Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:55:42.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Russification and the Lithuanians, 1863–1905

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Theodore R. Weeks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the half-century after the Polish insurrection of 1863, the Russian government applied many restrictive measures to Lithuanian culture, including the prohibition against printing Lithuanian except in Cyrillic letters. Some have argued that St. Petersburg aimed to wipe out the culture and language of Lithuanians in this period. A close look at the archival sources shows, however, that the Russian authorities were very little concerned with the Lithuanians per se and far more worried about Polish influences in the region. In the end, the Russian government saw Lithuanians only as a pawn in the “age-old struggle” between Poles and Russians. The failure of official Russians to take Lithuanian nationalism seriously meant that the Russian empire was quite unprepared to deal with this popular movement in the early twentieth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , Spring 2001 , pp. 96 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The research and writing for this paper were supported by a short-term research grant from the East European Studies program of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and by a grant from the International Research and Exchanges Board, with funds provided by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the United States Department of State, which administers the Title VIII Program. None of these organizations is responsible for the views expressed here.

1. On national minorities and Russification in the late Russian empire, there are a number of interesting recent works. See, for example: Kappeler, Andreas, Rufiland als Vielvolkerreich: Entstehung, Geschichte, Zerfall (Munich, 1992)Google Scholar; Thaden, Edward C., ed., Russification in the Baltic Provinces and Finland, 1855–1914 (Princeton, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brower, Daniel R. and Lazzerini, Edward J., eds., Russia's Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917 (Bloomington, 1997)Google Scholar; and, from a comparative perspective, Barkey, Karen and von Hagen, Mark, eds., After Empire: Multiethnic Societies and Nation-Building (Boulder, Colo., 1997)Google Scholar. On the situation in the western borderlands, see the quite different perspectives of Rodkiewicz, Witold, Russian Nationality Policy in the Western Provinces of the Empire (1863–1905) (Lublin, 1998)Google Scholar; and Weeks, Theodore R., Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the Western Frontier, 1863–1914 (DeKalb, 111., 1996.Google Scholar

2. In general I will use the Russian forms of city names in this paper (e.g., “Kovno” instead of Kowno or Kaunas, “Vil'na” instead of Wilno or Vilnius). This does not, of course, imply any recognition of Russian national claims here—Russians made up a tiny minority in this region—but reflects, rather, the fact that this paper concentrates on official mentalities and usage.

3. Gorizontov, L. E., Paradoksy imperskoi politiki: Poliaki v Rossii i Russkie v Pol'she (Moscow, 1999).Google Scholar

4. Chimiak, Lukasz, “Kariery tzw. Baltow w rosyjskiej administracji Krolestwa Polskiego w drugiej potowie XIX w.,” Przeglad Historyczny 88, no. 3–4 (1997): 441–58Google Scholar; Whelan, Heide W., Adapting to Modernity: Family, Caste and Capitalism among the Baltic German Nobility (Cologne, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. See, for example, Jersild, Austin, “Rethinking Russia from Zardob: Hasan Melikov Zardavi and the ‘Native’ Intelligentsia,” Nationalities Papers 27, no. 3 (1999): 503–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Khalid, Adeeb, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley, 1998)Google Scholar; Knight, Nathaniel, “Grigor'ev in Orenburg, 1851-1862: Russian Orientalism in the Service of Empire?” Slavic Review 59, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 74–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Barrett, Thomas M., At the Edge of Empire: The Terek Cossacks and the North Caucasus Eronlier, 1700–1860 (Boulder, Colo.,“l999).Google Scholar

6. On such definitional difficulties, see John W. Slocum, “Who, and When, Were the Inorodtsy ? The Evolution of the Category of ‘Aliens’ in Imperial Russia,” Russian Review 57, no. 2 (April 1998): 173–90; and Theodore R. Weeks, “Defining Us and Them: Poles and Russians in the ‘Western Provinces,’ 1863–1914,” Slavic Review 53, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 26–41.

7. The issue of nationality as a central element of the Soviet experience has engendered a huge and growing historiography. See, for example, Slezkine, Yuri, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,” Slavic Review 53, no. 2 (Summer 1994): 414–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Paula A. Michaels, “Medical Propaganda and Cultural Revolution in Soviet Kazakhstan, 1928–41,” Douglas Northrop, “Languages of Loyalty: Gender, Politics, and Party Supervision in Uzbekistan, 1927–41,” Francine Hirsch, “Toward an Empire of Nations: Border-Making and the Formation of Soviet National Identities,” and Slezkine, Yuri, “Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Socialism,” all in Russian Review 59, no. 2 (April 2000): 159–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. See, for example, the essays collected in Aksakov, I. S., Pol'skii vopros i zapadno-russkoe delo. Evreiskii vopros, 1860–1886 (Moscow, 1886).Google Scholar

9. I. Aksakov, “O znachenii katolitsizma v Zapadnom krae,” in Pol'skii vopros i zapadnorusskoe delo, 425. The article was originally published in the journal Moskva on 24 January 1867.

10. This was admitted by official sources when discussing either Catholicism or the “Polish question.” See, for example, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv (RGIA), f. 1284, op. 190, 1913, d. 399 (“Zapiski po pol'skomu voprosu“); or RGIA, f. 1276, op. 1, 1905, d. 106 (“Delo po voprosu ob otmene ogranichenii v pravakh pol'skogo naseleniia v zapadnykh guberniiakh“), esp. 11. 3–6.

11. On this episode, see Weeks, Theodore R., “Between Religion and Nationality: Attempts to Introduce Russian in the Catholic Churches of the ‘Northwest Provinces’ after 1863,” in Stegner, Tadeusz, ed., Między Odrą i Dnieprem: Wyznania i narody, vol. 2 (Gdańsk, 1999).Google Scholar

12. See, for example, RGIA, f. 821, op. 128, 1912, d. 697 (“Obopoliachenii belorussov i o merakh k vozrozhdeniiu v belorusskom naselenii natsional'nogo russkogo samosoznaniia“); and RGIA, f. 821, op. 150, 1912, d. 167 (“Delo [sekretnoe] o merakh bor'by s pol'skim vliianiem na belorusskoe naselenie“).

13. For very detailed statistics from the 1897 census, see Troinitskii, N. A., ed., Pervaia vseobshchaia perepis’ naseleniia Rossiiskoi Imperii, 89 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1899–1904)Google Scholar. For our purposes the most important volumes are vol. 4, Vilenskaia guberniia, and vol. 27, Kovenskaia guberniia. According to the 1897 census, 68.3 percent of the population of Kovno province was Lithuanian (with 13.8 percent Jewish, 9.0 percent Polish, and 7.3 percent Russian); Lithuanians made up 17.6 percent of Vil'na province. See Obshchii svodpo Imperii rezul'tatov razrabotki dannykh Pervoi Vseobshchei perepisi naseleniia, proizvedennoi 28 ianvaria 1897 g. (St. Petersburg, 1905), 2:65. For a discussion of statistics on native language and religion in Vil'na, Kovno, and Grodno provinces, see A. B. [Aleksandr Beletskii?], “Veroispovedanie i rodnoi iazyk korennogo naseleniia Vilenskoi, Kovenskoi i Grodnenskoigubernii, po dannym perepisi 1897 goda,” in Vilenskii kalendar’ na 1906 god (Vil'na, 1905), 29–36.

14. I base this observation on twenty annual reports (gubernatorskie otchety) from Kovno, 1863–1894. The Russian government continued to distinguish between “Lithuanians“ (litovtsy) and “Samogitians” (zhmud’) even in the 1897 census. This distinction corresponds roughly to dialects spoken in eastern and west-central Lithuania. Another group of Lithuanians in the Russian empire resided in Suvalki (Suwalki) province of the Kingdom of Poland.

15. In this context it should be pointed out that even in provinces where Poles dominated, Russian officials generally stressed the “loyal” and “conservative” nature of the peasantry, contrasting these qualities with the predominantly traitorous elements (both Polish and Jewish) of the working, middle, and even upper classes.

16. “Sostavlennyi v Ministerstve Vnutrennikh Del ocherk obshchago khoda del v zapadnom krae s nachala 1861 goda po konets 1862 goda,” in Beletskii, A, ed., Sbornik dokumentov muzeia Grafa M. N. Murav'eva (Vil'na, 1906), 1:14–15, 19.Google Scholar

17. RGIA, f. 1263, op. 4, d. 46,11. 20–22.

18. Ibid., 11. 23–25. On Valancčius/Wolonczewski, see H. Raczkowski, “Życiorys ś. p. Biskupa Żmujdzkiego Macieja Wolonczewskiego,” Przegląd Katolicki, 1875, no. 35–36:545–49, 561–64; and Alekna, Antanas, Żemaičių, vyskupas Motiejus Valančius (Klaipeda, 1922).Google Scholar

19. RGIA, f. 1284, op. 69, 1871, d. 133, esp. 11. 23–24. The official interpretation of Bishop Valančius as pro-Polish is particularly interesting given his sincere commitment to extending the use of Lithuanian within local Catholic churches. See, for example, Aleksandravičius, Egidijus and Kulakauskas, Antanas, Carų valdšioje. Lietuva XIX amšiuje (Vilnius, 1996), esp. 163–80Google Scholar: “Valančiaus epocha: Lietuvybes kelias j Bažyčią ir Bažnyčios posūkis j lietuvybę” and “J. Stakauskas ir V Birziska apie Motieju Valanciu ir jo lietuviskuma,” in Lietuviu atgimimo istorijos studijos, vol. 7', Atgimimas ir Katalikų Bažnyčia (Vilnius, 1994), 341–07 (this discussion of Valančius's “Lithuanianness” was originally published in the late 1930s).

20. RGIA, f. 1263, op. 1, 1874, d. 3723 (Vil'na governor-general's annual report for 1871–1873), 11. 29–31, 36–5.

21. RGIA, f. 1284, op. 223, 1886, d. 186, 11. 3ob.–4. (This is the Vil'na governorgeneral's report for the period 14January 1884 to 1 August 1886.)

22. Ibid., 1. 69ob.

23. RGIA, f. 1284, op. 223, 1884, d. 170 (annual report for Kovno province for 1883), 1. 19.

24. RGIA, Chital'nyi zal, op. 1, d. 43 (annual report for Kovno province for 1890).

25. RGIA, f. 1282, op. 3, 1900, d. 355,1. 3 (Vil'na governor-general's report for 1900).

26. Statistics on the ethnicity of Catholic priests in the Russian empire are sketchy, but by the early twentieth century, it seems clear that a significant number of these priests were of Lithuanian origin, even in non-Lithuanian provinces like Kiev and Podolia. See, for example, RGIA, f. 821, op. 150, 1910, d. 144 (“Vedomosti o natsional'nom sostave katolikov-prikhozhan i katolicheskogo dukhovenstva po guberniiam Vilenskoi, Vitebskoi, Grodnenskoi, Minskoi, Kievskoi, Volynskoi i Podolskoi“). In any case, the category “educated Lithuanian” hardly existed before the end of the nineteenth century: by receiving a seminary education, one ipso facto became a Pole. At least many contemporaries perceived the situation in this fashion.

27. RGIA, f. 1263, op. 2, st. 253–332, d. 5385, 11. 588–608 (governor-general's otchet for 1898).

28. M. N. Murav'ev, “Zapiska 1831 goda ob uchrezhdenii prilichnago grazhdanskago upravleniia v guberniiakh ot Pol'shi vozvrashchennykh i unichtozhenii nachal, naibolee sluzhivshikh k otchuzhdeniiu onykh ot Rossii” in “Chetyre politicheskiia zapiski grata Mikhaila Nikolaevicha Murav'eva Vilenskago,” Russkii arkhiv (June 1885): 180.

29. In fact, even in the 1880s (and beyond) one finds correspondence regarding the need to keep Catholics out of government positions in the northwest. See, for example, RG1A, f. 1282, op. 2, 1884, d. 364A (“O zamene sostoiashchikh na sluzhbe v Severo-Zapadnom krae lits katolicheskago veroispovedaniia russkimi chinovnikami“).

30. “Predstavlenie popechitelia Vilenskago uchebnago okruga kniazia Shirinskago- Shakhmatova Ministru Narodnago Prosveshcheniia, grafu E. V. Putiatinu, o sostoianii i nuzhdakh Vilenskago uchebnago okruga,” in Beletskii, ed., Sbornik dokumentov muzeia Grafa M. N. Murav'eva, 144 (emphasis in the original).

31. Ibid., 146.

32. Murav'ev, M. N., “Zapiskao nekotorykh voprosakh po ustroistvu Severo-Zapadnogo kraia,” in Sheremetev, S. D., ed., Iz bumag Grafa M. N. Murav'eva (St. Petersburg, 1898), 37 and 42.Google Scholar

33. RGIA, f. 1263, op. 4, d. 46, 11. 50ob., 76. (This report covered the period 1868- 1870 and was dated 13 April 1871.)

34. RGIA, f. 1263, op. 1, d. 3723, 11. 73–75. (This report covered the years 1871–873.)

35. RGIA, f. 1282, op. 3, 1900, d. 355 (Vil'na governor-general's report for 1899), 1. 9.

36. RGIA, f. 1284, op. 69, 1877, d. 178 (Kovno governors report for 1876), 1. Sob.

37. Hroch, Miroslav, Social Conditions of National Revival in Europe (Cambridge, Eng., 1985), esp. chap. 12Google Scholar: “A National Movement of the Belated Type: The Lithuanian Example.“ Hroch bases these pages in large part on Michal Rômer, Litwa: Sludyum o odrodzeniu narodu litewskiego (Lwów, 1908). For more contemporary accounts, see Basanavicius, Jonas et al., O języku polskim xv kościolach Litxoy [also published in Lithuanian as: Apie lenkų. kalbą Lietuvos bažnyčiose] (Kaunas, 1906)Google Scholar; Balcewicz, E., Stosunki kościelne na Litxuie: Listy otxuarte księdza do księzy (Munich, 1905)Google Scholar; and Korwin-Milewski, Hippolyt, Observations sur k conflit des languespolonaise et lithuanienne dans fe diocese de Wilna (Paris, 1913).Google Scholar

38. Kornilov, I., “O Pol'skom iazyke v kostelakh Zapadnoi Rossii,” Vxidachi russkogo prosveshcheniia v ego proshlom i nastoiashchem: Sbornik statei (St. Petersburg, 1902), 333 Google Scholar. The essay was originally published in no. 44 (1896) of the journal Olgoloski. Kornilov served many years in the Vil'na educational district.

39. RGIA, f. 821, op. 2, 1897, d. 73 (“Litovskoe dvizhenie v prikhodakh s pol'skolitovskim naseleniem“), 11. 10–11.

40. Ibid., 11. 15–17.

41. Ibid., 11. 22–23. Sipiagin's letter is dated 12 December 1899.

42. Ibid., 11. 24–28.

43. On the Polish-Lithuanian conflict see, for example, RGIA, f. 821, op. 128, 1911, d. 36 (“Litovskoe dvizhenie v prikhodakh s pol'sko-litovskim naseleniem“); RGIA, f. 821, op. 128, 1912, d. 701 (“O stolknovenii poliakov s litovtsami v Ianishskom prikhode“); RGIA, f. 821, op. 150, “posle 1911,” d. 154 (“Zhaloby litovtsev na deiatel'nost'katolicheskoe dukhovenstvo“); and Lietuvos centrinis valsybinis istorijos archyvas, Vilnius (LVIA), f. 378, BS 1910, b. 78 (“O perekanii litovskago i pol'skago naseleniia Ianishskago r.-k.-prikhoda Vilenskoi gubernii po povodu iazyka propovedei i dopolnitel'nago bogosluzheniia“).

44. RGIA, f. 1284, op. 190, d. 84B (“Obshche-politicheskie voprosy v otnoshenii 9-ti zapadnykh gubernii“), 11. 13ob.–14.

45. Ibid., 11. 38ob.–39.

46. A. Gil'ferding, “Litva i Zhmud',” Sobranie sochinenii (St. Petersburg, 1868), 2:363–83. The article is dated St. Petersburg, December 1863.

47. A. Milovidov, “Deiatel'nost’ M. N. Murav'eva po narodnemu prosveshcheniiu v Severo-Zapadnom krae (1863–1865 gg),” Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosveshcheniia (July 1905): 91–92. On this period, see also LV1A, f. 378, BS 1865, b. 1775 (“O vospreshchenii pechataniia zhmudskikh i latinskikh [sic] knig Latino-pol'skimi bukvami“).

48. The literature on this period in Lithuanian history is very rich, though unfortunately very little of the historical studies have been translated from the Lithuanian. See, for example, W. Rodkiewicz, “Lithuanian Language Policy,” Russian Nationality Policy, 172–92; Tyla, A., ed., Lietuvių spaudos draudimo irpanaikinimo byla (Vilnius, 1973)Google Scholar; and Vytautas Merkys, Nelegalioji lietuviu spauda kapitalizmo laikotarpiu (ligi 1904 m.). Politinesjos susikūrimo aplinkybes (Vilnius, 1978). For contemporary Lithuanian accounts, see Anon. [G. Visendorfas], Dokumentas apie lotynišskas litaras lietuviškoje literaturoje. (Tilsit, 1899); and Basanavičius, Jonas, Spaudos 1864 metų uždraudima jojo pasekme irreikšme (Vilnius, 1924).Google Scholar

49. RGIA, Chital'nyi zal, op. 1, d. 43 (annual report for Kovno province for 1893), 11.4–5.

50. RGIA, f. 1282, op. 3, d. 376 (annual report for Kovno province for 1899), 11. 21–24.

51. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF), f. 215, op. 1, 1897, d. 93 (“O Litovskom dvizhenii i o primerenii russkoi azbuki v htovskikh uchebnikakh“), 11. 26–28,31–33,36–37.

52. RGIA, f. 1282, op. 3, 1900, d. 355 (Vil'na governor-general's report for 1899), 1.45.

53. For discussions of this matter in 1898–1899, see RGIA, f. 1282, op. 2, 1898, d. 1974 (“O zapreshchenii latinskogo i wedenii russkogo shrifta pri pechatanii izdanii na litovskom iazyke“). Mirskii called the restriction on Lithuanian printing a grave mistake based on a false understanding of history. RGIA, f. 1284, op. 190, d. 84B, 11. 35-39.

54. The law was dated 24 April 1904 (old style).

55. The development of Lithuanian nationalism in the decades around the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century deserves its own monograph. Meanwhile, see Motieka, Egidijus, “The Great Assembly of Vilnius, 1905,” and Darius Staliunas, “Ethnopolitical Tendencies in Lithuania during the Period 1905-1907 and the Conceptions of the Revival of the University of Vilnius” in Lithuanian Historical Studies (Vilnius), vol. 1 (1996): 84–115 Google Scholar; the various volumes of Lietuviu atgimimo istorijos studijos published in Vilnius since 1990; Ochmariski, Jerzy, Litexvski ruch narodowo-kulturalny w XlXwieku (Bialystok, 1965)Google Scholar; and Lossowski, Piotr, Po teji tamtej stronie Niemna: Stosunki polsko-litewskie 1883–1939 (Warsaw, 1985)Google Scholar.

56. Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, Eng., 1983)Google Scholar; Anderson, Benedict, Imagined Communities, rev. ed. (London, 1991)Google Scholar.