Search

Copyright of Lituanistica is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Although the aspects of anationhood in art theory and culture have already been thoroughly investigated, the relatively young discipline of cinema theory is only beginning to grapple with the notion of nationality in cinema. The earliest attempts to define 'national cinema' go back as far as the soviet and the early Independence periods, as seen in the works of Marijona Malcienė, Laimonas Tapinas, and Živilė Pipinytė. The paper aims to build on these early debates and develop a new interpretation of the notion of national cinema, offer its contemporary historiography with the pluralist understanding of the notion, and therefore ask the following series of questions: is it only the cultural texts about the host country that can be considered 'national'? does 'nationality' depend on the nationality of the artist? what criteria determine the value and significance of cinema? is it just the films with high artistic quality that are worthy of our attention? how about other factors that determine the culture of cinema (audience, distribution, screening)? how does the integration of these factors change our understanding of 'national cinema'? The paper addresses these questions in three parts. In the first one, I use key authors (Andrew Higson, John Hill, and Stephen Croft) to discuss the development of the notion of 'national cinema' while paying more attention to its modern interpretation due to its relevance to the contemporary cinema theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper offers a general overview of the Lithuanian art historical research published during the three decades of Independence (1990-2020). The paper discusses the changes in institutional and academic life, the spectrum of methodological approaches, as well as the key art theoretical publications and their authors. The overview aims to assess the current situation in the art historical discipline and fascilitate the debates around the question whether Lithuania has managed to develop its own school of art theory. The analysis of the publications (mostly monographs) by the Lithuanian art theorists has conclusively shown that such school does already exist. In terms of its organisation, Lithuanian art theoretical school matches all the academic criteria: education is provided at all levels, and the dissemination and continuity of research, both empirical and theoretical, are ensured. The school has already gone through two or even three phases of development. The first stage, spanning between 1990 and 1998/99, was rich with significant achievements in the sector of education: it saw the launch of the first art theory doctorate programme in Lithuania, as well as the establishment of the Institute of Art Research, and the Vilnius Academy of Arts Publishing House. During the period, Kaunas Vytautas Magnus University launched their art theory programme, while the Culture and Art Institute in Vilnius had acquired two art theory departments. The second stage (2000-2010/12) saw a rapid growth of the number of publications, widening of the art theoretical specialisation, and further development of research methodologies. Along with the formal analysis and methodologies of iconography and iconology, came the outlines of social art history. All the spheres of art history became equipped with various methods of source research and interpretation. Among the main fields of research were the history of ecclesiastic and devotional art (patronage and heritage of mansions and urbanite art). One of the leading research problems of the time - the relation of text and image. The third stage covers the period of 2010-2020, and instead of the focus on the oldest examples of art historical heritage to the art of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. In Lithuania, the methodological innovations started gradually taking root only after the year 2000, therefore there are still many possibile routes to explore. Most texts emoploy a combination of different methodologies, varying between iconology, phenomenology, and semiotics. This helps the research to better grasp the multiplicitous nature of the analysed phenomena, although this sometimes comes at the expense of the narrational coherence and constructiveness of conclusions. The Lithuanian school is predominantly national-based. This has many advantages, although sometimes this makes it difficult to distribute the research internationally. Despite all the developments within the Lithuanian art history as a discipline, international collaboration via conferences, projects, publishing, and media still leaves much to be desired. Due to the reliability of documented information, Lithuanian art historians are able to produce a particularly high level of in their work with sources. Rather than emerging as a circle of followers around a particular prominent individual, the Lithuanian art theoretical school is a result of a number of colleagues - art historians and critics - practicing mutual support and exchange of ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Lituanistica is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studies of Lithuania's History is the property of Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of this paper is to take a look at Władysław Syrokomla (real name Ludwik Franciszek Władysław Kondratowicz, 1823-1862) as a historian, and at the same time to discuss yet another so-called Lithuanian manor-archive - Bareikiškės (Pol. Borejkowszczyzna; Rukainiai parish, Vilnius County, Vilnius Province). The estate has been mentioned as an important intellectual island of that time, but it has never been discussed specifically as a workshop of accumulation of antiquities of the history of Lithuania and of writing the history of Lithuania. The compound 'Syrokomla-historian' may appear quite bold at first sight, but in this case the word 'historian' is understood in the meaning it was used when Syrokomla was writing, that is, bearing in mind the peculiarities of the historiography of Lithuania of the first half of the nineteenth century, when the boundary between the scientific and the fictional was still very fragile, and the professionalization of history was very poor. Yet no matter how complex this context might be, an attempt is made to 'separate' Syrokomla-historian from Syrokomla-poet. According to scholars, Syrokomla wrote all of his highly acclaimed lyrical works during the period of Bareikiškės. However, in this paper the focus is laid on those other, 'not so glorious' works. The intent of these works is important, but even more important are the sources that were resorted to while writing them. In other words, the gaze is directed not only at Syrokomla's text, but also at its footnotes - particularly at them. Here a significant role is played by Syrokomla's library, his archive, the collection of antiquities, and even of paintings. Therefore the research is not limited to Bareikiškės alone: the sources of those collections were sought in Syrokomla's first manor, Zalucha (Pol. Załucze; Bel. Minsk County, Minsk Province). Syrokomla's views on history and the writing of history, his theoretical and even methodological attitudes, or what was even then defined by the word historiology, are also of importance. In general, priority was given to primary sources: both to the historical material collected by Syrokomla and to the autographs of his works, because it is an important part of the former library (archive) of Zalucha and Bareikiškės. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Monetary Studies (Bank of Lithuania) is the property of Bank of Lithuania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Socialinių Mokslų Studijos is the property of Mykolas Romeris University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Studies of Lithuania's History is the property of Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Menotyra is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Sociologija: Mintis ir Veiksmas is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When researching and writing the history of the Holocaust, it is crucial not only to select (and match the topic and approach) the main primary sources, but also to find an adequate critical relationship with them. In the case of the historiography of the beginning of the Holocaust (which is also the beginning of the Holocaust in Lithuania), at least in the twenty-first century, such a relationship is often a challenge for the researcher: there is a tendency to automatically rely on, or to question, particular groups of sources (according to origin). This also leads to serious problems in understanding history, some of which the paper attempts to address. For example, how is the possibility of such an understanding disrupted when reliance is placed on specific (accidental) primary sources without questioning the setting and meaning of their origins and ignoring others? Or what is the picture of history that emerges when the attempts to apply both the attitudes of primordial trust and primitive questioning to subjective sources are uncontrolled? Finally, what are the implications of ignoring primary sources for the historical understanding of Holocaust situations, first of all the “pinning down” of testimonies, and then the subsequent processing (writing them down, reworking them, making them up, swiping them)? Importantly, these are questions not only of today’s historical scholarship, but of the Jewish scholars who survived the Catastrophe immediately after the war.

The paper focuses on the contribution of regional 18th-century ‘East Prussian’ historiography to the formation of an Old Prussian identity. The author specifies the concept of ‘Old Prussianism’, and reveals the main steps in the change in that model of identity in the 18th century through an analysis of three authors who were active in Königsberg and spanned three generations: Michael Lilienthal (1686–1750), Daniel Heinrich Arnoldt (1706–1775) and Georg Christoph Pisanski (1725–1790). On the basis of their treatises, the paper reveals how in the 18th century, in the territory of the former Duchy of Prussia, a unique regional self-awareness independent of Royal (Polish) Prussia and of Brandenburgian Prussia was developing, as well as a related concept of the past of the region.

Copyright of Athena: Filosofijos studijos is the property of Lithuanian Culture Research Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article reconstructs the change of owners and boundaries of the extinct Dusetai manor (now Zarasai district) over a long historical period. It was established that the manor began to take shape when Žygimantas Senasis (Sigismund the Old) in 1508 granted the privilege of a manor in Užpaliai borough to Jonas Radvila Barzdočius (Jan Radziwiłł Brodaty). During the 16th–19th centuries, due to various reasons (mortgage of the estate to creditors, its enlargement by transfer to one heir, lack of male-line descendants, transfer to relatives, expropriation of the estate to the state treasury), the Dusetai estate passed from hand to hand.Its last owner before the final confiscation of the estate (in 1847) was Apolinara ŽabaitėPliaterienė (Apolinara z Żabów Platerowa). It was established that in the historiography, the owners of the ancestral Dusetai manor are not distinguished from the owners of the nearby Lenian Padustalis manor. The article separately examines the history of this manor until the time when the Dusetai and Padustėlis manors were acquired in 1686 and 1687. Jan Andrzej Plater, the elder of Dinaburg (Daugpils) and Livonia, bought it, and his grandson in the 18th century on the 6th decade proved the right of the Pliater’s to the Leni estate. Both estates were in the 19th century on the 5th decade was taken over by the Kaunas Governorate Chamber of State Wealth, which formed the Dusetai Farm and separate economic units from the manor, which they rented to various individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studies of Lithuania's History is the property of Lietuvos Istorijos Studijos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The concept of the early Central European state has been elaborated for decades in the historiographies of neighboring countries but has so far been ignored in the Lithuanian medievalist literature. The author makes an attempt to base the thesis that the concept mentioned before is an original contribution of Central European historians to the comparative historical sociology of pre-capitalist peripheral societies. Furthermore, its application to the interpretation of the socio-political and socioeconomic structure of the early medieval Grand Duchy of Lithuania might offer original theoretical insights and provide an opportunity for Lithuanian medievalists to become involved in international comparative research as well as reinvigorate theoretical discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the analysis of the Vilnius University research papers "Knygotyra" (Book Science) in 1999-2012. he irst volume of "Knygotyra" was published in 1961 under the title "Bibliotekininkystes ir bibliograijos klausimai" (Issues of Librarianship and Bibliography) which was changed to "Knygotyra" in 1970. Today, "Knygotyra" is a mature and recognised journal. It is edited by a team of international editors, which includes researchers from Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Poland, Russia and Lithuania. "Knygotyra" is the only journal of book science in Lithuania and in the Baltic countries. he state and situation of "Knygotyra" in 1970-1998 was analyzed by Vanda Stoniene (2000). he aim of the present article is to reveal the "Knygotyra" status in the recent years (1999-2012) and to compare it with the analysis by V. Stoniene. "Knygotyra" is analyzed in the organizational, structural, thematic, genre publications, authors' activity and other aspects. he analysis concludes that "Knygotyra" keeps its traditions. On the other hand, a scientiic journal is forced to change. It is influenced by the country's general education policy trends, changes in the global world and scientiic research ield. One of the formal proofs of this change is the size of each annual volume, which has increased from 20 quires in 1999 to 44 in 2012. he reasons for this increase are complex: achievements of ancestors, attention to foreign authors, scientiic communication (international conferences in Vilnius), scientific potential of the growing Lithuanian book community. Upon comparing the periods 1970-1998 and 1999-2012, we can state that the editorial bord of "Knygotyra" ensures a balanced preparation, reviewing and publishing of the material, and authoritative foreign scientists in the editorial bord increase the academic prestige of "Knygotyra". After examining the structure and publications by genre and comparing it with the previous analysis by V. Stoniene, we can see that "Knygotyra" is trying to follow traditions to publish actual and problematic topics of book science. In total, 369 articles were analyzed. A comparative analysis revealed that the recent theme of peer-reviewed articles has expanded enormously. In 1970-1998 it was concentrated on the history of book and the history of libraries. We ind that in 1999-2012 the focus of topics was also on traditional book history. his is evidenced by historiographic Lithuanian book science school. In 1999-2012, the number of articles on book theory and methodology increased. Usually, they are written not by Lithuanian authors, but this is one of the ways to ill a gap of these actual topics. A comparative analysis of the published articles revealed that new items such as bibliophilia, book art, handwritten and printed heritage have appeared in "Knygotyra". Such topics as publishing were not popular in 1970-1998 (except the topics of publishing history), in 1999-2012 this topic has been one of the most actual and pressing. his is due to the fact that the Institute of Book Science and Documentation of Vilnius University is pursuing a bachelor's degree and master's degree programs on publishing. Two dissertations on publishing topics have been recently defended. All this shows that the today's situation has inluenced changes of "Knygotyra": new topics of subjects relecting the scientiic relevance of book science (book advertising, digital book, book branding, etc.) have appeared in "Knygotyra". he thematic distribution of articles also testiies to a much broader phenomenon -- the general direction of the development of Lithuanian book science, research topics of the Institute of Book Science and Documentation, the future dissertation topics. All these things show that "Knygotyra" as a scientiic journal has formed its own identity: it follows the publishing traditions, has its core authors, is recognized and appreciated not only in Lithuania, but also in foreign countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the problem of territorial administrative changes in the eastern part of Lithuania in 1939–1940. The focus of this article is on the late 1939–1940 administrative division of the Vilnius Region returned to Lithuania, the population’s attitude towards the territorial division, the efforts of the Lithuanian representatives regarding the recovery of the remaining Lithuanian areas in Belarus (Švenčionys, Dieveniškės and Marcinkonys districts), and the disclosure of the results of the negotiations. The analysis of archival documents, press and historiography allows us to state that the representatives of the Republic of Lithuania tried to resolve the issue of statehood of Lithuanian territories assigned to Soviet Belarus through diplomatic channels, taking into account the requests of “foreign” Lithuanians to connect their territories to Lithuania. However, the efforts did not yield any positive results in late 1939 through to the first half of 1940. After the occupation of Lithuania on June 15th, 1940, the administrative government of the Republican Party extended the campaign for the “recovery” of Lithuanian territories from Belarus. Political motives led to the fact that most Lithuanian settlements (in the vicinity of Švenčionys, Šalčininkai and Druskininkai) were annexed to the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (LSSR). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In addressing the range of issues related to the historiography of Lithuanian-Polish relations in 1918-1939, Lithuanian historians are already more confident in discussing the issues touchy to Lithuania, including the Vilnius issue. It has been noted that the method of critical history is more and more common in research studies. The article limits with several more distinct problems and issues related to them: the relations of A. Voldemaras and J. Pilsudski in Geneva in 1927, S. Lozoraitis' "new course" policy in 1934-1938 and the causes of the collapse of Lithuania and Poland in 1939-1940. It attempts to discuss and draw attention to the positions expressed by Lithuanian historians, which may trigger new studies in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 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 peasants' riot 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 meanings 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 the Lithuanian historiography. Based on the classifications of the forms of revolt applied in social sciences, the question on the appropriate use of the concept of 'uprising' to describe the revolt of peasants in the Economy of Šiauliai in 1769 is addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article gives a comprehensive analysis of historiography of the main Lithuanian political parties and ideological movements (before 1940), the key publications released on the political parties and ideological movements in different periods; it summarises the results of research under discussion, the arising problems and their causes. A conclusion is drawn that due to political reasons, exceptional attention to the Lithuanian political parties and ideological movements (before 1940) has only been paid in twenty recent years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author of the article views the last thousand years of Lithuania's history from social anthropological and ethnological positions, based on the systems of social organization, hermeneutics, and other theories. This article is the first part of a critical study, intended to evaluate the qualitative transformations in the nation's history. It is intended to discuss five positive transformations which took place when the state of Lithuania and the nation itself joined the Christian civilization. The first aspect is the expansion of mound network which became more intensive after the reform of the Baltic religion. This enabled to establish a distinctive world outlook and to lay foundations for a territorial community, i. e. state (and empire). The second qualitative transformation is characterized by the author as the emergence and consolidation of military power. The major military achievements are identified. The third transformation is the formation, recognition and consolidation of the state of Lithuania; this process lasted, by stages, throughout a thousand years. The fourth one, according to the author, is the integration of the Lithuanian ethnos (nation) into the Christian Western European civilization. Lithuania made its own contribution to this civilization by defending Europe from the Mongols and Turks and by spreading religious tolerance. The fifth aspect covers the preservation and continuation, despite certain historical circumstances, of the ancestors' spiritual culture and their way of life. To mention but a few examples: the preserved native language, polyphonic part-songs, acknowledged by UNESCO, the art of cross- making, or Ciurlionis' paintings. However, historical development displays not only gains but, unfortunately, more losses, which will be discussed in the second part of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Battle of Tannenberg (the Battle of Zalgiris, the Battle of Grunwald), the greatest and most significant battle in the medieval history of Lithuania, Poland and the Teutonic Order, since ancient times has been in the centre of multilingual historiographical researches in Middle and Eastern Europe. The authors, who wrote in Lithuanian, always devoted considerable attention to it; however, as the Lithuanian scientific historiography evolved later than in German and Russian linguistic contexts, the development of this historiography started later as well. The first estimates of the Battle of Tannenberg, made in the 19th century, prove that this battle attracted the Lithuanians' attention starting with the first stages of Lithuanian historiography; when the tradition of Lithuanian scientific historiography acquired a solid basis, it developed some features of originality. Polemics with the Polish historiography, strongly influenced by Jan Dlugosz's biased battle accounts, laid solid foundations for a more objective attitude to the Battle of Tannenberg; this approach was confirmed by further researches. However, namely the Lithuanian historiography of Tannenberg is less known in the international researches of the battle because of the following reasons. First of all, lack of solid, seminal works (except for Mecislovas Jucas' monograph and some science popular publications, Lithuanian historiography of the Battle of Tannenberg was mainly represented by articles); then, the language barrier should be taken into consideration as the works published in the Lithuanian language were less accessible to the international community, and, finally, lack of historiographic reviews and bibliography should be mentioned. Therefore, the aim of this article is to characterize the Lithuanian research tradition of the Battle of Tannenberg, to discuss the development of this tradition as well as to highlight important conclusions and achievements starting with the first estimates of this battle till its 600th anniversary. The presented historiography review helps to conclude that in Lithuanian historiography the Battle of Tannenberg is perceived as the event of epochal importance. Lithuanian historiography has always been sensitive to the attempts to diminish the importance of the Lithuanian army and Vytautas for the battle. The Lithuanians' significant contribution at the initial and final stages of the battle is recognized universally; however, the retreat received diverse evaluation: it was treated 1) as a forced retreat, followed by a successful reorganization and return to the battlefield and 2) as a specially planned tactical manoeuvre to break the enemy's battle line. The latter hypothesis was confirmed when Sven Ekdahl found and published the letter of one of the solders involved in the battle. Jogaila's (Jagiello) role was also explained differently: in some cases, Vytautas was considered to be the chief and the only army commander while in other cases Jogaila's significant military role was also emphasized. Lately, however, the role of both leaders has been acknowledged. Unfortunately, Lithuanian historiography did not pay enough attention to the evaluation of the precise number of soldiers involved. Some independent efforts dealt with radical attempts to depreciate the role of the Polish army in this battle, and this happened in about 1930's when the relations between Poland and Lithuania were rather strained. In most cases, troops count, presented in foreign historiography, is taken into consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the circumstances of the revival of the Lithuanian historical periodic press in the years of independence. Close attention is given to the content and form of history science publications, their publishers, editors and authors as well as to the ways these publications were updated to reach the standards of West European periodicals. The author also poses the question of the transience of some historical publications and a frequent change of their titles. In addition, the article also expounds on the development of the Lithuanian history science periodicals, their state and the problems they dealt with. The article also concentrates on the following issues: what objectives and aims were pursued by history science periodicals, why their existence was short-termed and why scientific journals, next to research articles, published many documents and historical sources. Historians who contributed to the development of history science by their articles published in scientific journals, youth and party magazines and newspapers are also mentioned. The author presents the most relevant historical conceptions of that period, their novelty and national originality, historians' methodological approaches as well as concentrates on the importance of the spread of historical knowledge in fostering national identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyses how imperial memory is presented in textbooks addressed to the secondary schools of the Russian Federation. During the last decade our Eastern neighbour tends to actualize the issues dealing with the heritage of the Tsarist and Soviet empire as well as pro-imperial discourse. The textbook "History of Western Russia" was chosen for the reason that it reflects history teaching tendencies in general and contemporary history teaching in particular in Russia. The article reviews the usage and explanation of the concept "Western Russia" in the context of the theory of "western borderlands of the empire". Basically, Russia's imperial experience is estimated positively; moreover, the issue of the empire's past remains a politically sensitive question today. Therefore, this textbook, in fact, is a collection of methodological, or even ideological, patterns which is adapted to the above mentioned issues and which is extensively applied to the process of history teaching; it could be even stated that it is supplemented by the postulates of the tsarist historiography. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents researches in the field of rural history carried out by science and educational institutions in Great Britain, i. e. universities as well as by formal and informal history science groups and societies. The article touches upon some problematic aspects, such as the organizational structure of researches in the history of the British villages, respective institution, research questionnaire concerning rural history as well as the main historiographical stages and achievements in the 20th century English rural history. First of all, the author presents universities' research programmes and their too specialized research directions of rural history which were mainly followed by Cambridge and Reading Universities. Cambridge University published a series of works under the title England's Rural History. A special mention should be made of The British Agricultural History Society, established in 1952 and still existing, which rallies different research centres and university researchers to investigate agricultural history, rural history including. The analyzed studies on rural history as well as researchers' preferences allow to claim that in modern historiography the social context becomes very prominent, i. e. agricultural history, development of ecological awareness, folklore researches, conventional culture and religion, rural literature and community, landscape researches, archeology and materialistic culture, ethnography, anthropology and rural sociology, women's role in a rural community, rural and urban relations, the role of community authorities etc. Special attention in the article is given to the prominent rural history researchers James Edwin Thorold-Rogers, Fridrich Seebohm, Sir Rowland Edmund Prothero, George Fussel, H. P. R. Finberg, Irena Joana Thirsk as well as to their contribution to the investigations of the British rural historiography. Retrospective evaluation of the achievements of the British agricultural history in the second half of the 20th century allows to claim that researchers were more concerned with the issues of villages than country estates; the importance of the fundamental processes of the 9th-10th centuries in rural genesis has been ascertained, a new approach to rural-urban relationship presented as well as market challenges and rural response to them displayed. Finally, the article introduces the existing polemics in the British historiography on the research object of agricultural history and rural history as well as the directions of the sociocultural or economic history, i. e. "stories about people" or stories about "cows and ploughs". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Č. Laurinavicius and A. Nikžentaitis consider August 3, 1940, to be the date of the conditional termination of Lithuania's and other Baltic States' occupation. The article, therefore, critically analyzes historiographical attitudes of Č. Laurinavicius and A. Nikžentaitis which, however, distort the history of occupation and annexation of the Baltic States. Pro-Russian attitudes are clearly expressed in the joint document collection The USSR and Lithuania during the Second World War, published by Lithuanian and Russian historians as well as in Č. Laurinavicius' articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author of the article concentrates on the issue which was so far overlooked by the historiography, i. e. the status of Hungarians who came to Lithuania in the 16th century. The emphasis is laid on the reasons of their arrival, tendencies of their emigration, and the most eminent personalities who lived at that period. Hungarians lived and worked in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) almost throughout the whole 16th century. At least five reasons for their arrival and settlement in the GDL could be distinguished: 1) political situation in the Kingdom of Hungary; 2) the influence of the Reformation movement; 3) the Renaissance cultural movement; 4) economic- trade relations; and 5) possibilities to demonstrate their military art. The GDL was ready to accept newcomers. At the beginning of the century the representatives of Jagiellon dynasty, known to Hungarians, reigned as Kings of Poland and Grand Dukes of Lithuania. Some members of this dynasty, i. e. Sigismund the Old and his daughter Elisabeth, were connected to Hungary by matrimonial ties, and in 1576 the ruler became Stephan Batory, Prince of Transylvania. The courts of both Jagiellos and Batory needed professional craftsmen and elite soldiers. The consumption of Hungarian wine also increased. However, in the 16th century Hungarians comprised only a stable minority, taking up the 5th-6th position after Poles, Germans, Italians, and Czechs. They either stayed in Lithuania for a short period of time or settled there for life, thus choosing Lithuania as their second Motherland. From the social point of view, the noblemen (courtiers or elite soldiers) took up the domineering position though representatives of the lower social layers (craftsmen of different professions, infantrymen, for example) also came to Lithuania. Their status in the courts coincided with their social and professional position. An interesting feature of the Hungarian migration was that it was mostly a male movement. The number of women who came to Lithuania as well as to Poland was low, and they were mainly the rulers' chambermaids. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigates old East Prussian oiconyms which are closely related to the productive topolexeme *kaim-, derived from the appellative caymis, i. e. village. German chroniclers made an inventory of the total of Prussian proper names and oiconyms with *kaim on the basis of the living language. Recording from the year 1255 the oiconym Caym, which formally coincided with the appellative caymis, they defined the boundaries of the Prussian appellative lexis. The initiator and researcher of the index of the Prussian proper names G. Gerullis claimed that only those Prussian place names which had been recorded before 1525 could be investigated; this was the period when the German pronunciation of the Prussian place names became stable. The author of the article rejects this approach. In the article the author analyzed all oicinyms collected from the districts of Sambia, Nadrovia as well as northern districts of Notangia, Barta and Varmia. The author also researched and discussed oiconyms with *kaim- from the southern part of East Prussia which were overlooked by the Polish specialist in onomastics R. Przybytek who investigated Baltic oiconyms, i. e. those from the southern part of East Prussia. However, the 16th-18th century oiconyms with *kaim-, presented by the scholar, were not acceptable to G. Gerullis. The author of the article discusses each oiconym and gives special attention to its structure and the origin of the first component. The investigation shows that the first component in most cases is derived from personal proper names, sometimes from appellatives. The author also presents examples of obscure origin. The research proves that the frequency of oiconyms with *kaim- is higher in East Prussia than oiconyms with this topolexeme in Lithuania. In East Prussia they are considered to be the relicts of western Baltic substratum and adstratum, and appellative is the phenomenon of western Balts. This fact might be significant for the researchers of the Baltic history. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the basis of Lithuania's postwar emigration press, the author discusses how Lithuania's eminent historian Adolfas Šapoka understood the project, developed by him and other Lithuanian historians, "to find Lithuanians in the history of Lithuania", to become free from the influence of foreign historiographies and to acquaint the society with its history. The author analyzes A. Šapoka's attitude towards history as well as similarities and differences of these attitudes between him and Zenonas Ivinskis, a representative of the younger generation historians, and also raises a question why Šapoka was concerned about the role of Lithuanians in the history of Lithuania and why this issue was important for Lithuania's history. The main task of independent Lithuania's historiography was to disconnect Lithuania's history from the conceptions of neighbouring countries' historians, which could be considered as a natural self-defense reflex. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a vast state extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea and pursued its own independent policy even after the Lublin Union in 1569. Lithuanian historians tried to defend the history of Lithuania from the conceptions of Polish historians (political context-struggle for Vilnius), Russian historians (negation of the existence of the medieval Russian-Lithuanian state) and German ones (polemics about the existence of Lithuanians in the Lithuania Minor before the 16th century) thus trying to "find" Lithuanians in the history of Lithuania. As a result, they paid less attention to the history of other national minorities. A. Šapoka, the editor of The History of Lithuania published in 1936, was a scholar with a positivistic view who encouraged the society to dissociate itself from the romantic images of Lithuania's history. He emphasized that every nation had the right to create its own national history. Acknowledging the inevitability of the influence of Western culture, A. Šapoka claimed that Lithuanian-Polish political relationships hindered the development of the unique Lithuanian culture. A. Šapoka was of the opinion that Byzantine civilization and Orthodox Church were incompatible with Lithuania's history. The project "to find Lithuanians" was aimed, first of all, to challenge historiographic conceptions of neighbouring countries-Russia, Germany and Poland; secondly, it also aimed "to show Lithuanians" to their own country-people. In A. Šapoka's opinion, the conception of monarchist historiography formed the notion that the territory under the Polish king could have been only Poland, and this conception was accepted by the societies of many countries. Therefore, A. Šapoka's task was to introduce Lithuanians to foreign historiography and foreign societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For a long time in the Lithuanian historiography the question of Vilnius was highlighted as a local problem of Lithuanian - Polish relations. This was conditioned by a concrete political situation. In the historiography of the Second Republic of Lithuania this problem acquired a broader context. The events of 1919-1920 gave the problem of ViInius an international status during the period between the world wars. When the League of Nations intervened, the problem became not only of European but also of worldwide scale. Traditionally, in the Lithuanian historiography the question of Vilnius included chronological frame between October 8, 1920, when the treaty of Suwalki was breached, and March 19, 1938, when the Polish ultimatum was accepted. For some time this period was treated by historians as monolithic. However, during that period, despite constant confrontation, one can also see some brighter moments. There were more of these moments at the beginning of the 1930's when it became clear that the question of Vilnius lost its importance in the international community. The period between June 12, 1934 when S. Lozoraitis became Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania and July 1936, when his second meeting with his Polish counterpart failed, can be called a period of warmer relationships (détente) between Kaunas and Warsaw. In an attempt to analyze the problem of Lithuanian - Polish relationships more objectively, it was necessary to look for a new point of reference. It was found in the document signed by A. Smetona and K. Bizauskas on August 22, 1937, which quite unexpectedly revealed some new aspects of Lithuania's nationalist foreign policy. In this document the President of Lithuania appoints the advisor of Lithuania's Mission in Poland Antanas Trimakas to the post of General Consul in Vilnius with the area of jurisdiction including the counties of Vilnius and Bialystok. It is possible to state with reference to the norms of international law that by this act A. Smetona recognized Vilnius and Vilnius region as part of Poland. Therefore we should expand the chronological frame of Vilnius question from the breach of Suwalki treaty on October 8, 1920 until August 22, 1939. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to evaluate and characterise the monetary circulation and its structural changes in Litbel, the Red Army controlled zone, that existed for several months in the territory of Lithuania and Belarus during the years of the First World War and in 1919. The article also throws some light on a new factual source, i.e. a hoard of money discovered in Vilnius during the archaeological research in 2004. Some financial and monetary issues were researched or, to varying degrees, touched upon in the works of historians and economists who dealt with the historiography of 1914-1920, i.e. Lithuania's economic development and other events of that period. These works/articles investigated the features of the bank development and monetary circulation as well as evaluated the economic situation. It has been established that from 1915 to the first half of 1919 the monetary circulation in Lithuania underwent several stages of development. Till July-August 191 7, a mixed monetary system had been formed throughout the entire territory of Lithuania. The main currency was the Russian Imperial money and German marks, which were the mostly valued by society. Alongside, the Ost Rubel, functioning as a secondary currency, enriched the monetary circulation. Insignificant quantities of other European and US currencies were also in circulation. Starting with July-August 1917, significant circulation changes occurred, as the Russian Imperial currency was ousted from circulation; it was replaced by German currency. From late 1917 until late 1918-early 1919, alongside the principal monetary system, circulating in Lithuania, the remainder of the Russian Imperial currency which occupied a secondary currency position, began to be used more intensively and its quantity fluctuated in a regressive order. At the beginning of 1919 (until April), a second, structurally different, money circulation system appeared in the eastern part of Lithuania (Litbel), which was occupied by the units of the Red Army. Its principle currency in January 1919 consisted of Russian 1917 and Imperial currency alongside an insignificant percentage of German currency: the Ost-Rubel and Ostmark as well as locally issued currency (in Panevėžys). The principal circulating currency in the Litbel territory essentially consisted of money which could not be converted into other currency. This is also clearly reflected by the hoard discovered during archaeological research in Vilnius in 2004. A glass beer bottle, containing 148 Russian Imperial, Duma, and the Provisional Government banknotes (total value being 4,970 roubles), was discovered. The majority (2,820 roubles or 56% of the total value) consisted of 20 and 40 rouble denomination 'kerenka' treasury notes issued in 1917 by the Russian Provisional Government. A glass box held 564 coins (560 of which were silver with a total weight of 1,457.16 gr.). These consisted of 496 (89%) Russian Imperial, 66 (11%) German, and 2 Austrian coins. The majority were small denomination coins: Russian 10, 15, and 20 kopeck coins and German half marks, which, in the author's opinion, reflects the then circulation situation, i.e. a shortage of large denomination freely convertible coins. The coins of 1913-1915 were the most represented (248) in the hoard. The hoard's composition reflects the fact that only small quantities of pre-1 862 small denomination silver coins, with a higher silver content than the later issued coins found in the hoard, were circulating in Vilnius at the end of the First World War. The facts and arguments allow to claim that the hoard was hidden in the period of proletarian dictatorship, and the discovery location indicates that it belonged to agents of the Bolshevik authorities or their associates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary post-modern philosophers of history tend to refer to historic text as a narrative which is closely related to literary, i.e. fiction narrative. On the one hand, such a conclusion reveals the progress achieved during the last two decades in the field of researches of historical texts, which made it possible to perceive that the representation of historical past is subject to the same textual mechanisms applicable in fiction literature. However, on the other hand, there is a concern that the treatment of history as a sub-type of literature genre may diminish its scientific nature. This article aims to identify the essential criterion or feature which would enable to clearly delimitate history from literature. The author of the article assumes that the application of literature science, such as narratology, techniques in the analysis of historical texts may be of service in search of the above-mentioned criterion. This clearly confirms the conclusion that historical works may be considered narratives and enables to identify textual differences between historical and literary narratives. Another two criteria regarding differences between historical and literary narratives, i.e. truth and pragmatism, are also discussed. The final conclusion provided at the end of the article suggests that it is impossible to identify the key difference between historical and fiction narratives. Such criterion exists only in the referential sphere, which is distant from the text, and manifests itself in the reality of historical events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyses paupers' self-government and self-control in Vilnius from the first half of the 17th century till the 18th century. This research aims to verify the affirmation that Vilnius city paupers formed certain guilds. On the basis of newly interpreted scarce, mainly of normative character, sources and historiography, the conclusion can be drawn that Vilnius paupers' organization (1 636-1 784) was rather unique. It could be defined as an original fusion/combination of self-government and city control; it was a specific fraternity devoid of the features of a guild or church brotherhood. The data collected allow to state that this fraternity functioned on self-government principles. At the beginning of its existence, it functioned as a worldly organization; however, the first quarter of the 1 8" century witnesses the appearance of religious aspects: this fraternity became subject (as far as its spiritual life was concerned) to the Dean of St. John's church. Therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that to name Vilnius paupers' fraternity as a guild (this is popular in Lithuanian historic literature) is wrong. Actually, Vilnius paupers' formal social organization was one of the layers of the then Lithuanian society. Consequently, this research is interesting both for historians and general public. The author also claims that the history of Vilnius' marginal society layers needs further research, especially in the context of other West and East European cities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article surveys the historiography of the 1944-1953 Lithuanian partisan movement, which strived to restore the independent state of Lithuania; it also aims to summarise the results of the research concerning this movement, its problems, development, and tendencies. The historiography of 1944-1953 resistance movement could be divided into two major periods. 1) the Soviet historiography till June, 1988, when the national reform movement Sajūdis was formed in Lithuania and 2) historiography of national rebirth and the independent state of Lithuania (June 1998-2004). The historiography of the resistance movement also evolved independently in foreign countries (where Lithuanians lived in emigration) before and after the restoration of the independent state of Lithuania. Researches of emigrant historians could be distinguished as a separate part of the resistance movement historiography. The Soviet historiography fulfilled certain political and ideological tasks, i.e. to defame freedom fighters and discredit the resistance movement. Lithuania's post-war history was viewed from the point of view of the Marxist class struggle theory. Therefore, freedom fighters were treated as cruel bandits, Nazi collaborators; milder terms used to describe them were capitalists and kulaks trying to restore the bourgeoisie system. This biased selection of historical facts, even their falsification, became an inalienable feature of the historical methodology of the Soviet period. Objective research of the resistance movement was impossible under the total state control and censorship. During the years of independence (1991-2004), the historiography of the resistance movement developed very rapidly. Numerous researches, which were of empirical and descriptive character, marked a new stage in Lithuania's present day history though they lacked synthetic studies with a strong theoretical background. Historiography of the independent Lithuanian period follows two directions: heroic-romantic and critical, which is dominant at the moment. Heroic-romantic approach adheres to the apologetic attitude towards the resistance movement. Researchers often idealized freedom fighters and schematically interpreted painful and complicated events, omitted some facts of underground activities sometimes even resorting to the characteristics of the Soviet methodology. Despite these shortcomings, adherents to the heroic-romantic approach to historiography revealed many important facts and documents, objectively investigated certain concrete problems and published important works. Studies of critical historiography, however, are not so numerous; nevertheless, they play an important role in the development and alternating tendencies of Lithuania's present day history encouraging academic disputes, critical thinking or re-evaluation of well known facts. So far, the history of the resistance movement is not fully and critically revealed. Some problems such as periodization, reasons, which gave rise to the resistance movement, its scope, collaboration, freedom fighters' repressions against those who collaborated with the Soviet power, and others are not explored enough and need further investigations. The post-war resistance movement, due to its complexity and numerous sources, will remain actual and acute for a long time. On the other hand, researches of the resistance movement at this moment progressed far enough to be summarized into one fundamental monograph with a critical analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article aims to review the process of establishing a network of Lithuanian consulates in Denmark in 1921-1922; it also concentrates on the functioning and activities of this network in 1924-1928 and presents major factors which stimulated the establishment of Lithuania's consulates in Denmark in 1929-1930. The article also investigates the main directions of their activities in 1929-1936 and presents the undertakings of honorary consulates in cultural sphere in 1937-1940. The research was conducted on the basis of the materials of the Lithuanian State Archives (F. 383, 648, R-1019) and those of the Danish Royal Library Archives and manuscript department. The data from periodical press of 1921-1940, certain Danish and Lithuanian publications as well as Lithuanian historiography were also taken into consideration. The collected data allows to speak about intentions to establish honorary consulates in Aarhus, Odens and Aalborge with a purpose to inform (through consuls) the Danish provincial press about events in Lithuania, to strengthen Lithuanian and Danish trade relations, to constantly maintain ties with the Lithuanian settlement in Denmark, and to diminish the Polish influence and intrigues in this country. The analysis of the establishment and functioning of a network of Lithuanian consulates in Denmark reveals that the expansion of honorary consulates was hindered by a Lithuanian representative I. Šeinius and the development of career consulates - by the position of the Seimas members. On January 1st, 1924, the Lithuanian embassy in Copenhagen was closed; instead a career viceconsulate was established, and this step evoked dissatisfaction on the Danish side. Both honorary and career consuls took care of Lithuanians residing in Denmark (having come here tor cultural, academic or some other purposes), provided the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with necessary information and strengthened bilateral economic relations. Political, economic and legal factors influenced the development of Lithuanian honorary consulates of in Denmark in 1929-1930, and the major role of the consuls was to establish and consolidate bilateral cultural and trade relations. In 1932-1936 B. Nielsen became a mediator in the cooperation between Lithuanian and Danish scientists and artists. The review of the activities of Lithuanian honorary consulates in Copenhagen in 1937-1940 dives reasons to state that they actively participated in the work of the Danish-Lithuanian Association, organized the commemoration of Lithuania's Independence Day, concerts, received businessmen and other guests from Lithuania as well as promulgated Lithuanian culture and tourism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]