Received: 12 July 2019 Revised: 10 March 2020 Accepted: 20 April 2020

DOI: 10.1111/nana.12656

ARTICLE

The role of Latvian nationalism in the

transformation of Lithuanian nationalism during
the long 19th century

Saulius Pivoras

Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy,

Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas,
Lithuania
Correspondence
Saulius Pivoras, Faculty of Political Science
and Diplomacy, Vytautas Magnus University,
Kaunas, Lithuania.
Email: saulius.pivoras@vdu.lt
Abstract
This article examines the role of Latvian ethnic nationalism
in the transformation of Lithuanian nationalism from a civic
to ethnic form during the long 19th century. In particular,
the present article aims to clarify the differences between
the Lithuanian and Latvian models of national identity in
the initial phases of their national movements and to ana-
lyse how the Latvian example influenced Lithuanian nation-
alism. The Latvian model of nationalism, which spread to
the Lithuanian context through communication among
prominent intellectuals of the national movements at the
end of the 19th and early 20th centuries, contributed to the
central positioning of an ethnolinguistic identity within the
Lithuanian national movement. This article provides com-
pelling evidence that it is relatively easy to transition from
civic to ethnic nationalism over a longer time period when
the main dimensions of national identity have undergone
radical change.

KEYWORDS

civic nationalism, ethnic nationalism, Latvian nationalism,

Lithuanian nationalism

1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N

Ernest Gellner has persuasively argued that emerging modern industrial societies needed nationalism as an effective
instrument to overcome the cultural heterogeneity of self-sustaining traditional communities (Gellner, 2006: 38–41).

© 2020 Association for the Study of Ethnicity and Nationalism and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2020

Nations and Nationalism. 2020;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nana 1

2 PIVORAS

The industrial revolution was indeed an important precondition for the formation of modern European nations. How-
ever, scholarly literature cannot fully explain the development of a national consciousness referring only to structural
changes in economy and society. As an ideological movement that relies on a specific form of national identity,
nationalism works to foster or even create such an identity. Ethnic and civic forms of nationalism are two main types
which can be distinguished through the distinction between the civic “state-to-nation” and the ethnic “nation-to-
state” routes of attaining nationhood (Smith, 1986:134–138). Contrast between civic and ethnic national identity is
also typical in Nationalism Studies. Following Anthony D. Smith, civic national identity can be described as having
certain principal dimensions: (1) a concept of the homeland as a historical-political territory, (2) the idea of a commu-
nity of laws and institutions with a single political vision and (3) a sense of common civic culture and ideology.
According to Smith, the main dimensions of ethnic national identity are (1) the idea of a loosely territorially bound
ethnic community, (2) a concept of common ancestry and (3) emphasis on language and ethnic culture (Smith, 1991:
8–12). For a definition of national identity to have universal application, its main attributes should not vary in com-
paring nation-states to nations without states. Thus, national citizenship, common mass public culture and a common
economy, originally included in Smith's definition, must not be counted as necessary attributes of national identity
(Guibernau, 2004, pp. 133–134).
According to Smith, the analysis of cultural patterns over the longue durée is an important topic in Nationalism
Studies (Smith, 2010: 61). In such analysis questions arise surrounding the types of national identity, namely, how
can forms of national identity change from one type to another and how easy or difficult is it to change the main
dimensions of national identity over a long period of time? One can effectively illustrate the process of transforming
national consciousness over an extended period by analysing the Latvian influence on Lithuanian nationalism. That
influence is especially interesting as the Lithuanians and Latvians are ethnically closely related, and their languages
belong to the same family of the Baltic languages.
This article contends that Lithuanian nationalism underwent a transformation from civic to ethnic nationalism dur-
ing the 19th century, through the influence of various external and internal factors. In the focus of analysis are impor-
tant issues in this transformation, including changes in the main dimensions of national identity, and the example of the
Latvian national movement. Specifically, concepts of homeland, understandings of national territory, political and civic
attachments, political aspirations, attitudes to the vernacular language and ethnic culture are analysed. These concepts,
understandings and attitudes correspond to the previously outlined main dimensions of national identity.
Close analysis allows for Lithuanian national consciousness in the first half of the 19th century to be defined as
civic nationalism, while Latvian national consciousness can be defined as ethnic nationalism. From the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, Lithuanian nationalism underwent significant transformation. The main factors of this transfor-
mation are outlined here, including an assessment of how the Latvian example influenced Lithuanian nationalism
through communications among Lithuanian and Latvian national intelligentsias. This case study indicates that it is rel-
atively easy to change from a civic national identity to an ethnic national identity over a long time period.

2 | T H E TR A N S F O R M A T I O N OF L I T H U A NI A N N A T I O N A L I D E N T I T Y F R O M
HISTORICAL-TERRITORIAL TO ETHNOLINGUISTIC

The development of Lithuanian national consciousness went through two quite different periods of evolution. The
first began at the end of the 18th century and lasted until the 1863–1864 uprising against Russia in Poland and Lith-
uania. After the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by the end of the 18th century, the territories of
the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania became part of the Russian Empire. At the beginning of the 19th century, the
Samogitian-Lithuanian movement emerged, so-called because most of its leaders came from Žemaitija [Samogitia] in
western Lithuania. The movement was concerned with promoting the Lithuanian language, education and culture in
general. Nonetheless, its activists highlighted the historical-political traditions associated with previous examples of
Lithuanian statehood and referred to the traditions of the former multinational Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The
PIVORAS 3

unifying basis of their understanding was a historically and territorially defined homeland with diverse cultural tradi-
tions. As such, civic attachments and territorial patriotism were the dominant elements in this form of national iden-
tity. An example is a propaganda document distributed during the uprising of 1863–1864 in Poland-Lithuania known
as the Lithuanian Catechism with the following description of a Lithuanian: “a Lithuanian is one who believes in free-
dom and complies with [Lithuanian] laws.” (Aleksandravičius & Kulakauskas, 1996: 24).
The main activists of the Samogitian-Lithuanian movement such as Dionizas Poška, Kajetonas Nezabitauskis,
Kiprijonas Nezabitauskis, Liudvikas Adomas Jucevičius and Mikalojus Akelaitis linked the development of the Lithua-
nian language and culture with the necessity to preserve and uphold close political ties with Poland. They saw Lithu-
anian civic culture as inherited from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; political unity with Poland was
considered a precondition for retaining that heritage (Vanagas, 1994: 63–64; Pivoras, 2001, p. 190;
Aleksandravičius, 2015: 252–256).
Prominent figures of the Samogitian-Lithuanian cultural movement mostly belonged to the gentry and were
bilingual. They put their efforts into developing literature in Lithuanian, but also admired Polish literature created in
Lithuania, and considered authors of such literature, such as Adam Mickiewicz, to be their countrymen, that is, as
Lithuanians in a civic-territorial sense. When dedicating his poetry in Lithuanian to Mickiewicz, Kiprijonas
Nezabitauskis called him “a great kinsman” (Jurkiewicz, 2005, p. 90).
In the first half of the 19th century, Lithuania became the dominant concept in Lithuanian intellectuals' discourse
of homeland, referring to a territorial unit with certain historical-political traditions and covering the substantial part
of the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Farmers' almanacs published by Laurynas Ivinskis in Lithuanian
(the most significant type of periodical in Lithuanian in the Russian Empire at that time) in the mid-19th century pro-
vided chronological tables of the most significant historical events dating from the earliest times to the present day.
Those chronologies limited Lithuania's boundaries to the territory of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania
(Medišauskienė, 2015, p. 126). It is no coincidence that from 1840 Tsarist Russia, which had begun implementing a
Russification policy, stopped referring to Vilnius and Grodno as Lithuanian governorates and demanded they be sim-
ply called the governorates of Vilnius and Grodno (Aleksandravičius & Kulakauskas, 1996: 21–23). The idea of an
ethnic territory called Lithuania existed, but this usually referred to the territory of highland Lithuania, separated
from Samogitia (Vėbra, 1992: 48). These territorial concepts did not include the Prussian Lithuanians or Lithuania
Minor, a historical ethnographic region of Prussia (East Prussia). Nonetheless, in the mid-19th century, popular litera-
ture in Lithuanian made efforts to describe Lithuanian lands on the basis of historical, ethnocultural and ethno-
linguistic criteria. However, these attempts remained very rudimentary (Medišauskienė, 2015, pp. 118–120). Thus, in
the first half of the 19th century, the political imagination of the Lithuanian national movement unambiguously asso-
ciated itself with the restoration of the political autonomy of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
The Samogitian-Lithuanian movement ended with the suppression of the 1863–1864 Polish-Lithuanian uprising
and the subsequent policy of repression by Tsarist Russian authorities. A press ban was introduced in 1864 and
lasted until 1904, through which the Russian government forbade all Lithuanian language publications printed in the
Latin alphabet, only permitting use of the Russian alphabet (Cyrillic script).
In the 1880s, about 20 years after the uprising, a new Lithuanian intelligentsia of peasant origins arose. Most
were from Užnemunė [Trans-Nemunas Lithuania] region, and with them, a Lithuanian national movement re-
emerged. A noticeable shift occurred in the attitudes of the Lithuanian intelligentsia regarding the mother tongue as
a major factor in constructing a vision of the Lithuanian nation (Valantiejus, 2002, p. 323). In the periodicals of the
Lithuanian national movement—Auszra [Dawn] and Varpas [Bell], published in the last decades of the 19th century—
elements of Lithuanian identity were primarily based on ethnolinguistic criteria. Historical-political elements were
still considered part of that identity, but these became secondary. Jonas Basanavičius, the founder of the newspaper
Auszra and the leader of the Lithuanian national movement, viewed the Lithuanian nation as primarily consisting of
Lithuanian-speakers (Merkys, 2003, p. 64).
The unambiguous idea of Lithuania as a common space of Lithuanian-speakers began to emerge from the pages
of the Auszra and Varpas newspapers, published in Prussia because of the Lithuanian press ban in the Russian
4 PIVORAS

Empire. It was not easy to establish the idea of a single Lithuania due to the differing administrative-territorial and
political realities of the Russian and German Empires. Other variations, for example, “Russian Lithuania” and “Prus-
sian Lithuania”, also existed. These multiple representations of Lithuania were commonly understood as Lithuanian-
speaking ethnic territories in the Russian and German Empires. Foreign authors who visited the area, such as Danish
author Åge Meyer Benedictsen (Benedictsen, 1997), also employed the concept of a divided Lithuanian nation
belonging to two empires.
Auszra featured a special correspondence section, which included reports from Kaunas, Telšiai, Naumiestis, Tilžė
or Klaipėda under the heading “From Lithuania”, where Lithuania was understood as an ethnic Lithuanian territory
and the official Russian and German names of political-administrative units were ignored. In the first issues of Varpas,
a similar correspondence section was also published under the heading “From Lithuania”, but the heading “From
Russian Lithuania” was also present (Varpas, 1890). After 1893, Varpas had a regular correspondence
section entitled “From Prussian Lithuania” (Vėbra, 1992: 167). The term "Polish Lithuania" also emerged. In the mid-
dle of the 19th century, Užnemunė [Trans-Nemunas Lithuania] was frequently called “Polish Lithuania”
(Medišauskienė, 2015, p. 98) as it had become a part of the Kingdom of Poland in 1807, established by Napoleon. Its
development in the 19th century differed from that of other Lithuanian lands as, after the fall of Napoleon, that part
of Poland that included Užnemunė [Trans-Nemunas Lithuania] became a separate part of the Russian Empire in terms
of official administrative territorial divisions.
Members of the Auszra-Varpas movement began to consider these three different territories: “Russian Lithua-
nia”, “Prussian Lithuania” and “Polish Lithuania”, each bordering the other to form a single national space with one
main unifying attribute—its inhabitants spoke Lithuanian. At the beginning of the 20th century, it also provided a ter-
ritorial basis for a projected political autonomy, although the tactics and means for creating this political autonomy
differed significantly.

3 | T H E D E V E L O P M E N T O F LA T V I A N N A T I O N A L I D E N T I T Y I N T H E 1 9 T H
C EN T U R Y

At the end of the 18th century, the majority of Latvians lived in the Baltic governorates of the Russian Empire. In the
first half of the 19th century, Latvian national consciousness had no clear territorial definition of its national space,
although local or administrative-territorial patriotism was typical. The Latvian inhabitants of Kurzeme, Vidzeme and
Latgale connected with their lands by understanding them as a form of historical and administrative territory
described through the term “Baltic” (understood as the Baltic provinces or governorates of the Russian Empire). In
1859, Krišjanis Barons, who later became famous for his work collecting Latvian folklore (songs) published the book-
let Description of our Homeland. The “homeland” in this booklet refers to the Baltic governorates of the Russian
Empire: 12 pages are dedicated to the province of Courland (Governorate of Courland), 8 pages to Livonia
(Governorate of Livland) and 3 to Estonia (Governorate of Estland). A map of the Baltic provinces was also included
(Barons, 1859). Thus, even though Barons is known as “the pioneer of Latvian national geography”, his homeland in
the 1860s was not unequivocally Latvian. In the song that later became the Latvian national anthem, performed for
the first time at the first Latvian Song Festival in 1873, “God Bless the Baltic” was sung rather than “God Bless Lat-
via” (Tomass, 1940: 40), with the latter change occurring several years later and retained in the current Latvian
national anthem. In the first half of the 19th century, there were no defined geographical boundaries, and no clear
concept or word for a territory inhabited by Latvians.
The first newspaper in the Latvian language, Latviešu Avīzes [Latvian Newspaper] tried to promote a Latvian word
for Latvian territory, Latva (Briedis, 1993, p. 182). In 1857, Juris Alunans suggested using the terms Latva or Latava.


Only in 1862 did Latvian newspaper Peterburgas Avīzes [Saint Petersburg Newspaper] begin using the term Latvija
(contemporary name of Latvia in Latvian) when referring to the territories in the Baltic provinces of the Russian
Empire inhabited by Latvians (Apals, 2000, p. 438). Notably, in the 19th century, the territory of Latgale was often
PIVORAS 5

not included in the concept of Latvia. Moreover, territorial identification in Latvian national consciousness remained
unclear for a significant period of time.
The name “Latvia” sometimes denoted various ethnocultural-territorial realities, for example, “Baltic Latvia”
and “Vitebsk Latvia” (Brīvzemnieks, 1991: 93). The Latvians of Latgale were also called “Vitebsk Latvians” by the

newspaper Peterburgas Avīzes (Apals, 2000, p. 439). However, in conceptualisations of the Latvian nation, empha-
sis was on Latvians as an ethnocultural entity as a whole, encompassing all Latvians, but without any clear territo-
rial boundaries. Latvian ethnographer and folklorist Fricis Brīvzemnieks used the term Latyshiya (in Russian) in this
sense when presenting Latvian folklore at the Ethnography Department of the Geographical Society of
St. Petersburg. According to him, other Latvian activists, including the founders of the Riga Latvian Society,
expressed their dissatisfaction because they believed that a name less familiar to the Russian public, Latviya
(in Russian) should be used (Brīvzemnieks, 1991: 98). The Latvian name Latvija thus could denote all Latvian peo-
ple in an ethnological, rather than territorial sense.
 esis
The national epic poem Lačpl  [Bear-Slayer], written by Andrejs Pumpurs and published in 1888 rarely speaks
of “Latvia”, while the regional name “Baltic” appears notably more often (Pumpurs, 1998). Pumpurs treats “Latvia” in
a rather generic sense. When the poem refers to “the Baltic land”, it speaks of the river Daugava, the only other geo-
graphical marker besides the Baltic sea. While the rarely employed term “Latvian land” designates the territories
inhabited by Latvians, the term “Latvian people” (latviešu tauta, latvieši) is the key term used in the poem. Likely
because of this nonterritorial ethnic identity, Pumpurs emerged as a member of the Latvian national movement with
interest in the possibilities of establishing Latvian colonies in regions with favourable conditions for land acquisition
and farm development, without the obstacles that existed in the Baltic provinces. In his memoirs of his time in the
Balkans as a Russian army volunteer, Pumpurs describes how he asked the Serbian Minister of the Interior whether
it would be possible for Latvian immigrants, who were known across Russia as good farmers, to settle in the coun-
try's uninhabited areas (Pumpurs, 1896: 59). Pumpurs was not alone. Many other Young Latvians (a Latvian national
movement) commented positively on the possibility of emigrating from their ethnic homeland, as many Latvian peas-
ants were forced to consider other options to acquire land under the circumstances, when the land ownership in the
Baltic provinces was limited to the Baltic German landlords (Apals, 2011a).
In the 1870s–1880s, Latvian fictional literature did form a more specific image of the territory of Latvia, usually
by naming its geophysical features, that is, rivers (Briedis, 1993, p. 184). As such, Latvia remained an ambiguous con-
cept until the end of the 19th century. In the 1880s, Atis Kronvalds, the leader of the Young Latvian movement and
the leading theorist of Latvian national unity, understood Latvia as a land that comprised all territories inhabited by
the Latvians and Lithuanians, as he viewed Lithuanians as a branch of Latvians (Apals, 2000, p. 467).
A map of Latvia, including Latgale among other Latvian territories, appeared only in 1889 (L
ams, 2017, p. 39).
Understanding these territories as Latvia relied on applying an ethnolinguistic principle, as outside of language, there
was no other common factor. Latgale was distinct from the other territories in terms of its Catholic religion, as most
Latvians were Lutheran.
From the viewpoint of its neighbouring states and international public opinion, Latvia did not exist until the
establishment of an independent Latvian state in 1918. Baltic German writer Viktor von Andrejanoff, who
sympathised with the Young Latvian movement, was probably the first to purposefully introduce Latvia as the name
of the country to foreigners. In 1895, he published a series of articles in the German press entitled “Images of Latvia”,
which he began with, “From Latvia? Where is this unknown island perhaps surprised readers will ask? Indeed, Latvia
is not spoken of in geography lessons, and in life, not many have heard of it” (Pivoras, 2000: 89). Even in 1918, the
Swedish press wrote of the Russian government's recognition of the separation of “Livonia”, not “Latvia”, from Russia
on the basis of the right to self-determination (Svenska Dagbladet 1918).
Thus, the initial absence of the concept of a national territory with clear geographical boundaries fostered the
development of Latvian national identity as an essentially ethnolinguistic–ethnocultural identity. In this case, lan-
guage, customs and other elements of an ethnic culture emerged as critical components of identity, rather than a
political-administrative status, or a clear historical definition of a national territory. Political aspirations could have
6 PIVORAS

been formed on this basis, but an ethnolinguistic identity did not permit the possibility of invoking the historical
rights of a nation.
 Viesis [House Guest], declared the
The first newspaper associated with the Latvian national movement, Majas
Latvian language as an essential feature of the nation. In 1858, Juris Alunans wrote:

The difference between a human and an animal is language. A human self-reflects, thinks, and inter-
acts with other people through language. Language builds cities and states, courts, schools, and laws.
Language is God's gift that no one can take away. One who speaks the same language we see as a
beloved brother of the nation [...] we know that a nation that respects its language is not dead.
(Goba, 1929a: 71)


In 1862, the newspaper Peterburgas Avīzes stated that “the only, but very serious thing we ask is: to allow each
nation to nurture their own language, and thus take care of themselves; then all other goodness will follow”
(Apals, 2011b). In the 1880s, at the peak of the Young Latvian movement, Latvian intelligentsia launched Latvian
song festivals with the aim of developing education through the Latvian language. The Young Latvian newspaper,

Baltijas Vestnesis [Baltic Journal], published in Riga, noted that:

If one wants Latvians not to perish, one has to make sure that the schools do not turn away from the
chosen path and that Latvian schools teach Latvians as Latvians, and in their own language. Therefore,
let everyone, who at least somehow cares about our schools strive to completely remove the German
language from our parish schools, so that they teach not in German but in the Latvian language.
(Blanks, 1921: 30)

The Latvian national movement did not develop political aspirations until the beginning of the 20th century. Indeed,
the first Latvian intellectuals, as well as many members of the Latvian national movement, were loyal to the Tsarist
Russian government. In 1831, the Latvian teacher and poet Andrejs Bergmanis published an open letter to Latvian
recruits in the Tsar's army: “Dear brothers! Your motherland is calling you. Peace in your homeland is waiting for your
help. You will protect your own homeland, your own freedom, and your own well-being” (Birkerts, 1927: 129). One
of the first Latvian poets, Ansis Lieventals, wrote in his 1835 work “Song of a Young Soldier”, “for my homeland and
tsar/for myself too/every morning and eve/I will quietly pray” (Birkerts, 1927: 139).
Some Latvian intellectuals had even expressed the opinion that Slavic and Latvian ethnicities had common ori-
gins and that a distinctive Latvian historical-political tradition never existed. For instance, Kaspars Biezbardis com-
mented extensively on the relationship between early Latvians and Russians. Early Latvians were alleged to have
been involved in the creation of the Russian state (Kievan Rus' in the 9th century) and considered it their homeland
(Sočn¸evs & Jansons-Saiva, 1986: 117). In 1863, Biezbardis organised a letter to express devotion to the Tsar signed
by several dozen Latvian peasants. The letter stressed the willingness of Latvians to voluntarily assimilate, if adminis-
trative obstacles were removed:

It is no coincidence that we are connected to Your empire, Providence has entrusted us to Your
mighty care; in our dialect we find similarities with the language of the people of Your Slavic tribes,
and yet there are the differences between our institutions that separate us from Your true servants,
and this is very sad for us. Lord! Eliminate these restraints and let us unite in one family with Your
great Russian nation. We believe this is our destiny and calling. (Altements & Tentelis, 1937: 129)

Krišjanis Valdemars, one of the most prominent figures in the Young Latvian movement, held important positions in
Russian ministries in his lifetime. While living in Moscow after 1867, he maintained close ties with the Slavophiles
and collaborated in newspapers published by Mikolaj Katkov. In these, he argued strongly for the abolition of the
PIVORAS 7

autonomy of the Baltic Provinces and simultaneously for destroying the power and influence of the Baltic German
landowners. Valdemars believed that if Latvians were destined to assimilate, it would be better to do so with
Russians rather than with Germans, as the Baltic provinces belonged to the Russian Empire (Goba, 1929b: 132). His
opinion was that a Latvian language sufficiently developed and spoken by a significant population would ensure that
it would not be easy to Russify Latvians. Meanwhile, it was politically convenient to rely on the Russian government
to fight for Latvian rights against the Baltic German landowners and their influential supporters in the Russian admin-
istration. In one of his polemic writings, Valdemars publicly boasted of his 25 years of hard work on Latvian Russifica-
tion since he viewed Russification primarily as a voluntary acceptance of the Russian language and the creation of
the conditions needed to learn it (Birkerts, 1925: 265). However, he declared his support for Russification more
strongly than he apparently really desired it, as is evident from his discussions with other Young Latvian leaders.
When Brīvzemnieks wanted to publish a collection of Latvian folk songs in Moscow, he told Valdemars that Russian
officials urged him to do so using Cyrillic script. Valdem
ars advised him to accept that proposal because he believed
that such chauvinistic expectations would not continue for long (Brīvzemnieks, 1991: 103).
Atis Kronvalds, another well-known leader and theorist of the Young Latvian movement, emphasised the impor-
tance of the Latvian language as a key feature in forming a united national community thus emphasising an ethno-
linguistic identity. He also spoke about “love of homeland.” Nevertheless, his understanding of homeland did not
entail any political values, meaning simply the place where one was born. (Pivoras, 2000: 88).
This tendency of the Latvian intelligentsia to base their national identity on cultural and economic presump-
tions, without a vision of their own political future became increasingly problematic. More recently, Latvian histo-
rians have noted that the conformist attitude adopted by the Slavophiles towards Russian bureaucracy had
distinctive negative effects on the national consciousness of Latvians (Dribins, 2001: 401). After the forced Russi-
fication campaign, which started in the Baltic provinces in 1883, the Latvian national movement suffered a deep
crisis and downturn in support. The vision of coming to an agreement with the Russian authorities and forming a
brotherhood with Russians was seriously compromised. Latvian intellectuals had been seeking to liberate them-
selves from Baltic German oppression by gaining equal rights with other residents of the Russian internal prov-
inces. However, in the face of Russification, they found themselves in the same position as their erstwhile
opponents, the Baltic Germans, that is, in a situation of “equally lacking in rights” (Blanks, 1921: 75). The Latvian
national movement overcame this crisis and decline in support only at the beginning of the 20th century, when it
integrated aspirations for maintaining an ethnolinguistic identity (through schools, the press, and various cultural
societies), and economic independence with a vision of a democratic political order guarded by territorial-political
autonomy. Latvian journalists and historians described this development as the beginning of a Latvian “Second
National Awakening” (Blanks, 1921: 77).

4 | R EL A T I O N S B ET WE EN T H E L E A D ER S O F T H E L I T H U A N I A N A N D
L A T V I A N N A T I O N A L M O V E M E N T S A N D TH E A P P E A L O F T H E L A T V I A N
EXAMPLE

Relationships developed among the leaders of the Lithuanian and Latvian national movements during periods of
study undertaken at Moscow State University (MSU). In the latter half of the 19th century, Moscow State University
was the principal institution for higher education for Lithuanians. Latvians also studied there, although it was only
the fourth most popular university in their case (Plakans, 1987: 85).
Jonas Basanavičius, one of the most famous leaders of the Lithuanian national movement in the second half of
the 19th century commented:

I met Latvians who lived in Moscow at that time, amongst whom there were such great men as
K. Valdemars, F. Brīvzemnieks and others. We could not compare ourselves to their accomplishments
8 PIVORAS

and work; we were able to learn a lot from them as well. While visiting Latvian meetings, I became famil-
iar with their literature, newspapers, national ideals, and literary efforts. (Basanavičius, 1903a: 66)

According to Basanavičius, the Latvian leaders encouraged the Lithuanians to follow their example in terms of cul-
tural work: “At one such meeting at Krueger's, where Valdem
ars was participating as well, I remember that a question
was raised about our literature; they wished for us to start our own paper too” (Basanavičius, 1903a: 66). Relying on
Basanavičius's diary, Basanavičius met Valdemars, one of the most well-known Young Latvians in May of 1878
(Basanavičius, 1997: 45). After graduating from MSU, Basanavičius did indeed prioritise cultural activities, under-
standing the Lithuanian nation primarily as consisting of Lithuanian-speakers, regardless of their place of residence
(Merkys, 2003, p. 65).
pas, another prominent leader of the Lithua-
Recalling his years at a grammar school in Mitau (Jelgava), Jonas Šliu
nian national movement, expressed his regret that Lithuanians did not actively engage in social activities, nor did they
try to cooperate more actively with Latvians:

The Lithuanians in Jelgava were not as happy as the Latvians who had their national holidays (song
festivals), their theatres, and meetings. We were all separated, occasionally getting together to discuss
Lithuanian writing, Lithuanian theatre, then sighing among ourselves and departing with promises to
each other to work towards the good of our nation in the future. We could have joined Latvians in
pas, 1927: 35)
their societies; at least we could have learned Latvian well. (Šliu

pas started taking part in the activities of the Latvian societies when studying at MSU, although he emphasised
Šliu
 pas, 1927: 38). Still, the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement
that he was the only Lithuanian to do so (Šliu
appeared to particularly appreciate the abundance of Latvian organisations and their organisational skills in develop-
ing and nurturing ethnocultural activities.
In his 1900 book, The Latvian Nation Then and Now, dedicated to depicting Latvian history and cultural life,
pas wrote, “Next to the press, there are quite a large number of societies in villages and towns spreading the
Šliu
 pas, 1900: 174)
same ideas. Those societies are growing like mushrooms under various titles and designations.” (Šliu
 pas introduced his Lithuanian readers to the work of Rīgas Latviešu biedrība [The Riga Latvian
In the same book, Šliu
Society], including its extensive activities, organising theatre performances and concerts, as well as the publication of
a Latvian encyclopaedia, asking, “When will we Lithuanians start following in the footsteps of our brothers”
 pas, 1900: 168). Even before the book was published, Šliu
(Šliu  pas wrote to Basanavičius, stating that his book about
 pas, 1977:
Latvians could be beneficial for Lithuanians, since Latvians could serve as an example in many cases (Šliu
pas wrote: “I had to learn Latvian and became acquainted with the Latvian
497). Recalling his studies at MSU, Šliu
pas, 1903: 80).
movement, with their fight against the Baltic Germans.” (Šliu
While the Lithuanians admired Latvian organisational skills, the various Latvian cultural activities focused the
attention of the Lithuanian intelligentsia on ethnolinguistic identity formation and the development of ethnic culture.
The Latvian conflict with Baltic German landlords was considered similar to the conflict between the Lithuanians and
Polish (Polonised) landowners in Lithuania. Moreover, the leaders of the Young Latvians with whom Basanavičius,
pas and other activists of the Lithuanian national movement were acquainted, viewed Polish-speaking Polish-
Šliu
Lithuanian landowners as exploiters of peasants in the same manner as Baltic German landowners (Apals, 2000,
p. 439).
Several Lithuanian intellectuals and former students of MSU viewed the Russian government, which supported,
or at least did not obstruct education, literature and other cultural activities based on the Latvian language and ethnic
culture, as a potential sponsor of Lithuanian ethnocultural activities. Such potential sponsorship required an
approach similar to that adopted by the Latvians towards the Baltic Germans, that is, Lithuanians would need to take
an active anti-Polish position. Many factors spurred anti-Polish attitudes among Lithuanians in the second half of the
19th century. However, the example of the Latvian anti-German stance was a strong influence, particularly through
PIVORAS 9

 pas, who initiated discussion in the Lithuanian press on Lithuanian-Latvian unity, based on ethnic
the activities of Šliu
pas commented in the newspaper Auszra: “It is miraculous how differently the Russian govern-
kinship. In 1884, Šliu
pas, 1884b) Later, he wrote openly of the influence of Latvians in
ment is treating Lithuanians and Latvians.” (Šliu
developing his pro-Russian and anti-Polish attitudes:

Latvian politics had great power in my view so that, listening to their guidance, I tried to write anti-
Polish and pro-Russian articles several times, in the hope that a friendship with Russia would help and
 pas, 1903: 80)
the Russian government would lift the Lithuanian press ban. (Šliu

pas held the belief that compromise was possible with the Russian gov-
Inspired by the Young Latvian example, Šliu
ernment, considering that Lithuanians could develop their own national culture within the framework of Russian
 pas began
statehood in exchange for the political disengagement of the Lithuanian national movement. In 1884, Šliu
negotiations with Tsarist Russian government representatives. While this venture proved fruitless, more was
involved than was suggested by the Polish-Lithuanian lawyer and historian Michał Römer, who argued that the pur-
 pas
suit of an agreement with the Russian authorities was purely a personal “lunatic diplomacy” of Šliu
pas later liaised with Latvian activist, Julij Kuznecov, a member of the Russian Geographical
(Römeris, 2006: 82). Šliu
Society, to obtain support for the development of Latvian education and culture. To help the Lithuanian movement,
Kuznecov prepared a report in 1887 for the Russian Geographical Society concerning the negative effects of the Lith-
uanian press ban (Nastopka, 1971: 55).
Basanavičius considered Lithuanians and Latvians to be, in an ethnolinguistic sense, part of the same nation (the
Lithuanian nation). In 1880, he wrote an article discussing the territory of the Lithuanian nation and its inhabitants.
He described Lithuanians and Latvians as comprising one “Lithuanian nation”, with one million Latvians and two mil-
lion Lithuanians (Basanavičius, 1880). Basanavičius was always curious about Latvian activities. In a letter to
Eduardas Volteris, a Latvian linguist in 1892, he claimed that the Thracians (an Indo-European tribe) were a common
ancestor of “our nation—Lithuanians and Latvians” and asked Volteris to provide him with information on “the Lat-
vian movement” (Basanavičius, 1970: 747).
The similarity between the ethno-social conflicts of Latvian peasants and Baltic German landowners and those
of Lithuanian peasants and Polish landowners further influenced Basanavičius. In 1883, he published polemical arti-
cles in the Russian press concerning the harmful effects of Polish language and culture in Lithuania (Vileišis, 1903,
pp. 3–4). He declared that throughout history Polish attitudes to the Lithuanian language were even worse than
those of Baltic Germans to the Latvian language (Basanavičius, 1903b: 32). Basanavičius sent the Russian Interior
Minister a request for permission to print papers in the Latin alphabet (i.e., effectively lifting the press ban) and to
move the editorial office of Auszra to Kaunas (Basanavičius, 1997: 82). He also sought the support of the Tsarist gov-
ernment for “anti-Polish work” even after the abolition of the press ban in 1904 (Miknys, 1995: 150–151).
The activities and achievements of the Latvian national movement were often mentioned in Lithuanian periodi-
 pas wrote in Auszra of the Latvians living in Lithuania, whom he considered to
cals during the press ban. In 1884, Šliu
be hard-working and efficient farmers, effective caretakers of their property, and attached to their language and reli-
pas, 1884a). In the first
gion. He invited Lithuanians to learn how to nurture national consciousness from them (Šliu
issue of Varpas, another representative of the Lithuanian national movement wrote, “The reason for our cultural
backsliding is that we do not do as Latvians do, who are weaker and fewer, but they work hard.” (Adomaitis-Šernas,-
1889a) After a few months, he again reasserted, “Our cousins the Latvians with their work and energy have sur-
passed us.” (Adomaitis-Šernas, 1889b) The Latvian example firstly encouraged the establishment of various
Lithuanian cultural societies. In 1894, Varpas commented:

The Latvian and Estonian lands are a real hive of all kind of societies. It would be difficult to distin-
guish between all the various societies established here and to show what types of societies are miss-
ing. The largest number of societies is in Riga. (Varpas, 1894)
10 PIVORAS

In 1891, Varpas began publishing a regular column, “From Latvia”, written by Jonas Koncevičius and Pranas Mašiotas.
Mašiotas soon earned a reputation as a gifted teacher, a prolific writer of children's literature in Lithuanian, and an
influential organiser of Lithuanian schools. According to Mašiotas, “After coming to Riga, even for a short time, it is
impossible not to notice how Latvians work, with energy and enthusiasm; they are definitely not going to blend in
with foreigners and assimilate” (Mašiotas, 1892).
In 1893, Mašiotas noted in Varpas that Latvians would soon publish four different maps of their territory, while
Lithuanians still had no map with clear ethnographic Lithuania's territories marked, although this type of map was
very much needed. The readers of Varpas were encouraged to gather Lithuanian toponyms and data in relation to
ethnographic borders, and specifically to view such information as helping to define the borders of the territory
where the Lithuanian language was spoken (Mašiotas, 1893).
In response to survey questions for the French journal La Plume in 1902 concerning national movements in the
Russian Empire, Basanavičius insisted, regarding political ideals, that the Lithuanians were closest to their brothers,
the Latvians (Raila, 2019: 209). In 1905, he organised a special sitting of the unofficial Lithuanian Parliament (the
Great Vilnius Diet), summoned at the beginning of the Russian revolution of 1905–1907, on the question of
Lithuanian-Latvian unity (Grigaravičius, 2017: 106). During the First World War, Lithuanian intellectuals discussed a
vision of Lithuanian and Latvian political unity through a common state that offered a potential counter-project,
resisting plans to form a Polish-Lithuanian Federation (Butkus, 1987, p. 132).
At the end of the 19th century, Lithuanian students in grammar schools across the Baltic provinces were increas-
ingly drawn to establishing cultural societies. At the beginning of the 20th century, Riga became one of the most sig-
nificant centres for Lithuanian cultural development, as well as a place for direct contact with Latvian culture. Riga
was a cosmopolitan city of the Russian Empire and was home to more Lithuanians than any other city in Europe.
Moreover, before the First World War, there were more Lithuanians in Riga than in any city in Lithuania
(Čepėnas, 1992: 489). This was because most residents of Vilnius or Kaunas were not Lithuanians but included a mix
of Jews, Lithuanian Poles and Russians, while Germans predominated in Klaipėda. Lithuanians learned from Latvians
in Riga how to organise cultural societies. As one of the leaders of the Lithuanian national movement, Catholic priest
Juozas Tumas-Vaižgantas stated, “The cultural work of Riga Lithuanians was manifested in a great multitude of socie-
ties.” (Tumas-Vaižgantas, 2000, p. 225) In 1905, Mašiotas noted that Latvian singing societies “are in almost every
parish” and urged Lithuanians to set up similar societies to preserve their singing traditions and provide cultured
entertainment (Tamulienė & Urba, 2013: 282–283).
At the beginning of the 20th century, the Lithuanian intelligentsia felt the need to cooperate with the Latvian
intellectual elite in Riga because of the press ban in Lithuania and the restriction of public cultural activities in the
Lithuanian language across the Russian Empire. In 1900, a group of Lithuanians in Riga asked the Latvian Abstinence
Society Auseklis to submit a request in their name to present a play in the Lithuanian language. Auseklis agreed, but
the government rejected the request. Subsequently, a Latvian member of the society who worked in the administra-
tion of the Riga governorate suggested that Lithuanians should join Auseklis in significant numbers, so that in exercis-
ing their rights as members of the society they would be able to organise events in any language. This was done, and
a permit to put on a play in Lithuanian was obtained (Jakavičius, 1939: 153). Later, Lithuanian activists in Riga regu-
larly organised Lithuanian plays with the help of Latvian societies (Maknys, 1972: 75).
A newspaper published since 1909 by Lithuanians living in Riga, called Rygos garsas [Riga Sound], encouraged
Lithuanians to follow the example of the Latvians in establishing their own societies. That newspaper was of Catholic
orientation and issued by Catholic clergymen who were also Lithuanian national activists. However, religious differ-
ences between Lithuanians who were mostly Catholics and Latvians who were mostly Lutherans were virtually
ignored in the newspaper, with ethnic kinship considered more important. Leaders of the Lithuanian national move-
ment, including many of those belonging to the clergy, did not stress Catholicism as an attribute of national identity
at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, as Catholicism was a uniting feature of Polish people,
from whom Lithuanians wanted to disassociate. In general, Rygos garsas regularly discussed not only Lithuanian
affairs or current world news but also the activities of the various Latvian societies, and Riga's social and cultural life.
PIVORAS 11

A regular news column called “From Latvia and Estonia” was soon replaced with “From Latvia”, and then simply “Lat-
via.” In 1912, the column “From the Baltic” appeared, which contained news from the Baltic Provinces and from
Latgale, an area inhabited by Catholic Latvians.
Perhaps the most well-known society in the field of cultural-educational work among Riga's Lithuanian societies
was Žvaigždė [Star], which began operating in 1906. Žvaigždė considered education its priority and established six pri-
mary schools in Riga, where the teaching language was Lithuanian (Tumas-Vaižgantas, 2000, p. 237). Most Lithua-
nian intellectuals who lived in Riga and who did not join other Lithuanian societies belonged to Žvaigždė
(Mašiotas, 1938: 72).
Žvaigždė cooperated with various Latvian societies on cultural and organisational questions. Language barriers
hampered more extended cooperation on sociopolitical issues. According to observers, most Lithuanians in Riga did
not speak the language, and only read newspapers published in Russian as they could not read the Latvian press
(Jakavičius, 1939: 79). Nonetheless, the vibrant Latvian cultural life at the time had a substantial and indirect effect
on the rise of a national consciousness among Lithuanians living in Riga. Specifically, it encouraged Lithuanians living
in Riga to speak Lithuanian at home. In 1913, 25,824 Lithuanians in Riga (5.5% of all Riga's citizens) stated that they
spoke Lithuanian at home (Treija & Dribins, 1998, p. 44). The increase in Lithuanians speaking their own language at
home was directly influenced by the example of the Lithuanian intellectuals in Riga and their cultural work and was
also fostered by the Latvian example. The Lithuanian press explicitly encouraged Lithuanians to trust Latvian cultural
work. For instance, in 1909, Rygos garsas declared that Latvians:

[…] today are the only cultural element that we do not have to fear from a national or economic per-
spective. On the contrary, we can confidently get close to them and trust them. Latvians will provide
us with further European culture, already transferred through their fraternal-national experience, and
will push Lithuanians to engage in intense cultural activity like our ancestors, who were previously
active in politics. (Rygos garsas, 1909)

In 1910, Rygos garsas republished observations on Lithuanian and Latvian cooperation that were first published in
the Latvian newspaper Latvija. These articles highlighted that it was too early to implement a specific cooperation
programme, but the two nations should participate in each other's cultural events. For example, Latvians could invite
Lithuanians to participate in Latvian song festivals (Rygos garsas, 1910a). Emphasis was on promoting cultural con-
vergence and cultural cooperation based on ethnicity. The example of Latvian song festivals was once more pointed
out to motivate Lithuanians to start organising their own festivals of Lithuanian songs, as such festivals served to
unite the nation, cherish the idea of the Lithuanian nation as distinct from the other nationalities (Rygos
garsas, 1910b).
Žvaigždė used the premises of the Riga Latvian Society to perform their plays. As Urbšienė-Mašiotaitė notes in
her memoirs, “When the Latvian society built the famous ‘Latvian Society House’ in Riga, Lithuanians received more
suitable premises for their events with a better equipped stage. They even started hoping to gather funds for their
own Lithuanian house in Riga.” (Urbšienė-Mašiotaitė, 1996: 133).
The development of cooperation between Lithuanians and Latvians in Riga was primarily driven by Mašiotas,
who largely concerned himself with the organisation of cultural activities. Mašiotas was a leading figure and long-
time official head of the Riga Lithuanian Society Žvaigždė. On his arrival in Riga, he met Latvian friends he had known
at MSU and joined the Riga Latvian Society, the organisational centre of the Latvian national movement. Mašiotas
had an exceptionally close relationship with Brīvzemnieks, the Latvian activist and folklore collector. The two
organised a campaign directed at the Russian Ministry of Education supporting the abolition of the Lithuanian press
ban (Mašiotas, 1938: 117–118). Mašiotas prepared material and arguments evidencing the damage due to the press
ban, which Brīvzemnieks delivered to Henri Wissendorff, who was active in various Russian scientific societies. The
latter then used this information in his 1898 report to the Scientific Committee of the Russian Ministry of Education
(Tamulienė & Urba, 2013: 23–24). The report was translated into Lithuanian and became well known among national
12 PIVORAS

movement activists (Vėbra, 1990: 81). The organisational work and national-cultural activities of Latvian societies
clearly served as an inspiration for Mašiotas and for Žvaigždė in which he played such a leading role.

5 | CO NC LUSIO N

By the 1920s, Lithuanian national identity was clearly based on ethnicity, having transformed from a civic national
identity, while the Latvian approach to attaining nationhood represented a rather typical case of ethnolinguistic
nationalism. The activities of the Samogitian-Lithuanian movement developed key concepts of Lithuanian national
identity in the first half of the 19th century. The leaders of this movement understood that the territory of Lithuania
fell largely within the boundaries of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, although with unclear ethnic boundaries.
The Samogitian-Lithuanian movement relied on political and civic sentiments and attachments to the legal traditions
of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and linked a need to foster the Lithuanian language and culture with the
necessity to preserve and uphold close political ties with Poland. These features of Lithuanian national identity corre-
spond to the attributes of civic national identity, as defined by Smith (1991: 9–11). At the end of the 19th century,
the Lithuanian national movement and its leaders emphasised the features of an ethnic language and territory which
united Lithuanians living within the borders of the Russian and German Empires, leading to the development of an
explicitly ethnic Lithuanian national identity.
In contrast, from its earliest inception, the Latvian national movement consistently relied on the idea of an ethnic
community where territorial and political attachments were of secondary importance. An understanding of Latvia
involving specific territorial boundaries as well as the Latvian word “Latvia” itself appeared only in the 1860s. Politi-
cally, the Young Latvian movement was unquestionably loyal to the Russian Empire.
By 1905, both Lithuanian and Latvian national identities were predominantly ethnolinguistic. The model of Lat-
vian nationalism had been transferred to the Lithuanian context through the relationships developed among the
leaders of the Lithuanian and Latvian national movements at the end of the 19th century, particularly among those
who had known each other as MSU students. The model of Latvian ethnolinguistic identity, which focused primarily
on activities supporting ethnocultural and ethnolinguistic unity, contributed to consolidating an ethnolinguistic iden-
tity within the Lithuanian national movement at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. In
addition, the Latvian example inspired certain Lithuanians to adopt a loyalist political stance towards the Russian
Empire, if only for tactical reasons.
By the end of the 19th century, Riga, which comprised a large population of Lithuanians due to the industrial
development of the city, had become one of the most important centres of the cultural activities of the Lithuanian
intelligentsia and remained so through ongoing Lithuanian immigration, until the First World War. Latvians' system-
atic organisation of national cultural and educational activities, which attracted the close attention of Lithuanian
immigrants in Riga, provided an example of an effective model that could be emulated to strengthen the organisation
of the Lithuanian national movement. Learning from this example, Lithuanians developed skills in organising cultural
activities. Moreover, the Lithuanian and Latvian activists maintained organisational cooperation while developing
their own distinctive national-cultural life in Riga at the beginning of the 20th century.
Taken alone Latvian influence would not have been enough for a Lithuanian ethnolinguistic identity to become a
dominant force at the end of the 19th century. As developing ethnolinguistic identities was a common tendency in
East-Central Europe at the end of the 19th century, many small countries in the region influenced Lithuanians
through their examples. Nonetheless, the Latvian example of ethnic nationalism undoubtedly played a particularly
important role in the development of a Lithuanian ethnolinguistic identity at that time.
Latvian success in developing a national culture based on ethnic identity was neither a necessary nor a sufficient
condition for bringing about the transformation of Lithuanian national identity. Until 1905, the lack of voting rights
for Lithuanians at both parliamentary and local governance levels provided a favourable environment for the concept
of ethnic identity to flourish. The principal and decisive factor in the decline of the Lithuanian tradition of civic
PIVORAS 13

national consciousness was the Russian policy to suppress the “Polish elements” in Lithuania following the unsuc-
cessful uprising against Russian rule in 1863–1864 (Eidintas et al., 2013: 127).
The interaction between Lithuanian and Latvian nationalism in the 19th century clearly shows that national move-
ments could develop distinctive national identities through the exchange of ideas. This specific interaction also demon-
strates that over a longer period of time it is relatively easy to transition from civic to ethnic forms of nationalism when
the main dimensions of national identity have undergone radical change. Moreover, this transformation of Lithuanian
nationalism during the 19th century suggests that ethnic and civic nationalism not only are different types of national-
ism but can also act as different phases of the nation-forming process when considered over an extended period.

ORCID
Saulius Pivoras https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8361-7203

RE FE R ENC E S
Adomaitis-Šernas, J. (1889a). Iš visur. Varpas, 1, 11.
Adomaitis-Šernas, J. (1889b). Iš visur. Varpas, 6, 92.
Aleksandravičius, E. (2015). Prieš Aušrą. Vilnius: Versus Aureus.
Aleksandravičius, E., & Kulakauskas, A. (1996). Carų valdžioje. In Lietuva XIX amžiuje. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
Altements, A., & Tentelis, A. (Eds.) (1937). Dokumenti par'Peterburgas Avīzem.  Rīg stures instituta apg
a: Latvijas ve adjens.
Apals, G. (2011a). Nacijas je dziena konceptu 
alie pamati. In G. Apals (Ed.), Peterburgas avīzes. Latviešu pirma saskare ar Eiropas
 idejam
politiskajam  (Electronic book). Rīg a: Zvaigzne ABC.
Apals, G. (2011b). Jaunlatviešu uzskati par pasaules politisko uzbu 
vi. In G. Apals (Ed.), Peterburgas avīzes. Latviešu pirma
saskare ar Eiropas politiskajam  idejam (Electronic book). Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC.
Apals, G. (2000). Latviešu nacionala kustība. In Latvija 19. gadsimta.  Vestures
 apceres (pp. 423–473). Rīg a: Latvijas
Universitates Latvijas ve stures institu ts.
Barons, K. (1859). Musu 
 tevzemes aprakstīšana un daži pielikumi īsuma saņemti. Gramatiņa
  un maj
skolam  am.
 Jelgava: B. A.
Renhera gramatu parde ve ja.
Basanavičius, J. (1880). Rubežiai ir skaitlius Lietuvių tautos. Naujasis keleivis, 23 July, 17, 103.
Basanavičius, J. (1903a). Iš istorijos mu sų atsigaiveliavimo (1873–1883). Varpas, 3, 65–76.
Basanavičius, J. (1903b). Lenkai Lietuvoje. Chicago, Illinois: Lietuvos spaustuvė.
Basanavičius, J. (1970). Rinktiniai raštai. Vilnius: Vaga.
Basanavičius, J. (1997). Mano gyvenimo kronika ir nervų ligos istorija. 1851–1922 m. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.
 Valdemars
Birkerts, A. (1925). Krišjanis  un viņa centieni. Rīga: A. Ran¸ķis.
Birkerts, A. (1927). Latviešu inteliǵence savas  cīņ as
 un gaitas,
 d. 2. Rīga: A. Ran¸ķa gr amatu tirgotavas apg ads.
Blanks, E. (1921). Latviešu tautiska kustība. Rīga: A. Gulbis.
Briedis, R. (1993). Tur ir Latvija, tur ir Baltija. Latviešu tautas telpas un laika izpratne 19. gadsimta 60-70 gados. Karogs, 7, 180–189.
Brīvzemnieks, F. (1991). Autobiografiskas  skices. Rīga: Liesma.
Butkus, Z. (1987). Dėl lietuvių ir latvių ryšių XIX a. pabaigoje – XX a. pradžioje. In Jaunųjų istorikų darbai. Respublikinės jaunųjų
istorikų mokslinės konferencijos tezės. Šeštoji knyga (pp. 132–134). Vilnius: Istorijos institutas.
Čepėnas, P. (1992). Naujųjų laikų Lietuvos istorija, t. 2. Vilnius: Lituanus.
Dribins, L. (2001). Nationalismus als soziokulturelle Emanzipation: Die Letten 1860–1918. In U. von Hirschhausen &
J. Leonhard (Eds.), Nationalismen in Europa: West-und OstEuropa im Vergleich (pp. 398–410). Göttingen: WallsteinVerlag.
Eidintas, A., Bumblauskas, A., Kulakauskas, A., Tamošaitis, M., Kondratas, S., & Kondratas, R. (2013). The history of Lithuania.
Vilnius: Eugrimas.
Gellner, E. (2006). Nations and nationalism (Second ed.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Goba, A. (1929a). Jura Alunana dzīve. In J. Alun j. 1 (pp. 7–156). Rīga: Valters un Rapa.
ans (Ed.), Kopoti raksti, se
Goba, A. (1929b). Pirmas  "Peterburgas
 Avīzes" un viņu nozīme tautas atmodas gaita.  Rīga: Olava fonda sabiedrība.
Grigaravičius, A. (2017). Atsiskyrėlis iš Suvalkijos. Jono Basanavičiaus gyvenimas ir darbai. VersusAureus: Vilnius.
Guibernau, M. (2004). Anthony D. Smith on nations and national identity: A critical assessment. Nations and Nationalism, 10
(1/2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.2004.00159.x
Jakavičius, L. (1939). Atsiminimai iš lietuvių spaudos draudimo laikų. Šiauliai: Titnagas.
Jurkiewicz. (2005). Między narodem politycznym a etnicznym - Litwini w pierwszej połowie XIX wieku. In Zapomniane
dziedzictwo kulturowe na wschodzie Europy od XV do XX wieku (pp. 81–101). Zielona Góra: Oficyna Wydawnicza Uni-
wersytetu Zielonogórskiego.
Lams, O. (2017). Austrumlatvija tautisko romantiķu ǵeotelpiskaja poe tika. Via Latgalica, X, 37–48.
14 PIVORAS

Maknys, V. (1972). Lietuvių teatro raidos bruožai, t. 1. Vilnius: Mintis.

Mašiotas, P. (1892). Gromatos iš kelionės. Varpas, 7, 105.
Mašiotas, P. (1893). Iš Latvijos. Varpas, 2, 30.
Mašiotas, P. (1938). Kai knygas draudė. Kaunas-Marijampolė: Dirva.
Medišauskienė, Z. (2015). Lietuvos vaizdiniai XIX a. pirmoje pusėje. In D. Staliu nas (Ed.), Lietuvos erdvinės sampratos ilgajame
XIX šimtmetyje (pp. 83–139). Lietuvos istorijos institutas: Vilnius.
Merkys, V. (2003). Jonas Basanavičius – Aušros ku rėjas. In A. Bieliu
nienė, B. Kulnytė, & R. Sabatniekienė (Eds.), Dr. Jonas
Basanavičius, 1851–1927 (pp. 62–67). Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus.
Benedictsen, M. (1997). Lietuva. Bundanti tauta. Vilnius: Tyto alba.
Miknys, R. (1995). Lietuvos demokratų partija 1902–1915 metais. Vilnius: A. Varnas.
 ryšiai. Vilnius: Vaga.
Nastopka, K. (1971). Lietuvių ir latvių literaturų
Pivoras, S. (2001). Liberalas ar konservatorius? Darbai ir Dienos, 28, 187–192.
Pivoras, S. (2000). Lietuvių ir latvių pilietinės savimonės raida. XVIII a. pabaiga–XIX a. pirmoji pusė (Lyginamasis aspektas). Kau-
nas: Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla.
Plakans, A. (1987). Latvian students in Russian universities. An explorative quantitative study. In G. von Pistohlkors,
T. U. Raun, & P. P. Kaegbein (Eds.), (Hrsg.)Die Universitäten Dorpat/Tartu, Riga und Wilna/Vilnius 1579-1979. Beiträge zu
ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Wirkung im Grenzbereich zwischen West und Ost (pp. 71–86). Köln-Wien: Böhlau.
 esis,
Pumpurs, A. (1998). Lačpl  Latvju tautas varonis. Rīga: Zvaigzne.
Pumpurs, A. (1896). No Daugavas līdz Donavai. Latviešu savvaļnieka ceļojuma apraksti serbu-turku kara laika 1876. gada.  Rīga:
Jan¸a Brigadera apgads.
Raila, E. (2019). Lietuvystės Mozė: Jono Basanavičiaus gyvenimo ir ligos istorija. Vilnius: Naujasis Židinys–Aidai.
Rygos garsas. (1909). Svarbu s sumanymai – kad tik įvyktų. 1 (14) August 1909: 1.
Rygos garsas. (1910a). Savitarpinis lietuvių su latviais susiartinimas. 3 (16) March 1910: 1–2.
Rygos garsas. (1910b). Prisimenant latvių dainų šventes. 21 July (3 August) 1910: 1.
Römeris, M. (2006). Lietuva. Studija apie lietuvių tautos atgimimą. VersusAureus: Vilnius.
Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. London: Penguin Books.
Smith, A. D. (2010). Nationalism: Theory, ideology, history (Second ed.). Cambridge: Polity.

Sočn¸evs, M., & Jansons-Saiva, A. (1986). Kaspars Biezbardis:  domas un kulturas
sabiedriskas  e.
 vestur  Rīga: Zin
atne.
pas, J. (1884a). Iš Lietuvos. Kauno rėdyboje. Auszra, 7–8, 271.
Šliu
pas, J. (1884b). Iš Lietuvos. Latviai. Auszra, 7–8, 280.
Šliu
pas, J. (1900). Latvių tauta kitąkart ir šiądien. Plymouth: Vienybė Lietuvninkų.
Šliu
pas, J. (1903). Minės apie mano prietikius prie Aušros. Varpas, 3, 77–93.
Šliu
pas, J. (1927). Jaunatvė – gyvenimo pavasaris: rinkinys biografiškų bruožų iš gyvenimo dr. J. Šliupo.
Šliu  Šiauliai: Titnagas.
pas, J. (1977). Rinktiniai Raštai. Vilnius: Vaga.
Šliu
Svenska, D. (1918). Ryssland erkänner Livlands och Estlands frihet. 1 August 1918: 9.
Tamulienė, R., & Urba, K. (Eds.) (2013). Prano Mašioto šviesa. Straipsniai, laiškai, atsiminimai. Vilnius: Tarptautinės vaikų ir
jaunimo literaturos asociacijos Lietuvos skyrius.
Tomass, E. (Ed.) (1940). Baltijas skolotaju seminars.
 1870–1919. Rīga: Baltijas skolot aju seminara audze kņu un skolotaju biedrība.

Treija, A., & Dribins, L. (1998). Lietuvieši. In L. Dribins (Ed.), Mazakumtautību 
vesture Latvija (pp. 43–61). Zvaigzne ABC: Rīg a.
Tumas-Vaižgantas, J. (2000). Lietuvių kulturos  centrai. Rygoje, in Juozas Vaižgantas. Raštai (pp. 217–242). Vilnius: Lietuvių
ros Ir Tautosakos Institutas, T. 12.
literatu
Urbšienė-Mašiotaitė, M. (1996). Prisiminimai. Vilnius: Džiugas.
Valantiejus, A. (2002). Early Lithuanian nationalism: Sources of its legitimate meanings in an environment of shifting bound-
aries. Nations and Nationalism, 8(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8219.00053
Vanagas, V. (1994). Dionizas Poška. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatu ros ir tautosakos institutas.
Varpas. (1890). Iš maskoliškos Lietuvos. 10: 155–7.
Varpas. (1894). Rygos Lietuvių Šelpimo draugystė. 4: 63.
 bruožai. Vilnius: Mokslas.
Vėbra, R. (1990). Lietuvių visuomenė XIX a. antrojoje pusėje. Socialinės strukturos
Vėbra, R. (1992). Lietuvių tautinis atgimimas XIX amžiuje. Kaunas: Šviesa.
Vileišis, P. (1903). Prakalba. In J. Basanavičius (Ed.), Lenkai Lietuvoje (pp. 3–21). Chicago, Illinois: Lietuvos spaustuvė.

How to cite this article: Pivoras S. The role of Latvian nationalism in the transformation of Lithuanian
nationalism during the long 19th century. Nations and Nationalism. 2020;1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/
nana.12656