Образ Наполеона в модерній литовській історіографії

ENSo far, there are no specific studies in Lithuanian historiography to evaluate the impact of the French Emperor Napoleon on the history of Lithuania. The article aims to analyse the dynamics of Napoleon’s cursory assessments in Lithuanian historiography of the 20th century. First of all, we consider how Napoleon was remembered by eyewitnesses of the French commander’s stay in Vilna. We argue that the memoirs of contemporaries reveal Napoleon’s personal perception and give him the status of liberator of the region since there was a clear understanding that the future of Lithuania depended on the decisions of this figure. Lithuanian historiography of studies in this short (barely five-month) period is small. The book of Bronius Dundulis “Napoléon et la Lituanie en 1812”, published in Paris in 1940, can be recognised as one of the most significant studies of the historiographical tradition formed during the first half of the 20th century. The book is the result of a doctoral dissertation that a young researcher carried out at the Sorbonne in 1933–1940. The dissertation was supervised by the famous French historian George Lefebvre’s (1874–1959), a specialist in the French Revolution. Thus, in the Lithuanian historiography of the time, Napoleon was seen as a potential liberator of Lithuania, who could not implement his plans due to the unsuccessful war with Russia. Such an assessment experienced a significant transformation in Soviet Lithuania due to the ideologizing and introduction of the only true historical doctrine. Historians were tasked with writing the history of the Lithuanian working people, not the history of the state. In Lithuanian Soviet historiography, the authors tried not to touch the image of Napoleon the Liberator, replacing it with the image of Napoleon – the occupier and aggressor. This assessment of Napoleon was formed in the general works “History of the Lithuanian SSR”.In 1941, B. Dundulis returned to Lithuania and continued his research during the Soviet period. However, B. Dundulis failed to return to Napoleonic issues, as the new Lithuanian historiography leaders considered this topic futile. Nevertheless, the book Napoléon et la Lituanie en 1812 aroused the interest of Soviet historians: the monograph was positively assessed by a well-known expert from the Napoleonic era Eugene Tarle, who suggested translating the book into Russian, but advised to revise the text according to Marxist methodology and emphasise Lithuania’s opposition to Napoleon’s policy. B. Dundulis published several articles and a book “Lietuva Napoleono aggressijos metais 1807–1812” (“Lithuania during the Napoleonic aggression 1807–1812”). The history of the appearance of the word “aggression” in the book’s title is intriguing as B. Dundulis claimed; this was an idea of the publishing house management. Undoubtedly, the historian was obliged to follow the assessment of the Napoleonic Wars that Vladimir Lenin offered, but it should be noted that the consideration of these issues through the prism of class struggle was rather superficial. A short section entitled “Napoleon and the Lithuanians” in Vincas Trumpas’s book “Napoleonas, Baltija, Amerika” (“Napoleon, Baltic, America”) is devoted to the image of Napoleon. The historian focuses on reflections on Napoleon’s cautious policy of rebuilding the Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth. To summarise, it can be argued that the Lithuanian historiographical tradition is characterized by a specific assessment of the image of Napoleon and a distinct dynamic. The most significant influence was made by the radical political changes that took place in Lithuania. [From the publication]