SUMMARY

V.O. Vasylenko. “Political history of the Great Lithuanian Princedom (before 1569) in East Slavonic Historiographies of the 19^th - first third of the 20^th centuries”.

in the monograph the author researches process of study of political history of the Great Lithuanian Princedom (hereinafter referred to as “the GLP”), the time of its independent existence in Belarussian, Russian and Ukrainian Historiographies of the 19^th - first third of the 20^th centuries. These researches resulted in the following con­clusions.

The large part played by Lithuanian-Rus’ State in the past of Belarus’, Ukraine and Russia stimulated for significant attention to its history by East Slavonic re­searchers. As far back as over the period of the 18^til - early 19^th centuries works of V.Tatischev, M.Scherbatov, N.Karamzin founded study of this set of issues, though that time history of the GLP has not became a subject of special studies yet. Suffi­cient rise of interest to the GLP phenomenon is observed after Polish rebel of 1830- 1831. At that time Russian government and the society felt the need for “incorpora­tion” of the past of the “Western Russia”. J-Senkovskij and N-Ustrialov proposed a theory under which the GLP was represented as a “Rus’” state, so its history is a part of “Rus’” (i. e. East Slavonic) history. (It is paradoxical, but many theses which grounded “Rus’” character of the GLP were naturalized from Polish historiographic tradition. Besides, we have expressed arguments of the fact that some authors (Ustria- !ov, for example) were not quite sure in “Rus’” nature of the GLP, protected by them. However, this position met with opposition by other researchers headed by S.Solo- viev.

Yet in 1840^th - 1850^th interest in Iithuanistic studies in Russian Empire consi­derably fell.

Polish rebel of 1863 having caused severer aggravation of political relations than the previous one, also favored stronger and longer splash of attention to the his­tory of the GLP. Thus Polish “calls” were one of the key reason of approach of East Slavonic historians to this subject for a long time. These “calls” were rather in poli­tics and ideology than in academic space. So, it is not strange that non-scientific fac­tors had a significant influence on the researches of that time that resulted in mainly publicistic nature of the works by NLKojalovich, LBeliajev and others (to a lesser ex­tant it is related to K.Bestuzhev-Riumin). The tendencies firstly started by Ustrialov in 1830^th yet became stronger in 1860^lh: artificial ideolizing OfLithuanian vs Rus’ re­lations, hyperbolizing of Rus’ and Orthodox influence in the GI₄P (up to non-division OfLithuania and Rus’) before 1385 and later ethnic and confession antagonism, stru­ggle of “national and religious parties”, as well as exaggeration of pro-Moscow sym­pathies of Lithuanian Rus’ inhabitation. Lithuanian-Rus’ (as well as Moscow) gove­rnment was characterized by step by step intention to unite Rus’ lands. The lessening of the role ofethnic Lithuaniaiis in “Western Rus’ State” was the opposite side of this action. Prior 1860^th it was often the case of borrowing of views of Polish historians in East Slavonic Iithuanistic science, but now stable declension from them occurs.

At the same time we notice transference of Kyiv University into the center of Iithuanistic studies in Russian Empire. “Picture of history of the Great Lithuanian Pri­ncedom before the middle of the 15^th century” by V-Antonovych without exaggera­tion became an epochal event.

The specified works laved a foundation for the highest rise over all the history of Iithuanistic science (1880^th - 1900^th). At that time two more centers appeared in Moscow (M.Liubavskij, V.Picheta) and a bit later in L’viv (M.Hrushevs’kyj, B.Bar- vins’kyj). It the studies of that time we notice significant influence of positive direc­tion. Over 1880^th - 1890^th a great attention was paid, for example, to the research of history of struggle of the GLP for Halychyna and Volyn’ (works of LFilevich and others). From 1890^th the progress in studies of Lithuanian vs Polish Unions in Polish Historiography greatly effected East Slavonic Iithuanistic science. In general at this time we can notice a definite closing in the views of East Slavonic and Polish histori­ans. It caused by both achievements in definite historical researches and their step by step deideolizing, refusal from many stereotypes (mainly, mention above). However, it is related only to a part of special works and almost left untouched popular works. Long opposition in the historiography of two traditions concerning voluntary entra­nce of Rus’ lands to the GLP and their conquest finished at last by the victory of the first (in the Soviet times situation changed for the opposite).

At the same time attention rises to the social and economic history and history of the law of the GLP (that is hardly observed in Polish researchers). So, starting from the beginning of 1900^th we notice distinct fall of interest to political history, therewith widely researched are government and institutions of the GLP, role and po­sitions of various social groups in political actions. It is precisely these spheres where leading positions of the following East Slavonic researchers F.Leontovych, M. Vladi­mirskij-Budanov, S.Bershads’kyj, M.Jasyns’kyj, M-Liubavskij, M.Hrushevs’kyj, M-Dovnar-Zapol³Skij, LLappo, M-Maksymejko, J.Malyuovs’kyj, A.Presniakov, V.Pi­cheta were mostly obvious.

At the boundary of the 19^th - 20^th centuries an issue of the place of the GLP in “Rus’” history is arisen again. Accumulation of knowledge and transfer to more ade­quate imagination of this state made obvious the fact that differences between South- West and North-East Rus’ can not be explained by Polish influence only. As a conse­quence, a part of Russian historians was ready to reject the concept of Senkovskij - Ustrialov and historical heritance of the GLP; Hrushevs’kyj, from his part, also stated the necessity of it

Starting from 1910^th, we notice step by step but steady reduction of intensity of Iithuanistic studies caused by death of one authors and deviation from this subject the of other ones. We notice beginning of crisis of East Slavonic Iithuanistic sciences, re­sulted in transfer of the leading place in this field to Polish Historiography. The pe­riod of 20^th and beginning of 30^lb of the 20^lh century turned out to bring few fruits too. Neglect of political history in the Soviet Historical Science of that time told upon; and in Belarussian Historiography, where the greatest attention was given to history of the GLP, the problem was weakness of staff potential. Belarussian researchers were mostly restricted by defense of their concept of the GLP (as “Lithuanian-Bela­russian State”) similar to the way passed by their Russian predecessors.in 1830^lh and 1860^th. It is indicative that Belarussian Historiography “adapted” many thesis from the arsenal OfRussian historians of the 19^th century to its own needs.

Starting from the beginning of 1930^lh noticeable deviation of historical science of the USSR from Marx methodology, marked in the pattern of “vulgar sociologism”; is significantly gave the way to the concepts inherited (and modified to some extent) from traditional Russian Historiography.

Thus, establishment and achievement of the best successes (so far) of East Sla­vonic Iithuanistic science were noticed in the researched historiographic time (the J9^lh - the first third of the 20^lh centuries). Within this key stage representative source base of researches was formed, that made possible reconstruction of the main layer of his­torical facts. The most studied in East Slavonic Historiographies are ethnic and con­fession relations inside the GLP and also history of relations of this state with Mos­cow and evolution OfLithuanian vs Polish union relations. Specific feature of the so­urces caused inclination of many researchers to a priori generalization; so far a num­ber of problems are solved hypothetically or hardly may be solved (for example, in relation of existence of “Lithuanian-Rus’ Feudalism” or historical and judicial quali­fication OfLithuanian vs Polish agreements of 1385-1569). However, in this case the key variants of solution of the disputable issues have already been suggested during the period under view.

“Opening” of the history of the GLP by Russian historians has unexpected con­sequences. Its researches gave an initial impulse (from the middle of the 19^lh century) for emancipation OfBelarussian Historiography from Russian one and (in a lesser ex­tent) assisted completion of division of the latter with Ukrainian one. It is natural that establishment of these two national historiographies resulted in their claims to the hi­storical inheritance of the GLP. Step by step in each East Slavonic historiographic traditions “a consolidated” vision of the place of the GLP in its history was formed. For Belarussian historians it was “their” state, an integral part of the past of their na­tion. The most representatives OfUkrainian Historiography, vise versa, interpreted Lithuanian Time as a period that was without their statehood. Difference of opinion was mostly seen in the midst of Russian historians.

A side result of historiographic researches made by the author became a range of conclusions related to political history of the GLP of the second half of the 14^lh century. Lack of reason of the statement related to the struggle for the power between Algirdas and Kestutis, around 1350, and “pro-Moscow” lines of Kestutis in foreign policy are proved. Attribution of plans of direct subordination of the princedoms of Central and East Great Russia to the Lithuanian-Rus’ government is unfounded. Gol­den Horde khans’ tags issued to the Lithuanian great princes authorized them only for South Rus’ (mostly Ukrainian) lands, rather than supreme power in the GLP. Towns Khorvach and Rodnia proved to belong to Smolensk in 1368 rather than Tver. The author suggests clarifications related to biography of Andrij Olgerdovich (he had no contacts with Moscow when his father was alive; in 1380 he was not a prince in Pskov; in 1386 he came back to Polotsk with the assistance of Livonian knights). The similar is related to the set of problems related to Kulikovo Fight of 1380 (unreason­able consents of subordination of Kyiv and Siverian lands to Moscow just before the Fight; legendary are notices about participation of significant community from Rus’ lands of the GLP and from Pskov; the reason of Jogaila’s failure to Fight was not his coming late but the fact that Mamaj with his troops did not arrive as agreed to the prior specified place of unification). There is no reason to hyperbolized negative con­sequences of the Fight for position of the GLP; so, notification of territorial claims by Dmitrij Ivanovich moscovian to Jogaila is an idea of M.Stryjkovski. Existing presen­tations related to the Lithuanian vs Moscow agreements, mentioned in description of archives of the Embassy Prikaz of 1626, needs correction (credential of Jogaila, Skir- gaila and Kaributas as well as Andrij Olgerdovich, are only unapproved draft agree­ments with Moscow; preliminary agreement of Uliana Alexandiovna with Dmitrij Ivanovich could not appear in 1384, but only between November 1381 and June 1382 when supreme power in the GLP was seized by Kςstutis). Evident exaggeration is a statement about “catastrophisity” of the status of the Lithuanian-Rus’ State and per­sonally Jogaila before Krevo Union of 1385.