The “Old” and “New” Lithuanians: Collective Identity Types in Lithuania at the Turn of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

Rimantas Miknys and Darius Staliūnas

Introduction In recent years, certain terms dating from the early twentieth century have made a quite unexpected return to scholarly discourse, viz. “Old Lithuanian” and “New Lithuanian”. Researchers who have revived these terms seek among other things to criticise the dominant view among historians that the Lithuanian-Polish conflict of the late 19th to the early 20th century was a clash between two modern nationalisms. It is asserted that the above- mentioned terms suit this conflict better, since it was indeed a dispute between two different understandings of what it means to be a Lithuanian―one old and historical, the other new and ethno-linguistic.1 According to Alfredas Bumblauskas:

“…the Old Lithuanians did not understand the aims of the Young Lithuanians to revive the Lithuanian language and solve the social problems of modern society and so they threw in their lot with Poland and rejected the idea of Lithuania…. Perhaps it is not too late to say that the stance taken by the Young Lithuanians was also far from ideal. Rejecting the concerns felt by Old Lithuanians for their Polish language, and adopting a strictly anti-Polish position, they pushed the Old Lithuanians into the arms of the Poles and made them „aliens‟ rather than autochthonous inhabitants of Lithuania, that is, Lithuanian Poles…. The stance taken by Polish nationalists (of the National Democratic Party, or ND) should be regarded as national egoism embroiled in the disputes of Old and New Lithuanians over Vilnius and visions of the future of the Lithuanian and Polish languages, thereby exacerbating the conflict.”2

In our view, however, this is a rather simplistic scheme for describing the conflict. The very distinction between an “old” and “new” version of one or other national identity is encountered quite often in countries of Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. “Old Latvians” vs “Young Latvians,” “Old Czechs” vs “Young Czechs” etc.) but the application of this terminology to the Lithuanian case, especially when describing the situation at the beginning of 36 Rimantas Miknys and Darius Staliūnas the twentieth century, can be misleading. We shall attempt to prove this thesis by discussing types of collective identity which are attributed by the scholarly tradition mentioned above to the “Old Lithuanian type.” We understand these selected models of collective identity as special kinds of ideal types, clearly recognising that there were various intermediate versions of identity, if we may put it that way; moreover, they did not exist as certain unchanging givens but were subject to constant modification. Our discussion takes as its point of departure the thesis formulated by both Polish and Lithuanian historians, according to which the Poles in Historic Lithuania3 were not originally colonisers but were by ethnic origin Lithuanians and Belarusians, who only later became the Polonised gentry and nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.4 The specificity of Polish culture within the GDL in comparison to Polish culture as prevalent within the Kingdom of Poland was noted. Sometimes it was called a Polish subculture, that is, a Polish culture influenced by the local Belarusian and Lithuanian populations. It has been noted that all this was reflected within the mentality of such Poles.5 The renowned Polish historian Juliusz Bardach remarked that “such a situation created various atypical forms of social consciousness among individuals and social groups which are difficult to classify.”6 Furthermore this was not a situation unique to territories within the former GDL. It should be noted that complications in national identification are common in ethno-cultural borderlands.7 Bearing this in mind, we may distinguish two basic types of “Old” Lithuanian identity, namely the Pole in Lithuania (Polak na Litwie) and the Lithuanian Pole (Polak litewski/ litewski Polak). A distinction between these two concepts was stressed as early as the beginning of the twentieth century.8 The concept of “Lithuanian Pole” can be found in public discourse from the very beginning of the century. The terms Polak-Litwin (Pole-Lithuanian) or krajowiec (“native”) are synonymous with this term.9 At the same time it should be said that these terms are suitable as analytical categories to help determine the types of identity of individuals who associated themselves with Polonicity. Here it would be useful to characterise the essential above- mentioned varieties of atypical identities from the period of transition from traditional to modern society, reconstructing the views of such categories as “society”, “nation” and “state” held by persons contributing to public discourse at that time.

The Pole in Lithuania We may start with the case of the Pole in Lithuania. We consider that such Poles are represented by persons associating themselves with the modern ethno-cultural (ethno-linguistic) Polish Nation. Most of them were NDs (Polish National Democrats). An important aspect of their self-identity was the fact that they did not acknowledge the existence of a specific ethnic culture belonging to the Poles in Lithuania (that is, the difference between