Publicatie cu continut integral - Asociatia Tinerilor Istorici din Moldova

de memoire. It was not easy because in Latgale local political activization started and local Latgalian intellectuals
tried to develop their own Latgalian project.
By the beginning of the 20th century Latvian intellectuals were strong for declaration of their pretensions to
Latgale. In this context we can mention position of Jānis Endzelīns 1 who took an active part in polemic with Russian
nationalist who were not agree with Latvian status of Latgale. Nationalistic rhetoric of Jānis endzelīns was of
double character. On the one hand he really confronted with his Russian opponents in questions of belongness of
Latgale. In this context he positioned himself as defender of local population of Baltic descent. In fact Endzelīns
criticized Russian perception of Latgale as one of numerous Russian okraina. We can mention facts of polemic
between Endzelīns and Russian linguist Vasilii Bogoroditskii 2 who tried in his works minimize role and influence
of Latvian in Latgale.
Polemizing with him Endzelīns stated that Latvians are able to pretend for three districts of Vitebskaia guberniia.
He wrote that local Latvians had rights for their own schools, churches and administration. In the same time
local inhabitants were for them local Latvians only. He used the word latgalieši but they were not for him separate
nation. He preferred to see in them ethnical group of latvieši only. So Jānis Endzelīns wrote also about Latvian
patriots from Vitebskaia gubernia, but for them they were just enthusiastic linguists who tried to unificate local
Latvian dialect. Endzelīns was the first who proclaimed Latgale as Latvian lieux de memoire. He presumed that
Latvian history started in Latgale and he also mentioned that Indriķis wrote about Latgalians as about Latvians
in general. That is why Latgale was for him part of Latvia and he understood Latgalians as “Catholic Latvians”
only.
The image of Latgale as Latvian lieux de memoire was popular among Latvian patriots but in the First Latvian
Republic they had to co-exist with local Latgalian intellectuals which preferred to underline differences between
Latgale and other Latvian lands. Situation changed after Kārlis ulmanis political upheaval in 1934. Kārlis Ulmanis
was full of enthusiasm in development of Latvian national project, integration of Latvia and development of
new Latvian national identity. In his was for realization of this project Latgale was ancient anachronism. That is
why Latvian authorities tried to integrate it through assimilation. They prohibited local dialect and started cultivate
in schools literature form of Latvian language which was created by Latvian nationalists in the second half of
the 19th century. It is interesting that majority of Latvian nationalistic leaders were born in Vidzeme, Kurzeme or
Zemgale and they practically have not something in common with Latgale. In such situation Latgale was not their
lieux de memoire, and they and Latvian politicians of inter-war period saw in it large ethnographical museum.
But in 1939 – 1940 the USSR occupied Latvia. In 1941 German come as new occupants who tried to use
Latgalian intellectuals – they let for them publish newspapers in their dialect. German occupation was not too
long and in 1944 Soviet occupation started again. Latgalians intellectuals knew that Soviets would not be kind
with them. They presumed that Bolsheviks deported them in Siberia or somewhere else. In such situation they
preferred to emigrate. Red Army brought not only liberations from Germans, but restoration of Soviet occupation
also. After 1945 Latgale was studied by Latvian intellectuals but they did it in Latvian, not in Latgalian, spirit.
Official Latvian intellectuals proclaimed that Latgale was one of Latvian lands where traditions of Latvian
statehood and political life started. They also developed narrative that Latgale developed under great influence
from Russian State. Such viewpoint was cultivated very actively in the second half of 1940s and in the 1950s
when Latvian historical were dependent from Moscow censorship and advices of their Russian colleagues (for
example, from nationalistic orientated Boris Rybakov who taught Latvian intellectuals to glorify progressive Russian
influence) very much. Moreover Latgale was proclaimed as territory where friendship and brotherhood between
Latvians and Russians began. That is why such theories had much in common with political ideology and
propaganda then with objective historical studies.
On another hand, Latvian officially orientated historians did a little in Latgalian studies in the Soviet period
– we can mention mainly ideological works of P. Laizāns, P. Zeile and Z. Springovičs 3 . Woks devoted specially
to Latgale were rare, but they were also written due official Soviet narratives 4 . In the same time denied not only
1 ENDZELĪNS, 1913.
2 BOGORODITSKII, 1909.
3 LAIZĀNS, ZEILE, 1958; SPRINGOVIČS, 1961.
4 BREŽGO, 1954.
– 10 –