Vilniaus vyskupija 1795–1864 m. : nuo politinės link kultūrinės tautos

LTAiškinama, kaip Vilniaus vyskupijoje reiškėsi senoji politinė lietuvių–lenkų tauta, kaip ją siekta gaivinti sukilimų metu ir kaip greta jos laipsniškai didėjo etnokultūrinių bendruomenių vaidmuo visuomenėje. Reikšmingas jų pažinimo, statistinio įvertinimo tapsmas. Nagrinėjami anuometiniai statistiniai gyventojų tautinės sudėties duomenys, jų kaupimo ir apdorojimo principai. Daugiausia dėmesio skiriama etnosocialinio, etnolingvistinio ir platesnio etnokultūrinio kriterijų taikymui statistikoje, statistikų priklausomybei ne tik nuo objektyvaus pažinimo galimybių, bet ir nuo socialinio-luominio bei politinio angažuotumo. Pabrėžiama, kad tautinės asimiliacijos, dvikalbystės ir trikalbystės bei vadinamųjų tuteišių etninio neapibrėžtumo sąlygomis reikšmingiausias kriterijus buvo vietos pasauliečių inteligentų ir parapijų klebonų suvoktas platus tautos kultūrinis bendrumas. Lentelėse ir pateiktame žemėlapyje parodomas tautinės gyventojų sudėties pažinimo reliatyvumas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Vilniaus vyskupija 1795–1864; Statistika; Politinė tauta; Etnokultūrinė tauta; Etnolingvistinė tapatybė; Vilnius Diocese 1795–1864; Statistics; Political nation; Ethno-cultural nation; Ethno-linguistic identity.

ENRelying on statistical publications, the announcements of parish pastors and historiography, the beginning of the genesis of the contemporary nations in the Catholic diocese of Vilnius and reflections of this process are analyzed. During the clashes between the former Polish-Lithuanian political nation and the ruling Russian nation, the social role of ethnocultural communities increased in the diocese. To enumerate earlier efforts to distinguish ethnoses, the modified principles of class division – the elite classes are called by the old name of the political nation – Poles, and the peasants – by their Lithuanian or Rus (Byelorussian) ethnoses. This division was very useful for Russia’s policies for the depolonization and russification of the region. The Russian scholar P.Keppen separated the Lithuanians only by the principle of the language they used. Most of the official statisticians in part followed him. Linguistic criteria to determine the national proportion of the inhabitants of the Vilnius Diocese were inappropriate for several reasons. Due to national assimilation the constant use of two or three languages was widespread in a large area, so therefore the statisticians held the most prospective – especially Byelorussian to be the main language.Moreover, the very users of the Byelorussian language, not having any clear ethnic identity, were classified as Russians (especially the Orthodox) or Poles (especially Catholics). Under such circumstances the most realistic criterion for distinguishing nationalities was a broader ethnocultural one, encompassing not only linguistics, but also the singularities of native creative works, customs, religion, and ethnic memory. With this principle the local lay intellectuals (M.Baliński, T.Narbutt, A.H.Kirkkor) and the pastors of the Catholic parishes described the national composition of the residents at the junction of the Lithuanian-Slavic (Byelorussian) linguistic area. It is paradoxical that the official Russian statisticians, compiling their statistics, used linguistic criteria, but in the accompanying ethnographic maps marked the Lithuanian-Slavic border in the same manner as the local intellectuals, i.e. relying on broader ethnocultural singularities. The presented nationality distribution of the region’s inhabitants was significant in that it had a direct effect on most of the areas of life in the region: Catholic pastoral expansion, class expression, policies of Russian administration and their implementation. [From the publication]