefore, only Russia or Poland could dominate the region.40 Accordingly, the National Democrats repeatedly presented Lithuania (meaning Lithuania and Belarus) as the land “between the western and eastern worlds.”41 In addition, some members of the Polish intelligentsia felt that it would be dangerous for the development of modern Poland if the territory of Lithuania and Belarus were i przypisami opatrzyła Barbara Stoczewska (Cracow: Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej, 2001), 14 (republished from “Żizń” 1902, no. 4). 38 Narcyz Ogończyk, “Stosunki etnograficzne na Litwie,” Goniec Codzienny, 1910, no. 35, 2. 39 Such an attitude was particularly typical in assessments of the Belarusian national movement, for example, in works by Edward Czyński, Józef Dąbrowski, and Leon Wasilewski. 40 Jan Ludwik Popławski, Naród i Polityka: Wybór pism, ed. Piotr Koryś (Cracow: Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej. Wydział Studiów Międzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2012), 185, 189 (this article first appeared in Przegląd wszechpolski 8–9 [1903]); Narcyz Ogończyk, “Stosunki etnograficzne na Litwie,” 2; Józef Kuczyński, “Mazgajstwo polityczne,” Dziennik Wileński, 1907, no. 48, 2; Wapiński, Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków, 219; Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 34, 64–65, 71, 73, 75–76, 90, 92, 124, 158, 159, 161. 41 “Słowo wstępne,” in Noworocznik litewski na rok 1904: Wydany staraniem stronnictwa demokratycznego narodowego na Litwie. Rok pierwszy (Vilnius: Nakładem Stanislawa Nowickiego. Odbito w drukarni W.L. Anczyca i spółki w Krakowie, 1904), 42.

249

250

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

to end up under the influence of Russia. In the words of Wacław Orłowski: “Poland does not currently border Russia; Lithuania, Belarus, and Little Russia separate us from Russia. When we leave these borderlands, the border will change, we will become closer to Russia, and Russia, particularly, will affect our spiritual and material culture.”42 This explains why, on the eve of the World War I, Maryann Slubicz tried to convince the Polish political elite that it was essential to keep the former GDL lands under the influence of Poland.43 The geographical arguments to which geographers usually resorted represented a separate group. Wacław Nałkowski, for whom Poland was seemingly a country through which foreigners pass rather than a destination, identified the “natural” borders of Poland: the Baltic Sea, the Carpathian Mountains, and the Oder and Dnepr rivers.44 Meanwhile, the most prominent and influential Polish geographer of the first half of the twentieth century, Eugeniusz Romer, who is quite rightly considered to be a representative of geographical determinism, affirmed that the normal development of states was only possible when physical geography (river basins, terrain, climate, and so on) dictated their borders.45 As Aleksandra Schweiger noted, the impression is made that Romer was writing about a population-free area. This was fairly typical: although many geographers recognized the ethnographic fragmentation of modern Poland, the implications of this fragmentation was not a central concern. For example, in the maps created by geographer Stanislaw Majerski, although the territories populated by Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians were shown, all these territories were treated as common Polish territory.46 42 Wacław Orłowski, “Naród bez Ojczyzny,” Myśl Polska, 1914, no. 3, 61. 43 Maryan Slubicz, Polska między Wschodem a Zachodem (Cracow: Nakładem Kajetana Müllera, czcionkami drukarni literackiej pod zarz. L.K. Górskiego, 1914), 14. 44 Józef Babicz, “Two Geopolitical Concepts of Poland,” in Geography and National Identity, ed. David Hooson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 212–20; Wacław Nałkowski, Terytorjum Polski historycznej jako indywidualność gieograficzna (Warsaw: Nakład Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, 1912), 12. 45 Wapiński, Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków, 199–200; Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 104–33. 46 See, for example, Majerski, Geografia kraju ojczystego i monarchii Austryacko-Węgierskiej, 52–55; Stanisław Majerski, Polska pod wzgłędem etnograficznym: Polska

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

In the next section we will try to determine whether, in the historical lands of the GDL, Polish discourse on the relationship between the nation and territory was significantly different from Polish discourse in other parts of the former PLC.

Creating the Image of a Polish “National Territory” in Lithuania In this section we will focus on two specific cases that do not fit within the framework of the dominant Polish discourse. One of the leaders of the abovementioned krajowcy movement, Mykolas Römeris (Michał Römer), tried to define “ethnographic Lithuania” on the basis of the existing scholarly literature47 and information provided by some Lithuanian activists. The Lithuania defined by Römeris largely corresponded to the image that we see in Lithuanian discourse with, of course, one very important exception: Vilnius and its environs was not included in the ethnographic territory of Lithuania.48 A map Römeris included in his book about the Lithuanian national movement reflected data on the prevalence of the Lithuanian language, that is, he included in Lithuania the territories where Lithuanian speakers represented a majority.49 His texts, however, appear to dodge obrazy i opisy, vol. 1 (Lviv: Nakladem macierzy polskiej. Skład główny w administracyi “Macierzy polskiej” w gmachu sejmowym, 1906), 87. 47 The territory of “ethnographic Lithuania” was also defined in some works by Polish ethnographers. For example, Edward Czyński expressed the opinion that, based on the language criterion, all of Kaunas Province and part of Vilnius Province should be considered Lithuanian. In the view of Józef Dąbrowski, Lithuanians predominated in part of Suwałki Province, almost all Kaunas Province, part of Vilnius Province, and a small part of Grodna Province. According to Włodzimierz Wakar, “Lithuanians live in a solid mass in Kaunas Province, in the vicinity of Palanga, and in the western part of Vilnius Province (excluding Vilnius). This is ethnographic Lithuania.” But Józef Dąbrowski and Włodzimierz Wakar, while recognizing “ethnographic Lithuania,” also saw “Lithuania” and “Belarus” as a single territorial unit, which unequivocally had to enter into the composition of the modern state of Poland: Czyński, Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej, 22; Dąbrowski [J. Grabiec], Współczesna Polska w cyfrach i faktach, 118–19; Wakar, Ludność polska, 22. 48 See the map included in the book: Mykolas Römeris, Lietuva: Studija apie lietuvių tautos atgimimą (Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2006). 49 He relied on the map of Jan Rozwadowski published in 1898, which did not show Vilnius as an area predominated by Lithuanian speakers.

251

252

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the question of whether or not Vilnius should be included in ethnographic Lithuania. In some of his writing he states that [only] the western part of Vilnius District (a very ambiguous way of putting it that avoids expressing an opinion on to whom Vilnius “belongs”) falls into ethnographic Lithuania;50 elsewhere he indicates that Vilnius was “on the border of the ethnographic territories of Lithuanians and Belarusians,”51 or “on the eastern border of the ethnographic territory of Lithuanians,”52 or that the city is “a cultural island of Poles in Lithuanian territory.”53 It would be difficult to explain this contradiction by attributing it to an evolution of his views, since the abovementioned map and the last quote are from the same publication. Such inconsistency most likely arose due to the fact that, according to Römeris, ethnographic Lithuania was not necessarily territory to which political autonomy would be granted. Römeris, along with other members of the krajowcy movement, cherished the idea of restoring the GDL on a democratic basis. In such a case, the exact determination of ethnographic areas was not as important as if the political political future of ethnographic Lithuania was being discussed. Second, he noted that the contours of ethnographic territory were changing. Third, Römeris argued that ethnographic Lithuania and the Catholic part of Belarus (the so-called Lithuanian Rus’ [Pol. Ruś litewska]) differed only in the language used by the population but “not from an ethnographic point of view.”54 In other words, his conception of “ethnographic territory” was at times very similar to that used by Lithuanians (where not only language was important in determining national identity but also other “objective” criteria such as origin and customs). Although the ethnographic Lithuania drawn by Römeris was smaller than Lithuanian Lithuania,55 and his ideal was the union of 50 Römeris, Lietuva, 3. 51 Michał Römer, “Z Litwy,” Litwa, 1910, no. 12, 177. 52 Michał Römer, Stosunki etnograficzno-kulturalne na Litwie (Cracow: Nakładem wydawnictwa “Krytyki,” 1906), 4. 53 Römeris, Lietuva, 15. 54 Römer, “Z Litwy,” 178. 55 See Staliūnas’s article in this book devoted to the conception of Lithuanian Lithuania.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

Figure 13.  Römeris’s “Mapa etnograficzna Litwy” (Ethnographic Map of Lithuania), from Michał Römer, Litwa: Studyum o odrodzeniu narodu litewskiego (Lviv: Poskie towarzystwo nakładowe, 1908).

Lithuania and Belarus into a single political entity, he did not call the historical GDL lands Poland. Furthermore, he tried to emphasize that Lithuania was/had to be independent and not part of any larger country. This meant using the Polish preposition “in” rather than “on” to reflect this: “in Lithuania” (w Litwie), but not “on Lithuania” (na Litwie).56 56 Michał Römer, Litwa: Studyum o odrodzeniu narodu litewskiego (Lviv: Polskie towarzystwo nakładowe, 1908), 19–20; Mykolas Römeris, Dienoraštis: 1919 m. birželio 21-oji–1920 m. kovo 15-oji (Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2009), 288–89.

253

254

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Another manifestation of the “national territories” debate was a March 1914 brochure published in Warsaw and titled Naród Polski i jego ojczyzna (The Polish nation and its homeland).57 Written by the journalist, writer, and theater critic Czesław Jankowski, who for many years used to work in Lithuania, it evoked an immediate reaction. Jankowski argued that the contours of a future Poland should reflect only its ethnographic borders, that is, the Kingdom of Poland (without the northern part of Suwałki Province, where Lithuanians predominated), the Grand Duchy of Poznan, western Galicia, the Duchy of Teshin, and the Opole region of Silesia. In these regions, Poles made up from 54 to 75 percent of the population. Such a conception of Poland’s “national territory” was contrary to the absolute majority of visions of the national “geo-body ”under discussion in Polish discourse, even though Jankowski’s proposal was inspired by the same sense of nationalism inspiring most other Polish public figures. The author of the brochure affirmed that not only the great powers—Russia and Germany—but also the national movements (Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, and Jewish) included anti-Polish policies in their platforms that threatened not only the “borderlands” (kresy) but also the core, which for him was defined as the triangle of Poznan–Warsaw–Cracow. Although he identified the northern part of Suwałki Province as Lithuanian, he did not explain what the borders of an ethnographic Lithuania would be. A few months later, after the war started and the Russian army’s commander-in-chief’s famous call for Poles to unite into “one body” under the scepter of Russia’s tsar, Jankowski released another brochure, Polska etnograficzna (Ethnographic Poland).58 Here, based on the assumption that Russia would be victorious and Germany would be defeated, he repeated his previous assertion about the need to “restore” ethnographic Poland and unite it with Russia. Jankowski further clarified that this new Poland had to have an outlet to the Baltic Sea, including the city of Gdansk. As before,

57 Czesław Jankowski, Naród Polski i jego ojczyzna (Warsaw: Nakładem Autora, 1914). 58 Czesław Jankowski, Polska etnograficzna (Warsaw: Nakładem Autora, 1914). This text by Jankowski, published after the beginning of the war, is also of interest because it allows clarification of his earlier (prewar) texts.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

Figure 14.  Czesław Jankowski’s map of ethnographic Poland, from Czesław Jankowski, Polska etnograficzna (Warsaw: Nakładem Autora, 1914).

ethnographic Lithuania was not defined, but the author suggested assigning to it the part of Suwałki Province where Lithuanians predominated. This completely unorthodox model of Polish “national territory” sparked not only intense debate among contemporaries59 but different 59 Most Polish politicians strongly criticized Jankowski for narrowing the borders of Poland: Eberhardt, Polska i jej granice, 84; Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 50–51; Teresa Kulak, “Polska historyczna czy etnograficzna? Dyskusja o terytorium Polski w prasie warszawskiej u progu I wojny światowej,” in Kresy i pogranicza: Historia, kultura, obyczaje (Olsztyn: Wyższa szkola pedagogiczna, 1995), 15–31. Meanwhile, some Lithuanian right-wing politicians viewed Jankowski’s thoughts favorably: A. Jakštas

255

256

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

interpretations by historians. Roman Wapiński tried to find the inspirations of the Russian government on Jankowski,60 and Peter Eberhardt61 and Teresa Kulak62 reasoned in a way similar to Wapiński. Meanwhile, Schweiger did not try to present her own interpretation, but only briefly summarized Jankowski’s reasoning, mentioning the fact that the author argued for the peaceful coexistence of different nations.63 First of all, it should be observed that these ideas were not original. As Schweiger noted, Michał Bobrzyński, the well-known representative of Cracow’s school of history, criticized in his works the civilizing mission of the Poles in the East and their failing to bolster Polish population in the core (although he later renounced these ideas).64 The same reasoning could be found in works by Wilchełm Feldmann65 and Eugeniusz Straszewicz.66 There were such figures in the lands of historical Lithuania as well. In 1863, Eustachy Pruszyński, the head of Minsk Province’s nobility, invited the Poles to abandon the ideas of great Poland and to expect that the Russian imperial government would try to unify ethnic Polish lands in the Romanov Empire with Polish territories that then belonged to Prussia.67 Of course, the abovementioned Polish historians were right in the sense that in 1914 Jankowski’s brochures, especially the second, were [Aleksandras Dambrauskas], “Naujoji Lenkija,” Viltis, 1914, no. 225, 1; A. Jakštas [Aleksandras Dambrauskas], “Dvejopa politika,” Viltis, 1914, no. 235, 2. 60 Wapiński, Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków, 238. 61 Eberhardt, Polska i jej granice, 84. 62 Kulak, “Polska historyczna czy etnograficzna?,” 15–31. 63 Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 49. Roman Jurkowski and Irena Fedorowicz, examining the facts of Jankowski’s biography, noted that the first Jankowski brochure appeared after he had sold his family property in Vilnius Province: Roman Jurkowski, “Czesław Jankowski jako dziennikarz,” Kwartalnik historii prasy polskiej 12 (1983): 38–39; Irena Fedorowicz, W służbie ziemi ojczystej: Czesław Jankowski w życiu kulturalnym Wilna lat 1905–1929 (Cracow: Collegium Columbinum, 2004), 107. 64 Jerzy Maternicki, “Michał Bobrzyński wobec tzw. idei jagiellońskiej: Ewolucja pogłądów i jej uwarunkowania,” Przegląd humanistyczny 12 (1977): 132–41. 65 Schweiger, Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten, 50. 66 Eugeniusz Starczewski, Sprawa polska (Cracow: Skład glówny w księgarni G. Gebethnera, 1912); Eberhardt, Polska i jej granice, 72. 67 Mikhail Dolbilov and Darius Staliūnas, eds., Obratnaia uniia: Iz istorii otnoshenii mezhdu katolitsizmom i pravoslaviem v Rossiisskoi imperii, 1840–1873 (Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2010), 50.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

the result of the current state of political affairs and matched some of the political views of the ruling elite of the Romanov Empire.68 Moreover, the military censor approved the second booklet. But more important is the fact that Jankowski had essentially advocated the same ideas in previous years, so we cannot talk about short-term expediency. In 1906–1907 he had already published texts advocating the granting of territorial autonomy to ethnically monolithic territories69 because for them, just as in nation states, a state language would be mandated, and, therefore, by including territories with other language inhabitants, conflicts would inevitably arise. Even then he suggested excluding the northern, Lithuanian-dominated, part of Suwałki Province from the future autonomous Kingdom of Poland.70 But just as later, in 1906–1907 he did not explain what political entity the Lithuanian parts of Suwałki Province would end up in. On the other hand, in 1907 Jankowski, publishing the newspaper Głos Polski in Vilnius, like the majority of Poles in Lithuania, treated Lithuania and Belarus as a single territorial unit (the six provinces of the NWR) and an integral part of Poland.71 The very name of the newspaper, which meant “the voice of Poland” and not “of the Poles,” attested eloquently to this attitude. At the same time, he raised doubts about the long-term viability of a joint “autonomy of Lithuania and Belarus.” He was convinced that such a common t­erritorial autonomous unit would not be able to survive, because there were strong territorial disputes between the national movements of Lithuanians and Belarusians. First of all, according to Jankowski, the Lithuanian national movement laid claims to Belarusian lands (between Vilnius 68 Jankowski also wrote in his memoirs about his pro-Russian views: Czesław Jankowski, Z dnia na dzień: Warszawa 1914–1915 Wilno (Vilnius: Wydawnictwo K. Rutskiego, 1923), 41–45. 69 Polish representatives of the State Duma submitted a proposal for an autonomous Kingdom of Poland within the 1815 borders. Jankowski saw the need to announce the plan for this project in the periodical Głos Polski: “Projekt autonomji Koła polskiego. Złożony jako wniosek prawodawczy Dumie Państwowej dn. 10 kwietnia 1907 r.,” Głos Polski, 1907, no. 1, 21–22. 70 Czesław Jankowski, “Kwestja suwalska,” Kurjer Litewski, 1907, no. 39, 2. 71 Czesław Jankowski, “Głos Polski,” Głos Polski, 1907, no. 1, 2.

257

258

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

and Minsk).72 Second, the imagined integral territorial unit “Lithuania and Belarus” had appreciable ethnographic differences in population and different economic development conditions. Therefore, even joint autonomy for Lithuania and Belarus, which could conceivably be achieved, over time would disintegrate into two regions, Lithuania and Belarus, while the new territorial units would encourage a “shift in the existing borders of the provinces.”73 However, attention must be paid to another aspect raised by the Polish historian Wapiński: how could it be that a Polish journalist in Lithuania seemingly “gave up all the eastern borderlands”?74 The answer, it seems, is not complicated. Jankowski, having conservative views and maintaining a pro-Russian geopolitical orientation, thought that the political elite and public opinion of Russia would more favorably accept the creation of an ethnographic Poland dependent on Russia than any other autonomous territory (for example, such as one that would include not only Congress Poland but also the historical lands of Lithuania).75 At the same time, such an autonomous region would set a precedent for the creation of other territorial autonomies: the Grand Duchy of Finland allegedly became the pretext for Poland, which in turn would pave the way for other territories.76 So, Jankowski followed the logic of Realpolitik. After such hopes failed, Jankowski returned to the conception of historical Poland and again considered Lithuania and Belarus a single territorial unit, which primarily based on historical principle, comprised and would comprise an integral part “of the Polish state.”77 72 Czesław Jankowski, “Nasz kraj,” Słowo, 1907, no. 247, 1. 73 Jankowski, “Nasz kraj,” 1 74 Wapiński, Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków, 238. 75 In his memoirs Jankowski explained his position in this way: “If at that time it was possible to talk with the Russian government, then only strictly in terms of the idea of ethnographic Poland. My brochure was just an attempt to reach agreement with the government by bringing up the idea of ethnographic Poland.” Zet [?] “Credo polityczne Czesława Jankowskiego. Rozmowa z dzisiejszym Jubilatem,” Słowo, 1926, no. 230, 2. 76 Czesław Jankowski, “Autonomja Polski,” Kurjer Litewski, 1906, no. 107, 2; Jankowski, “Kwestja suwalska,” 2. 77 Jastrzębczyk [Czesław Jankowski], Czy wiesz, kim jesteś? (Vilnius: Nakładem Autora, 1916), 15.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

We have mentioned that Jankowski’s publications in the first half of 1914 advocating the design of a future Poland only within its ethnographic limits was criticized by other Polish social commentators and politicians, while the krajowcy and their idea of restoring the GDL were not popular with the public either. Therefore, it is not surprising that none of their ideas were used by the Polish intelligentsia in the nationalization process of the masses.

GEOGRAPHICAL IMAGES IN THE PROCESS OF NATIONALIZING THE MASSES One of the first publications by the National Democrats in Lithuania, aimed at a wide circle of readers, introduced the task of forming and instilling Polish geographical images in the minds of the masses. According to Noworocznik Litewski (Lithuania’s New Yearbook), it was the duty of Poles “in the [Russian] occupied land, to know the history, the past of Poland, from the geographical perspective.”78 A majority of Polish educational and cultural societies operating in the former lands of the GDL were under the influence of the National Democrats. The Polish Education Society Oświata (Education), which had the most resources for instilling geographical images within the minds of young people, had to limit its activities in the particular provinces. According to the instructions of the Russian imperial government, the Polish Society Oświata, at least officially, was prohibited from having a single coordinating center or covering the whole territory of the former GDL. In 1906–1907 Oświata societies were separately established in Vilnius, Minsk, Grodna, and Magileŭ79 and were able to expand their activities only within the limits of their respective provinces. In 1907 the Oświata society operating in Vilnius (and Vilnius Province), considering itself a unit of Polska Macierz Szkolna (The mother of the schools of 78 “Obowiązki polaka w kraju zabranym,” in Noworocznik Litewski na rok 1904, 203. 79 We did not succeed in finding information about its activity in Vitsiebsk Province either in primary sources or historiography.

259

260

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Poland),80 sought to assume the role of the coordinator of Polish educational associations operating in the NWR.81 Meanwhile, according to the statutes approved by the Russian imperial administration, Polska Macierz Szkolna was allowed to operate throughout the Kingdom of Poland.82 However, in late 1907 the government stopped the activities of Polska Macierz Szkolna in the Kingdom of Poland and in the following year those of the Oświata societies in Vilnius, Kaunas, Minsk, Grodna, and Magileŭ. In terms of spatial practice, the Polish National Democrats sought to cover the entire NWR, but they were only partly successful because Oświata apparently was not expanded into Vitsiebsk Province. Other Polish social or political organizations simply sought to expand their activities all over the NWR. The Stronnictwo konstytucyjno-katolickie na Litwie i Białorusi (Lithuanian and Belarusian Constitutional Catholic Party [LBCCP]) was not prepared to limit itself only to the Vilnius Diocese. The editorial of the first issue of the party newspaper Nowiny wileńskie (Vilnius News) stated that “historical ties link the Poles with Lithuanians and Belarusians,”83 while the party program proclaimed that “we must all stick together regardless of our class and nationality.”84 The program did not address the issue of ethnic territories but clearly advocated autonomy only for the Kingdom of Poland.85 According to party program provisions for local ­administration, 80 “Z Towarzystwa Polskiego ‘Oświata’ w Wilnie,” Dziennik Wileński, 1907, no. 111, 2; Witold Węsławski, “Polskie towarzystwo ‘Oświata’ w Wilnie,” Goniec Wileński, 1908, no. 210, 2. 81 “Przyczynek do dziejów oświaty na Litwie od 1890 do 1916 r.,” Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archives; LVIA), f. 1135, ap. 4, b. 158, l. 7. 82 Józef Stemler, Polska Macierz szkolna: Szkic historyczno-sprawodawczy z 20-lecia działalności 1905-1925. Wydawnictwo jubileuszowe (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Macierzy Szkolnej, 1926), 6–7. 83 Darius Staliūnas, “Vilniaus vyskupo E. Ropo veiklos pėdsakais (1903–1907),” in Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 7, Atgimimas ir katalikų bažnyčia (Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulio leidykla, 1994), 185. 84 Program Stronnictwa Konstytucyjno-katolickiego na Litwę i Białoruś (Vilnius: Drukarnia Edmunda Nowickiego, 1906), 3. 85 The initiators of the LBCCP sought to unite the various political groups. Talk about the further fate of Lithuania and Belarus was avoided. First of all, the future

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

local governments should include “representatives of the religion and nationality corresponding to the majority in the territory or having significant importance.”86 There were clear efforts by some LBCCP members to consolidate Polish dominance where they were a minority. In this regard, it is important that the program was published only in Polish, while the party had its members not only in Vilnius but also in Kaunas, Minsk, Grodna, and elsewhere.87 The LBCCP tried to expand its operations throughout the NWR. However, just as for Oświata,88 it was more successful where there was a considerable number of persons professing the Catholic faith. After 1908, in  the former lands of the GDL, the legal propagation of historical and spatial images through educational activities was stopped by the government. Unlike in the Kingdom of Poland, the Polish intelligentsia in the NWR could not establish other societies able to legally coordinate educational work.89 Part of this work was entrusted to the editorial boards of Polish periodicals, which after 1908 introduced

86 87 88

89

prospects were uncertain. Second, the political groups unifying under the flag of the LBCCP had very different visions of the future: from the restoration of an independent GDL to the latter’s voluntary merger with Poland. Program Stronnictwa Konstytucyjno-katolickiego na Litwę i Białoruś, 5. Staliūnas, “Vilniaus vyskupo E. Ropo veiklos pėdsakais,” 180. Operating in Vilnius and Vilnius Province, “Oświata” opened a reading room and a library, established six primary schools, introduced the teaching of Polish in all state secondary schools of Vilnius, and organized public lectures for the public in less than two years. Moreover, this association had the most branches. For example, in Vilnius Province, the Polish educational society Oświata had branches in Vilnius, Kernavė (in Vilnius District), Kaišiadorys, Žasliai, Valkininkai (Trakai District), Eišiškės, Lida, Kostsenevichy (Lida District), Dzisna, Hlybokae (Dzisna District), Smargon’, Hal’shany (Ashmyany District), and Parafiianovo (Vileika District). Witold Węsławski, “Polskie towarzystwo ‘Oświata’ w Wilnie,” Goniec Wileński, 1908, no. 212, 2; LVIA, f. 1135, ap. 4 b. 158, ll. 368–478. In Kaunas Province Oświata had branches in Kaunas, Kėdainiai, Biržai, and Utena, LVIA, f. 1135, ap. 4 b. 158, l. 314. In Minsk Province Oświata branches were located in Mazyr, Pinsk, Uzda, Navahrudak, Rakaŭ, Niasvizh, and Slutsk. In the province Oświata operated only in Magileŭ: Dariusz Tarasiuk, Między nadzieją a niepokojem: Działalność społeczno-kulturalna i polityczna Polaków na wschodniej Białorusi w latach 1905– 1918 (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2007), 36. For example, the society Polski związek nauczycielski (the Society of Polish teachers) operated in Warsaw and the periodicals Przęgłąd pedagogiczny, Szkoła polska, Sprawy szkolne, and Wychowanie w domu i szkołe were published for teachers.

261

262

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

supplements for young people (e.g., Pobudka [Wake up], Jutrzenka [Dawn], Zorza Wileńska [Aurora Vilnius], Gwiazdka [Star]). Here in the first issue of Pobudka, which was issued in Vilnius in 1908–1914, “natural” Polish lands were considered to be “the land from the Neris, Nemunas, Dnepr, and Daugava” rivers, “which nature intended for us.”90 In fact, in organizing secret educational activities in the former lands of the GDL, the Polish intelligentsia could make use of historical and geographical literature that was printed in the Kingdom of Poland and presented in separate catalogues.91 It should be noted that the activity of Polish cultural figures in Lithuania in the field of education that followed the example of the Kingdom of Poland was already evident in 1905–1907 (and earlier).92 In the words of one of them, Helena Romer-Ochenkowska, the local intelligentsia discouraged “any deviations from Warsaw’s instructions in the field of school literature as well.”93 In fact, Romer-Ochenkowska was the only one among the representatives of the Polish intelligentsia in Vilnius and Kaunas provinces who prepared a geography textbook. The preparation of more in-depth school lecture materials of a historical and especially of a geographical nature started in Vilnius only during World War I.94 The catalogues of books available in Vilnius’s Polish bookstores and reading rooms offer evidence that priority was given to textbooks of history and geography published in Warsaw or Lviv (which at that time also served as a center for the preparation of educational geographic literature [e.g., the activities of Stanislaw 90 “Nasze zadania,” Pobudka, 1908, no. 1, 4. 91 Spis książek geograficznych dla młodzieży szkół średnich (Warsaw: Gebethner i Wolff, 1912). 92 Przemysław Dąbrowski, Narodowa Demokracja byłego Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Studium z zakresu myśli politycznej i działalności obozu narodowego na ziemiach litewsko-białoruskich w latach 1897–1918 (Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2010), 134. 93 Helena Römer-Ochenkowska, “Z dziejów tajnej oświaty w Wilnie i Wileńszyznie,” in Nasza walka o szkołę polską 1901–1917: Opracowania, wspomnienia, dokumenty, vol. 2 (Warsaw: Nakładem komitetu obchodu 25-lecia walki o szkołę polską, 1934), 383. 94 Ludwika Życka, Krótki rys dziejów tajnej oświaty polskiej na ziemi Wileńskiej od 1880 do 1919 (Vilnius, 1932), 13; Stefania Walasek, Szkolnictwo powszechne na ziemiach północno-wschodnich II Rzeczypospoltej (1915–1939) (Cracow: Impuls, 2006), 123–28.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

Majerski and Eugeniusz Romer]). This literature was used to form and propagate the spatial images used in the process of nationalizing the masses. In 1904 the National Democrats in Lithuania suggested Lucyan Tatomir’s geography textbook published in the 1860s in Cracow as the best source for the formation of spatial images for the younger generation.95 This textbook, which was also available in Vilnius’s Polish bookstores and reading rooms,96 emphasized the geographical arguments for the 1772 PLC borders being considered the “natural” ones: “the lands on which Poland was born, grew, and expanded into one of the most powerful countries of Europe at one time form an organic whole, having natural boundaries from all sides.”97 Later other geographers—Stanisław Majerski, Wacław Nałkowski, and Eugeniusz Romer—who also actively participated in the preparation of school literature—developed Tatomir’s idea. In the 1870s the map Polska pod wzgłędem fizycznym (Poland from a physical perspective), prepared by Stanislaw Majerski and showing the PLC’s “natural” borders, was one of the most popular supplemental teaching aids actively used in the Kingdom of Poland. Geographical arguments were also raised in Józef Chociszewski’s textbook,98 which, having come out in several editions, was available in Vilnius’s Polish bookstores.99

95 “Obowiązki polaka w kraju zabranym,” in Noworocznik litewski na rok 1904, 203. 96 Katalog książek dla dzieci, młodzieży i dorosłych mogących służyć na podarki gwiazdkowe 1906/1907 do nabycia w księgarni Makowskiego w Wilnie (Vilnius: Drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1906), 20; Czytelnia Józefa Zawadzkiego w Wilnie: Katalog książek polskich (Vilnius: Drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1903), 71. 97 Lucyan Tatomir, Geografia ogółna i statystyka ziem dawnej Polski (Cracow: W drukarni “Czasu,” 1868), 3. 98 The Mapka fizyczno-ethnograficzna Polski w granicach 1772 r. (Physical-ethnographic map of Poland its 1772 borders) included with Chociszewski’s textbook was described as a map that “reflects the natural boundaries of our country.” [Józef Chociszewski], Malowniczy opis Polski czyli geografia ojczystego kraju: Z mapką i licznemi rycinami. Wydanie drugie poprawione i pomnożone (Poznan: Nakładem K. Kozlowskiego, 1894), 15. 99 Katalog książek do nabycia w księgarni tanich wydawnictw (Vilnius: Druk “Znicz,” 1910), 9; Katalog książek dla dzieci, młodzieży i dorosłych mogących służyć na podarki gwiazdkowe 1906/1907 do nabycia w księgarni Makowskiego w Wilnie, 20.

263

264

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

It should be noted that in Tatomir’s geography textbook, which had a great impact on the propagation of spatial images, geographical and historical arguments were combined to justify the borders of Poland. This author describes how “over the course of time, when the political borders of Poland expanded, and from one side to the other, they ended in natural borders.”100 Similar conclusions were also reached by Józef Chociszewski, who, as mentioned, also considered the 1772 PLC borders to be “natural.” The interaction of the historical past and geographical arguments was also perfectly reflected in the works of Anna Nałkowska,101 which, along with the textbooks prepared by Eugeniusz Romer,102 were very popular among educators both in the Kingdom of Poland and Galicia. Helena Romer-Ochenkowska had a similar perspective. In her textbook, published in Vilnius, she vividly emphasized that the lands of the PLC after the partitions that were included into three empires had to be considered “the children of one mother,” which on the basis of the inherent logic of primordialistic nationalism further reinforced the perception of the integrity of these lands.103 In fact, unlike the previously mentioned authors of school textbooks, Romer-Ochenkowska relied exclusively on the argument of historical continuity to justify the idea of including the former GDL lands in Poland. Like Romer-Ochenkowska, Nałkowska, who realized the ideas of her husband Wacław in school textbooks, and Majerski identified the territories populated by Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians, but considered them an integral part not only of the historical but also the modern state of Poland. Nałkowska’s and Majerski’s textbooks included maps depicting the PLC’s 1772 borders and the “ethnographic” or 100 Tatomir, Geografia ogółna i statystyka ziem dawnej Polski, 114. 101 [Anna Nałkowska], Gieografja Polski, fourth edition (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta w Warszawie, 1907), 1. 102 Jolanta Rodzoś, Paweł Wojnatowicz, “Koncepcja dydaktyczna podręcznika i atlasu Eugeniusza Romera wobec geografji szkolnej w Galicji,” in Biblioteka Polskiego Przęglądu Kartograficznego, vol. 1, W stuleciu Atlasu geograficznego Eugeniusza Romera, 1908–2008 (Warsaw: Polskie towarzystwo kartograficzne. Oddział kartograficzny. Polskie przedsiębiorstwo wydawnictw kartograficznych, 2008), 32–34. 103 [Helena Römer-Ochenkowska], Co jest na niebie i ziemi? Początkowa nauka geografji z obrazkami (Vilnius: Drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego w Wilnie, 1907), 10.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

“national”104 composition of Poland. On the map in Chociszewski’s textbook, used in Vilnius, the territories inhabited by Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians were delineated. However, unlike Majerski or Nałkowska, Chociszewski saw no need to draw readers’ particular attention to the ethnographic composition of these territories. The map was entitled laconically: Mapa Polski (Map of Poland).105 Attention should be drawn to the fact that the use of the dual name Lithuanian and Belarusian territory was also characteristic for school textbooks. For example, in the textbooks prepared in the last decades of the nineteenth century, Lithuania and Belarus was presented as a single territorial unit (as in Majerski’s and Chociszewski’s textbooks). Meanwhile, at the beginning of the twentieth century, in the works of Adam Wiślicki and Nałkowska, the identification of Lithuania was provided more context. For example, Wiślicki, issuing the second edition of his textbook in 1907 (the first was published in 1863), saw the necessity to clarify that the “territory of Lithuania is divided into six provinces: the provinces of Grodna, Kaunas, and Vilnius as real Lithuania, and the provinces of Minsk, Magileŭ, and Vitsiebsk as Belarus.”106 Nałkowska also divided the six provinces of the NWR into Lithuanian- and Belarusian-­ populated areas. In addition, she further sought to draw attention to the fact by providing material for repeating such questions: “what territory does Lithuania cover, and what Belarus?”107 Such an approach to the territory of “Lithuania and Belarus” was pursued in other contexts as well. For example, Polskie Towarzystwo Krajoznawcze (the Polish society of local studies) sought to include all the former GDL lands in its activities. The society’s statutes 104 Stanisław Majerski prepared a map entitled Polska pod wzgłędem etnograficznym (Ethnographic Poland). Nałkowska called basically the same map Mapa narodowości na obszare Polski (Map of the national communities in the territory of Poland). 105 [Chociszewski], Malowniczy opis Polski czyli geografia ojczystego kraju, 15. 106 Adam Wiślicki, Geografja polska (Królestwo Polskie i kraje przyłegle: Litwa-RuśGalicya-Sląsk-Poznańskie-Prusy zachodnie i wschodnie) (Warsaw: Skład główny w księgarni Gebethnera i Wolffa, 1907), 82. 107 [Nałkowska], Gieografja Polski, 25.

265

266

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

encouraged the exploration of “the lands and regions of Poles as they relate to the lands of Poles historically or geographically.”108 It also had member-correspondents in the provinces of Vilnius, Grodna, Kaunas, Minsk, Magileŭ, Volhynia, and Kiev.109 On one hand, in the periodical of the Ziemia (Land) society, which began publication in 1910, Lithuania and Belarus were treated as a single territorial unit110 that was part of Poland.111 On the other, numerous articles were published that were devoted to ethnographic investigations of Lithuania as a separate territorial unit.112 A similar trend was typical in travel guides at the beginning of the twentieth century. For example, Napoleon Rouba and Mieczyslaw Orłowicz indicated where Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians-Ruthenians were living.113 But at the same time both Rouba and Orłowicz considered the former GDL lands an integral part of historical, as well as modern, Poland and in these lands “discovered” common Polish objects and events. 108 “Ustawa Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego,” in Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, vol. 5 (Warsaw: Nakład Polskiego towarzystwa krajoznawczego, 1911), 1. 109 Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, vol. 7 (Warsaw: Nakład polskiego towarzystwa krajoznawczego, 1913), 201. 110 Edward Maliszewski, “Nowe książki,” Ziemia, 1912, no. 10, 163. 111 The postcards published by the society under the common title “Landscapes of Poland,” in which images of nature were presented from the six provinces of the NWR, perfectly illustrate this concept: Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, vol. 7 (Warsaw: Nakład polskiego towarzystwa krajoznawczego, 1913). 112 “Odezwa w sprawie materiałów do dziejów ludwisarstwa na Litwie,” Ziemia, 1911, no. 4, 63–64; Aleksander Łętowski, “Rozsiedlenie litwinów współczesnych,” Ziemia, 1912, no. 48, 772–74; Ziemia, 1912, no. 49, 798–99; Ziemia, 1912, no. 50, 806–10; Ziemia, 1912, no. 51, 828–30; “Litwini z powiatu Kalwaryjskiego. Typy ludowe,” Ziemia, 1913, no. 17, 277; “Zmudzini z okolic Połągi,” Ziemia, 1910, no. 24, 389. 113 According to Napoleon Rouba, the term Lithuania was most often used in reference to the provinces of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Grodna, while Belarus was the provinces of Minsk, Vitsiebsk, and Magileŭ: Napoleon Rouba, Przewodnik po Litwie i Białejrusi (Vilnius: Wydawnictwo “Kurjera Litewskiego,” 1908), 3. In the opinion of Mieczysław Orłowicz, Lithuanians lived in Kaunas Province, and to a lesser extent in Vilnius Province; Belarusians lives east of the Dnepr; and Ruthenians-Ukrainians inhabited an area extending from Kobrin: Mieczysław Orłowicz, Przewodnik po ziemiach dawnej Polski, Litwy i Rusi (Warsaw: Nakład E. Starczewskiego, 1914), 4.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

In Polish discourse of this period, Vilnius is clearly the space best epitomizing Polishness. This city was proclaimed the center of Polish culture: “Vilnius—the hearth of Polishness.”114 The symbols of Polishness in every tourist publication were the University of Vilnius or famous nineteenth-century Polish writers and artists. At the beginning of the twentieth century, this type of literature was essentially devoted only to Vilnius and Kiev115— two centers that had “to rally” the former GDL lands around themselves and most clearly symbolized common Polish values. A textbook example of such musing would be the guide to Vilnius produced by Wacław Gizbert-Studnicki, one of the most active representatives of the National Democrats in Lithuania in 1910. Studnicki claimed that “up to the merger with Poland [under the Union of Krewo], Vilnius was not a city in the European sense, but only a place for defense.”116 The “Polish kings,” according to Studnicki, became concerned with the European development of Vilnius as a city: using Cracow as an example they granted Vilnius self-government.117 Moreover, Studnicki, like Władysław Zahorski, Rouba, and Orłowicz, presented in detail the organizations of Polish culture and society operating in Vilnius. This formed for readers the impression of a continuing Polish cultural influence in the city. The symbolic appropriation of the streets of Vilnius, the Polish equivalents (next to the official Russian names) that Studnicki added to his tourist guide book, only served to strengthen this impression.118 Furthermore, in the context of Vilnius, Zahorski, like Studnicki, saw the uprising of 1863–64 as was customary in Polish discourse of that time, as a a historical event of importance to all Poles. In 1904 Zahorski published an account of the burial of rebels in Vilnius on Castle Hill,

114 Statement by Edward Maliszewski in 1914: Maliszewski, Polacy i polskość na Litwie i Rusi, 9. 115 Individual travel guides were designated for Trakai, Druskininkai, and the Belavezha Forest. 116 Wacław Gizbert-Studnicki, Wilno: Przewodnik iliustrowany po mieście i okolicach z planem miasta i dodatkami (Vilnius: Nakład A. Żukowski i W. Borkowski, 1910), 14. 117 Ibid., 18. 118 Ibid., 4.

267

268

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

which during World War I Studnicki particularly popularized.119 Orłowicz also treated the uprising of 1863–64 as a common Polish historical event. The places related to that uprising were marked all over the NWR, and in that way they connected Lithuania with Poland. The images of the Battle of Grünwald or the Horodło Union in Polish discourse of that time also had to strengthen the perception of the former PLC as an integral, indivisible territorial unit. The myth of “Great Poland” was emphasized in Polish discourse at the beginning of the twentieth century, which declared that the victory of the Battle of Grünwald formed the conditions for the merger of Poland and Lithuania; it also emphasized the unity of Poles and Lithuanians.120 The Polish interpretation of the battle proclaimed that the union of Poles and Lithuanians, consecrated in blood in 1410 and crowned in Horodło in 1413, was eternal.121 Belles-lettres, more specifically the literature “of the borderlands,” having disseminated many of the ideological views published by the National Democrats, also contributed to the propagation of geographical images.122 Wincenty Pol’s famous poetic work Pieśń o ziemi (Song about the Earth), in which the term of kresy (the borderlands) was established and the former lands of the GDL were treated like an integral part of Poland, was reprinted in Romer-Ochenkowska’s geography textbook.123 In the literature “of the borderlands” the historical arguments supporting the inclusion of former GDL lands in the composition of Poland were also popularized. The historical facts of the past were often interpreted 119 Władysław Zahorski, Pamiątki narodowe w Wilnie: Uzupełnienie przewodnika po Wilnie Kirkora (Cracow: St. Nowicki, 1904), 30–31; Wacław Gizbert-Studnicki, “Groby powstańców na Górze Zamkowej,” Dziennik Wileński, 1916, no. 109, 4–5. 120 Robert Traba, “Konstrukcja i process dekonstrukcji narodowego mitu. Rozważania na podstawie analizy semantycznej polskich obchodów Grunwaldzkich w XX wieku,” in Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 17, Nacionalizmas ir emocijos (Lietuva ir Lenkija XIX–XX a.), ed. Vladas Sirutavičius and Darius Staliūnas (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2001), 149–50. 121 Dangiras Mačiulis, Rimvydas Petrauskas, and Darius Staliūnas, Kas laimėjo Žalgirio mūšį? Istorinio paveldo dalybos Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje (Vilnius: Mintis, 2012), 49. 122 Bolesław Hadaczek, Historia literatury kresowej (Cracow: Universitatis, 2011), 212; Stanisław Uliasz, Literatura kresów—kresy literatury: Fenomen Kresów wschodnich w literaturze polskiej dwudziestolecia międzywojennego (Rzeszów: Wyższa szkoła pedagogiczna, 1994); Bujnicki, “Litwa na polskich kresach. Przemiany znaczeń,” 97–116. 123 [Römer-Ochenkowska], Co jest na niebie i ziemi?, 50–55.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

as relations of “blood” or “spirit,” which additionally strengthened the emotional perception of the unity of these lands with Poland.124 In the works of Henryk Sienkiewicz and Bolesław Prus, the civilizing role of the Poles in the former lands of the GDL was especially emphasized.125 In the literature “of the borderlands,” the nobility, whose estates were presented as hearths of the glorious past and Polish culture, was usually proclaimed to be civilizing force. Therefore, the theme of estates was particularly popular in works (for example by Józef Weyssenhof, Maria Rodziewiczówna, and Emma Jeleńska-Dmochowska) primarily targeted at readers from former GDL lands. Also important is the fact that the described estates had their own clear “topography.” For example, the estates of Weyssenhof and Rodziewiczówna were “situated” in Kaunas Province and Jelenska-Dmochowska’s was in Vilnius Province.126 In works of a statistical nature127 the quantity of land managed by the nobility (read: Poles) was often presented as an argument when claims were made for territories in which the Poles were a minority, in places where language and ethnic origin did not support Polish dominance. In such cases, the land ownership of the nobility was used to justify the autochthonism of the Poles in former GDL lands: “Poles are not a temporary 124 For example, the poetry of Maria Konopnicka Polskie ziemie: Krajobraz (Polish lands: landscape) and Kazimierz Glinski Slub krwi (Blood wedding) and Józef Weyssenhof’s short story Unia (Union): Krzysztof Stępnik, “Waśń plemienna (Epoka rozbratu 1905–1914),” in Polska-Litwa: Historia i kultura (Lublin: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 1994), 141. 125 For example, in Henryk Sienkiewicz’s short story Dzwonek (Little bell) the hero asked rhetorically: “Remember the old days: who baptized you? Who brought you education? Who saved you from the hands of the Germans?”: Henryk Sienkiewicz, “Dzwonek,” Tygodnik Iliustrowany, 1907, no. 4, 77. And Bolesław Prus said in the short story Wszyscy za jednego (All for one) that the Lithuanian language was very poor and only thanks to Polish literature “the world learned about the existence of Lithuanians”: Bolesław Prus, “Wszyscy za jednego,” Tygodnik iliustrowany, 1907, no. 4, 81. One should note that a separate issue of the periodical Tygodnik iliustrowany was devoted to the popularization of “the borderlands” in Polish literature. Cf. Ewa Paczoska, Prawdziwy koniec XIX wieku: Sladami nowocześności (Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut wydawniczy, 2010), 34. 126 Tadeusz Bujnicki, W Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim i w Wilnie (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DIG, 2010), 128–31. 127 For example, in the works of Edward Czyński, Joachim Bartoszewicz, Edward Maliszewski, and Józef Dąbrowski.

269

270

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

element of the land, brought from abroad, as it might seem when evaluating indicators of an ethnographic nature.”128 On the other hand, “in the literature of the borderlands” the estates of the nobility, which existed in all the former GDL lands, perfectly performed the symbolic role of integrating all these lands. The words of the hero of a short story by Rodziewiczówna, Byłi i będą (Have been and will be), have resonance in this context: “We are still there in so much as the land is in our hands.”129

* * * Thus, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, there was almost no competition among the different conceptualizations of the territorial image of Poland in the Polish discourse. The territorial concept of Poland that relied on historical, economic, civilizational, geographic, and geopolitical arguments, covering also all former GDL lands, became normative, while other concepts were heavily marginalized. Such a mental map dominated not only among the ethnic Polish core but also in Polish-speaking cultural society of former GDL lands. Polish nationalism used similar arguments in tracing the western border of Poland—an important difference was only that in the west they also still relied on the ethnographic argument.130 Meanwhile, alternative conceptualizations, like Jankowski’s, which saw the future of Poland only within its ethnographic borders, were marginalized. Moreover, in the case of Jankowski that idea was just a tactical proposal advanced despite a belief in the ideal of restoring “historical Poland,” including Lithuania. That historical Lithuania in the Polish mental map was perceived as an integral region. In fact, in Polish discourse there were different names applied to former GDL lands. This territory was called Poland, part of the borderlands (of Poland), Lithuania, historical Lithuania, or 128 Czyński, Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej, 71. 129 Marya Rodziewiczówna, “Byłi i będą,” Tygodnik Iliustrowany, 1907, no. 4, 84. 130 Roland Gehrke, Der polnische Westgedanke bis zur Wiedererrichtung des polnischen Staates nach Ende der Ersten Weltkieges: Genese und Begruendung polnischer Gebietsansprueche gegenueber Deutschland im Zeitalter des europaeischen Nationalismus (Marburg: Verlag Herder-Institut, 2001), 356–58.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

Lithuania and Belarus. The last term was used increasingly more often at the beginning of the twentieth century and indicated that Polish society was forced to reckon with the growing nationalisms of the Belarusians and especially of the Lithuanians, who had declared rights to “their own” “national territories.” Various Polish organizations tried to expand their spatial practices in the whole area of the former GDL lands, although they fared better where there was a considerable number of persons professing the Catholic faith. In this respect, the situation was similar to the one existing in the first half of the nineteenth century.131 The estates of the nobles, having become a frequent theme in the literature “of the borderlands,” performed the function of the representation of space. Because noble estates were found in all of the former lands of the GDL, in a symbolic sense they played the role of integrating the whole land. Undoubtedly the central space of representation was Vilnius, which other nationalisms and, of course, the imperial government, also saw as part “of their own” “geo-body”. Polish discourse inevitably had to take into account the other national discourses and respond to the arguments emerging in them that assigned this land to another “national territory.” Specifically for this reason, arguments denying the legitimacy of the ethnographic argument were developed. This study also seeks to demonstrate how idioms of nationhood not only affected the representations of space but also allowed to see the “reverse” influence. The dominant aspiration in Polish discourse to also see Poland in the ethnic Lithuanian and Belarusian lands, where Poles constituted only a small percentage of the population, forced Polish intellectual and political elites in certain situations to define modern Polish identity “opportunistically,” downplaying the importance of ethnicity and language. Often, however, depending on the circumstances, at least in the ideology of identities advocated by the Poles in Lithuania, language occupied a very important role.

131 See Z. Medišauskienė’s article in this collection.

271

272

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

BIBLIOGRAPHY Archival Sources Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archives) f. 1135 Vilniaus mokslo bičiulių draugija (The Society of Friends of Science in Vilnius)

Periodicals Dziennik Wileński, Gazeta Wileńska, Głos Polski, Goniec Codzienny, Goniec Wileński, Kurjer Litewski, Kurjer Warszawski, Litwa, Myśl Polska, Pobudka, Prawda, Tygodnik Iliustrowany, Słowo, Viltis, Ziemia

Books and Articles Babicz, Józef. “Two Geopolitical Concepts of Poland.” In Geography and National Identity, ed. David Hooson, 212–20. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994. Beauvois, Daniel. “Mit ‘kresów wschodnich,’ czyli jak mu położyć kres.” In Polskie mity polityczne XIX i XX wieku, 93–105. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1994. Benecke, Werner. “Die Kresy—ein Mythos der polnischen Geschichte.” In Politische Mythen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert in Mittel-und Osteuropa, 253–60. Marburg: Herder Institut, 2006. Bujnicki, Tadeusz. “Litwa na polskich kresach. Przemiany znaczeń.” In Dziedzictwo kresów—nasze wspólne dziedzictwo, 97–116. Cracow: Międzynarodowe Centrum Kultury, 2006. ____. W Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim i w Wilnie. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo DIG, 2010. [Chociszewski, Józef]. Malowniczy opis Polski czyli geografia ojczystego kraju: Z mapką i licznemi rycinami. Wydanie drugie poprawione i pomnożone. Poznan: Nakładem K. Kozlowskiego, 1894. Czyński, Edward. Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej. Warsaw: Druk braci Jeżyńskich (dawniej J. Ungra), 1887. ____. Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebności i rozsiedlenia ludności polskiej: Wydanie drugie, uzupełnione i rozszerzone z

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

mapami etnograficzno-statystycznemi. Warsaw: Druk Piotra Laskauera i S-ki, 1909. Czytelnia Józefa Zawadzkiego w Wilnie: Katalog książek polskich. Vilnius: Drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1903. Dąbrowski, Józef [J. Grabiec]. Współczesna Polska w cyfrach i faktach. Chicago: Nakładem księgarni ludowej, 1912. Dąbrowski, Przemysław. Narodowa Demokracja byłego Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego: Studium z zakresu myśli politycznej i działalności obozu narodowego na ziemiach litewsko-białoruskich w latach 1897–1918. Cracow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2010. Dolbilov, Mikhail, and Darius Staliūnas, eds. Obratnaia uniia: Iz istorii otnoshenii mezhdu katolitsizmom i pravoslaviem v Rossiisskoi imperii, 1840–1873. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 2010. Eberhardt, Piotr. Polska i jej granice: Z historii polskiej geografii politycznej. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2004. Fedorowicz, Irena. W służbie ziemi ojczystej: Czesław Jankowski w życiu kulturalnym Wilna lat 1905–1929. Cracow: Collegium Columbinum, 2004. Gehrke, Roland. Der polnische Westgedanke bis zur Wiedererrichtung des polnischen Staates nach Ende der Ersten Weltkieges: Genese und Begruendung polnischer Gebietsansprueche gegenueber Deutschland im Zeitalter des europaeischen Nationalismus. Marburg: Verlag Herder-Institut, 2001. Gizbert-Studnicki, Wacław. Wilno: Przewodnik iliustrowany po mieście i okolicach z planem miasta i dodatkami. Vilnius: Nakład A. Zukowski i W. Borkowski, 1910. Gloger, Zygmunt. Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski. Cracow: Spółka wydawnicza polska, 1900. Hadaczek, Bolesław. Historia literatury kresowej. Cracow: Universitatis, 2011. B. J . . . is [Jałowecki, Bolesław]. Lietuva ir jos reikalai ... Tautiškas Lietuvos katekizmas. Vilnius: M. Kuktos spaustuvė, 1907. Jankowski, Czesław. Naród Polski i jego ojczyzna. Warsaw: Nakładem Autora, 1914.

273

274

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

____. Polska etnograficzna. Warsaw: Nakładem Autora, 1914. ____. Z dnia na dzień: Warszawa 1914–1915 Wilno. Vilnius: Wydawnictwo K. Rutskiego, 1923. Jastrzębczyk [Jankowski, Czesław]. Czy wiesz, kim jesteś? Vilnius: Nakładem Autora, 1916. Jelski, Aleksander. “Litwa,” in Słownik geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów słowiańskich, vol. 5, 330–35. Warsaw: Nakładem Wladysława Wałewskiego, Druk “Wieku,” 1884. Jurkowski, Roman. “Czesław Jankowski jako dziennikarz.” Kwartalnik historii prasy polskiej 22 (1983): 38–39. Kalendarz iliustrowany “Kurjera Litewskiego” na rok 1909. Vilnius: Nakładem “Kurjera Litewskiego,” 1910. Katalog książek dla dzieci, młodzieży i dorosłych mogących służyć na podarki gwiazdkowe 1906/1907 do nabycia w księgarni Makowskiego w Wilnie. Vilnius: Drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1906. Katalog książek do nabycia w księgarni tanich wydawnictw. Vilnius: Druk “Znicz,” 1910. Kieniewicz, Stefan. “Kresy: Przemiany terminologiczne w perspektywie dziejowej.” Przegląd Wschodni 1 (1991): 3–13. Kolbuszewski, Jacek. Kresy. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1996. Korwin-Milewski, Hipolit. Uwagi o konflikcie języków poskiego i litewskiego w Dyecezji Wileńskiej: Przekład z francuzkiego. Vilnius: Druk Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1913. Kościałkowski, Stanisław. “Ze studjów nad dziejami ekonomji królewskich na Litwie,” in Rocznik Towarzystwa przyjaciół nauk w Wilnie, 1911–1914, 168–71. Vilnius: Druk Józef Zawadzkiego, 1914. Kulak, Teresa. “Polska historyczna czy etnograficzna? Dyskusja o terytorium Polski w prasie warszawskiej u progu I wojny światowej.” In Kresy i pogranicza: Historia, kultura, obyczaje, 15–31. Olsztyn: Wyższa szkola pedagogiczna, 1995. Mačiulis, Dangiras, Petrauskas Rimvydas, and Darius Staliūnas. Kas laimėjo Žalgirio mūšį? Istorinio paveldo dalybos Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje. Vilnius: Mintis, 2012.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

Majerski, Stanisław. Geografia kraju ojczystego i monarchii Austryacko-Węgierskiej. Lviv: Nakładem polskiego towarzystwa pedagogicznego, 1912. ____. Polska pod wzgłędem etnograficznym: Polska obrazy i opisy, vol. 1. Lviv: Nakładem macierzy polskiej. Skład główny w administracyi “Macierzy polskiej” w gmachu sejmowym, 1906. Maliszewski, Edward. Polacy i polskość na Litwie i Rusi. Warsaw: Skład główny w księgarni Geberthnera i Wolfa, 1914. Mapa sześćiu gubernji Litwy i Białej Rusi, opracował Benedekt Hertz. Vilnius: Wydawnictwo “Kurjera Litewskiego,” nakład Edmund Nowickiego, 1909. Maternicki, Jerzy. “Michał Bobrzyński wobec tzw. idei jagiellońskiej. Ewolucja—paglądów i jej uwarunkowania.” Przegląd humanistyczny 12 (1977): 132–41. Między Polską etniczną a historyczną: Polska myśl polityczna XIX i XX wieku. Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, 1988. [Nałkowska, Anna]. Gieografja Polski. Fourth edition. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta w Warszawie, 1907. Nałkowski, Wacław. Terytorjum Polski historycznej jako indywidualność gieograficzna. Warsaw: Nakład Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, 1912. Noworocznik litewski na rok 1904: Wydany staraniem stronnictwa demokratycznego narodowego na Litwie. Rok pierwszy. Vilnius: Nakładem Stanislawa Nowickiego. Odbito w drukarni W.L. Anczyca i spółki w Krakowie, 1904. Orłowicz, Mieczysław. Przewodnik po ziemiach dawnej Polski, Litwy i Rusi. Warsaw: Nakład E. Starczewskiego, 1914. Paczoska, Ewa. Prawdziwy koniec XIX wieku: Sladami nowocześności. Warsaw: Państwowy Instytut wydawniczy, 2010. Parczewski, Alfons. O zbadaniu granic i liczby ludności polskiej na kresach obszaru etnograficznego polskiego: Referat przedstawiony na III zjeździe historyków polskich w Krakowie przez Alfonsa J. Parczewskiego. Odbitka z Dziennika Poznańskiego. Poznan: Skład w księgarni Gebethnera i Sp. w Krakowie. Czcionkami Drukarni Dziennika Poznańskiego, 1900.

275

276

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Popławski, Jan Ludwik. Naród i polityka: Wybór pism, ed. Piotr Koryś. Cracow: Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej. Wydział Studiów Międzynarodowych i Politycznych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2012. Porter, Brian A. “Who Is a Pole and Where Is Poland? Territory and Nation in the Rhetoric of Polish National Democracy before 1905.” Slavic Review 51, no. 4 (1992): 639–53. Program Stronnictwa Konstytucyjno-katolickiego na Litwę i Białoruś. Vilnius: Drukarnia Edmunda Nowickiego, 1906. Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, vol. 5. Warsaw: Nakład Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, 1911. Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, vol. 7. Warsaw: Nakład Polskiego Towarzystwa Krajoznawczego, 1913. Rodzoś, Jolanta, and Paweł Wojnatowicz. “Koncepcja dydaktyczna podręcznika i atlasu Eugeniusza Romera wobec geografji szkolnej w Galicji,” in Biblioteka Polskiego Przęglądu Kartograficznego. Vol. 1, W stuleciu Atlasu geograficznego Eugeniusza Romera, 1908–2008, 32–48. Warsaw: Polskie towarzystwo kartograficzne. Oddział kartograficzny. Polskie przedsiębiorstwo wydawnictw kartograficznych, 2008. Römeris, Mykolas. Dienoraštis: 1919 m. birželio 21–oji–1920 m. kovo 15– oji. Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2009. ____. Lietuva: Studija apie lietuvių tautos atgimimą. Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2006. Römer, Michał. Litwa: Studyum o odrodzeniu narodu litewskiego. Lviv: Poskie towarzystwo nakładowe, 1908. ____. Stosunki etnograficzno-kulturalne na Litwie. Cracow: Nakładem wydawnictwa “Krytyki,” 1906. [Römer-Ochenkowska, Helena]. Co jest na niebie i ziemi? Początkowa nauka geografji z obrazkami. Vilnius: Drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego w Wilnie, 1907. Römer-Ochenkowska, Helena. “Z dziejów tajnej oświaty w Wilnie i Wileńszyznie.” In Nasza walka o szkołę polską 1901–1917: Opracowania, wspomnienia, dokumenty, vol. 2, 383–95. Warszaw: Nakładem komitetu obchodu 25–lecia walki o szkołę polską, 1934. Rouba, Napaleon. Przewodnik po Litwie i Białejrusi. Vilnius: Wydawnictwo “Kurjera Litewskiego,” 1908.

Lithuania—An Extension of Poland

Schweiger, Alexandra. Polens Zukunft liegt im Osten: Polnische Ostkonzepte der späten Teilugszeit (1890–1918). Marburg: Verlag Herder-Institut, 2014. Slubicz, Maryan. Polska między Wschodem a Zachodem. Cracow: Nakładem Kajetana Müllera, czcionkami drukarni literackiej pod zarz. L.K. Górskiego, 1914. Smołka, Leonard. “Kresy—dylemat Wschodu i Zachodu w myśli i polityce poskiej,” in Kresy i pogranicza: Historia, kultura, obyczaje, 34–45. Olsztyn: Wyższa szkoła pedagogiczna, 1995. Spis książek geograficznych dla młodzieży szkół średnich. Warsaw: Gebethner i Wolff, 1912. Staliūnas, Darius. “Vilniaus vyskupo E. Ropo veiklos pėdsakais (1903– 1907).” In Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vol. 7, Atgimimas ir katalikų bažnyčia, 142–219. Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulio leidykla, 1994. Starczewski, Eugeniusz. Sprawa polska. Cracow: Skład glówny w księgarni G. Gebethnera, 1912. Stemler, Józef. Polska Macierz szkolna: Szkic historyczno-sprawodawczy z 20–lecia działalności 1905–1925. Wydawnictwo jubileuszowe. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Macierzy Szkolnej, 1926. Stępnik, Krzysztof. “Waśń plemienna (Epoka rozbratu 1905–1914).” In Polska-Litwa: Historia i kultura, 141–58. Lublin: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 1994. Szpoper, Dariusz. Sukcesorzy Wielkiego Księstwa: Myśl polityczna i działalność konserwatystów polskich na ziemiach litewsko-białoruskich w latach 1904–1939. Gdansk: Arche, 1999. Tarasiuk, Dariusz. Między nadzieją a niepokojem: Działalność społeczno-kulturalna i polityczna Polaków na wschodniej Białorusi w latach 1905–1918. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-­ Skłodowskiej, 2007. Tatomir, Lucyan. Geografia ogółna i statystyka ziem dawnej Polski. Cracow: W drukarni “Czasu,” 1868. Traba, Robert. “Konstrukcja i process dekonstrukcji narodowego mitu. Rozważania na podstawie analizy semantycznej polskich obchodów Grunwaldzkich w XX wieku.” In Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vol. 17, Nacionalizmas ir emocijos (Lietuva ir Lenkija

277

278

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

XIX–XX a.), ed. Vladas Sirutavičius and Darius Staliūnas, 146–92. Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2001. ____. “Zróżnicowanie interpretacyjne pojęcia ‘Kresy’ i jego społeczna funkcja w Polsce na przełomie XX i XX wieku.” In Przeszłość w teraźniejszości: Polskie spory o historię początku XXI wieku, 284–92. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 2009. Uliasz, Stanisław. Literatura kresów—kresy literatury: Fenomen Kresów wschodnich w literaturze polskiej dwudziestolecia międzywojennego. Rzeszów: Wyższa szkoła pedagogiczna, 1994. Wakar, Włodzimierz. Ludność polska: Ilość i rozprzestrzenienie. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo M. Arcta w Warszawie, 1914. Walasek, Stefania. Szkolnictwo powschechne na ziemiach północno-wschodnich II Rzeczypospoltej (1915–1939). Cracow: Impuls, 2006. Wapiński, Roman. “Kresy w polskiej myśli politycznej w XIX i XX wieku (po roku 1945).” In Kresy—pojęcie i rzeczywistość, 97–106. Warsaw: Sławistyczny ośrodek wydawniczy, 1997. ____. Polska i małe ojczyzny Polaków: Z dziejów ksztaltowania się świadomosci narodowej w XIX i XX wieku po wybuchu II wojny światowej. Wroclaw: Zakład Narodowy imienia Ossolińskich, 1994. Wasilewski, Leon. Drogi porozumienia: Wybór pism. Wyboru dokonała, wstępem i przypisami opatrzyła Barbara Stoczewska. Cracow: Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej, 2001. ____. Litwa i Białoruś: Przeszłość-teraźniejszość-tendencje rozwojowe. Cracow: Książka, 1912. ____. Piłsudski jakim go znałe. Warsaw: Muzeum Historii Polski, 2013. Wiślicki, Adam. Geografja polska (Królestwo Polskie i kraje przyłegle: Litwa-Ruś-Galicya-Sląsk-Poznańskie-Prusy zachodnie i wschodnie. Warsaw: Skład główny w księgarni Gebethnera i Wolffa, 1907. Zahorski, Władysław. Pamiątki narodowe w Wilnie: Uzupełnienie przewodnika po Wilnie Kirkora. Cracow: St. Nowicki, 1904. Życka, Ludwika. Krótki rys dziejów tajnej oświaty polskiej na ziemi Wileńskiej od 1880 do 1919. Vilnius, 1932.

CHAPTER 5

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: How Belarusian Nationalism Created Its “National Territory” at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century Olga Mastianica “And they will ask us: From where are you, what is your origin? Where is your land, Where is your homeland?” —Ianka Kupala, When They Ask Us, 1911

Belarusian poet Ianka Kupala (Ivan Lutsevich) posed these questions in 1911, when most of the non-dominant national groups of Central and

280

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Eastern Europe had already developed an image of their own “national territory.” Among the national movements of “earlier” or “later” provenance, the Belarusian one is usually assigned to the later. However, the creation of a “national territory” as an integral part of the Belarusian national program of the Belarusians at the beginning of the twentieth century has not yet been made the subject of a separate investigation, since the principal research focus has normally rested on the period of World War I, when the Belarusian national movement was forced to pose and resolve questions on the political future of Belarus and its borders.1 The works of contemporary Belarusian historians Ales’ Bely, Sergei Tokts’, and Sergei Khomich, in which geo-images are singled out as a discrete object of study, warrant separate mention. Relying on the methodological base of imageology and metageography, Belyi examined how the concept of “White Rus’” (Belaia Rus’) changed in the thirteenth to eighteenth centuries.2 Meanwhile, Tokts’ sought to determine how the territory of Belarus was defined in the Polish and 1 See, for example, Sergei Khomich, Territoriia i gosudarstvennye granitsy Belarusi v XX veke: ot nezavershennoi etnicheskoi samoidentifikatsii i vneshnepoliticheskogo proizvola k sovremennomu Status Quo (Minsk: Ekonopress, 2011); Evgenii Shiriaev, Belarus’: Rus’ Belaia, Rus’ Chiornaia i Litva v kartakh (Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1991); Leŭ Kazloŭ and Aliaksandr Citoŭ, Belarus’ na siami rubiazhakh (Minsk: Belarus’, 1993); Tat’iana Pavlova, “K voprosu o granitsakh BNR,” Belorusskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii 1 (1999): 77–81; Vital’ Mazets, “Gramadzianstva i mezhy BNR,” Białoruskie zeszyty historyczne 15 (2001): 96–100; Ŭladzimir Ladyseŭ and Piotr Brygadzin, Pamizh Ŭskhodam i Zakhadam: Stanaŭlenne dziarzhaŭnatsi i terytaryial’nai tselasnastsi Belarusi (Minsk: Belaruski dziarzhaŭny universitet, 2003); Andrei Tsikhamiraŭ, “‘Vilenskae pytanne,’ ŭ mizhnarodnykh adnosinakh 1918–1920 hh.,” Belorusskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii 3 (2002): 37–45; Vadim Krutalevich, Istoriia Belarusi: Stanovlenie natsional’noi derzhavnosti (1917–1920 gg.) (Minsk: Pravo i ekonomika, 2003); Edmundas Gimžauskas, Baltarusių veiksnys formuojantis Lietuvos valstybei 1915–1923 m. (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2003); Dorota Michaluk, Białoruska respublika ludowa 1918–1920: U podstaw białoruskiej państwowości (Toruń: Wydawnictwo naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2010); Per Anders Rudling, The Rise and the Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015). 2 Ales’ Belyi, Khronika Belai Rusi: Imagologiia Belarusi XII–XVIII st (Smolensk: Inbel’kunt, 2013).

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

Russian publications of the nineteenth century.3 Khomich focused on the specific geo-images that formed in the political discourse of the Belarusian national movement,4 essentially covering the period of and after World War I. Khomich’s major sources were scholarly works produced in the Russian Empire that also sought to define the territory populated by Belarusians. Belarusian historiography has additionally investigated the influence exerted by imperial statistics and cartography on the creation of an image of Belarusian “national territory” in the early twentieth century. Many Belarusian historians hold that the emergence of the term Belarus in official nineteenth-century statistical data and maps, not to mention scholarly investigations, could well have influenced the way in which the Belarusian intelligentsia’s national identity took shape.5 The publications of Evfimii Karskii and Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolskii, produced while they were working in Russian imperial academic institutions, were also employed in constructing the spatial images of Belarusian nationalism. Andrei Unuchak’s analysis of the ideological program of Nasha Niva (Our Soil) (1906–1915), the principal periodical of the Belarusian national movement, leads him to observe that early in the twentieth century, the five provinces of the NWR constituted the image of the “national territory” of Belarus.6 However, he did not specifically ask why the Belarusian nationalists chose that particular image of the “national territory” of Belarus or question the extent to which it was used in nationalization of the masses. Ales’ Smalianchuk’s studies, meanwhile, answer the question 3 Sergei Tokts’, “Belarus’ i belorussy: formirovanie voobrazhaemogo soobshchestva,” in Belorussy: Natsiia pogranichiia, ed. Aliaksandr Kravtsevich, Ales’ Smolenchuk and Sergei Tokts’ (Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2011), 98–108. 4 Khomich, Territoriia i gosudarstvennye granitsy Belarusi v XX veke, 25–30. 5 Tokts’, “Belarus’ i belorussy: formirovanie voobrazhaemogo soobshchestva,” 98–102; Ales’ Smalianchuk, Pamizh kraiovastsiu i natsyianal’nai ideiai: Pol’ski rukh na belaruskikh i litoŭskikh zemliakh 1864–liuty 1917 h. (St. Petersburg: Neŭski prastsiah, 2004); Khomich, Territoriia i gosudarstvennye granitsy Belarusi v XX veke, 31. 6 Andrei Unuchak, “Nasha Niva” i belaruski natsyianal’ny rukh (1906–1915 hh.) (Minsk, 2006), 4.

281

282

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

of why, after constructing the modern Belarusian national identity on the basis of ethnolinguistic nationalism, the leaders of the Belarusian national movement began to cooperate with the krajowcy and supported their plans for the restoration of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in the early twentieth century.7 Western European historiography, for its part, is unambiguously convinced that the Belarusian intelligentsia on the eve of World War I, was interested only in restoring the GDL, and that images of a “national territory” based on ethnolinguistic and ethnographic criteria in no way typified the Belarusian national movement.8 This chapter concentrates mostly on the discursive practices of early twentieth century Belarusian nationalism in constructing geo-­ images. The development of the Belarusian national movement is distinguished by several stages,9 each of which is marked by the ­formation of suitable images of the territories that were “their very own.” But after 1905, the Belarusian national movement became ­politicized, and the Belarusian intelligentsia enjoyed more opportunities than before not only to form images of the “national territory” of Belarus but also to use these images in the nationalization of the masses. This chapter begins by asking why the leaders of the B ­ elarusian national movement formed the image of the “national territory,” the criteria they used in doing so, if these images were used in the nurturing of a national consciousness among the people, how the ­territory of Belarus and Lithuania was defined, and when the idea of restoring the GDL was raised in the Belarusian political discourse. For this purpose 7 Smalianchuk, Pamizh kraiovastsiu i natsyianal’nai ideiai. 8 Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 41–44; Michaluk, Białoruska respublika ludowa 1918–1920, 116–18; Rudling, The Rise and the Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 66–67. 9 Aliaksei Kaŭka, “Belaruski natsyianal’na-vyzvalenchy rukh,” in Entsyklapedyia historyi Belarusi (Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 1993), 445; Siargei Tokts’, “Prablemy peryiadyzatsyi belaruskaha natsyianal’naha rukhu 19–pachatku 20 st.,” Histarychny al’manakh 7 (2002): 187–91; Zachar Shybeka, “Natsyianal’naia madernizatsyia 19–20 stahoddziiaŭ i iae asnoŭnyia etapy,” Histarychny al’manakh 7 (2002): 48–59; Ales’ Smalianchuk, “Belaruski natsyianal’ny rukh,” Kamunikat, accessed February 28, 2015, http://kamunikat.org/7988.html.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

I consulted political documents and also mined the periodical press, fiction (including, poetry), and educational literature, which also served the Belarusian nationalists as arenas for the creation of the “national territory.”

IMAGES OF THE “NATIONAL TERRITORY” OF BELARUS In the earlier periodical publications, the Belarusian intelligentsia clearly named language as the main distinguishing feature of the modern Belarusian identity. As Nasha Niva, one of the oldest Belarusian weekly newspapers, stated, “Our language—this is our greatest treasure. If we deprive ourselves of it, we will no longer be human beings [read: the Belarusian nation—O.M.].”10 The Belarusian language was valued as the principal factor that distinguished Belarusians from other nations. The modern Belarusian identity (like that of the Lithuanians) was constructed according to the logic that is normally typical of primordialistic nationalism.11 The early twentieth century Belarusian national discourse associated not only the nation but also the homeland with one’s family, one’s relatives. In contemporary works of fiction where the homeland was equated to one’s “mother” or “the land of one’s birth.”12 These categories were treated as inherent, as something that is to be handed down through the generations, and as a matter of utmost importance to, and essential for, every “speaker of Belarusian.”13 Along with language and ethnic origin, the homeland—or, more precisely, its geo-images—were included in the formation of the modern Belarusian national identity. The homeland in works of fiction was increasingly 10 Khvaliboh, “Z nashaha zhyts’tsia. Iakaia nasha mova,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 35, 407. 11 See Darius Staliūnas’s chapter “The Pre-1914 Creation of Lithuanian National Territory” in this book. 12 For example, in the poem “Niamash, ale budze” (It Is Not, but Will Be) by Alaiza Pashkevich (“Ciotka”), “Pes’nia Belarusi” (Song of Belarus) by Aliaksandr Astramovich (Andrei Ziazulia), and the poems of Ianka Kupala,“Geta kryk, shto zhyve Belarus’”(That Is a Cry That Belarus Is Alive) and “Ia ad vas dalioka” (I Am Far from You). 13 Ibid. See also Ol’ga Mastianitsa, “Proizvodstvo i reprezentatsiia ‘svoego’ prostranstva belaruskim natsional’nym dvizheniem v nachale XX veka,” Ab Imperio 1 (2015): 175–211.

283

284

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

called “Belarus.”14 At the same time, the fostering of the mother tongue was presented as a task of the Belarusian national movement not only at the present time but also in the future. “Mother Tongue is the past and future of the nation”15 stated the Belaruski kaliandar (The Belarusian Calendar), a supplement issued by Nasha Niva.16 And Ianka Kupala, one of the editors of Nasha Niva, eloquently declared that “the day is near when we will become a people and rebuild our land.”17 It is totally understandable, therefore, that early in the twentieth century the leaders of the Belarusian national movement frequently quoted the works of Frantsishak Bagushevich where the territory of Belarus was defined on the basis of an ethnolinguistic principle. In 1891, in the preface to a poetry collection titled Dudka belaruskaia (The Belarusian Fife),18 Bagushevich unambiguously answered the question, “where is Belarus now?” with “there, brothers, where our language is alive.”19 Bagushevich was among the first to propose defining the territory of Belarus ethnolinguistically. He considered Belarus to be the territory in which the Belarusian language was spoken. He was not suggesting yet that the borders of Belarusian “national territory” be precisely defined, pointing out only that Belarusian was spoken “from Vilnius to Mazyr, from Vitsiebsk almost to Chernigiv:”20 the most important thing here was the very principle of defining the “national territory.”21 As the Belarusian historian Tokts’ has observed, the 14 This trend is particularly noticeable in the works of Ianka Kupala. An instructive example would be Kupala’s “That Is a Cry That Belarus Is Alive.” 15 G.B., “Rodnaia mova i iae kul’turnae znachen’ne,” in Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy” na 1913 hod (Vilnius, 1913), 81. 16 The editorial board of Nasha Niva published the Belarusian Calendar in Vilnius from 1910 to 1914. 17 Ianka Kupala, “Pesnia a pesniakh,” in Zhaleika (St. Petersburg, 1908), 42. “Maladaia Belarus’” (Young Belarus), another poem by Kupala published in the 1913 collection Shliakhami zhytstsia (Roads of Life), was similar in content. 18 Belarusian publishers reissued this poetry collection several times after 1905, which clearly demonstrates the relevance of Bagushevich’s publications to the Belarusian national movement. 19 Frantsishak Bagushevich, Dudka biełaruskaja (St. Petersburg, 1907), 15. 20 Ibid. 21 Bagushevich also considered Belarus an autonomous part of the GDL, metaphorically describing it as a “bean among the peas.”

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

published works in Polish and Russian defining the territory of Belarus in the second half of the nineteenth century increasingly followed not the historic but the linguistic principle.22 In Belarusian, however, this principle was most vividly presented in abovementioned works of Bagushevich (along with in the writings of poet and playwright Vintsent-Iakub Dunin-Martsinkevich).23 As repeatedly noted in the scholarly literature, the Belarusian intelligentsia did not prepare “its very own” cartographic presentations of the territory of Belarus early in the twentieth century but particularly valued and widely used the Belarusian language studies by Karskii and his Etnograficheskaia karta belorusskogo plemeni: Belorusskie govory (Ethnographic Map of the Belarusian tribes: Belarusian Dialects) (1903). Karskii, a corresponding member of The Imperial Saint ­Petersburg Academy of Sciences, was not, however, the only one defining the Belarusian-populated areas at that time: investigations into the Belarusian language, Belarusian ethnography, and the Belarusian-populated territory were ongoing in academic institutions across the Russian Empire. Such studies were, however generally pursued within the framework of zapadnorusizm (“western Russism”),24 involving the concept of the “tripartite Russian nation” which claimed Belarusians as part of that nation.25 The early twentieth century Belarusian national discourse selected from the available imperial studies on the Belarusian language and the territory inhabited by the Belarusians, taking up and popularizing the 22 See Tokts’, “Belarus’ i belorussy: formirovanie voobrazhaemogo soobshchestva,” 100. 23 Vintsent Dunin-Martsinkevich dedicated Adam Mickiewicz’s epic poem Pan Tadeusz, which he translated into Belarusian in 1859, to the Belarusian-speaking minor nobility and peasants that, in his opinion, lived on and around the Dnepr, Dvina, Biarezina, Svislach, Vilija, and Nemunas rivers. (Wincent Marcinkiewicz, “Pradmowa pierekładca,”in Pan Tadeusz pa polsku napisau Adam Mickiewicz: Na bielaruskuju hutarku pierawiarnuu Wincuk Marcinkiewicz (St. Petersburg, 1907), v. That translation and Bagushevich’s “Belarusian Fife” were reissued several times by Belarusian publishers after 1905. 24 See Aliaksandr Ts’vikevich, “Zapadnorussizm”: Narysy z historyi hramadztskai mysl’i na Belarusi ŭ XIX–pachatku XX v. (Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1930), 127–98. 25 See chapter 1 in this book.

285

286

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 15.  Evfimii Karskii’s “Etnograficheskaia karta belorusskogo plemeni”

(Ethnographic Map of the Belarusian Tribes), from Evfimii Karskii, Belorussy: Vvedenie k izucheniiu iazyka i narodnoi slovesnosti (Vilnius: Tipografiia A.G. Syrkina, 1904).

scholarly works that were most in line with the concept of ethnolinguistic nationalism. Therefore, the Belarusian intelligentsia made no mention of the research of Pavel Bobrovskii,26 Roderik Erkert,27 or Aleksandr Rittikh, which also defined the Belarusian-populated territory.28 For Erkert and Rittikh, confessional composition was the strongest 26 See Pavel Bobrovskii, Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba: Grodnenskaia gubernia (St. Petersburg, 1863). 27 Roderik Erkert, Vzgliad na istoriiu i etnografiiu zapadnykh gubernii Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1864), 64–65. 28 Khomich, Territoriia i gosudarstvennye granitsy Belarusi v XX veke, 28–29. On the characterization of the Belarusians in the works of Anton Koreva, I. Zelinski, and Mikhail Lebedkin see also Zita Medišauskienė’s chapter “Images of Lithuania in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century” in this book.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

argument in determining those territories. Erkert located “real Belarusians” (those who were Orthodox) only in the provinces of Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ, and the eastern part of Minsk Province.29 He considered the Belarusians who professed the Catholic faith, “according to their thinking, behavior, lifestyle, and attire,” as “real Poles.”30 Rittikh defined the Belarusian-populated territories in a similar way. But unlike Erkert, he assigned the territory between the Narew and Iasel’da rivers (Minsk Province, Pinsk District) to the “Little Russians” (Ukrainians).31 By contrast, as mentioned above, the ethnographer and paleographer Karskii determined the Belarusian-populated areas on the basis of ethnolinguistic criteria based on in-depth studies32 of the phonetic, 29 Erkert, Vzgliad na istoriiu i etnografiiu zapadnykh gubernii Rossii, 64–65. 30 It must be noted that General Staff Officer Bobrovskii, who wrote a description of Grodna Province, criticized Erkert’s conclusions. In Bobrovskii’s opinion, “they [Belarusians, who professed the Catholic faith] speak Belarusian, hence they think and feel like the Russians.” (Pavel Bobrovskii, “Mozhno li veroispovedanie priniat’ za osnovanie plemennogo razgranichenia slavian Zapadnoi Rossii,” Russkii invalid, 1864, no. 75, 23). 31 See Khomich, Territoriia i gosudarstvennye granitsy Belarusi v XX veke, 28–29. 32 It should be noted that in 1867 to 1868, Sergei Maksimov, a member of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, was commissioned to study the Belarusian language and Belarusian ethnography. However, the expedition’s specific discoveries were not generalized. See Vytautas Petronis, Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800–1914 (Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007), 164–67. The Russian Language and Linguistics Department of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences treated Belarusian and Ukrainian as dialects of Russian. The department’s objective was to prepare Belarusian and Ukrainian dictionaries that would assist those studying the phonetic, etymological, and syntactic structure of Russian. In 1851 the department assigned Ivan Grigorovich to create a Belarusian dictionary. Grigorovich’s work was continued by Ivan Nosovich, whose Belarusian dictionary of 1863 was greatly appreciated by prominent members of the Belarusian national movement. (Mikhas’ Sudnik, “Nasovich I. I. Sloŭnik belaruskai movy,” in I. I. Nasovich i iago sloŭnik: Sloŭnik belaruskai movy [Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 1983], 3–4). Anton Lutskevich used research conducted by Nikolai Durnovo, Nikolai Sokolov, and Dmitrii Ushakov, of the Moscow Dialectology Committee, that showed Belarusians living in the western districts of Smolensk Province. (Historyia belaruskai dziarzhaŭnastsi ŭ kantsy XVIII–pachatku XXI st. (Minsk: Belaruskaia navuka, 2011), 146, 151–52). Aleksandr Pypin, one of the most famous Russian ethnographers, was also interested in Belarusian ethnography. In 1892, having summarized the relevant research, he wondered if “one should have evaluated the Belarusian ethnographic material separately from the Russian

287

288

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

etymological, and syntactic structure of Belarusian.33 His research provided an important scholarly argument that proved to be of value for the leaders of the Belarusian national movement. In addition to defining the Belarusian national identity on the basis of language, he recorded the rapid development of the Belarusian language and Belarusian culture in the days of the GDL, which prominent members of the Belarusian national movement also considered the “golden age” of Belarusian culture.34 It should be noted that in the early twentieth century, the Belarusian intelligentsia considered its primary task to be the formation of a national program and sought to spread national ideas as widely as possible in society to demonstrate the strength of the Belarusian national ethnographic material? Does the nation of the Belarusians even exist?” (Aleksandr Pypin, Istoriia russkoi etnografii, vol. 4: Belorussiia i Sibir’ (St. Petersburg, 1892), 8). And Pavel Shein and Evdokim Romanov were interested in the folklore and living habits of the Belarusians. Their research, as well as that of Karskii and Nosovich, was included in a list of suggested reading issued by Belarusian publishers. 33 Karskii recorded the Belarusian language in the southern part of Augustów District, in the north of Grodna Province (Grodna and Sokółka districts), the eastern part of Białystok District, a small portion of Belsk District up to Narew (excluding the city of Belsk), the districts of Vaŭkavysk, Slonim, and the northern part of the district of Pruzhany, in the Vilnius Province (the southern part of Vilnius District along with the city of Vilnius, Ashmyany District excluding a small portion to the west; in the Vileika District and the southern part of Švenčionys District; in the district of Dzisna; in Kaunas Province (the eastern district of Novoaleksandrovsk [Zarasai])); in all of Minsk Province except for the southern district of Mazyr and the greater part of the Pinsk District with the city of Pinsk; in the entire province of Magileŭ and almost the entire province of Vitsiebsk (Nevel’, Sebezh, and Velizh districts); in the south-eastern part of Dvinsk District and the south-eastern part of Liutsin, Gorodetsk, Vitsiebsk, Polatsk, and Lepel’ districts. In addition, Karskii found Belarusian speakers in Pskov, Tver’, Smolensk, and Chernigiv provinces. See Evfimii Karskii, Belorussy: Vvedenie k izucheniiu iazyka i narodnoi slovesnosti (Vilnius: Tipografiia A. G. Syrkina, 1904); Darota Mikhaliuk, “Ad moŭnai miazhy da dziarzhaŭnai: etnichnyia mapy Belarusi XIX i pachatku XX stagoddziaŭ,” in Belarus’ i susedzi: Histarychnyia shliakhi, uzaemadzenne i uzaemapaŭlyvy (Gomel, 2006), 74–89. 34 See Rainer Lindner, Historyki i ŭlada: Natsyiatvorchy pratses i histarychnaia palityka ŭ Belarusi XIX–XX st. (Minsk: Bibliateka chasopisa “Belaruski histarychny ahliad,” 2003), 58–105; Dmitrii Karev, Belorusskaia i ukrainskaia istoriografiia kontsa XVIII– nachala 20-kh gg. XX v.: V processe genezisa i razvitiia natsional’nogo istoricheskogo soznaniia belorussov i ukraintsev (Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2007), 128–48.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

movement. The political future of Belarus and the question of its territory and borders were, for a time, relegated to the background. At the beginning of World War I, when the Belarusian national movement, as well as many other national movements, was energetically addressing the political problems, Karskii’s Ethnographic Map of the Belarusian Tribes was renamed The Ethnographic Map of Belarus.35 Karskii himself took an active part in determining the borders of the Belarusian People’s Republic in 1918. The leaders of the Belarusian national movement had, however, already been making extensive use of Karskii’s scholarly conclusions in representing the Belarusian nation to the outside world and to nurture a national consciousness among the people. In 1912, for example, Anton Lutskevich, a leader of the Belarusian national movement, identified the Belarusian-populated territories on the basis of Karskii’s map when presenting the development of the Belarusian national movement to the international reader,36 and ­additionally drew on the works of Dovnar-Zapolskii in attributing the Palesse region to those territories. Relying on those two sets of studies, Lutskevich asserted that the Belarusians resided in the five provinces of the NWR—Vilnius, Minsk, Grodna, Vitsiebsk, and Magileŭ —and some parts of Smolensk Province. He presented those areas as a single Belarusian-populated territory that bordered on ­Lithuanian-, Polish-, Ukrainian-, and Russian-populated territories.37 Lutskevich, at least for this audience, did not seek to provide more detailed descriptions of the “national territory” of Belarus and did raise the question of what portion of the population in those areas actually spoke Belarusian. The generalized image of those five (in some cases, six) provinces as the “national territory” of Belarus was also used in the “calendars” published by the Belarusian periodical Nasha Niva. The statistical sections of the Belarusian Calendar entitled “About Belarus,” which were based on Karskii’s data, gave the number of Belarusian-speaking 35 “Etnahrafichnaia karta Belarusi,” Nasha Niva, 1915, no. 11, 1. 36 A. Novina [Anton Lutskevich], “Belorussy,” in Formy natsional’nogo dvizheniia v sovremennykh gosudarstvakh: Avstro-Vengriia, Rossiia, Germaniia, ed. A. I. Kastelianskii (St. Petersburg, 1913), 385–86. 37 Lutskevich, “Belorussy,” 386.

289

290

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

people in six provinces (Vilnius, Minsk, Magileŭ, Grodna, Vitsiebsk, and Smolensk) and specifically identified those provinces as Belarusian.38 The number of Belarusian-speaking people (again based on Karskii’s data) in the provinces of Kaunas, Suwałki, Kurland, Pskov, Tver’, Orlov, and Kaluga was offered separately, but those provinces were not labeled Belarusian. The Belarusian Calendar, admittedly, showed the national and social composition of the population only in five provinces of the NWR.39 In their investigations of Belarusian cultural or economic problems, Aliaksandr Ulasaŭ, editor of Nasha Niva, and Lutskevich, also used the image of five (not six) provinces as the “national territory” of Belarus.40 Ulasaŭ also called the five provinces of the NWR Belarusian, even writing that word in capital letters.41 This handwriting quirk invites the assertion that Ulasaŭ may well have considered the provinces of Vilnius, Grodna, Minsk, Magileŭ, and Vitsiebsk to be the territory of Belarus. The early twentieth century Belarusian intelligentsia also held it necessary to prove that the Belarusians were indigenous in those five Northwestern provinces. When Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski wrote the first history of Belarus in Belarusian (Karotkaia historyia Belarusi) in 1910, he sought to show how the ethnic lands of the Belarusians had formed historically. To him it was important to explain that they had migrated here in times immemorial, which in turn also justified the Belarusian nationalists’ claims to those territories. It is not by accident, therefore, that Lastoŭski primarily relied on the works of Dovnar-Zapolskii in his historical research.

38 “Ab Belarusi,” in Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1913 hod (Vilnius, 1913), 38–39; “Ab Belarusi,” in Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1912 hod (Vilnius, 1912), 36–37; “Ab Belarusi,” in Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1914 hod (Vilnius, 1914), 36–37; “Ab Belarusi,” in Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1915 hod (Vilnius, 1915), 36. 39 Pershy belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy” na 1910 hod (Vilnius, 1910), 16–17. 40 A. N. [Anton Lutskevich], “U čym bahaćcie našaho kraju,” Nasha Niva, 1911, no. 2, 21; A.U. [Aliaksandr Ulasaŭ], “Abarot kapitałoǔ ǔ Biełarusi,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 25, 371. 41 A.U. [Aliaksandr Ulasaŭ], “Abarot kapitałoǔ ǔ Biełarusi,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 25, 371; A. U. [Aliaksandr Ulasaŭ], “Abarot chleba ǔ Biełarusi,” Nasha Niva, 1911, no. 34, 418.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

Historian, ethnographer, and professor of Moscow and Kiev universities Dovnar-Zapolskii can be considered the pioneer of the historical geography of Belarus.42 In his 1888 work Drevniaia Belorussiia i kratkii geograficheskii ocherk ee v IX–XII vv. (Ancient Belarus and Its Brief Geographical Outline from the Ninth to the Twelfth Centuries), he considered the Krivichians, Drehovichians, and Radimichians (Slavic tribes all) to be the ancestors of the Belarusian people. The territories inhabited by those tribes in his opinion could be equated with the territories belonging to the Belarusian people: “[T]his territory and its boundaries, with very slight changes, have remained as long as the tribes of the Belarusians43 lived and remain such to our day.”44 Like Dovnar-Zapolskii, Lastoŭski devoted his main attention to the Krivichians habitat45 because that tribe mainly was, in his opinion, “the primordial state and cultural force” of the Belarusian nation.46 He even tried to apply the name of the Krivichian tribe to all Belarusians: “[W]e are Krivichians and not the Lithuanian Rus’, the Rus’ of the Varangians or Moscow, or White or Black Rus’.”47 However, he develop this concept only in 1924–25, when seeking to justify the need to separate Belarus from the Soviet Union.48 Meanwhile, in his Karotkaia historyia Belarusi (A Brief History of 42 Hryhoryi Shtykhaŭ, “Histarychnaia heahrafiia ŭ pratsakh IX–XII st.,” in Dasledchyk historyi trokh narodaŭ M. V. Doŭnar-Zapol’ski (Zbornik navukovykh artykulaŭ i dakumentaŭ) (Gomel-Rechytsa, 2000), 206–8. 43 It must be noted that Dovnar-Zapolskii also wrote the “tribes of the Belarusians” in capital letters. 44 Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapolskii, “Belorusskoe proshloe (Minskii listok, 1888) (Po povodu A. Pypina, pomeshchennykh v “Vestnike Evropy” proshlogo goda),” in Homo historicus 2008: Hadavik antrapalahichnai historyi (Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2008), 308. 45 It should be noted that the Belarusians were often called “Krivichians” in the twentieth century public discourse (in Russian, in Polish, and to some extent in Belarusian). See Pavel Tereshkovich, Etnicheskaia istoriia Belarusi XIX–nachala XX v.: V kontekste Tsentral’no-vostochnoi Evropy (Minsk: BGU, 2004), 51. 46 Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski, Karotkaia historyia Belarusi (Vilnius, 1910), 7; Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski, “Iakoha my rodu-plemeni,” in Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski, Vybrannyia tvory (Minsk: Belaruski knihazbor, 1991), 302–3. 47 Lastoŭski, “Ab nazovakh Kryvia i Belarus’,” in Lastoŭski, Vybrannyia tvory, 373. 48 Andrei Unuchak, “Belaruskaia natsyianal’na-dziarzhaŭnaia ideia ŭ kantsy XIX st.–1917 h.” in Na shliakhu stanaŭlennia belaruskai natsyi: Histaryiahrafichnyia zdabytki i prablemy (Minsk: Belaruskaia navuka, 2010), 227–28.

291

292

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Belarus, 1910), Lastoŭski had grouped the territory occupied by the Belarusians into three categories: “the lands of the Krivichians,” “the lands of the Belarusians,” and “the lands of the Lithuanians-­Belarusians.” He described Navahrudak (a district in Minsk Province) as “one of the oldest Krivichian cities” and Davyd-Haradok (Pinsk District, Minsk Province) as “in the lands of the Belarusians” while the ruins of Trakai Castle (Trakai District, Vilnius Province) were located “in the lands of the Lithuanians-Belarusians.”49 Lastoŭski’s works, moreover, represent the Belarusian national movement’s first attempts to exert claims on territory in which Belarusian speakers were not the absolute majority. For example, he sought to define precisely the territories of Grodna Province, which contained a minority Belarusian-speaking population.50 Relying on historical arguments and an analysis of linguistic and ­ethnographic criteria, he also tried to prove “the eternal Belarusian identity of the city of Grodna,”51 whose symbolic appropriation had also been made clear in Nasha Niva. As Smalianchuk has noted, this p ­ eriodical devoted attention only to the cultural expression of the national movement of the Belarusians, and not to that of other nationalities, the city was called “our city,” and the Belarusian names of the city were used.52 That said, Lastoŭski, on the strength of his close personal ties with prominent members of the Lithuanian national movement,53 was perhaps the only participant in the Belarusian national discourse in the early twentieth century who also sought to define the ethnic lands of the Lithuanians. He had not yet, it is true, undertaken to discuss that issue in detail, limiting himself to the observation that “Samogitia is 49 Lastoŭski, Karotkaia historyia Belarusi, 104–5. 50 Lastoŭski, Vybrannyia tvory, 266. 51 J.V. [Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski], “Horadnia,” Nasha Niva, 1915, nos. 19–20, 20. 52 Ales’ Smalianchuk, “Horadnia i haradzentsy 1911–1915 hh. na staronkakh ‘Nashai Nivy,’” in Haradzenski palimpsest 2010: Dziarzhaŭnyia i satsyianal’nyia struktury XVI–XX stst. (Minsk: Zmitser Kolas, 2011), 407–22. 53 Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski was the husband of the Lithuanian writer Marija Ivanauskaitė and held close personal ties with the poet and theater critic Liudas Gira, the composer Mikalojus Čiurlionis, the Reverend Aleksandras Dambrauskas (Adomas Jakštas), and the composer Stasys Šimkus. At that time very few Belarusian public figures—whose numbers, however, included Ianka Kupala, Maksim Haretski, and Pavel Aleksiuk—were learning Lithuanian.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

the heart of Lithuania.”54 At least in the Belarusian discourse of the time, the Lithuanians were generally seen as allies55 connected to the Belarusians by a common historical past and a common political future. Lithuanians were therefore presented as “eternal neighbors”56 or as “our kinsmen,”57 in Nasha Niva, and it devoted an especially large amount of attention to the cultural activities of the Lithuanian national movement.58 The early twentieth century Belarusian intelligentsia studiously avoided, at least in the periodicals, any escalation of the political and territorial disagreements between the Lithuanian and Belarusian national movements (and the Lithuanian intelligentsia basically did the same at the time).59 Yet both Nasha Niva and Biełarus, which were primarily instrumental in shaping the Belarusian national consciousness, were the first attempt at a description of the “Lithuanian” and “Belarusian” ethnic lands, wherein Kaunas Province was as a rule ascribed to the Lithuanians.60 54 Wlast [Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski], “IV litoǔskaja wystaǔka ǔ Wilni,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 12, 189. 55 Unuchak held that the Lithuanians were perceived as allies in the early twentieth century Belarusian national discourse, and that it was not until after the World War I that they came to be seen as rivals. Andrei Unuchak, “‘Nasha Niva’ i belorusskoe natsional’noe dvizhenie nachala XX v.,” Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis. Mokslo darbai 2 (2011): 172–80. 56 “IV litoǔskaja wystaǔka u Wilni,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 1, 189. 57 “Litoǔskije hazety,” Nasha Niva, 1908, no. 19, 5. 58 Nasha Niva advertised the Lithuanian periodicals Viltis (Hope), Litwa (Lithuania), Draugija (Society), and Vienybė (Unity), reprinted Lithuanian ethnographic material, and marked the birthdays of Lithuanian writers (Maironis and Žemaitė). See “Litoǔskije hazety,” Nasha Niva, 1908, no. 19, 5; “Litoǔskije hazety,” Nasha Niva, 1908, no. 20, 5; “Litwinka u swajej natsionalnaj apratce,” Nasha Niva, 1910, nos. 13–14, 192; “Litoǔskaja wioska,” Nasha Niva, 1911, nos. 31–32, 392; “Gadaǔshchyna Marienisa,” Nasha Niva, 1913, no. 7, 3. 59 The Belarusian national movement was rarely valued as an ally in the early twentieth century Lithuanian discourse. The Belarusian card was rarely played and usually only in the context of an ideological squabble with the Polish national movement. See Dangiras Mačiulis, Rimvydas Petrauskas, and Darius Staliūnas, Kas laimėjo Žalgirio mūšį? Istorinio paveldo dalybos Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje (Vilnius: Mintis, 2012), 66–67. 60 It should be noted that the issue of Suwałki Province was never raised in the early twentieth century Belarusian national discourse. Karskii’s data helped determine the number of Belarusian speakers there, but the ethnic composition of the province’s population was never treated as a separate topic.

293

294

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

When investigating Belarusian problems of a cultural or economic nature, Ulasaŭ and Lutskevich focused their attention on the “five Belarusian provinces and that of Kaunas.”61 They clearly saw the different ethnic composition of Kaunas Province and reported on it to the readership of Nasha Niva, editor Ulasaŭ stating unequivocally that “Kaunas Province, except for the Belarusian district of Novoaleksandrovsk, is all Lithuanian.”62 Meanwhile, Biełarus, the other Belarusian nationalist periodical, felt it necessary to specify which part of the Novoaleksandrovsk District was “truly Belarusian.” And in this case, arguments of not only an ethnolinguistic but of an ethnographic nature were applied. A correspondent of Biełarus “recognized” the Belarusians in the district of Novoaleksandrovsk not only by their language and the etymology of personal names but also based on “the customs of the population and the names of settlements.”63 It should be noted that Braslaŭ rather than Novoaleksandrovsk (Zarasai), the actual center of Novoaleksandrovsk District, was deemed to be its center, a choice that raises two kinds of assumptions. The first is that the prominent members of the Belarusian national movement, or some of them at least, were able to lay claim to only part of Novoaleksandrovsk District. On the other hand, the selection of a Belarusian-dominated habitat as the center of Novoaleksandrovsk District could be apt to the whole district as Belarusian. In the early twentieth century, the Belarusian intelligentsia’s attitude toward the province of Vilnius was significantly more complex. At first glance, it would appear that the Belarusian nationalists held all of Vilnius Province to be “their very own.” As mentioned above, Lutskevich designed the image of the “national territory” of Belarus as encompassing the provinces of Vilnius, Minsk, Grodna, Magileŭ, Vitsiebsk, and part of Smolensk Province. This image of the “national territory” of 61 A. N. [Anton Lutskevich], “U čym bahaćcie našaho kraju,” Nasha Niva, 1911, no. 2, 21; A.U. [Aliaksandr Ulasaŭ], “Abarot kapitałoǔ ǔ Biełarusi,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 25, 371. 62 A.U. [Aliaksandr Ulasaŭ], “Abarot chleba ǔ Biełarusi,” Nasha Niva, 1911, no. 34, 418. 63 B. L.,“Z Kowieńszczyzny,” Biełarus, 1914, no. 23, 4–5.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

Belarus was used in the nationalization of the masses. The Belarusian Calendar also labeled Vilnius Province “Belarusian,” and markers of Belarusian cultural and economic life were highlighted in all its districts, even in the district of Trakai, in which, even according to the First General Census of the Russian Empire (1897), Lithuanians comprised a majority. Lithuanian activists criticized such an approach.64 In their “appropriation” of Vilnius Province, however, the Belarusian intelligentsia usually made claims only on its eastern reaches. For example, Anton Liavitski (Iadvihin Sh.), a writer and Belarusian national movement activist, found Belarusian language, customs, and costume only in the eastern part of the province of Vilnius, and more specifically, in the eastern part of Vilnius District (excluding the city itself) and the Ashmyany and Vileika districts. Liavitski’s essay “Listy z darohi” (Letters from the Road), which was printed serially in Nasha Niva in 1910, asserted that the “Belarusian language, made more ugly by the impurities of the Polish language” was spoken in the vicinity of Nemėžis.65 Meanwhile, Liavitski recorded “the good, pure Belarusian language” only in the southeast of Ashmiany District.66 He noted Belarusian ethnographic features, such as characteristic architecture and clothing, only in Vileika District.67 So, at least in Liavitski’s ethnographic essay, Trakai District and the western part of Vilnius district revealed no signs of the Belarusian language or Belarusian ethnic features. But, although Liavitski did not include the city of Vilnius in the space he described, there he “discovered” something of his “very own,” to which he unquestionably wanted to return. Noticing a train to Vilnius while waiting at the train station in Aliakhnovichy 64 After reading what was being published in the Belarusian Calendar, even Liudas Gira, a prominent figure in the Lithuanian national movement and enthusiastic promoter of closer cooperation between the Lithuanian and Belarusian national movements, commented that the Belarusians were laying claim to “the ethnic lands of the Lithuanians.” (Liudas Gira, “Pavojus didesnis—negu manome,” Viltis, 1910, no. 52, 1–2). 65 Jadwihin Sh. [Anton Liavitski], “Listy z darohi,” Nasha Niva, 1910, nos. 23–24, 357. 66 Jadwihin Sh. [Anton Liavitski], “Listy z darohi,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 34, 516. 67 Ibid.

295

296

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

(Vileika District, Vilnius Province), Liavitski exclaimed: “[T]he train was going to Vilnius. To Vilnius! And I immediately became so sad, I wanted so much to abandon the planned journey, to board the train and end up among my own kind in Vilnius. It seemed that I would turn into a bird and would end up there.”68 As we see, there were Belarusian nationalists who saw Vilnius as their “very own.” In the opinion of the Belarusian historian Smalianchuk, the early twentieth century Belarusian discourse contained no clearly expressed claims on Vilnius. It was, first of all, seen as the former capital of the GDL and the potential administrative center of “our Belarus and Lithuania” (as one large political unit).69 It was presented as a multicultural city that Lithuanians, Poles, Jews, and Belarusians alike could rightly call as “their very own.” One must note that even the iconographic material devoted to Vilnius in the pages of Nasha Niva primarily harked back to the time of the GDL.70 On the other hand, even “Uncle Anton”—the main character in the poem “Novaia ziamlia” (New Land) by Iakub Kolas (Kanstantsin Mitskevich), an active Belarusian nationalist—does not linger long in Vilnius. Yes, he hurries to the place he sees as the “new land,” to solve pressing social and economic issues; yes, he admires the city’s beauty from Castle Hill (as the readers of Nasha Niva were also invited to do).71 However, the hero of Kolas’s poem also hears “there, beyond the city, the native winds, the songs dear to the heart”72 and takes his leave. It is clear that Vilnius was not yet fully the early twentieth century Belarusian intelligentsia’s “very own.” However, at the same time, they tried in some measure to symbolically appropriate this city, which had its own Belarusian name: “Vil’nia.” The Belarusian 68 Jadwihin Sh. [Anton Liavitski], “Listy z darohi,” Nasha Niva, 1910, no. 39, 601. 69 Ales’ Smalianchuk, “Belaruskiia simvaly Vil’ni,” in Homo historicus 2009: Hadavik antrapalahichnai historyi (Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2010), 327–43. 70 For example, the illustration in Nasha Niva titled “Vil’nia daunei stalichnae mesta Litvy i Belai Rusi’ (Vilnius, the Former Capital of Lithuania and White Rus’): Nasha Niva, 1907, no. 28, 1. 71 Nasha Niva, for example, presented Vilnius to its readers from the vantage point of Castle Hill: “Vil’nia,” Nasha Niva, 1907, no. 28, 1; “Horad Wil’nia,” Nasha Niva, 1909, nos. 13/14, 1; “Wid Zamkowaj hary u Wil’ni,” Nasha Niva, 1909, no. 24, 367. 72 Iakub Kolas, Novaia ziamlia (Minsk: Belaruski fond kul’tury, 2002), 294.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

intelligentsia first began to display this attitude in 1908, during discussions regarding the restoration of the University of Vilnius. The Belarusian intelligentsia saw a need to found a university in Vilnius where the Belarusian language and history would be taught, but, more importantly, it also exposed the readers of Nasha Niva to that idea. Lastoŭski’s explanation that “it is not far [to] Vilnius from Kaunas, Grodna, Dvinsk [Daugavpils], or Minsk, and is somewhat more distant from Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ”73 must therefore be seen as no random observation. Furthermore, in works of fiction (which, as previously mentioned, were actively used in the nationalization of the masses), increasingly featured “Belarusian institutions and events” occurring in Vilnius. For example, Kupala describes the celebration of the traditional Belarusian midsummer festival (Kupalje) in Vilnius;74 for Kolas, Vilnius is the “new promised land;”75 and for poet Maksim Bahdanovich, Vilnius in general was part of the Belarusian cultural landscape.76 The Catholic priest and poet Andrei Ziaziulia (Aliaksandr Astramovich) encouraged Biełarus readers to pray in the Belarusian language at the church of the Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn (Vostraia Brama in Belarusian; Ostra Brama in Polish; Aušros vartai in Lithuanian),77 while writer and poet Zmitrok Biadula (Samuil Plaŭnik) considered St. Anne’s Church his “very own” (or a “Belarusian” edifice).78 On the eve of World War I,

73 “Wil’nia 16(29) junia 1911 h. Ab Uniwersytecie u Wil’ni,” Nasha Niva, 1911, no. 24, 306. For more information on the plans for the restoration of the University of Vilnius in the early twentieth century, see Darius Staliūnas, Visuomenė be universiteto? Aukštosios mokyklos atkūrimo problema Lietuvoje: XIX a. vidurys–XX a. pradžia (Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2000), 149. 74 This poem was printed in Nasha Niva in 1912. 75 Iakub Kolas’s poem “Novaia ziamlia” was divided into sections: “On the Road to Vilnius,” “Uncle in Vilnius,” and “On Castle Hill.” On the meaning of this poem to the Belarusian national movement, see Ryszard Radzik, “Nowa Ziemia—obraz społeczeństwa w poemacie Jakuba Kołasa (w kontekście Mickiewiczowskiego Pana Tadeusza),” in Białorusini między wschodem i zachodem (Lublin: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2012), 57–70. 76 For example, in Maksim Bahdanovich’s poems “Vulki Vil’ni ziiaiuts i hulka shumiats” (The Streets of Vilnius Are Emerging) and “U Vil’ni” (In Vilnius). 77 Ziazulia, “Pieśnia da Matki Boskaj na miesiac maj,” Biełarus, 1914, no. 18, 1. 78 Biadula’s poem “Kastsiol sv. Anny” (St Anne’s Church).

297

298

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Bahdanovich interpreted the Charging Knight,79 which adorns the wall of Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn, as symbolic of the Belarusian national movement.80 Even Lastoŭski, who in his history of Belarus documented only the “Belarusian-Lithuanian” composition of the population of Vilnius Province but never looked into the issue of who could actually claim “ownership” of Vilnius, placed an article in one of the last issues of Nasha Niva in the feature “Our Cities” (“Nashy harady”),81 following up on an earlier demonstration, under the same rubric, of the “eternal Belarusian identity of Grodna.” And the periodical Biełarus, which was published by Belarusian clergy on the eve of World War I, asserted that “In the palace of the dukes in Vilnius, Belarusian was spoken, because the Lithuanians at that time were, as they are today, an especially small component [in Vilnius].”82

THE IMAGE OF THE TERRITORY OF BELARUS IN POLITICAL PROGRAMS Early in the twentieth century, the Belarusian national movement formed image “of national territory” on the basis of ethnolinguistic and ethnographic criteria. However, the Belarusian intelligentsia, unlike the representatives of other national movements, very rarely raised the issue of ethnographic Belarus as a separate political and territorial unit. The Belarusian Socialist Gramada83 [Gathering] (hereafter, BSG) devoted its primary attention to socioeconomic issues. The BSG’s earliest program documents presented a clear and consistent position on neither the political future of Belarus nor its territorial integrity. For example,

79 80 81 82 83

The coat of arms of the GDL. Maksim Bahdanovich, Pagonia (Minsk: Belaruski fond kul’tury, 2011), 11. J. V. [Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski], “Nashy harady. Vil’nia,” Nasha Niva, 1915, no. 27, 3. Klonowicz, “Nowaja pucina,” Biełarus, 1914, no. 2, 2. The Revolutionary Gramada of Belarus, established in November 1903, was later renamed the “Belaruskaia satsyialistychnaia hramada” (the Belarusian Socialist Gramada). See Mikhas’ Bich and Siargei Rudovich, “Belaruskaia satsyialistychnaia hramada,” in Entsyklapedyia historyi Belarusi (Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 1993), 410.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

the first BSG program spoke of “an independent democratic republic”84 and the second, of “the autonomy of the Belarusian land.”85 However, in neither case were the boundaries of that land defined. The BSG leaflets86 also discussed “the autonomy of Belarus with a parliament in Vilnius”87 stating that each nation should have a “parliament in its own land,” which would be called either “Belarus”88 or “the Belarusian land,”89 or, rarely, “White Rus’.”90 In this context, special attention should be given to one BSG leaflet of 1906, which was issued by the underground Belarusian publisher Gramada in St. Petersburg and clearly defined the territory of “our Belarus” and its borders. It was to encompass “the provinces of Minsk, Magileŭ, and Grodna, and the greater part of the 84 Mikhas’ Stashkevich, “Pytanne belaruskai dziarzhaŭnastsi ŭ pragramakh i dzeinastsi palitychnykh partyi i arganizatsyi ŭ pachatku XX st.,” in Historyia belaruskai dziarzhaŭnastsi ŭ kantsy XVIII–pachatku XXI st. (Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 2011), 246. 85 “Pragrama Belaruskai satsyialistychnai hramady. 1906,” in Historyia Belarusi kantsa XVIII–pachatku XX st.: Ŭ dakumentakh i materyialakh (Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2007), 218. 86 Jury Turonak has divided the leaflets into three groups according to their content. The leaflets of the first group, Shto takoe kanstytutsyia? (What Is a Constitution?), Dalou tsaravu “dumu”! (Down with the Tsar’s “Duma”!), Tsarava duma (The Tsar’s Duma), and Tavaryshchy rabotniki (Comrade Workers), advocated in favor of a constitution. The second group of leaflets, Pervy muzhytski z’ezd (The First Peasant Congress), Bratke gaspadare (Brother Farmers), Da tykh muzhykou, iakiia voziats’ drovy (For the Peasants Who Transport Firewood), and Da usikh rabotnikau i rabotnits dvaravykh, da usikh dzeravenskikh liudzei (For All Workers of the Manor and the People of the Villages), supported agrarian reforms. And the leaflets of the third group Chym tsar ratuetstsa (What Rescues the Tsar), Da saldatau (Soldiers), and Braty khrys’tsiiane (Fellow Christians), promoted social initiative and solidarity. See Jury Turonak, Madernaia historyia Belarusi (Vilnius: Instytut Belarusistyki, 2008), 53. In the opinion of Belarusian historian Anatol’ Sidarevich, some 20 BSG leaflets were issued, the texts of only fifteen of which are known. See Anatol’ Sidarevich, “Da historyi Belaruskai Satsyialistychnai Hramady: Ahliad krynitsaŭ,” Arche 5 (2006), 221–23. 87 “Tavaryshchy rabotniki,” in Tsiotka, Vybrannye tvory (Minsk: Belaruski knihazbor, 2001), 232. 88 For example, in Za svabodu (For Freedom) and Comrade Workers: Tsiotka, Vybrannye tvory, 226, 231–32. 89 For example, in The First Peasant Congress, and For All Workers of the Manor and the People of the Villages: Satsyialistychny rukh na Belarusi u prokliamatsyiakh 1905 godu (Minsk, 1927), 73–74. 90 For example, in Down with the Tsar’s “Duma”!: Tsiotka. Vybrannye tvory, 227–28.

299

300

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

provinces of Vilnius and Vitsiebsk, as well as some parts of provinces of Kaunas, Smolensk, and Chernigiv.”91 Vilnius was seen as the center of the autonomous Belarus, in which a congress of all Belarusians—“our Belarusian . . . Duma”—would convene.”92 Other BSG leaflets, meanwhile, demanded “autonomy for our Belarus and Lithuania” as a single political unit, stressing their common historical heritage and common economic interests. Belarusians, Lithuanians, Poles, and Jews, who “had always lived amicably without any mutual disputes or hatred, were, furthermore, called “our nation.”93 Vilnius was unambiguously seen as the setting for the parliament or “Constitutional Conference.”94 As Lutskevich emphasized later in his memoirs, “[T]he quest for support from our neighbors (except Russia) describes all the political work of the Belarusians after 1905.”95 The early twentieth century Belarusian political discourse was dominated by the idea of re-establishing the GDL, a position that first emerged at the Geneva Conference in April 1905.96 At that conference, its differences with the Polish Socialist Party (Polska partia socjalistyczna) (PPS) on social and economic issues not with standing,97 the BSG signed a joint declaration stating that “the territory of historical Lithuania 91 Chy budze dlia usikh ziamli? (St. Petersburg, 1906), 10. 92 Ibid. 93 “Tavaryshchy rabotniki,” 231. 94 Ibid. 95 Ibid. 96 Representatives of the socialist and social democratic parties of the Russian Empire attended the Geneva Conference (April 2, 1905), at which tactical issues of the common fight were discussed along with Polish autonomy. 97 Jury Turonak thought that serious differences between the PPS and BSG began to emerge in 1903, at which point the PPS was already looking unfavorably on the development of the Belarusian national movement. The BSG, for its part, was speaking out with increasing frequency against a federation with Poland and placing greater value on the idea of the joint Belarusian and Lithuanian autonomy. The BSG was also much more radical in its demands for land reform. In the summer of 1904, on the initiative of the PPS, the Socialist Party of White Rus’ (Satsyialistychnaia partyia Belai Rusi) was founded with the intent of taking over the BSG’s activities. See Jury Turonak, “Uzaemapadchynen’nni PPS z’ belaruskim revaliutsyinym rukham ŭ 1902–1906 hadokh,” in Jury Turonak, Madernaia historyia Belarusi, 61–65; Stashkevich, “Pytanne belaruskai dziarzhaŭnastsi ŭ pragramakh i dzeinastsi palitychnykh partyi i arganizatsyi ŭ pachatku XX st.,” 247–48.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

(Lithuania and Belarus), along with all the nations living in that territory, must be merged into a separate political body.”98 The Belarusian intelligentsia also defended the idea of political autonomy for historical Lithuania at conventions of “autonomists” in Vilnius. 99 The first autonomist convention, on April 22 (May 4), 1905, clearly displayed two opposing positions in regard to Lithuanian political autonomy. The Lithuanian intelligentsia strongly advocated autonomy within the ethnographic borders of Lithuania, in which Lithuanian speakers would dominate. Meanwhile, representatives of the Polish, Jewish, and Belarusian national movements were propounding the concept of the statehood of historical Lithuania.100 Further, the Belarusian representatives (along with Polish and Jewish attendees) were particularly critical of the Lithuanian position. The joint resolutions adopted by the Lithuanian Democrats and Social Democrats known as “The Demands of the Lithuanians” recommended that the Belarusian national movement discuss the possibility of the formation of Belarus as a separate political and territorial entity,101 which was one way in which the Lithuanian intelligentsia sought to defend the concept of a Lithuania within its own ethnographic borders. Additionally, during the first autonomist convention, the representatives of the Lithuanian national movement were claiming that the Belarusian delegation represented only a handful of intelligentsia who did not express all the requirements of most of the “unawakened” Belarusian nation. Those autonomist gatherings signally failed to produce any real practical results.102   98 “Konferencya partyj socyałistycznych i revoliucyjnych państwa rosyjskiego. Deklaracya PPS i BSH (W sprawie deklaracyj polit I),” Przedświt, 1905, nos. 4–5, 176.   99 The issue of Polish autonomy was raised at the first congress of Russian zemstvos (bodies of local self-government) on November 6–9, 1904. The Polish and Lithuanian groups that comprised the “Circle of Vilnius Autonomists” had a particular vested interest in this matter. 100 See Rimantas Miknys, “Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904–1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projektai,” in Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.–XX a. pradžia) (Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991), 190. 101 Also see: “Lietuvių reikalavimai,” Varpas, 1905, nos. 4–5, 73; Miknys, “Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904–1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projektai,” 190. 102 The second autonomist congress adopted a compromise decision that recognized the need to strive for the political autonomy of Lithuania as well as of Belarus.

301

302

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

However, even after the autonomist conventions had brought to light the disagreements between the Lithuanian and Belarusian national movements, the Belarusian Social Democrats were still vigorously discussing the possibility of uniting the Belarusian and Lithuanian Social Democratic parties. The idea, as Lutskevich wrote, was to create “one Social Democratic Party of Belarus and Lithuania, which would have separate autonomous national sections.”103 However, in May 1906, a joint meeting of Lithuanian and Belarusian social democratic groups highlighted how greatly the Belarusian and Lithuanian national movements diverged, specifically on territorial issues. The BSG representatives, as Lutskevich stated in his memoirs, could not concur with the Lithuanian Social Democrats’ position on “assigning parts of the Belarusian provinces of Vilnius and Grodna to ethnographic Lithuania and considering them Lithuanian in an ethnographic sense.” The Belarusian intelligentsia, or at least part of it, must have clearly registered the “overlap” between the ethnic Lithuania advocated by the Lithuanian national movement and the ethnographic Belarus endorsed by the Belarusian national movement. However, they did not venture to turn this issue into a matter of public dispute. Weighing the complications attendant on the formation of the Belarusian national identity and the weakness of the Belarusian national movement itself, they opted for joint autonomy with Lithuania as the best strategy. They were convinced that the Belarusian national consciousness would strengthen within the framework of an autonomous Lithuania, which would later allow them to seek the autonomy of ethnographic Belarus as a separate political and territorial entity. At least some of the BSG program documents of that time and the abovementioned meeting in May 1906 provided excellent venues for the presentation of this delicate hypothesis. Another meeting was to be called in Vilnius “from the whole population of Lithuania and Belarus” to work on their mutual relations and their relations with Russia. In order to convene that meeting it was decided to set up a “Central Office” in Vilnius, made up of two individuals and one candidate from each of the four nationalities involved. 103 Anton Lutskevich, Za dvadtsats piats’ hadoŭ: Uspaminy ab pracy pershykh belaruskikh palitychnykh arhanizatsyiaŭ. Belaruskaia revaliutsyinaia hramada, Belaruskaia satsyialistychnaia hramada (Vilnius, 1928), 33.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

The first Belarusian-language periodicals also reflected the position taken by the Belarusian intelligentsia. For example, the BSG representatives who were responsible for the content of Nasha Dolia (Our Share, 1906), the first legal newspaper in the Belarusian language, saw a need to engage correspondents in what they deemed to be three separate, regions: “from Belarus and Lithuania,” “from Poland,” and “from Russia.” This division of coverage,104 which was also repeated in Nasha Niva, was likely to influence the formation of geo-images. The heading “From Belarus and Lithuania” implied an understanding of Belarus and Lithuania as a single region, linked by a common ­historical past, common economic interests, and a potentially common future. However the editorial boards sought to maintain, and in some cases to emphasize, the distinction between Belarus and Lithuania. In 1907, for example, while presenting a passage from Adam Mickiewicz’s poem “Pan Tadeusz,” the Nasha Niva board explained to readers that the writer considered ­Lithuania to be “our entire Belarusian-Lithuanian land, which had once been the independent GDL.”105 Nasha Niva was thus clearly affirming the claim to the historical heritage of the GDL, which it also considered to be part of Belarus’s “very own” national history.106 At the very same time, however, readers were being encouraged to perceive Belarus and Lithuania as two separate units, although they had been ­associated once, and would possibly be again, in a common political unit. It should be noted that Ulasaŭ, the editor of Nasha Niva—like Lutskevich, who had clearly documented the distinct ethnic composition of Kaunas Province—found it necessary to explain 104 Clearly, the territorial distribution depended primarily on the network of correspondents. And this raises the issue of the Belarusian national movement’s rather limited “spatial practice.” The network of Nasha Niva correspondents mostly covered the provinces of Vilnius, Minsk, and Grodna. The smallest number of correspondents was found in the provinces of Magileŭ, Vitsiebsk, Kaunas, and Smolensk. See Unuchak, “Nasha Niva” i belaruski natsyianal’ny rukh, 65; Leon Wasilewski, Litwa i Białoruś: Przeszłość—teraźniejszość—tendencje rozwojowe (Cracow: Książka i wiedza, 1912), 281; “Naš rachunak za minuły hod,” Nasha Niva, 1911, no. 6, 83–84. 105 “Z ‘Pana Tadeusza’ A. Mickiewicza,” Nasha Niva, 1907, no. 23, 1. 106 Lindner, Historyki i ŭlada, 147–48; Karev, Belorusskaia i ukrainskaia istoriografiia, 105–23.

303

304

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

why they were talking about the “five Belarusian provinces and the province of Kaunas” as an integral whole. In their opinion, the entire territory of five provinces was experiencing the same kind of economic development, which meant that even the leaders of the Belarusian national movement, who were at that time actively cooperating with the krajowcy,107 primarily understood Lithuania and Belarus as two separate territorial entities that differed, as mentioned above, in their populations’ ethnic composition. Yet in political affairs, Lutskevich and Ulasaŭ favored cooperation between the Belarusian and Lithuanian national movements. In 1912 Lutskevich was stressing the need for a political union of Belarus and Lithuania. He was convinced that the autonomy of historical Lithuania would be helpful to the Belarusian national movement for several reasons. First, at that time, he believed that the Belarusian and Lithuanian national movements were starting from similar positions. He was, furthermore, certain that a political union between Belarus and Lithuania would allow traditional economic relations to be maintained and would ensure Belarusian access to the Baltic Sea.108 The leaders of the Belarusian national movement were essentially promoting similar ideas during World War I, advancing programs for confederation within the former territory of the GDL. * * * In the early twentieth century Belarusian national discourse, the image of the “national territory” of Belarus was based on ethnolinguistic and ethnographic criteria. “Belarus” was primarily considered the territory dominated by a population of Belarusian speakers. The Belarusian intelligentsia used earlier scholarly works whose primary attention was devoted to the Belarusian language, determining the Belarusians’ “national territory” by that criterion. The geo-images based on the concept of ethnolinguistic nationalism were considered an important 107 Smalianchuk, Pamizh kraiovastsiu i natsyianal’nai ideiai, 125–80. 108 Ŭladzimir Liakhoŭski, Shkol’naia adukatsyia ŭ Belarusi padchas niameckai akupatsyi (1915–1918 g.) (Vilnius: Belaruskae histarychnae tavarystva, 2010), 33.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

part of the modern Belarusian identity. The “national territory” of Belarus was metaphorically called its “ancestral land” but in historical works was primarily associated with the area inhabited by the Krivichians. Early in the twentieth century, a generalized image of the “national territory” of Belarus, projected into five provinces of the NWR—Grodna, Vilnius, Minsk, Magileŭ, and Vitsiebsk (and more rarely part of Smolensk Province), was already being used in nationalization of the masses. Those provinces were, in fact, called “Belarusian” in the public discourse of the time. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Belarusian national movement essentially began detailing the image of the “national territory” of Belarus on the eve of World War I. At that time, the Belarusian intelligentsia, relying on criteria of not only an ethnolinguistic but also an ethnographic nature, made many efforts to define the Belarusian “national territory” in the provinces of Grodna and Kaunas, and stepped up the symbolic appropriation of the city of Vilnius. The early twentieth-century Belarusian national discourse essentially considered Vilnius Province an ethnic land of the Belarusians. However, the Belarusian intelligentsia’s attempts to attribute either the entire province or its individual districts to the Belarusian “national territory” were powerfully affected by changes in the Belarusian national movement’s claims on Vilnius. At that time, the Belarusian discourse primarily saw Vilnius as the capital of the GDL, the administrative center of “our Belarus and Lithuania,” and a multicultural city. The Belarusian intelligentsia also had a view of Vilnius as the Lithuanians, Poles, Jews, and Belarusians’ “very own.” The Belarusian intelligentsia also worked on “uncovering” Belarusian national culture and features of the Belarusian national movement in that city. That said, the concept of historical Lithuania enjoyed a larger share of the support in the early twentieth century Belarusian political discourse. The Belarusian intelligentsia perfectly understood the weakness of the Belarusian national movement and the complications attendant on the molding of a Belarusian national identity, and was therefore convinced that, in the framework of a Belarusian and Lithuanian political union, the Belarusian national consciousness would, first

305

306

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

and foremost, grow stronger, while normal economic relations and the cultural influence of Vilnius on the Belarusian national movement would be maintained. But, although the leaders of the Belarusian national movement were in no doubt as to the emerging political and territorial disagreements between the Lithuanian and Belarusian national movements, neither the Lithuanian nor the Belarusian intelligentsia undertook to air their territorial disputes in public. The actualization of an “overlap” between ethnographic Lithuania and ethnographic Belarus was of no value to Belarusian nationalism, which instead focused its attention on strengthening the national movement, and directed their efforts toward crafting a political union between Belarus and Lithuania.

Periodicals

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Biełarus, Nasha Niva, Przedświt, Russkii invalid, Varpas, Viltis

Books and Articles Bagushevich, Frantsishak. Dudka biełaruskaja. St. Petersburg, 1907. Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1912 hod. Vilnius: drukarnia Martsina Kukhty, 1912. Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1913 hod. Vilnius: drukarnia Martsina Kukhty, 1913. Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1914 hod. Vilnius: drukarnia Martsina Kukhty, 1914. Belaruski kaliandar “Nashae Nivy”: Na 1915 hod. Vilnius: drukarnia Martsina Kukhty, 1915. Belyi, Ales’. Khronika Belai Rusi: Imagologiia Belarusi XII–XVIII st. Smolensk: Inbel’kunt, 2013. Bich, Mikhas’, and Siargei Rudovich. “Belaruskaia satsyialistychnaia hramada.” In Entsyklapedyia historyi Belarusi, 410–12. Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 1993. Bobrovskii, Pavel. Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossii, sobrannye ofitserami general’nogo shtaba: Grodnenskaia gubernia. St. Petersburg, 1863.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

Chy budze dlia usikh ziamli? St. Petersburg, 1906. Dovnar-Zapolskii, Mitrofan. “Belorusskoe proshloe (Minskii listok, 1888) (Po povodu A. Pypina, pomeshchennykh v “Vestnike Evropy” proshlogo goda).” In Homo historicus 2008: Hadavik antrapalahichnai historyi, 308–91. Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2008. Erkert, Roderik. Vzgliad na istoriiu i etnografiiu zapadnykh gubernii Rossii. St. Petersburg, 1864. Historyia Belarusi kantsa XVIII–pachatku XX st.: Ŭ dakumentakh i materyialakh. Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2007. Historyia belaruskai dziarzhaŭnastsi ŭ kantsy XVIII–pachatku XXI st. Minsk: Belaruskaia navuka, 2011. Gimžauskas, Edmundas. Baltarusių veiksnys formuojantis Lietuvos valstybei 1915–1923 m. Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2003. Karev, Dmitrii. Belorusskaia i ukrainskaia istoriografiia kontsa XVIII– nachala 20-kh gg. XX v.: V processe genezisa i razvitiia natsional’nogo istoricheskogo soznaniia belorussov i ukraintsev. Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2007. Karskii, Evfimii. Belorussy: Vvedenie k izucheniiu iazyka i narodnoi slovesnosti. Vilnius: Tipografiia A. G. Syrkina, 1904. Kaŭka, Aliaksei. “Belaruski natsyianal’na-vyzvalenchy rukh.” In Entsyklapedyia historyi Belarusi, 445. Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 1993. Kazloŭ, Leŭ, and Aliaksandr Citoŭ. Belarus’ na siami rubiazhakh. Minsk: Belarus’, 1993. Khomich, Sergei. Territoria i gosudarstvennye granitsy Belarusi v XX veke: Ot nezavershennoi etnicheskoi samoidentifikatsii i vneshnepoliticheskogo proizvola k sovremennomu Status Quo. Minsk: Ekonopress, 2011. Kolas, Iakub. Novaia ziamlia. Minsk: Belaruski fond kul’tury, 2002. Krutalevich, Vadim. Istoriia Belarusi: Stanovlenie natsional’noi derzhavnosti (1917–1920 gg.). Minsk: Pravo i ekonomika, 2003. Ladyseŭ, Ŭladzimir, and Piotr Brygadzin. Pamizh Ŭskhodam i Zakhadam: Stanaŭlenne dziarzhaŭnatsi i terytaryial’nai tselasnastsi Belarusi. Minsk: Belaruski dziarzhaŭny universitet, 2003. Lastoŭski, Vaclaŭ. Karotkaia historyia Belarusi. Vilnius, 1910.

307

308

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

____. Vybrannyia tvory. Minsk: Belaruski knihazbor, 1991. Liakhoŭski, Ŭladzimir. Shkol’naia adukatsyia ŭ Belarusi padchas niameckai akupatsyi (1915–1918 g.). Vilnius: Belaruskae histarychnae tavarystva, 2010. Lindner, Rainer. Historyki i ŭlada: Natsyiatvorchy pratses i histarychnaia palityka ŭ Belarusi XIX–XX st. Minsk: Bibliateka chasopisa “Belaruski histarychny ahliad,” 2003. Novina, A. [Anton Lutskevich]. “Belorussy.” In Formy natsional’nogo dvizheniia v sovremennykh gosudarstvakh: Avstro-Vengriia, Rossiia, Germaniia, 385–91. St. Petersburg, 1913. Lutskevich, Anton. Za dvadtsats piats’ gadoŭ: Uspaminy ab pracy pershykh belaruskikh palitychnykh arhanizatsyiaŭ. Belaruskaia revaliutsyinaia hramada, Belaruskaia satsyialistychnaia hramada. Vilnius, 1928. Mačiulis, Dangiras, Rimvydas Petrauskas, and Darius Staliūnas. Kas laimėjo Žalgirio mūšį? Istorinio paveldo dalybos Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje. Vilnius: Mintis, 2012. Marcinkiewicz, Wincent. “Pradmowa pierekładca,” in Pan Tadeusz pa polsku napisau Adam Mickiewicz: Na bielaruskuju hutarku pierawiarnuu Wincuk Marcinkiewicz, ii–vi. St. Petersburg, 1907. Mastianitsa, Ol’ga. “Proizvodstvo i reprezentatsiia ‘svoego’ prostranstva belaruskim natsional’nym dvizheniem v nachale XX veka.” Ab Imperio 1 (2015): 175–211. Mazets, Vital’. “Gramadzianstva i mezhy BNR.” Białoruskie zeszyty historyczne 15 (2001): 96–100. Michaluk, Dorota. “Ad moŭnai miazhy da dziarzhaŭnai: etnichnyia mapy Belarusi XIX i pachatku XX stagoddziaŭ.” In Belarus’ i susedzi: histarychnyia shliakhi, uzaemadzenne i uzaemapaŭlyvy, 74–89. Gomel, 2006. ____. Białoruska respublika ludowa 1918–1920: U podstaw białoruskiej państwowości. Toruń: Wydawnictwo naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2010. Miknys, Rimantas. “Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904–1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projektai.” In Lietuvių atgimimo istorijos

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

studijos. Vol. 3, Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.–XX a. pradžia), 175–98. Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991. Pavlova, Tat’iana. “K voprosu o granitsakh BNR.” Belorusskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii 1 (1999): 77–81. Petronis, Vytautas. Constructing Lithuania: Ethnic Mapping in Tsarist Russia, ca. 1800–1914. Stockholm: Stockholm University, 2007. Pypin, Aleksandr. Istoriia russkoi etnografii. Vol. 4, Belorussiia i Sibir’. St. Petersburg, 1892. Radzik, Ryszard. “Nowa Ziemia—obraz społeczeństwa w poemacie Jakuba Kołasa (w kontekście Mickiewiczowskiego Pana Tadeusza).” In Białorusini między wschodem i zachodem, 57–70. Lublin: Wydawnictwo uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2012. Rudling, Per Anders. The Rise and the Fall of Belarusian Nationalism, 1906–1931. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2015. Shiriaev, Evgenii. Belarus’: Rus’ Belaia, Rus’ Chiornaia i Litva v kartakh. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1991. Shtykhaŭ, Hryhoryi. “Histarychnaia heahrafia ŭ pratsakh IX–XII st.” In Dasledchyk historyi trokh narodaŭ M. V. Doŭnar-Zapol’ski (Zbornik navukovykh artykulaŭ i dakumentaŭ), 206–35. GomelRechytsa, 2000. Shybeka, Zachar. “Natsyianal’naia madernizatsyia 19–20 stahoddziiaŭ i iae asnoŭnyia etapy.” Histarychny al’manakh 7 (2002): 48–59. Sidarevich, Anatol’. “Da historyi Belaruskai Satsyialistychnai Hramady: Ahliad krynitsaŭ.” Arche 5 (2006): 221–23. Smalianchuk, Ales’. “Belaruski natsyianal’ny rukh.” Kamunikat. Accessed February 28, 2015. http://kamunikat.org/7988.html. ____. “Belaruskiia simvaly Vil’ni.” In Homo historicus 2009: Hadavik antrapalahichnai historyi, 327–43. Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2010. ____. “Horadnia i haradzentsy 1911–1915 hh. na staronkakh ‘Nashai Nivy,’” In Haradzenski palimpsest 2010: Dziarzhaŭnyia i satsyianal’nyia struktury XVI–XX stst., 407–22. Minsk: Zmitser Kolas, 2011.

309

310

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

____. Pamizh kraiovastsiu i natsyianal’nai ideiai: Pol’ski rukh na belaruskikh i litoŭskikh zemliakh 1864–liuty 1917 h. St. Petersburg: Neŭski prastsiah, 2004. Snyder, Timothy. The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Staliūnas, Darius. Visuomenė be universiteto? Aukštosios mokyklos atkūrimo problema Lietuvoje: XIX a. vidurys–XX a. pradžia. Vilnius: LII leidykla, 2000. Stashkevich, Mikhas’. “Pytanne belaruskai dziarzhaŭnastsi ŭ pragramakh i dzeinastsi palitychnykh partyi i arganizatsyi ŭ pachatku XX st.” In Historyia belaruskai dziarzhaŭnastsi ŭ kantsy XVIII–pachatku XXI st., 246–58. Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 2011. Sudnik, Mikhas’. “Nasovich I. I. Sloŭnik belaruskai movy.” In I. I. Nasovich i iago sloŭnik: Sloŭnik belaruskai movy, 3–11. Minsk: Belaruskaia entsyklapedyia, 1983. Tereshkovich, Pavel. Etnicheskaia istoriia Belarusi XIX–nachala XX v.: V kontekste Tsentral’no-vostochnoi Evropy. Minsk: BGU, 2004. Tokts’, Sergei. “Belarus’ i belorussy: formirovanie voobrazhaemogo soobshchestva.” In Belorussy: natsiia pogranichiia, ed. Aliaksandr Kravtsevich, Ales’ Smolenchuk, and Sergei Tokts’, 98–108. Vilnius: European Humanities University, 2011. Tokts’, Siargei. “Prablemy peryiadyzatsyi belaruskaha natsyianal’naha rukhu 19– pachatku 20 st.” Histarychny al’manakh 7 (2002): 187–91. Tsikhamiraŭ, Andrei. “‘Vilenskae pytanne’ ŭ mizhnarodnykh adnosinakh 1918–1920 hh.” Belorusskii zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii 3 (2002): 37–45. Tsiotka [Pashkevich, Alaiza]. Vybrannye tvory. Minsk: Belaruski knihazbor, 2001. Ts’vikevich, Aliaksandr. “Zapadnorussizm”: Narysy z historyi hramadztskai mysl’i na Belarusi ŭ XIX–pachatku XX v. Minsk: Navuka i tekhnika, 1930. Turonak, Jury. Madernaia historyia Belarusi. Vilnius: Instytut Belarusistyki, 2008.

Between Ethnographic Belarus and the Reestablishment of the GDL

Unuchak, Andrei. “Belaruskaia natsyianal’na-dziarzhaŭnaia ideia ŭ kantsy XIX st.–1917 h.” In Na shliakhu stanaŭlennia belaruskai natsyi: Histaryiahrafichnyia zdabytki i prablemy, 227–58. Minsk: Belaruskaia navuka, 2010. ____. “Nasha Niva” i belaruski natsyianal’ny rukh (1906–1915 hh.). Minsk, 2006. ____. “‘Nasha Niva’ i belorusskoe natsional’noe dvizhenie nachala XX v.” Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis. Mokslo darbai 2 (2011): 172–80. Wasilewski, Leon. Litwa i Białoruś: Przeszłość—teraźniejszość—tendencje rozwojowe. Cracow: Książka i wiedza, 1912.

311

CHAPTER 6

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps Vladimir Levin and Darius Staliūnas Asya Gusinsky was born in 1919 in the town of Nevel’ at the northeastern corner of Vitsiebsk Province (in the same year Nevel was transferred to Pskov Province of the Russian Federation).1 When Asya married David Merimsky, who was born in southeastern Ukraine, in Leningrad in 1936, her mother-in-law Betya used to call her “litvechke” (“Lithuanian Jew” in Yiddish). It is likely that Lithuanian peasants in the core area of ethnic Lithuania hardly believed that people from Pskov Province, situated so far from Vilnius and Kaunas, could be considered to be “from Lithuania” in the twentieth century.2 It is common knowledge today that there exists a Jewish subgroup called Litvaks and that the members of this group are obviously different from other Eastern European Jews: Polish, Galician, Ukrainian, Hungarian, etc.3 Originally, Litvak was a Yiddish word meaning a Jewish person originating from Lithuania (Lita in modern Hebrew pronunciation, Lite in Yiddish and in Ashkenazic Hebrew),4 a Lithuanian   1 We are grateful to Prof. Shaul Stampfer, Prof. Mordechai Zalkin, and Dr. Arkadii Zeltser, who read the chapter and made many valuable suggestions.   2 Asya Gusinsky is the grandmother of the first coauthor; Lithuanian peasants could have been the grandparents of the second coauthor of this chapter.   3 For a discussion of the distinctiveness of Litvaks, see: Mordechai Zalkin, “Lithuanian Jewry and the Concept of ‘East European Jewry’,” Polin 25 (2013): 59–70.   4 Since the chapter deals with Jewish perceptions of Lithuanian geography, we use the Jewish terms Lite [‫ ליטע‬,‫( ]ליטא‬with the exception of Vaad Lita), Zamet [,‫זמוט‬

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Jew. Besides this geographical definition, there are two other definitions of Litvaks. The first one is linguistic: The Litvak is a Jew who speaks Lithuanian or the northeastern dialect of Yiddish, litvish.5 The second definition, which is used more often today, implies that a Litvak is a representative of the “Lithuanian” version of Judaism, characterized by an extremely high level of Talmudic study (exemplified by Lithuanian yeshivas), rationalism, and total rejection of Hasidism.6 This definition is based on religion and equates the Litvaks with the Mitnagdim—a Hebrew word for opponents, used by Hasidim to define their enemies (“Litvak and Mitnaged are almost synonyms,”7 wrote one of the authors of the 1951 memorial volume on Lithuanian Jewry). The identification of the Litvaks with opposition to Hasidism delineates the chronological framework. Hasidism began to spread from its “cradle” in Podolia and Volhynia to other areas of Eastern Europe in the second half of the eighteenth century, a major attack against it came in 1772, and the implication of these facts is that there could be no Litvaks (in the sense of the opponents of Hasidism) before that period. Taking into consideration that the struggle between Hasidim and Mitnagdim in the most important Lithuanian community, Vilnius (Vilna/Vilne in Jewish sources), ended in favor of the latter only at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the ‫זאמעט‬, ‫זאמיט‬, ‫זמיט‬, ‫]זאמוט‬, and Raysn [‫ רייסען‬,‫ ]רייסין‬in transcription. Names of other regions and countries are given in their anglicized forms.   5 See, e.g., “Litvak, though obviously cognate with Lite . . . , actually denotes a Jew from the northeast of the Yiddish language territory”: Uriel Weinreich, “Sábesdiker losn in Yiddish: A Problem of Linguistic Affinity,” Word: Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York 8 (1952): 362n11.   6 See, for instance, Mordechai Zalkin, “Bein gaon le-eglon–morashta ha-tarbutit shel yahadut lita,” Gesher 136 (1997): 73–81; Antony Polonsky, “What Is the Origin of the Litvak? The Legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania,” in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaištijos tradicija ir paveldo “dalybos,” ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis, and Grigorijus Potašenko (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008), 275–81. Dovid Katz supposes that the word Litvak (with the stress on the last syllable) “probably originated as an insult among non-Litvak East European Jews.” Only later it was adopted by the Lithuanian Jews, who moved the stress to the first vowel: Seven Kingdoms of the Litvaks (Vilnius: International Cultural Program Center, 2009), 47.   7 Aharon Zeitlin, “Habad,” in Lite, ed. Mendel Sudarsky, Uriah Katzenelenbogen, and J. Kisin (New York: Kultur-gezelshaft fun litvishe yidn, 1951), 590.

313

314

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

term Litvak in its religious, non-Hasidic connotation could not have appeared earlier.8 How is the region from which the Litvaks came defined? For example, Dov Levin (born 1925 in Kaunas), the prominent historian of Holocaust in the Baltic countries, stuck to a mixed principle of state belonging and Lithuanian ethnic territory. His book, titled The Litvaks, presents Jewish history in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) until the late eighteenth century. Then it speaks about the Lithuanian provinces of the Russian Empire (Kaunas, Vilnius, and Grodna). By the end of the nineteenth century, it concentrates on Kaunas Province alone, and from 1918 on, the Republic of Lithuania.9 Dovid Katz, to the contrary, implemented a linguistic principle and described “Jewish Lithuania” as the area where the northeastern dialect of Yiddish was spoken. Although this area basically coincides with the eighteenth-­ century GDL, it also included Courland, Riga, and the territories lost by the Grand Duchy in the sixteenth century, like Chernigiv and Nizhyn, or in the seventeenth century, like Smolensk.10 In his Atlas of Northeastern Yiddish, Katz demonstrates, however, that the “cultural borders of Jewish Lithuania” do not always coincide with the “dialect borders.” For example, a major center of the culture of Jews in Lithuania, Brest (Brisk in Jewish sources), is situated outside the realm of northeastern Yiddish.11 At the same time, the linguistic borders of Yiddish dialects could have served as signifiers of political entities in popular imagination. An anecdote says that during Soviet-Lithuanian talks in 1920, Shimshon Rozenboym, a Lithuanian representative and prominent Zionist,

  8 See Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, “Lithuania: The Structure and Trends of Its Culture,” Encyclopaedia Judaica Yearbook 1973 (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1973), 121. For the Litvak’s religious principles, see Allan Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997).   9 Dov Levin, The Litvaks: A Short History of the Jews in Lithuania (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2000). 10 Dovid Katz, Lithuanian Jewish Culture (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2004), 19, 55, 58–59. 11 Dovid Katz, Litvish: An Atlas of Northeastern Yiddish, accessed January 12, 2015, http://www.dovidkatz.net/WebAtlas/0_TerritoryLitvish_LinguistCult.htm.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

apparently proposed that those areas where Jews speak “Lithuanian Yiddish” be included in the borders of the new-born Republic of Lithuania.12 It became commonplace in historiography to speak about the “gastronomic” border of Jewish Lithuania. According to the research of Marvin Herzog, those places where Jews ate unsweetened gefilte fish (stuffed fish) and prepared chopped farfl (pellets or flakes of dough) coincided with the area of northeastern Yiddish and the area where Hasidism did not spread.13 This approach, however, seems to be “polonocentric,” since the gefilte fish line only adequately reflects the border between “Poland” and “Lithuania.” The raw data published by Herzog in The Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry shows that “sweet fish was not eaten” in the Kiev area or in large parts of Volhynia and Podolia.14 Thus, the southern “gastronomic border” of “Jewish Lithuania” was not as unambiguous as the western one. Moreover, Jews in the areas heavily dominated by Habad Hasidism (see below) also spoke northeastern Yiddish and seasoned gefilte fish with pepper. The current study aims at understanding the boundaries of “Jewish Lithuania,” Lite, and its subdivisions, as they were perceived by the Lithuanian Jews (and by Jews outside Lithuania) mainly during the “long nineteenth century,” but in order to understand the Jewish mental maps under the tsars, we have to cover earlier periods as well. A certain problem of this research is the fact that Jews did not draw maps and did not write travel guides, formulating and transmitting their geographical perceptions

12 David L. Gold, “Yiddish Linguistic and Jewish Liturgical Boundaries as Determinants of Non-Jewish Political Boundaries?—Shimshn Royznboym and the Boundaries of Interbellum Lithuania,” Jewish Language Review 2 (1982): 59–62. This anecdote implies that from the Jewish perspective, the borders of modern Lithuania were far from being clear. 13 Marvin Herzog, The Yiddish Language in Northern Poland: Its Geography and History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965), 18–19. See also Diane K. Roskies and David G. Roskies, eds., The Shtetl Book: An Introduction to East European Jewish Life and Lore, 2nd ed. (Newark: Ktav Publishing, 1979), 36–41. 14 Marvin Herzog, ed., The Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry, vol. 3 (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2000), 290–93, esp. map 117.

315

316

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

and concepts.15 Therefore, the current study is based on written sources dealing with a variety of matters, but not geography.16 Although those sources are random, sometimes unrepresentative, and lack consistency, they reveal the mental maps of their Jewish authors.

JEWISH AND ITS SUBDIVISIONS IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA The concept and borders of Lite originate from the GDL. The presence of Jews in the Grand Duchy can be dated at least to 1388, when Grand Duke Vytautas granted privilege to the Jews of Brest.17 From the 1560s, as Israel Halpern supposed, Jewish communities in the Grand Duchy were united into a supra-communal organization, Vaad Medinat Lita (Council of the Land of Lithuania; medinah in pre-modern Hebrew means land or state).18 It is not clear if it always was an independent institution or part of Vaad Arba Aratzot (Council of the Four Lands; eretz also means land in Hebrew), which represented

15 A certain change took place in the interwar period; see, for example, Zalman Shik, 1000 yor vilne (Vilnius: Wilno Branch of the Society for Local Studies [landkentnish] in Poland, 1939). However, this guidebook does not include a Jewish perception of geography; it rather presents Vilnius as part of interwar Poland. 16 For systematic search and analysis of Jewish sources, we used the “Online Responsa Project” run by Bar-Ilan University (www.responsa.co.il), the website “Otzar HaHochma” (www.otzar.org), and the website “Hebrew Books” (www.hebrewbooks.org). For search in Hebrew periodicals, we used the website “Early Hebrew Newspapers” (http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/newspapers/index1024.html) and the website “Historical Jewish Press” (http://web.nli.org.il/sites/JPress/Hebrew/Pages/default. aspx). 17 Stanislovas Lazutka and Edwardas Gudavichius [Edvardas Gudavičius], Privilege to Jews Granted by Vytautas the Great in 1388 (Moscow: Gesharim, 1993). On the differences between Polish and Lithuanian Jews before the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, see Maria Cieśla, “Sharing a Commonwealth— Polish Jews or Lithuanian Jews?” Gal-Ed: On the History and Culture of Polish Jewry 24 (2015): 15–44. 18 The pinkas of Vaad Medinat Lita, which was published by Simon Dubnov, started in 1623, but its text mentioned an old pinkas. See Israel Halpern, “Reshito shel vaad medinat lita ve-yahasav el vaad arba aratzot,” in Israel Halpern, Yehudim ve-yahadut be-mizrah-eyropah: mehkarim be-toldoteihem (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968), 48–54. On supra-communal organizations, see Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis (New York: New York University Press, 1993), 103–12.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

the Jewish communities of Poland.19 The independence of Vaad Lita, however, was evident from 1623.20 The preserved pinkas (minutes book) of the Vaad, starting in 1623 and ending in 1761, three years before its dissolution in 1764, was published in full by the famous Russian-Jewish historian Semen Dubnov in 1925.21 The eastern boundary of the territory supervised by Vaad Lita coincided with the border between the Grand Duchy and the Muscovite state because Jews were not allowed to settle in Muscovy.22 The western and southern boundaries of the Vaad’s territory were dependent on the border between the GDL and the Kingdom of Poland. When the Volhynia Voivodship was part of the Grand Duchy, representatives of its major communities participated in the activities of Vaad Lita.23 According to the Union of Lublin in 1569, Volhynia was transferred to the Polish crown and Volhynian Jewish communities became part of the Polish Council of the Four Lands, as a separate land (medinat Volhyn). Presumably, the communities of the Kiev Voivodship also joined the Council of the Four Lands; however, the communities in the Ovruch District (powiat) of that voivodship (including the community of Chornobyl’ [Chernobyl’]) remained in 19 See, e.g., the decision of Vaad Arba Aratzot of 1588, which speaks of “five lands”: Great Poland, Little Poland, Rusia (i.e., Rus Czerwona), Lita, and Volhynia: Israel Halpern, Pinkas vaad arba aratzot (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1945), 4, no. 9. The payments of Vilnius and Tykocin to Vaad Arba Aratzot were mentioned in 1595; ibid., 10, no. 30. See also Shmuel Ettinger, “Vaad arba aratzot” in the second enlarged edition of the Pinkas, ed. Israel Bartal (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1990), xviii–xix; reprinted in Shmuel Ettinger, Bein polin le-rusiyah (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center and Bialik Institute, 1994), 179–80. 20 See the court decision in which Vaad Lita and Vaad Arba Aratzot appear as independent and equal bodies; Halpern, Pinkas vaad arba aratzot, 41–42, no. 109. 21 Shimon Dubnov, ed., Pinkas ha-medina o pinkas vaad ha-kehilot ha-roshiyot be-medinat lita (Berlin: Einot, 1925); Israel Halpern, Tosafot u-miluim le-“pinkas medinat lita” (Jerusalem: Dfus Salomon, 1935). 22 On Jews in Muscovy to the eighteenth century, see Yudit Kalik, “Evreiskoe prisutstvie v Rossii v XVI–XVIII vv.,” in Istoriia evreiskogo naroda v Rossii, ed. Israel Bartal and Alexander Kulik, vol. 1, Ot drevnosti do rannego Novogo vremeni (Moscow: Gesharim–Mosty Kul’tury, 2010), 321–41. 23 According to a page from the old pinkas of the Vaad, found by Halpern and dating to the 1560s, people from Ostroh and Volodymyr-Volyns’kyi represented Vaad Lita at the fair in Lublin; see Halpern, “Reshito shel vaad medinat lita,” 49–51.

317

318

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the jurisdiction of Pinsk, one of the major Lithuanian communities (see below). Only in 1750 were they transferred to the jurisdiction of the Volhynian council.24 The Ovruch area communities’ long-time dependence on Pinsk, combined with Katz’s statement that this area belonged to the realm of northeastern Yiddish25 (i.e., local Jews were migrants from Lite), may point to an interconnection between migration patterns and administrative divisions. Israel Halpern suggested that the dependent communities were initially established by Jews coming from the communities on which they were dependent,26 and the case of Ovruch supports this suggestion. The region of Podlasie was also transferred from the Grand Duchy to the Kingdom of Poland in 1569. However, the transition of Jewish communities from this region to the Council of the Four Lands went less smoothly than in the Volhynian case. Podlasie’s major community, Tykocin (Tiktin in Jewish sources), joined the Council of the Four Lands only between 1582 and 1595, despite the resistance of Vaad Lita. Nonetheless, the struggle continued in the seventeenth century, since the communities of Tykocin and Grodna (Grodno, one of the major communities of Vaad Lita, see below) struggled for control over the smaller towns of Zabłudów, Gródek (Horodok), Choroszcz, and Wasilków, all of them situated in the Kingdom of Poland. The conflict was only resolved completely in 1670, when Vaad Lita agreed that Tykocin and its dependent communities would be under the Council of the Four Lands.27 24 Sergei Bershadskii, “Materialy dlia istorii evreev v iugo-zapadnoi Rossii i Litve,” Evreiskaia biblioteka 8 (1880), third pagination, 18–20, nos. 32–33; Semion Dubnov, “Oblastnye kagal’nye seimy v voevodstve Volynskom i v Belorussii (1666–1764),” Voskhod, April 1894, 30–31. For the Hebrew translation of part of Dubnov’s article about Belarus, see David Maggid, Toldot mishpahot gintzburg (St. Petersburg: D. Maggid, 1899), 168–72. 25 Katz, Litvish. 26 Israel Halpern, “Toldot ha-yehudim be-tiktin,” in Halpern, Yehudim ve-yahadut be-mizrah-eyropah, 142–43. 27 Semion Dubnov, “Akty evreiskogo koronnogo seima ili ‘Vaada chetyriokh oblastei,’” Evreiskaia starina 4, no. 1 (1912): 70–84; Halpern, “Toldot ha-yehudim be-tiktin,” 142–144; Mordechai Nadav, ed., Pinkas kahal tiktin, 1621–1806, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1996), 9, no. 1, 258–67.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

As the cases of Tykocin and Ovruch show, the state borders were not completely decisive for establishment of power relations among Jewish communities, although the tax allotments for which Vaad Lita and the Council of the Four Lands were responsible were made on the basis of state borders of the GDL and the Kingdom of Poland. Even less important were the borders of administrative provinces (voivodships) of the GDL for the internal divisions in Vaad Lita.28 From the very beginning, the Vaad was a coalition of three “major” communities: Brest, Pinsk, and Grodna. Vilnius and Slutsk joined them in 1652 and 1691 respectively, so that during the eighteenth century, there were five major communities, the representatives of which comprised the Vaad. They regularly met and decided communal matters, especially the distribution of state taxes. Initially, all other Jewish communities in Lithuania were dependent on those major ones in fiscal, juridical, and spiritual matters. With time, numerous communities or districts (glilim) became independent from the major communities, but they did not receive representation in the Vaad. Their independence allowed for more “justified” division of

A compromise solution established for five years in 1653 is important for our discussion here: Grodno got control of Zabłudów in the matters of arenda and nomination of the members of the board (kahal), while Tykocin received control of Zabłudów’s rabbinical court and other matters. Notwithstanding the transfer of the communities in question to the Council of the Four Lands in 1670, Vaad Lita held its meetings in Zabłudów in 1676 and 1684. Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 136, 184, 198, 239; Mark Wischnitzer, “Litovskii vaad,” in Istoriia evreiskogo naroda, ed. A. I. Braudo, M. L. Wischnitzer, Iu. Gessen, S. M. Ginzburg, P. S. Marek, and S. L. Tsinberg, vol. 11, Istoriia evreev v Rossii (Moscow: Mir, 1914), 202–3. 28 The following description of the geography of Vaad Lita is based on Pesakh Marek, “Administrativnoe delenie evreiskikh poselenii v Litovskoi oblasti,” in Istoriia evreiskogo naroda, ed. A. I. Braudo, M. L. Wischnitzer, Iu. Gessen, S. M. Ginzburg, P. S. Marek, and S. L. Tsinberg, vol. 11, Istoriia evreev v Rossii (Moscow: Mir, 1914), 206–10 and maps after page 112; Mark Wischnitzer, “Der vaad lite, zayn struktur un di rolye zayne in dem gezelshaflikhen lebn fun di litvishe yidn,” in Lite (1951), 179–82, 190–92. See also Shaul Stampfer, “Some Implications of Jewish Population Patterns in Pre-partition Lithuania,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 38 (1998): 189–223. For maps of administrative division of the territory controlled by the Vaad, see Marek’s maps in Istoriia evreiskogo naroda, 112–13; Levin, The Litvaks, 17; Katz, Lithuanian Jewish Culture, 75; Stampfer, “Some Implications of Jewish Population Patterns,” 222–23.

319

320

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

taxes, since the ruling communities usually tended to levy the largest portion of tax burden on their dependencies. The first region that gained independence from Grodna and Brest rule was Samogitia (Zamet in Jewish sources), whose communities formed a “Samogitian land” (galil/medinat Zamet) in 1626.29 Medinat Zamet included three districts (glilim): Kėdainiai, Biržai, and Vyžūnai (Keydan, Birzh, and Vizhun in Jewish sources). Galil Keydan was the largest and included the communities in the Principality of Samogitia proper.30 In 1752, a conflict arose between Grodna and Kėdainiai about the belonging of Viliampolė (Slobodke), a suburb of Kaunas (Kovna/Kovne in Jewish sources; Kaunas was dependent on Grodna), was decided in a compromise, based on the old decision that defined the Nemunas River as a border between Grodna and Zamet: Fiscal and juridical matters of Slobodka were placed under Grodna control, while control over its spiritual matters (nominations for rabbi, cantor, and beadle) was transferred to Kėdainiai.31 Galil Birzh comprised a relatively small area in the northern part of the Trakai Voivodship (Salantai, Pasvalys, Naujamiestis, Šėta, Pumpėnai, Pakruojis).32 Galil Vizhun included the northern part of the Vilnius Voivodship (Ukmergė, Utena, Braslaŭ, Druja, and Krāslava), as well as some communities in Inflanty. Thus, the boundaries of galil Zamet did not coincide with the borders of the Principality of Samogitia and included areas in the northern part of Lithuania.33 The communities in the Vitsiebsk and Mstsislaŭ (Vitsiebsk and Amchislav in Jewish sources) Voivodships followed suit with Zamet, repelled the rule of Brest, and established an autonomous region known as medinat Rus, Rusia, or Raysn in 1631.34 “Jewish” Raysn seems to be 29 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 21, no. 97. 30 Jurbarkas (Yurbrik in Jewish sources), Plungė (Plungyan), Šiauliai (Shavl), Raseiniai (Raseyn), Kelmė (Kelm), Kražiai (Krozh), Skuodas (Shkud), Rietavas (Riteve), Telšiai (Telz), and Palanga (Palonge). 31 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 262–63, no. 952. 32 In the list of 1626, Biržai was listed along with Zamet, which may indicate that it joined Zamet after this date; Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 21, no. 97. 33 Nevėžis River was the eastern border of the Duchy of Samogitia. 34 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 51, no. 248. On Medinat Rus, see David E. Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews: The Jews of Shklov (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 1–5; I. Trunk, “Der vaad medinas rusiya (raysn),” YIVO Bletter 40 (1956),

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

similar to the non-Jewish term Rus’, applied to the eastern areas of the GDL.35 Medinat Raysn remained united until 1746–1747, when the communities of Shkloŭ and Kopys’ (Shklov and Kopust in Jewish sources) left its jurisdiction and became independent.36 The minutes book of Vaad Lita allows for reconstructions of perceptions of the GDL as seen by the heads of Jewish communities. Thus, in 1627, the Vaad decided to send inspectors through “the whole eretz Lite and Rus and Niz.”37 Niz (low country in Slavic languages) did not appear again in the minutes after 1627,38 while Rus/Raysen and Zamet were constantly mentioned in the following years.39 From 1695 on, the order of 63–85; Pesakh Marek, “Belorusskaia sinagoga i ee territoriia,” Voskhod (May 1903): 71–82; Dubnov, “Oblastnye kagal’nye seimy,” 33–41. The Jewish name Raysn originates from the German name Reußen (see Alexander Beider, “Eastern Yiddish Toponyms of German Origin,” Leket: Yiddish Studies Today, ed. Marion Aptroot, Efrat Gal-Ed, Roland Gruschka, and Simon Neuberg (Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press, 2012), 459). It was probably first applied to Rus’ Czerwona with its center in Lviv (Lwów, Lemberg), part of the Kingdom of Poland, and from there was borrowed by Lithuanian Jews to signify the eastern areas of the GDL. 35 Viacheslaŭ Nasevich and Mikhail Spirydonaŭ, ‘“Rus’ u skladze Vialikaha kniastva Litoŭskaha ŭ 16 st.,” Z hlybi viakoŭ. Nash krai: Hist. kul’turalah, no. 1 (Minsk, 1996), 4–27; Mikhail Spiridonov, “‘Litva’ i ‘Rus’ v Belarusi v 16 v.,” Nash radavod, no. 7 (1996): 206–11. According to Spiridonov, the approximate western border of Rus’ was similar to the western border of the Vitsiebsk Voivodship. At the same time, he noted that the concept of Rus’ was not a very stable one; a certain place could sometimes be attributed to Lithuania and sometimes to Rus’. See also Oleg Dziarnovich, “‘Litva’ i ‘Rus’ XIII–XVI vv. kak kontsepty belorusskoi istoriografii,” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 2009, nos. 1–2, 239–49. 36 Sergei Bershadskii, Litovskie evrei: Istoriia ikh iuridicheskogo i obshchestvennogo polozheniia v Litve ot Vitovta do Liublinskoi unii (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia M. M. Stasiulevicha, 1883), 40n76. 37 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 30, no. 125. 38 Dubnov wrote that Niz was “the settlements in the low country on the bank of the River Dnepr known as Palesse (Pinkas ha-medina, xxix). Marek, by contrast, explained Niz as “Jewish colonies spread on the left bank of the River Dnepr,” which was later annexed by Russia (Marek, “Administrativnoe delenie,” 206). According to the “Suplikacja” of Orthodox nobility in 1623, “Ponizowie” included the southeastern area of today’s Belarus: the towns of Krychaŭ, Chachersk, Propojsk (today Slaŭharad), Ragachoŭ, Gomel, and Rechytsa, as well as Oster and Lubech, which are in today’s Ukraine. See Oleg Łatyszonek, Od rusinów białych do białorusinów: U źródeł białoruskiej idei narodowej (Białystok: Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, 2006), 134. 39 See, e.g., Halpern, Tosafot u-miluim, nos. 13–14 (1673) and 28 (1687).

321

322

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

appearance of the communities and districts in the tax lists compiled by the Vaad became permanent: the five “major” communities (Brest, Grodna, Pinsk, Vilnius, and Slutsk), medinat Rus, medinat Zamet, and after them, all other independent communities and districts.40 From 1713 on, medinat Zamet disappeared from the lists and was substituted by its three glilim, Kėdainiai, Vyžūnai, and Biržai, listed immediately after medinat Rus.41 This may point to the end of cooperation between those glilim and their independent standing in front of the Vaad. However, the concept of medinat Zamet continued to exist—the 1731 tax list reads: “medinat Zamet, that is, galil Keydan and Birzh and galil Vizhun.”42 The geographical structure of Vaad Lita, which emphasized the existence of two separate regions, Zamet and Rus/Raysn, determined the Jewish perception of Lithuania and its subdivisions after the dissolution of the Vaad in 1764, throughout the late eighteenth century, nineteenth century, and early twentieth century. Additional subdivision of Jewish Lithuania was a consequence of the third partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795. While most of the territory of the GDL was annexed by the Russian Empire, a small part was seized by Prussia. In 1807, those lands became part of the French-dominated Grand Duchy of Warsaw and in 1815, along with the Grand Duchy, were annexed by Russia. These former Lithuanian lands formed Augustów Voivodship (from 1837—province) and after the administrative-territorial reform in 1867, ethnic Lithuanian lands became part of Suwałki Province. Thus, being administratively a part of the Kingdom of Poland, the largest part of Suwałki Province clearly belonged to Lithuania in an ethnic and cultural sense: the majority of the Christian population there was Lithuanian, and local Jews saw themselves as part of Lithuanian Jewry. This ambiguous 40 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 235, no. 902; Halpern, Tosafot u-miluim, nos. 43–45, 48, 55–57, 59, 60. See also Polish tax lists of 1717, mentioning the five major communities, then “Kahały Białoruskie,” and after that other communities and regions; Volumina regum, vol. 6 (St. Petersburg, 1860), 183–84, nos. 353, 356. 41 Halpern, Tosafot u-miluim, nos. 60, 62, 63, 71, 74, 77–81, 87, 88 (1721); Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 258, no. 948 (1752). See also the Polish tax lists of 1717: “Kahały Keydańskie, Kahały Wiżuńskie/Wyzuńskie, Kahały/Kahał Birżańskie/Bierzański”; Volumina regum, 6: 183–84, nos. 353, 356. 42 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 255, no. 946.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

situation was even described in poetical form by Yosef Gibianski, a native of the tiny town of Lipsk, near Augustów. In a small Hebrew poem published in 1876, Gibianski complained that when he lived in “Russia,” he was called a Polak, that is, a Polish Jew, but when he settled in Warsaw, people called him a Litvak. “How can I know what my name is?” exclaimed the author and reprimanded his “proud” Polish coreligionists that he and they together “are blessed by the name Jew.”43

JEWISH ADAPTATION TO THE IMPERIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MAP As mentioned before, the borders of voivodships in the GDL had little impact on the Jewish population. The Polish-­Lithuanian Commonwealth was a feudal corporate state in which ad­min­istrative divisions played a minor role in the governmental system; the belonging of a certain town to a magnate or a crown and the rights bestowed on corporative groups of a population or individuals were much more decisive. Therefore, the internal divisions of Vaad Lita did not coincide with voivodships’ territories. By contrast, the Russian Empire was a bureaucratic state ruling through a hierarchically organized administrative apparatus that directly influenced the wellbeing of the local population. Therefore, the Jewish mental map changed in the nineteenth century. The traditional Jewish geographical perceptions of the Lite, Raysn, and Zamet regions were adapted to the imperial territorial-­administrative divisions and/or the names given by the imperial government. Lite in a broader sense became equal to the NWR of six provinces (Kaunas, Vilnius, Grodna, Minsk, Vitsiebsk, and Magileŭ). Lite was also a part of the Pale of Settlement—the area of fifteen western provinces of the empire where the settlement of Jews was permitted. Thus, the Jewish mental map of the empire contained a clear border that was not seen by 43 Yosef Gibianski, “Ma shmi ki eda? o ha-mit’onen mi-pelekh suvalk,” Ha-maggid 9 (March 1, 1876): 78. The family name Polak or Polyak was most common in Lite and in the area of Kiev. See Alexander Beider, A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire: Revised Edition (Bergenfield: Avotaynu, 2008), 717. The family name Litvak, by contrast, appeared mostly in Russian Ukraine and Galicia; Beider, A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire, 588; Alexander Beider, A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from Galicia (Bergenfield: Avotaynu, 2004), 361.

323

324

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

non-Jews: the Pale on the one hand and so-called interior Russia where Jewish settlement was restricted. The adaptation to the imperial territorial-administrative divisions is clearly seen in the organization of financial support for the Jewish settlement in Palestine. As the consequence of aliyah (immigration) to the Land of Israel by Belarusian Hasidim in 1777 and by Vilna Gaon disciples in 1800, special organizations under the name Kolel emerged for fundraising in Eastern Europe and distribution of money to Jews living in Palestine. In the beginning, there were two separate systems for financial support, Hasidic and Mitnagdic. Initially, all non-Hasidic Ashkenazim belonged to Kolel Prushim, established in the 1810s (Prushim is the name of a trend in the Judaism of the Second Temple period that was adopted by the non-Hasidic immigrants to the Land of Israel). When in 1828, the heads of the Kolel needed to name countries in Europe from which they hoped to receive support, they used traditional geography: “Volhynia, Ukraine, Polesie, Podlasie, Lite, Raysn, Zamet, Courland, Infland [sic], Prussia, Great Poland, Little Poland.”44 From the 1840s to the 1860s, Kolel Prushim split into several smaller Kolelim, already defined according to the administrative divisions of the Russian Empire. Its direct successor was Kolel Vilne, or Vilne-Zamet-Kurland;45 in the late nineteenth century, it collected funds in Vilnius, Kaunas, Courland, and Lifland provinces. Kolel Varshe (the Jewish name for Warsaw) was established in 1850 in order to provide support to the emigrants from the Kingdom of Poland. Kolel Grodna appeared in 1851 and organized fundraising in Grodna Province. Kolel Raysn disengaged from Kolel Prushim in 1860 and united the natives of Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces, while its center was situated in Shkloŭ or Magileŭ (Molev in Jewish sources). Kolel Minsk was established about the same time for fundraising in Minsk Province, and Kolel Suvalk and Lomzha with an 44 Shabtai D. Rozental, ed., Aderet eliyahu: Sefer zikaron (Jerusalem: Mif’al aderet eliyahu, 1991), 255. 45 This name was used in 1877; see Reuven Margoliot, “Mikhtav galui,” Havatzelet 24 (March 3, 1877): 180; and in 1891; see Yehoshua Ben-Arie, Ir be-re’i ha-tkufa: yerushalayim ha-hadashah be-reshita (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Tzvi, 1979), 269.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

organizational center in Szczuczyn split from Kolel Varshe in 1867. Some of these large Kolelim continued to split into smaller ones.46 The reason for those splits was the desire to improve the financial situation of Jews living in Palestine. In some cases, it was believed that European Jews would donate more willingly if they knew that their donations were intended exclusively for the support of their fellow compatriots. In other cases, the donations from certain geographical areas were quite sufficient to support a few immigrants from those areas, and they did not want to share with others. Thus, the splits demonstrate that Jewish perceptions of geographical areas in the mid-nineteenth century already fit with the imperial administrative divisions. Zamet was defined as Kaunas Province, Raysn as Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces; and the non-Hasidic regions in Congress Poland were spelled out as Suwałki and Lomża provinces. Kolel Hasidim also did not remain united, but the splits among its members were based on affiliations to the dynasties of Hasidic leaders. These affiliations, however, implied strong regional dimensions, and it was the Lithuanian and Belarusian Hasidic courts that established their own support systems: Kolel Habad in 1827, Kolel Karlin (Karlin is a suburb of Pinsk) in 1875, Kolel Libashev (Liubeshiv in Ukrainian Polesie, very close to Belarus), and Kolel Koydanov (today Dziarzhynsk in Minsk Province) in the following years (on Lithuanian and Belarusian Hasidism, see below).47 Imperial administrative divisions entered the Jewish folk culture as well. The most striking example is a folksong speaking about a Jew writing two letters to a leader of Habad Hasidism. The song starts with an address: “Uv mestechko Lyadenyu, a pintele, Mogilyovskoy gubernyu, 46 Kolel Slonim split from Kolel Grodno in 1866 (small towns around Slonim donated to Kolel Vilne) and Kolel Pinsk split from Kolel Minsk in 1878. See Avraham Moshe Luntz, “Ha-halukah: mekora, koroteha ve-hishtalsheluteha,” in Yerushalayim: ma’asef sifruti le-hakirat eretz ha-kodesh, ed. Avraham Moshe Lunts, 9 (1911): 18, 35–36; Avraham Moshe Luntz, Luah eretz israel (Jerusalem: A. M. Luntz, 1901), 168–71; cited in Menahem Friedman, Hevra be-mashber legitimatsiyah: ha-yishuv ha-yashan ha-ashkenazi, 1900–1917 (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2001), 136–38. 47 Shalom Duber Levin, Toldot habad be-eretz ha-kodesh (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1985), 44–45; Friedman, Hevra be-mashber legitimatsiyah, 136–38.

325

326

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

a pintele, Dukhovnomu rabinu Shneyersonu” (To shtetl Liady, a period, Magileŭ Province, a period, to the spiritual rabbi Shneersohn). As Evgeniia Khazdan showed, there also existed a Hasidic niggun (religious song) that contained only the address.48 Thus, the Jewish sacral center Liady, where the founder of Habad Hasidism, Rabbi Shneur Zalman (1745–1812), lived in the beginning of the nineteenth century (and his descendants Haim Shneur Zalman and Yitzhak Duber lived in the late nineteenth century), has been embedded into the imperial administrative nomenclature, Magileŭ Province. Those songs also point to the fact that communication, especially through the postal service, played an important role in the adoption of official administrative borders.

LITE IN RABBINIC LITERATURE The first mention of Lithuania in the rabbinic literature is a responsum (an answer to a Halakhic question) by the fifteenth-century German rabbi Israel Isserlein (1390–1460), who stated that “it is rare for our people from Germany to go to Lithuania [‫]ליטוא‬.”49 However, this mention does not include any definition of Lithuania. Later rabbinic responsa usually referred to the borders of Lite, as well as to its subdivision, when discussing the issue of an agreement of 100 rabbis from “three countries” for allowing divorce without consent of the wife and the issue of different pronunciations of Jewish names written in a divorce letter, a get. According to Halakhah, in certain situations, a married Ashkenazi Jew could marry a second wife without divorcing the first one, with the 48 Evgeniia Khazdan, “Dva ‘pis’ma’ k Rebe,” Zhivaia Starina 69, no. 1 (2011): 16–19. The songs probably combine a reference to the famous Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, who did not bear the family name Shneersohn and in whose time the term “spiritual rabbi” did not exist, with a reference to his less famous great-grandchild, Rabbi Haim Shneur Zalman Shneersohn (1814–79), who settled in Liady in 1869. 49 Israel Isserlein, Psakim u-khtavim (Venice: M. A. Iushtinian, 1546), no. 224, fol. 61v; Herman Rosenthal, “Lithuania,” in Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 8 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904), 119; Dovid Katz, “The Concept of Lithuania in Modern Yiddish and Hebrew Literature,” in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir paveldo “dalybos” ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis, and Grigorijus Potašenko (Vilnius: Vilniaus Universiteto leidykla, 2008), 173, 196.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

agreement of 100 rabbis from “three countries” (medinot).50 Therefore, the question was asked how to define those “three countries”: Were they three independent states or three different regions in one state? The most prominent rabbis of the nineteenth century decided that Jews in three countries should be different in their “custom, the nature of their body and mind,” while the political power was not important.51 Therefore, many Lithuanian rabbis of the late nineteenth century used to view Lite, Zamet, and Raysn as fitting the definition of “three countries.” Rabbi Itzhak Elhanan Spector of Kaunas (1817–1896) explained: “three different countries, as Lite and Zamet and Poland or Raysn.”52 Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein (1829–1908), the author of a famous code Arukh Ha-Shulhan, wrote that “three countries” could be in the same state, like Lite, Raysn, and Zamet.53 None of them specified what the real differences between those “countries” were, taking the distinction between them for granted. 50 Such situations are when the wife was mentally ill and therefore could not consciously accept the divorce letter, the get, or when the wife behaved so “badly” that it was impossible to live with her and she refused to accept the get. For the broadest presentation of this issue, see “Herem de-rabenu gershom,” in Entsiklopediyah talmudit, vol. 17 (Jerusalem: Entsiklopediyah talmudit, 1983), 378–451. 51 Moshe Sofer (1762–1839), Hatam sofer, Even ha-ezer, pt. 1, no. 4 (Bratislava, 1854). He thought that the “state of Poland-Galicia,” the state of Hungary, and the “state of Austria” to be three countries, notwithstanding that they were under the same kaiser. See also Haim Halberstamm of Tzanz (1797–1876), Divrei haim, Even ha-ezer, pt. 2, no. 41 (Mukacheve: P. Bleier, 1877). Halberstamm considered “medinat Polin” (i.e., Galicia, “Russian Poland,” and Ukraine) as one country; Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia as one country; and Turkey as one country. 52 Itzhak Elhanan Spector, Ein itzhak, pt. 2 (Vilnius, 1895), Even ha-ezer, no. 57 (Vilnius: Sh. I. Finn, A. Tz. Rozenkranz, M. M. Shriftzetzer, 1895). Spector was born in Ros’, studied in Vaŭkavysk, served as the rabbi of Izabelin, Biaroza (Bereza Kartuska), Niasvizh, and Navahrudak, and from 1864 until his death as the rabbi of Kaunas. 53 Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, Arukh ha-shulhan, Even ha-ezer, no. 1, pt. 25 (Piotrków: M. Tzederbaum, 1905). He also wrote that people used to make the endeavor easier and allowed the collection of opinions of 100 rabbis from three districts (mahozot) of one medinah, “called gubernies.” Epstein was born in Babruisk, and from 1854 served as the rabbi of Novozybkov and from 1864 succeeded Itzhak Elhanan Spector as the rabbi of Navahrudak. See a similar discussion of “countries” (Lite, Raysn, Zamet) by Rabbi Arie Leib Tzintz of Plock, in the context of permissions to publish the same books in different countries; Rozental, Aderet eliyahu, 144.

327

328

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Apparently, this approach was widespread in Lithuania. Thus, Yakov Halevi Lipshitz (1838–1921), who later became a secretary for Rabbi Itzhak Elhanan Spector, when he was sent to collect signatures of 100 rabbis in the 1860s, considered “Zamet, Lite, and Poylen” as “three countries.” According to Lipshitz, Zamet was equal to Kaunas Province, Lite was equal to Vilnius and its surroundings (i.e., Vilnius Province), and Poylen to Kalvarija and other towns of Suwałki Province in the Kingdom of Poland.54 In this way, Lipshitz adopted borders drawn by the imperial authorities, applied them to the traditional Jewish geography, and significantly shortened his travel expenses. By contrast, Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim (1843– 1905) of Panevėžys thought that Jews in the “three countries” should be different in their “mind and nature” and “pronunciation and language” (be-da’atam u-ve-tiv’am, be-mivta’m u-leshonam). Therefore, he considered Lite and Zamet the same country, since the Jews there did not differ in their pronunciation and language, and he proposed in 1898 to collect rabbinic opinions from the vicinity of Warsaw, from Courland, and from Volhynia or Ukraine—all the areas juxtaposed with Lite and Zamet.55 Rabbis outside Lithuania, however, did not pay attention to the subdivisions of Lite and compared it with neighboring regions, especially Volhynia and Poland. Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathansohn (1810–1875) of Lemberg (Lwów, Lviv), for instance, saw Lite and Volhynia as different countries, “notwithstanding that they are not divided by language.”56 The Hasidic Rebbe of Sochaczew in Poland, Avraham Borenshtein (1838–1910), stated in his responsum that “three countries”

54 Yaakov Halevi Lipshitz, Zikhron yaakov, vol. 2 (Kaunas: Notel Lipschitz, 1927), 60. See also a letter from Prienai in Suwałki Province titled “Pren in Poland,” Ha-maggid 19 (May 17, 1871): 9. 55 Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, Ma’aneh eliyahu (Jerusalem: Merkaz Shapiro, 2003), no. 98. Rabinowitz-Teomim, known by the acronym ADeReT, was born in Pikeliai in Samogitia, served as the rabbi of Panevėžys (Ponevezh in Jewish sources) in 1875–93, the head of the yeshiva in Mir in 1893–99, and as a rabbi in Jerusalem in 1901–1905. 56 Yosef Shaul Natanzon, Sho’el u-meshiv (Lviv: Salat, 1865), pt. 1, no. 12.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

could be under the same king, like Poland, Lite, and Volhynia.57 Quite differently, Rabbi Haim Elazar Shapiro (1868–1937), the Rebbe of Munkać (Mukacheve) in Carptho-Rus’, far away from the Russian Empire, regarded the Jews of “Lite and Russia” as different in their natures and thoughts from the Jews of the “provinces of Warsaw” and therefore considered Lite and Russia (i.e., the whole Pale of Settlement) as one country and the Kingdom of Poland as another one.58 The second question in which rabbis pointed to differences between Lite and other regions was the question of pronunciation. According to Halakhah, the names and their diminutives in the divorce letter, the get, must be spelled exactly as they were pronounced. Therefore, many rabbis prepared lists of names as they should be written in the get, while others stressed the differences in pronunciation and spelling between various regions.59 Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein in his Arukh Ha-Shulhan stated that the personal names in Lite, Raysn, and “Little Russia” (meaning the region at the left bank of the Dnepr) were pronounced similarly, while in Volhynia, Podolia, and parts of medinat Ukraina (probably meaning Kiev Province and Novorossiia), as well as in Poland, the pronunciations were different.60 He also mentioned small differences in the diminutive forms of names between Lite and Raysn.61 Rabbi Menahem Mendl Schneersohn of Lubavich (1789–1866) stressed that the name Ida was pronounced in Kaunas and in medinat Lite as Ida (‫)אידא‬, while in Zlatopol in Ukraine, it was pronounced Idya

57 Avraham Borenshtein, Avnei nezer, Even Ha-Ezer (Piotrków: H. Folman, 1926), no. 9. 58 Elazar Shapiro, Minhat elazar, pt. 1, no. 16 (Mukacheve: Sh. Z. Kahana and E. Fried, 1902). 59 For example, Barukh Zilberfarb, Minhat barukh (Zhytomyr: I. Kiselman, 1900) pays special attention to the differences in pronunciation of names in Lite (Lite and Zamet, page 90) and in Volhynia, where he lived. 60 Epstein, Arukh ha-shulhan, Even ha-ezer, no. 129. 61 In Raysn, in contrast to Lite, the diminutives Lyoma (‫ )ליאמא‬and Lema (‫ )לעמא‬were used for Avraham, and Lyov (‫ )ליאוו‬was used for Leib; see Epstein, Arukh ha-shulhan, Even ha-ezer (“Names of Men and Women”; para. “Names of Men”).

329

330

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

(‫ )אידיא‬and therefore invalidated a get written in Kaunas.62 Rabbi Avraham Tzvi Hirsh Eisenstadt of Utena (1813–1868) stressed that in Lite and Zamet, the name Ita should be spelled only with i (‫)יטא‬, while in other places, it should be written with yu (‫ יוטל‬,‫)יוטא‬.63 The Lithuanian rabbi Itzhak Blazer (1837–1907) underlined the difference in pronunciation of the name Hirsh: In Lite, people said Hirsh (‫ )הירש‬and in Poland, Hersh (‫)הערש‬.64 The Polish Rabbi Israel Yehoshua Trunk (1821–1893) wrote that the name Issachar was spelled in Lite with two letters shin and the diminutive of the name Itzhak was spelled Ichya (‫ )איציא‬and not Itsha (‫)איטשא‬.65 The previously mentioned Avraham Borenshtein of Sochaczew even discussed the spelling of the city name of Paris, to be written in a get, and mentioned that it was pronounced in Lite with s at the end, while in Poland, it was pronounced with z.66 No mention of the most known feature of the Lithuanian Yiddish, namely, the pronunciation of the consonant sh as s, has been found yet in the responsa (digitized by the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project).67

RAYSN AND ITS MEANING The region of Rus, which later became known as Raysn, appeared in the pinkas of Vaad Lita in 1623.68 Its name was certainly a reflection of the region of Rus’ or Belarus’ (White Rus’) in the GDL. 69 The equality of 62 Menahem Mendl Schneersohn, Tzemah tzedek (Vilnius: Widow and Brothers Romm, 1884), Even ha-ezer, no. 233. 63 Abraham Tzvi Hirsch Eisenstadt, Pithei teshuvah (Vilnius, 1836) (“Names of Men and Women”; para. “Names of Women”). Eisenstadt was born in Białystok and served as the rabbi of Utena. 64 Itzhak Blazer, Pri itzhak, pt. 2 (Jerusalem: Solomon, 1913), no. 41. 65 Israel Yehoshua Trunk, Yeshuot malko (Piotrków: H.H. Folman, 1927), Even ha-ezer, nos. 59, 87. See also the responsum of Rabbi Haim Halberstamm of Tzanz (Nowy Sącz) in Galicia, which mentioned that the name Maliya (‫ )מליא‬sounds similar to the Lithuanian pronunciation of the name Malka, Divrei haim, Even ha-ezer, pt. 1, no. 79. 66 Borenshtein, Avnei nezer, Even ha-ezer, no. 148. 67 On this dialect feature, see Uriel Weinreich, “Sábesdiker losn in Yiddish,” 360–77. 68 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 17, no. 89. 69 Ales’ Belyi, Khronika Belai Rusi: Narys historyi adnoi heahrafichnai nasvy (Minsk: Entsyklapedyks, 2000). The term Belarus spread in more or less the same time in Muscovy and documents written by Orthodox people in the GDL in the seventeenth century.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Raysn with Belarus was already evident in the early eighteenth century. The Polish documents concerning Jewish taxes constantly substituted the name medinat Raysn with “Kahały Białoruskie;”70 the name Belarusian Synagogue was also applied.71 In 1813, both terms appeared in one sentence in a letter by Rabbi Dov Ber Schneersohn of Lubavich (1773– 1827) that described the flight of his family from Napoleon’s army heading toward Moscow. He quoted his father, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, as crying: “All of Byele rusia will be devastated during the return of the enemy [Napoleon], and this is payment for the destruction by Khmelnitski, which did not happen in Raysn and Lite, only in Volhynia and Ukraine.”72 In 1865, a Hebrew author belonging to the maskilic milieu of Vilnius, drew a linguistic border between “Lithuanian” and “Volhynian” Yiddish: “the first is spread in Courland, Great Poland, Zamet, Lite, and White Russia [rusiyah ha-levanah].”73 Thus, he substituted the name Raysn, usual in such enumerations, with a translation of the non-Jewish name Belarus. The identification of Raysn with Belarus made the borders of the first dependent on the definition of the latter, which changed with time. Thus, in the 1623 lists of communities subordinated to Brest, “the settlements of Rus” apparently included Vitsiebsk, while Magileŭ and Orsha were mentioned separately.74 Later in the seventeenth century, Magileŭ and Orsha were included in medinat Raysn, and their

70 Volumina regum, vol. 6 (St. Petersburg, 1860), 183–84, nos. 353, 356 (1717); Akty izdavaemye vilenskoiu komissieiu dlia razbora drevnikh aktov, vol. 29 (Vilnius: Russkii pochin, 1902), 404–6, no. 207 (1717); Arkheograficheskii sbornik dokumentov otnosiashchikhsia k istorii severozapadnoi Rusi, vol. 3 (Vilnius: Tip. Gub. Prav., 1867), 219–21, nos. 89, 90. 71 See, for example, Bershadskii, Litovskie evrei, 40, no. 76; Arkheograficheskii sbornik, 3: 220, no. 90. 72 Igrot kodesh me-et k”k admo”r ha-zaken, k”k amo”r ha-emtza’i, k”k admo”r ha-tzemah tzedek (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1987), 243. In the same place, Rabbi Shneur Zalman juxtaposed Belarus and Little Russia. 73 “Erev rav,” Ha-karmel 12 (January 20, 1865): 99. According to the author, Volhynian Yiddish exists in “Ukraine, Little Russia, New Russia, Tavrida, and Bessarabia.” 74 Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 17, no. 89.

331

332

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

names disappeared from the pinkas of Vaad Lita.75 Polatsk, on the other hand, never belonged to medinat Raysn.76 After the First Partition of Poland-Lithuania in 1772, the name Raysn began to be applied to the entire territory annexed by the Russian Empire, which included Magileŭ and Polatsk (later, Vitsiebsk) provinces. Letters from Hasidic leaders of the area, Rabbis Menahem Mendel of Vitsiebsk (1730–1788) and Avraham of Kalisk (1741–1810), who immigrated to the Land of Israel in 1777, testify about this change. Thus, a letter of 1778 addressed the Hasidim of “Volhynia, and Lite, and Raysn,” marking three distinct regions but not reflecting the modification of the political map.77 A 1784 letter about an appointment of a local leader, however, was already designated to the Hasidim in medinot Rusia only and it rejected the possibility that Hasidim in Raysn would be led by tzadikim from Volhynia and Lite.78 Other known Hasidic letters from the Land of Israel in the 1780s were addressed to the Hasidim in Raysn/Rusia only,79 and in the 1790s, Avraham of Kalisk used to write to the Hasidim “in Rusia and its vicinity in Polania”80 (by Polania, he probably meant the Polish-Lithuanian state). A decade after the Third Partition, when the rest of the GDL was also annexed to the Russian Empire, a letter by Rabbi Avraham in 1806 was again addressed 75 Several towns with the addition of “in Raysn” were mentioned in sources other than the pinkas of Vaad Lita. In the seventeenth century, these were Haloŭchyn, not far from Magileŭ; Yoel Sirkis, Shu”t bait hadash ha-hadashot (Korets, 1785), no. 60—and Bykhaŭ; Yehuda Leib Pukhovitzer, Kne hokhmah (Frankfurt am Oder: Jochanan Christoph Beckman, 1681), fol. 4; in the eighteenth century, Magileŭ, Drybin, Bykhaŭ, Gory Gorki, and Kholmech (not far from Rechytsa); Maggid, Toldot mishpahot gintzburg, 239–41; and Krichaŭ and Kopys’; Yehuda Leib Gintsburg, Amudei olam (Amsterdam: Joseph Dayan, 1730), 2. 76 When Vaad Lita in 1655 defined tax rules for refugees from “medinat Rus,” it mentioned separately that the same rules applied to the people from Polatsk; Dubnov, Pinkas ha-medina, 120, no. 505. 77 Avraham Yaari, Igrot eretz israel (Tel Aviv: Gazit, 1943), 317; Yaakov Barnai, Igrot hasidim me-eretz israel (Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Tzvi, 1980), 62–63. 78 Barnai, Igrot Hasidim me-eretz israel, 104, 108. 79 Letters of Shlomo Zalman Ha-Cohen of Vilnius (1786, 1787), Tzvi Hirsh of Gorki (1789), and Eliezer Zusman (1789): Barnai, Igrot hasidim me-eretz israel, 133, 160, 206–7, 209. 80 Barnai, Igrot hasidim me-eretz israel, 212, 217, 219, 225. In 1805, Rabbi Avraham wrote to “Rusia and vicinity,” Barnai, Igrot hasidim me-eretz israel, 262.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

to the Hasidim in “medinat Lite and Raysn,” as well as a letter informing them about his death in 1810.81 Apparently, during the nineteenth century, the imagined border of Raysn “moved” further west to include part of Minsk Province, which was usually defined as one of the empire’s Belarusian provinces. At least, Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, born in 1829 in Babruisk (Bobroysk in Jewish sources), could write, “when I was a child in Raysn.”82 The “eastward movement” of Raysn’s border could also be a consequence of identification of Raysn as the area of Habad Hasidism. Established by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady, who became the leader of Belarusian Hasidim in the 1780s,83 the Habad movement spread initially in Polatsk Province. In the 1790s, it extended to Magileŭ Province too.84 In 1796, there were at least thirty-three Habad prayer houses, spread over the northern part of Magileŭ Province, all of Vitsiebsk Province, and several towns in the northeastern part of Minsk Province.85 Later, Habad spread further south, with Jewish migrants from Belarus, to Chernigiv, Poltava, and Ekaterinoslav provinces on the left bank of the Dnepr. The northern part of Chernigiv Province, where Habad Hasidism was a significant religious movement, could also be called Raysn. For example, Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, the rabbi of Navahrudak 81 Barnai, Igrot hasidim me-eretz israel, 274, 288. 82 Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, Arukh ha-shulhan, Orah haim (Piotrków: M. Tzederbaum, 1903), no. 168. According to Zeev Wolf Rabinovich, the historian of “Lithuanian Hasidism” and a native of Pinsk, “Raysn is the provinces of Magileŭ, Vitsiebsk and part of the province of Minsk.” Zeev Rabinovich, Ha-hasidut ha-lita’it mi-reshita ve-ad yameinu (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1961), 5. 83 Immanuel Etkes, Ba’al ha-tania: rabi shneur zalman mi-liady ve-reshita shel hasidut habad (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2011), 29–39. 84 Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews, 7–21. 85 Igrot kodesh me-et k”k admo”r ha-zaken, 78–79. The following places are mentioned: Vitsiebsk Province: Bacheikava, Chashniki, Drissa (today Verkhniadzvinsk), Kolyshki (Kalisk in Jewish sources), Kamen, Krāslava (Kreslavka), Nevel’, Polatsk, Sebezh, Ushachy, Velizh, Vitsiebsk and its district Izhoria, and Yanavichy; Magileŭ Province: Bobr, Bykhaŭ, Chareia, Chavusy, Dubroŭna, Gorky, Kopys’, Krychaŭ, Liozna, Lukoml, Orsha, Astroŭna, Sianno, Shkloŭ, and Smaliany; and Minsk Province: Barysaŭ, Dzisna, Druia, and Krasnaluki (in 1843, Dzisna and Druia were transferred to Vilnius Province).

333

334

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

(Navardok in Jewish sources) in 1864–1908, wrote in his Arukh Ha-Shulhan that when he was a rabbi in Raysn, it was hard for him to certify cows with a certain lung problem as kosher, while “here in medinat Lite,” he had never heard of such a problem.86 Before arriving at Navahrudak, Epstein served as rabbi only in Novozybkov in Chernigiv Province, so Novozybkov in this case was a part of Raysn. Elsewhere, Rabbi Epstein wrote that “the scribes of Raysn” used to write tefillin according to the way proposed by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady,87 explicitly making a connection between Raysn and Habad Hasidism.88 The heads of Habad perceived and presented their movement as distinct from other Hasidic schools of thought and behavior. As Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gadi Sagiv showed recently, this distinction was expressed in geographical terms: Starting from the 1860s, many authors called all non-Habad Hasidim “Polish.” This term was probably used in the Habad milieu during the nineteenth century, but it appeared in writings originating from Habad only at the turn of the twentieth century.89 Thus, in a letter from December 1913, Rabbi Yosef Itzhak Schneersohn (1880–1950), the future leader of Habad, juxtaposed “a poylisher hosid” with “hasidei Raysn,” meaning the Habad Hasidim.90 The identification of Raysn with Habad is also evident from the name Raysishe Minyanim, or Belarusian synagogue, in Riga, which was built in 1883 and included three prayer halls for adherents of three branches of Habad—Lubavich, Liady, and Kopys.91 In 1890, an author 86 Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, Arukh ha-shulhan, Yore deah, no. 43, para 18 (Piotrków, 1905), 99. 87 Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, Arukh ha-shulhan, Orah haim, no. 32, para 63 (Piotrków, 1903), 70. 88 See also the description of Raysn as the area where Hasidim have their own town rabbis in addition to the Mitnagdic ones: Lipshitz, Zikhron yaakov, 2:52. 89 Ada Rapoport-Albert and Gadi Sagiv, “Habad mul hasidut ‘polin’: le-toldotav shel dimui menugad,” in Yonatan Meir and Gadi Sagiv, eds., Habad: Historiyah, hagut, dimui (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, forthcoming). 90 Yosef Itzhak Schneersohn, Igrot kodesh, vol. 1 (Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1982), 90. 91 Rita Bogdanova, Latvia: Synagogues and Rabbis, 1918–1940 (Riga: Shamir, 2004), 156; Dov Levin, “Riga,” in Dov Levin, ed., Pinkas ha-kehilot: latviyah ve-estoniyah (Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1988), 250, 263.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

of a report from Riga in a Hebrew newspaper wrote: “The third part in our community [after Jews from Courland and Lite]—but not a respectable part—are the people of Raysn, that is, Vitsiebsk and Magileŭ provinces, which settled here in large numbers. . . . All of them are Hasidim.”92 A year later, 1891, the term “hasidei Raysn” was applied to the Habad Hasidim by Hillel David Trivus, the rabbi of Vilkija in Kaunas Province.93 The identification of Raysn with Habad Hasidism was made easier by the fact that two religious phenomena of the nineteenth century that were spread only in Lite—the Musar movement and the Lithuanian yeshivas94—were almost totally absent in the territory designated as Raysn.95 At the same time, the identification of Raysn with Habad was by no means total. Beit Midrash Raysn in Kremenchuk, for instance, and Kolel Raysn in Jerusalem united the non-Hasidic Jews from the region.96 After 1918, the meanings of the words Lite and Raysn changed again. While Lite became reserved for the independent Lithuanian Republic, Raysn began to be used as a name for Belarus within its 92 Adam mi-Israel, “Mikhtavim mi-riga,” Ha-melitz 264 (December 2 [December 14], 1890): 4. 93 Ha-melitz 140 (June 25 [July 7], 1891): 4. 94 On these movements, see Immanuel Etkes, Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement: Seeking the Torah of Truth (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993); Shaul Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas of the Nineteenth Century: Creating a Tradition of Learning (Oxford; Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2012). 95 The only exceptions are the city of Magileŭ, where the Maggid of Kelmė, Rabbi Moshe Itzhak Darshan (1828–99), established a circle of the followers of Musar in the 1860s and Rabbi Simha Soloveitchik (1879–1941) created a small Lithuanian yeshiva in 1911, and two Musar yeshivas, in Shkloŭ and Mstsislaŭ, were founded by Rabbi Pesah Pruskin (1880–1939) in 1908 and 1911. See Yaakov Maze, Zikhronot, vol. 3 (Tel Aviv: Yalkut, 1939), 199; Ben-Tsiyon Klibansky, Ke-tzur halamish: tor ha-zahav shel ha-yeshivot ha-litaiyot be-mizrah eyropah (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2014), 68–69. 96 The belonging of Beit Midrash Raysn to the Mitnagdim is evident from the existence in Kremenchuk of separate Beit Midrash Habad and Beit Midrash Lubavich; see Ha-melitz 285 (December 12, 1895 [January 8, 1896]): 8; 4 (January 6 [January 19], 1902): 4. For the evidence that Kolel Raysn was non-Hasidic, see Avraham Moshe Luntz, Luah eretz israel (Jerusalem: A. M. Luntz, 1901), cited in Friedman, Hevra be-mashber legitimatsiyah, 137.

335

336

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

political borders. Thus, respondents to Dovid Katz, born in 1913 and 1920, defined the border between Lite and Raysn amazingly close to the post-1945 border between the Lithuanian and Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republics.97 In 1951, Uriah Katzenelenbogen (1885–1980)—a person who was well aware of the Lithuanian national discourse (see below)—could write in Yiddish that Litvaks lived not only in “ethnographical Lithuania” but also in “White Russia (or Raysn).”98 Clearly, he meant “ethnographical” Belarus as a territory outside the Lithuanian Republic. Notwithstanding the identification of Raysn with modern Belarus in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that, traditionally, the name Raysn had never been applied to the areas west of the River Biarezina (Barysaŭ—Babruisk line). It means that although the concept of Raysn changed during the nineteenth century and became more similar to the concept of Belarus as it was known in the Russian discourse of the time, it never became the same in terms of its geographical boundaries.99 In a certain sense, the Berezina border of the nineteenth-century Raysn could be a reflection of the border along Berezina between Rus’ and Lithuania Propria in the GDL, mentioned in several sources in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.100 Therefore, in modern geographical vocabulary, it could be defined as eastern Belarus, while today’s central and western areas of Belarus were traditionally perceived by Jews as Lite. During the nineteenth century, the distinction between Raysn and Lite, which became evident after 1772, grew stronger. For example, the reminiscences of Rabbi Israel of Shklov (1770–1839) about the   97 Dovid Katz, Litvish.   98 Uriah Katzenelenbogen, “Litvakes,” in Lite (1951), 307.   99 From the mid-nineteenth century on, the whole area of Minsk Province was usually included in the concept of Belarus in the Russian discourse, while only the eastern part of it was considered to be Raysn in the Jewish discourse. For more on the Russian mental maps, see Staliūnas’s chapter in this volume—“Poland or Russia? Lithuania on the Russian Mental Map.” 100 Vasilii Voronin, “Reka Berezina kak granitsa mezhdu Rus’iu i Litvoi,” accessed May 23, 2015, http://belhist.ru/2012/11/vasilij-voronin-reka-berezina-kak-granicamezhdu/.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

establishment of Kolel Prushim make this distinction clear. Rabbi Israel strictly divided between “Vilnius and the land of Lite and Zamet” on the one hand and Raysn on the other: after visiting Rabbi Haim in Volozhin in Lite in 1811, he went to collect donations in “medinat Raysn.”101 In 1853, the Vilnius maskil Avraham Dov Lebenzon (1794–1878) wrote a Hebrew elegy on the death of Gabriel Yaakov Gintsburg (1793–1853), who was born in Vilnius, married into a prominent family in Vitsiebsk, and died in Simferopol. The elegy, inscribed on Gintsburg’s tombstone, reads: “How it happened that Vilnius gave birth, but Simferopol buried, that Lite sent the ship, in Raysn it was loaded, and on the island [!] of Crimea it was destroyed?”102 Similarly to the previously mentioned rabbis discussing “three countries,” the Hebrew newspapers in the second half of the nineteenth century constantly mentioned Raysn as a geographical area equal to other regions of the Russian Empire, such as Poland, Lite, Volhynia, Ukraine, and Bessarabia.103 According to the reminiscences of Aharon Shteinberg, his Vilnius-born teacher in Daugavpils (Dünaburg [Dvinsk] in Vitsiebsk Province), which is situated in Raysn, considered himself to be in exile from Lite in the late nineteenth century.104 However, it seems that such a distinction was usually employed by Jews from “Lite and Raysn,” while outsiders continued to consider both regions as Lite. They could also include in its territory the areas to the 101 The same text contains the expressions “not in Lita and not in Raysn” and “the French conquered the land [medinat] of Lita and Raysn”; Arie Leib Frumkin, Toldot hakhamei yerushalayim, vol. 3 (Jerusalem: Dfus Salomon, 1929), 139–41. See also a letter of 1817–19 from the Land of Israel calling to collect donations “in our land [medinateinu] Lita and Raysn.” Arie Morgenstern, Geula be-derekh ha-teva: talmidei ha-gr”a be-eretz-israel, 1800–1840, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Maor, 1997), 272. 102 Hillel Noah Maggid-Steinschneider, Ir vilna, vol. 1 (Vilnius: Widow and Brothers Romm, 1900), 181; Maggid, Toldot mishpahot gintzburg, 81, 145. 103 See, e.g., Shmuel Yanus, “Druzgenik,” Ha-maggid 29 (July 29, 1858): 115 (“Volynien, Raysn, Lite and Poyln”); Asher Tzvi, “Moskva,” Ha-maggid 5 (February 1, 1865): 34 (“Lite, Raysn, Volyn, Polin”); Yehiel Mikhel Zotulovski, “La’amod ba-peretz!” Ha-melitz 192 (August 25 [September 6], 1892): 5 (“Ukraine, Raysn, and Bessarabia”); “Mikhtavim me-eretz tzafon,” Havatzelet 20 (February 14, 1896): 152n6 (“Lite, Raysn and Polin”). 104 Aharon Shteinberg, “Der shevet litvakes,” in Lite (1951), 394.

337

338

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

east, like the city of Smolensk, outside the Pale of Settlement. For example, Rabbi Moshe Nahum Yerusalimsky (1855–1916), in a responsum of 1890 written in Korets (Volhynia), said, “one person from our camp wedded his virgin daughter to an affluent widower from the district [mahoz] Lite, from the city of Smolensk.”105

ZAMET AND ITS MEANING While Raysn was identified with Belarus (though their geographical scope was different at the same time) and with Habad Hasidism, Zamet was considered the area of Mitnagdim and Lithuanians/Samogitians. Since the majority of the Jewish population in Zamet was Mitnagdim, we were not able to find rabbinical texts mentioning differences in customs between Zamet and Lite.106 It seems that there were at least two understandings of Zamet in the Jewish discourse of the nineteenth century. One, as mentioned before, identified Zamet with all of Kaunas Province, and its geographical scope was very similar to galil Zamet of Vaad Lita. This understanding is already evident in the Hebrew newspapers of the 1860s.107 The second concept of Zamet included a smaller territory that more or less corresponded to the former Principality of Samogitia.108 This concept becomes clear from the analysis of Jewish written sources mentioning 105 Moshe Nahum Yerusalimsky, Be’er moshe, vol. 1, Klil tiferet, pt. 1, no. 31 (Jerusalem: Mif’al Torah Hakhamei Polin, 2003), 303. 106 On the Hasidic minority in Lite and Zamet, see Mordechai Zalkin, “‘Mekomot she-lo matz’a adain ha-hasidut ken la klal’? bein hasidim le-mitnagdim be-lita ba-me’ah ha-19,” in Immanuel Etkes, David Assaf, Israel Bartal, Elhanan Reiner, eds., Be-ma’agalei hasidim: Kovetz mehkarim le-zikhro shel professor mordechai vilensky (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1999), 21–50. 107 Eliezer Pinhas Fakhman (from Salant), “Mikhtavim mi-vilna,” Ha-melitz 34 (August 27 [September 8], 1864): 537; Avraham Shimon Troyb (rabbi of Keydan), “Kol mi-pelekh kovna,” Ha-maggid 22 (June 9, 1969): 9. D. M. Lipman states that the expression “medinat Zamet” was used for the entire province of Kaunas, except for the eastern part of Novoaleksandrovsk (today Zarasai) District, populated by Belarusians: D. M. Lipman, Le-toldot ha-yehudim be-kovna ve-slobodka (Kėdainiai, 1934), 12. 108 D. M. Lipman drew the border of Zamet at the Nevėžis River: Lipman, Le-toldot ha-yehudim be-kovna ve-slobodka, 12. He definitely assumed that Zamet and the Lithuanian Samogitia were one and the same, and described the Jewish and Lithuanian populations of the area as characterized by the same features as a “result of physical-geographical conditions” (12–14). One of Dovid Katz’s respondents even

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

the towns of Zamet.109 Judging from those sources, it seems that neither the city of Kaunas nor district (uezd) centers of the province, Ukmergė (Vilkomir) and Zarasai (Novoaleksandrovsk in Russian and Nay-Aleksander in Jewish sources), were ever considered parts of Zamet.110 Thus, it is possible to conclude that the equality between Zamet and Kaunas Province existed only at the general level, while mentioning specific towns of Zamet provided a different picture. This duality was expressed in the titles of Moshe Markovich’s books on the history of Jews in Kėdainiai and Raseiniai, published in 1913: Both bear the subtitle “province [pelekh] of Kovna in medinat Zamet.”111 Courland, situated to the north of Lithuania, was a kind of antithesis to Zamet. The famous sociolinguist Max Weinreich (1894–1969), himself a native of the province, wrote that for Courland’s Jews, the world was defined Zamet as a small area at the northwestern corner of modern Lithuania, with the eastern border on the Telšiai–Varniai line; Dovid Katz, Litvish. 109 Jewish sources usually mention the following towns as situated in Zamet: Telšiai (Telz), Panevėžys (Ponevezh), Kėdainiai (Keydan), Jurbarkas (Yurbrik), Palanga (Palonge), Kretinga (Kretinge), Gargždai (Gorzd), Švėkšna (Shvekshna), Plungė (Plungian), Darbėnai (Drobian), Kelmė (Kelm), Kražiai (Krozh), Salantai (Salant), Tauragė (Tavrik), Žemaičių Naumiestis (Neyshtot Tavrik), Viekšniai (Vekshny), Seda (Shod), Šeduva (Shadove), Nemakšiai (Nemokshty), Rietavas (Ritove), Upyna (Upina), Krekenava (Krakinove), and Skuodas (Shkud). See, e.g., Ha-maggid 19 (May 17, 1871): 9; Yudl Mark, “Undzer litvisher yidish,” in Lite (1951), 439; Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, Eliyahu raba (Brno: Joseph Rosman, 1802), title page; Avraham Lurie, Nisyonot avraham (Vilnius: Menachem Man, 1821), title page; Moshe Levi Zaks, Divrei moshe (Vilnius: L. L. Mats, 1878), title page; Yehuda Leib Gamzo, “Bina ba-sfarim,” Ha-melitz 236 (October 30 [November 11], 1890): 7; Israel Tuviah Eisenstadt, Daat kdoshim, ed. Shmuel Viner (St. Petersburg: Bermann, 1897–98), 163; Eliyahu Rogoler, Yad eliyahu (Warsaw: M.I. Halter, 1900), title page; Shaul Shapiro, Hemdat shaul (Odessa: Isakovich and Beilenson, 1903), 3; Moshe Yaakov Zvadiyah, Maayan ganim pts. 2–3: (Bilgorai: Ia. Verner, 1909); pt. 4: (Piotrków: M. Tzederbaum, 1914), title pages; Maggid-Steinschneider, Ir vilna, vol. 1: 25, 235; 2, ed. Mordechai Zalkin (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002): 51, 101. 110 On Zarasai, see note 107 above. As for Ukmergė (Vilkomir), Yaakov Lipshitz, a native of the town, never says that it was situated in Zamet; at the same time, though, he always stressed that Raseiniai and Kėdainiai were in Zamet. Lipshitz, Zikhron yaakov, 2: 15, 46, 61, 63. Lipshitz also said that the prohibition of etrogim from Corfu in Kaunas “spread to galil Zamet,” implying that Kaunas did not belong to Zamet; Lipshitz, Zikhron yaakov, 2:175. 111 Moshe Markovich, Le-korot ir keydan ve-rabaneiha (Warsaw: A. I. Lifshitz, 1913), title page; Markovich, Le-korot ir rosiyen ve-rabaneiha (Warsaw: A. I. Lifshitz, 1913), title page.

339

340

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 16.  Zamet and Raysn on the Jewish mental maps. Habad prayer

houses are marked with blue. Places in red and green were referred to in different sources as being in Raysn. Places in Zamet are marked with yellow. Map by Vasilijus Safronovas.

divided into the Baltic provinces (namely, only Courland with Riga) and “Zamet.” Every outsider “became a zameter, even if he came from Kishinev or from Irkutsk.”112 Such a distinction was culturally defined. Jews came to Courland during the eighteenth century, mostly from Lithuania, but during the nineteenth century, imperial authorities restricted possibilities for new 112 Max Weinreich, “Dos kurlender yidish,” in Staplen (Berlin: Wostok, 1923), 195.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Jewish migration to the province.113 Thus, the Courland Jews formed a relatively small and distinct group, legally privileged and highly acculturated into the German culture—the high culture of the province. According to Weinreich, “one of the shortcomings of Zamet Jews was that they speak such a rude Yiddish,” as compared with Germanized Yiddish and the pure German spoken by the Jews of Courland.114 The relations between those two groups were far from ideal. A native Jew of Vilkomir (Ukmergė) could write in 1881 that “the hatred of people from Lite and Zamet existed in the heart of the people of Courland from generation to generation.”115 And Weinreich mentioned that Courland Jews used to call the outsiders zameter pigs.116 Such relations based on geographical distinctions found expression in worship as well. The Jews from Zamet living in the largest city of Courland, Liepāja (Libau, Libava), established their own synagogue in 1875, which was named Beit Midrash Zamet. After its appearance, the older Beit Midrash in the city got the name Beit Midrash Kurland.117 Nonetheless, the border between Zamet and Kurland was not always unambiguous. First, the town of Palanga, in Courland Province, was usually viewed as part of Zamet.118 Second, Jews in the southeastern part of Courland—along the Daugava (Düna, Western Dvina) River between the towns of Jēkabpils (Jacobstadt) and Jaunjelgava (Friedrichstadt)—saw themselves as “not Kurlenders and not Litvaks, but in-between [a tsvishn-min].”119 The name Zamet was quite persistent in the mental map of its Jewish inhabitants. When D. M. Lipman began publishing his series of Hebrew books in the 1930s on the Jewish history of the territory of the 113 On the history of Jews in Courland, see Iulii Gessen, “Evrei v Kurliandii (XVI– XVIII v.),” Evreiskaia starina 7 (1914): 145–62, 365–84. 114 Weinreich, “Dos kurlender yidish,” 195. 115 Efraim son of Yeshayahu Rafael, “Liboy,” Ha-levanon 36 (April 8, 1881): 286. 116 Weinreich, “Dos kurlender yidish,” 218. 117 Efraim son of Yeshayahu Rafael, “Liboy,” Ha-levanon 36 (April 8, 1881): 286. See also Ester Hager, “Liepāja,” in Levin, ed., Pinkas ha-kehilot: latviyah ve-estoniyah, 173. 118 See, e.g., Ha-maggid 19 (May 17, 1871): 9; Yudl Mark, “Undzer litvisher yidish,” in Lite (1951), 439. 119 B. Rivkin, “Di kurlender litvakes,” in Lite (1951), 407.

341

342

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

independent Lithuanian state, he did not find any convenient way to refer to this territory in traditional Jewish terms. So he invented the expression “Lite-Zamet,” thus including geographical concepts of Zamet and Lite in the narrow sense (see below) and referring to the new state.120

LITE IN THE NARROW SENSE After defining the territories perceived by Jews as Raysn and Zamet, it becomes clear that Lite in the narrow sense coincided with southeastern parts of modern Lithuania and central and western Belarus. This understanding of Lite resembled the concept of Lithuania Propria, which was applied to the territories that made up the GDL in the thirteenth century.121 It is plausible that such a concept of Lite existed in the Jewish mental maps in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but that is difficult to prove. In the south, Lite in the narrow sense bordered on Volhynia. For example, Sarah Schreibman, an author in a Hebrew newspaper in 1894, described her native Volhynia as including “the forest land [i.e., Polesie] until the border of Lite at Pinsk.”122 The majority of Jews in Lite in the narrow sense were Mitnagdim and were thus close to the Jews of Zamet and far from the Jews of Raysn. Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim wrote at the turn of the twentieth century: “The nature [of the people of Raysn] is remote from the nature of the people of Zamet and Lite, their ways are not ours.”123 At the same time, the natives of Zamet did not feel 120 Lipman, Le-toldot ha-yehudim be-kovna ve-slobodka, 1–3. 121 The following territories were included in the concept of Lithuania Propria: the area in the place where the Svislach River flows into the Nemunas River, Navahrudak, Vaŭkavysk, Slonim, Zditov, Grodna, Minsk; the area along Biarezina River, the upper reaches of the Dnepr and the Sozh, the former principalities of Turov and Pinsk; and Kletsk and Braslaŭ; Jūratė Kiaupienė, “Teritorijos administracinė valstybės erdvės pertvarka,” in Jūratė Kiaupienė, Rimvydas Petrauksas, ed., Lietuvos istorija, vol. 4: Naujieji horizontai: dinastija, visuomenė, valstybė. Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė 1386–1529 m. (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2009), 62. 122 Sarah Schreibman, “Polna,” Ha-melitz 121 (May 27 [June 8], 1894): 3. Polesie was rarely mentioned in Jewish sources, although it was in a letter by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady in 1807, saying “in medinat Lite, and Rusia, and Polesie and other lands”: Igrot kodesh me-et k”k admo”r ha-zaken, 132. 123 A letter of Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, in Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kuk, Eder ha-yakar ve-ikvei ha-tzon (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kuk, 1967), 80.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

completely comfortable in Lite. Rabinowitz-Teomim, who came from Panevėžys to Mir in 1893, juxtaposed Lite and eretz Zamet.124 Rabbi Yehuda Leib Ha-Cohen Maimon described how “a son of Zamet” felt like a stranger in Niasvizh in Lite.125 Rabbi Zeev Volf Turbovich of Kražiai even presented the conflict about the study of Musar in the Slobodka yeshiva in 1897 as a conflict between the rabbis of Zamet and Lite.126 Besides Mitnagdim, there were also Hasidim in Lite, usually belonging to local dynasties. While the most famous Hasidic court was that of Karlin-Stolin, its influence was especially strong in neighboring Volhynia. In Lite, the majority of Hasidim followed the dynasties of Lakhovich, Koydanov, Kobrin, and Slonim, which belonged to the “Karlin school.”127 Those five dynasties were defined by Zeev Rabinovitch (himself a native of Pinsk) as Lithuanian Hasidism, while Habad, which is usually viewed as the Hasidic movement closest to the scholarly approach of Litvaks, had almost no influence in Lite in the narrow sense.

LITE IN THE NAMES OF THE JEWISH POLITICAL PARTIES AND IN THEIR ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Lite served as a fertile ground for the emergence of the Jewish national politics. This phenomenon is usually explained by the multinational character of the region, which hindered assimilation and acculturation processes, as well as by Mitnagdic religious affiliation and rationalism, which ­facilitated the spread of Haskalah in the mid-nineteenth century, so that Jews in this region were not as cut off from modern ideas as their ­coreligionists were in the areas dominated by Hasidism. According to 124 Shlomo Albert, Aderet eliyahu: toldot hayav shel oto tzadik rabi eliyahu david rabinovich teomim (Jerusalem: Sh. Albert, 2003), 174. 125 Yehuda Leib Ha-Cohen Maimon, “Pirkei zikhronot al ha-tzionut,” Ha-tzofe, October 30, 1953, 4. 126 Zeev Volf Turbovich, “Lema’an ha-shalom,” Ha-melitz 201 (September 4 [September 16], 1897): 5. Indeed, the letter against the study of Musar in the yeshiva was signed by the rabbis of Panevėžys, Merech, Jonava, Viekšniai, Rietavas, Kuršėnai, and Kelmė; “Lema’an da’at,” Ha-melitz 143 (June 27 [July 9], 1897): 3. 127 Rabinovich, Ha-hasidut ha-lita’it.

343

344

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the historian Ezra Mendelsohn, “the children of Haskalah became the founders of modern Jewish politics.”128 A good summary of that situation was recently presented by the historian David E. Fishman: On the other hand, modernized, Russian-speaking, and Russianreading Jews in Lithuania could not attempt to integrate into Russian society, as did Jews in St. Petersburg and Moscow, if only because there was very little Russian society to speak of in Vilnius and Kaunas. On the other hand, the adoption of Russian by the Jewish intelligentsia and bourgeoisie in Lithuania prevented them from integrating with local Poles, as did the Jewish bourgeoisie in Warsaw. Thus Lithuanian Jews lived in the middle-ground between religious traditionalism and assimilation, having abandoned the former but not having embraced the latter. In an era where national and socialist movements were spreading in Eastern Europe, and antisemitism was on the rise, Lithuanian Jews were rife for mobilization by modern Jewish political movements.129 These politics, however, were conducted within the framework of the Russian Empire, not that of its regions. The most “Lithuanian” of all Jewish political forces was the Jewish labor movement, which emerged in Vilnius in the late 1880s and spread to Minsk, Białystok, and other towns of Lite in the 1890s.130 In 1897, this movement transformed into a social-democratic Marxist party known in English as the Jewish Labor Bund.131 The official name of the Bund, 128 Ezra Mendelsohn, The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), 22. 129 David E. Fishman, “Nuo štadlanų iki masinių partijų: žydų politiniai judėjimai Lietuvoje,” in Lietuvos žydai. Istorinė studija, ed. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, and Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2012), 269. 130 Moshe Mishkinsky, “Regional Factors in the Formation of the Jewish Labor Movement in Czarist Russia,” in Ezra Mendelsohn, ed., Essential Papers on Jews and the Left (New York: New York University Press, 1997), 78–100. 131 On the early history of the Bund, see Ezra Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale: The Formative Years of the Jewish Worker’s Movement in Tsarist Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); Henry J. Tobias, The Jewish Bund in Russia: From Its Origin to 1905 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972); Jonathan Frankel, Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, 1862– 1917 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 171–257.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

adopted in 1897, was the General Jewish Workers’ Union [Bund] in Russia and Poland. In this way, the founders of the Bund, under the influence of the Polish socialists, recognized the existence of Poland, which was not part of Russia. The fourth congress of the party in 1901 changed its name, adding the word Lithuania: the General Jewish Workers’ Union in Lithuania (Lite in Yiddish publications), Russia and Poland. Lite was placed as the first geographic name, reflecting the “historical development” of the movement, which started there.132 During the discussion, it was juxtaposed against other regions: “[Delegates] opposed [adding the word Lithuania], because when the Bund enlarges its activity to new territories, it will be necessary to add ‘in Volhynia,’ ‘in Podolia,’ etc.”133 Thus, “Lithuania” in the name of the Bund meant Lite (in a broader sense)—the area that was not “Poland,” “Volhynia,” or “Podolia” and not “Russia” (the meaning of the last term thus shrunk to the southern part of the Pale of Settlement, today’s Ukraine). Lite, or the NWR, where the majority of the ­“proletariat” consisted of Jewish workers in small enterprises, was the cradle of the Bund. Veteran Russian revolutionary Vera Zasulich even called, with hostility, the leaders of the Bund “‘patriots’ of the Minsk-Vilna homeland.”134 Indeed, Lite, together with Riga and Courland, was usually considered the “Region of the Bund,”135 while the “South” was perceived in the Bund’s mental geography as a new and different area of activities. Poland was a part of the “Region of Bund,” but its peculiarity was always obvious. Other Jewish socialist parties also operated with geographical concepts close to that of the Bund. In 1905–07, the Zionist Socialist Workers’ Party was the main adversary of the Bund on the “Jewish street.”136 After the shrinking of the membership and disorganization 132 On this change and its meanings, see Vladimir Levin, “Lithuanians in Jewish Politics of the Late Imperial Period,” in A Pragmatic Alliance: Jewish-Lithuanian Political Cooperation at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, ed. Vladas Sirutavičius and Darius Staliūnas (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2011), 80–82. 133 Iu. N. Amiantov, K. G. Lizshenko, I. S. Rozental, Z. I. Peregrudova, and Z. N. Tikhonova, eds., Bund: Dokumenty i materialy, 1894–1921 (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010), 177. 134 Cited in Frankel, Prophecy and Politics, 213. 135 On this term, see Mishkinsky, “Regional Factors,” 85–86. 136 On this party, see Aleksander Guterman, Ha-miflagah ha-tzionit-sotzialistit be-rusiyah (s.s.) ba-shanim 1905–1906 (Tel Aviv: I. L. Peretz Publishing, 1985); Vladimir

345

346

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

of the party in the early 1908, its central committee decided “to divide the organizational work into three districts: Poland, Lithuania, and the South.”137 The organizational structure of the Jewish Socialist Workers’ Party, known as SERP, contained three large districts in 1906 and 1907: Southern, Southwestern, and the Lithuanian or Vilnius one. The last district included the organizations in Vilnius, Vilkomir (Ukmergė), Kaunas, Pinsk, Adutiškis (Godutishki), and Minsk.138 The Jewish Social Democratic Workers’ Party Poalei-Zion was the smallest among the four socialist parties, and in 1906 and 1907, its ­organizational structure was quite chaotic. The Vilnius/Minsk District was mentioned only once in party documents, and the party congress in August 1907 apparently planned a Lithuanian District, ostensibly uniting the organizations in Vilnius, Minsk, and Białystok.139 A new Lithuanian District committee with a center in Pinsk was created in 1909 and continuously existed until 1915.140 In all these examples, Lithuania was equal not to ethnic Lithuania, but to Lite in its broader sense, which coincided with the NWR of the Russian Empire. However, in the same years, this traditional perception of Lite began to disintegrate. When the Bund left the all-Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party (RSDRP) in 1903, RSDRP answered with the establishment of its own structure in the “Bund’s Region,” which agitated among Jewish workers. However, it was not an all-Lithuanian organization, but the Northwest and Polesie committees, with centers in Minsk and Gomel respectively.141 The Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO), which broke away from the Zionist movement in Levin, Mi-mahapekhah le-milhamah: ha-politikah ha-yehudit be-rusiyah, 1907–1914 (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2016), 247–53. 137 TsGA Uzbekistana, fond I-461, op. 1, d. 1010, fol. 23 (microfilm in CAHJP, HM2/8257.1). 138 Folksshtime 5 (March 16, 1907): 67. On this party, see Avraham Greenbaum, Tnu’at “ha-tehiyah” (“Vozrozhdenie”) ve-mifleget ha-po’alim ha-yehudit-sotzialistit: mivhar ktavim (Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 1988); Levin, Mi-mahapekhah le-milhamah, 232–37. 139 Matityahu Mintz, Veidat krakov shel mifleget ha-po’alim ha-sotzial-demokratit ha-yehudit po’alei-tzion be-rusiyah (ogust 1907): te’udot (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1979), 82, 104–6. 140 A. Gershenzon, “Der litvisher rayon-komitet (1909–1915),” in Yidisher arbeter pinkos, ed. Zrubavel (Warsaw, 1927), 305–12. 141 Frankel, Prophecy and Politics, 254; Avrom Kirzhnits, Der yiddisher arbiter: Khrestomatie, vol. 2, pt. 1 (Moscow, 1925), 40–44.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

1905, also planned to create two administrative regions in Lite: one for Grodna, Vilnius, and Kaunas provinces with its center in Białystok and another for Minsk, Magileŭ, and Vitsiebsk provinces with its center in Minsk.142 The main Jewish liberal party, the Jewish People’s Group, convened the consultations before the elections to the Third Duma in summer 1907 in two places. The representatives of Vilnius, Grodna, Kaunas, and Vitsiebsk provinces met in Vilnius, while the representatives of the provinces of Minsk, Magileŭ, and Chernigiv (Left-bank Ukraine) met in Gomel.143 Organizing a fundraising campaign in 1908, the Zionist leadership also divided Lite into “Vilnius and Lithuania” and “Belarus (Vitsiebsk, Gomel).”144 Notwithstanding that logistical and personal reasons could stand behind those divisions, they reflected the dissolution of the traditional concept of Lite into west and east and the emergence of Gomel as an important regional center. While “the east” was similar in its borders to Belarus as understood in the Russian discourse, “the west” was similar to the way Russian officials described the so-called Lithuanian provinces, so much larger than ethnic Lithuania. None of the major Jewish political forces took into account in their activities the L ­ ithuanians and the understanding of Lithuanian “national territory.” Nevertheless, there were some Jewish public figures in ethnic Lithuania who, at the beginning of the twentieth century, perceived the L ­ ithuanian national movement as an­ ally. This perception prepared the conditions for exposure of the Jewish ­population to the Lithuanian concept of Lithuania.

JEWS AND THE LITHUANIAN “NATIONAL TERRITORY” The establishment of Vaad Lita in 1623 might reflect the self-perception of Lithuanian Jewry as a separate entity within the Jewish people.145 At 142 Central Zionist Archives, A3/24, fol. 7. 143 Evreiskaia Narodnaia Gruppa, Rezolutsii oblastnykh soveshchanii po voprosam, sviazannym s predstoiashchei izbiratel’noi kampaniei (St. Petersburg: Evreiskaia Narodnaia Gruppa, 1907). On the Jewish People’s Group, see Levin, Mi-mahapekhah le-milhamah, 143–66. 144 “Resheniia moskovskogo soveshchaniia,” Central Zionist Archives, A24/104. 145 Zajka, “The Self-Perception of Lithuanian-Belarusian Jewry,” Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry 14 (2001): 21. See also Cieśla, “Sharing a Commonwealth—Polish Jews or Lithuanian Jews?”

347

348

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the same time, the distinction between Polish and Lithuanian Jews was still blurred. For example, the “Polish congregation” in Amsterdam, which existed in 1660–1673, prayed according to the custom of Lithuania (nusah Lita).146 Two hundred years later, by the beginning of the twentieth century, the Jews in Lite saw themselves as “Russian Jewry”147 and in many cases, their high culture was the Russian one. As mentioned before, the natural geographical framework for Jewish modern politics was the entire Russian Empire, not its regions. The cultures of Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Lithuanian neighbors of Jews were perceived as low, peasant cultures. Thus, while recognizing in principle the need for national-territorial autonomy of different national groups living in the empire (first and foremost, the autonomy of Poland), Jewish politicians looked for ways to protect the interests of the Jewish population in future autonomous regions. Jews could sooner hope for recognition and implementation of their national rights in a huge multinational empire, and not in small territorial autonomies run by a dominant national group. An ambiguous attitude toward Lithuanian territorial autonomy was evident in Jewish politics. All Jewish political programs developed during the 1905 Revolution strived for democratization of the regime within the existing imperial borders. A good example of such an approach was a 1906 article by a young leader of the Zionist movement, Vladimir (Zeev) Jabotinsky. Since Jabotinsky’s political agenda was the democratization of the Russian Empire and bestowing national rights on Jews, he could not deny the right of, for example, the Polish population to have national-territorial autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland. That autonomy, however, was perceived in a very limited scope so that “the citizen of Russia could feel himself at home all over Russia.” The real autonomy of Poland could, according to Jabotinsky, work against “our interest” because it would split up “the body [organism] of the all-­Russian 146 Moshe Rosman, “Samkhuto shel vaad arba aratzot mi-hutz le-folin,” Bar-Ilan 24–25 (1989), 19–20; Cieśla, “Sharing a Commonwealth—Polish Jews or Lithuanian Jews?,” 44. 147 Eli Lederhendler, “Did Russian Jewry Exist prior to 1917?,” in Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union, ed. Yaacov Ro’i (Ilford: Frank Cass, 1995), 15–27.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Jewry.” The following sentence quite clearly shows Jabotinsky’s attitude toward national-territorial autonomy: “Let it be the full autonomy of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia [Zhmud’], and Chud’, but before that the national rights of all groups should be guaranteed all over Russia.”148 His mentioning of Zhmud’ and Chud’—words that sound similar—was quite intentional. Chud’ is an ethnonym mentioned in medieval Russian chronicles that refers to some Finno-Ugric tribes living somewhere in the Russian north; its popular etymology is connected to the Russian word chudnoi, strange. Thus, binding together in one sentence Poland, whose demand for autonomy was recognized by all Russian liberal politicians, with the Lithuanian region of Zhmud’, which never claimed autonomous status, and a nonexistent “strange” tribe of Chud’, Jabotinsky ridiculed the idea of territorial autonomy. For him, as for many Jewish nationalists, ­ exterritorial personal autonomy for all national groups was preferable, serving the Jewish cause much better. Nonetheless, in November 1907, Jabotinsky was one of the authors of the Zionist Helsingfors program, which demanded autonomy for national regions of the empire and exterritorial national autonomy for Jews.149 The most persistent opponents of Zionism, Jewish liberal integrationists, also worried about the fate of Jews in autonomous regions. The program of their political party, the Jewish People’s Group, demanded all-imperial protection of the rights of national minorities in the regions that would receive autonomy. The explanation for this program clearly stated that the Jews in the “Northwestern Region . . . are surrounded by the unfriendliness” of Lithuanians, because they did not speak the Lithuanian language (the same saying referred to Poles and the Polish language as well).150 Lithuanians were perceived by the Jews as an undeveloped und uncivilized group, and their ethnic culture was considered to be a “low,” peasant culture.151 Therefore, there was no Jewish acculturation into Lithuanian 148 Vladimir Jabotinsky, “Avtonomiia Pol’shi,” Khronika evreiskoi zhizni, 1906, no. 18, 16–19. 149 See Levin, Mi-mahapekhah le-milhamah, 132. 150 Pervyi uchreditel’nyi s”ezd Evreiskoi narodnoi gruppy (St. Petersburg, 1907), 4, 17. 151 See, e.g., an undated letter from the Zarasai (Novoaleksandrovsk) branch of the Union for the Achievement of Full Rights to its Central Bureau (after September

349

350

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

society—the low numbers of Jews claiming Lithuanian as their native tongue clearly demonstrate this phenomenon. Another striking example of this disregard is the fact that there was no standard term for defining Lithuanians in Yiddish and Hebrew. For instance, a native of Kaunas, Avraham Moshe Luntz (1854–1918), in his correspondence from Palestine to a Galician Hebrew newspaper in 1874, could not find a suitable term for the Lithuanian language and called it “the language of peasants in the land [eretz] of Zamet.”152 The Yiddish press of the early twentieth century used two terms, litviner and litovtses—the first one originating from Polish and the second from Russian.153 Of course, this might be related to the fact that Yiddish as a standard language was in the process of formation, but at the same time, these nuances reflected the attitude of many Jewish activists toward Lithuanians as an unimportant factor. The 1905 Revolution changed that situation to some extent. Mass mobilization under the national slogans was clearly visible in the Lithuanian countryside, especially in the second half of 1905, and the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement were very active in Duma elections. Thus, it is not surprising that all these activities came to the attention of the Jewish press. Thanks to the press, Jewish readership received information about the agenda of the Lithuanian national movement, including its goal to achieve territorial autonomy within the ethnographic boundaries of Lithuania154 and its actions to mobilize the western public in favor of Lithuanian national goals.155 In contrast to “bourgeois” politics, the Jewish Social-Democratic movement, with its strong notion of internationalism, could be expected to be more receptive toward the Lithuanian understanding of what Lithuania was. There had been a long tradition of cooperation between

152 153 154 155

10, 1905), RGIA, f. 1565, op. 1, d. 104, l. 7; and a letter of the Union’s Panevėžys branch to the Central Bureau of September 7, 1905, RGIA, f. 1565, op. 1, d. 114, l. 2 (true, the author of the letter noted that the Lithuanian national movement had recently become stronger, but apparently did not regard this phenomenon as significant). Avraham Moshe Luntz, “Masa be-eretz pleshet,” Ivri Anokhi 25 (June 5, 1874): 5. The phrase contrasted this language with the Russian and Polish languages. See, e.g., Bund’s Folkstsaytung, 1907, nos. 273, 277, 284. “Proekt avtonomii Litvy,” Svobodnoe slovo, 1906, no. 2. “Dos litvishe informatsions-biuro,” Vilner vochenblat, 1912, no. 27.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Lithuanian Social-Democrats and Jewish socialist parties, especially the Bund.156 Some memoirs of Lithuanian left activists claimed that in the late imperial period, there were some Jewish socialists who demonstrated their support of the Lithuanian cause.157 A new situation occurred in the second half of 1906 when the Lithuanian Social-Democratic Party (LSDP) and the Social-Democratic Party in Lithuania (SDPL; former Polish Socialist Party in Lithuania) decided to unite. Among the SDPL members, there were Jewish Social-Democrats, who also became members of the united Lithuanian Social-Democratic Party.158 In order to find support among Jewish workers, LSDP started publishing newspapers in Yiddish: Sotsialistishes flugblat (Socialist leaflet) appeared in 1906–07 and Arbeyter shtime fun Lite (The voice of workers from Lithuania) in 1907. The circulation of Sotsialistishes flugblat reached five thousand copies, quite an impressive number for Lithuania.159 The message sent by these two newspapers to the Jewish readership was very clear: There is such a territorial entity as Lithuania that is different from other parts of the Russian Empire in terms of economic development, culture, and ethnography,160 and it should receive some degree of political autonomy.161 The united party stated that its activities were covering the whole territory of Kaunas Province, a part of Suwałki Province 156 Leonas Sabaliūnas, Lithuanian Social Democracy in Perspective, 1893–1914 (Durham: Duke University Press, 1990), 53, 102–4, 152; Joshua Zimmerman, Poles, Jews and the Politics of Nationality, the Bund and the Polish Socialist Party in Late Imperial Russia, 1892–1914 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004), 87–88, 96–97, 112–13; V. Levin, “Lithuanians in Jewish Politics,” 84–88. 157 Vladas Požėla, Jaunystės atsiminimai (London: Amerikos lietuvių socialdemokratų sąjunga, 1971), 232–33; Sabaliūnas, Lithuanian Social Democracy in Perspective, 53. 158 There is information that in 1907, out of 2,310 members of LSDP, 380 were Jewish; Sabaliūnas, Lithuanian Social Democracy, 103. 159 Edvardas Vidmantas, Lietuvos darbininkų periodinė spauda 1895–1917 (Vilnius: Mintis, 1979), 63. 160 “Fun partey leben,” Sotsialistishes flugblat, 1907, no. 3, 3. This country was depicted in Yiddish newspapers as a multiethnic entity similar to Austria: “Di fareynigung fun der s.d. partey fun lite un fun der litvisher s.d. partey,” Sotsialistishes flugblat, 1906, no. 1, 1; Di redaktsie, “Tsu di lezer,” Di arbeyter shtime fun lite, 1907, no. 1, 2. 161 “Di fareynigung fun der s.d. partey fun lite un fun der litvisher s.d. partey,” Sotsialistishes flugblat, 1906, no. 1, 1; “Zu ale yidishe vehler fun Lite!,” Sotsialistishes flugblat, 1906, no. 2, 4; “Proekt fun di grupe oytonomisten vegen politisher program,” Sotsialistishes flugblat, 1907, no. 4.

351

352

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

where Lithuanians made up a majority, Vilnius Province except for Dzisna and Vileika districts, and Grodna Province. The question of whether to include all of Grodna Province or just part of it (without Białystok, Bielsk, and Brest) was left undecided.162 Yet, it is one thing to report on a Lithuanian political agenda, and quite another to accept a Lithuanian view of what Lithuania is. During the 1905 Revolution, the Lithuanian press reported that there were already Jews who supported the project of territorial autonomy for Lithuania.163 Was such a statement just wishful thinking, or were there really changes in the mental maps of some Jews in Lithuania? Or perhaps was there support for a Lithuanian national agenda but no actual change in Jewish mental maps? A specific situation developed in Kaunas Province during elections for the Russian Dumas. Lithuanians, as the strongest group, dominated the elections in the province to all four Dumas (1906–12), so Jewish activists could not avoid paying attention to Lithuanians and their political agenda. Although there were some Jewish figures who preferred an alliance with Polish landowners, a clear voice was raised on the “Jewish street” to make an alliance with Lithuanians. For example, an activist from the Union for the Achievement of Full Rights for the Jewish People in Russia, M. Katzenelenbogen from Vilkomir, was familiar with the ethno-political situation in Lithuania. In his opinion, during recent years, Lithuanians had changed greatly: Previously, their sole national value had been their language, but presently, their national self-­ consciousness had become greatly consolidated.164 During the elections to the Second Duma in early 1907 a meeting of Jewish electors in Kaunas passed a resolution to support the idea of autonomy for Lithuania under the condition that minority rights would be guaranteed. Although the newspaper report did not specify the territorial extent of Lithuania in 162 “Der anfangs fareynigung fun s.d.p.l. un l.s.d.p.,” Sotsialistishes flugblat, 1906, no. 1, 2. The SDPL members were in favor of including a broader territory, while LSDP leaders spoke against it because they were afraid that their inclusion might reduce the influence of the Lithuanian members: Sabaliūnas, Lithuanian Social Democracy in Perspective, 100. 163 “Lietuvos atonomija,” Lietuvos ūkininkas, 1905, no. 9, 235. 164 M. Katzenelenbogen’s letter of September 9, 1905, to the Central Bureau, RGIA, f. 1565, op. 1, d. 70, ll. 27–30.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

this case, the context in which this resolution was passed, as well as discussions during that meeting, leaves no doubt that it was about the Lithuanian understanding of Lithuania. First of all, the meeting had to pre­pare terms for negotiations with Lithuanians, so it could be anticipated that Jewish representatives would use the same terminology as was used in the Lithuanian discourse. Second, the supporters and opponents of the resolution discussed the fate of Jews when culturally underdeveloped Lithuanians would become the masters of that territorial unit.165 This illustrates very clearly that Jewish representatives were talking about a territorial unit with domination by ethnic Lithuanians. On the other hand, Jews in Suwałki Province clearly had pragmatic reasons for opposing its separation from the Kingdom of Poland where, in contrast to the Pale of Settlement, Jews enjoyed legal equality. Thus, Jewish electors did not participate in the vote for the candidates to the First Duma in 1906, since the Lithuanian electors rejected their demand not to seek the unification of Suwałki Province with other Lithuanian provinces that were a part of the Pale.166 When the prospects for the establishment of Lithuanian autonomy disappeared after 1907, Jewish electors in Suwałki Province usually supported the Lithuanians against the Poles.167 This example shows that Jewish support for Polish or Lithuanian national programs (including their concepts of “national territory”) also depended on pragmatic calculations. New indications of growing interest toward Lithuanians and their “national territory” were evident on the “Jewish street” just before World War I. The atmosphere of impending European war made all politically active public figures in Lithuania, as in many other parts of Europe, rethink different possibilities for the postwar order. According to a leader of the so-called krajowcy group,168 Michał Römer (Mykolas Römeris), a new phenomenon emerged on the “Jewish 165 Em-es, “Kovno,” Rassvet, 1907, no. 6, 25–26. 166 J. Totoraitis, “Mųsų rinkimai,” Šaltinis, 1906, no. 7, 98; “Wybory w Suwałkach,” Kurjer Litewski, 1906, no. 93; “Rinkimai Suvalkuose,” Naujoji gadynė, 1906, no. 1, 10; “Za nedeliu,” Novaia zaria, 1906, no. 17, 21. 167 Levin, “Lithuanians in Jewish Politics,” 93–94. 168 For more on this group, see Jan Jurkiewicz, Rozwój polskiej myśli politycznej na Litwie i Białorusi w latach 1905–1922 (Poznań: Wydawn. Nauk. Uniwersytetu im.

353

354

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

street” at the beginning of 1914. Although the majority of Jews in Lithuania were still in favor of an all-Russian solution, other public activists appeared, like an editor of a local Yiddish newspaper Charny,169 who not only strongly supported the Jewish national idea (and not a pro-Russian stance) but also were ready to work for the integration of Jews into Lithuanian society.170 The best example of this new trend on the “Jewish street” is the almanac Lite published by A. I. Goldshmidt and Uriah Katzenelenbogen in January 1914.171 The main purpose of this publication was to inform Jewish readership about the neighboring national groups, Lithuanians and Belarusians.172 According to the editors, Jewish readership still needed a very basic knowledge about Lithuanians. Thus, the authors of Lite explained that the Lithuanians were not a Slavic people; that they were called Samogitians in Poland and Russia; and that a publication of Lithuanian texts in Latin characters was banned by the Russian

169 170

171 172

Adama Mickiewicza, 1983); Rimantas Miknys, “Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904– 1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projektai,” in Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 3: Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.–XX a. pradžia) (Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991), 173–98; Jan Sawicki, Mykolas Römeris ir buvusios Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštystės žemių tautinės problemos (Vilnius: LII, 1999); Zbigniew Solak, Tarp Lenkijos ir Lietuvos: Mykolo Römerio gyvenimas ir veikla (1880–1920 metai) (Vilnius: LII, 2008). Römer probably had in mind Shmuel Charny, known under the pen name Shmuel Niger, who edited the newspaper Di yidishe velt (The Jewish world) in the prewar period. M. Römer, “Diary,” vol. 3, entry 23, January (February 5), 1914, Lietuvos mokslų akademijos Vrublevskių bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius (Manuscript Division of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; LMAVB RS), F. 138-2231, l. 391. The initial idea was to publish a periodical, but then they decided that it would be “too early”: A.I. Goldshmidt, “Dos zamlbukh Lite,” Lite (II) (Vilnius, 1919): 8. Among other things, Lite also included two publications by non-Jews: an article by one of the leaders of the Belarusian National Movement, Vaclaŭ Lastoŭski, on Belarusians, and a story by Lazdynų Pelėda (pen-name of Sofija Ivanauskaitė-Pšibiliauskienė and Marija Ivanauskaitė-Lastauskienė). V. Lastovski, “Etlikhe verter,” Lite (1914): 47–48; Lazdinu Peliede, “Undzer porets (Derzehlung fun an alten litvishen poyer),” Lite (1914): 54–60. There were some other publications in the Yiddish press that served the same goal, namely, to bring the Jewish reader some positive knowledge about other nationalities: A. I. Goldshmidt, “Dos zamlbukh Lite,” Lite (II) (Vilnius, 1919): 9.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

authorities for forty years, and so on. At the same time, they presented information about contemporary developments in Lithuanian culture. Their readers could learn that there were about fifty Lithuanian periodicals in Lithuania and twenty in the United States; that Lithuanians books were published in many cities of the Russian Empire, as well as in Prussia and the USA; and that the majority of Lithuanian national leaders were coming from Kaunas and Suwałki provinces.173 The history of Lithuania, according to Shaul Katzenelenbogen, was the best proof of a positive attitude of Lithuanians toward Jews, who enjoyed almost the same rights as other subjects of the GDL. Lithuanians were very tolerant people as long as they were pagans, and Jewish suffering started with the penetration of the Catholic Church—especially with the arrival of Jesuits. The tolerant attitude of Lithuanians and their cultural underdevelopment created very favorable conditions for Jewish life. Katzenelenbogen concluded his article by saying that “Lithuania actually takes a much more important place in the history of Jews than was stated by earlier historians.”174 At the same time, the almanac explained that the GDL and modern Lithuania were not identical entities: The Grand Duchy used to be a very large country stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea, while at the time the almanac was published, the term Lithuania would have necessarily been applied to a much smaller territory. By defining contemporary Lithuania, the authors of the almanac combined two perspectives: the Russian and the Lithuanian. First of all, Goldshmidt used terminology typical for the Russian discourse of the time: Lithuania meant three out of six Northwestern provinces of the Russian Empire: Vilnius, Kaunas, and Grodna. Yet, in his further explanations, Goldshmidt was looking for the area inhabited by ethnic Lithuanians, and so to some extent, he followed the logic of Lithuanian nationalism. Thus, Vitsiebsk Province 173 Shaul Katzenelenbogen, “Lite in der yidisher geshikhte,” Lite (1914): 5–13; A. I. Goldshmidt, “Lite un di litviner (etvos geografie un etnografie),” Lite (1914): 13–38. 174 Shaul Katzenelenbogen, “Lite in der yidisher geshikhte,” Lite (1914): 5–13, quoted from 13. A positive image of pagan Lithuanians is also presented in Goldshmidt’s article: A. I. Goldshmidt, “Lite un di litviner (etvos geografie un etnografie),” Lite (1914): 33–34.

355

356

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

should have been included in Lithuania as well, since almost a quarter of a million Catholic Latvians lived there. Latvians, explained Goldshmidt, were a Lithuanian tribe. Besides, these four provinces created a natural geographical entity (with “natural borders” made by river basins, swamps, and hills). Finally, Suwałki Province was also Lithuanian because it belonged geographically to the Nemunas basin, and swamps separated it from the rest of the Kingdom of Poland; it was included in the Kingdom of Poland only in 1815, while historically it was part of the Grand Duchy; and the majority of the population there consisted of ethnic Lithuanians. By stating that people spoke Lithuanian in the larger parts of these five provinces, Goldshmidt created the illusion that Lithuanians were the majority within such a territory. At the same time, he repeated the argument of Lithuanian nationalists that the majority of the Polish-speaking population and thousands of Belarusians were actually assimilated Lithuanians.175 Thus, at first glance, Goldshmidt described Lithuania in a way that would find approval among Lithuanians, but it was actually not the case because Lithuanians did not make up a majority in these five provinces, and this geographical definition was not acceptable to the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement.176 It seems that Goldshmidt tried, consciously and unconsciously, to combine to some extent the “Lithuanian Lithuania” with the Jewish Lite. Although Lite received some positive feedback in the local ­Lithuanian, Belarusian, and Jewish press,177 only one issue of the almanac was published before the war. The next step by the same group was a publication of a newspaper in Russian, Nash krai (Our land), in the same year. The ideas proclaimed in this periodical were similar to those of Lite—to assist 175 Goldshmidt, “Lite un di litviner,” 16–18. 176 It can also be noticed that Goldshmidt was not consistent in his definition because he included Vitsiebsk Province in Lithuania although, as he himself acknowledged, the majority of the population there were Belarusians, and it was not called a “Lithuanian” territory in the Russian discourse. 177 Tuteishy, “Praudzivy shliakh, Nasha niva, 1914, no. 10; T., “Iš žydų laikraščių,” Lietuvos žinios, 1914, no. 38; A.I. Goldshmidt, “Dos zamlbukh Lite,” Lite (II) (Vilnius, 1919): 8. A. I. Goldshmidt even claimed that the influence of this almanac might be spotted in one article of Chaim Zhitlovskii’s periodical Dos naye leben, published in the United States; Goldshmidt, “Dos zamlbukh Lite,” 8–9.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

different nationalities dwelling in Lithuania in becoming acquainted with each other.178 The geographical scope of “our land” was defined as Kaunas Province.179 There is a good chance that Naftali Friedman, a Jewish Duma member from that province, stood behind the project of this newspaper.180 If this hypothesis is correct, then it is understandable why the newspaper concentrated on Kaunas Province: It was the electoral district from which Friedman was elected to the State Duma and where he surely intended to run in the next elections of 1917. Yet, at the same time, one can find a different “mental geography” on the pages of Nash krai. The newspaper published Uriah Katzenelenbogen’s essay “Troe iunoshei” (“Three Young Men”), which tells a story about three young men (a Jew, a Lithuanian, and a Belarusian) who secretly meet on the riverbank of the Neris and praise each other’s language.181 These three young men, of course, represented three nations (Lithuanians, Belarusians, and Jews), and the “natural” place for them to meet was the former lands of the GDL. A hypothesis that such a mental map was hidden in this text can be supported by a longer version of the essay that was published in Lithuanian translation in 1922.182 That version begins with the depiction of a village on the Neris River, where in one part of the village people speak Lithuanian, while in another Belarusian, and a Jewish house is situated between the two. Life here is very tough not only because the landowner from a nearby manor oppresses village inhabitants but also because local people are suffering from “the iron guard” of a foreign country (meaning the imperial government). Besides that, heavy clouds resembling a predatory eagle hang over the village.183 In that metaphorical way, Katzenelenbogen depicted the 178 U.N., “Evrei i litovtsy: Beseda s chlenom Gosudarstvennoi Dumy N.F. Fridmanom,” Nash krai, 1914, no. 3. 179 “Balalaika besstrunnaia . . . ,” Nash krai, 1914, no. 1. 180 The newspaper published quite a long interview with him: U.N., “Evrei i litovtsy: Beseda s chlenom Gosudarstvennoi Dumy N.F. Fridmanom,” Nash krai, 1914, no. 3. 181 Iurii [Uriah Katzenelenbogen], “Troe iunoshei,” Nash krai, 1914, no. 2. 182 It was explained in 1922 that, in 1914, a shorter version was published due to censorship. 183 Urias Kacenelenbogenas, Vilniečio balsas (Kaunas, 1922), 31–35. This was a translation from Yiddish.

357

358

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

situation in Lithuania where three nations—Jews, Lithuanians, and Belarusians—coexisted peacefully but suffered at the hands of the same enemies: Polish landowners and the Russian government (the eagle was doubtlessly a personification of the tsarist regime). It is obvious that this village symbolized a country much larger than just Kaunas Province or ethnic Lithuania. Not surprisingly, some of the aforementioned Jewish public figures continued to popularize the same mental map when World War I broke out. Thus, in the newspaper Di vokh (The week) A. I. Goldshmidt and Moyshe Shalit wrote repeatedly about the “Lithuanian-Belarusian land” while at the same time acknowledging that the terms Lite and Belarus (Belorusie) were not clear and stable.184

*** Names that Jews used to describe regions (Lite, Zamet, Raysn) had their equivalents in other discourses (Litwa, Lietuva, Litva, Żmudź, Samogitia, Rus’, etc.), but their geographical scope was not identical. The Jewish mental maps in Lithuania in the “long” nineteenth century were ambiguous, reflecting in various degrees the region’s historical past, administrative borders, non-Jewish discourses, and the cultural/ religious diversity among the Jews. In a strange way, they sometimes preserved medieval geographical concepts interwoven with newer realities. The term Lite, which was approximately equal to the GDL in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, became a synonym for the NWR of the Russian Empire in the nineteenth century, but it never coincided with its exact borders. Until the emergence of the independent Republic of Lithuania in 1918, it was almost never used to refer to ethnic Lithuania. At the same time, the term Lite existed in the narrow sense, describing the southeastern part of ethnic Lithuania, the western and central parts of ethnic Belarus, and the northeastern part of today’s Poland. This understanding of Lite was 184 A. I. Goldshmidt, “Ba unzere shkheynim: Di belorusen,” Di vokh, 1915, no. 15, 28; A. I. Goldshmidt, “Ba unzere shkheynim, II,” Di vokh, 1915, no. 16, 29–30; M. Shalit, “Tsu vemen darf geheren vilne?” Di vokh, 1915, no. 21, 17.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

very similar to Lithuania Propria, which existed in the GDL from the thirteenth century. Jews perceived a large part of ethnic Lithuania as a distinct part of Lite, Zamet. Zamet also had two meanings: The narrower concept more or less coincided with the borders of the historical Principality of Samogitia, and the broader concept was almost identical to Kaunas Province. Raysn, on the other hand, signified a certain territory that constantly extended: In the late eighteenth century, its boundaries were defined by the 1772 border between the Russian Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in the nineteenth century, they reflected the spread of Habad Hasidism. Raysn in the Jewish discourse was from time to time “translated” as Belarus, and there were similar changes in both concepts around the same time, but Raysn was not an exact copy of Belarus in other discourses. Such regions as Lite, Raysn, and Zamet were perceived in the Jewish discourse as regional entities that had nothing to do with political realities. If there were Jews in the first half of the nineteenth century in Lithuania who thought in terms of a political framework, they most probably saw themselves as being “Polish Jews,” while in the late imperial period, the dominant perception became “Russian Jews.” This situation slightly changed on the eve of World War I, when some Jewish public figures like Uriah Katzenelenbogen started to inform Jewish readers about Lithuanians and Belarusians, their history and current aspirations, and their “national territory.” However, their understanding of Lithuania was very different—and much larger—than the one dominating the Lithuanian discourse. It was difficult for Lithuanians (a peasant nation) to impose their notions of “national territory” on other national discourses.

Archival Sources

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem A3—Collection of Max Mandelstamm A24—Collection of Menachem Ussyshkin

359

360

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Lietuvos mokslų akademijos Vrublevskių bibliotekos Rankraščių skyrius (Manuscript Division of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; LMAVB RS) f. 138—Riomerių šeimos aktai (documents of the Römeris family) Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (Russian State Historical Archive; RGIA) f. 1565—Tsentral’nyi komitet obshchestva dlia dostizheniia polnopraviia evreiskogo naroda v Rossii Tsentral’nyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Uzbekistana (TsGA Uzbekistana) f. I-461—Turkestanskoe raionnoe okhrannoe otdelenie Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People, Jerusalem (CAHJP) HM2/8257.1

Periodicals Di arbeyter shtime fun lite, Di vokh, Folksshtime, Folkstsaytung, Ha-karmel, Ha-levanon, Ha-maggid, Ha-melitz, Ha-tzofe, Havatzelet, Ivri Anokhi, Khronika evreiskoi zhizni, Kurjer Litewski, Lietuvos ūkininkas, Lietuvos žinios, Lite (1914), Nash krai, Nasha niva, Naujoji gadynė, Novaia zaria, Rassvet, Sotsialistishes flugblat, Svobodnoe slovo, Šaltinis, Vilner vochenblat

Books and Articles Akty izdavaemye vilenskoiu komissieiu dlia razbora drevnikh aktov. Vol. 29. Vilnius: Russkii pochin, 1902. Albert, Shlomo. Aderet eliyahu: toldot hayav shel oto tzadik rabi eliyahu david rabinowitz-teomim. Jerusalem: Sh. Albert, 2003. Amiantov, Iu. N., K. G. Lizshenko, I. S. Rozental, Z. I. Peregrudova, and Z. N. Tikhonova, eds. Bund: Dokumenty i materialy, 1894– 1921. Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010. Arkheograficheskii sbornik dokumentov otnosiashchikhsia k istorii severozapadnoi Rusi. Vol. 3. Vilnius: Tip. Gub. Prav., 1867. Barnai, Yaakov. Igrot hasidim me-eretz israel. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Tzvi, 1980. Beider, Alexander. A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from Galicia. Bergenfield: Avotaynu, 2004.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

____. A Dictionary of Jewish Surnames from the Russian Empire: Revised Edition. Bergenfield: Avotaynu, 2008. ____. “Eastern Yiddish Toponyms of German Origin.” In Leket: Yiddish Studies Today, ed. Marion Aptroot, Efrat Gal-Ed, Roland Gruschka, and Simon Neuberg, 437–66. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press, 2012. Belyi, Ales’. Khronika Belai Rusi: Narys historyi adnoj heahrafichnai nasvy. Minsk: Entsyklapedyks, 2000. Ben-Arie, Yehoshua. Ir be-re’i ha-tkufa: yerushalayim ha-hadashah be-reshita. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Tzvi, 1979. Ben-Sasson, Haim Hillel. “Lithuania: The Structure and Trends of Its Culture.” In Encyclopaedia Judaica Yearbook 1973, 120–34. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1973. Bershadskii, Sergei. Litovskie evrei: Istoriia ikh iuridicheskogo i obshchestvennogo polozheniia v Litve ot Vitovta do Liublinskoi unii. St. Petersburg: Tipografiia M. M. Stasiulevicha, 1883. ____. “Materialy dlia istorii evreev v iugo-zapadnoi Rossii i Litve.” Evreiskaia biblioteka 8 (1880): 1–32 (third pagination). Blazer, Itzhak. Pri itzhak. Pt. 2. Jerusalem: Solomon, 1913. Bogdanova, Rita. Latvia: Synagogues and Rabbis, 1918–1940. Riga: Shamir, 2004. Borenshtein, Avraham. Avnei nezer. Piotrków: H. Folman, 1926. Cieśla, Maria. “Sharing a Commonwealth—Polish Jews or Lithuanian Jews?” Gal-Ed: On the History and Culture of Polish Jewry 24 (2015): 15–44. Dubnov, Semion. “Akty evreiskogo koronnogo seima ili ‘Vaada chetyrekh oblastei.’” Evreiskaia starina 4, no. 1 (1912): 70–84. ____. “Oblastnye kagal’nye seimy v voevodstve Volynskom i v Belorussii (1666–1764).” Voskhod (April 1894): 25–44. Dubnov, Shimon, ed. Pinkas ha-medina o pinkas vaad ha-kehilot ha-roshiyot be-medinat lita. Berlin: Einot, 1925. Dziarnovich, Oleg. “‘Litva’ i ‘Rus’ XIII–XVI vv. kak kontsepty belorusskoi istoriografii.” Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana 1–2 (2009): 239–49. Eisenstadt, Abraham Tzvi Hirsch. Pithei teshuvah. Vilnius, 1836.

361

362

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Eisenstadt, Israel Tuviah. Daat kdoshim, ed. Shmuel Viner. St. Petersburg: Bermann, 1897–98. Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, Eliyahu raba. Brno: Joseph Rosman, 1802. Entsiklopediyah talmudit. Vol. 17. Jerusalem: Entsiklopediyah talmudit, 1983. Epstein, Yehiel Mikhel. Arukh ha-shulhan. Piotrków: M. Tzederbaum, 1903–05. Etkes, Immanuel. Ba’al ha-tania: rabi shneur zalman mi-liady ve-reshita shel hasidut habad. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2011. ____. Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement: Seeking the Torah of Truth. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1993. Ettinger, Shmuel. “Vaad arba aratzot,” in Israel Halpern, Pinkas vaad arba aratzot, 2nd enlarged ed., ed. Israel Bartal, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1990, 28–29; reprinted in Ettinger, Shmuel. Bein polin le-rusiyah. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center and Bialik Institute, 1994, 79–180. Evreiskaia Narodnaia Gruppa. Rezolutsii oblastnykh soveshchanii po voprosam, sviazannym s predstoiashchei izbiratel’noi kampaniei. St. Petersburg: Evreiskaia Narodnaia Gruppa, 1907. Fishman, David E. “Nuo štadlanų iki masinių partijų: žydų politiniai judėjimai Lietuvoje.” In Lietuvos žydai. Istorinė studija, ed. Vladas Sirutavičius, Darius Staliūnas, Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, 251–69. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2012. ____. Russia’s First Modern Jews: The Jews of Shklov. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Frankel, Jonathan. Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, 1862–1917. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Friedman, Menahem. Hevra be-mashber legitimatsiyah: ha-yishuv ha-yashan ha-ashkenazi, 1900–1917. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2001. Frumkin, Arie Leib. Toldot hakhamei yerushalayim. Vol. 3. Jerusalem: Dfus Salomon, 1929. Gershenzon, A. “Der litvisher rayon-komitet (1909–1915).” In Yidisher arbeter pinkos, ed. Zrubavel, 305–12. Warsaw, 1927.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Gessen, Iulii. “Evrei v Kurliandii (XVI–XVIII v.).” Evreiskaia starina 7 (1914): 145–62, 365–84. Gintsburg, Yehuda Leib. Amudei olam. Amsterdam: Joseph Dayan, 1730. Gold, David L. “Yiddish Linguistic and Jewish Liturgical Boundaries as Determinants of Non-Jewish Political Boundaries?—Shimshn Royznboym and the Boundaries of Interbellum Lithuania.” Jewish Language Review 2 (1982): 59–62. Greenbaum, Avraham. Tnu’at “ha-tehiyah” (“Vozrozhdenie”) ve-mifleget ha-po’alim ha-yehudit-sotzialistit: mivhar ktavim. Jerusalem: Dinur Center, 1988. Guterman, Aleksander. Ha-miflagah ha-tzionit-sotzialistit be-rusiyah (s.s.) ba-shanim 1905–06. Tel Aviv: I. L. Peretz Publishing, 1985. Hager, Ester. “Liepāja.” In Pinkas ha-kehilot: latviyah ve-estoniyah, ed. Dov Levin, 170–86. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1988. Halberstamm Haim, Divrei haim. Mukacheve: P. Bleier, 1877. Halpern, Israel. Pinkas vaad arba aratzot. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1945. ____. “Reshito shel vaad medinat lita ve-yahasav el vaad arba aratzot.” In Yehudim ve-yahadut be-mizrah-eyropah, 48–54. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968. ____. “Toldot ha-yehudim be-tiktin.” In Yehudim ve-yahadut be-mizrah-eyropah, 139–51. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968. ____. Tosafot u-miluim le-“pinkas medinat lita.” Jerusalem: Dfus Salomon, 1935. ____. Yehudim ve-yahadut be-mizrah-eyropah: Mehkarim be-toldoteihem. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1968. Herzog, Marvin, ed. The Language and Culture Atlas of Ashkenazic Jewry. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2000. Herzog, Marvin. The Yiddish Language in Northern Poland: Its Geography and History. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965. Igrot kodesh me-et k”k admo”r ha-zaken, k”k amo”r ha-emtza’i, k”k admo”r ha-tzemah tzedek. Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1987. Isserlein, Israel. Psakim u-khtavim. Venice: M. A. Iushtinian, 1546.

363

364

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Jurkiewicz, Jan. Rozwój polskiej myśli politycznej na Litwie i Białorusi w latach 1905–1922. Poznań: Wydawn. Nauk. Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza, 1983. Kacenelenbogenas, Urias. Vilniečio balsas. Kaunas, 1922. Kalik, Iudit. “Evreiskoe prisutstvie v Rossii v XVI-XVIII vv.” In Istoriia evreiskogo naroda v Rossii. Vol. 1, Ot drevnosti do rannego Novogo vremeni, ed. Israel Bartal and Aleksandr Kulik, 321–41. Moscow: Gesharim–Mosty Kul’tury, 2010. Katz, Dovid. Lithuanian Jewish Culture. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2004. ____. Litvish: An Atlas of Northeastern Yiddish. Accessed January 12, 2015, http://www.dovidkatz.net/WebAtlas/0_TerritoryLitvish_ LinguistCult.htm. ____. Seven Kingdoms of the Litvaks. Vilnius: International Cultural Program Center, 2009. ____. “The Concept of Lithuania in Modern Yiddish and Hebrew Literature.” In Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir paveldo “dalybos,” ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis, and Grigorijus Potašenko, 170–204. Vilnius: Vilniaus Universiteto leidykla, 2008. Katz, Jacob. Tradition and Crisis. New York: New York University Press, 1993. Katzenelenbogen, Uriah. “Litvakes.” In Lite, ed. Mendel Sudarsky, Uriah Katzenelenbogen, and J. Kisin, 307–91. New York: Kultur-gezelshaft fun litvishe yidn, 1951. Khazdan, Evgeniia. “Dva ‘pis’ma’ k Rebe.” Zhivaia Starina 69, no. 1 (2011): 16–19. Kiaupienė, Jūratė. “Teritorijos administracinė valstybės erdvės pertvarka.” In Lietuvos istorija, ed. Jūratė Kiaupienė and Rimvydas Petrauksas. Vol. 4, Naujieji horizontai: dinastija, visuomenė, valstybė. Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė 1386–1529 m., 61–176. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 2009. Kirzhnits, Avrom. Der yiddisher arbiter: Khrestomatie. Vol. 2, pt. 1. Moscow, 1925. Klibansky, Ben-Tsiyon. Ke-tzur halamish: tor ha-zahav shel ha-yeshivot ha-litaiyot be-mizrah eyropah. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2014.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Kuk, Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen. Eder ha-yakar ve-ikvei ha-tzon. Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kuk, 1967. Łatyszonek, Oleg. Od rusinów białych do białorusinów: U źródeł białoruskiej idei narodowej. Białystok: Uniwersytet w Białymstoku, 2006. Lazutka, Stanislovas, and Edwardas Gudavichius [Edvardas Gudavičius]. Privilege to Jews Granted by Vytautas the Great in 1388. Moscow: Gesharim, 1993. Lederhendler, Eli. “Did Russian Jewry Exist prior to 1917?” In Jews and Jewish Life in Russia and the Soviet Union, ed. Yaacov Ro’i, 15–27. Ilford: Frank Cass, 1995. Levin, Dov. “Riga.” In Pinkas ha-kehilot: latviyah ve-estoniyah, ed. Dov Levin, 242–95. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1988. ____. The Litvaks: A Short History of the Jews in Lithuania. Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2000. Levin, Shalom Duber. Toldot habad be-eretz ha-kodesh. Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1985. Levin, Vladimir. “Lithuanians in Jewish Politics of the Late Imperial Period.” In A Pragmatic Alliance: Jewish-Lithuanian Political Cooperation at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century, ed. Vladas Sirutavičius and Darius Staliūnas, 77–118. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2011. ____. Mi-mahapekhah le-milhamah: ha-politikah ha-yehudit be-rusiyah, 1907–1914. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center, 2016. Lipman, D. M. Le-toldot ha-yehudim be-kovna ve-slobodka. Kėdaniai, 1934. Lipshitz, Yaakov Halevi. Zikhron yaakov. Vol. 2. Kaunas: Notel Lipschitz, 1927. Luntz,AvrahamMoshe.“Ha-halukah:mekora,korotehave-hishtalsheluteha.” In Yerushalayim: ma’asef sifruti le-hakirat eretz ha-kodesh, ed. Avraham Moshe Luntz, 1–62. 1911, vol. 9. ____. Luah eretz israel. Jerusalem: A. M. Luntz, 1901. Lurie, Avraham. Nisyonot avraham. Vilnius: Menahem Man, 1821. Maggid, David. Toldot mishpahot gintzburg. St. Petersburg: D. Maggid, 1899.

365

366

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Maggid-Steinschneider, Hillel Noah. Ir vilna. Vol. 1. Vilnius: Widow and Brothers Romm, 1900; Vol. 2, ed. Mordechai Zalkin. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2002. Marek, Pesakh. “Administrativnoe delenie evreiskikh poselenii v Litovskoi oblasti.” In Istoriia evreiskogo naroda. Vol. 11, Istoriia evreev v Rossii, ed. A. I. Braudo, M. L. Wischnitzer, Iu. Gessen, S. M. Ginzburg, P. S. Marek, and S. L. Tsinberg, 206–10. Moscow: Mir, 1914. ____. “Belorusskaia sinagoga i ee territoriia.” Voskhod (May 1903): 71–82. Mark, Yudl. “Undzer litvisher yidish.” In Lite, ed. Mendel Sudarsky, Uriah Katzenelenbogen, and J. Kisin, 430–72. New York: Kultur-gezelshaft fun litvishe yidn, 1951. Markovich, Moshe. Le-korot ir keydan ve-rabaneiha. Warsaw: A. L. Lifshitz, 1913. ____. Le-korot ir rosiyen ve-rabaneiha. Warsaw: A. L. Lifshitz, 1913. Maze, Yaakov. Zikhronot. Tel Aviv: Yalkut, 1939. Mendelsohn, Ezra. Class Struggle in the Pale: The Formative Years of the Jewish Worker’s Movement in Tsarist Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. ____. The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. Miknys, Rimantas. “Vilniaus autonomistai ir jų 1904–1905 m. Lietuvos politinės autonomijos projektai.” In Lietuvių Atgimimo istorijos studijos. Vol. 3, Lietuvos valstybės idėja (XIX a.–XX a. pradžia), 173–98. Vilnius: Žaltvykslė, 1991. Mintz, Matityahu. Veidat krakov shel mifleget ha-po’alim ha-sotzial-demokratit ha-yehudit po’alei-tzion be-rusiyah (ogust 1907): te’udot. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1979. Mishkinsky, Moshe. “Regional Factors in the Formation of the Jewish Labor Movement in Czarist Russia.” In Essential Papers on Jews and the Left, ed. Ezra Mendelsohn, 78–100. New York: New York University Press, 1997. Morgenstern, Arie. Geula be-derekh ha-teva: talmidei ha-gr”a be-eretz-israel, 1800–1840, 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Maor, 1997.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Nadav, Mordechai, ed. Pinkas kahal tiktin, 1621–1806. Jerusalem: Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1996. Nadler, Allan. The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Nasevich, Viacheslaŭ, and Mikhail Spirydonaŭ. ‘“Rus’ u skladze Vialikaha kniastva Litoŭskaha ŭ 16 st.,” Z hlybi viakoŭ. Nash krai: Hist. kul’turalah. No. 1 (1996): 4–27. Natanzon, Yosef Shaul. Sho’el u-meshiv. Lviv: Salat, 1865. Pervyi uchreditel’nyi s”ezd Evreiskoi narodnoi gruppy. St. Petersburg: ENG, 1907. Polonsky, Antony. “What Is the Origin of the Litvak? The Legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.” In Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos tradicija ir paveldo “dalybos,” ed. Alfredas Bumblauskas, Šarūnas Liekis, and Grigorijus Potašenko, 275–81. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008. Požėla, Vladas. Jaunystės atsiminimai. London: Amerikos lietuvių socialdemokratų sąjunga, 1971. Pukhovitzer, Yehuda Leib. Kne hokhmah. Frankfurt am Oder: Jochanan Christoph Beckman, 1681. Rabinovich, Zeev. Ha-hasidut ha-lita’it mi-reshita ve-ad yameinu. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1961. Rabinowitz-Teomim, Eliyahu David. Ma’aneh eliyahu. Jerusalem: Merkaz Shapiro, 2003. Rapoport-Albert, Ada, and Gadi Sagiv. “Habad mul hasidut ‘polin’: le-toldotav shel dimui menugad.” In Habad: Historiyah, hagut, dimui, ed. Yonatan Meir and Gadi Sagiv. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, forthcoming. Rivkin, B. “Di kurlender litvakes.” In Lite, ed. Mendel Sudarsky, Uriah Katzenelenbogen, and J. Kisin, 407–16. New York: Kultur-gezelshaft fun litvishe yidn, 1951. Rogoler, Eliyahu. Yad eliyahu. Warsaw: M.I. Halter, 1900. Rosenthal, Herman. “Lithuania.” In Jewish Encyclopedia. Vol. 8, 118–30. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904. Roskies, Diane K., and David G. Roskies, eds. The Shtetl Book: An Introduction to East European Jewish Life and Lore, 2nd ed. Newark: Ktav Publishing, 1979.

367

368

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Rosman, Moshe. “Samkhuto shel vaad arba aratzot mi-hutz le-folin.” Bar-Ilan, 24–25 (1989): 11–30. Rozental, Shabtai D., ed. Aderet eliyahu: Sefer zikaron. Jerusalem: Mif’al aderet eliyahu, 1991. Sabaliūnas, Leonas. Lithuanian Social Democracy in Perspective, 1893– 1914. Durham: Duke University Press, 1990. Sawicki, Jan. Mykolas Römeris ir buvusios Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštystės žemių tautinės problemos. Vilnius: LII, 1999. Schneersohn, Menahem Mendl. Tzemah tzedek. Vilnius: Widow and Brothers Romm, 1884. Schneersohn, Yosef Itzhak. Igrot kodesh. Vol. 1. Brooklyn: Kehot Publication Society, 1982. Shapiro, Elazar. Minhat elazar. Mukacheve: Sh. Z. Kahana and E. Fried, 1902. Shapiro, Shaul. Hemdat shaul. Odessa: Isakovich and Beilenson, 1903. Shik, Zalman. 1000 yor vilne. Vilnius: Wilno Branch of the Society for Local Studies in Poland, 1939. Shteinberg, Aharon. “Der shevet litvakes.” In Lite, ed. Mendel Sudarsky, Uriah Katzenelenbogen, and J. Kisin, 394–408. New York: Kultur-gezelshaft fun litvishe yidn, 1951. Sirkis, Yoel. Shu”t bait hadash ha-hadashot. Korets, 1785. Sofer, Moshe. Hatam sofer. Bratislava, 1854. Solak, Zbigniew. Tarp Lenkijos ir Lietuvos: Mykolo Römerio gyvenimas ir veikla (1880–1920 metai). Vilnius: LII, 2008. Spector, Itzhak Elhanan. Ein itzhak. Vilnius: Sh. I. Finn, A. Tz. Rozenkranz, M. M. Shriftzetzer, 1895. Spiridonov, Mikhail. ‘“Litva’ i ‘Rus’ v Belarusi v 16 v.,” Nash radavod 7 (1996): 206–11. Stampfer, Shaul. Lithuanian Yeshivas of the Nineteenth Century: Creating a Tradition of Learning. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2012. Stampfer, Shaul. “Some Implications of Jewish Population Patterns in Pre-partition Lithuania.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 38 (1998): 189–223. Tobias, Henry J. The Jewish Bund in Russia: From Its Origin to 1905. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1972.

Lite on the Jewish Mental Maps

Trunk, I. “Der vaad medinas rusiya (raysn).” YIVO Bletter 40 (1956): 63–85. Trunk, Israel Yehoshua. Yeshuot malko. Piotrków: H.H. Folman, 1927. Vidmantas, Edvardas. Lietuvos darbininkų periodinė spauda 1895–1917. Vilnius: Mintis, 1979. Volumina regum. Vol. 6. St. Petersburg, 1860. Voronin, Vasilii. “Reka Berezina kak granitsa mezhdu Rus’iu i Litvoi.” Accessed May 23, 2015. http://belhist.ru/2012/11/vasilij-voronin-rekaberezina-kak-granica-mezhdu/. Weinreich, Max. “Dos kurlender yidish.” In Staplen, 193–240. Berlin: Wostok, 1923. Weinreich, Uriel. “Sábesdiker losn in Yiddish: A Problem of Linguistic Affinity.” Word: Journal of the Linguistic Circle of New York 8 (1952): 360–77. Wischnitzer, Mark. “Der vaad lite, zayn struktur un di rolye zayne in dem gezelshaflikhen lebn fun di litvishe yidn.” In Lite, ed. Mendel Sudarsky, Uriah Katzenelenbogen, and J. Kisin, 163–92. New York: Kultur-gezelshaft fun litvishe yidn, 1951. ____. “Litovskii vaad.” In Istoriia evreiskogo naroda. Vol. 11, Istoriia evreev v Rossii, ed. A. I. Braudo, M. L. Wischnitzer, Iu. Gessen, S. M. Ginzburg, P. S. Marek, and S. L. Tsinberg, 181–205. Moscow: Mir, 1914. Yaari, Avraham. Igrot eretz israel. Tel Aviv: Gazit, 1943. Yerusalimsky, Moshe Nahum. Be’er moshe. Jerusalem: Mif’al Torah Hakhamei Polin, 2003. Zajka, Vital. “The Self-Perception of Lithuanian-Belarusian Jewry.” In Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry 14 (2001): 19–31. Zaks, Moshe Levi. Divrei moshe. Vilnius: L. L. Mats, 1878. Zalkin, Mordechai. “Bein gaon le-eglon–morashta ha-tarbutit shel yahadut lita.” Gesher 136 (1997): 73–81. ____. “Lithuanian Jewry and the Concept of ‘East European Jewry.’” Polin 25 (2013): 59–70. ____. “Mekomot she-lo matz’a adain ha-hasidut ken la klal? bein hasidim le-mitnagdim be-lita ba-me’ah ha-19.” In Be-ma’agalei Hasidim: Kovetz mehkarim le-zikhro shel professor mordechai

369

370

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

vilensky, ed. Immanuel Etkes, David Assaf, Israel Bartal, and Elhanan Reiner, 21–50. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1999. Zeitlin, Aharon. “Habad.” In Lite, ed. Mendel Sudarsky, Uriah Katzenelenbogen, and J. Kisin, 589–600. New York: Kultur-gezelshaft fun litvishe yidn, 1951. Zilberfarb, Barukh. Minhat barukh. Zhytomyr: I. Kiselman, 1900. Zimmerman, Joshua. Poles, Jews and the Politics of Nationality, the Bund and the Polish Socialist Party in Late Imperial Russia, 1892–1914. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2004. Zvadiyah, Moshe Yaakov. Maayan ganim. Pts. 2–3: Bilgorai: Ia. Verner, 1909; Pt. 4: Piotrków: M. Tzederbaum, 1914.

CHAPTER 7

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians Vasilijus Safronovas* Images of what Lithuania was over the course of the long nineteenth century have been severely affected by the order established on the political map in the “age of extremes.” The modern Lithuanian state began to be created in 1918 on territory that the German army “liberated” from the Romanov monarchy in 1915. For that reason, the name “Lithuania” became, as a general rule, associated with the areas of Russia populated by Lithuanian speakers. However, in the nineteenth century, there existed a much greater diversity of concepts describing Lithuania. Both the name “Lithuania” and the meaning behind this concept changed more than once, and in the consciousness of many people, Lithuania was not simply an area under Romanov control. The best example of this phenomenon is the fact that a large percentage of the Germans and the Lithuanians living in Germany in the nineteenth century understood Lithuania in a very different sense. In Prussia and within the Germanspeaking body of knowledge that influenced the Germans and Prussian Lithuanians, “Lithuania” was the name applied to a particular area in the northeastern part of East Prussia. The specific borders of this space changed depending on the meaning assigned to this name.   * Many aspects of this chapter are discussed in more detail in the author’s monograph The Creation of National Spaces in a Pluricultural Region: The Case of Prussian Lithuania (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2016).

372

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

PRUSSIA’S “DIFFERENT” LITHUANIA AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH “RUSSIAN LITHUANIA” The name “Lithuania” began to be applied to some of the lands belonging to the Duke of Prussia after new settlers moved into the eastern part of the duchy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It would be wrong to imagine that the perception of dependence to Lithuania at the time was characteristic for the majority of the population comprising the lower social stratum. In fact, usage of the name “Lithuania” for a part of Prussia is first found in a communication milieu that included the priesthood. What occurred with the name “Lithuania” might be referred to as cultural transfer, with the name being applied to the region in which the new subjects of the Duke of Prussia coming from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) operated and eventually acquiring new meaning.1 Such a transfer was conditioned by a group of a dozen priests, many of whom moved during the Reformation period from the GDL to Prussia.2 The “Lithuania” that existed in ecclesiastical communication milieu was not yet a part of universal knowledge of that time. The name of this region cannot be found in the scholarly literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.3 In cartography, from the initial publication of Caspar Hennenberger’s map (1584) until the eighteenth century, the areas of the   1 Cultural transfer is understood here in the way that Michel Espagne defines it. Cf. Michel Espagne and Michael Werner, “Deutsch-Französischer Kulturtransfer im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert: Zu einem neuen interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramm des C.N.R.S,” Francia: Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte 13 (1985): 502–10; Michel Espagne, Les transferts culturels franco-allemands (Paris: PUF, 1999).   2 Ingė Lukšaitė has ascertained that eleven of the thirteen Lithuanian priests operating in Prussia in the middle and the second half of the sixteenth century were from the GDL: Ingė Lukšaitė, Reformacija Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje ir Mažojoje Lietuvoje: XVI a. trečias dešimtmetis–XVII a. pirmas dešimtmetis (Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1999), 244.   3 Matas Pretorijus, Prūsijos įdomybės, arba Prūsijos regykla = Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubühne, ed. Ingė Lukšaitė, vols. 1–4 (Vilnius: Pradai; Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 1999–2011); Casparus Hennenberger, Kurtze vnd warhafftige Beschreibung des Landes zu Preussen . . . (Königsberg: Georg Osterberger, 1584); Casparus Hennenberger, Ercleru[n]g der Preüssischen grössern Landtaffel oder Mappen (Königsberg: Georg Osterberger, 1595).

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Duchy of Prussia were known only by their old names: Sambia, Nadrovia, and Scalovia.4 Christoph Hartknoch, one of the greatest erudites in the region in his own time and a professor at the Toruń gymnasium, also used these designations in his writing.5 This may indicate that two traditions for referring to the same region existed until the eighteenth century. The first was established in the Prussian church as an institution and was maintained mainly by priests who used the Lithuanian language and demonstrated a consciousness of belonging to Lithuania. The second tradition was associated with the field of scholarly knowledge. Until the early eighteenth century, both traditions were characteristic of communication milieux that were intertwined but had essential differences. Greater practical knowledge arising from daily needs and immediate observation of the living environment of Lithuanian speakers in Prussia underpinned the existence of one milieu. The other was supported by theoretical knowledge, often built around canons and other forms of rote knowledge. For a number of reasons, the term “Lithuania” came into broader use at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The first reason, as a part of a more general trend toward change in Prussia, was that the surveyors hired by the Brandenburg ruler at that time for practical (mainly military) purposes began to improve the mapping and topographical descriptions of eastern Prussia. During this process, the tradition at the beginning of the eighteenth century of identifying some of Prussia’s districts as “Lithuanian” was “transferred” to the manuscript survey maps of these districts, while in the 1730s the term appeared in published cartography based on these survey maps.6 Through this   4 For examples see: Eckhard Jäger, Prussia-Karten 1542–1810: Geschichte der kartographischen Darstellung Ostpreußens vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Waißenhorn: Anton H. Konrad, 1982). See: Povilas Reklaitis, “Kleinlitauen in der Kartographie Preussens: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Gebietsnames Litauen im ehemaligen Königreich Preussen,” in Lithuania Minor: A Collection of Studies on Her History and Ethnography, ed. Martynas Brakas (New York: Lithuanian Research Institute, 1976), 69.   5 Christophorus Hartknoch, Alt- und Neues Preussen Oder Preussischer Historien Zwey Theile (Frankfurt and Leipzig: Martin Hallervorden, 1684), 442.   6 Reklaitis, “Kleinlitauen,” 70. See also: Rasa Seibutytė, “Kleinlitauen auf den preußischen Karten des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Annaberger Annalen 15 (2007): 95–96, 98, 102–4.

373

374

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

merging of practical and theoretical knowledge in the realm of cartography, “Lithuania” eventually came into use as the name for a separate area of the former Duchy of Prussia (alongside others: Sambia, Natanga, and Oberland).7 The second reason was the issues that the northeastern part of the Duchy of Prussia encountered after the 1709–11 plague. The “Lithuanian districts” that suffered the most from the plague8 demanded special administrative attention. In 1714 the first separate institution to administer these districts had already being established. Finally, in 1736 King Friedrich Wilhelm I founded the Royal Military and Domain Chamber (Königliche Krieges- und zu Domainencammer zu Gumbinnen) in the newly established town of Gumbinnen (now Gusev).9 Unlike the area administered by the Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) Chamber, often simply called the Königsberg Department, the area administered from Gumbinnen was often referred to as the Department of Lithuania.10 The continuous use of this name indicates that the name and concept had finally moved out of the ecclesiastical communication milieu of priests into the increasingly secular administrative milieu. In Prussia in the first half of the eighteenth century, the term “Lithuania” increasingly began to be used for the area in which the authority of a specific administrative institution was in force. At the junction of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that area was already being called the “Province of Lithuania,” treating the territory not only as part of East Prussia but also as a unit equal to East Prussia. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the names of both areas—(East)   7 Reklaitis, “Kleinlitauen,” 78, 85, fig. 5.   8 See: Wilhelm Sahm, Geschichte der Pest in Ostpreußen (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1905), 83, 150.   9 August Skalweit, Die ostpreussische Domänenverwaltung unter Friedrich Wilhelm I. und das Retablissement Litauens (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1906), 36, 86; Eduard Rudolf Uderstädt, “Die ostpreussische Kammerverwaltung, ihre Unterbehörden und Lokalorgane unter Friedrich Wilhelm I. und Friedrich II. bis zur Russenokkupation (1753–1756). Teil 1,” Altpreussische Monatsschrift 49 (1912): 665; Fritz Terveen, Gesamtstaat und Retablissement: Der Wiederaufbau des nördlichen Ostpreußen unter Friedrich Wilhelm I 1714–1740, vol. 16 of Göttinger Bausteine zur Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1954), 27–28, 80–81. 10 Cf. Alexander Horn, Die Verwaltung Ostpreussens seit der Säcularisation 1525–1875 (Königsberg: B. Teichert, 1890), 265.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Prussia and Lithuania—were usually used side by side, creating a single construct. Friedrich II himself and his administration both identified the territory in this way, as did others.11 With such an understanding of this administrative unit, the term “Lithuania” first spread in the German-specific body of knowledge, and from there, to Europe at large. In German-language discourse, this term began to be applied much more often to a part of Prussia than to the former lands of the GDL. The concept of Lithuania as the part of Prussia administered from Gumbinnen endured into the nineteenth century. The decisions made in 1808–15, when administrative reforms were being carried out in Prussia, offer the best evidence of such continuity. When at the end of December 1808 military and domain chambers were abolished in Prussia, authority remained in the hands of the former provincial governments.12 After the institution of permanent ober-presidents was introduced, an important step was taken toward combining the three provinces of East Prussia, West Prussia, and Lithuania: one ober-­ president was assigned for all of them.13 An April 30, 1815, decree, however, entrenched the individuality of Lithuania and East Prussia, transforming the two former provinces into governmental districts (Regierungsbezirk). Under this decree, the former government of Prussia’s Royal Province of Lithuania (Königlich Preussische-Regierung der Provinz Litthauen) in Gumbinnen began to be called The Government of Lithuania in Gumbinnen (Regierung in Litthauen zu Gumbinnen), 11 A proposal by Minister Ludwig Philipp vom Hagen in 1768 mentions “Preußen und Litthauen”; a 1777 letter by King Friedrich II mentions “Ostpreußen und Litthauen,” and one of the king’s document in 1781 includes the dual formulation “Ost-Preußenschen und Litthaeunschen Domainen-Aemtern”; an order issued by the 1785 cabinet refers to two different territories: “in denen Aemtern so wohl in Ost-Preußen wie in Litthauen” (Walter Mertineit, Die fridericianische Verwaltung in Ostpreussen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der preußischen Staatsbildung, vol. 1 of Studien zur Geschichte Preussens (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1958), 110, 164, 165, 174). 12 Max Toeppen, Historisch-comparative Geographie von Preussen (Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1858), 337–38. 13 “Publikandum, betreffend die veränderte Verfassung der obersten Staatsbehörden der Preußischen Monarchie, in Beziehung auf die innere Landes- und Finanzverwaltung, No.  59 vom 16ten Dezember 1808,” Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlich-Preußischen Staaten 1806–10, 361–73, here 372.

375

376

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

which administered the Gumbinnen Governmental District (Regierungsbezirk Gumbinnen); the administration of the Königsberg Governmental District was now called The Government of East Prussia in Königsberg. This decree stipulated that the territories administered by the Königsberg and Gumbinnen governments would be called provinces no longer. Now both became an integral part of one province—Prussia.14 All the same, in the first half of the nineteenth century, the name “Lithuania” was still synonymously applied to the Gumbinnen Governmental District within the Province of Prussia. The social groups identifying themselves with this space had the greatest influence in determining this continued usage. Along with the priests working in the area’s parishes and the King of Prussia’s officials, an ever greater proportion of the uppermost social stratum during the eighteenth century began to identify itself with the name “Lithuania.” Appearing in Prussia in the seventeenth century and lasting until the mid-nineteenth century, regional estate particularism became for them, in the mid-eighteenth century, a force driving interest in Lithuania and even a source for self-identification with it. This regional state particularism underpinned a phenomenon known as “Old Prussian patriotism,” which, in turn, helped to shape it. Beginning in the seventeenth century, this region was permanently opposed to Berlin. In the eighteenth century, interest in the common heritage of Prussians and Lithuanians (then rarely perceived as separate groups) was encouraged, along with aspirations to develop and perpetuate this heritage, in an effort to support this opposition-encouraging particularism. Old-Prussian consciousness grew stronger, especially after the coronation of Friedrich I in 1701, when the Elector of Brandenburg’s ambition to elevate his status to the king of Prussia was justified by pointing to the “old-Prussian” origin of the new monarchy.15 The 14 “Verordnung wegen verbesserter Einrichtung der Provinzial-Behörden. No. 287 vom 30sten April 1815,” Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten 9 (1815): 85–98, here 93; Toeppen, Historisch-comparative, 338–39. 15 Josef Nadler, “Geistiges Leben von der Krönung Fridrich I. bis zum Tode Kants,” in Deutsche Staatenbildung und deutsche Kultur im Preußenlande (Königsberg: Gräfe & Unzer, 1931), 314–316; Theodor Schieder, “Die preußische Königskrönung von 1701 und die politische Ideengeschichte,” Altpreußische Forschungen 12 (1935): 64–86; Karin Friedrich, The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569–1772 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 159–170. See also Skrupskelis’s dissertation written

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

identification of the 1701 coronation with the pagan “Prussian kingdom” ruled by the legendary Widewuth became part of the ideology legitimizing the ruler. During the eighteenth century this identification also gradually spread among the social elite of the former Duchy of Prussia. The content of the journal Erleutertes Preußen, published in Königsberg beginning in 1724, offers eloquent evidence of this spread. Because the ancient Prussians were already considered extinct, the members of the elite describing themselves as Lithuanians thereby conferred on themselves the status of closest “Prussian relatives” from a linguistic and cultural point of view; in other words, they identified themselves with the oldest (autochthonous) inhabitants of Prussia. Claiming the rights due to indigenous peoples, they could also demand appropriate attention from the ruler residing in faraway Berlin. Thus, in the eighteenth century, the main social groups by which Lithuania was recognized as a region of Prussia changed. During the plague and its aftermath, “Lithuanians” were still called the socially and culturally distinct peasants of Prussia. The Province of Lithuania was not exclusively populated by Lithuanian speakers; from 1747 it also included some so-called “Polish districts.”16 However, there is little doubt that Lithuanian speakers made up the most recognizable social group most closely associated with the name “Lithuania.” But in the eighteenth century, with increasing numbers of representatives of other social strata due to urban development and the development of the ruler’s administration in parts of eastern Prussia, a sense of identification with the region in 1932 with Josef Nadler as advisor: Ignas Skrupskelis, Lietuviai XVIII a. vokiečių literatūroje (Rome: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos leidykla, 1967). On the Origin of Old-Prussian Consciousness, see: Hans-Jürgen Bömelburg, “Das preußische Landesbewußtsein im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert,” in Kulturgeschichte Ostpreußens in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Klaus Garber, Manfred Komorowski and Axel E. Walter (Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2001), 639–56; Andreas Keller, “Die Preußische Nation und ihre literarische Genese: Grundzüge eines regionalen Geschichtsbewußtseins und die internationale Vermittlung einer territorialen Identität in Michael Kongehls Roman Surbosia (1676),” in Kulturgeschichte Ostpreußens . . . , 737–67; Axel E. Walter, “Die (Re-)Konstruktion altpreußischer Identität in der regionalen Kulturgeschichtsschreibung im Ostpreußen des 18. Jahrhunderts (Lilienthal, Arnoldt, Pisanski),” in Contact Zones in the Historical Area of East Prussia, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas and Klaus Richter, vol. 30 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis (Klaipėda: Klaipėda University Press, 2015), 39–73. 16 Toeppen, Historisch-comparative, 317; Mertineit, Die fridericianische Verwaltung, 57–58.

377

378

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

of Lithuania first began to spread among the nobility and town citizens. It was they who now became the most noticeable representatives of Lithuania. Their activity, specifically, could explain the disappearance of the equal status of Lithuania and East Prussia in the first half of the nineteenth century. From 1798 until the late 1820s the Province of Prussia’s main institution for estate representation actively operating in the vacuum of power in the eastern provinces after the defeat of Prussia during the Napoleonic wars was called the Comité der Ostpreussischen und Litthauischen Stände (Committee of the Estates of East Prussia and Lithuania).17 Lithuania’s particular role as a distinctive region appears to have been acknowledged as well in a March 1813 proclamation published by the King of Prussia that had become the symbol of the start of the war for the land’s liberation. In it, the king invites his subjects to rise up against the domination of Napoleon-ruled France, appealing not only to the populations of Brandenburg, Prussia, Silesia, and Pomerania but also to the separately identified Lithuania (using the salutation Litthauer!).18 The particularistic attitudes of the socially elite members of the committee, and later also of the politicians coming from Lithuania, led to an association between the name “Lithuania” and demands for democratic reforms and the spread of liberal ideas in the Prussian realm during the first half of the nineteenth century. In this context, language was the least important criterion in defining identity, and hence space. As contributors to the conception of Lithuania in Prussia in the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries, the Lithuanian-speaking peasants were important only as representatives of its “aboriginal,” or primeval, culture allegedly still little touched by civilization. It was worth getting to know them and even learning something from them in order to get closer to the virtues of the “genuine Prussian spirit.” However, in the mid-nineteenth century, identification with and interest in Lithuania, as well as scholarly knowledge of Prussian Lithuanians, underwent another change. The nobility and town citizens of 17 About the committee see: Wolfgang Neugebauer, Politischer Wandel im Osten: Ost- und Westpreussen von den alten Ständen zum Konstitutionalismus, vol. 36 of Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des östlichen Europa (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992), 123–24, 217–60. 18 “An Mein Volk,” Schlesische-privilegirte Zeitung, March 20, 1813 (no. 34), 593.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

East Prussia who at the beginning of the nineteenth century had identified themselves with the region of Lithuania and called themselves “Lithuanians,” by the middle of the century had formed new criteria for identity. In turn, the concept of the “Lithuanian” that was still used in the first half of the nineteenth century by the nobility of East Prussia to express their specific territorial dependence acquired an ethnographic meaning in the mid-nineteenth century. The increasing importance of ethnography and the proliferation of linguistically based nationalism in German-speaking lands clearly distinguished who was a Lithuanian and who a German, according to language. Therefore, in the mid-nineteenth century, we observe another change in how the main social groups distinguished the region of Lithuania—the shift to a Lithuanian identity understood ethnographically. The word “Lithuania” began to refer to not the area of dispersion of “Lithuanian churches” or an administrative region, but the lands inhabited by the linguistically distinct Lithuanians. This changed the concept of Lithuania in the sense that now it began to cover the space where the Lithuanian language was widespread. The sources of this concept can be seen in the works of August Schlözer, who is associated with the birth of ethnography in German-speaking countries.19 Specifically through Schlözer’s efforts, at the juncture of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the concept of Lithuania as the former territory of the GDL took hold in German-speaking countries. Schlözer’s history of the GDL up to 1569, written in German and based on a seventeenth-­century work by Albertus Koialovicius-Wijuk, made it possible to imagine Lithuania as a historical territory,20 which was treated as Poland (as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was called then) at the time this book appeared and, from 1795, as a part of Russia. Schlözer’s approach was characterized by his descriptions 19 See Han F. Vermeulen, “The German Invention of Völkerkunde: Ethnological Discourse in Europe and Asia, 1740–1798,” in The German Invention of Race, ed. Sara Eigen and Mark Larrimore (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 128. 20 August Ludewig Schlözer, “Geschichte von Littauen, als einem eigenen Großfürstenthume, bis zum J. 1569,” in August Ludewig Schlözer, Ludewig Albrecht Gebhardi, Geschichte von Littauen, Kurland und Liefland (Halle: Johann Jacob Gebauer, 1785), 1–300.

379

380

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

of the “northern” nations, in which he compared the historical approach to their representation with the linguistic-ethnographic approach. This placed him among the first in the German-specific body of knowledge to divide the ethnographically perceived Lithuanians, that is, the native speakers of the Lithuanian language, into the Lithuanians of Prussia and Poland, clearly emphasizing that they were living in two monarchies.21 Other publications of an encyclopedic or scholarly nature published in the German language in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century had already stated that the Lithuanian language was used in both Prussia and Poland (Samogitia or Žemaitija).22 Jacob Grimm, writing a review of Johann Severin Vater’s book on the language of the old Prussians, also divided Lithuanians into those who lived in Prussia and those (Samogitians) of Poland,23 as did the surveyor and cartographer Heinrich Berghaus.24 Likewise, in his systematic analysis of European languages, August Schleicher had indicated that the Lithuanian language was widespread not only in Prussia but also in Russia.25 Consequently, beginning in the late eighteenth century, starting with Schlözer’s ethnographic studies, Lithuania could be defined in a new way—not as a historical, but as an ethnographic territory where the Lithuanian language dominated. In other words, scholarly knowledge of the diffusion of the Lithuanian language seemingly created the possibility to expand the concept of Lithuania in the German-language body of knowledge, 21 August Ludwig Schlözer, Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte (Halle: Johann Justinus Gebauer, 1771), 316–23. 22 “Historisches Verzeichniß aller itzigen europäischer Landessprachen,” Gelehrte Beyträge zu den Braunschweigischen Anzeigen, July 12, 1780 (no. 54), 435–36; Johann Christoph Adelung, Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprachprobe in beynahe fünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten, vol. 2 (Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung, 1809), 706, 708–9; “Sprachenkunde,” in Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyclopeadie oder Conversations-Lexicon, vol. 9, 6th ed. (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1824), 473. 23 Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, August 1, 1822 (no. 121), 1201–3. 24 [Heinrich Berghaus], Statistik des Preüssischen Staats: Versuch einer Darstellung seiner Grundmacht und Kultur, seiner Verfassung, Regierung und Verwaltung im Lichte der Gegenwart (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1845), 135. 25 August Schleicher, Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht (Bonn: H. B. König, 1850), 190–92.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

applying it to specific areas of the holdings not only of the Hohenzollerns but also the Romanovs.26 The particular role Schlözer’s work played in Prussia should also be recognized. Although he did not end the debate on the origin of the “Latvian nations” (as the Balts were called at that time) and their links with the Slavs and Germans, he promoted the idea that the “Latvian languages” were typologically distinct.27 In the early nineteenth century, influential figures such as Jacob Grimm28 and Wilhelm von Humboldt29 supported this opinion, which also held appeal for supporters of Old Prussian patriotism in Prussia. Maintaining a particularistic line, they identified themselves with the ancient Prussians and their closest relatives, the Lithuanians, which inclined them to defend the individuality of the languages that they called “Latvian” or “Lithuanian,”30 and sometimes (as did the Prussian historian Johannes Voigt with aestorum gentes of Tacitus)31 even to associate the speakers of these languages exclusively with the Germanic. As a result, even after ethnography emerged, the interest in the Lithuanians in Prussia was still directed primarily toward the Lithuanians of Prussia. Several factors spurred this interest in the early and mid-nineteenth century. First, there were efforts by those inspired by old-Prussian values to promote interest in the “aboriginal” culture of the Lithuanians, who were seen as uncorrupted by civilization’s negative effects, and at the 26 About the course of this discussion in linguistics see: Vladimir Toporov, “Ocherk istorii izucheniia drevneishikh balto-slavianskikh iazykovykh otnoshenii,” Uchenye zapiski Instituta slavianovedeniia 17 (1958): 248–74. 27 See “Historisches Verzeichniß,” 433–36. 28 [J. Grimm’s review of Johann Vater’s book]: Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, August 1, 1822 (no. 121), 1201–3. 29 See [Berghaus], Statistik, 125. 30 Rhesa apparently arguing the opposite opinion, wrote that the Latvian nation was influenced by the Slavs, Finns, and Goths among whom they lived, but he nevertheless defended the thesis that this nation retained its uniqueness (Ludwig J. Rhesa, Geschichte der litthauischen Bibel, ein Beytrag zur Religionsgeschichte der Nordischen Völker [Königsberg: Hartungsche Hofbuchdruckerei, 1816], 1–2). 31 See Jörg Hackmann, “Preußische Ursprungsmythen: Entstehung und Transformation vom 15. bis ins 20. Jahrhundert,” in Preussen in Ostmitteleuropa: Geschehensgeschichte und Verstehensgeschichte, ed. Matthias Weber, vol. 21 of Schriften des Bundesinstituts für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2003), 163.

381

382

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

same time to investigate the Lithuanian language in order to support the particularistic sentiments of the Province of Prussia.32 The second factor was the practical need to use the Lithuanian language in that province. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Gumbinnen Governmental District and Memel County (which, from 1816, no longer belonged to the district) still had enough Lithuanian-speaking inhabitants that the Reformation belief in the use of native languages in the church had to be considered. The Lithuanian seminary established in 1718 at the University of Königsberg prepared priests for the parishes of Prussian Lithuania. Ludwig Rhesa, his disciple Friedrich Kurschat, and the latter’s disciple Matthias Lackner, who respectively headed the seminar in 1810–40, 1841–82, and 1882–1919, vigorously supported, and in many cases inspired studies of Lithuanian culture, especially language.33 Such study was necessary for the practical purposes of canonization, renewal of language, and adaptation of the language for Church dogma. Most of the priests of Prussian Lithuania associated with the Lithuanian seminar supported these intentions and defended the continued use of the Lithuanian language in the Church. All three abovementioned seminar leaders themselves had clerical training, but in Prussian Lithuania entire dynasties of clergy were formed, such as the Jordans and Ostermeyers, that supported the study of Lithuanian language and culture. Thus, the investigation of Lithuanian language and culture was supported by an extensive social network united by a common interest, family ties, and institutional relations. 32 See the historical description of Sambia and Lithuania prepared in the spirit of old-Prussian patriotism, the author of which explains that he distinguished the title of the latter because the “Lithuanians guarded the local dialect of the old-Prussians the longest”: Friedrich Zschokke, Wanderungen durch Littauen und Samland. Altpreußische Sagen und Denkmäler, historisch geordnet und erläutert, pt. 1, Die Ur-Geschichte Preußens bis auf Bruteno und Waidewut (Leipzig: August Robert Friese, 1845), xi. 33 A Polish language seminar also operated at the University of Königsberg. See Danuta Bogdan, “Das Polnische und das Litauische Seminar an der Königsberger Universität vom 18. bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Königsberg und seine Universität: Eine Stätte ostmitteleuropäischen Geisteslebens, ed. Sabine Bamberger-Stemmann, 3, no. 2 (1994) of Nordost-Archiv (Lüneburg: Institut Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1994), 393–425; Christiane Schiller, “Die Litauischen Seminare in Königsberg und Halle. Eine Bilanz,” in ibid., 375–92; Martynas Liudvikas Rėza, Lietuvių kalbos seminaro istorija, ed. Liucija Citavičiūtė (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2003); Liucija Citavičiūtė, Karaliaučiaus universiteto Lietuvių kalbos seminaras: Istorija ir reikšmė lietuvių kultūrai (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004).

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

The third factor promoting interest in Lithuanians and their culture and language was the appearance of comparative linguistics and Indo-European studies. In this case, the study of Sanskrit drew attention to the Lithuanian language. Orientalist Peter von Bohlen (1796–1840) was one of the first to compare the Lithuanian language with Sanskrit, pioneering at the University of Königsberg the road later travelled by von Bohlen’s pupils Ferdinand Nesselmann and Adalbert Bezzenberger. Prussia’s most prominent linguists at the beginning of the nineteenth century, including Franz Bopp in Berlin and August Friedrich Pott in Halle, studied the Lithuanian language in the context of comparative linguistics. The results of their research supported the conviction that it was important to know the Lithuanian language, since in the mid-nineteenth century it was already regarded as dying, just as the Prussian language had died out in the seventeenth century. Three social networks, partially intertwined but guided by different interests—supporters of Old Prussian patriotism, the clergy, and the scholarly community that was being institutionalized—shaped a relatively strong impulse towards an ethnographic (linguistic) interest in Lithuanians. This impulse began to transform the approach to the land being referred to as Lithuania. This designation was applied to the Gumbinnen Governmental District with diminishing frequency. A new conception of Lithuania was gaining prevalence, one best described, perhaps, as a “cultural landscape”:34 it was specifically culture that defined and characterized this landscape. Lithuania was regarded in terms of a cultural landscape by Berlin journalist Otto Glagau35 and, well before him, by Jodocus Temme,36 the county assessor of Ragnit (now Neman). Such a Lithuania existed in the imagination of the Tilsit (now Sovetsk) teacher Eduard Gisevius,37 who observed, described, and lived directly among the Prussian Lithuanians; 34 Such a concept implies the idea that distinctive cultural groups, representing elements characteristic of their own specific culture, cover the Earth’s surfaces. 35 Otto Glagau, Litauen und die Littauer: Gesammelte Skizzen (Tilsit: J. Reyländer, 1869). 36 See the section about Lithuania in his memoirs: Jodocus D. H. Temme, Erinnerungen, ed. Stefan Born (Leipzig: Ernst Keil, 1883), 141–75. See also the numerous editions of Baron Wilhelm J. A. Tettau’s Die Volkssagen Ostpreussens, Litthauens und Westpreußens, coll. Wilhelm J. A. von Tettau and Jodocus D. H. Temme (Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1837). 37 Eduard Gisevius, [ed. Erdmann Julius Schiekopp] (Tilsit: J. Reyländer, 1881).

383

384

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

the owner of Heinrichsdorf Manor (in the County of Gumbinnen), August Kuntze,38 who described Prussian Lithuania in terms of the uniqueness of Lithuanians; Insterburg (now Chernyakhovsk) gymnasium professor George Froelich;39 and the members of the Lithuanian Literary Society established in 1879 in Tilsit,40 whose reputation went far beyond the boundaries of the region, also envisioned Lithuania in this way. Purely ethnographic, primarily linguistic, criteria were used to define this new Lithuania, and this, of course, lent new importance to the question of the geographic dispersion of the Lithuanian language. In German-language discourse, attempts initially intensified to delineate this dispersion within Prussia. Until the first half of the nineteenth century, the old concept of Lithuania as an administrative area still heavily influenced these efforts because the dispersion of the language from the very outset began to be thought of as confined to the boundaries of administrative units. For example, a dictionary compiled by Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, the cantor of Pillkallen (now Dobrovolsk), confined the dispersion of the Lithuanian language in East Prussia to the former borders of the districts of Labiau (now Polessk), Memel (Klaipėda), Tilsit, Ragnit, and Insterburg.41 Königsberg University professor Friedrich Wilhelm Schubert, portraying the structure of the Prussian state, also described the geographical scope of the Lithuanian language as being within the borders of the counties established in 1818. According to Schubert, Lithuanians had lived in the Königsberg Governmental 38 August Kuntze, Bilder aus dem Preußischen Littauen (Rostock: Wilh. Werther, 1884). While writing his work, Kuntze used the manuscript “Einige Bemerkungen über die Nationalität der Litthauer, gesammelt vom Präcentor Schultz zu Lasdehnen” prepared in 1833 by the precentor of Lasdehnen Schultz (Adalbert Bezzenberger, “Über das litauische Haus,” Altpreußische Monatsschrift 23 [1886]: 45–46). 39 George Froehlich, Beiträge zur Volkskunde des preussischen Litauens (Beilage zum Osterprogramm des Königlichen Gymnasiums und Realgymnasium zu Insterburg) (Insterburg: Buchdruckerei Dr. A. Bittner, 1902). 40 About the society see: Kurt Forstreuter, “Die Entstehung von Geschichtsvereinen in Altpreußen,” in Neue Forschungen zur Brandenburg-Preußischen Geschichte, vol. 1, ed. Friedrich Benninghoven and Cécile Lowenthal-Hensel, vol. 14 of Veröffentlichungen aus den Archiven Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Cologne: Böhlau, 1979), 245–46, 257–58; Vacys Milius, Mokslo draugijos ir lietuvių etnografija (XIX a. antroji pusė–­XX a. pirmoji pusė) (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993), 42–87. 41 Christian Gottlieb Mielcke, Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches WörterBuch (Königsberg: Hartungsche Hofbuchdruckerey, 1800), Erste Vorrede.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

District’s Memel County, as well as in the part of Labiau County east of the Deime (now Deyma) River and the following counties of the Gumbinnen Governmental District: Heydekrug (now Šilutė), Niederung, Tilsit, Ragnit, Pillkallen, Stallupönen (now Nesterov), Gumbinnen, and Insterburg, and also in parts of the counties of Darkehmen (now Ozyorsk) and Goldap (now Gołdap).42 Initially linguistics was also relied on this data. Schleicher, even before beginning his more thorough study of the Lithuanian language, used Mielcke’s assessment of its dispersion.43 The first attempts by the Lithuanian Literary Society to delineate the area predominated by speakers of Lithuanian were based on church statistics, which also determined the number of Lithuanians in specific counties (the borders of counties and church dioceses in Prussia coincided).44 However, the academic community supplemented this data with new information obtained by applying different methods for determining the geographical scope of the Lithuanian language—historical and linguistic. A study conducted by Max Toeppen, at that time the director of the Hohenstein (now Olsztynek) gymnasium in Masuria, focused on historical geography and strove to define the landscapes of Nadrovia and Scalovia mentioned in sources from the times of the Teutonic Order, initially played an important role here. Toeppen drew the southeastern border of Nadrovia approximately along the Deime, Alle (now Łyna, Lava), Swine (now Oświnka, Putilovka), Angerapp (now Węgorapa, Angrapa), and Goldap (now Gołdapa) rivers, adding that there was no valid data to suggest that the territory to the northwest of these rivers, that is, Nadrovia and Scalovia, were not already populated by Lithuanians before the arrival of the Teutonic Order. In the atlas accompanying the study, he identified the landscapes of Scalovia and Nadrovia as belonging “Zum Lande der Littauer” (to the Lithuanian lands).45 This conception of Lithuania, apparently, was shared by members of the 42 Friedrich Wilhelm Schubert, Handbuch der Allgemeinen Staatskunde des Preussischen Staats, vol. 1 (Königsberg: Gebrüder Bornträger, 1846), 460–62. 43 Schleicher, Sprachen, 188–90. 44 Maximilian J. A. Voelkel, “Die heutige Verbreitung der Litauer,” Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft (further MLLG) 7 (1883): 1–4. 45 Toeppen, Historisch-comparative, 23–27, 34; “Preussen und die Nachbarlaender vor den Zeiten der Ordensherrschaft,” in Max Toeppen, Atlas zur Historisch-Comparativen Geographie von Preussen (Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1858).

385

386

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Lithuanian Literary Society. A report given at the December 1892 meeting of the society supported this idea: Alexander Kurschat, the nephew of Friedrich Kurschat, agreeing with Toeppen, claimed that Nadrovia and Scalovia were old Lithuanian landscapes.46 Adalbert Bezzenberger, a Königsberg University professor, also supported Toeppen’s thesis about the prehistoric Lithuanian character of the landscapes of Nadrovia and Scalovia. However, in his articles published in 1882–1883 he pointed out that it was difficult to precisely determine the boundaries of these landscapes using historical sources.47 Bezzenberger proposed adjusting them based on the fact that in the western part of East Prussia, place names with the endings -keim, -kaim, -kam, -garben, -appe, -app, and -appen were more common, while in the eastern part those with the endings -kehmen, -kallen, -upö(h)nen, -uppen, and -upchen occurred more frequently. The first set of endings was traced back to the old Prussian words kaimis, garbis, and aps (meaning village, mountain, and river) and the second set to the Lithuanian words kiemas, kalnas, and upė, which had the same meanings. Distinguishing the areas in which the place names of Prussian and Lithuanian origins predominated, Bezzenberger drew a line that he himself called “die alte litauisch-­preussische Sprachgrenze” (the old Lithuanian-Prussian linguistic border). He traced this line: “from the ‘big swamp moss’ [Labiau County] through Norkitten (now Mezhdurech’e) [Insterburg County] to an area including Gleisgarben [Darkehmen County], Auxkallen [Darkehmen County], Ballupönen [Goldap County], and Barkehmen [Goldap County].”48 In the time of Bezzenberger, the question of when these place names, especially the Lithuanian ones, emerged in East Prussia had not yet been raised. Their “oldness” and overwhelming prevalence in the relevant areas seemed to be a plausible enough argument to confirm Toeppen’s thesis about the Lithuanian character of the landscapes of Scalovia and Nadrovia. So 46 Alexander Kurschat, “Zur Geschichte der Litauer in Ostpreußen,” MLLG 18 (1893): 497–98. 47 Adalbert Bezzenberger, “Die litauisch-preussische Grenze,” Altpreussische Monats­ schrift 19 (1882): 651–55; Adalbert Bezzenberger, “Über die Verbreitung einiger Ortsnamen in Ostpreussen,” Altpreussische Monatsschrift 20 (1883): 123–28. 48 Bezzenberger, “Über die Verbreitung,” 128.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Bezzenberger’s insights are important precisely because they made it possible to confirm that Lithuanians were autochthonic in Prussia and, more importantly, the identification of nineteenth-century Prussian Lithuania with the historical landscapes of Scalovia and Nadrovia. In German-language literature the attempt to identify Lithuanian-­ speaking populated areas was primarily focused on Prussian Lithuania. This is not surprising, since in mid-nineteenth century Prussia it was widely perceived that Samogitians, not Lithuanians, lived across the border in Russia, in other words, other speakers of the “Latvian” or “Lithuanian” languages.49 An additional factor determining this without doubt was that for such enthusiasts as Schleicher, who, having obtained financing from the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna, came to Lithuania himself to learn the Lithuanian language and investigate it, Prussian Lithuanian language and culture were more accessible due to cultural proximity and the better scholarly infrastructure there.50 Nevertheless, it was not long before scholars began to apply new methods for defining the cultural landscape of Lithuania to the appropriate area in the Russian Empire. True, the abovementioned linguists, historians, and members of the Lithuanian Literary Society were not the first ones who tried to delineate the dispersion of the Lithuanian language in both monarchies. In fact, the scope of Lithuanian language use in Prussia and Russia, perhaps for the first time, was defined in the course of an attempt to determine the territory populated by the Slavs in Europe. For that we can credit Pavel Jozef Šafárik, whose main work Slovanské starožitnosti (1837) had already been translated into German in 1843.51 The scope of Lithuanian language use in Prussia and Russia was delineated for the first time in another of Šafárik’s works, Slovansky národopis (1842).52 Although this book was not translated into German, its influence on 49 Cf. Karl August Jordan, “Zur Kunde der littauischen Sprache,” Neue Preußische Provinzial-Blätter 8 (1849): 73; “Drei Dainos mit Bemerkungen von G. H. F. Nesselmann,” Neue Preußische Provinzial-Blätter 8 (1849): 411. 50 Cf. August Schleicher, Handbuch der litauischer Sprache, vol. 1, Grammatik (Prague: J. G. Calve′sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1856), v–vii. 51 Paul Joseph Schafarik, Slawische Alterthümer, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1843). 52 See the Russian translation: Pavel Shafarik, Slavianskoe narodopisanie (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1843), 105–7.

387

388

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

German-language discourse, along with that of an accompanying map,53 is evident. The boundaries drawn by Šafárik provided a model for other authors describing and mapping the geographical dispersion of the Lithuanian language. A bit later, alternative theories about the range of Lithuanian were published in German,54 primarily based on the findings of scholars working in the Russian Empire, Peter Koeppen55 and Aleksandr Rittich.56 But on Koeppen’s and Rittich’s maps, Lithuanian language diffusion was shown only in the Russian Empire, which may explain why Šafárik’s boundaries of the territory on which Lithuanian was spoken predominated in German-language discourse in the mid-nineteenth century. The borders were shown similarly in Karl Bernhardi’s map of the languages of Germany in 184357 and the ethnographic map of Europe by Berghaus in 1847 (the 53 Pavel Josef Šafařík, Slovanský zeměvid (Prague: Věnceslav Merklas ryl., 1842). 54 Cf. “Völkerkarte von Russland,” in Richard Andree’s Allgemeiner Handatlas in sechsundachtzig Karten mit erläuterndem Text, ed. Geographischer Anstalt von Velhagen & Klasing in Leipzig (Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1881). 55 In the Russian Empire the diffusion of the Lithuanian language was probably indicated for the first time in the manuscript atlas produced by the statistician Koeppen in three copies Etnograficheskii atlas evropeiskoi Rossii, ed. Petr Keppen (St. Petersburg, 1848). This work served as the basis for Etnograficheskaia karta Evropeiskoi Rossii (1851), published by the Geographic Society, which was received very well in Europe, although it did not spread very swiftly (see Vytautas Petronis, “Pinge, divide et impera: Vzaimovliianie etnicheskoi kartografii i natsional’’noi politiki v pozdneimperskoi Rossii [vtoraia polovina XIX veka]),” in Imperium inter Pares: Rol’ transferov v istorii Rossiiskoi imperii (1700–1917), ed. Martin Aust, Rikarda Vul’pius, and Aleksei Miller (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2010), 314). Koeppen also presented his research in an article “Der litauische Volksstamm: Ausbreitung und Stärke desselben in der Mitte des XIX. Jahrhunderts,” Bulletin de la classe historico-philologique de L’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg 8, nos. 18–19 (1851): 273–92. See also Petr Keppen, Ob etnograficheskoi karte evropeiskoi Rossii (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1852), 14–15, 17, 31. 56 Aleksandr Rittikh, Etnograficheskaia karta evropeiskoi Rossii (St. Petersburg: Kartograficheskoe zavedenie A. A. Il’ina, 1875). 57 Karl Bernhardi, Sprachkarte von Deutschland (Kassel: J. J. Bohné, 1843). In the explanations accompanying the map Bernhardi drew the borders of the diffusion of the German and “Latvian” languages in Prussia through Nordenburg (now Krylovo), Wehlau (now Znamensk) to Schaaken (now Nekrasovo), noting that in the area where the “Latvian” language was spoken there were also German enclaves, e.g., around Gumbinnen (Karl Bernhardi, Sprachkarte von Deutschland [Kassel: J. J. Bohné, 1844], 77). In the second edition the border was pushed slightly to the northeast, bringing it through Nordenburg, Goldap, Gumbinnen, and Schaaken by the Curonian Lagoon, with a notation that the Slavic and “Latvian” languages, which, as Šafárik noted,

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

latter was published by the most important publishing house of cartography at that time in Gotha).58 Šafárik’s study could have become a point of reference indicating the main landmarks delimiting the area of Lithuanian language use for the linguist Schleicher.59 However, none of these boundaries were yet decisively linked to one cultural landscape called “Lithuania.” The name “Lithuania” for the territory encompassing Lithuanian language use in both monarchies gained currency in the German-language body of knowledge in the 1860s. The Prussian statistician Richard Böckh, in his study published in 1869, perhaps relying on Schlözer, still identified two Lithuanias: the “genuine Lithuania” (das eigentlich Littauen) and “Lithuania Minor” (Klein-Littauen). He applied the first name to Kaunas (then Kovno) and Vilnius (then Vil′na) provinces, a small part of Grodna (Hrodna) Province (the districts of Grodna and Sokółka) and part of Augustów (from 1866 the Suwałki) Province: the districts of Marijampolė (then Mariampol), Kalvarija, Sejny, and part of Augustów (within the borders of the districts up to 1866). Böckh used the second term interchangeably in reference to the Lithuanian-populated districts of Prussia, which he also called Scalovia and Nadrovia.60 However, the first German scholar to identify the whole space of Lithuanian diffusion in both empires as a single Lithuania was probably Friedrich Kurschat. In order to get to know Russia’s Lithuanian-populated territory better, he visited it in 1872, 1874, and 1875, and in the 1876 Grammar of the Lithuanian Language he delineated the area across which Lithuanian was spoken.61 On the map accompanying the study, the whole area in which the Lithuanian language was used was referred to as Littauen.62 below Grodna reached the Neman, also began near Nordenburg (Karl Bernhardi, Sprachkarte von Deutschland, 2nd ed. [Kassel: J. J. Bohné, 1849], 75). 58 “Ethnographische Karte von Eüropa (Gotha, 1847),” in Dr. Heinrich Berghaus’ Physikalischer Atlas oder Sammlung von Karten, vol. 2 (Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1848). 59 Schleicher, Handbuch, vol. 1, 3–4. 60 Richard Böckh, Der Deutschen Volkszahl und Sprachgebiet in den europäischen Staaten: Eine statistische Untersuchung (Berlin: J. Guttentag, 1869), 59–60, 63, 226. 61 Friedrich Kurschat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache (Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876), 1–2. 62 “Karte des littauischen Sprachgebiets,“ in ibid.

389

390

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Figure 17.  Northeastern part of East Prussia in the early twentieth century.

The dashed line shows governmental district (Regierungsbezirk) borders, while the dotted line indicates the county borders. Governmental district centers are written in capital letters, while county centers are in lowercase. Map by Vasilijus Safronovas.

This suggests that by the mid-nineteenth century, the Königsberg-­ centered academic milieu and the Lithuanian Literary Society were able to discern the cultural landscape of Lithuania in two monarchies. However, links between both Lithuanias were almost nonexistent. Only in rare instances were data pertaining to Prussian Lithuania

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

erroneously attributed to Russia in the literature published in German.63 Moreover, the commonality uniting the areas where Lithuanian was spoken on both sides of the border was reflected only in bodies of knowledge accessible almost exclusively to experts, mainly in linguistics or statistics.64 The “activation” of German nationalism hindered the further advancement of this knowledge in Prussia. It, as we shall see, gave rise to a new postulation of the uniqueness of Prussian Lithuania. Perceptions of the separateness of the two Lithuanias was deepened, and the idea that the cultural landscape of Lithuania straddled the border remained confined to a narrow scope of knowledge. The Lithuania that existed in German-language discourse was granted more attention. Furthermore, generalizations were made about all of linguistic Lithuania based on Prussian Lithuania. That is why up to World War I, the name of “Lithuania” in the German-­specific body of knowledge was extremely rarely associated with the whole region stretching over the territory of two empires, the Hohenzollern and Romanov.65

PRUSSIAN LITHUANIA IN THE GERMAN SPATIAL CONCEPTION On November 23, 1908, in the palace of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior in the center of Berlin, a “Lithuanian Exhibition” was opened. The Minister’s wife, Julie von Moltke, who, along with her daughter, was dressed up in “Lithuanian clothing” especially for the opening of the exhibition, led the Honorary Committee under whose auspices the exhibition was planned. During the entire exhibition, products of Lithuanian “folk art” were sold by ladies belonging to the highest circles of 63 This is indicated by Glagau, Litauen, 2. 64 See Arthur von Fircks, “Die preussische Bevölkerung nach ihrer Muttersprache und Abstammung: Auf Grund des Ergebnisses der Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1890 und anderer statistischer Aufnahmen,” Zeitschrift des Königlich Preussischen Statistischen Bureaus 33 (1893): 237. 65 For information on how World War I changed this situation, see: Vasilijus Safronovas, “Zum Wandel des räumlichen Begriffs ‘Litauen’ im deutschsprachigen Diskurs während und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg,” Forschungen zur baltischen Geschichte 10 (2015): 109–35.

391

392

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Berlin society, and the exhibition itself, in addition to Prussian Interior Minister Count Friedrich von Moltke, was visited by figures from the Kaiser’s closest circle: Prince Richard zu Dohna-Schlobitten, a member of the Upper House of the Prussian Landtag; Count Waldemar von Oriola, a member of the Reichstag; Reinhold Kraetke, the state secretary of Germany’s Mail Board; the writer Hermann Sudermann; and many other members of Berlin’s high society.66 How did Lithuanian culture earn such enthusiastic attention from the upper echelons of Berlin society? Should not the nationalism entrenched in Prussia postulating German exceptionalism and uniqueness and instigating the social isolation of “others” in the mid-nineteenth century have logically inclined “public opinion” against the Lithuanians in the same way it was inclined against the Poles and other non-Germans? After all, the Lithuanian-speaking peasants of Prussia, who in the early nineteenth century were primarily regarded as subjects of the King of Prussia, increasingly began to be considered “a minority among Germans” as the century progressed to the latter half, the largest contributors to this understanding being the interpreters of statistical data. What in general does this kind of event in Berlin say about the place of Lithuania in the spatial concepts of the Germans in the period of the Kaiserreich? In the Kaiserreich, inclusion in the nation and exclusion from its strategies were not homogeneous. Two visions of German consolidation competed during this period: that of the Reichsnation and that of the Volksnation, but only the latter was focused on the integrity of the “blood community.” The ideas of radical nationalism, increasingly focused on the ideal of Volksgemeinschaft, were popular wherever the interests of Germany’s colonial policy was involved, or in ethnically mixed territories where there was a desire to “Germanize” non-German population.67 Neither of these tendencies were evident in East Prussia. An interest in colonial policy was characteristic of economically powerful circles, which were absent in East Prussia. This province was among the least 66 Pagalba 11–12 (1908): 124–26. 67 Peter Walkenhorst, Nation—Volk—Rasse: Radikaler Nationalismus im Deutschen Kaiserreich 1890–1914, vol. 176 of Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 68–79.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

industrialized in Germany; the province was agricultural.68 In turn, aspirations toward “Germanization” were mainly evident in the space populated by Catholic Poles.69 Most Catholic Poles lived in the eastern regions of Germany, but the prerequisites for the development of German nationalism in East Prussia, which gravitated toward the ideal of the Volksnation, were different than in West Prussia, which had belonged for more than three centuries to Poland. This was especially true for Lithuanians living in East Prussia, who in the period of the Kaiserreich essentially never allowed their loyalty to the Hohenzollern monarchy to be doubted. The Lithuanian cultural movement in East Prussia dated to the 1880s. However, even in the spring of 1914, in a note to the Prussian Minister of the Interior from a secret advisor analyzing the movement, Wilhelm Steputat, a deputy in the Prussian Landtag elected by these same Lithuanians stated: “The number of Lithuanians is so meager . . . that they will never be able to pose a threat to Prussia.”70 In short, the Lithuanians of Prussia during this period could have become adepts of other ideas oriented to the perspective of the Reichsnation that provoked the transfer of traditional loyalty associated with the Prussian monarch and the Hohenzollern dynasty (the so-called Prussian patriotism) to the level of the newly created empire. The idea of one nation was instrumentalized here most of all to ensure territorial integrity, and the possibility for the Lithuanians of Prussia to join such a nation was not precluded.

68 In 1882 in the Province of East Prussia only 65.5 percent were involved in agriculture and forestry, in 1907—58.2 percent of the whole working population. See Thomas M. Bohn, “Bevölkerungsentwicklung und Urbanisierung in Ostpreußen im Zeitalter der Industrialisierung,” in Zwischen Lübeck und Novgorod: Wirtschaft, Politik und Kultur im Ostseeraum vom frühen Mittelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Norbert Angermann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ortwin Pelc and Gertrud Pickhan (Lüneburg: Institut Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1996), 362. 69 Cf. Rogers Brubaker, Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 127–18, 128–12. 70 “Schreiben des wirklichen geheimen Rats [Unterschrift unleserlich] an der Minister des Inneren über die nationale Haltung der litauisch sprechenden Bevölkerung in Ostpreußen,” May 9, 1914, in Selbstbewusstsein und Modernisierung: Soziokultureller Wandel in Preußisch-Litauen vor und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, ed. Robert Traba, vol. 3 of Einzelveröffentlichungen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Warschau (Osnabrück: Fibre, 2000), 36.

393

394

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Simultaneously, the distinctness of Prussian Lithuanians became a resource used to reveal the exclusivity of East Prussia as a whole. The dominance of the Reichsnation perspective in the period of the Kaiserreich enabled the construction of Germany as a unity of many Heimats, developing their own distinctness, but clearly not interfering with the unity of the Reich.71 East Prussia also became one such Heimat. A sense of belonging to Germany instilled through educational activities related to the Heimat developed not only in East Prussia by localizing the system of meanings rallying the nation but also by increasing the latter’s richness with local unique features. The need to actualize these features prompted the search for one’s “own” place in general. The main source for postulating such uniqueness was not cultural meanings that had already acquired an all-German status, but specific meanings unique to the region, and as a result, distinguishing it from the all-German context. One resource for such meanings was the history of the Teutonic Order in the Province of Prussia. In the mid-nineteenth century, this complex of meanings was nationalized, which allowed it to become a resource often used to determine the relationship of the place with the whole (through the image of the province as an Ordensland). But in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, another element providing individuality to the Province of Prussia—the fact that the province was not culturally homogeneous— was brought into the nationalization process. Just as Germany in 1871 was a conglomerate having territories with different experiences that now had to be organized according to a new logic, so too the Province of Prussia had in the past been put together from regions distinguished by unique features that were persisted into the nineteenth century. It was not so much a matter of dividing the Province of Prussia into West and East Prussias, a division that was formally reinstated in 1878, but of the unique characteristics that distinguished East Prussia and developed due to the different histories of dependence, religion, the 71 About the concept of Heimat and its content see: Heimat, ed. Will Cremer and Ansgar Klein, vol. 1, Analysen, Themen, Perspektiven (Bielefeld: Westfalen, 1990) (especially the articles by Will Cremer and Ansgar Klein; Christian von Krockow; and Bernhard Waldenfels).

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

heterogeneity of languages and dialects, and finally the natural distinctions that in the nineteenth century became an important criteria permitting one landscape (Landschaft) to be distinguished from another. A desire to combine news about the specific areas of the province, to formulate their features within the Heimat-recognizing body of knowledge, and to explain the unity of East Prussia through these unique characteristics at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century encouraged recognition of the province’s individual landscapes. Among these landscapes, the most significant were Samland, Masuria, Warmia, Oberland, and, of course, Lithuania. In the 1860s–1870s the first texts to describe the features of this landscape began to emerge.72 In 1879, about the same time, the idea of establishing in Tilsit the Lithuanian Literary Society—one of the few organizations established in East Prussia in the second half of the nineteenth century to recognize the unique characteristics of the distinct landscapes—was born and implemented. The society dedicated itself to gathering and analyzing all material relating to Lithuanians—the people (Volk) that, in the past, most distinctly characterized Lithuania’s landscape.73 Just as in the case of similar organizations, aspirations to integrate the unique features of this separate region of East Prussia into the system of meanings prevailing in the Kaiserreich and to encourage awareness about it among German-speaking audiences but also, equally important, to make these features their own, or “German,” were integral to their activities. That allowed East Prussia to be perceived as “enriching German identity” not only with the system of meanings related to the history of the Teutonic Order but also through the fact that the Heimat of East Prussia was composed of several landscapes 72 Glagau, Litauen; Gustav Müller, “Preußisch Littauen und die Littauer,” Globus: Illustrirte Zeitschrift für Länder- und Völkerkunde XVI (1869): 25–28. Material about the landscape of Lithuania also forms the core of other two works: Julius Schumann, Geologische Wanderungen durch Altpreussen: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Königsberg: Hübner & Matz, 1869) (it contained texts written in 1859–1864) and Louis Passarge, Aus Baltischen Landen: Studien und Bilder (Glogau: Carl Flemming, 1878). 73 For the prehistory of the founding of the society, its statutes, and the list of its first members see: “Mittheilungen der Litauischen literarischen Gesellschaft,” Altpreussische Monatsschrift 16 (1879): 659–69; MLLG 1 (1883): 1–14.

395

396

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

distinguished by their own unique features. The emphasis on the originality of the landscape of Lithuania in this context became a resource for demonstrating the uniqueness of East Prussia and its place and importance in Germany. The symbolic appropriation of the landscape of Lithuania and its incorporation into the German nationalist system of meanings yielded two main results. First, Prussian Lithuania was made, for Germany, “one’s own” space by developing and disseminating the symbolic representations of Germanness in that space, in other words, marking the space. Second, appropriation occurred by turning various representations of Lithuania into signs and consolidating them in the body of knowledge about East Prussia and, in a broader sense, in literature identified as “East Prussian.” In the first case, the space became “one’s own” through all-German symbols, giving meaning to the landscape. In the second, it became “one’s own” through the symbols characteristic of the landscape, which acquired a specific meaning within the all-German context. The marking of Prussian Lithuanian space with symbols of German nationalism was not exactly the same as in other landscapes of East Prussia. Compared with Sambia, Natanga, or Warmia, not to mention West Prussia, Lithuania had far fewer Teutonic-era castles or churches. Due to a lack of material symbols of the times of the Order, it was much harder to apply the image of the German Ordensland in Lithuania than in other landscapes of East and West Prussia. In other words, the complex of meanings associated with the Order that in the mid-nineteenth century was nationalized and developed into a tool for understanding the role of East and West Prussia in the national culture of the Germans, actually were not appropriate to one of the landscapes of East Prussia—Lithuania. The lands of Prussian Lithuania began to be “cultivated” much later than those of other territories of East Prussia. In the German narrative the most important impetus for the “cultivation” of these lands has traditionally been associated with the Reformation and the so-called Rétablissement period. Ideas associated with these two periods shaped the portrayal of the spread of German Kultur in the “uncultivated” lands. First, both were oriented toward specific representatives of the

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Hohenzollern dynasty, Duke Albrecht of Prussia and King Friedrich Wilhelm I, to whose merciful will was assigned the development of Lithuania and, therefore, the spread of German Kultur in Prussian Lithuania. In 1835 in Gumbinnen, the administrative center of Lithuania, a monument to Friedrich Wilhelm I was unveiled not only to recognize him as the founder of the town of Gumbinnen but also to depict him as the main hero raising Lithuania to its feet after the plague of 1709–1711. This role of the monarch was also memorialized in the inscription on the monument, which read “rebuilder of Lithuania” (Litthauens Wiederhersteller).74 Similarly, in the town of Tilsit, particular respect was fostered for Duke Albrecht, its founder. In the early twentieth century, a street and square named after Albrecht already existed in Tilsit, and in 1912 the name of the duke was bestowed on the boys’ high school. Undoubtedly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church guarded the memory of Albrecht in East Prussia; in the landscape of Lithuania, this remembrance was more specific— many of the functioning parishes here considered themselves established during Albrecht’s time. For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century, 20 (17 percent) of Gumbinnen Governmental District’s 119 parishes traced their founding to the period of Albrecht’s rule.75 After 1871 various representatives of the ruling dynasty continued to serve as fundamental symbols through which links with Germany were consolidated in Lithuania. The narrative frame of their actualization, on one hand, was dictated by the myth of Prussia’s German mission and other legitimizing myths, and on the other hand, by local meanings 74 “Die Enthüllung der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Statue in Gumbinnen,” Preußische ProvinzialBlätter 14 (1835): 286–95; “Beschreibung der Feierlichkeiten, welche bei der zum Geburtsfeste Friedrich Wilhlems III. von der Stadt Gumbinnen veranstalteren geschenkten Standbildes Friedrich Wilhelm I. stattgefunden haben,” ibid., 394–406, here 401. 75 The parishes often had clear records of their histories, but there were cases when there was only vague information about their founding, which did not prevent them from tracing their origins to the period of Albrecht’s rule. For instance, in 1912, the date of the founding of five of the twenty parishes in the parish almanac—Stallupönen, Tollmingkehmen (now Chistye Prudy), Werden (Verdainė), Wischwill (Viešvilė), and Rural Tilsit—is given as “under the Duke Albrecht”: Pfarr-Almanach für die Provinz Ostpreußen, ed. Schirrmann and Hirsch. 4th ed. (Königsberg: Selbstverlag, 1912), 33–55.

397

398

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

allocated to specific Hohenzollerns in Lithuania. One of the most important representatives of the dynasty in this context was undoubtedly Queen Louise. This figure embodied the dignity and strength of the Hohenzollern monarchy, and after her death in 1810 she became known as the symbolic icon of the Liberation War (1813–1815), her resilience held up as an example for emulation. After 1871 the cult of Louise grew stronger when the queen’s personality was tied to the cult of the whole dynasty as the symbol unifying all Germany and the myth of the Reich’s foundation (Louise now became the mother of the first German Kaiser, allegedly “having blessed” his efforts to consolidate Germany).76 In Lithuania the strongest incentives for promoting the cult of Louise existed in those places the Queen had visited—Memel and Tilsit. Not only Louise’s legendary house in Tilsit where she met Napoleon but also a bridge over the Neman (Memel, Nemunas), a girls’ school, a movie theater, a pharmacy, and an avenue through Jakobsruhe Park where a monument to Louise was unveiled in 1900 were named after her. At the beginning of the nineteenth century a street in Memel was named for Queen Louise. At the junction of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a boys’ gymnasium, a pharmacy, and a rest home for poor children were named for her. In 1900 in Klein Tauerlaucken (now Tauralaukis), near Memel, a memorial stone was installed for Louise; the so-called “Louise Oak,” under which she allegedly liked to sit, was also there. In 1890 the idea arose to build a monument to Louise in the very center of Memel, in front of the town hall, where the queen lived with the king in 1807–1808. Instead of this monument, the monument “Borussia,” expressing all the plot lines of the borussianistic historical master narrative, was unveiled in 1907— the only monument in East Prussia built before World War I that was given “national monument” status.77 76 Philipp Demandt, Luisenkult: Die Unsterblichkeit der Königin von Preußen (Cologne: Böhlau, 2003), 9–10, 449–50. 77 More broadly about this monument in a more general context see: Vasilijus Safronovas, “Borusianistinio didžiojo istorinio pasakojimo aktualizavimas Rytų Prūsijos provincijoje XIX–XX amžių sandūroje. Atvejo analizė provincijos kontekste,“ in Daugiareikšmės tapatybės tarpuerdvėse: Rytų Prūsijos atvejis XIX–XX amžiais, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas, Nijolė Strakauskaitė, and Lina Motuzienė, vol. 23 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis (Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2011), 52–60.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Another example of the identification of the space of Prussian Lithuania with symbols linking local and national meanings was the monument to Kaiser Wilhelm I in Memel moved from the city hall to a public space in 1896. By then, there was already considerable experience developing the narrative describing how the future Kaiser spent his childhood in Memel during the years of the French occupation and his entrance into the army there. The space of Prussian Lithuania was also marked using references to other representatives of the dynasty that bore significantly fewer meanings in local narratives. In 1910, the Heydekug settlement was created by combining the Heydekug (Šilokarčema) manor and Szibben (Žibai). The settlement’s main street was named for Prince Joachim, Kaiser Wilhelm II’s youngest son. The girls’ lyceum opened in Memel in 1911 and was named for the Kaiser’s wife Auguste Victoria. These are just a few examples of how Germany asserted its presence through the decoration of public spaces with symbols of the Hohenzollern dynasty. Throughout Germany, several key subjects related to the dominant master narrative were actualized that involved not only the Hohenzollerns’ “fruits of labor,” but two others promoting the myth of the Reich’s establishment in 1871 and Prussia’s nineteenth-century wars, through which Prussia supposedly sought German unity. With regards to the symbols conveying the mythology surrounding the Reich’s establishment in Lithuania, it should be noted that in Prussian Lithuania Chancellor Otto von Bismarck was much more important than Kaiser Wilhelm. In 1874 a resident colony near the Rupkalwen (now Rupkalviai) swamp in Heydekrug County was already named for Bismarck. At the beginning of the twentieth century, after the death of the Reich Chancellor, the immediate response in various Lithuanian localities was a student-initiated campaign, which spilled over into the rest of the country, to construct “Bismarck Towers” (Bismarck-Säulen), designed to fulfill the function of observation towers.78 Such towers were built in Prussian Lithuania near Gumbinnen (1903), Insterburg (1913), and 78 See Reinhard Allings, Monument und Nation: Das Bild vom Nationalstaat im Medium Denkmal—zum Verhältnis von Nation und Staat im deutschen Kaiserreich 1871–1918, vol. 4 of Beiträge zur Kommunikationsgeschichte (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996), 130–31.

399

400

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Ober-Eisseln (now Gorino) near Ragnit (1912). In 1914, in preparation for the 100th anniversary of Bismarck’s birth in 1815, the idea was conceived to build two more “Bismarck Towers”: near Prökuls (Priekulė) and in Sandkrug (now Smiltynė) on the Curonian Spit near Memel.79 Monuments unveiled in many county centers commemorated those who died in the 1813–1815 War of Liberation and the so-called unification wars (1864, 1866, and 1870–1871) in Prussian Lithuania while at the same time marking Lithuanian space with symbols of Germanness. Research this far has identified such monuments in Gumbinnen (1876), Insterburg (1881), Pillkallen (around 1890), Angerburg (now Węgorzewo) (1893), Tilsit (1894), Darkehmen (before 1899), Ragnit (1890s), Stallupönen (1900), Skaisgirren (Bolshakovo) (1901), Labiau (1906), Norkitten (before 1906), Schirwindt (Kutuzovo) (1913), Goldap, Lasdehnen (Krasnozna­ mensk), Mehlauken (Zalesje), and Mehlkehmen (Kalinino). Just before World War I such a monument was also planned for Heydekrug.80 Many of these monuments, often located in the central squares of towns, were of a standard variety: they consisted of an obelisk on a pedestal with an eagle perched at its apex or a column atop which stood the victory goddess Nike or the figure of Germania. Such forms commemorated the dead and the victory achieved, as well as the result attained in the unification wars. This “marking” of Prussian Lithuania was only one side of the appropriation process. The other involved the conversion of various representations of Lithuania into signs. There are numerous examples of this. The institution of the conservator of monuments in the Province of East Prussia, beginning with the appointment of the first conservator in 1893, assigned state-protected cultural values to various objects in individual provincial landscapes, including Lithuania.81 For a long time under this principle (allocating values according to their belonging to 79 See the proclamation: Apžvalga, April 3, 1914 (no. 27). See Pagalba 7–8 (1914): 98. 80 Lietuwißka Ceitunga, October 23, 1913 (no. 88): 2; Johannes Sembritzki, Artur Bittens, Geschichte des Kreises Heydekrug (Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1920), 277. 81 See Adolf Boetticher, Die Bau- und Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Ostpreußen, nos. 1–9 (Königsberg: Kommissionsverlag von Bernh. Teichert, 1891–99, especially no. 5: Litauen [Königsberg: Kommissionsverlag von Bernh. Teichert, 1895]).

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

landscapes), the activities of this institution were presented in published “Reports” each year.82 Prussian army units deployed here were named for Lithuania in the early twentieth century,83 but this name was also used to mark various organizations and institutions. In Tilsit, around the turn of the twentieth century, a photo shop was named for Lithuania; the Lituania sports club was established in 1907; and in Gumbinnen the Litauen sports society was founded in 1909. Lithuanianness even became a sort of the “trademark” for individual cities. In more than one guidebook dedicated to knowledge about the Heimat, in the promotional material of the city itself, and even in the Brockhaus Encyclopedia, Tilsit, established in a Lithuanian-populated area on the banks of the Neman, was presented as the “capital of Prussian Lithuania.”84 The Lithuanian-populated surroundings of the city had a no less important significance at the juncture of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in contributing to Memel’s unique character. Tourist guides for Memel and the surrounding vicinities highlighted the image of the Lithuanian peasant market located at the base of the Wilhelm I monument in Memel.85 Such guidebooks 82 See Bericht des Konservators der Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Ostpreußen über seine Tätigkeit, nos. 1–34 (Königsberg: Ostpreußische Druckerei und Verlagsanstalt; Kommissionsverlag von Bernh. Teichert; Landesdruckerei, 1903–36). 83 The field artillery regiment formed in Gumbinnen in 1772 was named the 1st Lithuanian Prince Augustus artillery regiment in 1902. The field artillery regiment formed in Insterburg in 1899 was named the 2nd Lithuanian in 1902. Such a marking of units had an earlier tradition: already in 1808 in Tilsit the word “Lithuanian” was part of the name of the dragoon regiment formed in 1717, and in Insterburg in 1860 the Lithuanian 12th Lancer Regiment was formed. 84 Führer durch Tilsit und Umgebung: Auszug aus dem Gewerbe-Austellungs-Katalog (Tilsit: J. Reyländer & Sohn, 1891), 5; “Tilsit,” in Brockhaus’ Konversations-Lexikon, vol. 15, 14th ed. (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1896), 850; H. Lettau, Kurze Heimatkunde der Provinz Ostpreussen, 7th ed. (Leipzig: Oswald Schmidt, 1906), 15; Fremdenfuehrer durch Tilsit, Litauens Hauptstadt, ed. [Rudolf] Kreutz (Tilsit: [Verfasser], 1912); Chr. Naujoks, “Die Provinz Ostpreußen,” in Kahnmeyer und Schulze Realienbuch. Mit Geschichte des Weltkrieges, revised by Fr[iedrich] Baade, E[mil] Borchers, A[lbert] Gieseler, Ausgabe für Ostpreußen [Ausgabe A. für evangelische Schulen] (Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1917), 24; Unser Ostpreussen, ed. Franz Swillus, vol. 2: Bilder aus der Heimatkunde, 3rd ed. (Leipzig: Julius Klinkhardt, 1922), 169. 85 Neuer illustrierter Führer durch Memel und Umgegend, ed. Verein zur Verschönerung von Memel und Umgegend und zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 2nd revised ed. (Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1905), 7.

401

402

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

featured a photo of a Lithuanian peasant homestead from the vicinity of Memel.86 At the juncture of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the unique characteristics of the region of Lithuania began to be promoted through the discovery, publicizing, and exhibition of what, in the nineteenth century, was identified as “folk art” (Volkskunst)—most often rural architecture, non-industrial household items, handmade fabrics, embroidery, and clothes that, because they were made using archaic techniques, were considered “antiques” in contrast with mass-produced items. Because traditional lifestyles endured at the end of the nineteenth century in many areas of Prussian Lithuania, examples of such “folk art” were plentiful. It became popular to collect and exhibit such art, and in Heimat discourse it was contrasted positively with phenomena of industrial society. The way the houses were constructed, clothing, tools, utensils, and other commonplace items characteristic of Prussian Lithuania were associated with the archaic “people” of this land and thought of as expressions of Lithuanian character. Perhaps the institution most closely associated with the collection and promotion of such “Lithuanian folk art” was the Lithuanian Literary Society. At an 1884 meeting of the society, it was proposed, perhaps for the first time, that a museum be established to exhibit old clothing, household items, and other items characteristic of the Lithuanian cultural landscape.87 In 1899, the society began to accumulate such items88 and eventually turned a house exemplifying Lithuanian rural architecture that was built for the 1905 Tilsit business exhibition into a public museum to exhibit Lithuanian folk art. This “Lithuanian House” located in Tilsit’s Jakobsruhe Park was perhaps the first museum representing the ethnographic singularity of the region. Hugo Scheu, a member of the Lithuanian Literary Society who helped establish the museum on the premises of Heydekrug 86 Führer durch Memel und Umgegend, ed. Verein zur Verschönerung von Memel und Umgegend und zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs (Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1898), 57; Neuer illustrierter Führer . . . , 81. 87 A. Thomas, “Bericht über die Sitzungen der Gesellschaft im Winter 1884/85,” MLLG 10 (1885): 270–71. 88 “Zur Geschichte der Gesellschaft,” MLLG 25 (1900): 95.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Manor, which he acquired in 1892,89 had also furnished a private museum of Lithuanian fabrics, clothing, and other antique objects. The Municipal Museum in Memel, founded before World War I, seemingly carried out a similar function: establishment of a separate section of the museum was envisioned that would also collect and display Lithuanian artifacts.90 However, Lithuanian “folk art” was not only exhibited in museums, it was also sold. The Lithuanian Literary Society, through a wideranging network of influential sponsors and supporters, was interested in the distribution of this art and tried to promote the idea, at least in Germany, that it reflected the spirit of the entire province of East Prussia. The society even began to sell Lithuanian “traditional handicrafts.” The decision adopted in 1904 to implement Tilsit construction advisor Hermann Heise’s idea of building “Lithuanian House” in the city redirected the society’s efforts toward such activities. The society financed the project’s construction with its own funds and that of sponsors; later it also had to maintain this building. Since it was decided to build the house for the business exhibition (Gewerbe-Ausstellung Tilsit 1905) in Tilsit in June-September 1905, a high volume of traffic was expected for the exhibition, promising a financial return. After this decision was implemented and the exhibition ended, the house, still in the society’s possession, was open every day and performed several functions: it was presented as an “open-air ethnographic museum of Prussian Lithuania” while also serving as a sales outlet for handicrafts made by Lithuanian weavers onsite.91 After the Tilsit exhibition, the Lithuanian Literary Society presented Prussian Lithuanian “folk art” exhibitions almost every year in various German localities: in Dresden, Marienburg (now Malbork), Berlin, Allenstein (now Olsztyn), Gumbinnen, Cranz (now Zelenogradsk), and Memel. One such exhibition was the abovementioned Lithuanian “folk art” exhibition week in the palace of Prussia’s Ministry of the Interior. 89 Sembritzki, Bittens, Geschichte, 127. 90 Lietuwißka Ceitunga, December 2, 1910 (no. 96); February 3, 1911 (no. 10). 91 MLLG 29 (1907): 445, 476–80; Alexander Kurschat, Tilsit in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung, 2nd revised ed. (Tilsit: Verlag der Buchdruckerei Pawlowski, 1911), 75–76.

403

404

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Efforts of this kind to represent Lithuania’s cultural uniqueness should be perceived in a more general context. Teachers, academics, individuals active in monument preservation and museum curating, and ethnographers, in other words, the network of people who spread knowledge of the East Prussian Heimat, were representing Prussian Lithuania. With representations of the Lithuanian landscape, it sought to enrich the system of meanings associated with the East Prussian Heimat and to reveal the area’s unique identity in the context of Germany. One example of how this system of meanings was enriched through the concept of the open-air museum, which was just taking hold in Königsberg at that time. Such museum, which was inspired by the model of the Skansen Museum, was called Ostpreußisches Heimatmuseum. Richard Dethlefsen, who beginning in 1902 fulfilled the duties of the conservator of East Prussian monuments, became one of the main forces behind this museum’s establishment, an effort that began in 1909. It opened its gates to visitors in the Königsberg Tiergarten in 1913. Although the museum exhibited all the landscapes of East Prussia, special attention was devoted to Lithuania. Using material collected by Adalbert Bezzenberger and based on Dethlefsen’s research, two types of homesteads represented Lithuania at the museum: one peasant farmstead (a replica of a farmstead in Memel County) and one fisherman’s farm from the area of the Curonian Lagoon (a replica of a farmstead in Labiau County). There was also a Curonian cemetery that was characteristic of some parts of this Lithuanian region.92 The region of Lithuania as an important area reflecting the uniqueness of the province at the beginning of the twentieth century was also represented in tourist literature. In 1906, the Society for the Development of East Prussian Tourism, encouraged by the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft, produced a publication representing the province. Two thousand copies of it were distributed solely during events held in 1906 in Königsberg, including the landesdirectors (landeshauptmanns) conference and the general Congress of the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft—an inclusive society 92 [Richard Dethlefsen], Führer durch das Ostpreußische Heimatmuseum (Königsberg: Ostpreußische Druckerei und Verlagsanstalt, 1913), 5, 9–12, 16.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

having branches throughout Germany.93 The first pages of the publication, of which several editions were subsequently issued, were illustrated with two important symbols representing the singularity of East Prussia— Königsberg Castle and a Lithuanian house in Tilsit.94 The publication included a chapter by Tilsit Royal Gymnasium professor Emil Knaake, who emphasized that “Of all the parts of East Prussia, Lithuania, from the ethnographic, historical, and national economy point of view is the most important.”95 In the early twentieth century, the monthly magazine of the Society for the Development of Tourism, which described places of interest in East and West Prussia, included many texts heralding the landscape of Lithuania and its most important element—the Lithuanian culture of Prussia.96 The efforts to convert the Lithuanian cultural landscape’s individuality into a resource for demonstrating East Prussia’s exclusive place in the new Reich and in the German nation are also apparent in the instrumentalization of the symbol of Kristijonas Donelaitis. In the first half and middle of the nineteenth century, Donelaitis, at least in the professional literature, became the most important representative of Lithuanian culture. The first publishers of his works—Rhesa and Schleicher— introduced him as the Lithuanians’ national poet and an exclusive repre­sentative of the Lithuanian nation, such as it was understood at

93 See Der Wanderer durch West- u. Ost-Preussen (henceforth WDWOP), April 1907 (no. 1): 7–8. 94 Ostpreussen, ed. Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs (Königsberg: Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 1906); Ostpreussen, ed. Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs (Königsberg: Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 1910). 95 Emil Knaake, “Litauen,” in Ostpreussen 1906, 77. 96 Karl Wieberneit, “Litauen und seine Bewohner,” WDWOP, July 1907 (no. 4): 83–87; Karl Wieberneit, “Eine Ferienreise in das Memeldelta,” WDWOP, September 1907 (no. 6): 135–138; E. Kühn, “Die litauische Handweberei und ihre Veredlung für den modernen Kunstgeschmack,” WDWOP, June 1909 (no. 3): 62–65; Max Romanowski, “Wanderungen eines Naturfreundes durch Ostpreußen,” WDWOP, June 1909 (no. 3): 66–69; “Ueber den heutigen Stand des litauischen Volkstums in Preußen,” WDWOP, April 1910 (no. 1): 19–20; Immanuel Loetzow, “Litauischer Hochzeitsbrauch,” WDWOP, September 1910 (no. 6): 153–56; “Das Memelgebiet,” WDWOP, July 1911 (no. 4): 70–72; Ferdinand Runkel, “Im litauischen Sprachgebiet,” WDWOP, August 1911 (no. 5): 103.

405

406

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

that time.97 But in the 1860s a somewhat corrected treatment of Donelaitis appeared. Ferdinand Nesselmann was the first person who called Donelaitis a national poet not of the Lithuanians, but of Lithuania (hence of the landscape),98 and such a description of him, likely due to the academic influence of Nesselmann, quickly took root in the literature.99 In 1894 Ludwig Passarge, a counselor of the Königsberg court and writer, went even further in a new edition of Donelaitis’s work. 100 This edition for the first time presented his work only in German, thus targeting a German-reading audience. In addition, like Nesselmann, Passarge published Donelaitis’s work under a Latinized version of his last name—“Donalitius”—which served to associate him with “higher” culture. Several decades before World War I, Donelaitis, continuing to represent Lithuania, or what Franz Tetzner now called the half-German, half-Lithuanian rural environment of East Prussia,101 was transformed into a symbol of East Prussia as a whole. Donelaitis’s importance was such that, in describing East Prussia’s place in the context of Germany, some began equating him with Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottfried Herder, Nicolaus Copernicus, Simon Dach, and other examples of who the Heimat of East Prussia gave German culture.102 Not surprisingly, in January 1914, Königsberg University professor Bezzenberger, the best expert on Lithuania, in a speech at the Albertina (Königsberg University)   97 Christian Donaleitis (Donalitius), Das Jahr in vier Gesängen, ein ländliches Epos, trans. L[udwig] J. Rhesa (Königsberg: Königl. Hartungsche Hofbuchdruckerei, 1818), v; Christian Donaleitis, Litauische Dichtungen: Erste volständige Ausgabe mit Glossar, [ed. and trans.] August Schleicher (St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1865), 1, 11.   98 Christian Donalitius, Littauische Dichtungen nach den Königsberger Handschriften mit metrischer Uebersetzung, kritischen Anmerkungen und genauem Glossar, ed. and trans. G. H. Ferdinand Nesselmann (Königsberg: Hübner & Matz, 1869), 3.   99 See, e.g., Alexander Alexandrow, Sprachliches aus dem Nationaldichter Litauens Donalitius, vol. 1, Zur Semasiologie (Dorpat: Schnakenburg’s Buchdruckerei, 1886), 7; Alexander Horn, Christian Donalies: Separatabdruck aus der Insterburger Zeitung (Insterburg: C. R. Wilhelmi, 1893), 3, 18–19. 100 Christian Donalitius, Littauische Dichtungen, trans. Ludwig Passarge (Halle a. S.: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1894). 101 Franz Tetzner, “Donalitius und Tolminkemen,” Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte 3 (1896): 291. 102 Johannes Ziesemer, Die Provinzen Ost- und Westpreußen, no. 11 of Landeskunde Preußens (Berlin: W. Spemann, 1901), 66, 95–100.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

on the anniversary of the establishment of the German Reich, urged the university not to miss the opportunity to commemorate the 200th anniversary of Donelaitis’s birth. Donelaitis could not be considered a poet solely of the Lithuanian nation, said Bezzenberger, for after all, perhaps only a few dozen Lithuanians had read “The Seasons.”103 So the rural environment of Prussia, predominated by Lithuanian peasants, in the second half of the nineteenth century increasingly became a place worthy of ethnographic study, whose artifacts and lifestyle were displayed in museum exhibitions. The fact that the indiv­id­uality of the cultural landscape of Prussian Lithuania had become an object of this knowledge created opportunities to develop the self-awareness of the East Prussian Heimat in the context of Germany and to understand its place within the German nation, a place strongly informed by its very uniqueness. A distinctive literary genre gaining popularity in Germany in the 1880s, Heimatliteratur, partly contributed to creating these opportunities. It portrayed the rural environment, often of the poor, as a counterweight to the environment of major cities and civilization. In the case of Prussian Lithuania, it spawned a number of works that, although not of high literary value, were often pervaded with the unique characteristics of the Lithuanian landscape. Among the clearly distinguishable works that brought the most fame to motifs associated with Prussian Lithuania through the German performing arts and literature were those of Jodocus Temme (1798–1881), Ernst Wichert (1831–1902), and Hermann Sudermann (1857–1928). They portrayed Lithuania not as a historical area, but as a landscape featuring cultural singularities,104 with Prussian Lithuanian peasants as their main representatives. Personifying the unique qualities of the land around the dawn of the twentieth century, Prussian Lithuanian peasants became the most important heroes of the Lithuania portrayed in German

103 “Důnelaitis, didysis Lietuwos Eilininkas,” Apzwalga, January 23, 1914 (no. 7). 104 See excerpts from the works of Otto Glagau (1869), Ernest Wiechert (1881), and Hermann Sudermann (1918) included in the collection of readings about the German Ostmark: Fritz Braun, Die Ostmark: Ein Heimatbuch (Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter, 1919), 262–91.

407

408

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

literature, theater, and art (especially in the works of the authors of the Nidden (now Nida) artists’ colony).105 All of the aforementioned measures taken to represent Prussian Lithuania allowed for the nationalization of this landscape, turning it into a German national space. But how were the borders of this space understood? At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century, the literature published in Germany reflected several conceptions of Lithuania’s borders, the oldest of which—its administrative divisions (Lithuania was defined by the boundaries of its counties)—was used increasingly less often. The definitions of Lithuania born out of nineteenth-century scholarship, which differed from each other the most by approach, became prevalent. Some were based on historical, geographical, ethnographic, or linguistic approaches and sought to show the greatest range over which Lithuanians ever existed. Definitions appearing later were mainly based on the statistical approach. The latter relied on the categories of “majority” and “minority” and assigned areas to nations according to the language that dominated in those areas, that is, those spoken by more than 50 percent of the population. The statistical approach resulted in a smaller Lithuanian area than those determined by other approaches. Heralding a broader use of statistics, government adviser Richard Böckh, having worked in Prussia’s statistical bureau in Berlin, carried out an in-depth analysis of the 1861 Prussian census data on the prevalence of language. In 1864 this analysis was used to produce a two-sheet linguistic map of Prussia’s eastern provinces.106 In 1869, using the data from the analysis, a study about the size and distribution of the community of German language

105 For more about this colony see: Jörn Barfod, Nidden—Künstlerort auf der Kurischen Nehrung (Fischerhude: Atelier im Bauernhaus, 2005). See also: Menininkų kūrybos centrai ir jų bendruomenės Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje = Künstlergemeinschaften und ihre Ländlichen Schaffenszentren in Mittel- und Osteuropa, ed. Lina Motuzienė and Živilė Etevičiūtė (Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2011). 106 Richard Boeckh, Sprachkarte vom Preussischen Staat (Nördliche Hälfte; Südliche Hälfte) nach den Zählungs-Aufnahmen von 1861 ([Berlin: Dietrich Reimer in Komm., 1864]).

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

users in Europe was issued.107 Böckh, undertaking his analysis at a time when nationalism was on the rise in Prussia, was probably the first to apply the principle of absolute majorities in determining which territories were assigned to the speakers of particular languages. In other words, beginning with Böckh’s time, the interpretation of statistics in Prussia could be used as a tool to transform non-German speakers into other nationalities’ “minorities,” highlighting their dominance in some areas or, conversely, clearly indicating where “the Germans” already predominated. Böckh’s analysis allowed the extent to which the area covered by speakers of Lithuanian had shrunk in Prussia to be expressed cartographically for the first time. For this and other reasons, it is difficult to overestimate the impact of his analysis. The impact of his research is apparent in the cartography showing ethnographic territories that became available to the general public in the 1870s. These maps show that the area of the Lithuanian language’s dispersion in East Prussia was pushed to the northeast for the first time.108 The fact that from 1861 to 1890 censuses of the Prussian population no longer collected data on languages also strengthened the effects,109 so Böckh’s was the most aurhoritative available information for a long time. Finally, after Böckh, rare was the author who did not reiterate that Lithuanians’ territory in Prussia was constantly decreasing. The veracity of this assumption could also be determined on the basis of the official findings of subsequent censuses: the 1890 census of the governmental districts of Königsberg and Gumbinnen identified 118,085 people whose native language was indicated as Lithuanian or as Lithuanian and German, but in 1910 only 94,345 such persons were identified.110 In historiography today it is agreed that during this period anti-­Polish policies had a significant impact on the statistics describing the prevalence of languages in the eastern provinces of 107 Böckh, Der Deutschen Volkszahl. 108 E.g., Physikalisch-statistischer Atlas des Deutschen Reichs, ed. Richard Andree and Oscar Peschel (Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1876), 27 and Karte 10: Richard Andree, “Völker-Karte des Deutschen Reichs und der angrenzenden Länder.” 109 The census of 1867 was an exception. 110 Cf. Fircks, “Die preussische Bevölkerung,” 238; Albert Hesse, Die Bevölkerung von Ostpreußen (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1916), 21.

409

410

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Prussia.111 This would suggest that, in the case of Lithuanian speakers, the trend that becomes evident from these figures indeed reflected not only a “natural” decline but also conscious efforts to make Lithuanian speakers “less visible.” For example, yet another “map of nationalities” based on the collected data about native languages in the 1900 census was published in 1907 in the journal Deutsche Erde, established by Paul Langhans and clearly propagating the ideas of the Volksnation. Applying the principles introduced by Böckh, when the native language was identified with nationality and territories were assigned to nationalities that represented a majority, this map further reduced the area populated by Prussian Lithuanians. The counties of Memel and Heydekrug and the border area in Tilsit County were assigned to this area.112 Such depictions, of course, offered an alternative definition of Lithuania. How this alternative was manifested in describing the borders of the Lithuanian landscape in Prussia is illustrated by the fact that even those authors who did not follow the statistical approach were forced to recognize its compelling impact. The Lithuanians and representatives of the academic community interested in the Lithuanian language expressed cautious doubts about the reliability of the statistical data collected about Lithuanians.113 Nevertheless, in principle, the impact of these data was so wide that in ethnography and linguistics there was an ever-greater orientation toward determining the actual prevalence of Lithuanians. Only the interpreters of the statistics assigned territories based on where the nationalities existed as a majority, while ethnographers and linguists, seeking new approaches to defining Lithuania, further focused on determining the greatest dispersion of the Lithuanian 111 Leszek Belszyt, Sprachliche Minderheiten im preußischen Staat 1815–1914: Die preußische Sprachenstatistik in Bearbeitung und Kommentar, vol. 3 of Quellen zur Geschichte und Landeskunde Ostmitteleuropas (Marburg: Herder-Institut, 1998), 11–24; Michael C. Schneider, Wissensproduktion im Staat: Das königlich preußische statistische Bureau 1860–1914 (Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2013), 305, 324–42. 112 See Paul Langhans, “Nationalitätenkarte der Provinz Ostpreussen,” Deutsche Erde: Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 6, no. 1 (1907). 113 Alexander Doritsch, Beiträge zur litauischen Dialektologie, vol. 31 of MLLG (Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung [in Kommission], 1912 [Tilsit: Otto v. Mauderode, 1911]), xviii.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

language, ignoring Böckh’s imposed criterion of majority numbers. The main center generating so delineating Lithuania was the University of Leipzig, which around the beginning of the century was one of the main centers for Slavic and Baltic studies in Europe.114 The authors of many East Prussia travel guides and geography and Heimat studies textbooks, as well as other publications that appeared in the late nineteenth century and early decades of the twentieth, still perceived Lithuania as a historically formed area and still identified it with the old landscapes of Nadrovia and Scalovia.115 However, several other conceptions of the Lithuanian-populated spaces of East Prussia developed in parallel. They differed from one another in that some highlighted the range of the Lithuanian populations as determined by the need for Lithuanian-language church services, while others defined the zone across which the Lithuanian language predominated based on census data. It seems that the influence of the statistical criterion in determining the range of Lithuanian territory contributed to the fact that a new term—Memelgebiet— began to be used to describe the Lithuanian-populated landscape, even before World War I. The term’s emergence is related not to the appearance of the Territory of Memel as an administrative unit in 1919, as it might seem at first 114 Cf. the borders of Lithuania, which were represented in: Franz Tetzner, Die Slawen in Deutschland: Beiträge zur Volkskunde (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, 1902), 26–32; Doritsch, Beiträge, xiii–xiv; August Leskien, Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch (Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1919), xvii. 115 Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen: Heimatkunden. Ergänzung zu den Ausgaben A und B der Schulgeographie von E. v. Seydlitz, ed. Hans Lullies (Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, Königliche Universitäts- und Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1891), 19, 21, and 3rd revised ed. (Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, Königliche Universitäts- und Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1896), 19, 21; Richard Armstedt, Geschichte der Königl: Haupt- und Residenzstadt Königsberg in Preussen (Stuttgart: Hobbing & Bühle, 1899), 31–32; Ostpreussen 1906, 77; Ostpreussen 1910, 140–41; Richard Dethlefsen, Bauernhäuser und Holzkirchen in Ostpreußen (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1911), 17; Wilhelm Obgartel, Der Regierungsbezirk Gumbinnen: Ein Heimatbuch (Insterburg: Selbstverlag, 1912), 3; Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen, ed. Hans Lullies, 7th and 8th ed. (Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, 1912 and 1919), 26, 28, 36; Wilhelm Sahm, Heimatkunde von Ostpreußen (Frankfurt am Main: Moritz Diesterweg, 1914), 20; Unser Ostpreussen, vol. 2, 87.

411

412

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

glance, but to the need to identify the region located downstream from the Neman (Memel in German) River basin where, in the early twentieth century, Lithuanian was still spoken or the Lithuanian language still predominated. The term Memelgebiet originally appeared as a purely geographical concept applied to the six counties of East Prussia (Memel, Heydekrug, Niederung, Tilsit, Ragnit, and Pillkallen), the territory of which entered the Neman River basin.116 Since the Lithuanian-speaking inhabitants of East Prussia were concentrated in these counties, at the turn of the twentieth century, this term increasingly began to be identified with the “Lithuanian” landscape. We can find one of the first hints at this phenomenon in the 1901 regional geography (Landeskunde) textbook by Johannes Ziesemer, then a teacher at the Marienburg Royal Seminary. He identified Prussian Lithuania with river basins, indicating that it purportedly included primarily the area encompassing the tributaries of the Pregel (now Pregolya) River, including the basins of the Inster (now Instruch), Pissa (now Pissa or Pisa) and the Rominte (now Krasnaya), and Angerapp rivers; but in the broader sense the “Neman area” was also attributed to Prussian Lithuania.117 The idea that Lithuania in East Prussia consisted of the areas of the Neman and the upper Pregel river basins had been expressed in other textbooks before the war.118 Finally, in some of these textbooks and travel guides Lithuania and Lithuanians began to be associated exclusively with the term Memelgebiet.119 These developments led to the coexistence of several spatial concepts assigned to Lithuanians and identified with Lithuania. But did these concepts have any connection with the self-perception of the Lithuanians of Prussia and what “their” space consisted of? 116 This was how it was used in the textbook Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen (see the 1st [1891] and 3rd [1896] editions, 27). 117 Ziesemer, Provinzen, 63. 118 Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen, 7th ed., 36. 119 Rudolf Brückmann, Bilder aus der Heimatkunde Ostpreußens für die Mittelstufe (Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, Königliche Universitäts- und Verlags-Buchhandlung, [1911]), 12–16; Ost- und Westpreussen: Führer durch das Verbandsgebiet, ed. Verkehrsverband für Ost- und Westpreussen (Danzig: Carl Bäcker, 1911), 54–55.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

LITHUANIA IN THE SPATIAL CONCEPTIONS OF PRUSSIAN LITHUANIANS It is not easy to separately assess the spatial concepts supported within the cultural milieu of Prussian Lithuanians, because distinguishing such a milieu from others is extremely difficult. Around the dawn of the twentieth century a relatively narrow circle of active Prussian Lithuanian social leaders formed a system of meanings related to Lithuania that differed from the German system. Although, as World War I approached, their influence grew steadily, it should not be overestimated: religious authorities—Pietist laymen (the so-called sakytojai), the status of whom, notably, was not institutionalized in the Evangelical Church— also exercised significant social leadership. Within East Prussia before the war, those inspired by the Lithuanian national idea were in marginal positions, as the Lithuanians of Prussia did not form their separate national idea.120 It can be assumed that the system of meanings supported by the Lithuanians of Prussia, just as in the case of the Germans, was far from homogeneous. Only unlike in the German case, the development of a distinctive national idea under the influence of two different perspectives did not cause a multiplicity of spatial concepts, instead, Prussian Lithuanians found themselves in the impact zone of two national ideas—those of the Germans and Lithuanians. How did this impact manifest itself? First of all, we should say that, despite the institutionalization of geography in this part of Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, Prussian Lithuanians did not write separate geography textbooks. In general, Prussian-Lithuanian social leaders began to consider autonomous education much later than the Lithuanians living in the Russian Empire. Nevertheless, the spatial knowledge of the majority of Prussian Lithuanians was much greater and appeared much earlier because Prussian society, compared to that in the Russian Empire’s western provinces, was more literate. True, the greater part of Lithuanian speakers, many of whom resisted the 120 For more on this see: Silva Pocytė, Mažlietuviai Vokietijos imperijoje, 1871–1914 (Vilnius: Vaga, 2002).

413

414

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

especially intense pressure to assimilate culturally in the second half of the nineteenth century, usually did not achieve a level of education beyond primary school. Due to paid education and the agrarian society’s prevailing approach to education, that is, that it was irrelevant, only rarely did people enroll in and finish high school, while even fewer acquired a university education.121 Nevertheless, pupils in East Prussia were oriented in time and space in the folk schools (Volksschule), which all were required to attend. The example of Tilsit County’s primary schools can aid in understanding what kinds of knowledge they were introduced to. Lessons in world knowledge (geography) started from the Heimat and extended outward to East and West Prussia, other provinces of Prussia, and finally the Prussian Kingdom, Germany, and beyond.122 Those whose parents could afford to let their children attend secondary school received similar guidance in preparatory classes (the so-called Vorschule) they attended at the secondary schools. In these classes, geography was not usually taught as a separate subject, however, the pupils’ “knowledge of the Heimat” (Heimatkunde) was developed. It was a discipline in which historical and geographical knowledge was conveyed in an integrated way, while the sense of space was consistently expanded from the place of residence, in which the school was located, to the province.123 In the lowest class of the secondary schools, this knowledge was partially repeated, only later extending to Europe and other continents, and always offering separate 121 See Nijolė Strakauskaitė, “Mažosios Lietuvos elito identiteto problema: Kultūrinis diskursas,” Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas 1–2 (2001): 73; Nijolė Strakauskaitė, “Rytų Prūsijos intelektualinė terpė XIX amžiuje,” in Kultūriniai saitai abipus Nemuno: Mažosios Lietuvos reikšmė Didžiajai Lietuvai spaudos draudimo metais (1864–1904), ed. Silva Pocytė and Rimantas Sliužinskas, vol. 10 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis (Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2004), 31–32. 122 Ernst Pohl, Stoffverzeichnisse und Stundenpläne für die ein- und zweiklassigen Volksschulen sowie Studenpläne für die Halbtags- und dreiklassigen Schulen mit 2 Lehrern im Kreise Tilsit (Tilsit: Rud. Lösch, 1882), 10–11, 24–25. 123 H. Schwary, Programm der höheren Bürgerschule zu Gumbinnen durch welches zu der öffentlichen Prüfung der Schüler Freitags den 8. April d. J. im Namen des Lehrer-­ Collegiums ergebenst einladet (Gumbinnen: [?], 1881), 6–7; Eduard Küsel, XXXIV. Jahres-Bericht 1894/95 über das Königliche Luisen-Gymnasium zu Memel (Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1895), 14.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

knowledge of Prussia, Germany, and Austria. For example, in the lowest classes of the Insterburg boys’ secondary school, this educational focus started from the geography of Insterburg and its vicinities, extended to East and West Prussia, covered general knowledge of the history of the homeland.124 Similarly in the lower grades of the Gumbinnen girls’ secondary school the knowledge of geography started at the school building, moved on to the surrounding streets and the town, further expanded to the Gumbinnen county and governmental district, covered the provinces of East Prussia and West Prussia, introduced the Prussian state and Germany’s Reich, and finally extended to Europe and other continents. The knowledge of history in the lowest classes also began from the most general knowledge readings about the Heimat, which in this case were related to the history of the Teutonic Order and the most important moments in the order’s history.125 So in the educational programs of East Prussia’s schools also attended by Lithuanian speakers, both at the primary and advanced level of education, knowledge of the Heimat took the role of a starting point from which students’ spatial perception was further developed following the trajectory from the local to the whole (Germany), emphasizing East Prussian links with that whole. Nevertheless, an analysis of school curricula and the annual reports of the schools operating in the northeastern part of the province do not show that in such knowledge of the Heimat Lithuania was especially differentiated (this, of course, does not mean that there was no such differentiation in practice). We can judge Lithuania’s position in the spatial conceptions of Prussian Lithuanians from another source: the various periodicals they read.126 It must be said that the newspapers published in the German 124 Bericht über die Knaben-Mittelschule in Insterburg für das Schuljahr 1901/1902 (Insterburg: Buchdruckerei Dr. A. Bittner, 1902), 10–11. 125 J. Bartezky, Vierunddreissigster Bericht über die Städtische höhere Töchterschule zu Gumbinnen (Gumbinnen: Wilhelm Krauseneck, 1905), 8–9; J. Bartezky, Ostern 1911: Vierzigster Bericht über die Cecilienschule (Städtische höhere Mädchenschule) zu Gumbinnen (Tilsit, 1911), 6–14. 126 Nijolė Strakauskaitė was the first to highlight the influence of the Lithuanian language press in East Prussia on the geographic images of Prussian Lithuanians: Nijolė Strakauskaitė, “Rytų Prūsijos reikšmės Prūsijos lietuvių aplinkoje XIX–XX

415

416

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

language were also freely available to a majority of them because Prussian Lithuanians’ bilingualism was already common during the Kaiserreich period.127 News from the whole world, Germany, and the region, as well as local information and press releases published in East Prussia during this period, just as elsewhere, were placed under separate headings. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Prussian Lithuania’s German-language newspapers placed local information under the headings “Lokales,” or “Lokales und Allgemeines,” and information from the (East) Prussian Province would end up under the heading “Provinzielles.” News from Germany was again placed under a separate heading, and reports from other countries were given headings related to the countries in question or placed under a customized heading.128 It is important that even after the Province of Prussia was divided into the provinces of East and West Prussia in 1878, the local newspapers continued to cover the territory of both under a column titled “Provinzielles.” This confirms the German reading audience was being inculcated with the spatial concept that both provinces belonged to a common space, one of the means through which the image of the Ordensland was supported among East Prussian readers. The periodical publications printed in the Lithuanian language especially for Prussian Lithuanians, in this regard, are even more amžių sandūroje,” in Erdvių pasisavinimas Rytų Prūsijoje XX amžiuje, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas, vol. 24 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis (Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2012), 206–8. 127 See Gerhard Bauer, “Deutsch-litauische Sprachbeziehungen und nationale Identität im Memelland: Erkentnisse aus neueren etnograpischen Quellen,” Lietuvių Kultūros Institutas: Suvažiavimo darbai 1994 / Litauisches Kulturinstitut. Jahrestagung 1994 (Lampertheim: Litauisches Kulturinstitut, 1995), 69–70; Manfred Klein, “Ein interkulturelles Produkt: der ‘Putzmalūnas.’ Etnische Identität und Sprache in Preußich-Litauen,” in Selbstbewusstsein, especially 158–160; Manfred Klein, “Wann ‘schämt’ man sich seiner Muttersprache? Aspekte der Sprachwahl bei PreußischLitauern,” in Baltisch-deutsche Sprachen- und Kulturkontakte in Nord-Ostpreußen, ed. Jochen D. Range (Essen: Die blaue Eule, 2002), 67–80, especially 73–74; Christiane Schiller, Bilinguismus: Zur Darstellung eines soziolinguistischen Phänomens in der Literatur, dargestellt an Beispielen der regionalen Literatur Preußisch-Litauens: Hermann Sudermann “Litauische Geschichten,” Ieva Simonaitytė “Vilius Karalius,” vol. 7 of Hallesche Sprach- und Textforschung (Frankfurt am Main.: Peter Lang, 2000). 128 Cf. Memeler Dampfboot, January 1, 1873 (no. 1); October 15, 1879 (no. 241); Tilsiter Zeitung, May 1, 1894 (no. 100); June 26, 1894 (no. 146).

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

interesting. After looking through the newspapers designated for Lithuanians with the largest press runs and issued over the longest time, it is clear that in Keleiwis (Traveler) (1849–1880), published in Königsberg by Friedrich Kurschat, information was very rarely structured according to location. However, there is validity to Nijolė Strakauskaitė’s conclusion that it was specifically this publication that began to form the concept that, for Lithuanians, the Province of (East) Prussia was “their own” region.129 Furthermore, the sporadic usage of the term “Lithuania” is already evident in this publication. The Konzervatywû Draugystês-Laißkas (the Conservative Party paper) published by Georg Trauschies during 1882–1918 in Prökuls became the ideological contin�uation of this influential publication, focusing the most attention on religious issues and shaping the attitudes of the conservative majority of Prussian Lithuanians. This weekly (beginning in 1899 it was published twice a week), from its founding almost to the last issues, featured the column Iß Prusu Prowincu (From the Prussian provinces), which mainly reported information from the vicinities nearest the newspaper’s headquarters and from various areas of Prussian Lithuania. However, the word “Lithuania” was not yet used in the name of this column. Lietuwißka Ceitunga (Lithuanian newspaper) published in Memel beginning in 1877, the Tilžês Keleiwis (Tilsit traveler) published in Tilsit beginning in 1883, and the Nauja Lietuwißka Ceitunga (New Lithuanian newspaper) beginning in 1890 were somewhat different in this regard. In all these newspapers local reports were placed under headings that included the word “Lithuania.” This feature appeared in the first two papers from the very beginning, and Nauja Lietuwißka Ceitunga introduced it in May 1899. It should be noted that this Lithuania was nearly always part of something larger. Lithuania thus did not have to be perceived as a separate territory, but only (in most cases) as part of the province. This can be clearly seen in the longest surviving name of the heading “Iß Lietuwos bey musu Prowinco” (From Lithuania and our province), which Lietuwißka Ceitunga used. “Provincas” (or the plural “Provincai”), 129 Strakauskaitė, “Rytų Prūsijos reikšmės,” 207–8.

417

418

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

that is, the province, the “Apygardis” (governmental district) appearing in Tilžês Keleiwis in 1899 or simply “Prusai” (Prussia), as Nauja Lietuwißka Ceitunga headed its feature from the end of 1911—all of these were references to a context much broader than just the Province of East Prussia. Under the heading “Iß Lietuwos bey musu Prowinco” in Lietuwißka Ceitunga, news from Memel, its vicinities, and counties closest to it predominated. This feature continued to provide information not only from East but also West Prussia, and in some cases news from other eastern provinces was placed under the same heading— primarily from Posen, and in isolated cases even from Silesia.130 The other two newspapers represented the same contextual region of Lithuania. This would confirm that the concept of “one’s own” space being formed in the largest newspapers published for Prussian Lithuanians was applied to the same territory where the images of Ordensland and Ostmark were applied.131 Lithuania was to be seen as an integral part of a space characterized by these images of German national culture. Moreover, Prussian Lithuanians must have understood coexistence with Germans in that Lithuania as the norm. They would not have perceived this landscape as only their own space. We can see the impact of some of these efforts to establish coexistence with the Germans as a norm with the help of comments made by Ansas Bruožis. In 1906 he 130 Based on a random review of the numbers: Lietuwißka Ceitunga, March 2, 1886 (no. 9); March 16, 1886 (no. 11); November 9, 1886 (no. 45); November 16, 1886 (no. 46); November 23, 1886 (no. 47); November 30, 1886 (no. 48); June 18, 1895 (no. 25); October 1, 1895 (no. 40); October 15, 1895 (no. 42); October 22, 1895 (no. 43); December 24, 1895 (no. 52); January 1, 1904 (no. 1); January 8, 1904 (no. 3); January 29, 1904 (no. 9); April 15, 1904 (no. 31); April 22, 1904 (no. 33); April 29, 1904 (no. 35); July 1, 1904 (no. 53); July 15, 1904 (no. 57); July 29, 1904 (no. 61); September 27, 1904 (no. 78); December 6, 1904 (no. 98); December 27, 1904 (no. 104); February 4, 1913 (no. 10); February 11, 1913 (no. 12); February 18, 1913 (no. 14); February 25, 1913 (no. 16); May 16, 1913 (no. 39); August 8, 1913 (no. 63); August 15, 1913 (no. 65); August 29, 1913 (no. 69). 131 The image of East Prussia as a part of the eastern mark (Ostmark) began evolving in the mid-nineteenth century. The term Ostmark was an allusion to the land beyond the borders of the former empire with its characteristic functions of becoming the space of colonization plans and the spread of “higher” German culture. The West Prussian motifs clearly dominated in the image of the Ostmark with its colonial implications, even though it was being applied to East Prussia occasionally.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

wrote: “It is sad to see that our fellow countrymen have no idea that Lithuania is our land, that we are its population.”132 These circumstances would suggest that the spatial images targeted at audiences reading in both German and Lithuanian in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century differed very little. The Germans of East Prussia and the majority of Prussian Lithuanians had to have shared images of “their space,” which was part of German national culture. Nevertheless, this was not always the case: the concept of Lithuanians’ “own” space in East Prussia based on the meanings of the national culture of Lithuanians also penetrated the environment of Prussian Lithuanians. The basis for this concept was the version of the Lithuanian historical master narrative that began to take shape in Prussian Lithuania starting in the late nineteenth century.133 In it were clearly formed the images of East Prussia as their own space and the continuity of the Lithuanians in that space. The Lithuanians had to grasp that they were the autochthons of Prussian Lithuania, while the concepts of the “ancient Lithuanians” and the GDL as a common state of all Lithuanians, taken from the historian Simonas Daukantas, provided the basis for the common understanding of the historical space. The story of the wars with the Teutonic Order, identified with the Germans, was presented as the collective activity of the Lithuanians “protecting” their own identity and potentially was meant to distract the Lithuanians of Prussia from the perception of East Prussia as the Ordensland. Attempts were made to ideologically justify the existence of one Lithuania, a Lithuania that had been split in two only due to the negative impact of the Germans. The emergence of the terms “Lithuania Minor” (Mažoji Lietuva) and “Lithuania Major” (Didžioji Lietuva) in Lithuanian national culture can be considered a clear consequence of this concept. Their emergence was rooted in a need to show the existence of the “Lithuanian world” on the other side of the Russo-German border. 132 [Ansas Bruožis], Prusu Lietuwei: Perzwalga lietuwißku Peticijonu, Deputacijonu bey polytißku Weikimu (Luźen: M. Kaitinis, 1906), 3. 133 See also: Vasilijus Safronovas, “Bandymas formuoti alternatyvą: lietuviškojo didžiojo istorinio pasakojimo aktualizavimas Prūsijos Lietuvoje XIX–XX amžių sandūroje,” in Daugiareikšmės tapatybės, 78–88.

419

420

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Intensified contact between the Lithuanian-speaking populations living in Prussia and Russia primarily dictated this demand in the context of the Lithuanian national movement in the 1870s. Initially the name of the state to which a part of the “Lithuanian world” belonged was usually added to the term “Lithuania.” Thus, the terms “Prussian Lithuania” (Prūsų Lietuva) and “Muscovian Lithuania” (Maskolių Lietuva), which was less often called “Gudian [Belarusian] Lithuania” (Gudų Lietuva) or “Russian Lithuania” (Rusų Lietuva, Rusijos Lietuva), emerged in Lithuanian discourse.134 However, the aim to clarify what country Lithuania belonged to indictated the need to identify the different territories where the Lithuanian language was used. No less important in this case was the system of meanings formed on the basis of the Lithuanian historical master narrative, according to which the Lithuanian language speaker, as the vehicle of national culture, had to perceive East Prussia and the area where Lithuanian language had spread. Based on this system of meanings, in the 1890s the creators of Lithuanian national culture, first of all in Prussia, began to occasionally use the term “Lithuania Major” (Didžioji Lietuva),135 which was applied to the “Lithuanian world” within the Russian Empire. Sometime later, in 1910, the concept of “Lithuania Minor” (Mažoji Lietuva), applied to the Lithuanian-­ speaking area in East Prussia, began to penetrate Lithuanian discourse more often.136 134 See Auszra 4–5 (1885): 112, 133; 6 (1885): 164; 10–11 (1885): 364; 1 (1886): 16; 5 (1886): 154, 160; Garsas, April 2, 1887 (no. 3), Suppl.; Varpas 5 (1889): 70; 2 (1893): 17; 6 (1893): 81, 86, and later mentions. 135 The earliest found mentions of the term: Varpas 8 (1893): 127; 5 (1896): 75; 6 (1896): 91–92; 2 (1897): 22; 1 (1900): 2; 5 (1901): 58; 12 (1902): 257 and later; Lietuwißka Ceitunga, October 23, 1894 (no. 43); August 13, 1895 (no. 33) and later; Saulēteka 13 (1901): 282. 136 The designation “Lithuania Minor” began to be used simultaneously in 1910 in East Prussia (Allgemeine Litauische Rundschau, January 20, 1910 [no. 1]: 3; March 1910 [no. 3]: 65, 70; May 1910 [no. 5]: 129, et al.; Birutė 7 [1910]: 99; 8 [1910]: 121; 1 [9] [1910]: 12), by the Lithuanian diaspora in the US (cf. the essay: Jonas Šliupas, Mažoji arba Prūsiškoji Lietuva 19-tame šimtmetyje [Chicago, IL: Lietuva, 1910], reprinted from a monthly released in Pennsylvania, USA, Laisvoji mintis 7 [1910]: 147–152), and in Russia (see Juozas Gabrys, Geografijos vadovėlis skiriamas Lietuvos mokyklai (Tilsit, 1910), 61; Lietuvos žinios, June 5 [18], 1910 [no. 44]: 2; June 16 [29], 1910 [no. 47]: 3; September 25 [October 8], 1910 [no. 76]: 3; November 13

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Nevertheless, it is clear that the terminology expressing the existence of two Lithuanias at least until World War I in the communication milieu of the Lithuanians in Prussia caught on with difficulty. The term “Prussian Lithuania” was used here not as often as in the Lithuanian press of Russia. For a long time, the press directed at the Lithuanians of Prussia in general rarely used the terms “Lithuania Minor” and “Major.” Even Martynas Jankus, a clear supporter of Lithuanian cultural unity, in his monthly Saulēteka (Sunrise) still saw the need to explain that by “Lithuania Major” he meant “Russian Lithuania.”137 Probably the first person in East Prussia who began to use both terms side by side was Jonas Vanagaitis in the monthly journal that he owned and edited, Birutė. However, Birutė was an exception. In other periodicals intended for a Prussian-Lithuanian audience, the term “Lithuania Major” caught on much more easily than “Lithuania Minor.” For example, the clearly pro-Lithuanian Prusų Lietuvos savaitraštis (Prussian Lithuanian weekly), started in Tilsit in December 1913, organized most of its content under three headings: “From Prussian Lithuania” (news, e.g., from Berlin, also appeared under this heading), “From Lithuania Major,” and “Lithuanians Elsewhere.” Apzwalga (Review), which was published in Memel, in 1913 also began to use “From Lithuania Major” as a subheading in the section “Iß Lietuwos” (From Lithuania); in April 1914, the subheading was elevated to the status of heading.138 And even Lietuwißka Ceitunga occasionally included news “From Lithuania Major” under the heading “Iß Lietuwôs,” which changed its previous name “Iß Lietuwos bey musu Prowinco” in 1913.139 These news items, it is true, were published there after reports from East and West Prussia. Therefore even for the majority of those Prussian Lithuanians who advocated the separateness of Lithuanian culture, [26], 1910 [no. 90]: 3—the latter issue for the first time used the heading “Lithuania Minor”). This suggests coordination, likely the work of Jonas Vanagaitis. 137 See Saulēteka 13 (1901): 282. 138 Cf. Apzwalga, February 18, 1913 (no. 14); October 28, 1913 (no. 85); April 3, 1914 (no. 27). 139 Lietuwißka Ceitunga, October 7, 1913 (no. 81); October 25, 1913 (no. 89); February 5, 1914 (no. 16).

421

422

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

imagining themselves as living in Lithuania “Minor” was apparently a foreign concept. On the other hand, on the eve of World War I, in some publications intended for Prussian Lithuanians, the increase in attention to Lithuania “Major” would seem to suggest that the very concept of “two Lithuanias” was gaining ground, although in East Prussia, Lithuania was still primarily thought of as existing within the borders of Prussia (Germany). Was there any interaction between the two spatial concepts in the Prussian Lithuanian milieu? It can be posited that examples of such interaction could be viewed as instances of adaptation in an apparent attempt to attract a larger audience in the press directed at Prussian Lithuanians. Tilžês Keleiwis’s feature “Iß Lietuwôs bey abiejû Prusû Prowincû” in 1894–1899 was published with its name changed to “Iß Lietuwos.” Similarly, the abovementioned heading in Lietuwißka Ceitunga, “Iß Lietuwôs bey musu Prowinco,” in October 1913 was renamed “Iß Lietuwôs,” albeit for quite a short time (immediately after the outbreak of World War I, its previous name was restored). It is difficult to explain such changes, but most likely they were linked to attempts by both publications to demonstrate their orientation toward readers in Lithuania (Tilžês Keleiwis, long published with the subheading “Lietuwos naudingasis Kelrodis” [“Useful Roadmap of Lithuania”], did this permanently). In the case of Tilžês Keleiwis, that could have been a consequence of the appointment in 1893 of a new editor, Jurgis Arnašius, who clearly promoted the premise that Lithuanians had a distinct cultural individuality. The change in Lietuwißka Ceitunga could be explained as a reaction to the cultural activities of the Lithuanians in Memel that intensified just before the Great War and to the newspaper Apzwalga published by the Lithuanians in Memel in that period, which definitely challenged Lietuwißka Ceitunga and created competition between the two newspapers.140 Be that as it may, it is clear that both changes were primarily demonstrative, and in both cases notices not only from Prussian Lithuania but also from the major cities of East and West Prussia—Königsberg, Allenstein, 140 For more about the publication see: Domas Kaunas, Iš lietuvių knygos istorijos: Klaipėdos krašto lietuvių knyga iki 1919 metų (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1986), 63–70.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Danzig (Gdańsk), Elbing (Elbląg), Marienwerder (Kwidzyn), Marienburg, and Thorn (Toruń)—continued to be placed under the heading “Iß Lietuwôs.”141 Even the printing of local notices under the most understandable name for the “Lithuanian space” (“Lithuania”) included East and West Prussia in the confines of that “Lithuania.” The newspapers clearly promoting the cultural individuality of the Lithuanians, such as Apzwalga published in Memel in 1911–14, had to adapt to the needs of the audience quite differently. The fact that in the majority of its issues local notices fit under the heading “Iß Lietuwôs” clearly demonstrates the nature of the audience to which this newspaper was targeted. Only in April 1912 did a heading typical in other newspapers directed at Prussian Lithuanians—“Iß Lietuvos ir Prusu Prowinco” (From Lithuania and the Province of Prussia)—briefly appear. However, later, under the heading “Iß Lietuwos,” information was placed from both Prussian Lithuania and East and West Prussia, sometimes differentiating messages from these provinces under the subheading “Iß Prusu Prowincu.” Judging from these choices by Apzwalga’s editors, Ansas Baltris and Mikelis Ašmys, the idea that Lithuania belonged, at the very least, to the area of East and West Prussia had become canonical in the Lithuanian press of Prussia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century—even those who were clearly in favor of the cultural individuality of Prussian Lithuanians from the Germans and contact with the Lithuanians of Lithuania Major had to reckon with this. There is insufficient evidence to answer the question whether or not Lithuania was defined differently in the spatial conceptions of Prussian Lithuanians as compared to the spatial conceptions of Germans. Perhaps the only attempt by Prussian Lithuanians prior to World War I to define Lithuania was made by Vilius Kalvaitis. In 1888–94 he spent 141 Cf. Tilžês Keleiwis, February 1, 1899 (no. 9); June 30, 1899 (no. 52); Lietuwißka Ceitunga, October 23, 1913 (no. 88); December 9, 1913 (no. 107); December 11, 1913 (no. 108); December 30, 1913 (no. 115); January 8, 1914 (no. 4); February 19, 1914 (no. 22); February 26, 1914 (no. 25); March 3, 1914 (no. 27); March 7, 1914 (no. 29); March 19, 1914 (no. 34); April 21, 1914 (no. 41); May 5, 1914 (no. 53); May 9, 1914 (no. 55); May 14, 1914 (no. 57), May 19, 1914 (no. 59); June 11, 1914 (no. 69); June 13, 1914 (no. 70); June 18, 1914 (no. 72); June 25, 1914 (no. 75); July 11, 1914 (no. 82); July 16, 1914 (no. 84).

423

424

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

twenty-five months traveling in the easternmost part of East Prussia. During these trips he not only recorded Lithuanian folklore but also made notes about the last names of the population as well as the names that the Lithuanians used for rivers and place names. In all, he recorded 2,023 Lithuanian oikonyms in thirteen counties: Darkehmen, Goldap, Gumbinnen, Insterburg, Memel, Labiau, Niederung, Pillkallen, Ragnit, Stallupönen, Heydekrug, Tilsit, and Wehlau. Such an approach to defining the investigated area suggests that Kalvaitis was focused on the concept of space assigned to the Lithuanians by relying on history, linguistics, and ethnography. However, in addition to county borders, Kalvaitis used the boundaries of Evangelical Lutheran Church parishes, thereby capturing the maximal diffusion of the Lithuanian language: “The farthest to the south and west fall the church villages where the word of God is still preached in churches in Lithuanian. [They] are: Dubininkai [Dubeningken], Mielkiemis [Mehlkehmen], Trempai [Trempen], Darkiemis [Darkehmen], Encunai [Enzuhnen], Stalupėnai [Stallupönen], Katinawa [Kattenau], Nibudžei [Niebudzen], Malwiszkas [Mallwischken], Kraupiszkas [Kraupischken], Peleninkai [Pelleningken], Papelkei [Popelken], Oleksai [Alexen], Lauknei [Lauknen], Laukiszka [Laukischken], Labgawa [Labiau], and Nide [Nidden]—the border of the Lithuanian language.”142 Using this line Kalvaitis placed within the area Lithuanian-language dispersion the counties of Memel, Heydekrug, Tilsit, and Niederung, the greater part of the counties of Ragnit and Pillkallen, part of the counties of Labiau and Stallupönen, and small parts of the counties of Insterburg, Gumbinnen, and Goldap, as well as island in the county of Darkehmen. Kalvaitis’s findings were published relatively slowly, however, so he could have had an impact on Lithuanians’ perception about the borders of their own space only just before World War I.143 The Prussian-Lithuanian press made its first attempts to more carefully analyze the statistical data just before the war. In an article published in 1913, Ašmys, the editor of Apzwalga, concisely summarized 142 Wilius Kalwaitis, Lietuwiszkų Wardų Klėtele su 15000 wardų (Tilsit: Otto v. Mauderodė, 1910), v. 143 A very small part of hydronyms and toponyms published: MLLG 20 (1895): 164–65.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

what was known about the number of Lithuanians in East Prussia and tried to offer an alternative to the official data produced by the Prussian Bureau of Statistics (which showed a decrease).144 The source he relied on in arriving at his alternative interpretation was the almanacs published for Evangelical Lutheran priests. These almanacs listed the parishes where Lithuanian-speaking parishioners lived (and hence, where a priest knowing at least some Lithuanian would be needed), as well as their approximate number. Ašmys was the first in the Lithuanian press to try to refute the official data with these church statistics. Later, in an essay about Lithuania prepared during the war in Switzerland, he summed up the situation in this way: “In Prussian Lithuania only in Memel, Heydekrug, and Tilsit counties does the Lithuanian-speaking population represent the greater part, while in the Niederung, Ragnit, Pillkalen, and Labiau counties the German language predominates today.”145 I could not find any other evidence of prewar attempts by the Lithuanians of Prussia to delineate the borders of Lithuania. However, there is little doubt that at least some members of the Prussian Lithuanian vanguard gave this matter thought. This is confirmed by the notes, taken during the war, of the priest Vilius Gaigalaitis (Wilhelm Gaigalat), who in 1903 was elected to the Prussian Landtag for three consecutive terms in the most Lithuanian district of East Prussia. He relied on Bezzenberger to discern the borders of Prussian Lithuania, while Bezzenberger referred to a map presented in Friedrich Kurschat’s book.146 Thus, the borders in this case were drawn up to the line extending through Labiau– Wehlau–Darkehmen–Goldap. When just after the end of World War I a small group of Prussian Lithuanians surrounding Gaigalaitis tried to formulate for the Entente countries what territory constituted the

144 M[ikelis] A[šmy]s, “Lietuwių Skaitlius Prusijoje,” Pagalba 1–2 (1913): 12–14. 145 Michael Aschmies, Land und Leute in Litauen (Breslau: Priebatsch’s Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1918), 7. 146 Cf. Adalbert Bezzenberger, “Die ostpreußischen Grenzlande,” Zeitschrift für Politik 8 (1915): 30; Wilhelm Gaigalat, Litauen, das besetzte Gebiet, sein Volk und dessen Strömungen (Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurter Vereinsdruckerei, Verlag, 1917), 22.

425

426

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Lithuanian and “partly Germanized Lithuanian” lands, they also used a border that traced the Labiau–Wehlau–Darkehmen–Goldap line.147 But it is clear that the concept of belonging to such an area was not extended evenly over the whole area. In other words, the borders of the space assigned to the Lithuanians were different from the space of the Lithuanians’ everyday practices. The censuses carried out around the beginning of the twentieth century recorded clear majorities of self-identified native speakers of Lithuanian only in several of the most northern counties of East Prussia, mostly in rural areas. There were only a few cities in which Lithuanian-speaking people held a more dominant position. In the 1905 census, the Lithuanian-speaking population (not including bilingual speakers) amounted to 5.18 percent of the population in Memel, 3.83 percent in Tilsit, and 4.03 percent in Ragnit,148 but the latter town did not play a particularly significant role for Lithuanians establishing themselves in cities. Of all the cities in East Prussia in the early twentieth century, the most Lithuanian speakers lived in Tilsit, and Tilsit was important in the first efforts by Prussian Lithuanians as representatives of a separate national culture to establish themselves in a city. At the juncture of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the first non-religious Prussian Lithuanian social leaders gathered in Tilsit. They founded the first Lithuanian-managed printing houses supporting the Lithuanian national movement. In Tilsit Lithuanian educational societies were active, and some of them, in particular Birutė and the Tilsit Society of Lithuanian Singers, organized annual Lithuanian festivals. Also established in Tilsit were a reading room (perhaps the first) of the Lithuanian-language press, a club for Lithuanians, and in 1890 the first Prussian-Lithuanian political organization. Just before World War I, Lithuanians began to establish themselves in Memel as well. In addition to self-education, the estab147 Marija Urbšienė, “Klaipėdos krašto istorijos paraštėje,” Mūsų žinynas 26, no. 101 (1933): 136–37; Zita Genienė and Julius Žukas, Kova dėl Klaipėdos: 1923-ieji. Katalogas (Klaipėda: Mažosios Lietuvos istorijos muziejus, 2003), 47. 148 Calculated based on data from: Gemeindelexikon für das Königreich Preußen: Auf Grund der Materialen der Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1905 und anderer amtlicher Quellen, no. 1, Gemeindelexikon für die Provinz Ostpreußen (Berlin: Verlag des königlichen Statistischen Landesamts, 1907), 152–53, 248–49, 292–93.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

lishment of a newspaper, and attempts to develop their own businesses, efforts by secular Lithuanians to establish themselves in the city included other initiatives not implemented due to the outbreak of war in 1914.149 One initiative, based on an idea introduced by the Vienybė (Unity) society in 1914, was to build the Memel House of the Nation for Lithuanians, which was to be dedicated to Kristijonas Donelaitis, the most outstanding representative of the individuality of Prussian Lithuanians. Meanwhile, a central location that Prussian Lithuanians consciously tried to nationalize from a symbolic point of view was Rambynas (Rombinus), a scarp 40 meters above the Neman River between Bittehnen (Bitėnai) and Bardehnen (Bardinai), near Ragnit.150 Rambynas scarp, Tilsit, and partly Memel served as the sites where most Lithuanian festivals held by secular organizations seeking to foster the cultural identity of Lithuanians were held. Almost all of these organizations were established in 1911–1914 and attracted extensive participation by youth.151 These organizations rallied in the counties of Tilsit and Memel, and several sources identified the most powerful as the Tilsit Lithuanian Club and the Memel organization Vienybė.152 So, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the places the Lithuanians of East Prussia undoubtedly considered “their own” and where they saw the need to establish themselves and to manifest their presence, were clustered in the counties of Memel, Heydekrug, Tilsit, and Ragnit. In the early twentieth century, the Prussian Lithuanian communication milieu most effective at encouraging both their own culture and, to some extent, political consciousness, in other words, the environment in which information relevant to Lithuanians was shared, was limited to the northern counties of East Prussia around Tilsit and Memel. 149 For more about this see: Vasilijus Safronovas, “Modernieji lietuviai įsitvirtina mieste. Kaip tai vyko Klaipėdoje XIX–XX amžių sandūroje?,” in Klaipėda Europos istorijos kontekstuose, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas (Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2013), 126–51. 150 See: Safronovas, “Bandymas,” 93–94. 151 About these societies see: Pocytė, Mažlietuviai, 250–53. 152 See “Schreiben des wirklichen geheimen Rats,” 35; [Christoph] Kairies, Die Litauer in Preussen und ihre Bestrebungen—eine historisch-kritische Betrachtung, typescript (Tilsit, 1922), 147.

427

428

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

In the newspapers of Prussian Lithuanians published in Memel and Tilsit, most information came from this region—Memel, Heydekrug, and Tilsit counties, and to a lesser extent from the counties of Ragnit and Niederung. Therefore, before World War I the space designated for Lithuanians in Prussia and their nationalized space only partially overlapped. At the beginning of the twentieth century, a linguistic approach dominated efforts to discursively construct the common space of Lithuanian national culture and define its area—Lithuania was where ethnic Lithuanians lived. This paved the way toward subsequent difficulties in identifying “one’s own” territory in East Prussia. In the early twentieth century, some still wanted to use the concept “Lithuania Minor” as a means of defining Prussian Lithuania within the ethnographic or administrative borders. At the same time it was perfectly understood that the area where Lithuanian national culture was still active in East Prussia would capture only a smaller part of “Prussian Lithuania.” In fact, this was the only area where the conceived space and the socially produced or lived space of Lithuanian national culture in East Prussia coincided.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Periodicals Allgemeine Litauische Rundschau, Apžvalga, Altpreussische Monatsschrift, Auszra, Birutė, Garsas, Gesetz-Sammlung für die Königlichen Preußischen Staaten, Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen, Lietuvos žinios, Lietuwißka Ceitunga, Memeler Dampfboot, Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft, Neue Preußische Provinzial-Blätter, Pagalba, Preußische Provinzial-Blätter, Saulēteka, Schlesische-privilegirte Zeitung, Tilsiter Zeitung, Tilžês Keleiwis, Varpas, Der Wanderer durch West- u. Ost-Preussen

Books and Articles Adelung, Johann Christoph. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprachprobe in beynahe fünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten, vol. 2. Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung, 1809.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Alexandrow, Alexander. Sprachliches aus dem Nationaldichter Litauens Donalitius, vol. 1: Zur Semasiologie. Dorpat: Schnakenburg’s Buchdruckerei, 1886. Allings, Reinhard. Monument und Nation: Das Bild vom Nationalstaat im Medium Denkmal—zum Verhältnis von Nation und Staat im deutschen Kaiserreich 1871–1918, vol. 4 of Beiträge zur Kommunikationsgeschichte. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996. Armstedt, Richard. Geschichte der Königl: Haupt- und Residenzstadt Königsberg in Preussen. Deutsches Land und Leben in Einzelschilderungen: Landschaftskunden und Städtegeschichten—II. Städtegeschichten. Stuttgart: Hobbing & Bühle, 1899. Aschmies, Michael. Land und Leute in Litauen. Breslau: Priebatsch’s Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1918. A[šmy]s, M[ikelis]. “Lietuwių Skaitlius Prusijoje.” Pagalba 1–2 (1913): 12–14. Barfod, Jörn. Nidden—Künstlerort auf der Kurischen Nehrung. Fischerhude: Atelier im Bauernhaus, 2005. Bartezky, J. Ostern 1911: Vierzigster Bericht über die Cecilienschule. Städtische höhere Mädchenschule) zu Gumbinnen. Tilsit, 1911. ____. Vierunddreissigster Bericht über die Städtische höhere Töchterschule zu Gumbinnen. Gumbinnen: Wilhelm Krauseneck, 1905. Bauer, Gerhard. “Deutsch-litauische Sprachbeziehungen und nationale Identität im Memelland: Erkentnisse aus neueren etnograpischen Quellen.” Lietuvių Kultūros Institutas: Suvažiavimo darbai 1994 / Litauisches Kulturinstitut. Jahrestagung 1994, 55–78. Lampertheim: Litauisches Kulturinstitut, 1995. Belszyt, Leszek. Sprachliche Minderheiten im preußischen Staat 1815– 1914: Die preußische Sprachenstatistik in Bearbeitung und Kommentar, vol. 3 of Quellen zur Geschichte und Landeskunde Ostmitteleuropas. Marburg: Herder-Institut, 1998. [Berghaus, Heinrich]. Statistik des Preüssischen Staats: Versuch einer Darstellung seiner Grundmacht und Kultur, seiner Verfassung, Regierung und Verwaltung im Lichte der Gegenwart. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1845. Bericht des Konservators der Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Ostpreußen über seine Tätigkeit, nos. 1–34. Königsberg: Ostpreußische Druckerei

429

430

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

und Verlagsanstalt; Kommissionsverlag von Bernh. Teichert; Landesdruckerei, 1903–36. Bericht über die Knaben-Mittelschule in Insterburg für das Schuljahr 1901/1902. Insterburg: Buchdruckerei Dr. A. Bittner, 1902. Bernhardi, Karl. Sprachkarte von Deutschland [map]. Kassel: J. J. Bohné, 1843. ___. Sprachkarte von Deutschland [book]. Kassel: J. J. Bohné, 1844. ___. Sprachkarte von Deutschland, 2nd ed. Kassel: J. J. Bohné, 1849. Bezzenberger, Adalbert. “Die litauisch-preussische Grenze.” Altpreussische Monatsschrift 19 (1882): 651–55. ___. “Die ostpreußischen Grenzlande.” Zeitschrift für Politik 8 (1915): 28–42. ___. “Über das litauische Haus.” Altpreussische Monatsschrift 23 (1886): 34–79. ___. “Über die Verbreitung einiger Ortsnamen in Ostpreussen.” Altpreussische Monatsschrift 20 (1883): 123–28. Boeckh, Richard. Sprachkarte vom Preussischen Staat (Nördliche Hälfte; Südliche Hälfte) nach den Zählungs-Aufnahmen von 1861. [Berlin: Dietrich Reimer in Komm., 1864]. Boetticher, Adolf. Die Bau- und Kunstdenkmäler der Provinz Ostpreußen, nos. 1–9. Königsberg: Kommissionsverlag von Bernh. Teichert, 1891–99. Bogdan, Danuta. “Das Polnische und das Litauische Seminar an der Königsberger Universität vom 18. bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Königsberg und seine Universität: Eine Stätte ostmitteleuropäischen Geisteslebens, ed. Sabine Bamberger-Stemmann, III, no. 2 (1994) of Nordost-Archiv, 393–425. Lüneburg: Institut Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1994. Bohn, Thomas M. “Bevölkerungsentwicklung und Urbanisierung in Ostpreußen im Zeitalter der Industrialisierung.” In Zwischen Lübeck und Novgorod: Wirtschaft, Politik und Kultur im Ostseeraum vom frühen Mittelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Norbert Angermann zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Ortwin Pelc and Gertrud Pickhan, 361–72. Lüneburg: Institut Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1996.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Böckh, Richard. Der Deutschen Volkszahl und Sprachgebiet in den europäischen Staaten: Eine statistische Untersuchung. Berlin: J. Guttentag, 1869. Bömelburg, Hans-Jürgen. “Das preußische Landesbewußtsein im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert.” In Kulturgeschichte Ostpreußens in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Klaus Garber, Manfred Komorowski, and Axel E. Walter, 639–56. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2001. Braun, Fritz. Die Ostmark: Ein Heimatbuch. Leipzig: Friedrich Brandstetter, 1919. Brubaker, Rogers. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. [Bruožis, Ansas]. Prusu Lietuwei: Perzwalga lietuwißku Peticijonu, Deputacijonu bey polytißku Weikimu. Luźen: M. Kaitinis, 1906. Brückmann, Rudolf. Bilder aus der Heimatkunde Ostpreußens für die Mittelstufe. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, Königliche Universitäts- und Verlags-Buchhandlung, [1911]. Citavičiūtė, Liucija. Karaliaučiaus universiteto Lietuvių kalbos seminaras: Istorija ir reikšmė lietuvių kultūrai. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004. Demandt, Philipp. Luisenkult: Die Unsterblichkeit der Königin von Preußen. Cologne: Böhlau, 2003. Dethlefsen, Richard. Bauernhäuser und Holzkirchen in Ostpreußen. Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1911. [Dethlefsen, Richard]. Führer durch das Ostpreußische Heimatmuseum. Königsberg: Ostpreußische Druckerei und Verlagsanstalt, 1913. Donaleitis (Donalitius), Christian. Das Jahr in vier Gesängen, ein ländliches Epos. Trans. L[udwig] J. Rhesa. Königsberg: Königl. Hartungsche Hofbuchdruckerei, 1818. Donaleitis, Christian. Litauische Dichtungen: Erste volständige Ausgabe mit Glossar. [Ed. and trans]. August Schleicher. St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1865. ___. Littauische Dichtungen. Trans. Ludwig Passarge. Halle a. S.: Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1894. ___. Littauische Dichtungen nach den Königsberger Handschriften mit metrischer Uebersetzung, kritischen Anmerkungen und genauem

431

432

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Glossar. Ed. and trans. G. H. Ferdinand Nesselmann. Königsberg: Hübner & Matz, 1869. Doritsch, Alexander. Beiträge zur litauischen Dialektologie, vol. 31 of Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung. in Kommission, 1912 (Tilsit: Otto v. Mauderode, 1911). Eduard Gisevius, [ed. Erdmann Julius Schiekopp]. Tilsit: J. Reyländer, 1881. Espagne, Michel. Les transferts culturels franco-allemands. Paris: PUF, 1999. Espagne, Michel, and Michael Werner. “Deutsch-Französischer Kulturtransfer im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert: Zu einem neuen interdisziplinären Forschungsprogramm des C.N.R.S.” Francia: Forschungen zur westeuropäischen Geschichte 13 (1985), 502–10. Fircks, Arthur von. “Die preussische Bevölkerung nach ihrer Muttersprache und Abstammung: Auf Grund des Ergebnisses der Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1890 und anderer statistischer Aufnahmen.” Zeitschrift des Königlich Preussischen Statistischen Bureaus 33 (1893): 189–296. Forstreuter, Kurt. “Die Entstehung von Geschichtsvereinen in Altpreußen.” In Neue Forschungen zur Brandenburg-Preußischen Geschichte, vol. 1, ed. Friedrich Benninghoven and Cécile Lowenthal-Hensel, vol.  14 of Veröffentlichungen aus den Archiven Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 239–58. Cologne: Böhlau, 1979. Fremdenfuehrer durch Tilsit, Litauens Hauptstadt, ed. [Rudolf] Kreutz. Tilsit: [Verfasser], 1912. Friedrich, Karin. The Other Prussia: Royal Prussia, Poland and Liberty, 1569–1772. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Froehlich, George. Beiträge zur Volkskunde des preussischen Litauens (Beilage zum Osterprogramm des Königlichen Gymnasiums und Realgymnasium zu Insterburg). Insterburg: Buchdruckerei Dr. A. Bittner, 1902. Führer durch Memel und Umgegend, ed. Verein zur Verschönerung von Memel und Umgegend und zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs. Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1898.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Führer durch Tilsit und Umgebung: Auszug aus dem Gewerbe-Austellungs-Katalog. Tilsit: J. Reyländer & Sohn, 1891. Gabrys, Juozas. Geografijos vadovėlis skiriamas Lietuvos mokyklai. Tilsit, 1910. Gaigalat, Wilhelm. Litauen, das besetzte Gebiet, sein Volk und dessen Strömungen. Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurter Vereinsdruckerei, Verlag, 1917. Gemeindelexikon für das Königreich Preußen: Auf Grund der Materialen der Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1905 und anderer amtlicher Quellen, no. 1, Gemeindelexikon für die Provinz Ostpreußen. Berlin: Verlag des königlichen Statistischen Landesamts, 1907. Genienė, Zita, and Julius Žukas. Kova dėl Klaipėdos: 1923–ieji. Katalogas. Klaipėda: Mažosios Lietuvos istorijos muziejus, 2003. Glagau, Otto. Litauen und die Littauer: Gesammelte Skizzen. Tilsit: J. Reyländer, 1869. Hackmann, Jörg. “Preußische Ursprungsmythen: Entstehung und Transformation vom 15. bis ins 20. Jahrhundert.” In Preussen in Ostmitteleuropa: Geschehensgeschichte und Verstehensgeschichte, ed. Matthias Weber, vol. 21 of Schriften des Bundesinstituts für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa, 143–71. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 2003. Hartknoch, Christophorus. Alt- und Neues Preussen Oder Preussischer Historien Zwey Theile. Frankfurt: Martin Hallervorden, 1684. Heimat, ed. Will Cremer and Ansgar Klein, vol. 1, Analysen, Themen, Perspektiven. Bielefeld: Westfalen, 1990. Dr. Heinrich Berghaus’ Physikalischer Atlas oder Sammlung von Karten, vol. 2. Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1848. Hennenberger, Casparus. Ercleru[n]g der Preüssischen grössern Landtaffel oder Mappen. Königsberg: Georg Osterberger, 1595. ___. Kurtze vnd warhafftige Beschreibung des Landes zu Preussen… Königsberg: Georg Osterberger, 1584. Hesse, Albert. Die Bevölkerung von Ostpreußen. Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1916. “Historisches Verzeichniß aller itzigen europäischer Landessprachen.” Gelehrte Beyträge zu den Braunschweigischen Anzeigen, July 12, 1780 (no. 54).

433

434

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Horn, Alexander. Christian Donalies: Separatabdruck aus der Insterburger Zeitung. Insterburg: C.R. Wilhelmi, 1893. ___. Die Verwaltung Ostpreussens seit der Säcularisation 1525–1875. Königsberg: B. Teichert, 1890. Jäger, Eckhard. Prussia-Karten 1542–1810: Geschichte der kartographischen Darstellung Ostpreußens vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. Waißenhorn: Anton H. Konrad, 1982. Kairies, [Christoph]. Die Litauer in Preussen und ihre Bestrebungen— eine historisch-kritische Betrachtung. Typescript. Tilsit, 1922. Kalwaitis, Wilius. Lietuwiszkų Wardų Klėtele su 15000 wardų. Tilsit: Otto v. Mauderodė, 1910. Kaunas, Domas. Iš lietuvių knygos istorijos: Klaipėdos krašto lietuvių knyga iki 1919 metų. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1986. Keller, Andreas. “Die Preußische Nation und ihre literarische Genese: Grundzüge eines regionalen Geschichtsbewußtseins und die internationale Vermittlung einer territorialen Identität in Michael Kongehls Roman Surbosia (1676).” In Kulturgeschichte Ostpreußens in der Frühen Neuzeit, ed. Klaus Garber, Manfred Komorowski, Axel E. Walter, 737–67. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, 2001. Keppen, Petr. Ob etnograficheskoi karte evropeiskoi Rossii. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia nauk, 1852. Klein, Manfred. “Ein interkulturelles Produkt: der ‘Putzmalūnas.’ Etnische Identität und Sprache in Preußich-Litauen.” In Selbstbewusstsein und Modernisierung: Soziokultureller Wandel in Preußisch-Litauen vor und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, ed. Robert Traba, vol. 3 of Einzelveröffentlichungen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Warschau, 151–71. Osnabrück: Fibre, 2000. ___. “Wann ‘schämt’ man sich seiner Muttersprache? Aspekte der Sprachwahl bei Preußisch-Litauern.” In Baltisch-deutsche Sprachenund Kulturkontakte in Nord-Ostpreußen, ed. Jochen D. Range, 67–80. Essen: Die blaue Eule, 2002. Knaake, Emil. “Litauen.” In Ostpreussen, ed. Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 77–89. Königsberg: Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 1906.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Koeppen, Peter von. “Der litauische Volksstamm: Ausbreitung und Stärke desselben in der Mitte des XIX. Jahrhunderts.” Bulletin de la classe historico-philologique de L’Académie Impériale des Sciences de Saint-Pétersbourg 8, no. 18–9 (1851): 273–92. Kuntze, August. Bilder aus dem Preußischen Littauen. Rostock: Wilh. Werther, 1884. Kurschat, Alexander. Tilsit in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickelung, 2nd revised ed. Tilsit: Verlag der Buchdruckerei Pawlowski, 1911. ___. “Zur Geschichte der Litauer in Ostpreußen.”Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft 18 (1893): 497–505. Kurschat, Friedrich. Grammatik der littauischen Sprache. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses, 1876. Küsel, Eduard. XXXIV. Jahres-Bericht 1894/95 über das Königliche Luisen-Gymnasium zu Memel. Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1895. Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen, ed. Hans Lullies, 7th ed. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, 1912. Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen, ed. Hans Lullies, 8th ed. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, 1919. Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen: Heimatkunden. Ergänzung zu den Ausgaben A und B der Schulgeographie von E. v. Seydlitz), ed. Hans Lullies. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, Königliche Universitätsund Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1891. Landeskunde von Ost- und Westpreußen: Heimatkunden. Ergänzung zu den Ausgaben A und B der Schulgeographie von E. v. Seydlitz), ed. Hans Lullies, 3rd revised ed. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, Königliche Universitäts- und Verlags-Buchhandlung, 1896. Langhans, Paul. “Nationalitätenkarte der Provinz Ostpreussen.” Deutsche Erde: Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 6, no. 1 (1907). Leskien, August. Litauisches Lesebuch mit Grammatik und Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1919. Lettau, H. Kurze Heimatkunde der Provinz Ostpreussen, 7th ed. Leipzig: Oswald Schmidt, 1906. Lukšaitė, Ingė. Reformacija Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje ir Mažojoje Lietuvoje: XVI a. trečias dešimtmetis–XVII a. pirmas dešimtmetis. Vilnius: Baltos lankos, 1999.

435

436

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Menininkų kūrybos centrai ir jų bendruomenės Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje— Künstlergemeinschaften und ihre Ländlichen Schaffenszentren in Mittel- und Osteuropa, ed. Lina Motuzienė and Živilė Etevičiūtė. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2011. Mertineit, Walter. Die fridericianische Verwaltung in Ostpreussen: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der preußischen Staatsbildung, vol. 1 of Studien zur Geschichte Preussens. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1958. Mielcke, Christian Gottlieb. Littauisch-deutsches und Deutsch-littauisches Wörter-Buch. Königsberg: Hartungsche Hofbuchdruckerey, 1800. Milius, Vacys. Mokslo draugijos ir lietuvių etnografija (XIX a. antroji pusė– XX a. pirmoji pusė). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. Müller, Gustav. “Preußisch Littauen und die Littauer.” Globus: Illustrirte Zeitschrift für Länder- und Völkerkunde XVI (1869): 25–28. Nadler, Josef. “Geistiges Leben von der Krönung Fridrich I. bis zum Tode Kants.” In Deutsche Staatenbildung und deutsche Kultur im Preußenlande, 313–36. Königsberg: Gräfe & Unzer, 1931. Naujoks, Chr. “Die Provinz Ostpreußen.” In Kahnmeyer und Schulze Realienbuch. Mit Geschichte des Weltkrieges, revised by Fr[iedrich] Baade, E[mil] Borchers, and A[lbert] Gieseler, Ausgabe für Ostpreußen [Ausgabe A. für evangelische Schulen]. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1917. Neuer illustrierter Führer durch Memel und Umgegend, ed. Verein zur Verschönerung von Memel und Umgegend und zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 2nd revised ed. Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1905. Neugebauer, Wolfgang. Politischer Wandel im Osten: Ost- und Westpreussen von den alten Ständen zum Konstitutionalismus, vol. 36 of Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des östlichen Europa. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992. Obgartel, Wilhelm. Der Regierungsbezirk Gumbinnen: Ein Heimatbuch. Insterburg: Selbstverlag, 1912. Ostpreussen, ed. Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs. Königsberg: Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 1906. Ostpreussen, ed. Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs. Königsberg: Verein zur Hebung des Fremdenverkehrs, 1910. Ost- und Westpreussen: Führer durch das Verbandsgebiet, ed. Verkehrsverband für Ost- und Westpreussen. Danzig: Carl Bäcker, 1911.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

Passarge, Louis. Aus Baltischen Landen: Studien und Bilder. Glogau: Carl Flemming, 1878. Petronis, Vytautas. “Pinge, divide et impera: Vzaimovliianie etnicheskoi kartografii i natsional’noi politiki v pozdneimperskoi Rossii. vtoraia polovina XIX veka).” In Imperium inter Pares: Rol’ transferov v istorii Rossiiskoi imperii. (1700–1917), ed. Martin Aust, Rikarda Vul‘pius, and Aleksei Miller, 308–29. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2010. Pfarr-Almanach für die Provinz Ostpreußen, ed. Schirrmann and Hirsch. 4th ed. Königsberg: Selbstverlag, 1912. Physikalisch-statistischer Atlas des Deutschen Reichs, ed. Richard Andree and Oscar Peschel. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1876. Pocytė, Silva. Mažlietuviai Vokietijos imperijoje, 1871–1914. Vilnius: Vaga, 2002. Pohl, Ernst. Stoffverzeichnisse und Stundenpläne für die ein- und zweiklassigen Volksschulen sowie Studenpläne für die Halbtags- und dreiklassigen Schulen mit 2 Lehrern im Kreise Tilsit. Tilsit: Rud. Lösch, 1882. Pretorijus, Matas. Prūsijos įdomybės, arba Prūsijos regykla = Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubühne, ed. Ingė Lukšaitė, vol. 1–4. Vilnius: Pradai; Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 1999–2011. Reklaitis, Povilas. “Kleinlitauen in der Kartographie Preussens: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Gebietsnames Litauen im ehemaligen Königreich Preussen.” In Lithuania Minor: A Collection of Studies on Her History and Ethnography, ed. Martynas Brakas, 67–119. New York: Lithuanian Research Institute, 1976. Rėza, Martynas Liudvikas. Lietuvių kalbos seminaro istorija, ed. Liucija Citavičiūtė. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2003. Rhesa, Ludwig J. Geschichte der litthauischen Bibel, ein Beytrag zur Religionsgeschichte der Nordischen Völker. Königsberg: Hartungsche Hofbuchdruckerei, 1816. Richard Andree’s Allgemeiner Handatlas in sechsundachtzig Karten mit erläuterndem Text, ed. Geographischer Anstalt von Velhagen & Klasing in Leipzig. Bielefeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1881. Rittikh, Aleksandr. Etnograficheskaia karta evropeiskoi Rossii. St. Petersburg: Kartograficheskoe zavedenie A. A. Il‘ina, 1875.

437

438

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Safronovas, Vasilijus. “Bandymas formuoti alternatyvą: lietuviškojo didžiojo istorinio pasakojimo aktualizavimas Prūsijos Lietuvoje XIX–XX amžių sandūroje.” In Daugiareikšmės tapatybės tarpuerdvėse: Rytų Prūsijos atvejis XIX–XX amžiais, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas, Nijolė Strakauskaitė, and Lina Motuzienė, vol. 23 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis, 69–103. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2011. ____. “Borusianistinio didžiojo istorinio pasakojimo aktualizavimas Rytų Prūsijos provincijoje XIX–XX amžių sandūroje. Atvejo analizė provincijos kontekste.” In Daugiareikšmės tapatybės tarpuerdvėse: Rytų Prūsijos atvejis XIX–XX amžiais, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas, Nijolė Strakauskaitė, and Lina Motuzienė, vol. 23 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis, 31–68. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2011. ____. “Modernieji lietuviai įsitvirtina mieste. Kaip tai vyko Klaipėdoje XIX–XX amžių sandūroje?” In Klaipėda Europos istorijos kontekstuose, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas, 126–51. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2013. ____. “Zum Wandel des räumlichen Begriffs ‘Litauen’ im deutschsprachigen Diskurs während und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg.” Forschungen zur baltischen Geschichte 10 (2015): 109–35. Sahm, Wilhelm. Geschichte der Pest in Ostpreußen. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1905. ____. Heimatkunde von Ostpreußen. Frankfurt am Main: Moritz Diesterweg, 1914. Schafarik, Paul Joseph. Slawische Alterthümer, vol. 1. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1843. Schieder, Theodor. “Die preußische Königskrönung von 1701 und die politische Ideengeschichte.”Altpreußische Forschungen 12 (1935): 64–86. Schiller, Christiane. Bilinguismus: Zur Darstellung eines soziolinguistischen Phänomens in der Literatur, dargestellt an Beispielen der regionalen Literatur Preußisch-Litauens: Hermann Sudermann “Litauische Geschichten,” Ieva Simonaitytė “Vilius Karalius,” vol. 7

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

of Hallesche Sprach- und Textforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2000. ____. “Die Litauischen Seminare in Königsberg und Halle. Eine Bilanz.” In Königsberg und seine Universität: Eine Stätte ostmitteleuropäischen Geisteslebens, ed. Sabine Bamberger-Stemmann, 3, no. 2 (1994) of Nordost-Archiv, 375–92. Lüneburg: Institut Nordostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1994. Schleicher, August. Die Sprachen Europas in systematischer Uebersicht. Bonn: H. B. König, 1850. Schlözer, August Ludwig. Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte. Halle: Johann Justinus Gebauer, 1771. ____. “Geschichte von Littauen, als einem eigenen Großfürstenthume, bis zum J. 1569.” In August Ludewig Schlözer and Ludewig Albrecht Gebhardi, Geschichte von Littauen, Kurland und Liefland, 1–300. Halle: Johann Jacob Gebauer, 1785. Schneider, Michael C. Wissensproduktion im Staat: Das königlich preußische statistische Bureau 1860–1914. Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 2013. Schubert, Friedrich Wilhelm. Handbuch der Allgemeinen Staatskunde des Preussischen Staats, vol. 1. Königsberg: Gebrüder Bornträger, 1846. Schumann, Julius. Geologische Wanderungen durch Altpreussen: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Königsberg: Hübner & Matz, 1869. Schwary, H. Programm der höheren Bürgerschule zu Gumbinnen durch welches zu der öffentlichen Prüfung der Schüler Freitags den 8. April d. J. im Namen des Lehrer-Collegiums ergebenst einladet. Gumbinnen: [?], 1881. Seibutytė, Rasa. “Kleinlitauen auf den preußischen Karten des 18. Jahrhunderts.”Annaberger Annalen 15 (2007): 89–113. Selbstbewusstsein und Modernisierung: Soziokultureller Wandel in Preußisch-Litauen vor und nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg, ed. Robert Traba, vol. 3 of Einzelveröffentlichungen des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Warschau. Osnabrück: Fibre, 2000. Sembritzki, Johannes, and Artur Bittens. Geschichte des Kreises Heydekrug. Memel: F. W. Siebert, 1920.

439

440

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Shafarik, Pavel. Slavianskoe narodopisanie. Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1843. Skalweit, August. Die ostpreussische Domänenverwaltung unter Friedrich Wilhelm I. und das Retablissement Litauens. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1906. Skrupskelis, Ignas. Lietuviai XVIII a. vokiečių literatūroje. Rome: Lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos leidykla, 1967. “Sprachenkunde.” In Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyclopeadie für die gebildete Ständen oder Conversations-Lexicon, vol. 9, 6th ed., 467–77. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1824. Strakauskaitė, Nijolė. “Mažosios Lietuvos elito identiteto problema: kultūrinis diskursas.” Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas 1–2 (2001): 66–76. ____. “Rytų Prūsijos intelektualinė terpė XIX amžiuje.” In Kultūriniai saitai abipus Nemuno: Mažosios Lietuvos reikšmė Didžiajai Lietuvai spaudos draudimo metais (1864–1904), ed. Silva Pocytė and Rimantas Sliužinskas, vol. 10 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis, 29–35. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2004. ____. “Rytų Prūsijos reikšmės Prūsijos lietuvių aplinkoje XIX– XX amžių sandūroje.” In Erdvių pasisavinimas Rytų Prūsijoje XX amžiuje, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas, vol. 24 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis, 201–11. Klaipėda: Klaipėdos universiteto leidykla, 2012. Šafařík, Pavel Josef. Slovanský zeměvid. Prague: Věnceslav Merklas ryl., 1842. Šliupas, Jonas. Mažoji arba Prūsiškoji Lietuva 19-tame šimtmetyje. Chicago, IL: Lietuva, 1910. Temme, Jocodus D.H. Erinnerungen, ed. Stefan Born. Leipzig: Ernst Keil, 1883. Terveen, Fritz. Gesamtstaat und Retablissement: Der Wiederaufbau des nördlichen Ostpreußen unter Friedrich Wilhelm I 1714–1740, vol. 16 of Göttinger Bausteine zur Geschichtswissenschaft. Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1954. Tetzner, Franz. “Donalitius und Tolminkemen.” Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte 3 (1896): 291–309.

Lithuania in the Spatial Concepts of Germans and Prussian Lithuanians

____. Die Slawen in Deutschland: Beiträge zur Volkskunde. Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn, 1902. “Tilsit.” In Brockhaus’ Konversations-Lexikon, vol. 15, 14th ed., 850. Leipzig, Berlin, Vienna: F. A. Brockhaus, 1896. Toeppen, Max. Atlas zur Historisch-Comparativen Geographie von Preussen. Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1858. ____. Historisch-comparative Geographie von Preussen. Gotha: Justus Perthes, 1858. Toporov, Vladimir. “Ocherk istorii izucheniia drevneishikh balto-­ slavianskikh iazykovykh otnoshenii.” Uchenye zapiski Instituta slavianovedeniia 17 (1958): 248–74. Uderstädt, Eduard Rudolf. “Die ostpreussische Kammerverwaltung, ihre Unterbehörden und Lokalorgane unter Friedrich Wilhelm I. und Friedrich II. bis zur Russenokkupation. 1753–1756. Teil 1.”Altpreussische Monatsschrift 49 (1912): 664–79. Urbšienė, Marija. “Klaipėdos krašto istorijos paraštėje.” Mūsų žinynas 26, no. 101 (1933): 121–54. Unser Ostpreussen, ed. Franz Swillus, vol. 2, Bilder aus der Heimatkunde, 3rd ed. Leipzig: Julius Klinkhardt, 1922. Vermeulen, Han F. “The German Invention of Völkerkunde: Ethnological Discourse in Europe and Asia, 1740–1798.” In The German Invention of Race, ed. Sara Eigen and Mark Larrimore, 123–46. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006. Voelkel, Maximilian J.A. “Die heutige Verbreitung der Litauer.” Mitteilungen der Litauischen Litterarischen Gesellschaft 7 (1883): 1–4. Die Volkssagen Ostpreussens, Litthauens und Westpreußens, coll. Wilhelm J. A. von Tettau, Jodocus D. H. Temme. Berlin: Nicolaische Buchhandlung, 1837. Walkenhorst, Peter. Nation—Volk—Rasse: Radikaler Nationalismus im Deutschen Kaiserreich 1890–1914, vol. 176 of Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Walter, Axel E. “Die (Re-)Konstruktion altpreußischer Identität in der regionalen Kulturgeschichtsschreibung im Ostpreußen des 18.

441

442

Spatial Concepts of Lithuania in the Long Nineteenth Century

Jahrhunderts (Lilienthal, Arnoldt, Pisanski).” In Contact Zones in the Historical Area of East Prussia, ed. Vasilijus Safronovas and Klaus Richter, vol. 30 of Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis, 39–73. Klaipėda: Klaipėda University Press, 2015. Ziesemer, Johannes. Die Provinzen Ost- und Westpreußen, no. 11 of Landeskunde Preußens. Berlin: W. Spemann, 1901. Zschokke, Friedrich. Wanderungen durch Littauen und Samland. Altpreußische Sagen und Denkmäler, historisch geordnet und erläutert. Pt. 1, Die Ur-Geschichte Preußens bis auf Bruteno und Waidewut. Leipzig: August Robert Friese, 1845.

CHAPTER 8

In Lieu of a Conclusion Across historical epochs it was not uncommon for a variety of geographic images to coexist. At least two conceptions of Lithuania were well known in the times of the Grand Duchy, one that coincided with the territory of the state; the other—Lithuania Propria—included ethnic Lithuanian lands and the areas populated by the eastern Slavs that were part of the Lithuanian state in the thirteenth century. In addition, in East Prussia there was also a region known as Lithuania (thought of in terms of a department, area, the Lithuanian counties, a province, or simply Lithuania). In the first half of the twentieth century, alongside the Republic of Lithuania, which in Polish discourse was derogatorily called “Kaunas Lithuania,” an image of Lithuania that included Vilnius functioned in Lithuanian society. However, probably in no other century was there such a great diversity of conceptions of Lithuania as in “the long nineteenth century.” Although in the empires of both the Hohenzollerns and the Romanovs there existed territorial-administrative units that bore the name of Lithuania (Lithuanian Province in Prussia, the Russian Empire’s Lithuanian or Lithuanian Vilnius Province), in the first case the meaning of the term changed: from the late eighteenth to the early twentieth century, it could mean both a part of East Prussia and a region of the same taxonomic level as East Prussia, while in the Russian Empire the term “Lithuania” was formally removed from the name of the region in 1840. Moreover, the increasing literacy and intensifying communication and the aim of various nationalisms to define “their own” “national territory” led to the fact that geo-images became an important part of different discourses, including the geo-image of Lithuania. It is important not only that conceptions of Lithuania were not identical in different discourses, but also that in each

444

In Lieu of a Conclusion

individual discourse different regions were identified with one and the same place name; moreover, over time, their conceptualizations changed. In the middle of the nineteenth century, three conceptions of Lithuania coexisted in the Polish-speaking society of Lithuania (historical [former lands of the GDL], contemporary or the one “in the popular sense” [comprising Vilnius, Kaunas, Grodna, and Minsk provinces], and Lithuania Proper [the ethnic territory of Lithuanians]). At the same time, different conceptions of Samogitia functioned in this discourse. A similar variety is encountered in Jewish discourse: there were several conceptions of Lite (Lithuania), Zamet (Samogitia), and Raysn (Rus’). That variety becomes noticeably smaller when one or another elite made an effort to impose one or another spatial image, that is, when geo-ideological images became a factor. Here the Lithuanian intelligentsia of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century successfully reduced Samogitia to a regional (ethnographic, dialect) level, thereby eliminating the ambiguities associated with the usage of the term “Lithuania” (which sometimes referred to the entire area populated by ethnic Lithuanians but could also be used to create a distinction from Samogitia). Similar trends are seen in other national discourses (Polish, Belarusian), in which one image of the national “geo-body” was established that was also used in the nationalization of the masses. At the same time, there is ample published evidence that geo-ideological images did not always coincide with spatial practices. However, the main purpose of this study was not only to show the diversity of conceptions of Lithuania (or other spatial images) but also to discover the reasons for their formation. The geographical images that existed in the nineteenth century often have roots extending farther into the past. We have already mentioned that in the first half of the nineteenth century the image of historical Lithuania (with the so-called 1772 borders of the GDL) was still potent within the Polish-speaking society of Lithuania. This image was equally strong in Polish-language discourse in late imperial Russia, or on the “Jewish street.” Although the program of Lithuanian nationalism did not foresee the restoration of the state in the so-called “borders of 1772,” there were constant appeals to historical continuity and declarations of successors to the rights of the GDL. The consistent aim of the Lithuanian

In Lieu of a Conclusion

intelligentsia to include Vilnius in “their own” “national territory” was associated with the desire to prove that the Lithuanians were a historical nation. The ruling elite of the Romanov Empire, which tried to eliminate memories of the GDL, usually seen in the Russian discourse as a part of Poland, had to take into account the image of the GDL “in the borders of 1772.” On the other hand, we find not only “footprints” of historical Lithuania in the various discourses of the nineteenth century. The contours of Lithuania Propria formed in the thirteenth century remained in the Jewish discourse (as Lite in the narrow sense) for the longest time. It is more difficult to substantiate the claim that spatial images were influenced by faith in geographic determinism, although individual cases of this may have existed. Perhaps the most striking example would be the texts of the Polish geographers Nałkowski or E. Romer, but it seems that in all other cases, the references to “natural” boundaries were based not so much on the sincere faith that purportedly objective natural conditions determined the content of the “geo-body” as the desire to find additional arguments that allegedly would define “national territory” more objectively. A decidedly important factor influencing the multilingual discourses was the official territorial-administrative division. It, primarily, became a kind of coordinate system, facilitating communication. While in previous centuries (and often even in the nineteenth century) bodies of water, primarily rivers, often performed a similar function, in the Russian Empire of the nineteenth century, this role fell to the borders of provinces, districts, and other territorial-administrative units. In other words, to facilitate communication, the borders of the imagined territory were described with the aid of the boundaries of provinces or districts. The only time the intelligentsia of Lithuania defined the boundaries of Lithuania in terms of the borders of four provinces (in a 1905 memorandum to the Russian government) is likely attributable to the fact that in the official discourse, specifically the provinces of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Grodna (and sometimes Suwałki) were called Lithuanian. At the same time territorial-administrative divisions had a more fundamental impact on how the imagined territory was described in various discourses. In Polish-language discourse of the mid-nineteenth century,

445

446

In Lieu of a Conclusion

the province of Augustów, which until the end of the eighteenth century was an integral part of the GDL, often did not enter into the concept of Lithuania because in the Russian Empire it was incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland and was separated from the remaining lands of the former GDL by an administrative border. We also see such influences reflected in Jewish discourse, where Raysn was equated with the so-called Belarusian provinces. Meanwhile, even after beginning to define Lithuania in East Prussia based on ethnographic, particularly linguistic, criteria, the concept of Lithuania defined by administrative units still strongly influenced the geo-imagination. Nevertheless, spatial images were influenced the most by what Brubaker called the cultural (or looking more narrowly, nationhood) idioms. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the Enlightenment, and later Romanticism, affected how national identity was conceptualized in Polish discourse in Lithuania: the old concept of the political nation was initially changed by the idea of a community with bonds of territory, history, and origin. This idea gradually lost ground to new ideas about ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic nations. At the same time, the concept of the nation (and thus of “national territory”) also changed in Prussia: while at the beginning of the nineteenth century the term “Lithuanian” had clear territorial connotations, the emergence of ethnography as a science and the penetration of ethnolinguistic nationalism changed the content of this concept (the Lithuanian)—the region of Lithuania began to be defined as the place where Lithuanian speakers lived. This ethnolinguistic concept of nationalism became dominant in Lithuanian and Belarusian discourses in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century—“national territory” was where members of a common ethnic group lived, or, as written in the texts of the period under discussion: Lithuania was where people spoke Lithuanian. A similar cultural mechanism also operated in Jewish discourse: here the spatial images to a large extent were dependent on cultural (specifically, religious) differences with the Jews (there was a clear tendency to equate Raysn with the area across which the Habad religious movement spread). The dependence of such spatial imagery on the cultural idioms dominant in society, specifically, on definitions of collective identity, was already

In Lieu of a Conclusion

observed in scholarly literature. However, in this book we offer evidence of the “reverse” impact. Although in many situations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the Polish intelligentsia in Lithuania adhered to the definition that a Pole was a person who spoke Polish, in the Polish discourse language was not considered an essential attribute of nationality. This was because Polish nationalism modeled the Polish “geo-body” on the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, hence large areas had to be included in the new Poland in which Polish speakers comprised only a small part of the population. It is for this reason that in the modern identity of the Poles, especially in regard to the so-called eastern borderlands, language was not included in the list of criteria determining national identity. In the case of geo-ideological images, a very important role fell to pragmatic reasons. Although at the beginning of the twentieth century Belarusian nationalism was already trying to define the contours of its “national territory” on the basis of ethnolinguistic criteria, aware of the weakness of the national identity of masses, Belarusian nationalists focused their political programs on historical Lithuania. The fact that identification of Poland with the borders of the PLC dominated Polish discourse was related, among other things, to the conviction of Polish nationalists that only such a large and powerful Poland would be a viable political entity between Germany and Russia, who were cultivating imperialist plans. The Lithuanian intelligentsia usually designed their “national territory” so that Lithuanians would form a majority. Later— in the years of World War I—when the Lithuanian political committee was considering Petras Klimas’s study about the borders of Lithuania, after the left-wing activist Steponas Kairys asked why the whole province of Grodna was not included, Smetona explained: “The more, the better. But not always. Such an expansion is not necessary for us. We would in that case have to abandon the principle of ethnic Lithuania.”1 Lithuanian discourse was not the only discourse (Polish would be another example) that distinguished between the core of the “national   1 Quoted from: Česlovas Laurinavičius, Lietuvos-Sovietų Rusijos sutartis (1920 m. liepos 12 d. sutarties problema) (Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras, 1992), 104.

447

448

In Lieu of a Conclusion

territory” and the periphery. The core was usually the territory whose dependence on the national “geo-body” determined the dominating idioms of nationhood. In the program of Lithuanian nationalism, that core was the territory in which Lithuanian speakers constituted a majority, plus Vilnius. The most important centers cementing the “national territory” were located, specifically, in the core. It is no coincidence that Vilnius and sometimes Kaunas were identified in Lithuanian discourse as the “heart of Lithuania.”2 The nationalists were not prepared for any compromises regarding the territory defined as the core; meanwhile, they were usually much more flexible when it came to the so-called borderlands. There was a similar situation in Russian discourse, in which the images of not only Russia as an empire but also of Russia as a “national territory” that covered only part of the Romanov Empire, functioned. The relationship between these two spatial images was not immutable, so in different contexts one and the same territory (for example, the ethnic lands of the Lithuanians) sometimes entered into the composition of Russian “national territory,” while in other cases it was only part of the Russian Empire. Eventually, the spatial images that functioned in the various discourses had an influence on each other. Jankowski suggested equating modern Poland only with the territory of ethnographic Poland, but such a definition of “national territory” was partly conditioned by expedience: he hoped that the ruling elite of Russia would reconcile itself to the political independence of such a Poland. Meanwhile the Russian imperial intellectual and political elite were not ready to give away the territory that was perceived by the majority of Poles as “their” borderlands, while the same territory was treated as the Russian borderlands in the Russian discourse. In Prussia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century the Lithuanians began to describe “their own” territory according to those landmarks that were established by German scholars during the nineteenth century. The latter, in turn, were the effect of the interaction of several earlier concepts—Lithuania as an administrative territory and Lithuania as the counterpart of the historical landscapes of Scalovia and Nadrovia. The   2 For more on this, see: Dangiras Mačiulis and Darius Staliūnas, Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question (Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2015).

In Lieu of a Conclusion

reciprocal effects of the different discourses are also evident in arguments supporting the rights of one or another nation to a specific territory. While assignment of the so-called western borderlands to the Polish “national territory” in Polish discourse was also partially based on ethnographic arguments, in the former lands of the GDL, this argument was not only not used, but, in principle, it was rejected as illegal. While in the Polish discourse the incorporation of the former lands of the GDL into the Polish “geo-body” was, among other things, based on the argument that this was the space of Polish civilization, the Lithuanians, unable to rely on the civilization argument, rejected this argument as illegal and relied entirely on a different logic, that of ethnographic criteria.3 As we have demonstrated, geo-ideological images were not constant; they varied depending on changing cultural idioms and interests. At the same time, they were, to a large extent, dependent on historically formed geo-images. This book lends support to the idea that the new ideologies of modern identity (along with “geo-ideological” images) in Central and Eastern Europe have not only replaced existing local, regional, religious, or political identities, but were in constant dialogue with them.4

BIBLIOGRAPHY Elias, Norbert. Przemiany obyczajów w cywilizacji Zachodu. Warsaw: PIW, 1980. Hansen, Jason D. Mapping the Germans: Statistical Science, Cartography, and the Visualization of the German Nation, 1848–1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Laurinavičius, Česlovas. Lietuvos-Sovietų Rusijos sutartis (1920 m. liepos 12 d. sutarties problema). Vilnius: Valstybinis leidybos centras, 1992. Mačiulis, Dangiras, and Darius Staliūnas. Lithuanian Nationalism and the Vilnius Question. Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2015.   3 Thus, in Lithuania we observe a similar situation to one that Norbert Elias describes in writing about German lands at the end of the eighteenth century. He showed that in the German states the third rising estate contrasts the civilization of the French nobility to the culture preserving ethnic authenticity: Norbert Elias, Przemiany obyczajów w cywilizacji Zachodu (Warsaw: PIW, 1980), 10, 41–45.   4 Jason D. Hansen, Mapping the Germans: Statistical Science, Cartography, and the Visualization of the German Nation, 1848–1914 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 7–8.

449

Index Terms which were used very often in the book (Lithuania, Lithuanians, Russia, Russian (Romanov) Empire) are not included in the index A

Abolition of serfdom in 1861 in the Russian Empire, 97n.4 Abramowicz, Ludwik, 246–47n.32 Adomaitis-Šernas, Juozas, 208 Adutiškis, 346 Agluona, River 155 Airėnai, 134 Akelaitis, Mikalojus, 128, 147n.148, 155–56, 163, 171 Aksakov, Ivan, 66 Albrecht, Duke of Prussia, 397 Alekna, Antanas, 212–13, 226–27 Aleknavičius, Kajetonas, 162 Alexander I, Emperor of Russia, 34, 107, 139–40 Alexander II, Emperor of Russia, 101 Alexander III, Emperor of Russia, 82 Aleksandravičius, Egidijus, 3, 26, 96, 99 Aleksiuk, Pavel, 292n.53 Aleksotas, 120n.71 Aliakhnovichy, 295 All-Russian Social-Democratic Workers’ Party (RSDRP), 346 Alle (Łyna, Lava), River, 385 Allenstein (Olsztyn), 403, 42 Amsterdam, 348 Andrusovo, Truce of (1667), 116 Angerapp (Węgorapa, Angrapa), River, 385, 412 Angerburg (Węgorzewo), 400 Anti-German campaing during World War I, 37 Anti-Polish propaganda in the Russian Empire, 39, 80–82 Anti-Polish policy of the Russian government, 37, 39, 54, 64, 72

Anti-Polish policy of the German Empire, 409 Antisemitism, 344 Apaščia, River, 155 Arbeyter shtime fun Lite (The voice of workers from Lithuania), newspaper, 351 Arnašius, Jurgis, 422 Arsen’ev, Konstantin, 30n.24, 77 Ashmyany, 49, 155, 214; District, 47, 55, 66, 71, 123–24, 126, 137, 168, 195, 213–14n.88, 227n.151, 216n.88, 288n.33, 295; River, 135–36 Astramovich, Aliaksandr (Ziazulia, Andrej), 283n.12, 297 Astroŭna, 333n.85 Ašmys, Mikelis (Aschmies, Michael), 423–25 Atlas narodonaseleniia Zapadno-Russkogo kraia po veroispovedaniiam (Atlas of the Population of Western Russia According to Faiths), 52–53 Auguste Victoria, Kaiser Wilhelm I’s wife, 399 Augustów, 323; District, 70, 218, 288n.33, 389; Province, 47, 56n.131, 63, 70–71, 119, 124–26, 144–45, 155, 168, 389, 446; Voivodoship, 125n.89–26 Aukštaitija (Highland), 123, 127, 129, 199. See also Lithuania Aukštaičiai (High­landers), 130, 150, 152, 162, 197n.31, 198n.32, 199, 200n.38, 200n.41, 201; and their language 198. See also Lithuanians Austria (Habsburg Empire), 47, 144, 327n.51, 351n.160, 415 Autochtonism, 36, 419

Index Autonomist conventions in Vilnius, 301, 301n.99, 301–302n.102, 302 Avraham, 332 Ažukalnis, Valerijonas, 156

B

Babruisk, 142, 333, 336, 327n.53 Bacheikava, 333n.85 Bahdanovich, Maksim, 297–98 Bagushevich, Frantsishak, 137, 284 Bairašauskaitė, Tamara, 114n.56 Bakalarzewo, 125 Baliński, Michał, 116–18, 124–25, 127–29 Balkans, 9 Baltic Countries, 314 Baltic Germans, 70 Baltic Provinces, 24, 340; governor-­ general, 67 Baltic Sea, 119, 123, 130, 221; seacost, 227n.153, 250, 254, 304 Baltris, Ansas, 423 Balts, 47, 381; habitat, 220, 227n.150; tribes, 225. See also Latvians; Lithuanians, Prussians Baranauskas, Antanas, 99, 153–54, 166 Baranov, Eduard, 60 Bardehnen (Bardinai), 427 Bartoszewicz, Joachim, 269n.127 Barysaŭ, 333n.85, 336 Basanavičius, Jonas, 195–96, 223 Bassin, Mark, 12 Batiushkov, Pompei, 52, 84 Belarus (Belorussia), 23n.1, 27, 27–28n.14, 31–32, 32n.30, 34–35, 58, 66, 72, 83, 100, 117, 122, 137–38, 141, 146, 146n.147, 173, 174, 243–45, 245n.23, 246, 246n.24, 249, 251n.47, 252–53, 257–58, 260n.85, 265–66, 266n.113, 271, 280–81, 284, 284n.21, 285, 289–91, 294–96, 298–301, 301–2n.102, 303–6, 325, 330, 330n.69, 331, 331n.72, 333, 335–36, 336n.99, 338, 342, 347, 358–59; autonomy of, 299, 301n.102, 302; ethnographic (ethnic), 2, 44n.80, 97, 148, 172, 174, 271, 298, 302, 358; education district, 32; governor-generalship, 31; People’s Republic (Belaruskaia narodnaia Respublika - BNR), 289; Soviet

Socialist Republics, 336; province, 31; provinces, 31, 33–34, 63–65, 68, 70, 72, 83, 122, 136, 141–42, 172, 290, 333, 446. See also Raysn; Rus’ Belarusian national movement (nationalism), 2, 14, 244, 249n.39, 254, 257, 271, 280–84, 284n.18, 287n.32, 288–90, 292–93, 293n.59, 294, 295n.64, 296, 297n.75, 298, 300n.97, 301–2, 303n.104, 304–6, 447; leaders of, 354n.172, 356; Revolutionary Gramada of Belarus (Belaruskaia revaliuacyinaia gramada – BRG), 298n.83; Social Democrats, 302; Socialist Gramada (Belarusskaia Sacyialistichnaia Gramada – BSG), 298, 298n.83, 299–300, 300n.97, and leaflets of, 299, 299n.86, 300, 302–3; Socialist Party of White Rus’ (Satsyialistychnaia partyia Belai Rusi - SPBR), 300n.97. See also Spatial image of Belarus and Lithuania in the Belarusian discourse Belarusians (Belorussians), 1, 5, 23, 23n.1, 35, 47, 51, 54, 68–69, 74, 137–38, 146, 148, 173–74, 201, 214n.88, 221n.125, 244–45, 245n.20, 246, 248–50, 252, 260, 264–66, 266n.113, 281, 283, 285–86, 286n.28, 287, 287–88n.32, 288–91, 291n.45, 292–93, 293n.60, 294, 295n.64, 296, 300, 304–5, 338n.107, 354, 354n.172, 356, 356n.176, 357–59; Catholic, 74, 248n.33, 287, 287n.30; culture of, 288, 290, 348; elite of, 5; intelligentsia, 247, 281–83, 285–86, 288, 290, 293–98, 301–3, 304–6; nation, 2, 138, 283, 289, 291, 293n.59, 301; Orthodox, 122, 287; “real Belarusians,” 287; tribes, 291, 291n.43. See also Ruthenians Belarusian, 137–38, 147, 248, 283–85, 287–88; 287n.32, 288, 288n.33, 295, 297, 304 Belavezha Forest, 267n.115 Bely, Ales’, 27n.14, 99, 122, 280 Beresnevičiūtė-Nosalova, Halina, 105 Berghaus, Heinrich, 380, 388

451

452

Index Bernhardi, Karl, 388 Bezzenberger, Adalbert, 383, 386–87, 404, 406–7, 425 Biadulia, Zmitrok (Plaŭnik, Samuil), 297 Białystok, 145, 330n.63, 344, 346–47, 352; District 1, 52, 60, 75, 140, 288n.33 Biarezina, River 34n.37, 137, 285n.23, 336, 342n.121 Biaroza (Bereza Kartuska) 327n.52 Bielsk, 352 Biržai, 261n.88, 320, 322 Bismarck, Otto von, 399, 400 “Bismarck Towers,” 399–400 Bistryčia, 210n.72 Bittehnen (Bitėnai), 427 Berlin, 376–77, 383, 391–92, 403, 408, 421 Bessarabia, 331n.73, 337 Black Sea, 227, 355 Błaszczyk, Grzegorz, 99 Blazer, Itzhak, 330 Bludov, Dmitrii, 58, 59n.141 Bobr, 333n.85 Bobrovskii, Pavel, 51, 286–87n.30 Bobrzyński, Michał, 256 Bohlen, Peter, 383 Bopp, Franz, 383 Borenshtein, Avraham, 328, 330 Borussianistic historical master narrative, 398 Böckh, Richard, 389, 408–11 Brandenburg, 373, 376, 378, ruler, 373 Braslaŭ, 126, 136, 294, 320, 342n.121 Brest-Litovsk, 43, 117, 314, 316, 319, 320, 322, 331, 352 Brockhaus, encyclopedia, 401 Brubaker, Rogers, 10, 189, 446 Bruožis, Ansas, 418 Bug River, 41, 123 Bułhak, Jan, 241 Bulota, Andrius, 217 Buszyński, Ignacy, 129 Bykhaŭ, 332n.75–33n.85

C

Calendars by Laurynas Ivinskis, 132, 160, 163–64, 167–68, 171 Carpathian Mountains, 43, 250 Cartography, 281, 372–74, 389, 409

Catherine II, Empress, 26, 28, 50; monument of, 78, 79, 84 Chernyshev, Zacharii, 33, 34n.36 Chachersk, 321n.38 Charging Knight (The coat of arms of the GDL), 298, 298n.79 Chareia, 333n.85 Charny, Shmuel, 354 Chashniki, 333n.85 Chavusy, 333n.85 Chelm: Region, 75; Province, 75 Chernigiv, 284, 314, Province 65, 288n.33, 300, 333–34, 347 Chłopicki, Edward, 126, 129, 135 Chociszewski, Józef, 263–65 Chodakowski, Zorian Dołęga (Czarnocki, Adam), 113, 127–28 Chodkiewicz, Aleksander, 104 Chornobyl’, 317 Choroszcz, 318 Chud’, 349 Čiulda, Juozas, 151 Čiurlionis, Mikalojus Konstantinas, 292n.53 Citinzenship, 107 Cognitive maps, 7 Collona Walewski, Aleksander, 145 Colonization, 249, 418n.131 Comité der Ostpreussischen und Litthauischen Stände (Committee of the Estates of East Prussia and Lith­uania), 378 Communication milieu, 372–74, 421, 427 Comparative linguistics and Indo-­ European studies, 383 Congress of the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft, 404 Congress of Vienna, 9n.27 Copernicus, Nicolaus, 406 Courland: Province 1, 49n.103, 59n.141, 62n.152, 67n.171, 70, 125–26, 130–31, 149, 164, 168, 202n.47, 204, 207, 225, 227, 232, 314, 324, 328, 331, 335, 339, 340–41, 345 Cracow, 254, 263, 267, Province 144 Cracow’s school of history, 256 Cranz (Zelenogradsk), 403 Crimean war, 9n27

Index Criteria defining geo-images: cultural, 11, 125n.89 135, 327–28, 340–42, 383–84, 446; ethnic (ethnographic), 26–28, 33, 62, 70–72, 84, 100, 124, 128, 133–36, 138, 173, 193–4, 194n.16, 204, 206–7, 210, 213, 217, 220–21, 232, 247–48, 252, 270, 284, 294–95, 298, 301, 304, 424; geographic, 11, 33–34, 133, 154, 195–6, 250, 262–63, 263n.98, 264–66, 356, 412, 445; historical, 11, 24, 26–29, 33, 62, 99–100, 115–21, 130–33, 147, 169, 173, 193, 206, 217, 226, 242, 244–49, 258, 263–66, 268, 336, 338, 342, 411, 424, 444, 449; linguistic, 125, 127, 133, 137, 155, 157, 163, 204–6, 210n.72, 220, 232, 244, 251n.47, 284–85, 287, 294, 298, 304, 328–31, 384–386, 408–11, 420, 424, 428; economic, 247; pragmatic, 11, 249, 258, 447; religious, 27–28, 72, 287–7, 333–35; self-determination of the population, 206–7, 217; territorial-administrative division, 120, 142–43, 145, 147, 202, 215, 218, 221, 227n.150, 244, 323-26, 39, 355, 445–46. See also specific nationalisms Criteria defining national identity: anthropological, 113, 139, 194, 248; common culture, 109–11, 113–15, 149; ethnic origin, 51, 114, 208, 271; folk culture, 113, 139, 156; history, 106–8, 115, 168–69, 192; language, 47–48, 50–51, 55–56, 84, 100, 110–15, 128, 139, 150–51, 153, 156, 167–69, 171, 192–3, 208, 232, 241–42, 248, 271, 282–84, 286, 380, 446; loyalty to the state (political nation), 101–106, 109, 115, 150, 446; religion, 50–51, 55, 100, 113–14, 171, 247–48; social status, 100, 113; territory, 108–9, 171. See also specific national groups Cultural landscape, 78, 84, 99, 118, 173, 297, 383, 385–87, 389–91, 395–97, 402, 404–8, 410–12, 418, 448 Cultural transfer, 372, 372n.1 Curonian lagune, 227n.153, 388n.57, 404 Czacki, Tadeusz, 104, 106, 108

Czerski, Stanisław, 129, 131 Czyński, Edward, 243n.13, 248n.33–49n.39, 251n.47, 269n.127

D

Dąbrowski, Józef, 243n.13, 245n.20, 246, 249n.39, 251n.47, 269n.127 Dach, Simon, 406 Dambrauskas, Aleksandras (Jakštas, Adomas), 292n.53 Danube, River, 166 Danzig (Gdańsk), 423 Darbėnai (Drobian), 339n.109 Darkehmen (Darkiemis, Ozyorsk), 385–86, 400, 424–26 Darshan, Moshe Itzhak, 335n.95 Dauguva (Düna, Western Dvina) River, 33, 155 Daukantas, Simonas, 150–52, 162, 223, 419 Daukša, Jokūbas, 153–55, 174 Davyd-Haradok, 292 Deime (Deyma), River, 385 Demonstrations in early 1860 in the fomer PLC lands, 64 Dieveniškės, 214 Dethlefsen, Richard, 404 Discursive practice, 5, 8, 115, 282 “Divide and rule” principle, 69, 71, 75 Dnepr, River, 119, 134, 137, 250, 262, 266n.113, 285n.23, 321n.38, 329, 333, 342n.121 Dohna-Schlobitten, Richard zu, 392 Dolbilov, Mikhail, 26, 45, 53 Domaševičius, Andrius, 203 Donelaitis, Kristijonas, 405–7, 427 Dovnar-Zapolskii, Mitrofan, 40, 281, 289–91 Dovydaitis, Juozapas Silvestras, 170 Dresden, 403 Drissa (Verkhniadzvinsk), 333n.85 Druia, 333n.85, River, 214 Druskininkai, 222, 232, 267n.115 Drybin, 332n.75 Dubingiai, Lake, 210 Dubininkai (Dubeningken), 424 Dubnov, Semion (Shimon), 316n.18, 317, 318n.24, 321n.38 Dubroŭna, 333n.85

453

454

Index Dubysa, River 59n.140 Dunin-Martsinkevich, Vintsent-Iakub, 285 Durnovo, Mikhail, 287 Dvinsk (Dinaburg, Daugavpils), 297, 337; District 288n.33 Dziarzhynsk, 325 Dzisna, District, 50, 64, 71, 155, 196, 214, 261n.88, 288n.33, 333

E

East, 9, 9n.27 Eastern Christian (Orthodox) Church, 24, 43, 77–78 Eberhardt, Piotr, 240, 256 Eisenstadt, Avraham, 330 Eišiškės, 261n.88 Ekaterinoslav, Province, 333 Elections to Russian State Dumas in Lithuania, 347, 350, 352, 357 Elias, Norbert, 449n.3 Elbing (Elbląg), 423 Encunai (Enzuhnen), 424 Enlightenment, 9, 101, 102, 109, 446 Entente countries, 425 Epstein, Yehiel Mikhel, 333–34, 327, 329 Erkert, Roderick, and his atlas in French and Russian, 51–52, 56n.131 Espagne, Michel, 372n.1 Ethnographic expeditions: to Belarus, 287n.32; to Lithuania, 31, 31n.29 Etnograficheskaia karta belorusskogo plemeni: Belo­russkie govory (Ethnographic Map of the Belarusian tribes: Belarusian Dialects) (1903), by Efvimii Karskii, 285–86, 289 Europe, 41, 55, 107, 146, 189, 220, 263, 324, 353, 375, 387–88, 409, 411–15; Central, 6, 8, 189; Eastern, 6, 8, 9, 189, 231, 280, 313, 324, 344; Western 8, 42, 51–52 Evan­gelical Lutheran Church in East Prussia, 397, 424 Exhibitions, expositions, 205, 391–2, 402–3, 407 Exterritorial personal autonomy, 349

F Fedorowicz, Irena, 256n.63 Feldmann, Wilchełm, 256 Filiushkin, Aleksandr, 38, 40 Finland, 6; Grand Duchy, 258 Finno-Ugric tribes, 349 Finns, 381n.30 Fishman, David E., 344 France, 10n.38, 28, 38, 145, 378 Friedman, Naftali, 353 Friedrich Wilhelm I, King of Prussia, 374, 376, 397 Friedrich Wilhelm II, King of Prussia, 375 Froelich, George, 384

G

Gabrys, Juozas, 189, 219n.114, 221n.125, 224–25, 229 Gadon, Włodzimierz, 130–32 Gaigalaitis, Vilius (Gaigalat, Wilchelm), 425 Galicia, 35, 144, 254, 264, 323n.43, 330n.65 Gargždai, 339n.109 Garnys (Heron), newspaper, 7 Gellner, Ernest, 24 “Geo-body” (“national body”), 9–10, 12, 24, 218, 231, 254, 271, 444–45, 447–49. See also “national territory” Geography textbooks as instruments of socialization, 46, 208, 291n.114, 221n.125, 226, 231, 262–65, 412–13 German, Karl, 46 German, 388n.57 Germanic languages, 381 Germanization, 218, 392–93, 426 Germans, 7n.20, 36, 221, 226, 269n.125, 371, 379, 381, 392, 409, 413, 418–19, 423; culture, 341, 396–97, 406, 418, 418n.131, 419, and its penetration in East Prussia, 221; nation, 405, 407; nationalism, 391, 393, 396 Germany (German/Hohenzollern Empire; German Reich), 4, 38, 218, 230, 254, 326, 371, 381, 388, 391–94, 396–99, 403–8, 414–16, 422, 443, 447; army, 371; colonial policy, 392; unification in 1870–71, 399; lands, 449n.3;

Index German-speaking lands, 379; Kaiser of, 398; unification wars (1864, 1866, and 1870–1871), 400 Gibianski, Yosef, 323 Gil’ferding, Aleksandr, 31n.29, 54, 55 Gintsburg, Gabriel Yaakov, 337 Gira, Liudas, 292n.53, 295n.64 Gisevius, Eduard, 383 Gizbert-Studnicki, Wacław, 267 Glagau, Otto, 383, 407n.104 Gliński, Kazimierz, 269n.124 Gloger, Zygmunt, 245n.23 Goldap (Gołdap), 385–86, 388n.57, 400, 424–26 Goldshmidt, A. I., 354–56, 358 Gomalevskis, Petras, 170 Gomel, 321n.38, 346–47 Gorizontov, Leonid, 61n.147 Gorki, 332n.79 Gorodetsk, District 288n.33 Gory Gorki, 332n.75 Goths, 381n.30 Grabijolai, 135 Grabowski, Kazimierz, 114n.56 Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL), 3, 25, 25n.7, 27, 31, 38–45, 50, 52n.114, 101, 103n.21, 103n.23, 105, 108, 111, 115–20, 122, 122n.77, 124, 128–29, 139, 142, 166, 169, 172, 201–2, 214, 217, 227, 227n.153, 244, 245–46n.23, 284n.21, 288, 296, 298n.39, 303, 305, 314, 316–19, 321, 321n.34, 322–23, 330, 332, 336, 342, 355–56, 358–59, 372, 372n.2, 379, 419, 443–46; “1772 borders” of, 116, 119, 124, 142, 172, 444–45; grand dukes and dukes of, 136; the former territory of GDL (historical Lithuania), 14, 24n.3, 28, 28n.17, 29–30, 32, 34, 46, 58–59, 62n.152, 68, 83, 85, 96, 97n.4, 100–1, 106, 111, 114–15, 119, 121, 125–26, 129, 139–41, 143–45, 148–49, 172, 201–2, 206, 241, 243–44, 246, 247n.32, 249–51, 253, 256, 259, 261–62, 264–71, 304, 322, 357, 375, 379, 444, 447, 449; Jewish history in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 314; map of the GDL, 227; Orthodox in

the GDL, 44n.83, 330n.69; the penetration of the Catholic Church in the GDL, 355; political autonomy of the former GDL lands, 139–40, 300–1, 300n.97, 304–5; restoration of the GDL, 105, 142, 201–2, 246, 252, 259, 260n.85, 282, 300 “Great Russian” provinces (Great Russia), 64, 72, 121n.73 Great Seimas of Vilnius ([GSV] Didysis Vilniaus Seimas; Lithuanian congress (Lietuvių susivažiavimas)), 202, 204–5, 209n.69, 210, 217, 221 Grigorovich, Ivan, 287n.32 Grimm, Jacob, 380, 381 Grinius, Kazys, 207 Grodna, 43, 62n.152, 123, 136, 156, 212, 222, 259–61, 292, 297–98, 318–20, 322, 342n.121; District, 47, 58, 124, 126, 168, 195, 288n.33, 389; Lithuania’s Grodna Province, 31, 314; Province, 1, 30n.23,25, 31–32n.31, 33–35, 46–47, 50n.109–51, 71–72, 74–75, 100, 118n.66, 119, 121, 126, 137, 140–46, 168, 172, 195–96, 203–4, 207, 221–22, 227, 232, 249, 251n.47, 265–66, 287n.30–88n.33, 289–90, 292, 294, 299, 302–3n.104, 305, 323–24, 347, 352, 355, 389, 444–45, 447; Voivodoship, 145; Gródek (Horodok), 318 Grünwald, the Battle (1410), 268 Grześkowiak-Krawicz, Anna, 106n.16 Grzymała, Franciszek, 114n.56 Gumbinnen (Gusev), 126, 169, 374–75, 384, 388n.57, 397, 399, 400–1, 403, 409, 415, 424; Gumbinnen Governmental District (Regierungs­bezirk Gumbinnen), 376, 382–83, 385, 397, 415 Gusinsky, Asya, 312

H

Hagen, Ludwig Philipp von, 375n.11 Haim, Rabbi in Volozhin, 337 Haloŭchyn, 332n.75 Halpern, Israel, 316, 317n.23, 318 Hal’shany, 261n.88

455

456

Index Haretski, Maksim, 292n.53 Harley, John Brian, 6 Hartknoch, Christoph, 373 Hasidism, 313, 315; Habad, 315, 325–26, 333, 333n.82, 334–35, 338, 340, 343, 359, 446 Haslinger, Peter, 10 Heimat, 394, 394n.71, 395, 401–2, 404, 406–7, 411, 414–15; Heimatkunde, 414; Heimatliteratur (Home literature), 407 Heinrichsdorf, 384 Heise, Hermann, 403 Hennenberger, Caspar, 372 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 112, 406 Herzog, Marvin, 315 Heydekrug (Šilutė), 385, 399, 400, 402, 410, 412, 424–25, 427–28 Historical discourse studies, 13 Hlybokae, 261n.88 Hohenstein (Olsztynek), 385 Hohenzollerns, dynasty, 381, 397–99, 443 Holy See, 31 Homeland, 12–13, 80, 101–3, 103n.22, 104–8, 111, 141, 143–44, 147, 153, 156, 158–60, 162–63, 172–73, 192, 199, 206, 223, 226–27, 279, 283, 345, 415. See also “national territory” Hroch, Miroslav, 157, 162 Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 112, 381 Hymns and hymnals, 158–60, 167

I

Iasel’da, River, 287 Igumen (Chervyen’), 142 Iljin Company, 35 Ilūkste, District 49n.103 Imageology, 280 Imeretinskii, Aleksandr, 76 The Imperial Academy of Sciences (1803–1836) (The Imperial Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences (1836–1917)), 49, 285 The Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna, 387 Inflanty 1, 117, 119, 129, 149, 320; Polish Inflanty, 118, 141, 144; Voivodoship, 145

Inster (Instruch), 412 Insterburg (Chernyakhovsk), 384 Irkutsk, 340 Israel, land of, 324, 332, 337n.101 Israel, Rabbi in Shklov, 336 Isserlein, Israel, 326 Ivanauskaitė-Lastauskienė, Marija, 292n.53, 354n.172 Ivanauskaitė-Pšibiliauskienė, Sofija, 354n.172 Ivinskis, Laurynas, and his calendars, 163–68, 171 Izabelin, 327n.52 Izhoria, 333n.85

J

Jabotinsky, Vladimir, 348–49 Jagiellonian princes, 159 Jałowecki, Bolesław, and his “national catechism,” 1–2 Jankowski, Czesław, 247n.32, 254–59, 270, 448 Jankus, Martynas, 421 Janowski, Aleksandr, 243n.15 Jaroszewicz, Józef, 123 Jaunjelgava (Friedrichstadt), 341 Jēkabpils (Jacobstadt), 341 Jeleńska-Dmochowska, Emma, 269 Jelski, Aleksander, 244n.20 Jerusalem, 335 Jewish national movement (nationalism), 254, 301, 343, 349; activists of, 352; Bund, 344–46, 351; The Jewish People’s Group, 347, 349; The Jewish Social Democratic Workers’ Party Poalei-Zion, 346; Jewish Socialist Workers’Party (SERP), 346; Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO), 346; Union for the Achievement of Full Rights for the Jewish People in Russia, 352; Zionist movement, 346–49; Zionist Socialist Workers’ Party, 345–46 Jews, 2, 7n.20, 15, 46, 74, 163n.202, 193, 201, 245, 296, 300, 305, 314–18, 321n.38, 323, 327–29, 331, 333–59; aliyah (emigration) to the Land of Israel, 324; Ashkenazim, 324;

Index Belarusian Hasidim, 324; bourgeoisie in Warsaw, 344; in Courland, 340–41; differences between Polish and Lithuanian Jews, 316n.17, 348; of Eastern Europe, 312, 313n.6; European, 325; Hasidic, 313, 324, 326, 332–35, 338n.106, 343; Haskalah, 343–44; intelligenstia, 344; Litvaks (Lithuanian Jews), 312–13, 313n.6, 314, 314n.8, 321n.34, 322–23, 336, 341, 343, 344, 347; Maskilim, 331; Mitnagdic, 313, 324, 334n.88, 335n.96, 338, 342–43; Musar movement, 335, 335n.95, 343, 343n.126; in Muscovy, 317n.22; non-Hasidic, 314, 324–25, 335; Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire, 323, 329, 338, 345, 353; in Palestine, 324–25; Polish, 323, 359; “Russian,” 348, 359. See also Hasidism; Spatial image of Lithuania in East European Jewish discourse, Vaad Arba Aratzot; Vaad Medinat Lita Jezierski, Franciszek Salezy, 110 Joachim, Prince, Kaiser Wilhelm II’s youngest son, 399 Jonava, 343n.126 Jordans, dynasty of clergy, 382 Jucevičius, Liudvikas Adomas (Jucewicz, Ludwik Adam), 125–27, 131 Jurbarkas, 320n.30, 339n.109 Jurkowski, Roman, 256n.63 Juškytė, Jadvyga, 230, 231

K

Kairys, Klemensas, 153 Kairys, Steponas, 447 Kaišiadorys, 261n.88 Kalisk, 332–33n.85 Kalisz, Province 144 Kaluga, Province 290 Kalvaitis, Vilius, 423–24 Kalvarija, 155, 328; District 1, 47, 70, 124, 168, 195, 215, 389 Kamen, 333n.85 Kamenskii, Aleksandr, 26 Kant, Immanuel, 406

Karamzin, Nikolai, 34, 40, 83 Karlin, 325, 343 Karpavičius, Mykolas Pranciškus, 103n.22, 104, 111 Karskii, Evfimii, 281, 285–90, 293n.60 Kasakauskas, Kalikstas, 152n.160 Kašarauskis, Ambraziejus, 133, 134, 151 Katinawa (Kattenau), 424 Katz, Dovid, 313n.6, 314, 318, 336, 338n.108 Katzenelenbogen, M., 352 Katzenelenbogen, Shaul, 355 Katzenelenbogen, Uriah, 313n.7, 336, 354, 357, 359 Kaunas (Kovno, Kovna) 32, 62n.152, 70, 120, 135, 155, 166, 260–61, 297, 314, 320, 327, 329–30, 344, 346, 350, 389, 448; District, 70, 126, 132, 168, 339; governor of, 35–36; Province, 1, 30n.23, 25, 32n.31, 33, 36, 37n.52, 43, 43n.78, 49n.103, 54, 59n.140, 60–64, 67, 70–77, 84–85, 118–19, 121, 132, 144, 146, 155, 166, 168, 172, 195, 203, 206n.61, 210–11, 222, 225–27n.150, 232, 249, 251n.47, 261n.88, 262, 265–66, 269, 288n.33, 290, 293–94, 300–5, 312, 314, 323–25, 328, 335, 338, 339, 347, 351, 352, 355, 357–59, 444, 445; Voivodoship 145; Khomich, Sergei, 280–81 Kėdainiai, 59n.140, 62, 155, 261n.88, 320, 322, 339 Kelmė, 320n.30, 335n.95, 339n.109, 343n.126 Kernavė, 134, 210n.72, 261n.88 Kholmech, 332n.75 Kiev (Kyiv), 267, 315, 323n.43; Governor-generalship of, 74; Province, 30, 65, 140, 144, 266, 329; university, 74; Voivodship, 317 Kirkor, Adam Honory, 55n.126, 56n.132, 84 Kishinev, 112 Klein Tauerlaucken (Tauralaukis), 398 Kletsk, 342n.121 Klimaitis, Pranas, 226–28 Klimas, Petras, 197, 447 Knaake, Emil, 405

457

458

Index Koeppen (Keppen), Piotr, 47–50, 55–56n.131, 84, 113, 127, 167, 388 Koialovich, Mikhail, 45, 137 Koialovicius-Wijuk, Albertus, 379 Kolas, Iakub (Mitskevich, Kanstantsin), 296–97 Kolyshki, 333n.85 Konopnicka, Maria, 269n.124 Königsberg (Kaliningrad), 47, 126, 155, 374, 377, 404, 406, 417, 422; Departament 374; Governmental District, 376, 384, 409; University of Königsberg 382–84, 386, 406; Polish language seminar at the University of, 382n.30; Tiergarten 404, Castle, 405 Kontseptsiia sobiraniia russkikh zemel’ (concept of the gathering of the Russian lands), 26–27 Kopys’, 321, 332n.75, 333n.85, 334 Korets, 338 Koreva, Anton, 138, 214, 232, 286n.28 Korotynski, Vintsent (Korotyński, Wincenty), 138n.127 Kościałkowski, Stanisław, 245n.23 Kostsenevichy, 261n.88 Koydanov, 325, 343 Kraetke, Reinhold, 392 Krajowcy, 246, 247n.32, 251–52, 259, 282, 304, 353 Krāslava (Kreslavka), 320, 333n.85 Krasnaluki, 333n.85 Kraupiszkas (Kraupischken), 424 Kraszewski, Józef Ignacy, 116, 123, 129 Kražiai, 320n.30, 339n.109, 343 Krechetnikov, Mikhail, 28 Krekenava, 339n.109 Kremenchuk, 335 Kremenetz, lyceum, 104 Kretinga, 155, 339n.109 Krychaŭ, 321n.38, 333n.85 Kulakauskas, Antanas, 3, 26, 96, 157 Kulak, Teresa, 256 Kuntze, August, 384 Kupala, Janka (Lutsevich, Ivan), 279, 283n.12, 284, 292n.53, 297 Kurschat, Alexander (Kuršaitis, Aleksandras), 386

Kurschat, Friedrich, 382, 386, 389, 417, 425 Kuršėnai, 133, 343n.126 Kurtuvėnai, 133 Kuznetsov (Kalejs), Iulian, 31n.29, 56n.133

L

Labiau (Labguva, Polessk), 155, 384–86, 400, 404, 424–26 Lachnicki, Ignacy Emanuel, 113 Lackner, Matthias, 382 Langhans, Paul, 410 Lasdehnen (Krasnoznamensk), 384n.38, 400 Lastoŭski, Vaclaŭ, 290–92, 297–98, 354n.172 Latgale, 64 Łatyszonek, Oleg, 99, 122n.77, 136 Latvia, 166, 225 Latvian, languages as synonym to Baltic languages, 381, 387, 388n.57 Latvians, 1, 23, 47, 47n.92; 48, 49n.103, 50n.108, 54, 56n.131, 84, 122, 133, 167–68, 212, 222–23, 223n.139; 227n.150, 245, 356; Catholic, 141, 356; as a Lithuanian tribe, 356; nation, 381n.30; relationship to Lithuanians 222–23, 223n.169; as synonym to Balts, 381; tribes of, 122. See also Balts Laukiszka (Laukischken), 424 Lauknei (Lauknen), 424 Lazduny, 214 Lebedkin, Mikhail, 50, 286n.28 Lebenzon, Avraham Dov, 337 Lefebvre, Henri, and his concept of the production of social space, 5, 97 Leipūnai, 155 Leipzig, University, 411 Lemberg, Hans, 9n.27 Leningrad, 312. See also St. Petersburg Lepel’, District 288n.33 Levin, Dov, 314 Liady, 326, 331, 333–34, 342n.122 Liavitski, Anton, (Iadvihin Sh) 295 Liberation War (1813–1815), 398, 400 Lida, 71, 124, 127, 135–36, 212, 214, 261n.88; District 47, 52, 55, 58, 123, 126, 168, 196, 213, 227n.151, 261n.88

Index Lielupė, River, 155 Liepāja (Libau, Libava), 156, 223, 341 Lipiński, Tymoteusz, 111, 116, 118 Lipman, D. M., 338n.107,n.108, 341 Lipshitz, Yaakov Halevi, 328, 339n.110 Lipsk, 323 Liozna, 333n.85 Lite, almanac, 354–56 Lite-Zamet, 342 Lithuania: baptism of, 116, 167; Christianization, 246; districts, 70; ethnographic (ethnic), 2–3, 7, 14–15, 32, 41, 97, 120, 193, 204–5, 207, 209–10, 214, 222, 244, 251, 251n.47, 252, 254–55, 302, 306, 336, 346–47, 350, 358, 447–448; “genuine,” 389; “The government of Lithuania in Gumbinnen” (Regierung in Litthauen zu Gumbinnen), 375; “Gudian [Belarusian] Lithuania,” 420; interwar Republic, 314, 335, 342, 358, 371, 443; “Kaunas Lithuania,” 443; Lithuan-Samogitia” (“Samog-Lithuania”), 197; province in the Russian Empire, 31, 443; provinces in the Russian Empire, 31, 33–35, 65, 68, 83, 203, 314, 347, 353, 445; Major, 219–20, 419–23; Minor, 4, 218, 218n.114, 220–21, 389, 419, 420, 420–21n.136, 421–22, 428; “Poland’s Lithuania,” 120; propria (sobstvennaia/real), 44, 84, 336, 342, 342n.121, 359, 443, 445; old, 137; province in the Russian Empire, 31, 443; Prussian, 2, 4, 125, 125n.89, 129, 149, 155, 173, 208, 218–20, 382, 384, 387, 390–91, 396–94, 399–404, 407–8, 412, 416–17, 419–23, 425, 428; Prus­sia’s Royal Province of (Königlich Preussische-­ Regierung der Provinz Litthauen), 375; “Russian” (“Muscovian”), 120, 420–21; Soviet Socialist Republic, 3; synod of the Reformed Evangelicals of (synod of the Vilnius Reformed Evangelicals), 31. See also Highland; Samogitia; Zamet Lithuanian Literary Society, 384–86, 390, 395, 395n.73, 402–3

Lithuanian, 47n.92, 54, 69, 98, 123, 148, 151–52, 152n.60, 156, 161–62, 164–65, 169, 199, 206, 211, 248, 269n.125, 292n.53, 349–50, 381–84, 386; comparison with Sanskrit, 383; Cyrillization, 55; Latin alphabet, 163, 203, 220, 225n.145, 354; Lithuanian-Prussian language, 161; place names in Lithuanian-Samogitian, 35; Prussian, 387. See also Samogitian Lithuanian and Belarusian Constitutional Catholic Party [LBCCP] (Stronnictwo konstytucyjno-katolickie na Litwie i Białorusi), political party, 260, 260n.85, 261 Lithuanian nationalism (national movement), 2, 14, 76, 190–91, 192n.8,193, 194n.16, 195, 197, 200–2, 204, 209, 212n.83, 216–20, 225, 231, 233, 257, 293, 295n.64, 301–2, 304, 347, 350, 350n.151, 353, 355–56, 413, 420, 426, 428, 444, 448; 1905 memorandum to the Russian government, 202–3, 207n.109, 221, 445; activists, 192–93, 201, 205, 207, 210–13, 216, 225, 228–29, 251, 295, 295n.64; “Amber Declaration,” 220; Catholic press, 198–99; Christian Democrats, 204; The Committee of the Lithuanian Society to Assist Victims of the War, 221n.125; conception of civic nation, 192; cultural movement in Prussia, 393; independent state as a goal, 217–18; leftists, 7n.20, 191,192n.8, 194, 201, 207, 233, 351, 447; liberal press, 198; Lithuanian (later—of Lithuania) Democratic Party (LDP), 205–7, 209, 233n.163, 301, and their press, 206; Lithuanistic movement, 148, and activists of this movement, 150; National Democrats, 202n.48; National Lithuanian Democratic (NLD) Party, 206; “nationalization” of nobility, 193–4; overcoming regional split, 153–54, 156–57, 161, 167–71, 173–74, 197–201, 232, 444; rightists, 7n.20, 191, 192n.8, 194, 207,

459

460

Index 233, 255n.59; Social Democrats, 192, 194–5, 195n.21, 203–4, 209n.69, 214n.91, 217, 221–22, 301–2, 351, and their press, 204; territorial autonomy within the ethnographic boundaries of, 348, 350–53. See also Spatial image of Lithuania in the Lithuanian discourse Lithuanians: acculturation of, 85; assimilation of, 85, 123, 135, 173, 414; Belarusianized, 206, 221n.125; Catholic, 53, 85, 168; culture of, 348–49, 355, 421, 426–27; elite of, 5; intelligentsia, 15, 156, 173–74, 190, 195, 197, 201–2, 206–7, 210–11, 214–17, 218n.109, 220, 223, 225–26, 229, 231–32, 247, 293, 301, 444–45, 447; “Lithuanians-Samogitians,” 35, 54, 67, 69, 152; nation, 1, 43, 54, 116, 125–27, 149–52, 156–57, 160, 167–68, 170, 173–74, 193, 200n.38, 201n.43, 218, 223, 226, 405, 407; relationship to Slavs (Russians), 35, 47–48; Polonized, 206; Protestants, 125, 168; Orthodox, 168; pagan faith of, 77, 166–67, 355, 355n.174; Prussian, 15, 48, 49n.103, 198, 218, 371, 378, 380–1, 383, 393–94, 403, 407, 410, 412–28; Prus­sian Lithuanians’ bilingualism, 416; tribe of, 39, 48, 125, 129, 167–68; tribes of, 122–23, 129, 132, 135, 157, 173; “tribe of heruli,” 165. See also Highlanders; Samogitians Litovskaia Rus’ (Lithuanian Rus’), newspaper, 32 Liubavskii, Matvei, 40, 44 Liubeshiv, 325 Livonia, Province 144, 227n.150 Lomonosov, Mikhail, 48n.99 Lomża, 70, 325 Lubavich, 329, 331, 334 Lubech, 321n.38 Lublin, 317n.23; Province 144 Lukoml, 333n.85 Lutsk-Zhytomyr Catholic Diocese, 76 Lutskevich, Anton, 287n.32, 289, 290, 294, 300, 302–4

Liutsin, District, 288n.33 Lukšaitė, Ingė, 372n.2 Lukšienė, Meilė, 163 Luntz, Avraham Moshe, 350 Lviv (Lwów, Lemberg), 262, 321n.34, 328

M

Maciejauskas, Antanas, 203, 212, 225 Mačiulis-Maironis, Jonas, 200n.38, 202, 211, 214, 223, 226, 293n.58 Magileŭ, 259, 260–61n.88, 297, 324, 331, 332; Province, 30n.23–31, 64–68, 72, 101, 118, 119, 121–22, 136–37, 140–42, 145–46, 148, 265–66, 287–90, 294, 299, 303n.104, 305, 323, 324–26, 333, 335, 347; Voivodoship, 145; Maimon, Yehuda Leib Ha-Cohen, 343 Majerski, Stanisław, 243n.13, 250, 262–65 Maksimov, Sergei, 287n.32 Maliszewski, Edward, 245n.20, 248n.36, 267n.114, 269n.127 Malwiszkas (Mallwischken), 424 Map as instruments of acquiring symbolic power, 5–7, 6n.15, 7n.19, 7n.20, 9n.31, 46n.87, 47–48, 55, 84–86, 189–90, 203, 205, 207–8, 210, 210n.72, 212, 214, 218n.110, 222–25, 225n.145, 226–29, 229n.157, n.158, 230–31, 231n.160, 232, 245n.21, n.23, 250–51, 251n.48, n.49, 252–53, 255, 263, 263n.98, 264–65, 265n.104, 285–86, 289, 372–73, 388, 388n.57, 389, 409–41, 425 “Map of the Lithuanian-Latvian Land” (1900) by Maciejauskas, 203, 225, 225n.145 Marek, Pesach, 319n.28, 321n.38 Marienburg (Malbork), 403, 412, 423 Marienwerder (Kwidzyn), 423 Marijampolė (Senapilė), District 1, 47, 70, 124, 168, 195, 215, 389 Markovich, Moshe, 339 Maskuliūnienė, Džiuljeta, 169 Matulionis, Povilas, 207, 209n.72, 227n.150 May 3, 1791, Constitution, 143

Index Mazury, Province 144 Mazyr, City, 65, 261, 284; District 142, 288n.33 Medil River, 210n.72 Mehlauken (Zalesje), 400 Mehlkehmen (Kalinino), 400, 424 Memel (Klaipėda), 126, 382, 384–85, 398–99, 400–1, 402, 404, 410, 417–18, 421–28; The Municipal Museum in, 403 Memelgebiet, 411–12 Mendel, Menahem, 332 Mendelsohn, Ezra, 344 Mental maps, 5–6, 7–10, 13, 14n.54, 24, 24n.3, 25, 34, 57–58, 63, 86, 118, 172, 219, 232, 241–42, 270, 315, 323, 341–42, 352, 357–58 Merech, 343n.126 Merimsky, David, 312 Merkys, Vytautas, 45n.87, 49n.105, 62n.152 Metageography, 280 Mickiewicz, Adam, his poem Pan Tadeusz, 101 Middle Ages, 226, 227n.150 Mielcke, Christian Gottlieb, 384, 385 Miller, Aleksei, and his distinction between Russia as empire and “national territory,” 24 Minsk, 258–61, 297, 342n.121, 344, 346; Province, 1, 30n.23, 25, 31n.27, 33, 34, 46, 51, 58, 65–66, 71–72, 119, 121, 134, 136, 140–42, 144, 172, 227, 256, 265–66, 287–90, 292, 294, 299, 303, 305, 323, 324–25, 333, 336n.99, 347, 444; Voivodoship 117, 145 Mir, 328n.55, 343 Mītava (Jelgava), 223 Mochnacki, Maurycy, 109 Moltke, Friedrich, 392 Moltke, Julie von, 391 Moravskis, Alfonsas, 195n.21 Moscow, 31, 65–66n.166, 154, 206n.61, 331, 344; “nation of,” 107; Dialectology Committee, 288n.32; university, 291 Moszyński, Julian, 130

Mother tongue, 105, 111, 150, 153, 161, 162, 194, 195n.21, 284 Motieka, Egidijus, 217n.109 Mstsislaŭ, 335, Voivodoship 117, 320 Munkać (Mukacheve), 329 Murav’ev, Andrei, 77–78 Murav’ev, Mikhail, 39, 45, 54, 64–65, 70–72, 77, 80–82 monument of, 78, 80, 80n.218, 81–82, 84; square, 79 Muscovy (the Grand Duchy of Moscow), 27, 43, 317, 330n.69 Muscovites, 144, 159 Musninkai, 210n.72

N

Nadezhdin, Nikolai, 49 Nadrovia, 373, 385–87, 389, 411, 448 Nałkowska, Anna, 264, 265 Nałkowski, Wacław, 250, 263, 445 Names of locations: changing, 35–37, 83 Napoleonic Wars, 139, 378 Napoleon’s army, 331 Narbutt, Justyn, 116 Narbutt, Teodor, 44n.83, 55, 56n.132, 84, 123–25, 127–28, 232 Narew River, 287–88n.33 Naród Polski i jego ojczyzna (The Polish nation and its homeland) (1914), brochure by Czesław Jankowski, 254 Nash krai (Our land), newspaper, 356–57 Nasha Dolia (Our Share, 1906), newspaper, 303 Nasha Niva (Our Soil) (1906–1915), newspaper, 281, 283–84, 284n.16, 289–90, 292–93, 293n.58, 294–96, 296n.70, 296n.71, 297, 297n.74, 298, 303, 303n.104 Natanga, 374, 396 Nathansohn, Yosef Shaul, 328 Nation state, 12, 190, 257 National groups, non-dominant, of, 5, 11, 24, 74, 279, and their nationalisms, 189, 231 National identities, journal, 9 National minorities, 349 “National territory,” 2, 3, 5–6, 9–10, 10n.25, 11–14, 23–24, 56–57, 75, 83, 85–86, 138, 158, 189–90, 193–95, 197,

461

462

Index 202, 211–12, 214, 220–21, 225–26, 232, 241–42, 251, 254–55, 271, 280–84, 289–90, 294, 298, 304–5, 347, 353, 359, 443, 445–49; core of, 11, 207–11, 215, 243, 254–56, 270, 447–48; emotional ties to, 13; influence of cultural (nationhood) idioms, 10–11, 10–11n.38, 101–15, 190, 446; influence on the definitions of national identity, 11, 271, 447; interplay of different discourses on, 11, 14, 271, 448–49; periphery of, 11, 207–11, 254, 448; semi-core of, 11; Space-gathering centers (Sacred centers), 12, 196; Symbolic appropriation (nationalization, homogenization) of space, 12–14, 77–83, 86, 229, 231, 267, 292, 296, 305, 396, 408, 427; territorialization of memory, 13. See also Homeland; and specific nationalisms Nationalism: ethno-symbolist interpretation of, 13; primordialistic, 193–94, 264, 283; studies of, 9, 11 Nationalization of the masses, 197, 226, 241, 281–82, 294–95, 297, 305, 394, 444 Naujamiestis, 320 Navahrudak, 44, 261, 327n.52,53, 333–34, 342n.121; Voivodoship 117, 118n.66, 145 Nazimov, Vladimir, 25n.30, 68–69, 71 Nemakšiai (Nemokshty), 339n.109 Nemėžis, 295 Nemunas, River 12, 41, 119–20, 123, 131, 133–35, 145, 148, 155, 208, 210n.72, 227, 262, 285n.23, 320, 342n.121, 398; Basin, 356; Region, 119–21, 129, 152, 169 Neris (Vilia), River, 59n.140, 123, 135, 137, 155, 165, 210n.72, 262, 357 Nesselmann, Georg Heinrich Ferdinand, 383, 406 Nevel’, 312, 333n.85; District 288n.33 Nevėžis, River, 126, 130, 132–33, 155, 164, 168, 338n.108 Nezabitauskas, Kajetonas, 161, 162 Niasvizh, 261n.88, 327n.52, 343 Nibudžei (Niebudzen), 424

Nidden (Nida), 408, 424 Niederung, 424–25, 428 Nicholas I, Emperor of Russia, 31, 33 Nicholas II, Emperor of Russia, 82 Nizhyn, 314 Niz, 321, 321n.38; Ponizowie, 321n.38 Nobility: Lithuanian, 39, 97–98, 105–6, 114–15, 118, 121, 136–37, 139, 141–43, 148–49, 172, 193–94, 204, 247–48n.32, 269; estates of, 269–71; multi-stage identity of, 149; of PLC, 101–3, 103n.23, 104–6. See also Spatial image of Lithuania in the Lithuanian society in the first half of the nineteenth century Nordenburg (Krylovo), 388n.57 Norkitten, 386, 400 Norkyčiai, 47 North, 9n.27 Northwestern provinces (Northwest Region; NWR), 30, 30n.26, 32n.30, 37, 39, 54, 63, 68, 71–74, 77, 121, 145, 173, 203, 216–17, 244–45, 245n.20, 246n.24, 257, 260–61, 265, 266n.111, 281, 289–90, 323, 345–46, 349, 355, 358 Nosovich, Ivan, 287n.32 Novikov, Nikolai, 36 Novoaleksandrovsk (Zarasai) District, 35, 59n.140, 64, 70–71, 126, 168, 288n.33, 294, 338n.107–39, 349n.151 Novorossiia Province, 329 Novozybkov, 327n.53, 334

O

Ober-Eisseln (Gorino), 400 Oberland, 374, 395 Oder, River, 250 Ogiński, Michał Kleofas, 105–7, 109, 139–40 Ogończyk, Narcyz, 249 Old believers, 85 Oleksai (Alexen), 424 Onacewicz, Ignacy Żegota, 116, 123 Opaliński, Edward, 103n.23 Opole region of Silesia, 254 Ordensland, 394, 396, 416, 418–19 Orient, 8–9 Oriola, Waldemar von, 392

Index Orlov, Province, 290 Orłowicz, Mieczysław, 266 Orłowski, Wacław, 250 Orsha, 331, 333n.85 “Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality (narodnost’),” principles of, 42, 80 Oster, 321n.38 Ostermeyers, 382 Ostmark, 418, 418n.131 Ostpreußisches Heimatmu­seum, 404 Ottorzhennaia vozvratikh (To recover what was torn away), medal, 26 Ovruch, District, 317–19

P

Pabrėža, Jurgis Ambraziejus, 133, 198 Pakruojis, 320 Palanga, 49n.103, 131, 155, 196, 221, 225, 232, 251n.47, 320n.30, 339n.109–41; District, 1 Palesse, 117, 145, 289, 321n.38 Palestine, 324–25, 350 Panevėžys (Upytė), 328, 339n.109, 343; District, 126, 132, 168 Papelkei (Popelken), 424 Parafiianovo, 261n.88 Paris, 130, 330 Passarge, Ludwig, 406 Pashkevich, Alaiza (Ciotka), 283n.12 Pastovys, 210n.72 Pasvalys, 320 Pelikan, Wacław, 49 Peleninkai (Pelleningken), 424 Pervalka, 210n.72 Petronis, Vytautas, 46n.89–47n.95, 51–52, 229 Pietist laymen (sakytojai), 413 Pikeliai, 328n.55 Pillkallen (Dobrovolsk), 384–85, 400, 412, 424 Piłsudski, Józef, 239, 244 Pinsk, 142, 261n.88, 318–19, 322, 325, 333n.82, 342–43, 346; District 287–88n.33, 292 Pissa, 412 Pivoras, Saulius, 99, 158 Plague of 1709–1711, 374, 377, 397 Plater, Stanisław, 113, 115, 119, 127

Platon, Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, 80 Płock, Province, 144, 327n.53 Plungė, 320n.30, 339n.109 Pobedonostsev, Konstantin, 80 Podlasie, Province, 144, 149, 318, 324 Podolia, Province, 30n.23, 34–35, 140, 144, 313, 315, 329, 345 Pogodin, Mikhail, 41 Poland, 2, 23, 105, 111, 122, 143–44, 147, 154, 159, 172–73, 239–47, 249–50, 251n.47, 253–54; 255n.59, 256, 258–59, 260n.85, 263–66, 268–71, 300n.97, 303, 315, 327–30, 337, 344–46, 354, 358, 380, 447; “borderlands” (kresy) of, 240–41, 243, 250, 254, 258, 268, 270, and literature “of the borderlands”, 268–71; core, 254; ethnographic, 243, 243n.13, 448; Great, 116–17, 268, 317n.19, 324, 331; “Polish districts” in Prussia, 377; ethnographic, 243, 243n.13, 254, 258, 258n.75, 259, 270, 448; historical Poland, 264, 266, 270; Little, 116–17, 317n.19, 324; “Poland-Galicia,” 327n.51; “Russian Poland,” 327n.51; Second Republic of, 247n.29, 316n.15; Poland as Kingdom (until 1795), 1–2, 25, 25n.8, 26, 28–29, 34, 39, 41–43, 83, 116, 117, 119, 129, 142n.137, 149, 159, 165, 166–67, 227, 245n.23, 267–68, 316–19, 321n.34, 393, 445; history of, 259 Poland as Kingdom (Vistula region) in the Russian Empire (Congress Poland), 1–2, 25, 46, 48, 71, 71n.187, 75, 76n.198, 100–1, 106, 119, 120, 120n.71, 124, 130–31, 139–40, 143, 145, 148, 164, 168, 172–73, 215, 217, 254, 257, 258, 260–64, 322, 324–25, 328–29, 353, 356, 446, and the army of, 143 Polatsk, 66–67, 117, 170, 332; District, 288n.33; Province, 332, 333 Poles, 1, 7n.20, 23, 36, 39, 46, 50–52, 52n.114, 54–56, 56n.132, 61, 69, 71, 74–76, 76n.198, 80–82, 84, 104–5, 107, 109, 142n.135, 149, 159, 169, 193, 201, 217, 241–42, 244–45, 245n.20,

463

464

Index 246, 246n.24, 247, 247–48n.32, 248, 248n.33, 248n.34, 250, 252, 254, 256–57, 259–60, 265–69, 271, 287, 296, 300, 305, 344, 349, 353, 356, 392, 447–48; Catholic, 393; “half,” 67; intelligentsia, 249, 259, 261–62, 447; literature, 269; nation, 80, 104, 109, 149, 241–42; politicians, 243–44, 249–50, 257n.69, 259; Polska Macierz Szkolna (The mother of the schools of Poland), 259–60; Polskie Towarzystwo Krajoznawcze (the Polish society of local studies), 265 “real,” 1, 67, 287; as slaves in Medieval Lithuania, 248; society, 81–82, 139, 243, 271; landowners in Lithuania, 352 Polish, 69, 114, 114n.56, 125, 241, 248, 295 Polish-Catholic propaganda, 39 Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC), 26, 33, 58, 102n.16, 105–6, 108, 110–11, 116–17, 144, 158, 166–67, 172, 247, 323, 332, 359, 379; former territory of, 33–34, 53, 58, 64, 98, 106, 109–13, 120, 129, 139, 143–44, 146, 242, 251, 264, 447; “1772 border” of, 140, 144, 242–43, 243n.13, 263–64, 359, 447; map of, 245n.23; partitions of (1772–95), 25–26, 28–29, 34n.36, 38n.54, 78, 100, 108, 110, 115, 120, 131–32, 150, 264, 316n.17, 332; First partition (1772), 26–27, 31, 33, 83, 116, 136, 142, 145, 242–43; Second partition (1792), 26–28, 31n.27, 33, 38–39, 83; Third (1795) partition, 26, 28, 62n.152, 33, 38n.54, 62n.152, 104, 322, 332; plans for restoration of, 34, 83, 139–41, 143–48, 270. See also Union of Horodło; Union of Krewo; Union of Lublin Polish-Lithuanian conflict, 248n.32 Polish nationalism (national movement), 2, 239, 242, 270, 293n.59, 301, 447; leaders (representatives) of, 242, 301; National Democrats (Narodowa Demokracja – (Endecja)), 7n.20, 201, 241–42, 245, 245n.21, 247, 249,

259–60, 263, 267–68; Oświata (Education), the Polish Education Society, 259–61, 261n.88; Socialist Party (Polska partja socjalistyczna PPS), 239, 300, 300n.97; PPS na Litwie, 204, 222, 351. See also Spatial image of Lithuania in the modern Polish discourse Politicization of ethnicity, 74, 84 Polska etnograficzna (Ethnographic Poland) (1914), by Czesław Jankowski, 254–55 Poltava, Province 333 Pomerania, 378 Popov, Vasilii, 72 Porter, Brian A., 240, 242 Poška, Dionizas, 47n.94, 49, 108, 149–50, 152, 162 Potapov, Aleksandr, 32n.30, 67, 70–71 Pott, August Friedrich, 383 Poznań, 144, 254 Pregel (Pregolya) River, 412 Prienai, 328n.54 Primers as tools of nationalization, 160–63 Pripyat River, 134 Prökuls (Priekulė), 400, 417 Propojsk (Slaŭharad), 321n.38 Protestantism, 167 “Provinces annexed from Poland” (“Polish provinces,” “the new provinces annexed from Poland,” “former Polish provinces,”), 25, 25n.8; 26, 29, 34 “The provinces (the land) returned from Poland,” 25n.8, 28–29, 83 Prus, Bołesław, 269 Prussia, 15, 32, 36, 105, 120, 125–26, 129–31, 144, 155–56, 165, 168, 173, 195, 208, 227, 227n.150, 256, 322, 324, 355, 371–72, 372n.2, 373–74, 377–78, 380–81, 385, 387, 388n.57, 389, 391–93, 399, 405–6, 409–10, 414–15, 418, 420, 420n.136, 422–23, 428; army units, 401, 401n.83; duchy of, 373–74, 377; duke of, 372; East, 4, 47, 125, 144, 196, 218, 219n.114, 220, 221, 232, 371, 374–75, 378–79, 384, 386, 390, 392–93, 393n.68, 394–98,

Index 400, 403–6, 409, 411–15, 415n.126, 416, 419–28; king of, 104, 376, 378, 392; kingdom of, 4, 104, 414; monarch, 393; “old-Prussian patriotism,” 376, 377n.15, 381, 382n.32, 383; province, 376, 378, 382, 394, 416, 417, 418, 418n.131, 419, 423; patriotism, 393; state, 384, 415; society, 413; West, 375, 393–94, 396, 405, 414–16, 418, 418n.131, 421–23 Prussian, 383, 386 Prussians, one of the Baltic tribes, 122, 167, 218, 376–77, 380–81, 382n.32. See also Balts Prushinski, Eustachy, 256 Pruskin, Pesah, 335n.95 Pruzhany, District, 288n.33 Pskov, Province 26, 288n.33, 290, 312 Pumpėnai, 320 “Pupils’ Affair” in 1852–54, 61 Pushkin, Aleksandr, monument of, 78 Pypin, Aleksandr, 287n.32

R

Rabinovich-Teumim, Eliyahu David, 328n.55, 342 Rabinovich, Zeev Wolf, 333n.82 Radun’, 214 Ragachoŭ, 321n.38 Ragnit, 383, 384–85, 400, 412, 424–28 Raila, Stanislovas, 211 Rakaŭ, 261n.88 Rambynas, 427 Raseiniai, 320, 339, District 43n.78, 59n.140, 60, 62, 70, 130–32, 168 Raysn, 15, 313n.4, 320, 321n.34, 322–25, 327, 327n.23, 329, 329n.61, 330–38, 340, 342, 358–59, 444, 446; medinat, 321–22, 331, 332, 332n.76, 333 Rechytsa, 142, 321n.38, 332n.75 Reformation, 372, 382, 396 Revolution, of 1905, 109, 202, 204, 206–7, 215–17, 223, 225, 348, 350 Rhesa, Martin Ludwig, 381n.30–82 Reichsnation, 392–94 Representations of space, 5, 232, 271, 396 Republic as an ideal form of government, 103, 103n.22

Rétablissement, 396 Rietavas, 320n.30, 339n.109, 343n.126 Rīga, 334–35, 340, 345 Rimša, Petras, 219, 231 Rittich, Aleksandr, 210n.72, 388 Rodziewiczówna, Maria, 269 Rogalski, Leon, 117 Romanovs dynasty, 42 Romanticism, 113, 446 Romer, Eugeniusz, 247n.29, 250, 263, 445 Römeris, Mykolas (Römer, Michał), 251–53, 353–54n.169 Romer-Ochenkowska, Helena, 262, 264, 268 Rominte (Krasnaya), 412 Rouba, Napaleon, 266–67 Royal Military and Domain Chamber (Königliche Krieges- und zu Domainencammer zu Gumbinnen) in Gumbinnen (now Gusev), 374 Rozenboym, Shimshon, 314 Rūdininkai, 210n.72 Rupkalwen (Rupkalviai), 399 Rurikid dynasty, 41, 43 Rus’, 15, 38, 43–44, 44n.80, 50, 77, 82, 85, 136, 144, 147, 245n.20, 246n.24, 291, 321, 321n.35, 330, 336, 358, 444; Black Rus’ (Chiornaia Rus’), 291; Carptho, 329; Chelmian, 25; Czerwona, 321n.34; Lithuanian Rus’ (Litovskaia Rus’), 14, 32, 32n.30, n.31, 44, 82, 122, 124, 174, 252, 291; Moscow (Muscowy), 38, 291; Northwest, 82; Western, 44, 50, 82; White Rus’ (Belaia Rus’), 27–28n.14, 100, 118–19, 121–22, 122n.77, 129, 134–39, 148, 172, 174, 280, 291, 296n.70; 299, 330. See als Raysn Russia: autocracy, 42–43, 80; Council of Ministers, 73; “East,” 42; emperor, 80, 100, 105–6; Geographical Society (the Imperial Russian Geographical Society [IRGS] (since 1850), 49–50, 287n.32, 388n.55; government, 7n.20, 24, 26–27, 31–32, 37–38, 42, 44–45, 49, 57–60, 62–65, 65n.164, 68–69, 71, 73, 77–84, 101, 106, 131,

465

466

Index 142, 160, 199, 202–3, 221, 256, 258n.75, 259–61, 271, 323, 357–58, 445; “inner provinces,” (“inner Russia”) 67, 83; Little, 127, 250, 331n.73, and its provinces, 34; Ministry of Internal Affairs, 68, 73n.193, 74–75; Ministry of Transport, 37; as a national (Russian) monarchy, 82; intellectual elite of the empire, 14, 25, 40, 51, 56, 64–65, 83, 448; the ruling elite of the empire, 14, 25, 29, 38–41, 51, 56–57, 65, 74–75, 76n.198, 83, 202, 221, 257, 445, 448; The Russian Language and Linguistics Department of the Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences, 287n.32; West, 42; White, 331, 336. See also Spatial image of Lithuania in the Russian discourse Russian, 39, 287n.32 Russians, 2, 7n.20, 14, 23, 28, 39, 43, 44n.83, 49–50, 52, 54–55, 69, 74, 77–78, 80, 82, 85, 245, 287n.30, 289; Black, 138; Great, 26, 51; historians, 38; Little, 54, 287; nation, 42, 81; nationalism, 10, 85; nationalists, 84 “real,” 54; “tripartite nation,” 51, 285 “Russifiers,” 52 Ruthenian, 134–36 Ruthenians, 127, 134–38, 173–74; folk, 149, 174; territory populated by, 136, 174; tribes of, 134–36. See also Belarusians

S

Šafárik, Pavel Jozef, 47–49, 55, 112–13, 196, 387–89 Šakyna, 133 Said, Edward, and his Orientalism, 8 Salantai, 320, 339n.109 Sambia, 373–74, 382n.32, 396 Samland, 395 Samogitia (Žemaitija), 4, 14–15, 59, 59n.140, n. 141, 60–62, 84, 100, 121–24, 125n.89, 126–29, 140–41, 145, 149, 159, 164–66, 168, 171–73, 197, 198n.32, 199–200, 201n.43, 232, 292, 320, 328n.55, 338n.108, 349,

358, 380, 444; Samogitian (Telšiai) Diocese, 31, 60, 62n.152, 76, 129–32, 163, 164, 170, 198n.32; District of, 59; districts, 59n.141, 60, 60n.142, 61, 67, 67n.171, 70; Medininkai (Samogitian) Diocese, 131; principality (elderate), 59–61, 117–18, 130, 132–33, 148–49, 159–60, 163, 320, 320n.33, 338, 359; proper, 133n.113; province of, 60. See also Zamet Samogitian, 59, 61, 133, 151–52, 152n.60, 156, 161, 164–65, 168, 173, 198–99. See also Lithuanian Samogitians (žemaičiai), 32n.31, 43n.78, 48, 60–61, 61n.147, 68, 68n.176, 69–70, 131–32, 146, 149–52, 154, 156, 159–62, 164–65, 167–74, 197, 197n.31, 198, 198n.32, 199–200, 200n.38, 200n.41, 201, 201n.43, 338, 354, 380, 387; “real,” 133n.113. See also Lithuanians Sandkrug (Smiltynė), 400 Sandomierz, Province 144 Savisčevas, Eugenijus, 99 Scalovia, 373, 385–87, 389, 411, 448 Schaaken (Nekrasovo), 388n.57 Schenk, Frithjof Benjamin, 9 Scheu, Hugo, 402 Schirwindt (Kutuzovo), 400 Schleicher, August, 380, 405 Schlögel, Karl, 4 Schlözer, August, 379, 380–81, 389 Schneersohn, Dov Ber, 331 Schneersohn, Itzhak Yosef, 334 Schneersohn, Menahem Mendl, 329 Schubert, Friedrich Wilhelm, 384 Schultz, 384n.38 Schweiger, Aleksandra, 250, 256 Sebezh, 333n.85, District 288n.33 Seda, 339n.109 Sejny, 155, District, 1, 47, 70, 124, 168, 218n.110, 389 Senkovskii, Osip, 40–41 Shalit, Moyshe, 358 Shapiro, Haim Elazar, 329 Shcherbatov, Mikhail, 40 Shestakov, Ivan, 23, 35 Shirinskii-Shikhmatov, Aleksandr, 69

Index Shteinberg, Aharon, 337 Sianno, 333n.85 Siberia, 8 Sidarevich, Anatol’, 299n.86 Sienkiewicz, Henryk, 269 Silesia, 254, 327n.51, 378, 418 Šeduva, 339n.109 Šėta, 320 Šiauliai, 155, 320n.30, District, 43n.78, 59n.140, 60, 70, 130–32, 168 Šiluva, 133, 155 Šimkus, Stasys, 292n.53 Simferopol, 337 Shkloŭ, 321, 324, 333n.85, 335n.95 Sirutavičius, Vladas, 99, 100 Skaisgirren (Bolshakovo), 400 Skrupskelis, Ignas, 376n.15 Skuodas, 320n.30, 339n.109 Slavic, 54, 135, 388n.57 Slavic-Russian world, 41 Slavic tribes, 55, 134; 291; Drehovichians, 134, 138, 291; Krivichians, 134, 138, 291, 291n.45, 292, 305; land of, 123; Radimichians, 291 Slavs, 35, 47, 49, 49n.103, 50, 55, 61n.147, 84–86, 113, 124–27, 155, 194, 214–15, 226, 354, 381, 381n.30, 387; Catholic, 53; eastern, 26, 49, 50, 52n.115, 55–56, 61n.147, 85, 443; nation, 125 Sliesoriūnas, Feliksas, 141 Slobodka, 320, 343 Slonim, 325n.46, 342n.121, 343, District, 168, 288n.33 Slubicz, Maryan, 250 Slutsk, 142, 261 n.88, 319, 322 Smalianchuk, Ales’, 281, 292, 296 Smaliany, 333n.85 Smarhon’, 212 Smetona, Antanas, 192, 210, 447 Smith, Anthony D., 9, and territorialisation of memory, 13; Smolensk, 314, 338, Province, 30n.24, 58, 67, 117, 121n.73, 287n.32–90, 294, 300, 303n.104, 305, Voivodship 117, 120–21n.73 Sniadecki, Jędrzej, 111 Sniadecki, Jan, 112, 121

Sochaczew, 328, 330 Sokółka, District 288n.3, 389 Sokolov, Nikolai, 287n.32 Sokolsk, District 1 Soloveitchik, Rabbi Simha, 335n.95 Solov’ev, Sergei, 44n.84 Sorbonne University, 189 Sotsialistishes flugblat (Socialist leaflet), newspaper, 351 Southwest Russia (Southwest Region, Southwest provinces), 30, 121, 246n.24 Soviet-Lithuanian negotiatons in 1920, 314 Soviet Union, 291 Sozh, 342n.121 Spatial image of Belarus and Lithuania in the Belarusian discourse: impact of idioms of nationhood, 282–84; defining “national territory,” 284–96, 304–6; place of Vilnius in, 296–98, 305; image in political programs, 298–304; overlap of Belarusian and Lithuanian “national territories,” 293, 306 Spatial image of Lithuania in East European Jewish discourse: Lite as the area of Litvish, 314–15; “gastronomic border,” 315; Jewish Lite and its subdivisions in the GDL, 316–23; adaptation to the imperial administrative map, 323–26; in Rabbinic literature, 326–30; concept of Raysn, 330–38; borders of Zamet, 338–42; Lite in the narrow sense, 342–43; in political activities, 343–47; perception of Lithuanian Lithuania, 347–58 Spatial image of Lithuania in German and Prussian Lithuanian discourses: ecclestical and scholarly in the 15th-18th centuries, 372–73; establishment of the Department of, and “old Prussian patriotism,” 374–378, 384; as ethnographic territory, 379–80, 384–91; Lithuanian cultural landscape in the German conception, 391–412; perception of Prussian Lithuanians, 413–28 Spatial image of Lithuania in the Lithuanian discourse (Lithuanian

467

468

Index Lithuania): impact of idioms of nationhood on, 191–95; during the initial stage of the national movement, 195–201; during the political stage, 201–7; the core and periphery, 207–11, 448; “Lithuania’s East,” 211–15; problem with the Suwałki Province, 215–18; Prussian Lithuania (Lithuania Manor), 218–21; Grodna Province, 221–22; Latvia as a part of Lithuanian “national territory,” 222–225; usage in the nationalization of the masses, 225–31 Spatial image of Lithuania in the Lithuanian society in the first half of the nineteenth century: historical, 115–19, 144, 172–73, 444; “in the popular sense,” 119–22, 144, 172, 444; “Proper” (“Primeval”), 122–23, 132, 134–37, 157, 172–73, 444; Samogitia, 129–34; Lithuanian Rus’, 134–39, 174; in political manifestations, 139–148, 172; in Lithuanian discourse, 148–57, 173–74; dissemination, 157–72 Spatial image of Lithuania in the modern Polish discourse: 239–46, impact of idioms of nationhood on, 241–42; the argument for including Lithuania within Poland, 246–51; image in Lithuania, 251–59; usage in the nationalization of the masses, 259–70 Spatial image of Lithuania in the Russian discourse: renaming the region, 25–38; interpretation of the GDL, 38–45, 50, 77–78, 83; statistical data and ethnographic argumentation, 45–56, 83; territorial-administrative reforms, 56–77, 83; symbolic appropriation of space, 77–84 Spatial practice, 5, 98, 139, 210, 213, 215, 232, 260, 271, 303n.104, 426, 444 Spatial turn (spatial turns), 4–6 Spector, Itzhak Elhanan, 327 Speičytė, Brigita, 99, 110, 118–19, 150, 172 Spiridonov, Mikhail, 321n.35 Šrubauskis, Pranciškus, 158

St. Petersburg: the Roman Catholic Theological Academy of, 63; university, 40n.63. See also Leningrad Stakelė, Stanislovas, 214n.88 Stampfer, Shaul, 312n.1 Stallupönen (Stalupėnai, Nesterov), 385, 397n.75, 400, 424 Stanevičius, Simonas, 150–52 Statistics, 45–46, 51, 54–56, 83, 100, 113, 125, 167, 281, 385, 391, 408–10 Statute of Lithuania, 34 Steputat, Wilhelm (Steputaitis, Vilius), 393 Stolypin, Piotr, 75 Strakauskaitė, Nijolė, 417 Straszewicz, Eugeniusz, 256 Strėčia River 210n.72 Strunaičiai, 210n.72 Subačius, Giedrius, 198 Subačius, Paulius, 12, 99, 148, 153, 154 Subotniki (Subatnikai), 214 Sudermann, Hermann, 392, 407 Suwałki, 47, 120; District, 215, 218n.110; Province, 1, 2, 32n.31, 71–72, 75–76, 119, 195, 203–4, 206n.61, 207, 215–18, 222, 227, 232, 244, 249, 251n.47, 254–55, 257, 290, 293n.60, 322, 325, 328, 351, 353, 355–56, 389, 445 Swedes, 159, 167 Svir’, 214 Svislach River, 137, 285n.23, 342n.121 Swine (Oświnka, Putilovka) River, 385 Switzerland, 425 Syrokomla, Władysław, 134 Systems of meanings, 395–97, 399, 404, 413, 420 Szczuczyn, 325 Švėkšna, 339n.109 Švenčionys, 49, 71; District 52, 55, 137, 168, 213, 227n.151, 288n.33

T

Tacitus, 381 Tatarė, Antanas, 152, 154, 156, 169 Tatomir, Lucyan, 248n.36, 263–64 Tatars, 167 Tauragė, 133, 339n.109 Telšiai, 320n.30, 339n.109; District, 43n.78, 59n.140, 60, 70, 130–32, 168

Index Temme, Jodocus, 383, 407 Ternopil, District 140 Territorialization of ethnicity, 68, 70, 73, 75, 84 Teshin, 254 Teutonic: era, 396; Knights, 124, 131; Order, 385, 394–96, 415, 419 Tetzner, Franz, 406 “Tikroji Lietuva” (Real Lithuania) (1899), a map by Adomaitis-­ Šernas, 208 Tilsit (Sovetsk), 219, 383–85, 395, 397–98, 400, 401–5, 410, 412, 414, 417, 421, 424–26, 428 Tyszkiewicz, Eustachy, 99 Tyszkiewicz, Konstanty, 134–35 Todorova, Maria, 8, and her analysis of the concept of Balkans, 9 Toeppen, Max, 385, 386 Tokts, Sergei, 99, 138, 280, 284 Tollmingkehmen (Chistye Prudy), 397n.75 Tolstoi, Dmitrii, 66 Toplaukis, 47 Topographical turn, 6 Toruń, 423; gymnasium, 373 Tourist literature (guide book, travel guides) 77, 78, 266–67, 315, 316n.15, 401, 404, 411–12 Trakai, 146n.145, 196, 267; Castle, 292; District, 55, 71, 126, 168, 211–13, 261n.88, 292, 295; Voivodoship 117, 120, 124, 128, 320; Trakt Zapuszczanski, 117, 126, 149 Trauschies, Georg, (Traušis, Jurgis), 417 Trempai (Trempen), 424 Trivus, Hillel David, 335 “Troe iunoshei” (Three Young Men), essay by Uriah Katsenelenbogen, 357 Trotskii, Vitalii, 75 Trumpa, Vincas, 96n.1 Trunk, Israel Yehoshua, 330 Tumas-Vaižgantas, Juozas, 205 Turbovich, Zeev Volf, 343 Turks, 167 Turonak, Jury, 299n.86 Turov, 342n.121 Tver’, Province 288n.33, 290 Tykocin, 317n.19, 318–19

Tyla, Antanas, 157 Tzintz, Arie Leib, 327n.53

U

Ukrainian, 287n.32 Ukrainians, 51, 250, 264–65, 287; Ukrainians-Ruthenians, 266, 266n.113; national movement (“Ruthenian”), 254; culture of, 348 Ukraine, 27n.14, 35, 144, 312, 321n.38, 324, 327n.51, 328–29, 331n.73, 337, 345; Left-bank, 347; provinces, 144; Right-bank, 25, 28n.17, 29–30, 46; Russian, 323n.43 Ulasaŭ, Aliaksandr, 290, 294, 303–4 Union of Horodło (1413), 268 Union of Krewo (1385), 44n.83, 45, 78, 149–50, 246, 267 The Union of Lublin (1569), 45, 78, 115–16, 120n.71, 140, 149–50, 246, 317 Unuchak, Andrei, 293n.55 Uprisings: 1830–31 (Polish-Russian War), 29, 40, 59, 61, 83, 98, 109, 139–40, 143, 146, 148; 1863–64, 39, 54, 60, 64, 71, 77, 81, 85, 97n.4, 98, 139, 143–48, 174, 217n.106, 267–68, and different interpretations in Polish and Russian narratives, 81, and Whites, 144–46, and Reds, 144–47 Ushachy, 333n.85 Ushakov, Dmitrii, 287n32 Ustrialov, Nikolai, 42, 43–45, 50, 77, 84–85 Utena, 261n.88, 320, 330 Uvarov, Sergei, 32, 41–44, 77, 80, 83–84 Uzda, 261n.88 Užnemunė, 119, 163

V

Vaad Arba Aratzot (Council of the Four Lands), 316–17, 317n.19, 317n.20, 318, 319n.27 Vaad Medinat Lita (Council of the Land of Lithuania), 312n.4, 316–17, 317n.20, 317n.23, 318–19, 319n.27, 319n.28, 321–23, 332n.76, 338, 347; the pinkas of, 316n.18, 317, 321, 330, 332, 332n.75; dissolution in 1764, 322

469

470

Index Vaicekauskas, Mikas, 160 Vaivada, Vacys, 99 Valančius, Motiejus, 130–32, 154, 156, 164, 170 Valiūnas, Silvestras, 131 Valkininkai, 261n.88 Valmikas, Vincentas, 158 Vanagaitis, Jonas, 421 Varangians, 291 Varniai, 164, 338n.108 Vater, Johann Severin, 380 Vaŭkavysk, 288n.33, 327n.52, 342n.121 Velizh, District 288, 333n.85 Verbickis, Valerijonas, ethnographic map of, 7n.19 Vestnik Iugo-zapadnoi i Zapadnoi Rossii (Messenger of southwestern and western Russia), 30n.25 Viekšniai, 339n.109, 343n.126 Vienna, congress of, 9n.27 Vileika, District 50, 55, 66–67, 195, 214, 227, 288n.33, 295–96 Vileišis, Jonas, 205 Vileišis, Petras, 208, 231 Vileišis, Povilas, 214 Viliampolė (Slobodke), 320 Vilkaviškis, District 1, 195, 215 Vilkija, 335 Vilkmergė (Ukmergė), District 123, 126, 168 Vilna Gaon (Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman), 324 Vilnius (Vil’na, Vil’nia, Vil’no, Wilno) 2, 40, 49, 63, 65–70, 76, 77–79, 86, 125, 134–36, 140–41, 155–56, 165, 167, 169–70, 192–93, 196, 204, 206, 209–10n.72, 214–15, 226n.145, 229n.157, 231n.160–32, 241, 245–46, 251–52, 256n.63–57, 259, 260–62, 264–65, 267, 271, 284, 296–97, 302n.102, 305–6, 313, 316n.15, 319, 322, 331, 337, 344, 346, 347, 355, 445, 447; St. Anne’s Church, 297; Castle Hill, 267, 296, 296n.71, 297n.75; church of the Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn, 297, 298; as a city of Polish culture, 267; Commission of Archeography, 36; District, 52, 55,

71, 123, 126, 168, 213, 227n.151, 252, 261n.88, 288n.33, 295; education district, 32n.32, 37, 63, 68; governor-generalship, 31, 63, 70, 73, 73n.193, 74–75, 216; Lithuania’s Vilnius Province, 31; palace of the dukes, 298; Province, 1, 30n.23, 33, 32n.31, 34–36, 41, 43, 46–47, 50, 55, 57–59, 61n.147–62, 64, 66–72, 74, 100, 119, 121, 124, 126, 131, 138, 140–41, 144, 155, 168, 172, 195–96, 203–4, 206n.61–7, 209n.72–11, 213–15, 222, 225, 227, 232, 248n.33– 49, 251n.47, 261n.88–62, 265–66, 288n.33–90, 292, 294–96, 298, 300, 305, 314, 323, 324, 328, 347, 352; Province Statistics Committee, 44n.83, 46; museum of antiquities, 45; Roman Catholic diocese of, 76, 260; Roman Catholic Theological Academy, 63; university, 63, 66, 97, 267, and ideas of establishing a Russian one, 76, professors and students of, 106–7, 110, 127, and projects of restoration, 297, 297n.73; Vilnius and Lithuania Orthodox Diocese, 32; Voivodship, 117, 124, 128, 145, 320 Vistula River, 123, 216 Vitsiebsk, 66–67, 170, 265, 284, 297, 331–32, 337, 347; Belorussia’s Vitsiebsk Province 31, 33, 63, 136; Province, 41, 30n.23, 58, 64–65, 67–68, 71–72, 101, 118–119, 121–122, 137, 140–42, 144–46, 148, 172, 227n.150, 259n.79–60, 266, 287–90, 294, 300, 303n.104, 305, 312, 323–25, 332, 333, 335, 337, 347; Voivodoship, 117, 145, 320, 321n.35; Višinskis, Povilas, 209, 215n.98 Vladislavov (Kudirkos Naumiestis), District 195, 215 Voigt, Johannes, 381 Volhynia, 30n.23, 34–35, 140, 144, 266, 313, 315, 324, 328–29, 331, 337, 338, 342–43, 345; Voivodoship, 317 Volksnation, 392–93, 410 Volozhin, 337

Index Volter, Eduard, 56n.133 Vyžūnai, 320, 322

W

Wakar, Włodzimierz, 248n.33, 251n.47 Walicki, Andrzej, 109 Wapiński, Roman, 240, 256, 258 Warmia, 395, 396 Warsaw, 117, 129, 140, 145, 148, 254, 268; Sejm 102, 103n.22; Grand Duchy of, 322; governor-general, 76 Wasilewski, Leon, 239, 244, 248–49n.39 Wasilków, 318 Weeks, Theodore R., 80 Weinreich, Max, 339, 341 Wehlau (Znamensk), 388n.57, 342–43, 345 Werden, 397n.75 The West, 9 Western Region (Western provinces), 4, 28–30, 29n.18, 30n.24, 30n.25, 39, 52, 54–55, 58, 64–65, 65n.164, 67, 73, 83, 413 Weyssenhof, Józef, 269 Wiechert, Ernst 285 Wilhelm I, Emperor of Germany, 374, 397, 399, 401 Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany, 399 Wischwill (Viešvilė), 397n.75 Wiślicki, Adam, 265 Wolff, Larry, 8 World War I (Great War), 37, 74, 96, 189, 197, 216–17, 219–20, 246, 247n.29, 250, 254n.58, 262, 268, 280–2, 289, 293n.55, 297–98, 304–5, 353, 358–59, 391, 391n.65, 397–98, 400, 403, 406, 411, 413, 421–28, 447 World War II, 96 Wortman, Richard, 82 Wysłouch, Bolesław, 243n.15

Y

Yerusalimsky, Moshe Nahum, 338 Yiddish, 313n.5, 314, 341, 350; Germanized, 341; northeasten dialect (Litvish), 313–15, 318, 330–31; Volhynian, 331, 331n.73 Yotvingians, 122, 167, 249

Z

Zabłudów, 318 Zahorski, Władysław, 267 Zalman, Shneur, 326, 331, 333–34 Zamet, 15, 312n.4, 320, 320n.32, 321, 323–25, 327, 327n.53, 328, 329n.59, 330, 331, 337–43, 350, 358–59, 444; medinat, 320, 322, 337, 338n.107, 339. See also Samogitia Zapadnorusizm (“western Russism”), 285 Zasulich, Vera, 345 Zavileiskii, District 47, 126 Zawadzki, Józef, 164 Žagarė, 133, 155 Žasliai, 261n.88 Zditov, 342n.121 Zeltser, Arkadii, 312n.1 Zemgale, 149, 170 Žeimiai, 155 Žeimena, River 135, 210n.72 Želvavičius, Juozapas, 156 Žemaičių Kalvarija, 155, 159 Žemaičių Naumiestis, 339n.109 Ziablovskii, Evdokim, 46, 47n.92 Zieliński, member of Parliamen (Sejm), 102 Ziesemer, Johannes, 412 Zhitlovski, Chaim, 356n.177 Zlatopol, 329 Žodiškiai, 214

471