XVIII amžiaus Apšvieta Vidurio Rytų Europos mažųjų tautų nacionalinėse istorijose

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Vidurio Rytų Europa; Tautiniai naratyvai; Nacionalinės istorijos; Tarpdisciplininiai tyrimai; Central Eastern Europe; National Narratives; National Histories; Interdisciplinary Researches.

ENFollowing the terminology of Hroch, in the national narratives of the “small nations” which have the historical continuity over a thousand years, the Enlightenment is one of the shortest periods. During this particular period, the political history of Lithuania and, partly, Belarus, has a leading role in the national narrative as the events of the second half of the 18th century determined the fate of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The administrative reforms, centralizations and law unification processes of the historical state are understood in different ways. In Czech Republic, centralization is presented as a long process determined by historical consequences, which decreased the independence of culturally and ethnically distinct elite of Bohemia. Centralization, seen as a natural consequence of reforms, is compared with other state reforms which had positive influence on the development of the civil consciousness of the nucleus of the Czech ethnos. Meanwhile in Lithuanian and some Belarusian historiographies, centralization processes are predominantly seen as forced by the Kingdom of Poland. When discussing the reforms of the second half of the 18th century, the Slovak historians focus on the social changes which could explain the later consolidation processes of the Slovak ethnos evident in the 19th century. The national narrative of Ukraine treats any changes in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of the second half of the 18th century as either threatening to the development of the Ukrainian ethnos or as insignificant. The term of modernization to describe the processes of the second half of the 18th century is widely used by the Czech and Slovak historians. In Lithuania and Belarus, the reforms of the second half of the 18th century are often seen as inadequate, overdue, unimplemented or stopped by foreign forces.The visions of the national past are still influenced by the geopolitical traumas of the 20th century and the heritage of the soviet times, which promoted the nourishment of the ethnic culture and rejected confessional dependency. The social visions of the national revival of the 19th century should also be mentioned as they programmed not only the future events but also the attitude towards the past. Despite the changes of the recent decades and identification with historical state, the national historiography of the Central Eastern Europe is challenged by the four factors which are difficult to overcome. Specifically, historical territory, cultural environment (most often associated with confessional dependency), social environment and national language. Nations which do not associate their identities with the historical state of the 18th century also meet with the same problems. History is almost axiomatically presented through the vision of center – periphery confrontation; the later events are incorporated into the general narrative, whereas some events are even advanced. Attempts of historians to secure the identity of the 20th century by transferring it two hundred years ago most often lead to the confrontation with the historical environment. [From the publication]