An Anthology of the Political Thought of a Successful Neighbor

This review was prepared as part of the joint project “Book Review” of the Political Sphere Institute and the Center for European Studies in Minsk.

Lithuanian Political Thought. Late Nineteenth – Early Twentieth Century. An Anthology (2013). Compiled by Andrei Kazakevich, scientific editor Tomasz Błaszczak. Minsk: Medisont, 320 pp. + [6] plates.

Review prepared by Sergei Astankovich.

Homines historiam ignari semper sunt pueri

People who do not know antiquity remain forever children

The publication of the anthology “Lithuanian Political Thought” (late nineteenth – early twentieth century) was welcome news for everyone interested in the history of Belarus, Lithuania, Central and Eastern Europe, and national movements in this part of the world.

Despite its geographical and historical closeness, Belarus’s northwestern neighbor still remains, to a large extent, terra incognita for Belarusians. The language barrier and the weak interest of domestic academic institutions in Lithuanian subjects become a serious obstacle for every researcher. For this reason, the names of Jonas Basanavičius or Motiejus Valančius, and the titles “Aušra” (“Dawn”) and “Vilniaus žinios” (“Vilnius News”), mean nothing to most representatives of the humanities scholarly community. Only turning to Polish-, Russian-, or English-language literature makes it possible, to some extent, to fill this gap.

Many publications that have already become classics of historiography can be used to become acquainted with the history of Lithuania in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Polish Lithuanian studies stand out in this regard. One may recall the works of Michał Römer (Römer, 1908) and Leon Wasilewski (Wasilewski, 1912). Among later works, the studies by Jerzy Ochmański (Ochmański, 1965; Ochmański, 1990) and Piotr Łossowski (Łossowski, 2001) are very important.

The works of Lithuanian historians Egidijus Aleksandravičius and Antanas Kulakauskas were translated into Polish (Aleksandravičius, Kulakauskas, 2003). An example of a joint interpretation of Lithuania’s past by Polish and Lithuanian scholars is the work by Andrzej Rachuba, Jūratė Kiaupienė, and Zigmantas Kiaupa (Rachuba, Kiaupienė, Kiaupa, 2009). Very recently, the newest history of Lithuania, published in several languages, also appeared (Eidintas, Bumbauskas et al., 2013).

A distinctive locus classicus for research on this subject is the fundamental monograph by Miroslav Hroch (Hroch, 1985: 86-97).

The contribution of domestic scholarship to the study of the modern Lithuanian national movement remains rather modest. One may recall the relevant sections on Lithuania and Lithuanians in the book by Pavel Tereshkovich (Терешкович, 2004) and the works of Yury Unukovich (Унуковіч, 2006).

The book opens with a short essay on the development of Lithuanian political thought in the nineteenth century, written by Tomasz Błaszczak. It briefly describes the most important factors that influenced its formation and development.

In our view, it is especially important for Belarusian scholars to pay attention to the information about two unique phenomena in the history of our neighbor that significantly influenced the success of the Lithuanian patriotic movement as a whole: temperance societies (during their existence they covered up to 80% of the population of the Kaunas Governorate) and the book-smugglers’ movement (which supplied Lithuanians with printed material in their native language for almost 40 years). This is all the more relevant because both phenomena are also connected with domestic history: Lithuanian smugglers carried Belarusian books as well (Ластоўскі, 1926: 106; Туронак, 2006: 29), as well as books for Lithuanians in Belarus (Унуковіч, 2006: 39).

Mass temperance societies also existed in our lands (Brensztejn, 1918; Gieczys, 1935). Unfortunately, it is not known to what extent they influenced social processes in Belarus.

The anthology includes 28 texts that appeared between 1846 and 1915, with the overwhelming majority of them (24 texts) created at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the Lithuanian national movement was developing. The documents are placed in five sections. In principle, this division corresponds to Miroslav Hroch’s classical scheme (phases A, B, and C of the national movement) (Хрох, 2002: 125).

The first documents are devoted to Lithuanians’ demands to preserve and study their own culture. Among other things, the Belarusian researcher’s attention is drawn to the famous epigraph used by Lithuanians, “The sun will also look into our window” (71), which we had thought was invented by one of the Belarusian revivalists in the nineteenth century.

The second part is devoted to the Lithuanian press and the idea of the Lithuanian nation. It is interesting that here, too, Lithuanians have much in common with Belarusians. For example, “Aušra” began publication only in 1883. Let us recall that the Belarusian “Homan” appeared in 1884. However, while the Lithuanian newspaper had a major influence on the patriotic intelligentsia, the Belarusian journal, published in St. Petersburg, remained little known and became available to researchers only 50 years later.

While the small number of Lithuanian intellectuals worked the national field with enviable activity, Belarusians “fell asleep” for 20 years and “awakened” only at the beginning of the twentieth century. By that time, Lithuanians had already created one of the most successful movements in the Russian Empire. In 1910, Vaclau Lastouski wrote about this as follows: “What two million citizens, inspired by one spirit, can do may be seen at least from the development of the Lithuanian press (newspapers). In all, 43 Lithuanian newspapers are now published: 16 in Russia, 8 in Germany, 2 in England, and 17 in America” (Włast, 1910: 190).

Belarusian texts created in the early twentieth century already show that our national activists closely followed Lithuanians and, to a significant degree, used their achievements for their own purposes. The same Lastouski wrote: “Lithuanians are working sincerely on national ground and, in thirty years, counting from the beginning of the national movement, have done much; we Belarusians can learn much by looking at the work of Lithuanians…” (Włast, 1910: 189). In this regard one may recall “Nasha Dolya,” which was close in content to the Lithuanian “Naujoji Gadynė” (“New Era”). And countless examples could be given of such borrowings, or even of the use of Lithuanian structures for Belarusian purposes.

The anthology allows us to make useful comparisons in this respect. Take, for example, the announcement of the publication of “Vilniaus žinios”: “Having chosen for ourselves… a goal,… the editorial board… does not dedicate the journal to some single part of our society, but wishes that every Lithuanian who strives toward what is bright and seeks to understand the life of his own land and of the world as a whole could find on the journal’s pages a light that is dear and awaited. Therefore we are making our daily paper not for a particular estate, not for any one part, but for the whole of our society” (87).

Let us compare this with the programmatic statement of the editorial board of “Nasha Niva”: “Do not think that we want to serve only the gentry, or only the peasants. We will serve the entire wronged Belarusian people… Know well that “Nasha Niva” is not the newspaper of the editorial board, but of all Belarusians, and of all those who sympathize with them. Everyone has the right to be heard on the pages of our newspaper and to guide it, provided there is understanding. For our part, we will strive so that all Belarusians who do not know who they are understand that they are Belarusians and human beings, so that they learn their rights and help us in our work” (Nasza niwa, 1906: 1).

Parts III and IV are devoted to the beginnings of the formation of Lithuanian national consciousness and to the first Lithuanian political parties. These include the programs of the Lithuanian Democratic Party, the National Party of Lithuanian Democrats, and the Lithuanian Association of Christian Democrats. Unfortunately, there was no place for the program of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, from which the domestic Belarusian Socialist Hramada took an example.

In the final, fifth section, practically all the documents concern an event that demonstrated the significant strength of Lithuanian national activists: the Great Seimas of Vilnius of 1905. About 2,000 people gathered for it, including from counties where Belarusians constituted the majority. The point is that already at the time when “Aušra” was published, there were about 250 Lithuanian activists. Such qualitative and quantitative shifts took place thanks to the extraordinary activity of the intelligentsia, which, despite its small numbers, was able to achieve mass support and mobilize different social strata of Lithuanian society to attain political goals.

The last text included in the anthology is Lithuania’s declaration of independence of 16 February 1918, which may be regarded as the summation of the Lithuanian national revival of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It seems that few people in Belarus know that the publication of this document in the newspaper “Lietuvos aidas” (“Lithuanian Echo”) was carried out by a great supporter of the Belarusian cause, Marcin Kuchta. And that he had to pay for this with imprisonment in a German jail (Pasaulio anykštėnas, 2011: 26).

The publication cannot be criticized on technical grounds. In addition to the compiler’s note, which, among other things, specifies the principles, terminology, and technical details of the edition, there are also useful appendices containing information about persons, geographical objects, and organizations, a map of the places mentioned in the book. There are also name and geographical indexes, which make it easier to navigate the texts, as well as photographs of some Lithuanian activists and publications (Терешкович, 2004: 188).

Obviously, the translators had to do enormous work. Their work was complicated by certain technical issues, including the absence of a national tradition for transliterating Lithuanian names into Belarusian (11). Nevertheless, it seems to us that certain controversial points in translation were not always avoided. Thus, to denote the concept of “cathedral,” the neologism “Kafedra” (sic) is used consistently; at the same time, terms such as “adkolnitstva” (sic) and “raskolnitstva,” “bazhnitsa” and “kastsël,” “probashch” and “nastayatsel” are used, as well as unjustified Polonisms such as “zakrenty” (sic) (50), “mensh-bolsh” (sic), and “plashchyni” (19). In addition, alongside the word “letuvininki,” it would have been worth using the term “Prussian Lithuanians,” which is more understandable to the Belarusian reader.

Overall, the anthology can be called very useful. It seems that ignoring it when becoming acquainted with one of the most enigmatic and paradoxical national movements of Central and Eastern Europe would be an unforgivable mistake. One should also hope that this will not be the institute’s last publication on the history of Lithuania and the national movement in that country.

 

Literature cited in the review

1. Römer. M (1908). Litwa. Studium o odrodzeniu narodu litewskiego. Lwów: Polskie towarzystwo nakładowe.
2. Wasilewski. L (1912). Litwa i Białoruś. Przeszłość-teraźniejszość-tendencje rozwojowe. Kraków: Spółka nakładowa “Książka”
3. Ochmański. J (1965). Litewski ruch narodowo-kulturalny w XIX wieku (do 1890 r). Białystok.
4. Ochmański. J (1990). Historia Litwy. Wroclaw etc.: Ossolineum.
5. Łossowski. P (2001). Litwa. Warszawa: Trio.
6. Aleksandravičius. E., Kulakauskas A (2003). Pod władzą carów. Litwa w XIX wieku. Kraków: Universitas.
7. Rachuba A., Kiaupienė J, Kiaupa Z (2009). Historia Litwy: dwugłos polsko-litewski . Warszawa: DiG.
8. Eidintas A., Bumbauskas A i inni (2013). Historia Litwy Wilno: Eugrimas.
9. Терешкович П (2004). Этническая история Беларуси XIX – начала XX вв.: В контексте Центально-Восточной Европы. Мн: БГУ.
10. Унуковіч Ю (2006). “Літоўцы ва Усходняй Беларусі ў канцы ХІХ — пачатку ХХІ стагоддзя“, Беларускі гістарычны часопіс, № 9.
11. Hroch M (1985). Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe. A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of Patriotic Groups among the Smaller European Nations. Cambridge ‒London et al.: Cambridge University Press.
12. Ластоўскі В (1926). “Беларускія (крыўскія) друкі ў Тыльзіце”, Крывіч, № 1.
13. Туронак. Ю (2006). Мадэрная гісторыя Беларусі. Вільня: Інстытут беларусістыкі.
14. Brensztejn M (1918). Bractwa trzeźwości na Litwie, głównie w djecezji Żmudzkiej 1858-1863. Wilno.
15. Gieczys K (1935). Bractwa trzeźwości w diecezji żmudzkiej w latach 1858-1864/ Dysertacja doktorska. Wilno.
16. Хрох. М (2002). “От национальных движений к полностью сформировавшейся нации: процесс строительства наций в Европе” у Нации и национализм. М: Праксис.
17. Włast (1910). “ІV Litoŭskaja wystaŭka ŭ Wilni”, Naša niwa, № 12.
18. “Paczynajuczy wydawać biełaruskuju hazetu…” (1906), Nasza niwa, № 1.
19. “Iš laiko gelmės – trakiniečiai. Biografijų kronika” (2011), Pasaulio anykštėnas. Pasaulio anykštėnų bendrijos almana-chas kiekvienam, laikančiam save anykštėnu, № 1.