A history of Lithuania is not something that everyone has on his or her bookshelf. Moreover, there are few histories of this or any of the other Baltic states written in English. Therefore, it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to this volume even though it ostensibly covers only 50 years of Lithuanian history. Lithuania was the last of European countries to come into the Christian fold and how this last recalcitrant pagan sheep faired should present if not riveting at least interesting reading. Regrettably, this volume does not fulfill such high expectations; nevertheless there is much to stimulate the reader and good reason to recommend this book.
This is a period of history that is not well known in the West and one that is extremely complex. Why and how did Lithuania stay out of the Christian fold for so long? In order to answer this question Rowell looks at a number of necessary factors including not only the earlier history of Lithuania but also that of the surrounding areas and contemporary papal politics. The earlier Lithuanian history shows that it had a fling with Christianity when Mindaugas was crowned in 1253 with the blessing of Innocent IV, but Mindaugas failed in his attempt to convert the country and his successor Traidenis was a pagan. It was through Traidenis that the Gediminid line was established and the position of grand duke was held by Gediminas himself from 1315/6-1341/2. It is Gediminas' reign that accounts for the largest portion of this history not just for its longevity but for the success of his rule. He is shown to be superbly adept in dealing with his people who show no desire for Christianity and at playing the medieval cast of characters, particularly Poland, the Teutonic Knights, Russians, the Pope, and the Byzantine court against one another.
The chapter on sources will be very useful for anyone interested in pursuing this subject in the primary documents. It should be remembered that none of the contemporary sources are written in Lithuanian as it is not attested until the beginning of the sixteenth century. The earliest attested Lithuanian is from a manuscript in the early sixteenth century and the first book is Luther's catechism by M. Mavydas in 1547. Rowell (p. 30) comments when discussing the correspondence of Gediminas that this correspondence survives only in copies in various places but that Lithuanian copies ..."certainly existed once (since reference is made to them in other documents) but were probably lost in the fires which struck the grand- ducal archives in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries." This is certainly possible, but I suspect for several reasons a bit of wishful thinking: 1) Latin was the language used for correspondence at this level and assuming Gediminas was literate he was probably literate in Latin. 2) Why would letters be composed or even copied in Lithuanian to be sent to almost assuredly non-Lithuanian speakers? 3) If, as Rowell admits, the scribes were Franciscan friars from Saxony there would be less reason to make Lithuanian copies. 4) The earliest documents we have from the Vilnius court are in Polish not Lithuanian. And lastly, if Lithuanian was being used as a court scribal language it is curious, despite fires, that there is no trace of it for over 200 years after the letters of Gediminas were sent and the first evidence of it is not court documents but a catechism. Here I would have liked Rowell to give fuller documentation. Nevertheless, there is no question that this is a well documented history. However the author has included so many footnotes that are narrative in nature that the text becomes extremely difficult to follow. Many, if not most, of these footnotes should have been included in the text and the footnotes left as simple references. I also question the need for a footnote such as on page 139 referring to the text on page 138. Another irritating point is his use of Rus' and Rus'ian. He calls it "a harmless scholarly convention which denotes an area of common political, religious and literary culture before the rise of the Great Russians (that is the Muscovites) over their bother Rus'ians of Ukraine and Belorussia" (p. xiii). It may be harmless but it is confusing, needless, and inconsistently applied (see pages 42-43). On the plus side, the maps and charts are extremely useful providing genealogies and even a list of Orthodox hierarchs. Manuscript sources are given and the Bibliography consists of both sources and studies. The chapter headings suggest to the reader that there will be pithy information and analysis. For example, the chapter entitled Expansion suggests that one will read why Lithuania chose to expand its boarders and how it was accomplished. Most of the chapter is spent discussing the veracity of Chronicles L1, 2, & 3, the work of historian Antonovich who wrote a history of Lithuania in the 19th century and other sources. The attack on Kiev in 1323 appears to have been, like much of Gediminas' policies, motivated by commercial rivalry and Rowell provides us in Appendix I with Russian sources for its fall. In the chapter entitled "Political ramifications of the pagan cult" Rowell draws parallels between the Lithuanian pagan gods and those of the Norse and Slavic ones. He could have taken this a step further and shown that all of these were of well- known Indo-European types. Lithuanian Perkunas, for example, is parallel not only to the Slavic Perun and Norse Thorr but also Greek Zeus, Roman Jupiter, and Indic Indra. While our knowledge of Baltic mythology is not as extensive os it is for Germanic, Greek, Roman, or even Indic, it is without doubt Indo-European (see Puhvel 1987:222-238). This is evident not only with the god names but in the cults Rowell discusses. The horse cult (p. 122), for example, is one that is found throughout the Indo-European world from the Russian steppe to Ireland. Horse burials are extremely common and reached their most elaborate with the Scythians. The burial of horse skulls can be found as early as the Eneolithic and at the site of Tsatsa on the Volga-Don steppe 40 were found in a grave dating to the Catacomb culture of the Early Bronze age (Shilov 1985:99-192). I have, myself, participated in the excavation of a medieval horse burial on the Volga- Don steppe which would be more or less contemporary with the material Rowell discusses. Also, too much should not be made of the pagan variation between cremation and inhumation (p. 128-131). This variation can be seen throughout many cultures over vast amounts of time and in this context it is only the Christian prohibition of cremation that makes it important. Rowell does not make clear what the ramification of the pagan cult were but does emphasis that Gediminas played the conversion game much as Elizabeth I of England played the marriage game. That is he said he would convert when it was to his advantage and backed off when that was to his advantage. Gediminas was clearly a master of the pragmatic, and we need only look at the charts of Catholic and Orthodox marriages of the Gediminids to see that he had no great fervor for either branch of Christianity. Geographically, Lithuania had the opportunity, unlike other late comers to Christianity such as Iceland, to play off the Catholic and Orthodox branches.
Despite the quibbles with this study, it is worthwhile for the medievalist as it provides in English the fullest and most scholarly account of this little known area. The later chapters read better that the first perhaps because there is less emphasis on lengthy footnotes, and in the last chapter Rowell does a good job summarizing the major Lithuanian achievements. Let us hope that more work about this part of Europe is forthcoming.
References
Puhvel, Jaan -- 1987 Comparative Mythology. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Shilov, V.P. -- 1985 Kurgannyy mogil'nik u sela Tsatsa. Drevnosti Kalmykii. Elista. Pp. 94-157.