1769 m. įvykiai Šiaulių ekonomijoje: maištas ar sukilimas? Istoriografinių tradicijų sankirtos

LTValstiečių istorijai skirtoje lietuvių istoriografijoje sukilimu laikomas bet kokio tipo pasipriešinimas. Greta 1794 m., 1830–1831 m. ir 1863 m. judėjimų sukilimo terminu įvardijamas ir 1769 m. Šiaulių ekonomijos valstiečių pasipriešinimas, ir 1711 m. Skuodo valstiečių maištas, ir 1750–1760 m. vykę Jurbarko ir kitų Žemaitijos valsčių valstiečių bruzdėjimai. Straipsnyje aptariama valstiečių judėjimų istoriografija, sąvokų „maištas“ ir „sukilimas“ prasmės, aiškinamasi, ar įvardijimas „maištas“ / „sukilimas“ vartotas sinonimiškai, ar įmanu įžvelgti tam tikros pasipriešinimo valdžiai (tironijai) tipologijos taikymą lietuvių istoriografijoje. Remiantis socialiniuose moksluose naudojamomis pasipriešinimo formų klasifikacijomis yra keliamas klausimas dėl sąvokos „sukilimas“ tikslingumo 1769 m. Šiaulių ekonomijos valstiečių pasipriešinimui apibūdinti. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Bruzdėjimas; Istoriografija; Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė (LDK; Grand Duchy of Lithuania; GDL); Maištas; Masinis ginkluotas sukilimas; Pasipriešinimo formos; Sukilimas; Valstiečių bruzdėjimas; Valstiečių istorija; Šiaulių ekonomija; Economy of Šiauliai; Forms of revolt; Historiography; Peasant history; Peasant's revolt; Rebellion; Riot; Riots; The Economy of Šiauliai; The Grand Duchy of Lithuania; Unrest; Uprising.

ENA revolt of any type is considered an uprising in the Lithuanian historiography on peasant history. Apart from the uprisings of 1794, 1830-1831 and 1863, the peasants’ revolt in the Economy of Šiauliai in 1769, the riot of peasants in Skuodas in 1711, as well as the peasants’ revolts in Jurbarkas and other rural districts in Samogitia in 1750–1760, are also referred to by the term of uprising. The article discusses the historiography of peasants’ revolts, the meaning of the concepts "riot" and "uprising"; it discusses whether the terms "riot" / "uprising" were used synonymously or it is possible to identify the application of any typology of revolt against the government (tyranny) in Lithuanian historiography. The discussion on the interpretations of peasants’ revolt in historiography leads to a conclusion that the high number of typologies of peasants’ revolt reflects the variety of methodological approaches applied in the 20th century historiography. When social processes are analysed through the prism of the class struggle in the works of the authors of Marxist historiography, an armed revolt of peasants is considered one of the supreme forms of the class struggle. Influenced by conflict sociologists, the Western European historiography brought forward the concept of economic dissatisfaction of peasants as the key reason behind social conflicts. In the works of the representatives of structural anthropology, any revolt of the masses arising "from below" is considered a riot.The works by the representatives of the theory of comparative historical sociology group peasants’ revolts by intensity, domination of social / political motives; the works by the supporters of conflict theory group them by the object of revolt (landholders, the state, the Church), whereas the works by the representatives of rational choice theory arrange them by the level of organisation of participants in a revolt. The legal sources and political writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania refer to a "riot" as the resistance to the established law, order or government. The public movements of other type used to be defined by this concept as well: upheaval, disorder, conspiracy, rokosz, military alliance, or even confederation. The concepts "uprising", "unrest", "riot", "rebellion" used to refer to the revolt of peasants in the Lithuanian writings of the 19th-20th century had no differences in meaning. The synonymous use of the concepts "riot" and "uprising" shows the attribution of the positive meaning to the concept "riot". Like "uprising", "riot" meant the movement striving for lawful goals targeted against abuse, exploitation or tyranny. The Lithuanian historiography of the middle and the second half of the 20th century addresses the peasants’ revolt in the Economy of Šiauliai in 1769 following the Marxist methodological approach and unanimously considers it the largest peasants’ revolt in the history of Lithuanian peasantry. The term of uprising was applied to refer to this revolt. With regard to the aspect of revolt typology, it should be noted that not a single work containing the analysis of the 1769 uprising tried to compare the events of 1769 with other famous revolts in Lithuanian history, i.e. with the uprisings of 1794, 1830-1830 or 1863.It is very likely that such a road of analysis would have unravelled the gaps of Marxist methodology and shown that the peasants’ revolt under discussion may not be considered an uprising neither by the number of participants, organisation level, nor political-ideological content. The concept of uprising as a fight driven by political goals prevailing in political sciences invites to rethink the typology of peasants’ revolts in the Early Modern Period. The following elements are lacking to refer to the peasant revolt of 1769 as an uprising: political goals; ideology; organisation; mass scale. The peasants of the Economy of Šiauliai revolting against landholders were not linked together by political-ideological motives (aspiration for personal / civil rights); the goal of the revolt was the restoration of the old regime (economic motive). The movement spread in the Economy of Šiauliai did not extend beyond its borders; the peasants of private estates did not join the forces. The revolt of the Economy of Šiauliai was not an integral part of the political-goals-driven Bar Confederation movement. The Bar Confederation was a class-based nobility organisation; therefore, it is far too early to speak about the interaction and joint fight of peasants and nobility in 1769. With reference to the concept of uprising as the fight driven by political goals and taking into account the context of the uprisings of 1794, 1830-1831 and 1863, the peasants’ revolt of 1769 should not be considered an uprising. [From the publication]