Obraz Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w historiografii XIX i XX wieku

ENThe picture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania became of interest to historiography in the middle of the nineteenth century. Three distinct conceptions were created by three groups of historians: Russians, Poles and Lithuanians. The Russians (N. Karamzin, N. Ustryalov) showed the Lithuanian state as stemming from the remnants of the Duchy of Rus, and as such marked by strong Rus influences. The Polish historians (J. Lelewel, J. Jaroszewicz) judged the process of the Lithuanian political expansion to Rus from the reverse perspective. In their opinions the whole process was but an adoption of the Rus culture by the Lithuanian elite. The fact that the tendency was brought to a halt was due to the development of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish cultural influences, which played a vital role in the civilisation advancement of the Grand Duchy. The Lithuanian historians, especially S. Daukantas, objected to such theses. He emphasised the definitely Lithuanian roots and character of the Grand Duchy. He viewed the political union with Poland in a bad light. His opinions influenced the whole Lithuanian historiography ever since and laid the foundations of the ethnocentric tendencies. In the second half of the nineteenth century the official Russian scientific spheres (represented by S. Solovyov, P. Bryantsev, V. Antonovich) developed the Russian historical conception of the growth of the Lithuanian state. On the one hand they stressed the persecution of the Orthodox in the Grand Duchy, and on the other, they showed the Duchy as a political opponent of Moscow in the unification of Rus. The domination of the Rus character of the country over the Lithuanian elements was systematically indicated.The Russian conception of Lithuanian history described the relations with Poland in definitely negative terms. According to the Russians, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was disastrous for Lithuania since it brought about the suppression of the Rus elements. This, in consequence, deprived the Duchy of its power and led to the loss of independence (N. Dashkevich). At the beginning of the twentieth century, when both Poland and Lithuania regained independence, there started a lively discussion of the historians from the two countries on the history of the Grand Duchy. The viewpoints of the participants depended on the contemporary political interests of the two sides, and the extremity of the two approaches mirrored the strained Polish-Lithuanian relations. The Polish historiography of that time (represented by L. Kolankowski, S. Kutrzeba, O. Halecki, H. Paszkiewicz and H. Łowmiański) paid prime attention to the problem of the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was understood as the full unification of the two countries and the incorporation of Lithuania into Poland. Since then Lithuania was considered part of Poland, and so its inhabitants were regarded as Poles. This perspective was accepted by the historiographies of other European countries and remains valid at present (M. Hellmann, N. Davies). The Lithuanian historical school created an opposing, ethnocentric and Lithuanian vision of the Grand Duchy, rejecting the claims concerning the early Rus or Polish influences on the state, and stressing the autonomy of the Duchy under the Commonwealth.The post-war historiography of the Duchy has revealed two main trends. The first trend is towards the convergence of approaches. Modern Russian and Ukrainian historians no longer refer to the Grand Duchy as Rus. Neither do they censure the Polish-Lithuanian links. Polish historians start admitting the autonomy of the Duchy, and Lithuanian researchers reach beyond the constraints of ethnocentrism to estimate the importance of the contributions to the political and cultural development of the country made by nationalities other than Lithuanian. The second trend sustains old stereotypical perspective. This may clearly be observed in the modern Belarusian historiography, where one may find claims about the Belarusian character of the historical Lithuania. Thus it seems that historiography still witnesses some ambiguous vision of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. One may only hope that the tendencies towards closer cooperation and convergent viewpoints will prevail. Only then we will be able to find a common answer to the question of the role of Lithuania in the history of East-Central Europe.