Rector of the VU R. Petrauskas: GDL’s heritage can help Belarus to be more European

“The more Belarusians in the historical consciousness of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the more European that country will be and the further that country will be from the Russian narrative,” the rector said in an interview with BNS.

R. Petrauskas stated that Lithuanians can support Belarusians not only morally and financially, but at the same time remind them of common history.

The historian is convinced that the inheritance of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, one of the common symbols, Vytis, which is widely seen on the Belarusian national flags during protests, shows that Belarusians want a different state than today, but it is important that Vytis content becomes democratic.

He said the new generation, which is dominating the ongoing protests, will probably still be able to build their identity.

– Protests in Vilnius after the elections. Are these protests related to the identity change of Belarusians?

– In any case, such protests need civil society or we can call it: a political nation, a true civic maturity, of which the historical identity is part and, therefore, it is very important to observe what thoughts, ideas, vectors dominate Belarusian historical identity.

Virtually all of present-day Belarus was part of the GDL for most of its history, and then we were united by a common history within the Russian Empire. It is natural to ask, what role does the Grand Duchy of Lithuania play in Belarusian historical identity? At a time when the Belarusian national identity was still being formed, that is, in the 20th century. beginning – there were such signs that the GDL could become a certain axis of that identity or an important point. However, in the long run, from Belarus in the 20th century. it was not formed as a peculiar state, it became part of the Soviet Union, with that identity, of course, the history of the GDL was completely eliminated during the repression, especially in the 1930s, when the academic and intellectual elite were purged during the Stalinist repression; many historians and other academics were hunted down and killed.

After that, the GDL investigation was carried out, but in very narrow institutions, but the identity did not occupy that larger place. We had to wait for “perestroika” and the first stage of Belarusian statehood, when the GDL returned again; even Vytis had become the official coat of arms of Belarus and then it was natural for the GDL to reappear, that GDL heritage had already been discovered. Also, there is a lot of that heritage in Belarus; It has already happened that, in reality, thanks to the decisions of Joseph Stalin, much of that historical part of Lithuania, especially where there were important residences of rulers and nobles: Krėva, Lida, Ašmena, went to Belarus. They have many castles, beautiful mansions, it is natural and interested in these things.

The history of the GDL was completely erased during the repressions, especially in the 1930s, when the intellectual and academic elite were purged during the Stalinist repressions.

Lithuania is constantly asked: is it not dangerous? Isn’t Belarus stealing part of our history? In fact, looking at this relationship with GDL’s past in Belarus, a wide range of opinions can be seen: radical, nationalistic, perhaps inevitable for a young nation, as expressed by the historian Mykola Jarmalovičius almost every decade ago, when the Medieval Lithuania was treated as a purely Belarusian state and even invisible Lithuanians, perhaps just Samogitians or the like. It must be said that lately we have seen the emergence, I would say, of a much more professional Belarusian historiography, with which we can hope that, nevertheless, we can share that heritage in some way. In any case, we don’t really have to question the right of Belarusians to take an interest in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and treat it as part of their historical identity; they also have that right.

– How do I understand that the historical narratives of the time of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania clearly contribute to the change of identity?

– Yes. During Lukashenko’s rule, his interest in symbols had waned, but now he has even slightly instrumentalized this interest in a direction that is beneficial to him. Look at last year’s projects: a monument to Mindaugas was erected in Novgorod, Algirdas – Vitebsk, we heard about various books and ballets dedicated to Vytautas. Those names that we always usually associate only with Lithuania and Lithuanians, have begun to be treated in Belarus as their own, as part of their historical memory. And here we have that division: if we start talking about it being part of a common past, then everything is fine, but if we are faced with radical interpretations that there are Belarusian rulers here, it doesn’t make sense. But I think that’s a part of the maturing of the mature nation. We also see in the current natural upheaval that this is a nation that is still in the maturing stage. However, the experience of all countries shows that it takes time to overlap these things.

– Regarding that interpretation, what story about the GDL and the common history with Lithuania was created by the Belarusian government?

– It’s very difficult to say here. In any case, the current Belarusian government, in response to the public interest, flirted. I have not specifically researched this topic; I haven’t seen a detailed investigation, but one thing is clear nonetheless.

As for the self-awareness of the history of Belarus, they have two powerful myths: the first and most powerful, which is still the official narrative, is the narrative of World War II, the narrative of the heroic nation, interesting in Soviet times. , and – the emerging and empowering narrative of the GDL. It does not obscure the first one, it just appears next to it and even now, a bit ironically, when you go to another museum of Belarusian history, castle, mansion, you can always find almost two rooms: one is the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the other – the Second World War.

The question is quite fundamental: what would be better? Is it that the Soviet narrative, which is inevitably associated with a Russian interpretation of history, would continue to dominate the historical memory of the Belarusians, or rather that complex image in which that past of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would find its place? In this case, it seems to me that I really don’t see much danger here, I think that the more Belarusians in the historical consciousness there are in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the more European that country will be and that country will be further from the Russian narrative.

We could also help here in some way, not just in terms of support, but also by reminding ourselves that we are connected not just by 679 kilometers from the border, but also by the history of roughly the same year. We can talk from our experience of historical self-awareness, show what myths have changed in us, which have also changed historically, first of all, looking for a proper way to speak of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The GDL was not a nation-state, it was a specific noble nation that could be easily integrated into. That political nation was the Lithuanians, but in it Russians and people of Orthodox faith could easily become Lithuanians in the political sense. They could identify with the same political community, were subordinate to the same ruler, had the same civil and political rights, and called themselves political Lithuanians.

Look at last year’s projects: a monument to Mindaugas was erected in Novgorod, Algirdas – Vitebsk, we heard about various books and ballets dedicated to Vytautas.

Some words could also be used here, as it is a very sensitive subject. Unfortunately, our name ‘Belarus’ is bad, I don’t know how it can be changed, but we should think about why. Look what happens: In Germany, a great movement, it seems to me, the Belarusian-German Historical Society turned to the media a few months ago, proposing to call it something else: they taught me in school all the time, and the Germans repeat “Weissrussland”, now all the media The measures have really moved in Germany, there is Belarus. Not Russia, but Belarus. This is the difference between Russia and Russia, because Russia is a political category associated with the modern Russian state, Russia is a historical category: from ancient Russia various peoples emerge: not only Russians, but also Ukrainians, Belarusians and the like. This is also set in English. We and Belarus are in the imperial paradigm of Russia: in the 19th century an imperial name of Belarus was finally established, trying to call the entire orthodox part of the old GDL, which ethnographically was considered Belarusian and religiously orthodox.

– But we have another name – Gudija, gudai.

– Yes, but it is a bit doubtful, because Konstantinas Sirvydas and other dictionaries show that the original meaning of the Gudians – probably all foreigners were called in Lithuanian. And then “Gudai” was a Ruthenian term that also applied to Ukrainians. I know that historically Belarusians have been called that, but I would not suggest going back to this term – it has various connotations, but keep in mind, for example, that Belarusians also call themselves “Belarus” in their national consciousness – that the suffix “Russian” is very important and this is worth keeping in mind.

The term White Russia appeared as geographical and very different: it appeared in Western scriptures in an attempt to describe a certain part of Russia. There were Black, Red and White Russia, but these were purely geographical names. For the first time politically, for a person to call himself a descendant of White Russia, there is something so strange – the 16th century. At the end of the 19th century, such a Solomon Risinski, writing to the University of Altdorf in Germany, called himself Leucorussus, not even in Latin, but in Greek. The registration has always had a name and information about its origin. The most important thing is that it could be said that at the beginning of the 16th century. At the end of the XIX century, the Belarusian identity matured: a person calls himself Belarusian not only geographically: “Solomon Risinski Belarus”. But the problem is that we no longer know anything about it. If we look at the people enrolling in Vilnius University, around the 18th century. in the end, people emerge who begin to grow up and use this category. This means that around the XVII-XVIII centuries, the Ukrainians, gradually Belarusians, parted ways. Instead of Russians, we can gradually speak of Belarusians.

I return to the name: the tsarist government begins to call it “Belarus”, and in the ethnic and political identity of the Belarusians themselves, it is “Belarus”. Here’s that seemingly unimportant semantic nuance, but behind it lies a really quite significant political problem.

– Going back to the protests, in which young people probably participate to a great extent, a new generation. You mentioned those two historical narratives: WWII and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, do you think maybe that new generation is gradually breaking and overshadowing that Soviet WWII narrative with that Grand Duchy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?

– It is still difficult, but it is possible that this new generation creates its own separate narrative. It is a modern generation that is growing up with the Internet, receiving Western products from primary sources. It is difficult to say who will continue to dominate his historical narrative, but World War II, I believe, is a period that continues to grow over time. This is the generation that was probably only fought by grandparents or great-grandparents. I think it will inevitably decrease.

As with the GDL narrative, it is difficult for me to predict. However, there is also a distant story here: how much will remain relevant to the younger generation? Here in Lithuania we can also ask that question. But I will emphasize that main idea, it seems to me that the symbolism of the GDL, the past, the inheritance is what historically connects us with Belarus and in this sense they are much closer to us than the Latvians. Historically, with the Belarusians, with the territory in which the Belarusians now live, we are, in fact, even longer than with the Poles. In fact, we have a lot in common.

– Has the Lukashenko regime, which has lasted for more than 20 years, affected the identity of Belarusians?

– We can say that he inevitably had it just because it was so long. It is more or less a question of a generation: a whole generation has grown up under his tenure, but I would not relate directly to Mr Lukashenko because there are too many factors at play. No matter what the dictator is, he cannot regulate many things. It is difficult to speak of a single Belarusian narrative. Today’s political nation is highly fragmented, diverse, but it may be that now is the time for something to form and be born before our eyes. This is a very good time to support them morally, financially and ideologically, as much as we can, while reminding us of a common history.

– How has this attitude of A. Lukashenko’s regime changed towards the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during his years of rule?

– I am not an expert on this particular topic, but I observe and see the basics, from the indifferent or even slightly hostile to flirting, as it has been observed to be important to part of society.

– And what is the attitude of Belarusian society towards the inheritance of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Belarusian identity?

– It’s very fragmented. Of course, it is necessary to distinguish academic knowledge, which is one, from the mass. There probably isn’t much of that knowledge in the masses; For the most part, I suppose, the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is not interesting. But I think that in the long run, the improvement of the academic situation, the dialogue between Poles, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians and other historians can help us to create a narrative in which all countries, all nations can discuss the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a common heritage and that approach can take root. and walk into the audience through textbooks, stories, general tours.

Today’s political nation is highly fragmented, diverse, but it may be that now is the time for something to form and be born before our eyes.

– For which groups of Belarusian society is identification with the GDL, a positive attitude towards it most relevant?

– These are the groups that are pro-European, those that are educated, well, and those that have a certain political conscience. Even part of the political elite, even in the bureaucracy, have those who think of Belarus as an independent state. I think that the inheritance of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is very important for the idea of ​​the independence of Belarus.

– What do you think is the influence of these groups in this change of historical identity?

– I think it is very big, because change always comes from the most politically active people.

– Is that critical mass already there?

– This is a political issue. Let’s see, it will soon become clear. This must be the success of the society as a whole, and I very much wish that victory to the Belarusian society.

– At the beginning you mentioned the possible risk to that common heritage, the attitude towards the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Perhaps you could detail what risks Lithuania poses due to this possible heritage acquisition?

– I don’t see any major risks. What can they take? Simultaneously it was explained that they would return, demand rights to Vilnius and the like. In fact, there is such fear in a part of Lithuanian society that Belarusians are willing to take away the Lithuanian heritage, but I, even seeing and knowing well some interpretations in part of Belarusian society, do not see any greater long-term danger . On the contrary, I would like Belarusian society to be more interested in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

– Speaking about the Lithuanian past and society, do Lithuanians have a good knowledge of Belarus and Belarusian identity? Do you recognize the common history?

– Today has shown that, although we are, in fact, close neighbors, a deeper understanding is still lacking. Although you would probably agree that we have a better understanding of the situation compared to Western Europe. And here you probably have to agree that not everything is used, although there are joint projects.

– Maybe it’s because of bilateral relations?

– It must also be admitted that Lithuanian society sometimes looks at Belarusians from a high point of view.

– Is that probably related to that general story?

– Probably with that too.

– I will return to the protests, we see the Belarusian national flags on them, Vytis is on them. Is it worth scaring Lithuanians?

– No, like I said, Vytis is a symbol. Belarusians are trying to show through this symbol that they want a different Belarus. What is the content of Vytis? Every effort should be made to make its content democratic, not nationalistic, etc. We can share that Vytis.

Admittedly, Lithuanian society sometimes looks at Belarusians from a high point of view.

– Do you think that the attitude of the people involved in the protests towards Vytis can be democratic?

– It’s hard to deal with it now, but I think I really can. Knowing the Belarusian society, there are strong and important groups there, so it is very important that we support them. In this case, we need that good analysis, a lot of understanding, a good knowledge of those groups in society that need to be strengthened, to seek dialogue with them, to be supported in this political process.

– In terms of common ground, the common history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, do Belarusian historians tell enough about that little brotherhood with Lithuania?

– Here is the same as with us. Maybe only now we have a little better. In order for academic historians and the results of their research to be more widely known to the public, greater efforts are needed to popularize these studies. At the academic level, Belarusian historiography has grown enormously during these decades. As his research and conclusions move from academic level to mythologized historical self-awareness, I find it difficult to say, I suppose not enough. This is the path that Belarusian society must follow.

– How reliable are those studies?

– Historiography is like any science, it is not a national science. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania has a very broad field of international research. The last good books on the early history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were written by the British, for example. A German wrote a synthesis of the history after the Union of Lublin. An American wrote one of the best books on the city of Vilnius in the 17th century. This shows how wide the field of research is. If you want to be recognized in it, you have to write and debate properly; here there can be no languages. In this sense, it is gratifying that at first there were very few Belarusian historians in this academic field, but they are increasing in number. I believe that we will certainly find common ground with our Belarusian colleagues.

– It is customary that we call the Latvian brothers, Estonians, maybe a little Polish, and can we call the Belarusians like that?

– I think so. There was a brotherhood with Latvians and Estonians: first of all, a common destiny in occupation and liberation, the Via Baltica is an obvious symbol of brotherhood. With the Poles, the union of Lithuania and Poland is in itself a natural connection. The identity is changing: if 10 years ago no one celebrated the Lublin Union, a year ago that anniversary was completely well received. I would say that the Belarusians are even closer and that history is very long; we have had a common past since the time of Mindaugas, so I have no reason not to use this metaphor here.

– Thanks for the conversation.