ArchivesPolish, Russian, Lithuanian? Or maybe White Ruthenian?
Researching Belarusian history I was amazed at how many contradictory issues surround this country’s past. And while we can strongly assert that each single nation went through historical, political, cultural transformations Belarus stands out among them.
Among most burning was (still is) an issue whether Belarusian were more of a Polish, Russian or Baltic stock. It is not surprising since Belarus has “enjoyed” a status of the buffer zone between various powers and political interests. We went trough processes of Russificaton, Polonization and Sovietization and each single of them left its mark on us.
Not long ago, one Pole argued with me that Belarusians are…Poles. Another gentleman insisted that Belarusians are somewhat like Russians who speak funny dialect and so on and forth. Various reasons and facts were presented to support theories based on their modern-day perspectives.
It is fine, but what about opinions that existed in the past on this issue? Attempting to find the answer I stumbled upon two pieces written in 1918 and 1914.
On January 18, 1918, The New York Times published an article “Lithuania Declares its Independence. Not Only Russian Territory but Part of Prussia Including Koenigsberg Claimed for New State in Eastern Europe”. The article informs readers that Lithuania declared its Independence and presents historical information about the country. And while the main topic might not necessarily evolve around the issue of White Russia and its national background, I found some interesting moments that concern my topic.
In one instance, the newspaper mentions:
“From the tenth to the sixteenth century the Lithuanian principality extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. In that territory were White Russians and Ukrainians or Little Russians. White Russians are mostly of Lithuanian stock, Russianized in earlier centuries. Whoever goes from Lithuania to White Russia soon notices that the same types, customs and festivities exist there. The language of White Russia is 25 per cent, Lithuanian, and the attitude of the people toward the Lithuanians is very friendly.”
(Dark shaded areas represent territory desired by Lithuanians for their new State. Note that it includes present day Belarusian town Grodno)
More developed thoughts on this subject can be found in an article that appeared in “Folklore” on March 31, 1914. The article is titled “White Ruthenian Folk Songs” and it split into two parts: “Notes on the people”(that is White Ruthenians) and analysis of local folk.
It starts out with passage:
“White Ruthenia covers approximately the south and east of Lithuania, which was originally inhabited by peoples of the Sarmatian stock, who were divided into two branches, Lithuanian and Slavonian. The former included the Lithuanian proper, Letts, Old Prussian, and Yarzwings (now extinct); the latter the Bohemians, Ukrainians, Poles, White Ruthenians, and many others.”
And while the passage is pretty typical “historic-like” introduction the following sentence adds a bit of “character”.
“The White Ruthenians of the present day contain, no doubt, some polish and Lithuanian blood, as well as blood from other surrounding races…. The White Ruthenians occupy the present governments of Vitepsk, West Polock, Minsk, Mohylev, Grodno, and Vilno….where they are energetically carrying out a nationalist revival, in order to differentiate themselves from Poles and Lithuanians on the one hand, and from Russians on the other, — a policy which no doubt the Russian government has encouraged.”
And in an original copy, the first sentence contains a reference on the bottom of the page:
“Sometimes called Byelorusses or White Russians, but incorrectly, since no White Ruthenian would ever alow himself to be called by a name which would imply that he was Russian.”
The authors (H. Iwanowska and H.Onslow) continue by saying about the White Ruthenian language:
“The language is Slavonic and totally unlike Lithuanian, (which is more closely allied to Sanskrit than any other European language), and, though unlike Polish, resembles it more than it does Russian.”
April 9th, 2006 at 11:15 am
It was not Lithaunia that shown on your map. It was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, that was orgianlly inhabitated and governed by Litvins, who were nobody esle but belarusians. All goverment documents of that time is in old belarusian language…
April 9th, 2006 at 11:48 am
This was a map that came with the newspaper article.
April 9th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
yeah, I understand…problem is that they are mixing Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Lithuania
here is a good article about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_Grand_Duchy
April 9th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Hello Islander,
I’ll be damned but the hell knows where I’d been. It seems like my first visit to this web page! A very interesting read and nice prospects you offer!
Hello from North Carolina to, well, whoever you are. Are you in the states?
Great blogging! Keep it up!
As for the subject matter, if we had to abandon the name “Belarus,” I’d campaign for Lithuania-rooted variants. Maybe Great-Lithuanians
April 10th, 2006 at 3:35 am
“All goverment documents of that time is in old belarusian language…”
Yes. But, more precisely, ethnically Lithuanian elites who initially governed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ruthenized and began to speak Old Belarussian.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Hi there!
By the way, Endrus, you got a very nice blog! I think it would be a good idea to exchange links to broaden media-front against Luka:)
We are from New York. “We” are the few khlopcau from Minsk
Let me know
Best Regards
Islander
April 10th, 2006 at 10:46 am
> Not long ago, one Pole argued with me that Belarusians
> are…Poles.
I’m not going to justify him but I think I can explain why he insisted on that. Perhaps this will help you forgive him
.
Polish people grow up on reading Polish 19.-century romantic poetry at school, and their views on history (I mean ordinary people who are not particularly interested in history) are strongly influenced by the ideas of the literature of that time. But, as they understand it rather superficially, they have a big problem in seeing the difference between how the term ‘nation’ was used 200 years ago (or earlier) and now.
In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (the federation of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) the word ‘nation’ had a very broad meaning: in meant ‘the citizens of the Commonwealth’. In this sense one could say that his nationality is Polish, being at the same time e.g. ethnically Ruthenian: “gente Ruthenus, natione Polonus”. Such meaning of the word ‘Polish’ was used in the 19.-century literature. Of course, all this have very little to do with the nowadays’ meaning of the term ‘Polish nation’.
And that’s why Polish high school students sometimes get confused and ask: “So, who was Mickiewicz?? Polish, Lithuanian, or Belarussian?”. Because he was born in Belarus, wrote poems in Polish, and his most famous poem begins with: “Lithuania, my homeland!”.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Thanks for info! Indeed, the whole thing is confusing…Now, I am reading two books about Belarus, one written by Vakar and another Yan Zaprudnik, and both of authors have pretty contradictory opinions on the described above issue…
April 12th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
interesting input, Anuszka, indeed this whole story about who is who is a bit confusing.
Yet I, personally, believe Mickiewicz was a kind of ‘citizen of the Europe’(if not world)
April 13th, 2006 at 5:46 am
> Mickiewicz was a kind of ‘citizen of the Europe’
> (if not world)
AFAIK, Mickiewicz never left Europe.
April 13th, 2006 at 8:25 am
well, you don’t have to leave Europe to be citizen of the world…I guess it’s more like state of mind… anyway, I guess you’re right
April 14th, 2006 at 8:19 am
Islander, I have another book for you, by a Russian author. It mostly concentrated on the orthodox religion and Russians, but it’s still a good read since it shows how different nationalities were created, moved, and died in that region.
For example, I never knew that Russians actually don’t exist anymore, at least according to this book. Slavs who lived in that region inherited the name from the dying nationality.
April 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Way to go Skorik!!! Long time no see, where have you been?