Division of the GDL Heritage and the Concept of the „Litva / Letuva” Distinction

Santrauka

The article is aimed at applying the paradigmatic conception of the development of historiography (J. Rüsen), which operates with the components of pragmatism, historicism and overcoming historicism, to the development of the historiography of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Theories of historical consciousness and historical culture developed by the representatives of the German school of social history, which correlate with the conceptions of the „master narratives” and „places of memory”, and provide the basis for multi-perspective methodology and the narratives determined by it, are attributed to the latter component.
The process, which can be referred to as a movement from ethno-centrist national paradigms of historiography towards liberal and multi-perspective paradigms, is taking place in all historiographies of the region of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL). The most representative examples are as follows: Edvardas Gudavičius’ conception of Europeanisation and spontaneous Polonisation of the GDL in the historiography of Lithuania; J. Bardach‘s conception of subjectivity of the GDL in Polish historiography, H. Wisner‘s conception of „two Lithuanian nations” and other „anti-imperialistic” tendencies of historiography, which go back to the geopolitical and geocultural conceptions of J. Giedroyc; A. Filiushkin’s project of overcoming the GDL division in the historiography of Russia; the dialogic attitude of V. Nasevich and others in the historiography of Belarus.
From the point of view of the starting positions the most radical change is taking place in the historiography of Lithuania because, unlike the historiography of Russia, Poland and even that of Belarus, whose national narrative formed on the basis of historical methodology, the „Baltophilic” paradigm, that is, the pre-scientific paradigm of pragmatism, remains the essential component in this narrative in Lithuania. The situation of the historiography of Belarus is the most complicated one from the point of view of the possibility for change. On the one hand, it is only now that the process is going through the „national” paradigm formation stage, and on the other hand, it still features a strong prevalence of the Moscow-centric paradigm of communist origin. This can account for the radicalism of the national Belarusian narrative, which brought to life the „Litva / Letuva” distinction.
However, it is impossible to explain the „Litva / Letuva” distinction by means of nationalism alone. It is necessary to further elucidate the links of this distinction with the political events of 1990–1991, which are related to the territorial claims (for Vilnius and Klaipeda) lodged by the USSR to Lithuania which was seeking independence and eventually declared independence. Also, it is necessary to see this distinction within the context of the geopolitical and strategic goals and tactics of Lithuania’s neighbour to the east, which is known from the realities of 1920–1926. On the other hand, it is necessary to elucidate the links with the political conflict between Poland and Lithuania over Vilnius in 1920–1922, and on the whole, with the conflicts between the mo-dern nations that appeared in the GDL region, as well as the links with Russia’s de-polonisation and administrative policy of the 19th century.