Search

Straipsnyje aptariamas pirmasis Lietuvos dailės istorijos veikalas – profesoriaus, grafiko ir meno tyrinėtojo Juozapo Saunderso pranešimas apie dailininką Simoną Čechavičių, perskaitytas Vilniaus universitete 1815-ųjų lapkritį. Jis, pavadintas „Žinios apie Simono Čechavičiaus gyvenimą ir darbus“, laikomas dailės istorijos LDK tyrimų pradžia. Kaip ir XVI a. išleistuose italų dailininko, architekto ir pirmojo meno istoriko Giorgio Vasario "Žymiausių tapytojų, skulptorių ir architektų gyvenimuose", tapusiuose dailės istorijos tyrimų pirmavaizdžiu, Juozapas Saundersas savo pranešimu priminė apie užmarštin nugrimzdusį tapytoją, sukūrusį portretų ir religinių paveikslų, išryškino jo nuopelnus ir atskleidė menininko talentą. Vazariškosios tradicijos pavyzdžiu autorius savo pranešime siekė aptarti ne tik dailininko Čechavičiaus darbus, bet ir patį jo portretą – charakterį, požiūrį į kūrybą ir meną. Kaip ir Vasaris, Saundersas atkreipė dėmesį į menininko sielą, dorą, krikščionišką moralę, pabrėždamas jų įtaką kūrėjui. Pirmasis menotyrininkas Lietuvos istorijoje savo straipsnį iliustravo filosofinėmis mintimis apie meno bei menininko svarbą visuomenėje sekdamas savo pirmtako pėdomis. Šiame straipsnyje siekiama išanalizuoti Vasario suformuotos menininko biografijos užrašymo tradicijos įtaką, jos netiesiogiai suformuluotus meno istorijos principus, meno vertinimo kriterijus, kurie regimai atsispindi Saunderso pranešime apie Čechavičių. Reikšminiai žodžiai: dailės istoriografija LDK, virtus, pirmavaizdis, įamžinimas, menininko portretas. The article discusses the first Lithuanian art historical publication by proffessor and art historian Joseph Saunders, who read it in Vilnius University in November 1815. The article titled “Knowledge about Szymon Czechovicz’s Life and Creations” is considered to be the beginning of historiographical research in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Similarly to the first art historian Giorgio Vasari and his “Lives of the Most Eminent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects” (published in 1550), Saunders reminds his readers of a forgotten painter (who made multiple portraits and religious scenes), and underlines his accomplishments and talent. Following the Vasarian tradition, Saunders brings attention to Czechovicz’s life, his character, and his approach to art. Much like Vasari, Saunders is interested in the artist’s soul, virtues and morale, and is emphasizing their importance in his philosophic reflections about art and artists. By comparing Saunders’ article with the scheme of the “Lives” by Vasari, the paper suggests that Vasari could have been a model art historian, and argues that his methods of analysis were applied by Saunders in the 19th century. Keywords: historiography of art, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, virtus, originary image, memorialisation, artist’s portrait.

Straipsnyje gvildenama Ankstyvosios Vidurio Europos valstybės koncepcija, dešimtmečius plėtota kaimyninių šalių istoriografijoje, tačiau iki šiol ignoruojama lietuvių medievistikoje. Autorius siekia pagrįsti tezę, kad minėta koncepcija yra originalus Vidurio Rytų Europos istorikų įnašas į ikikapitalistinių periferinių visuomenių lyginamąją istorinę sociologiją ir kad jo pritaikymas ankstyvosios LDK sociopolitinės ir socioekonominės struktūros interpretacijai gali pasiūlyti originalių teorinių įžvalgų bei suteikti galimybę lietuvių medievistams įsitraukti į tarptautinius lyginamuosius tyrimus bei atnaujinti teorines diskusijas. Esminiai žodžiai: ankstyvosios Vidurio Europos valstybės modelis, periferinis feodalizmas, ikikapitalistiniai gamybos būdai, stambioji žemėvalda, centralizuota eksploatacija. The article is dedicated to the type of early Central European state (or Ius Ducale system). This model has been elaborated for decades in the medieval literature of the neighboring countries (especially Poland and Czechoslovakia) but has so far been ignored in Lithuanian historiography.Some foreign historians have applied the concept to a European-wide range of peripheral societies (from Scandinavia to the Balkans, including the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) and outlined the internal typology of the model.The author of the current article mentions that Gudavičius’ conception of peripheral feudalism is not completely convincing in the case of the early Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore the author argues that the concept of an early Central European state offers not only an opportunity to Lithuanian medievalists to get involved in international comparative research but also to reinvigorate theoretical debates about the early Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Following the overview of the Lithuanian literature the following most important conclusions could be drawn: In the last quarter of the 20th century the concept of the early Central European state prevailed in the historiographies of Central European countries but recently has come under discussion. It has been much criticized but nevertheless, different opinions are still maintained.The relation of the early Central European state model to various pre-capitalist modes of production is not clarified enough.Keeping in mind the prevailing structural interpretation of the early Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the early Central European state model could definitely be applied to the Lithuanian case. Keywords: the model of early Central European state, peripheral feudalism, pre-capitalist modes of production, large landownership, centralized exploitation.

Straipsnyje apžvelgiami Lietuvos, Lenkijos ir Rusijos istorikų, dalyvavusių diskusijoje apie Lietuvos katalikus, savanoriškai ar prievarta atsidūrusius Sibire, pranešimai. Virtualaus apskritojo stalo dalyviai nustatė temos šaltinių bazę, apibūdino jos tyrimo laipsnį, apibrėžė tolesnių tyrimų perspektyvas. Kalbant apie šaltinius, pažymėta, kad nemaža dalis jų saugoma Sibiro archyvuose. Tai – atskiri dokumentai ar bylos bažnyčių, perkėlimo komisijų, policijos, žemės matininkų, valsčių administracijų, kaimo draugijų, politinių partijų, švietimo įstaigų, tautinių draugijų, gyventojų surašymo komisijų, religijos reikalų komisarų, tremtinių, repatriantų fonduose. Vertingos medžiagos yra ir centriniuose Lietuvos, Rusijos, Baltarusijos istoriniuose archyvuose, Vatikano ir vienuolijų ordinų archyvuose. Vilniaus mokslinėse bibliotekose galima rasti kelių Sibire tarnavusių lietuvių kunigų rankraščius. Iš publikuotų šaltinių diskusijos dalyviai ypatingą dėmesį skyrė atsiminimų, dokumentų, laikraščių straipsnių leidiniams. Kaip papildomi šaltiniai buvo minimi ir asmeniniai laiškai, nuotraukos, epitafijos. Istoriografijoje apie Sibiro Katalikų Bažnyčią vyrauja bendro ar prolenkiško pobūdžio studijos, kuriose katalikai iš Lietuvos dažniausiai nėra išskiriami kaip atskira kategorija arba visai neminimi. Tyrimų, skirtų būtent Lietuvos katalikams Sibire, yra labai nedaug, tad didelis kiekis šaltinių atveria plačias perspektyvas tyrimams – kolektyviniams, tarptautiniams, tarpdisciplininiams. Tyrimo objektais galėtų būti Lietuvos katalikų kasdienybė, iškilių asmenybių biografijos, kultūrinis ir religinis gyvenimas. Pažymėta, jog labai svarbus yra mokslinis rinktinių šaltinių leidinys. Straipsnyje pateikiamas kritinis aparatas ir studijų nuotolinės konferencijos tema sąrašas. Raktažodžiai: katalikai iš Lietuvos Sibire, šaltiniai, istoriografija, tyrimo perspektyvos, diskusija. The article reviews the statements of Lithuanian, Polish and Russian historians who took part in the discussion on Lithuanian Catholics who voluntarily or forcibly ended up in Siberia. The participants of the virtual round table identified the source base of the topic, described the degree of its research, and outlined the prospects for further research. As far as the sources are concerned, it was noted that a considerable part of them is stored in the Siberian archives. These include individual documents or files in the fonds of churches, resettlement commissions, police, land surveyors, district administrations, village societies, political parties, educational establishments, national societies, census commissions, religious commissars, exiles and repatriates. Valuable material is also available in the central historical archives of Lithuania, Russia, Belarus, the Vatican and the archives of the monastic orders. The manuscripts of several Lithuanian priests who served in Siberia can be found in Vilnius research libraries. Among the published sources, the participants of the discussion paid special attention to the publication of memoirs, documents and newspaper articles. Personal letters, photographs and epitaphs were also mentioned as additional sources. The historiography on the Siberian Catholic Church is dominated by studies of a general or pro-polish nature, where Catholics from Lithuania are usually not singled out as a separate category or not mentioned at all. Special studies on Lithuanian Catholics are rare. Such a small number of studies and a large number of sources open up great perspectives for research, including collective, international and interdisciplinary. The objects of the research could be the everyday life of Lithuanian Catholics, biographies of prominent personalities, cultural and religious life. It is also noted as a very important and scholarly publication of selected sources. The article includes a critical apparatus and a list of studies on the subject of the remote conference. Keywords: Catholics from Lithuania in Siberia, sources, historiography, research perspectives, discussion.

The history of the law in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has always attracted the attention of researchers. The productive period in its study was the activity of the Commission for the Study of the History of Western-Ruthenian and Ukrainian Law of All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (hereafter AUAS). The theoretical achievements of the commission are significant. Nowadays some of its members’ works have been republished with modern commentaries, and separate studies have been devoted to them. But there are such members whose works do not have any historiographical researches despite their great scientific achievements. One of them is the historian Stefan (Stepan) Hnatovych Borysenok (May 17, 1891 – November 14, 1937). Borysenok was a talented and extraordinary researcher. This article presents his biographical data as well as the theoretical achievements of the scientist are analyzed. The scientific achievements of the researcher in the field of law history are not very large. They are about 10 works (thorough scientific articles) and several reviews. They were significant for that time. However a few decades later after writing of these articles modern researchers point to a significant number of inaccuracies and errors in his works. S. Borysenok’s works were highly appreciated by his contemporaries and scientific mentors M. Vasylenko and O. Malynovsky. First of all they were impressed by the fact that he always tried to turn to primary sources and was critical to the works of his predecessors. His works show an excellent knowledge of the historiography of a particular research problem. In addition S. Borysenok being a lawyer by education was able to analyze in more details the certain problems that were not always clear to historians. The issues related to the First Lithuanian Statute and the history of the Bar in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had been researched by S. Borysenok since the middle of 1920s. In particular the main subject of his research in Moscow archives was "History of the Bar in Ukraine in the 16th–18th Centuries. The special articles of the researcher are interesting and original. Among them are such articles as "Formation of a Professional Bar in the Lithuanian-Ruthenian State", "Lawyer's Fee in the Lithuanian Principality in the 16th–17th Centuries" (The latter was published in the 7th issue of the "Proceedings of the Commission for the Study of the History of Western-Ruthenian and Ukrainian Law". But that issue was destroyed). One of the greatest work by S. Borysenok concerns the history of the Bar formation in the first half of the 16th century. Also in the late 1920's the researcher had been preparing for publication a thorough work with focus on the Lithuanian Statute (history of drafting the code, sources, lists). Correspondence with Lithuanian researcher A. Janulaitis (the ancestor of the Lithuanian Statutes historiography) indicates that the manuscript of this work (or a significant part of it) probably existed. At the same time the facts of cooperation with Lithuanian historians are recorded and they give us the opportunity to hope that the lost achievements of the researcher can still be found and introduced into scientific circulation. And we are convinced that they will be the impetus for the new scientific research and will cause a significant number of scientific discussions. In the early 1930's S. Borysenok was an employee at the library. He actively worked at the acquisition of the library fund with foreign professional publications. He tried to establish and systematize international exchange. On September 23, 1937 S. Borysenok was arrested on trumped up charges of alleged involvement in an "anti-Soviet nationalist organization". On October 25 of the same year he was sentenced to death via shooting (executed on November, 14).

One of the significant events of Ukraine's struggle for independence during the first period of the National Revolution (1648 – June 1652) was Loev campaign of its troops, which despite the defeat and hetman S.M. Krychevsky’s death nevertheless prevented the Lithuanians invasion. Though for the first time in historiography V. Lypynskyі proved convincingly in his monographic study the falsity of neglecting its role in the Ukrainian-Polish military-political confrontation in the summer of 1649, as well as the works of subsequent scholars (including modern ones) did. But up to now Lithuanian theater of hostilities has been considered traditionally as an event with a minor effect. However this is far from the case! For example although it was not decisive in 1649 and 1651, it is by no means possible to interpret as something insignificant. It is firstly. Secondly, except for confessions ("confession") of captured Ukrainian soldiers and rebels, the lack of Ukrainian origin sources (no one letter, universal, report, diary, message or the story of the battle participant have been saved) is still a major obstacle for the reconstruction by the researchers of more or less a complete picture of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. They only managed to reproduce the most important events in very general / contour features and even then through the prism of information material from Lithuanian and Polish sources. Instead, its course with the Lithuanian units’ participation is depicted scrupulously thanks to the efforts of Polish authors. However in general due to the schematic presentation of the Ukrainian command strategic plan, the steps taken for its implementation, the factors that significantly changed the course of the battle and determined its results, the overall panorama of the event looks somewhat simplified, devoid of internal dynamics and drama and in some ways with the spraying of popularity while imaging the infallibility of the Lithuanian polny hetman J. Radziwill decisions and actions. In order to outline the ways to correct shortcomings and fill scientific gaps the author’s research focus is on identifying a number of actual problems of the Ukrainian army’s Loev campaign. Having analyzed heritage and discovered source base, the author considers those actual problems need rethinking, finding new ways to solve them, further discussions or even starting their study. They included the following ones: to clarify the essence of B. Khmelnytsky's strategic plan, developed in May-June, regarding the place and role of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) in the forthcoming campaign against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; to find out the time and place of the Acting Hetman S. Krychevsky departure to the Lithuanian theater of hostilities and the route of its promotion; to specify the number of soldiers who took part in the battle on both sides; to find out the essence of S. Krychevsky’s activity since his appearance in Chernobyl (about July, 8) till the capture of Kholmech (July, 29); to determine the nature of his relations with colonel S. Pobodailo, who defended the crossing of the Dnieper opposite Loev; to coverage the action plan of the latter, the reasons for their passivity and inconsistency with the attack of the Acting Hetman on the Lithuanian camp in the morning of July, 31, etc. The author is aware that hoping for their full clarification will be a fiction until the sources which had been created by Ukrainians, the participants of the campaign are found. Nevertheless, the painstaking work of researchers in archives and manuscripts departments of scientific libraries in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania and other countries will undoubtedly enrich the existing source base as a whole and contribute, albeit slightly, to enrich knowledge in the study of this problem.

Straipsnyje analizuojamas, pirmą kartą publikuojamas ir į lietuvių kalbą išverčiamas 1529 m. sausio 12 d. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės ir Livonijos konfederacijos sienos aprašymas. Nustatyta dalies toponimų lokacijos, kurios iki šiol nebuvo žinomos. Aiškinamasi dokumento sudarymo ir archyvavimo aplinkybės. Keliama hipotezė, kad dokumento juodraštį sudarė Aleksandras (Alekna) Krivecas, vėliau jį perdavė saugoti kancleriui Albertui Goštautui. Esminiai žodžiai: Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė, Lietuvos Metrika, Livonija, siena. This article is aimed at providing the first publication, analysis and Lithuanian translation of the description of the border between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Confederation of Livonia, as dated on 12 January 1529. The comparison of the 1529 description with the previous treaties (1367, 1426, 1473) shows that the border largely coincided in several sections, namely, between the Daugava River and Kurcumas/Kurcums Lake in 1473, along the Dienvidsusēja River in 1367, and between the Nemunėlis/Mēmele River and the Mūša/Mūsa River in 1426. On the other hand, the border between the Mūša River and Buknaičiai Village (Mažeikiai District) and further westward along the Šventoji/Sventāja River was substantially moved northward for the advantage of Lithuania. Covering the 590 kilometre frontline (approximately 270 kilometres out of them along rivers excluding their curves), the 1529 border description lists 19 parishes, 30 rivers and streams, 17 lakes and 1 island, 2 marshes, 4 hills and 2 mounds, 2 settlements (Žagarė and Bauska), 1 stackyard (near Bauska), 1 estate (near the Viršytis/Virsīte River), and 1 village (in the confluence of the Švitinys/Svitene River and the Viršytis River). In total, the description contains 79 toponyms. The part of the border described in 1529 coincides with the current state border between Lithuania and Latvia (from the Skirna River to Samanka Lake, from Kastantinava Village to Subatas Lake (Latvian: Mazais Subates ezers), from the Virčiuvė/Vircava River to Žagarė, from Buknaičiai Village to the Šventoji River) (see Annex No 3). This section underwent slight changes as far back as on 30 March 1921. No other objects are mentioned in the description of the border between Kurcumas/Kurcums Lake and Subatas Lake. The article also investigates the circumstances of creating and archiving the border description. A hypothesis is suggested that the document had been drafted by Alexander (Olechno) Krivec and was later transferred to chancellor Albertas Goštautas (Polish: Olbracht Gasztołd; Belarusian: Альбрэхт Гаштольд; Russian: Ольбрахт (Альберт) Гаштольд)) for storage. Keywords: Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Lithuanian Metrica, Livonia, border.

Straipsnyje tiriamas Dionizo Poškos (1764–1830) raudų / elegijų herojiškos pagonybės istorinės topikos šaltinis. Yra žinoma, kad D. Poška skaitė Simono Daukanto (1793–1864) pirmosios Lietuvos istorijos (1822) rankraštį. Straipsnyje iškeliama hipotezė, kad D. Poškos rašomosios kalbos pasirinkimas „žemaičių tarmės link“ ir raudose pagausėjusi istoriografiniam žanrui būdinga leksika sietina su S. Daukanto rankraščio skaitymu. Straipsnyje pirmiausia aptariamas D. Poškos, kaip pirmosios lietuviškos istorijos skaitytojo, patyrimas. Tada – jo elegijose aptinkami S. Daukanto veikalui būdingi elementai. Tyrime prieinama prie išvados, kad D. Poška S. Daukanto Lietuvos istoriją skaitė 1824 m., nes tais metais datuojamuose eilėse aptinkame istorikui būdingą leksiką. Po 1824 m. rašytose elegijose tradicinei herojinės ir pražuvusios tautos topikai jis surado lietuviškus atitikmenis, kurie dažnai perimti iš S. Daukanto teksto, ir nėra pažodiniai lenkų literatūros vertimai. S. Daukanto tekstas D. Pošką įkvėpė kalbėti apie pražuvusius aukso amžius, jis laikytinas lietuviškos istorinės elegijos pradininku. Poetas, S. Daukantu sekdamas, mokėsi retorinį rašymą keisti autentiška minties raiška, būdinga romantizmo autoriams. Pagrindiniai žodžiai: Poška, Daukantas, rauda, kalba, istorija, istorinė topika. The article investigates the source of the historiographical topic of heroic paganism in the laments/elegies of Dionizas Poška (1764–1830). Looking at it chronologically, the expressiveness of Poška’s poetry became richer, images of the battles the Samogitians and Lithuanians fought against the Crusaders, and the topic of the lost nation, became more frequent, and features of the local landscape appeared. It is known that Poška read the manuscript of the first history of Lithuania (1822) by Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864). The article hypothesises that Poška’s choice in his written language ‘to lean towards the Samogitian dialect’, and the increase in a lexicon characteristic of the historiographical genre in the laments, are connected with him reading Daukantas’ manuscript. Since until now researchers into Daukantas’ legacy have not agreed on the date of the completion of his first manuscript history, it is believed that research of this kind will make it possible to clarify this. The article first discusses the experience of Poška as a reader of the first Lithuanian history. After that, elements found in Poška’s elegies which are characteristic of Daukantas’ work, are discussed. It is demonstrated how there was an abundance of lexicon, word combinations, images and paraphrases in Poška’s lamentations that are specific to Daukantas’ work. The research comes to the conclusion that Poška read the ‘History of Lithuania’ by Daukantas in 1824, because we find in verse dating from that year a lexicon that is characteristic of Daukantas’ work. Therefore, the year of completion of Daukantas’ manuscript should be considered before 1824. In elegies written after 1824, Poška found Lithuanian equivalents of the traditional topics of the heroic and lost nation, which are often taken from the work of Daukantas, and are not literal translations of Polish literature. Daukantas’ text inspired Poška to talk about a lost Golden Age, and so he can be considered a pioneer of Lithuanian historical elegy. Following Daukantas, the poet learned to replace rhetorical writing with an authentic expression of thought characteristic of Romantic authors. Keywords: Poška, Daukantas, lament, elegy, language, history, historiographical topic.

Straipsnyje apžvelgiamas bendrasis Nepriklausomybės trisdešimtmečio, 1990–2020 m., Lietuvos dailėtyros vaizdas: institucinio ir akademinio gyvenimo permainos, metodologinių prieigų spektro pokyčiai, menotyros leidiniai ir autoriai. Šios apžvalgos tikslas – įvertinti esamą situaciją ir skatinti diskusiją užklausiant, ar Lietuvoje jau susiformavo sava dailėtyros mokykla? Jei taip, kokie jos ypatumai, kaitos etapai? Ar dailės istorijos naratyvo pokyčius galime laikyti naujo dailėtyros etapo simptomu? Mokyklos klausimas analizuojamas remiantis keliais kriterijais, kuriais įprasta vadovautis konstatuojant atskiros mokslo ar meno mokyklos buvimą. Lietuvių dailėtyrininkų tekstai, daugiausia knygos, aptariami naudojant kritinę tyrimo metodų analizę. Straipsnyje analizuojamų leidinių atranka ir išvados kviečia diskusijai; teiginių subjektyvumas neišvengiamas, nes šiuolaikinė Lietuvos dailės istorijos istorija iki šiol nebuvo sistemingai tyrinėta, o trisdešimt metų – per trumpas laiko tarpas, kad atsisijotų visi reikšmingiausi dalykai ir atsivertų vykusių procesų visuma. Reikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvos dailės istorija, tyrimo metodai, istoriografija, šaltinių tyrimai, bažnytinė dailė, vizualumo tyrimai, taikomieji dailės tyrimai. 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. Keywords: Lithuanian Art History, methodology, historiography, source research, ecclesiastical art, visuality research, applied arts research.

Straipsnyje analizuojama „nacionalinio kino“ koncepcija, jos samprata tarptautinėje ir lietuviškoje kinotyroje. Pristatomi pagrindiniai autoriai, formavę ir praplėtę „nacionalinio kino“ istoriografinį diskursą (Andrew Higson, John Hill, Stephen Croft ir kt.), analizuojama ne tik „nacionalumo“ reikšmės kaita, bet ir kino – aptariami rečiau lietuviškoje kinotyroje aptinkami aspektai: auditorija, platinimas ir rodymas. Aiškinamasi, ką naujo kinotyrai suteikia pakitusi „nacionalinio kino“ samprata, atsižvelgiant į šiuolaikinius transnacionalinio ir pasaulio kino tyrimus. Tarptautinė dinamika lyginama su lietuviškuoju kontekstu (Marijona Malcienė, Laimonas Tapinas, Živilė Pipinytė), nurodomi pastarosios trūkumai. Remiantis konkrečiu ankstyvojo kino laikotarpiu Lietuvoje, demonstruojami praplėstos, perkrautos „nacionalinio kino“ sampratos privalumai. Pirmą kartą konceptualiai pagrindžiamas ir pasiūlomas Lietuvos kino ištakų datavimas. Reikšminiai žodžiai: ankstyvasis kinas, kinotyros istoriografija, postkolonializmas. 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. Keywords: history of cinema, early cinema, postcolonialism.

Straipsnis tematiškai skirtas XVII a. LDK kultūros istorijai – nagrinėjami vienos didžiausių protestantų bendruomenių (Kėdainių) valdymo ypatumai: išryškinami Kėdainių valdos protestantiškumo bruožai, Radvilų vaidmuo bažnyčios valdymo procese, analizuojama Kėdainių reikšmė bendroje Vienetos valdymo sistemoje, rekonstruojama Kėdainių bažnyčios svarbiausio valdymo organo – vyresniųjų sesijų – veikla. Tyrimo chronologinės ribos apima 1614–1695 m. laikotarpį, kai Kėdainiai priklausė protestantiškai Radvilų šakai (nuo Kristupo II iki Liudvikos Karolinos Radvilaitės). Tyrimo šaltinių bazė pagrįsta LDK evangelikų reformatų sinodo, Kėdainių dvaro ir Radvilų archyvo Varšuvoje medžiaga. The article addresses the topic of the 17th century cultural history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with a focus on the peculiarities of administration of one of the largest Protestant communities (Kėdainiai). It highlights the features of Protestantism in Kėdainiai estate and the place of the Radziwiłł family in the process of administration of the church; it also analyses the role of Kėdainiai in the general – Unitas (Lith. Vieneta) – administration system and reconstructs the activities of the principal administrative body of Kėdainiai Church – seniors’ sessions. The chronological limits of the research cover the period 1614–1695 when Kėdainiai belonged to the Protestant Radziwiłł family line (from Krzysztof II Radziwiłł to Ludwika Karolina Radziwiłł). The research sources comprise the material of the Evangelical Reformed Synod of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Kėdainiai estate and the Radziwiłł Archive in Warsaw.

Straipsnio objektas - Vilniaus universiteto istorijai skirti darbai, sukurti XX amžiaus pirmuosius du dešimtmečius kultūros istoriko Ludwiko Janowskio (1878-1921), kurio veikla buvo siejama su Kijevo ir Krokuvos mokslo bendruomenėmis, o 1919-1921 m. buvo Vilniaus Stepono Batoro universiteto profesorius. Domėjimasis Vilniaus universiteto istorija buvo Janowskio tyrinėjimo aistra visą jo gyvenimą, nors jam nepavyko parašyti planuotos istoriografinės sintezės. Savo darbuose jis bandė taisyti ir papildyti Vilniaus universiteto istorijos tyrimus. Jo studijos ir knygos sudaro savotišką fragmentų, daugelio variantų pasakojimų, rodančių svarbiausius šio didžio mokslo ir kultūros centro raidos etapus ir veiksnius, sintezę. The subject of this article is scientific reflection about the works on the history of Vilnius University had written in the first two decades of the twentieth century by the cultural historian, Ludwik Janowski (1878-1921), who was associated with the scientific community in Kiev and Krakow, and in 1919-1921 he was a professor at The Stefan Batory University in Vilnius. Janowski's interest on the history of Vilnius University was a kind of a research passion all his life. Though he failed to write a historiographic synthesis that it has been planning. In his works he tried to correct and supplement the research on the history of Vilnius University. His studies and books compose a specific synthesis in fragments, which shows in a multi-variant narrative the most important stages and factors in the development of this great center of science and culture.

Straipsnyje atskleidžiamas Kauno sunkiųjų darbų kalėjimo (1919–1940 m.) vaizdinys lietuvių grožinėje literatūroje, vertinamas jo tikroviškumas. Pirmajame skyriuje dėmesys sutelkiamas į kalėjimo lokalizacijos ir pastato išvaizdos aprašymus. Jie – fragmentiški, bet gana tikslūs, tikroviški. Antrajame skyriuje analizuojamos ir apibendrinamos užuominos apie kalėjimo vidaus įrengimą, kalinių gyvenimo sąlygas, kasdienius potyrius; trečiajame – informacija apie kalinių darbą, prižiūrėtojus ir jų elgesį su nuteistaisiais. Šių sferų vaizdavimas dažnai prasilenkia su dokumentinių, memuarinių ir kitų šaltinių duomenimis, yra ganėtinai paviršutiniškas, kartais – dar ir „suveltas“. Tikrovės iškraipymais, negatyviu propagandiniu tendencingumu ypač pasižymi sovietmečiu (1940–1989 m.) išleisti romanai, novelės. Tačiau ir vertinant visą peržvelgtą lietuvių literatūros spektrą, galima konstatuoti, kad kalėjimas dažniausiai parodomas kaip paslaptinga, slegianti, bauginanti, fizinių ir moralinių kančių prisodrinta vieta. The article reveals the depiction of Kaunas hard labour prison (1919–1940) in Lithuanian fiction and assesses its realism. The first chapter focuses on descriptions of the location of the prison and the appearance of the building. These are fragmentary, but quite accurate and realistic. The second chapter analyses and summarises hints about the interior of the prison, the living conditions of the prisoners and their daily experiences; the third contains information on the work of prisoners, wardens and their behaviour towards prisoners. The depiction of these spheres is often at odds with documentary, memoir and other sources, and is rather superficial, sometimes even "twisted". Novels and novellas published during the Soviet period (1940–1989) are particularly characterised by distortions of reality and negative propaganda bias. However, even if we look at the entire spectrum of Lithuanian literature, we can conclude that prison is usually portrayed as a mysterious, oppressive, frightening place, filled with physical and moral suffering.

Karaliaučiaus universiteto teologijos profesorius, vyriausiasis karališkųjų rūmų pamokslininkas, Prūsijos generalinis superintendentas Jonas Jokūbas Kvantas (Johann Jacob Quandt, 1686–1772) žinomas ne tik kaip lietuviškų knygų leidėjas, Lietuvių kalbos seminaro vadovas, bet ir kaip lietuvių raštijos istoriografas. Vieno pirmųjų lietuvių raštijos istoriografų vardą Kvantui pelnė vokiškos prãtarmės jo rūpesčiu išleistose lietuviškose knygose – pirmojoje spausdintoje Biblijoje (1 1735), giesmyne Iß naujo pérweizdėtos ir pagérintos Giesmû-Knygos (1 1732) ir postilėje Trumpas ir prástas Ißguldimas wissû Nedėlês ir ßwentû Dienû Ewangeliû (1 1750). Straipsnyje analizuojami Kvanto surinkti duomenys apie lietuvių raštiją ir pateikti rankraštiniame veikale Prūsijos presbiterologija (Preußische Presbyterologie, prieš 1772), kuris saugomas Berlyne, Prūsijos kultūros paveldo Slaptajame valstybiniame archyve (GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, Hs, Nr. 2, Bd. 1–5). Jonas Jokūbas Kvantas (Johann Jacob Quandt), Prūsijos presbiterologija, lietuvių raštijos istoriografija. Johann Jacob Quandt (1686–1772), professor primarius of theology at the University of Königsberg, chief court preacher, and General Superintendent of Prussia, is known as a publisher of Lithuanian books, supervisor of the Lithuanian Language Seminar, and a historiographer of Lithuanian writings. Quandt made his name as one of the first historiographers of Lithuanian writings by German forewords in Lithuanian books published under his guidance, the first printed Bible (1 1735), hymnal Iß naujo pérweizdėtos ir pagérintos Giesmû-Knygos (1 1732) and postil Trumpas ir prástas Ißguldimas wissû Nedėlês ir ßwentû Dienû Ewangeliû (1 1750). The article deals with the information on Lithuanian writings presented by Quandt in the manuscript Preußische Presbyterologie (Prussian Presbyterology, before 1772), which is currently stored in Berlin, in the Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (GStA PK: XX. HA Hist. StA Königsberg, Hs, Nr. 2, Bd. 1–5).

The article analyses achievements of contemporary historiography in the study of the role and significance of the Gorodel Union of 1413 in the formation of the gentry class of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The key subjects of scientific research of Polish, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian historians are identified. It is emphasised that these subjects, as a rule, are not an independent historiographical problem and act as part of a broader research discussion about the causes and results of the Union of 1413 in the system of relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. In conclusion, it is noted that despite the differences in the interpretation of a number of specific issues, researchers generally agree in the statement that the acts of the Gorodel Union and the heraldic adoption, both in their content and in their consequences, are one of the key stages in the process of forming the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The union between Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a legal act with permanent and historically important effects, was signed in Lublin in 1569. Jan Ponętowski (a nobleman, probably a witness of the events) wrote a poetic report on the event entitled Krótki rzeczy polskich sejmowych pamięci godnych komentarz (Short Commentary on Memorable Polish Parliamentary Matters), printed in Cracow in 1569. The paper touches upon what Ponętowski says about the Union and other events in Lublin during the parliament: diplomatic missions, judgments, topics of talks and news from other lands. It also tries to explain why the Union of Lublin (the most important achievement of the parliament) was only marginally described by the author; and also why he only laconically reported the solemn feudal homage of Albert Frederick, the Duke of Prussia, to the Polish king Sigismund II Augustus. The paper compares Ponętowski’s book with old-Polish historiographical descriptions of these matters.

The presence of the Society of Jesus in the culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the period 1564–1773 was certainly one of the most important elements in the process of building the religious, cultural, and political identity of this multinational and multiconfessional state, one of the largest in Europe at the time. The authors sketch the most important trends in research on this subject matter and present the leading authors and their studies. They point out the recent departure from the historiography produced within the Society and the remnants of earlier, largely apologetic writings, towards the “hermeneutic turn” taking place at the moment. They explain their decisions concerning the contents of the present issue of JJS , aimed at filling gaps in the knowledge of English-speaking scholars caused by the fact that the majority of studies concerning the activities of Jesuits in the Commonwealth are published in Polish and Lithuanian.

Straipsnis skirtas ašinei LDK istorijos tematikai – feodalizmui. Per 30 m. nepriklausomos Lietuvos lietuviško feodalizmo problematika visų pirma siejosi su Edvardo Gudavičiaus vardu. Po jo mirties tapo aktualus poreikis apžvelgti ir įvertinti lietuviškąją feodalizmo istoriografiją. Straipsnio autorius priėjo prie tokių svarbiausių išvadų: 1) Po 2003 m. užsimezgė tam tikra teorinė diskusija dėl feodalizmo sampratos. 2) Pats E. Gudavičius feodalizmui apibrėžti marksistine prasme išskyrė du kriterijus: individualų valstiečio ūkį ir stambiąją žemėvaldą, tačiau interpretuodamas ankstyvosios LDK socioekonominę struktūrą darė išlygą ir antrojo kriterijaus netaikė. Kaip alternatyva ankstyvajam feodalizmui siūloma lietuvių medievistų iki šiol ignoruota ankstyvosios Vidurio Europos valstybės modelio koncepcija. The article is dedicated to the fundamental subject of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) – feudalism. During the 30 years of Lithuanian independence the topic of Lithuanian feudalism was connected, first of all, with the name of Edvardas Gudavičius. Following his death, it became relevant to overview and evaluate Lithuanian historiography dealing with the topic. The main conclusions of the article are the following: 1) After 2003 a theoretical discussion about feudalism began; 2) Gudavičius himself pointed out two criteria to define feudalism from the Marxist point of view: individual peasant households and large landownership; but his interpretation of socioeconomic structure of early GDL applied to only one of them. The concept of the model of the early Central European state, ignored by Lithuanian medievalists so far, was proposed as alternative to the concept of early feudalism.

Straipsnyje tiriamas Simono Daukanto (1793–1864) istoriografinio teksto poveikis Vydūno (tikr. Vilhelmas Storostas, 1868–1953) dramoms. Vydūno publicistika rodo, kad nuo 1900 m. jo tekstuose pagausėja S. Daukanto paminėjimų, skelbiamos istoriko tekstų ištraukos. 1900 m. parašytoje dramoje „Probočių šešėliai“ aptinkama nemažai S. Daukanto intertekstų. Straipsnyje, remiantis S. Daukanto ir Vydūno tekstų lyginamąja analize, iškeliama hipotezė, kad dramų autorius buvo idealus istoriko tekstų skaitytojas ir iš jų perėmė koncepcijas, motyvus, vaizdinius. S. Daukantas Vydūną įkvėpė, ir šis sėkmingai vartojo daugelį istoriko sukurtų frazių, patekusių į lietuvių romantinės istoriografijos bendrųjų vietų sąrašą. Vydūnas pirmasis objektyvizavo S. Daukanto sukurtą pasaulį ir lietuviams leido scenoje pabūti senovės lietuvio vaidmenyje ir atsirinkti, kas, kuriant modernią lietuvių visuomenę, vis dar būtų aktualu. Analizė parodė, kad Vydūnas S. Daukanto istoriografijos sukurtą senovės lietuvių pasaulį pamatė kaip archetipą ir perkėlė į filosofinį lygmenį, sukūrė universalų asmenybės ir tėvynės jungties modelį, o dramose pateikė imitacinius modelius siūlomai aksiologijai patikrinti. This article examines the impact of the historiographical work of Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864) on the dramas by Vydūnas (real name Vilhelmas Storostas, 1868–1953). From 1900 onwards, Vydūnas’ published works increasingly featured mentions of Daukantas and excerpts from the historian’s writings. A number of Daukantas’ intertexts are found in the drama Probočių šešėliai (Shadows of the Ancestors), written in 1900. This article, based on a comparative analysis of the writings by Daukantas and Vydūnas, raises the hypothesis that the author of the dramas was the ideal reader of the historian’s writings, and took various concepts, motifs and images from them. Vydūnas was inspired by Daukantas, and used the historian’s phrase ‘bočių probočių’ (ancestors of ancestors) and the concept of ‘tautos būdas’ (national identity) as a description of the essence of the nation, which is prevalent in his work published in 1845, and other concepts. He was the first to objectify the world created by Daukantas, and allowed Lithuanians to play the role of the ancient Lithuanian on the stage, and choose what was relevant in establishing modern Lithuanian society. The analysis reveals that Vydūnas saw the ancient Lithuanian world created by the historical writings by Daukantas as an archetype, and transposed it to a philosophical level. He also created a universal model for the link between the individual and the homeland; and in dramas, he presented simulation models for testing the proposed axiology.

The article deals with the issues of the state archive of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Soviet historiography, in particular the approach to the terminology of the complex of original files of national importance. The author concludes that this problem in the USSR was not specifically investigated. It was raised indirectly in the context of another subject of research - the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania Metrica or the “Lithuanian Metrica”. The most significant contribution to the development of ideas about the complex of originals and their terminology was made by historians M.G. Berazhkoў, M.M. Ulashchyk, G.L. Harashkevіch, E.D. Banionis. In fact, by the mid-1980s, Soviet scholarship was dominated by the vision of a collection of original documents under the “Lithuanian Metrica”, and the latter as the actual state archive of the GDL. The GDL Metrica itself was mainly understood as an “archive”. The issue of the independence of the collection of original files in relation to the record in the Grand Duchy's system of documentary and archival holdings was not raised. This view corresponded to the basic assumptions of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography. From the mid-1980s, the ideas of Soviet scholars began to change. Originals of acts of national importance from the archive of the GDL as part of Soviet historical scholarship are gradually recognized as independent in the archival sense, part of the “state archive of the GDL” is separate from the collection of documents of the GDL Metrica, and the latter was denied the monopol of the state archive. In the second half of the 1980s, in the terminology of researchers with reference to the acts of the complex of originals, and in contrast to the GDL Metrica as copies, the word “original” is disseminated. It is synonymous with the term “real act” (Russian – “podlinnik”), which has been widespread in Russian scientific literature since pre-revolutionary times. These changes were influenced by the results of both Soviet research (the works of L.W. Czerepnin, A.A. Zimin, S.O. Szmidt) and foreign scientists (J. Jakubowski, I. Sulkowska-Kurasiowa, and also the American researcher P. Kennedy Grimsted).

Trylikos metų karo (1454–1466) pasekmės neprisidėjo prie įtampų Vokiečių ordino ir Lenkijos santykiuose šalinimo. XV–XVI a. sandūroje brendo naujas konfliktas, nes Vokiečių ordinas siekė nusikratyti Lenkijos karaliaus protekcijos savo valdoms Prūsijoje, kuri atsirado pagal Torunės taikos sąlygas, o dalis šių sąlygų nebuvo vykdoma apskritai. Straipsnyje nagrinėjami keli jau senokai publikuoti istorijos šaltiniai, parengti eventualaus karo Prūsijoje atvejui. Tai 1507 m. Karo nuostatai (Kriegsordnung) ir du Klaipėdos komtūrijos karo prievolininkų sąrašai, ligšiolinių tyrinėtojų datuoti apie 1500 m. ar 1510–1520 m. Ryšys tarp šių dokumentų iki šiol nebuvo nagrinėtas, nors straipsnio autorius dar prieš keliolika metų išsakė prielaidą, kad tokio ryšio esama. Straipsnyje šis ryšys nagrinėjamas detaliau. Autorius tai daro aptardamas šių dokumentų atsiradimą, jų iniciatorių pastangas suderinti iš Šventosios Romos imperijos perimtas gynybos organizavimo naujoves su Vokiečių ordino praktikomis. Nagrinėjant šaltinių turinį ir jų teikiamą statistinę informaciją, atskirai keliamas klausimas, kiek statistika, generuojama šių šaltinių, leidžia pažinti XVI a. pradžios Prūsijos žemėvaldą. The results of the Thirteen Years’ War (1454–1466) did not remove the tensions between Poland and the Teutonic Order. A new conflict emerged at the turn of the 15th and 16th centuries, as the Teutonic Order sought to get rid of the Polish king’s protection of the Order’s dominions in Prussia, established under the terms of the Peace of Thorn (Toruń), some of which were not met at all. The article examines several historical sources prepared for the eventual war in Prussia and published a long ago. These are the Military Regulations (Kriegsordnung) of 1507, and two lists of property owners of the Memel (Klaipėda) Command (Komturei) who were to perform their military obligations, dated by previous research to around 1500 or 1510–1520. The connection between these documents has not so far been examined, although the author of the article assumed the existence of a connection a dozen years ago. The author examines this connection in detail, by discussing the emergence of these documents and the efforts of their initiators to adapt innovations in the organisation of defence borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire to the practices of the Teutonic Order. By examining the content of the sources and the statistical information they provide, the article raises a separate question: to what extent do the statistics generated by these sources make it possible to get details about land ownership in Prussia in the early 16th century.

THE UNIVERSITY OF VILNIUS AND ITS „ GOLDEN AGE”: INTRODUCTION INTO THE 1803–1832 EPOCHS The article discusses the question what the University of Vilnius is? Though seemingly a paradoxically simple question it leads to another question — what is Vilnius? These conceptual considerations are preparing the ground to the main discussion what was Vilnius University during the period between 1803 and 1832? The authors try to reveal the continuity of Vilnius uni­versity’s history in the general European context from its foundation up to its closer, i.e. during the epoch which might be called “the Old University”. A great attention is given to the still emerging historiographical discussion about whether the University of Vilnius is Polish or Lithuanian? The authors analysis traditional look of the Poles at the legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Vilnius University. They presented overview of the Polish historiography of the end of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century which regarded the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a space of the Polish civilisational mission, and at the same time regarded it as a part of Polish civilisation. This notion was further disseminated by Lubor Jilek in his exhaustive Historical Compendium of European Universities seeing two universities in Vilnius: Stephen Bathory University that functioned from 1578 to 1939 and soviet Kapsukas University which was derived from the Lithuanian University of 1939. The detailed anatomy of the Lithuanian attitude allows authors to conclude that Lithuanians themselves, opposing the attitude of Polish historiography to Lithuania and seeking to form the ideology of “divorce”, as though themselves relinquished the rights to the late legacy of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and at the same time to Vilnius University. This anti-Polish attitude prevailed during the period of the first Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) and was acceptable in the soviet epoch, as was acceptable any anti-Catholicism and anti-Westernisation. These two historiographical positions are summed up with the changes in historiography and historical memories both in Poland and in Lithuania which enable new attitudes in the policy of historical memory of Vilnius University towards the period of the Jesuit University and that of Polish University of Vilnius (Uniwersytet Stefana Batorego). This historiographical analysis is backed by the solid look at the scientific life of the University, also by the examination of images that were created in the 19th century and determined patterns of the historical memory of both the Poles and the Russians and is followed up by the interesting comparison of the Old University of Vilnius in the league of European Universities using three criteria: chronology, geography and the space of the intellectual impact. Here comes the closer look at the Imperial Vilnius University which for more than three decades right until 1832, despite pressure exerted by the tsarist authorities, was the herald of a scientific thought and political freedom, the epicentre of the Lithuanian and also Polish Enlightenment. The authors use the data of the WorldCat Identities for the comparison. The article ends with the examination and evaluation of an unappreciated tragedy of 1832. The significance of this event has not been evaluated in Lithuania yet. The authors finalise their article by concluding that the 19th century was the golden age of the University of Vilnius.

The purpose of the article is to determine the place of the elders’ court within the judicial system of Samogitia in the period from 1450 (i.e. from the time when Jonas Kesgaila, or Kesgailaitis, took office) to the legal and administrative reform carried out in 1566. Only a few hypotheses have been presented for the earlier years. It is possible to divide the analysed time into two periods: before and after the First Lithuanian Statute (1529). Based on ca 200 documents from various manuscript collections and the Metrica of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania it is possible to reconstruct some aspects of this court’s operations, including its jurisdiction, attitude towards the courts of grand dukes and courts of tenutaries, its composition, the court of vice-elders, and the place and time of court sessions.

The aim of the article is to present the first Polish travel journal written by a woman, a Discalced Carmelite nun based in Lublin, Sister Mary Magdalene of the Saviour [Maria Magdalena od Zbawiciela] (Anna Żaboklicka), who in 1638, set out from Lublin to Lithuania in order to establish a new convent of Discalced Carmelite nuns. It is a unique text in the history of female memoirs and literary output, as it represents a genre of applied literature. Its recognition in the context of diaristic writings fills a lacuna in the research of Old Polish literature. The manuscript is a record of the trip to Vilnius. It combines elements of female private experience with a description of the world steeped in the conviction as to the importance of the mission of expanding the Carmelite Order and bolstering its status through historiographic writing. The Carmelite’s journal served as the origin for the chronicle of the Vilnius convent. The manuscript has been presented in the context of Old Polish memoirist literature with a particular emphasis on the features of travel journals. The text was addressed to the monastic community. It was analysed in terms of its structure, the elements of the setting, and cultural references interesting to the author (especially the cuisine of Lithuania and Podlachia).

The article offers a critical assessment of the deeply entrenched view in Lithuanian and Polish historiography that the idea of the (Lublin) Union was erased from the Lithuanian statehood projects created within the Lithuanian national movement in the late nineteenth–early twentieth centuries. Summarising the critical assessments made against this idea, several theses were formulated based on which further research could be conducted that could explain the effects of the Union on the formation and development of “Lithuanian federalism”. (1) In terms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania after 1569, like it or not, the Union in its semblance as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should also be acknowledged. (2) The Union’s denial without taking the GDL into account cannot be reduced to a rejection of the modernisation of the PLC statehood tradition. It was expressed in the federation and confederation terminology used in Lithuanian politicians’ rhetoric and projections of Lithuanian statehood at the end of the nineteenth–early twentieth centuries. (3) It is obvious that in research on the Lithuanian national movement, especially concerning the evolution of modern society, nationalism methodology must be avoided, and such research should be developed in a much bolder way within the transnational historical research paradigm. The case of Lithuania should firstly be looked at as a phenomenon of the Central East European region.

Straipsnyje rusėnų („senosios baltarusių“) kalbos vartojimas nagrinėjamas kaip Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės oficialios („valstybinės“) kalbos problema, pateikiama naujausiuose Baltarusijos ir Lenkijos tyrėjų lituanistų darbuose. Baltarusių istoriografijoje pamėgti rusėnų kalbos valstybinio statuso argumentai atmetami. Moderniomis sociolingvistinėmis metodikomis baltarusių tyrėjų aprašomas prestižinis rusėnų kalbos statusas viešajame gyvenime neįrodomas. Nelygu socialinė-kultūrinė vartotojų grupė (valdovas, administracija, luomai), tautos ir etnosai, teritorija, juridinis vienetas (valdovo domenas, bajorijos domenai, magdeburginiai miestai, konfesijos), „ilgasis“ laikas, kalbos vartojimo forma (sakytinė ar rašytinė) – visa tai kaskart kūrė kitokią kalbų vartojimo hierarchiją. XV a. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės viešajame gyvenime vartotos keturios kalbos: žodžiu – lenkų, lietuvių ir rusėnų, raštu – rusėnų ir lotynų. XVI a. pirmoje pusėje kalbų vartojimas pastebimai kito. Rusėnų kalba įgijo stiprias pozicijas krašto administracijoje ir kultūriniame gyvenime. Lietuvių kalbos vartojimo sritys siaurėjo, ji buvo priskirta neprivilegijuotam valstybės luomui. Kita vertus, lietuvių kalba nepatyrė diskriminacijos, kaip konkuruojant su įsigalinčia lenkų kalba nutiko rusėnų kalbai, nuo XVI a. vidurio stumiamai iš viešojo vartojimo. Tačiau oficialiai pakeisti rusėnų kalbą Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje mėginama ne lenkų, bet „lietuvių“, t. y. lotynų kalba, kuri buvo suvokiama kaip senoji lietuvių kalba. Šis „lotynizavimas“ padėjo išsaugoti lietuvių kalbos vaidmens klausimą viešajame gyvenime visą XVI a. Dėl šios priežasties kalbos vartojimas atsigavo, o krašto modernėjimas XVI a. pabaigoje leido lietuvių intelektualams kurti etniškai atnaujintos lietuvių tautos politinės-kultūrinės programos gaires lietuviškoms LDK žemėms su dviejų prestižinių kalbų – lietuvių ir lenkų – koegzistencija. The status of the Ruthenian language and use of Lithuanian in public life in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (henceforth GDL) remains one of the most hotly debated topics in Lithuanian historiography. In this article, the use of Ruthenian (early Belarusian) is analysed as the official (‘state’) language of the GDL, as it is presented in the latest works by Belarusian and Polish researchers and Lithuanian language studies researchers. This analysis looks at the problems that arise when examining the flexible and extraordinarily dynamic use and interrelation of languages in the GDL in the 15th–16th centuries, which changed every few decades and was based more on customs and traditions than laws.

The article analyzes the information about Lublin 1569 Union from the narrative and documentary sources that date back to the reign of the first monarchs of Vasa dynasty. The author defines main contexts of the term «union» use in the sejm constitutions and documentation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania congresses. The direct correlation between the estimates of the Union at different levels of state representative institutions of the Commonwealth is revealed. The Lublin Sejm of 1569 was a key event in the history of Eastern Europe, but in the historical works (chronicles and annals) of the second half of 16th – early 17th century information about it and its decisions are concise and general. At the end of 16th – the first half of 17th century the memory of Lublin Union was not mainly broadcast by narrative channels. In keeping the memory about 1569 events legal deeds and state institutions decisions were of considerable importance. The result of the state union with Poland was the approval of the public law standards that could not be ignored by any representative of the so-called political people of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the following centuries. The author maintains that as a whole the Grand Duchy of Lithuania gentry did not question the correctness of the 1569 choice, took and defended «Lublin myth», as under those conditions it had more benefits than losses.

Straipsnyje aptariama lietuvių nacionalinės istoriografijos pradininko ir lietuvių rašomosios kalbos modernizatoriaus Simono Daukanto (1793–1864) įtaka Romualdo Granausko (1939–2014) prozai, ypač jo apysakai Jaučio aukojimas (1975). Apysakos analizė parodė, kad R. Granauskas buvo paveiktas S. Daukanto istoriografijos, perėmė istoriko koncepcijas, motyvus ir raišką. S. Daukanto ritminės prozos paveiktas, R. Granauskas sukūrė savito ritmo prozos pavyzdį. The article discusses the influence of the works of Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864) on the prose of Romualdas Granauskas (1939–2014) with the focus on his short story Jaučio aukojimas (1975). The article refers to the researchers addressing intertextuality, rhythm in prosaic texts and the poetics of breathing in their works. First of all, the article draws the parallels between the biographies of the two authors, which determined their coinciding attitudes and world-views. Granauskas borrowed the concept of the history of Lithuania as the civilization of forests and the approach to Samogitia as special genius loci from Daukantas and further elaborated on them in his prose; he also took attention to personal freedom, respect for women, love for one’s mother tongue. It is believed that Daukantas’ flowing periodic sentences and his sonority of language made the greatest influence on Granauskas, who was gifted with absolute pitch. In Granauskas’ short story we find the theme prevalent in Daukantas’ Būdas senovės lietuvių, kalnėnų ir žemaičių: a relationship between Lithuanians and their homeland, the inherent ability to take a deep look at nature, to live in harmony with the environment, to be able to recover one’s strength and energy from the sun, fire, wind, land, trees, water. In his short story Granauskas does not hide his links with Daukantas’ works, cites the historian’s last name, does not hesitate to paraphrase the text and uses the historian’s vocabulary. Granauskas makes use of the devices employed by Daukantas to create rhythm by using repetitions of sounds in phrases as well as various, repetitive and differently expressed forms of the predicate, which are occasionally replaced with participial ones. Granauskas’ rhythmical prose also influenced other Lithuanian writers.

The contemporary Lithuanian community of historians is rather small. Vilnius, Kaunas and Klaipėda universities as well as at the Institute of Lithuanian History in Vilnius conduct research in modern history. The research is most frequently carried out in the fields, which r were abandoned, forbidden or inaccessible earlier. The polemics are usually directed against the historiographic paradigms of the past. Innovations are frequently introduced by applying the trends and methods of Western historiography. In comparison to previous (interwar, Soviet‑time) historiographic paradigms, the newest historiography marginalized the ethnolinguistic perspective and examined modern Lithuanian society as a social‑ cultural unity of all inhabitants. Lithuanian society was exposed as traditionally multicultural. Recently the traumatic issues that disrupted the ages of relative peace were critically examined. The formation of civil society prevailed as a research topic. Qualitative research methods were employed for tracing the contacts and the continuity between the old elites of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the emerging national civil society. Continuity and changes amidst the local bodies of self‑governance and the formation of modern political parties were analysed. The research of political life in interwar Lithuania focused on the reasons for the authoritarian coup in 1926 and its consequences for the political and civil liberties. The Russian nineteenth‑ century imperial politics in the fields of censorship and schooling were analysed as a way of erasing specific Catholic and Latin character of the region. The imperial strategies in managing ethnic and confessional groups were examined and the escalation of Polish‑ Lithuanian animosity was exposed as their partial result. The interwar Lithuania’s formation and persistence, as well as its loss of independence, were widely exposed from the perspective of diplomatic efforts. Another perspective explained WWI as the traumatic experience of soldiers, paramilitary fighters, civilians and refugees. It considered this an important factor that shaped nationalism, politics and society decades later. Research on ethnic and confessional minorities and marginal social groups was abundant. Many studies were dedicated to the Jewish community. The genesis of Lithuanian anti‑ Semitism was examined and Jewish relations with the Lithuanian majority were described. Other non‑ dominant ethnic minorities (Tatars, Germans, Belarusians) and churches (protestant and orthodox) received their particular studies. This field of research focused on the possibility of social mobility and integration as well as on the maintenance of cultural rights. Much of the historical debate was dedicated to the complex identities in particular times and regions, such as German‑Lithuanian Klaipėda or multicultural Vilnius areas. Emigration processes and Lithuanian diasporas were studied as a formation of another type of complex identity. The period was productive in deepening the self‑ reflection of the historical profession. Due to global post‑modern trends, historical narratives and politics of memory were studied in every institution of the historical science.

The aim of the article is to analyze the views of Ivan Ivanovich Lappo regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. The opinions of this historian were presented in the context of the views of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, especially of such authors as Nikolay Gerasimovich Ustryalov, Mikhail Osipovich Koyalovich, Nikolay Alexeyevich Maksimieyko, Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavskiy and Fedor Ivanovich Leontovich. The article belongs to the vast area of studies on the history of historiography, the undertaking of which allows the assessment of the current scholarly achievements and research methodology, and thus making new research postulates. It should be noted that, despite some evolution, the fundamental assessment of the Union of Lublin in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography remained negative. However, the circumstances and reasons for its conclusion were perceived differently. Although the description of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin was not the main research goal for I. Lappo, he carried out a fairly detailed reconstruction of the Sejm of Lublin and the circumstances of the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian union in 1569. It seems that the aim of such a procedure was not only to explain the attitude of Lithuanians towards Poles and the legal relationship between the Grand Duchy and the Crown, but first of all to support of the historian’s fundamental thesis that, as a result of the Union of Lublin, the Grand Duchy did not lose its independence and distinctiveness. This historian not only reported the course of the Sejm of Lublin and the decision of the Act of the Union of July 1, but also confronted the views of Poles and Lithuanians concerning the conditions of the Union and the way it was concluded. According to him, the historical reality and the political system of the Grand Duchy until 1569 corresponded to the project of a union presented by Lithuanians. In his opinion, the aim of Poles was not to bring about real unification based on the principles of equality and fraternity, but to force Lithuanians to enter into a union through the implementation of old rights and privileges. In some parts of his research, however, the scholar differentiated between the radical attitude of the Chamber of Deputies of the Crown and the more conciliatory position of the Senate. The description of King Sigismund Augustus’s activities presented by I. Lappo turned out to be quite paradoxical and partly incoherent. On the one hand, the historian claimed that the monarch was under the influence of Poles and betrayed the Grand Duchy. On the other hand, he quoted a number of cases in which the king’s attitude contradicted this general opinion. Lappo’s general attitude towards the Union of Lublin remained negative. The historian clearly sympathized with Lithuanians, seeing Poles as merely caring for their own interests to the detriment of the Grand Duchy. The analysis of Lappo’s views made in this article shows that there are elements in his concepts that testify to the connection with the traditional narrative of Russian historiography, as well as new and original ideas.

Teodor Narbutt’s works on the history of Lithuania provoked ambivalent evaluations. On one hand the importance of the subject he undertook was emphasised, on the other hand, the author was reproached for deficiencies in methodology, which disqualified him as a historian. His research grew on the basis of interest in Lithuanian culture, it led to the search for autonomous properties of the Lithuanian statehood, emphasising differences proving the separateness of Lithuania and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania within the framework of the Kingdom of Poland. The theses stated within the work have not withstood the test of time, they did not meet the social expectations. They were quickly verified by the political events of the second half of the 19th century. Although Narbutt’s works were criticised, they influenced the shape of Lithuanian culture.

Vilnius presents itself today as the easternmost and northernmost European city of the Baroque, and the Baroque heritage played an important role in 1994 when the historic centre of Vilnius was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List. Throughout the twentieth century, the Vilnius Baroque attracted the attention of artists and scholars. However, the approaches to research into this field differed both in terms of methodology and in relation to their political aims. The lively intellectual debate on Vilnius’ Baroque art and architecture that went on in the inter-war period was followed by a time of rather vague and unproductive research during the Soviet period, and it flourished again after the restoration of Lithuanian independence in 1990. The first part of this article gives an overview of the main debates on and interpretive models of Baroque architecture in Vilnius before the Soviet occupation. The second part explores the Soviet reinterpretation of Baroque art and architecture and the various techniques that were used to create new values of this heritage for the then new Socialist society of Lithuania.

The history of the Pereyaslav principality during the Kyivan Rus' period was fruitfully and thoroughly studied in the past and is being researched now by historians and archaeologists. The nearness of this historic land to the Kyiv gave rise to the attention of the Kyivan dukes, who elevated their sons in the Pereyaslav. And this, on the other hand, did not stimulate the creation of the local princely dynasty. And shortly (at the time of the struggle of the empires of the Golden Horde and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania for the Rus’ lands and heritage) the absence of the local princely dynasty did not contribute to the preservation of a separate political and administrative unit. Since then, the Pereyaslav land had become a part of Kyiv land and, in this regard, is being studied by scientists. If a lot of archaeological and chronicle sources from the Rus’ times preserved, but in the subsequent period, from the time of Pereyaslav land entry into the Golden Horde Empire (1240), their representativeness decreases sharply. In this regard, more problematic for historians was the "Lithuanian age" in the history of Pereyaslav land because of the minimal preservation of sources, both archaeological and written. Consequently, our research will allow answering several issues that remain unclear in the historiography of Pereyaslav land in the Tatar and Lithuanian times (second half of the 13. century – 1560ies). The main task is to study in what forms lasted life on the territory of Pereyaslav land, because of the absence of the comprehensive study on this topic. The object of the research. This study deal with the political and social and economic history of Pereyaslav Land in the second half of the 13. century – 1560-ies years. The subject of the study consists in an attempt to analyze sources and facts concerning the matter, that Pereyaslav Land since the Mongol conquest has continued to exist within the new territorial unit of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – Kyiv Land. Therefore, the article aims to study issues concerning the continuation of Pereyaslav Land's political and social and economic history in the second half of the 13. century – 1560-ies. To achieve the tasks set out in the work, we turned to the historical methods of analysis and synthesis, the empirical method, comparative analysis, and documentary analysis. The latter one is actively used during working with sources of Lithuanian metrica.

Straipsnyje analizuojamos Teodoro Lepnerio (Theodorus Lepner, 1633–1691) etnografinės apybraižos „Der Preuſche Littauer“ (1744; „Prūsų lietuvis“) citatos ir nuorodos Simono Daukanto veikale „BUDĄ Senowęs–Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ir Ƶámajtiû“ („Būdas senovės lietuvių, kalnėnų ir žemaičių“). Tiriama S. Daukanto pažinties su „Prūsų lietuvio“ tekstu raida. Aptariamas Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institute saugomas S. Daukanto rankraštis „Marguminai“ ir jame esančios T. Lepnerio knygos citatos, t. y. citatų išrašų istorija, datavimas, turinys. Nagrinėjamas istoriko darbo su šaltiniais pobūdis. Straipsnyje analizuojama 31 nuoroda, citavimo ypatumai ir citatų turinys. Manoma, kad S. Daukantas, turėdamas remtis veikalu, kur Prūsijos kunigaikštystės lietuvis pavaizduotas kaip marginalios mažumos atstovas, keistas sarkazmo vertas objektas, a priori pasirinko faktų reinterpretacijos kelią. Iš subjekto pozicijos ėmęsis aprašyti lietuvių būdą, praeitį, S. Daukantas atliko šaltinio istorinį revizionizmą. T. Lepnerio teksto revizionizmas lėmė citavimo pobūdį: vyrauja parafrazės, laisvas autoriaus minčių persakymas, šaltinio duomenų koreliacijos ir priežastingumo keitimas. Išvadose apibendrinamos S. Daukanto veikale esančios sąsajos su T. Lepnerio tekstu. Nustatyta, kad S. Daukantas gana tiksliai pakartoja šaltinio tekstą ir pateikia tikslią nuorodą 17 kartų. 8 kartus istorikas nurodo klaidingai: nei turinio, nei puslapių požiūriu nėra atitikimo. 6 nuorodų turinys yra imtas iš šaltinio, bet netiksliai pateikti skyrių ir puslapių numeriai. This article analyses the citations from the ethnographic study “Der Preuſche Littauer” (1744; later cited as PL) by the Prussian priest Theodor Lepner which appear in the work of Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864) “BUDĄ Senowęs–Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ir Ƶámajtiû ĩszraszę […] Jokyb’s Łaukys” (later cited as “Būdas”). The object of this article is the 31 references to PL in S. Daukantas’s “Būdas”. Looking at the previous scholarly research on “Būdas” and its sources along with the subsequent questions they pose, this article formulates a goal to research the methods with which PL source citations were presented in Būdas. This goal was completed by setting and meeting the following tasks: 1) to determine the importance of PL as a source for S. Daukantas’s research into the history of Lithuanian culture; 2) to exhibit S. Daukantas’s use of citations instead of research into firsthand sources and 3) to discuss the reliability and fidelity with which these citations and references are presented. In order to analyze the text, this article employs the following methods: comparative analysis; textology; intertextuality. By examining these citations and references, it was discovered that Daukantas encountered this text indirectly sometime between 1818 and 1825 when he was writing his first history “Darbay senuju Lituwiu yr Zemaycziu” (around 1822–1825). This article determines that Daukantas found these quotations from Lepner’s book in Martin L. Rhesa’s addenddum (“Anmerkungen”) of “Das Jahr in vier Geſängen” (1818). Daukantas used this addenddum to recite Lepner in his second historical work “Istorija Žemaitiška” (1831–1834). Later he found the fragments of Lepner’s “Der Preuſche Littauer” in one of his most important sources – Johannes Voigt’s “Geschichte Preußens” (Bd. 1, 1827). Daukantas had used this book by Voigt to recite an older source several times before. This article demonstrates that Daukantas used Voigt’s book to recite the fragments of Matthäus Prätorius’s (c.1635–c.1704) „Deliciae Prussicae, oder Preussische Schaubühne“ manuscript. It somewhat changes the previous opinion about Daukantas’s comprehensive historiographical knowledge, diminishing his image as a researcher familiar with many of the old or primary sources. This article concludes that Daukantas read “Der Preuſche Littauer” around 1836 or 1837 when he was already residing in Saint Petersburg. The quotes from “Der Preuſche Littauer” contained in Daukantas’s Būdas are grouped according to the nature of their textual integration. “Būdas” contains 31 quotes and references from “Der Preuſche Littauer”. None of the citations from “Der Preuſche Littauer” that Daukantas had used were distinguished with quotation marks or a different font, and they could only be recognized from their content. Quite often, Daukantas quotes “Der Preuſche Littauer” in several sentences without marking the beginning of the quotation and giving the indication only at the end of the sentence using small letters with brackets, eg.: a), b), c), e), d). Daukantas quite accurately reproduces the text of “Der Preuſche Littauer” and gives the exact reference only 17 times out of 31. 8 times his references are incorrect: both in terms of the content and the page numbers. 6 references contain accurate content cited from “Der Preuſche Littauer” but give erroneous page and section numbers. Daukantas was the first of 19th century Lithuanian writers who had his unique writing style and historical perspective. This original prism determined the use of indirect citations of “Der Preuſche Littauer”. I determined that because no firsthand Lithuanian historical sources existed Daukantas was forced to use foreign sources such as PL which marginalized Lithuanians as members of an ethnic minority and strange satyre-worthy objects thus requiring for him to engage in historical revisionism by factual reconstruction and reinterpretation from a Lithuanian perspective. He used these secondhand sources to deobjectify Lithuanians and make them into subjects and agents of their own history and destiny by describing their past and character through their eyes. This historical revisionism determined the way Daukantas cited and referenced T. Lepner’s text as a source. Daukantas avoided marking citations in quotation marks since they would then have to be translated as close to the original as possible which would have impeded with his historical vision. To make his narration and perspective congruous with his values and style he edited not only the language of the citations from “Der Preuſche Littauer” but also their content. Most of the information obtained from “Der Preuſche Littauer” was paraphrased, processed, and rewritten in such a way as to incorporate the new text into Daukantas’s own style and ideas. However, it may also be that Daukantas sometimes misquoted the text because he did not understand how the item described in German could look and how he should describe it in Lithuanian. Daukantas often sacrificed the fidelity to the text of “Der Preuſche Littauer” in favour of emotional and expressive speech. KEY WORDS: Simonas Daukantas, Teodorus Lepner, Martin Ludwig Rhesa, citations, quotes, references, text, intertextuality, history of Lithuanian culture, Prussian principality, historiography, historical revisionism.

Straipsnis skirtas nepriklausomos Lietuvos (1918–1940) istoriografijos santykiui su lietuvių tautos savitumo problema aptarti. Pagal praktines gyvenimo orientavimosi funkcijas tuometinių istorikų požiūris sutapo su nacionalinio istorizmo keliamais tikslais. Istorikams svarbiausia buvo ištirti politinę, pirmiausia Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos, istoriją ir duoti „atkirtį“ kaimyninei „svetimųjų“ istoriografijai. Šios tendencijos neaplenkė ir kultūros istorijos – savo ruožtu stengtasi duoti atsaką lenkų istorikų tezėms. Lietuviškasis nacionalinis istorizmas, arba kritiškoji istoriografija, siekė atsiriboti nuo nepagrįstų istoriniais dokumentais teiginių, patoso, istorinių veikėjų garbinimo. Išsiskyrė dvi nuomonės dėl lietuvių kultūros savitumo: pirmoji teigė, kad pagoniškoji Lietuvos kultūra (tautodailė, tautosaka, kalba) buvusi savita kultūros išraiška, antroji – kad ikikrikščioniškuoju laikotarpiu Lietuvoje nebuvo sukurta tokių kultūros artefaktų, kuriuos galėtų perimti kitos tautos. Abi šias nuomones kartais reiškė tie patys istorikai (A. Šapoka, Z. Ivinskis). The article deals with the problem of Lithuanian national identity in Lithuanian professional historiography during first half of twentieth century. Historians of the first Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) considered nationalism as negative thing, and historical science should keep a distance from political actualities. But the practical functions of such scholarship basically coincided with the tasks of modern Lithuanian nationalism. The history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the primarily focus. It was necessity to give an answer to the "alien" Polish historiography. Although romanticism in contemporary Lithuanian historiography was criticized by historians of various creeds, there were two opinions about Lithuanian cultural distinction. The first suggested that pagan Lithuanian culture (folk arts, folklore and language) was the original expression of culture. The second suggested that during pre-Christian epoque no significant cultural artifacts had been created. Sometimes both of these opinions were supported by the same historians (A. Šapoka, Z. Ivinskis).

The article surveys the question how the past of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Commonwealth of Both Nations is used in region’s cross‑border issues, and the question could it be the ideological basis for the idea of the Intermarium is raised. The analysis of the countries of the region revealed that these themes in Lithuania, Poland and Belarus are basicaly used for the creation of the identity of the societies, however in any country these topics of the past are not dominating, moreover in Ukraine the theme of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Commonwealth of Both Nations is in marginal position. The central position in the memory culture of these societies take the events of the 20th century. Obviously such secondory position of the understanding of the events of the past showed the commemoration of the anniversary of the Union of Lublin in Poland in 2009. The analysis of the historical research demonstrates different view. Evaluations of the historians in four countries do not differ so cardinally as it was before 1990. Such situation is as a signal that probably it is a time to think about the preparation of the general textbook for schoolchildren of four countries, or synthesis of the history.

The concept of "Shevchenko’s historiosophy" is included to "Shevchenko Encyclopaedia", but discussions about the relation between historicism and mythology in his word outlook and works are continuing. It is necessary to involve wider the achievements of historical science to solve this problem. Particularly fruitful can be the clarification of Shevchenko vision of the certain historical periods. This article continues the previous author’s exploration on Taras Shevchenko’s attitude of to the prince’s era in the history of Ukraine and deeped the study of linguist A.Nepokupnyi. The article refers to the sources concerning to Lithuanian-Ruthenian period, which Shevchenko used or could use. It is shown that the very bright historical figures are mentioned in Shevchenko’s texts – the figures that dealt with the turning point of the history of Ukraine when the transition of territories from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Commonwealth took place. It is analysed also what place this period occupied in the Shevchenko’s project "Painterly Ukraine". Historiographical material, as well as the one which refers to later times – the absorption of these territories by the Russian Empire (in particular, the liquidation of the University of Vilno and the Kremenets’ Lyceum), is widely used to clarify Shevchenko’s vision of the historical processes of that period. It is shown on the example of Shevchenko’s texts that certain contrast between the Lithuanian-Ruthenian era and period of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was in his historiosophical vision. And the foreign moments at the same time for him were political and religious uniate processes. The statement reinforces the thesis about extremely negative Shevchenko’s attitude towards the use of religion for political purposes and manifestations of religious fanaticism in history. It is argued that Shevchenko did not consider the Lithuanian-Ruthenian period in the history of Ukraine as a "wasted" historical time, and his perception and understanding of this period does not extend far from the historical science. The commentary on the works of Taras Shevchenko, mentioned in the article, is enriched.

Istoriografija siejasi su politinio mąstymo tradicijomis, jas išreiškia, jomis remiasi ar joms prieštarauja skirtingų šalių specifiniuose kontekstuose. Istoriografijos raidos tyrinėtoja Monika Baar savo komparatyvistiniuose darbuose jau glaustai yra parodžiusi, kad Simonas Daukantas neįprastai jungė europinę klasikinio respublikonizmo tradiciją su vadinamąja komercialistine politinio mąstymo tradicija. Pasak klasikinio respublikonizmo, turtų kaupimas susijęs su korupcija ir švaistūniškumu ir veda į moralinę degradaciją. O pasak komercializmo, privačios ekonominės sėkmės siekimas gali duoti naudos ir visuomenei. Tad šios dvi tradicijos viena kitai prieštarauja, yra konfrontacinės. Tačiau Daukantas sugeba jas suderinti. Remiantis hermeneutine istoriografine analize, gali būti plačiau analizuojamas minėtų politinio mąstymo tradicijų derinys, paraleliai nagrinėjant ir kitą tautos kaip politinės-teritorinės ir kaip kultūrinės-kalbinės bendruomenės derinį Daukanto istoriografijoje. Lietuvos istorijoje Daukantas mato didžiulę prekybos ir amatų, verslumo apskritai svarbą. Kita vertus, respublikinė santvarka ir ja besiremianti valstybinė Lietuvos galybė jam svarbi pirmiausia tuo, kad padeda išsaugoti ir apginti verslių laisvų žmonių interesus. Daukantas iškelia tautą kaip pirmiausia savo kalba išsiskiriančią bendruomenę, tačiau jam lygiai svarbi yra ir teritoriškai apibrėžta, etniškai nebūtinai vienalytė tėvynė bei jos politinė laisvė. Historiography is interlinked with the traditions of political thought, expresses them, relies upon them, or contradicts them in various local contexts. Monika Baar, a researcher in a comparative perspective of historical writings in East Central Europe, has already provided a concise analysis showing how Simonas Daukantas unusually combined classical republican thinking with the commercial tradition of political thought. According to classic republicanism, accumulation of wealth is tied up with luxury and corruption and means moral degradation. Adherents of the commercial tradition believed that the pursuit of private economic success could also be of public benefit. Thus these two traditions are contradictory, even confrontational, but Daukantas combines them in a convincing way and makes them mutually adjustable. Relying upon a hermeneutical method of historiographical analysis, it is possible to widen our understanding of Daukantas’s synthesis of republicanism and commercialism while analyzing, in parallel, another combination in Daukantas’s writings: that of the nation as an ethnic - linguistic community and as a political-territorial unit. Daukantas envisages the great importance of trade and crafts, and of entrepreneurship in general in the history of Lithuania. But republican polity and the power of the Lithuanian state is also important precisely in order to defend and protect the interests of free and entrepreneurial individuals. Daukantas put emphasis on the Lithuanian nation as primarily a community united by the mother tongue, but equally important for him is the fatherland with clear geographical-territorial borders, not necessarily ethnically homogeneous but possessing political freedom.

Šio straipsnio tikslas - atskleisti Simono Daukanto Lietuvos istorijos koncepcijos savitumą. Daukanto Lietuvos istorijos pasakojimą ir vertinimą iš esmės grindė respublikoniškos vertybės. Griežtai nepritardamas bet kokiai socialinei ir asmeninei priespaudai, engimui ir išnaudojimui, Daukantas rašomoje Lietuvos istorijoje įžvalgiai susiejo socialinius-ekonominius ir politinius procesus. Pavienius istorinius įvykius ir asmenybes Daukantas vertino naujoviškai, tad jo požiūris kai kuriais atžvilgiais tebėra aktualus ne tik kaip istorijos didaktikos pavyzdys, bet ir dabartiniams Lietuvos istorijos tyrimams. Atliekant tyrimą pasitelkta politinės minties ir istoriografinė analizė. Historian Monika Baar has presented new insight on Daukantas’ historiography. M. Baar has researched the historiography of Central-Eastern Europe in the 19th c. Although the comparative perspective has obvious advantages, it did not provide an opportunity to more widely and in depth assess the importance and relevance of Daukantas’ historical work, particularly to take into account the new assessment of some historical processes, events, and personalities that Daukantas proposed. The goal of this article is to reveal the uniqueness of Daukantas’ conception of Lithuanian history, as well as show that significant processes, events, and personalities in Lithuania’s history are understood and assessed by Daukantas in a new way, based on the historiographic possibilities of his time. The Republican values of Daukantas were the key basis for writing and assessing Lithuanian history. Republican values, categorical rejection of any social and personal oppression, exploitation, helped Daukantas to insightfully connect in Lithuanian history the socio-economic and political processes and events. Daukantas, in a modern way, treats the links between the establishment of serfdom in Lithuania and the great geographical discoveries, the process of and reasons for the weakening of Lithuania’s political power, as well as presenting his original assessments of the Lithuanian rulers Vytautas and Mindaugas and political figures such as Konstantinas Ostrogiškis. The historiography of Daukantas should be assessed not in line with the understanding and criteria of modern-day science, but based on analogues from his own era. It is particularly important to take into account the new interpretations, presented by Daukantas for the first time, which had (and of which some still do) have an enduring value.

The article attempts to explain the causes and manifestations of the transformations of historical thinking of the researcher of the history of law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Onikii Malinovsky (1868–1932). The author came to the conclusion about the gradual «migration» of a scientist from the space of «supranational» Russian imperial historiographical culture to the national Ukrainian. The reasons for such changes are seen in the integration of the scientist in the context of the scientific and social life of Soviet Ukraine during the Bolshevik Ukrainization period, the probable strengthening of his Ukrainian ethnic loyalty. National reform in Ukraine led to a national-cultural upsurge (the «Red Renaissance») and the spread of national consciousness in the intellectuals' circles. These general processes «hurt» and O. Malinovsky.

This article examines the views of modern Russian scholars A. Dvornichenko, M. Krom, A. Filyushkin, and S. Mikhalchenko on the pre-revolutionary and Soviet historiography of medieval Lithuania. Chronological problem analysis constitutes the methodological framework of the study. Special attention is paid to the priorities of the Russian scholars in the analysis of the pre-revolutionary and Soviet Lithuanian studies. It is shown that the disintegration of the Soviet Union marked a new period in research on the historiography of medieval Lithuania. The activation of historical and historiographical studies was a result of a revision of views of Lithuanian past. The authors believe that modern historiography exhibits a “nostalgic” attitude to pre-revolutionary works, while the reception of the later, Soviet-era publications is more critically inclined. Post-Soviet historians do not restrict themselves by describing previous historiography: they also consider factors behind the change in the attitudes to Lithuani an past. Thus, the scholars pay special attention to studying the connection between the political situation and the evolution of the views of Russian scholars on the events of Lithuanian history.

This study briefly analyzes achievements of Romanian, Russian, Polish and Lithuanian historiography referring to epitaphs. There are reviewed most valuable scientific materials of historians, ethnographers and folklorists referring to this problem.

Sovietinė cenzūra nėra tik viešojo sektoriaus (spaudos ir masinio informavimo priemonių) kontrolė, tai kompleksinis reiškinys, apimantis daugybę sričių – nuo viešosios iki privačiosios erdvės, nuo institucinės, reglamentuotos kontrolės iki vidinės savicenzūros. Tad cenzūros tyrimai aktualūs įvairių mokslo sričių atstovams. Straipsnio tikslas – išnagrinėti sovietinės cenzūros sampratas ir tyrimų kryptis istoriografijoje. Rengiant straipsnį buvo analizuoti moksliniai darbai, kuriuose įvairiais aspektais paliečiami sovietinės cenzūros klausimai. Pastebėta, kad cenzūros klausimai nagrinėjami ir bendrame sovietinės okupacijos istorijos kontekste, ir tik sovietmečio kultūrinį gyvenimą, KGB veikimo priemones, menininkų kūrėjų santykį su sistema, spaudos ir leidybos istoriją bei atminties institucijų veiklą analizuojančiuose darbuose. Vien tik cenzūrai skirtuose tyrimuose daugiausia susitelkiama į cenzūrą vykdžiusių institucijų veiklos analizę. Cenzūros raiška atminties institucijose nagrinėjama analizuojant bibliotekų fondų valymo, knygų naikinimo (bibliocido), specialiųjų fondų kūrimo klausimus. Lietuvos istorikai sovietinės cenzūros reiškinį pateikia kaip režimo primestą, vienapusę totalitarinę kontrolę. Užsienio autoriai dažniau remiasi Pierre’o Bourdieu ir Michelio Foucault teorijomis, į cenzūrą žvelgia ir kaip į kontrolę, ir kaip į pozityvią kultūrą bei vientisą viešąją komunikaciją formuojančią galią. Cenzūros samprata ir apibrėžimas tyrimuose varijuoja nuo institucinio, valstybės vykdomo spaudos suvaržymo iki cenzūros kaip „ribų“ ar „informacinio barjero“ suvokimo. Cenzūra gali būti nagrinėjama ir kaip veikianti institucija, ir kaip tos institucijos veikimo priemonės, ir kaip masinės komunikacijos ypatybė. There are many definitions of Soviet censorship in different scientific research studies. Censorship is a complex phenomenon. It is not only a control of the public sector (press and mass media). Censorship covers a multitude of areas – from the public to the private spheres of life, from institutional, regulated control to internal self-censorship. Due to these reasons, studies of censorship are relevant to various scientific fields. The aim of this research is to analyze the main concepts of Soviet censorship and trends of these research studies. In order to achieve this aim, scientific works, surveying Soviet censorship from various perspectives aspects were analyzed. The goal was to distinguish the main trends of research studies and to understand focusing on the context to which Soviet censorship is related. The analysis of various concepts of censorship and other concepts used to describe this phenomenon has allowed to highlight the differences between scientists’ attitudes towards this phenomenon. The research-based analysis concluded that the main trends of research studies of Soviet censorship are as follows: 1. censorship as one of the features of Soviet occupation; 2. censorship as a part of Soviet culture; 3. censorship as one of KGB’s work methods; 4. censorship as a specific connection between creative artists and the Soviet system; 5. censorship as a part of press and publishing history; 6. censorship as part of daily work of memory institutions. In the studies that are focused exclusively on censorship, most of the analysis is oriented towards censorship as an institution (Glavlit) and its work methods. Censorship in memory institutions is presented as “cleaning” of library collections, a destruction of books or development of restricted (special) collections. When analyzing censorship, Lithuanian researchers present this phenomenon as one-sided totalitarian control. Foreign authors quite often base their research on the theories of P. Bourdieu or M. Foucault and present censorship both as a means of control and as a power that defines culture and communication. The concept of soviet censorship in these research studies is also defined in quite a few ways, for example, as a means of control or as a restriction of press and mass media, as a boundary or information barrier. Censorship can be analyzed as an institution, as a work method of that institution (Glavlit) or as one of many features of soviet mass communication. There is a lack of research studies that might give rise to different theories and present a more complex view of soviet censorship.

Straipsnyje autorius tyrinėja sąsajas tarp kalbos ir kognityvinių procesų šiuolaikinėje Lietuvos istoriografijoje. Straipsnyje bandoma išskirti prietarą (vok. Vorverständnis), remiantis Gadamerio terminologija, ar įrėminimo struktūras (Heideggerio įvardytos vok. Vor-structure), veikiančias kognityvinius procesus, kurie vyksta, kai noetinius aktus ir atsiminimus norima „išversti" į komunikacinius veiksmus. Remdamiesi Bergsono nubraižyta schema, vaizduojančia ryšius tarp sąmonės, atminties ir veiksmo (šiuo konkrečiu atveju - istorijos rašymo), mes nagrinėjame, kaip konstruojama vienybė nacionalinėje istorijoje (kuri čia suprantama kaip tam tikras tęstinumas šiuolaikinio politinio įvaizdžio istorijoje). Antroje straipsnio dalyje pristatoma įvairių istoriografinių darbų analizė, suteikianti pagrindą pakoreguoti kai kurias teorines prielaidas. Nors daugelyje teorijų svarbiausiomis įrėminimo struktūromis laikomos laikas ir erdvė, tyrimas parodė, kad Lietuvos istoriografijoje erdvė nėra įrėminanti struktūra, o greičiau sąvoka, apibrėžta ir pasirinkta laiko. Istorinis laikas savo ruožtu yra apibrėžtas ir pasirinktas jau įsisavintų ir lingvistiškai suformuluotų sąvokų. Tai aiškiai matoma, kai mokslininkai atmeta kiekvieną „žymiklį", tiesiogiai susijusį su „žyminiu" (žodžiais, apibūdinančiais kalbą, sienas, geografinius elementus, administracinį skirstymą) ir verčiau renkasi jau lingvistiškai sukonstruotas „reikšmes" (tauta, tapatybė, kultūra). Siekiant apibrėžti erdvę laike ir taip sukonstruoti nacionalinės istorijos vienybę, vartojami tam tikri kalbiniai reiškiniai ir retorinės figūros, kurie yra linkę pašalinti „žyminius" net iš erdvės ir laiko sąvokų. Pateikiama išvada, kad kalba formuoja istorikų suvokimą ir jį įprasmina. Taigi kalba turėtų būti laikoma pagrindiniu prietaru, veikiančiu kognityvinius procesus istoriografijoje. Article investigates the relation between language and cognitive processes in the contemporary Lithuanian historiography. An attempt is made to distinguish the prejudices (using Gadamer's terminology) or framing structures (Heidegger's fore-structures) influencing the cognitive processes involved in the translation of noetic acts and memories into communicative acts. Basing on Bergson's representation of the relation between conscience, memory and action (in this case intended as history-writing) we investigate how the unity in the national history (the continuity in the history of contemporary political entity) is construed. In the second part of the article, a number of historiographical works are analysed in order to put to test and revise the theoretical premises. Notably, while supposedly time and space are two of the most important framing structures, in Lithuanian historiography dealing with national history space is rather a concept selected and defined by that of time - not a fore-structure. In turn, historical time seems not to be a metaphor of the experienced one - it usually refers to already linguistically formulated concepts. This is evident when scholars renounce every 'signifier' directly connected to a 'signified' (terms directly referring to language, borders, geographical elements, administrative divisions) preferring already linguistically construed 'meanings' (nation, identity, culture) when formulating historical problems. The possibility to frame space in time and time in language permits to construe the unity of national history. The unity in the national history is attained by exploiting the polysemy of certain expressions and figures of speech. Moreover, in order to construe the unity in the national history, scholars tend to exclude the referents even from the definitions of framing structures such as space and time. We conclude that language is informing and shaping historians' perception much more than time and space. Therefore, language should be considered the main and most evident prejudice operating and defining cognitive processes in historiography.

Straipsnyje analizuojamos po 1990-ųjų ir nepriklausomybės atkūrimo lietuvių istoriografijoje, viešojoje erdvėje ir politiniuose sprendimuose įvykusios permainos. Laisvė istorijos mokslui ir visai humanistikai reiškė nuomonių skirtingumą ir akademinės saviraiškos ribų praplėtimą. Po vienos, privalomos, lietuviams iš viršaus sovietų okupantų primestos didžiojo pasakojimo versijos į kultūrinės atminties erdvę prasiveržė nauji pasakojimai, kurie ėmė tarpusavyje konkuruoti. Akademinių istorikų ir kultūtos tyrinėtojų liberalėjimas neretai prasilenkė su platesnių masių bei politinio sluoksnio nacionalizmo interesais. Pradėjo išsiskirti akademinis ir populiarusis diskursas, o politinė valdžia ėmėsi pamažu didinti savo galias, kontroliuoti lietuvių atminties slinktį. Šios permainos yra vertos akylo tyrimo ir refleksijos. Article analyzes changes in Lithuanian historiography, public space, and political decisions which occurred after 1990 and the restoration of independence. Freedom for History and the Humanities meant diverse opinions and the extension of limits of academic self-expression. After the existence of a single compulsory version of the grand narrative imposed for the Lithuanians by the Soviet occupiers "from the top", cultural memory space became filled with competing new narratives. The liberalization of academic historians and cultural researchers appeared to be often at odds with the broad masses' and politicians' interests of nationalism. Academic and popular discourses diverged and the control of political power in shaping the Lithuanian memory gradually increased. These changes are worth particular attention and reflection.

Straipsnyje aptariami tam tikri Vilniaus klausimo kaip tarptautinės problemos istoriografijos aspektai. Analizuojama Lenkijos-Lietuvos konflikto pradžia, kovos dėl Vilniaus reikšmė Lenkijos-Lietuvos konfrontacijos kontekste ir lietuvių nacionalizmo kilmė bei prigimtis. Be to, straipsnyje nagrinėjamas istoriografinis požiūris į lenkų generolo L. Želigovskio kariuomenės įžengimą į Vilnių ir Suvalkų sutarties pažeidimo tarptautinės pasekmės. Ypatingas dėmesys skiriamas Vakarų valstybių pozicijoms, Ambasadorių konferencijos 1923 m. kovo 15 d. nutarimui, Tautų Lygos tarpininkavimui Lietuvos-Lenkijos konflikte dėl teritorijų. Straipsnyje aptariamos istoriografijos koncepcijos, įvertinamas sovietų diplomatų vaidmuo Vilniaus klausime. Autorė identifikuoja naujas Vilniaus klausimo tendencijas šiuolaikinėje istoriografijoje. Article considers certain historiographical aspects of the Vilnius issue as an international problem. The author analyses the origins of the Polish-Lithuanian conflict, the role of struggle for Vilnius in the general context of Polish-Lithuanian confrontation, and the origin and nature of Lithuanian nationalism. The article also examines historiographical perspectives on the seizure of Vilnius by the troops of the Polish general, L. Żeligowsky, and the international consequences of the violation of the Suwałki Agreement. The author pays special attention to the positions of western powers, the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors on March 15, 1923, and the mediation of the League of Nations in the territorial dispute between Lithuania and Poland. The article considers the existing historiographical concepts and evaluations of the role of Soviet diplomacy in the Vilnius issue. The author identifies new trends in the contemporary historiography of the Vilnius problem.

Iki šiol didžiausią veikalą apie tarpukario Lietuvos kariuomenę yra pateikęs V. Statkus. Vėliau pasirodė A. Liekio, G. Surgailio,V. Lesčiaus darbai. Vis dėlto stokojama naujų studijų tarpukario Lietuvos kariuomenės istorijos tema ir naujos informacijos, kuri leistų pašalinti metų metais neužpildomas „baltas dėmes“. Straipsniu siekiama karo istorijos mėgėjo akimis pažvelgti į jos neatsakytus klausimus, diskutuotinas aplinkybes, šaltinius ir Lietuvos kariuomenės veiksmų lemtingais 1938–1940 m. vertinimus. Autorius daro išvadą, kad istorijos tyrimuose nepakankamai taikoma Lietuvos kariuomenės ir kitų to meto šalių kariuomenių lyginamoji analizė, beveik nenagrinėjama to meto karinių konfliktų ir Antrojo pasaulinio karo patirtis kariuomenės organizacijos, taktikos, ginkluotės ir kt. aspektais. Dėl nepriklausomos Lietuvos Respublikos okupacijos atsirado takoskyra tarp Lietuvos ir išeivijos darbų ir šaltinių. Į šių šaltinių ypatybes atliekant Lietuvos kariuomenės istorijos tyrimus būtina atsižvelgti. Kai kurie iš jų, pvz., Lietuvos kariuomenės statutai, retai naudojami. Lietuvos kariuomenės istorijos tyrimuose turėtų būti daugiau istorinių vertinimų, kurie, galbūt ir diskutuotini, ją praturtintų ir populiarintų. Labai reikalingas žinyno formos, geriausiai grupės istorikų parengtas, leidinys apie tarpukario Lietuvos kariuomenę, jos istoriją, organizavimą, ginkluotę, kitus kariuomenės gyvenimo ir veiklos aspektus, kuriame būtų nurodyti ir svarbesni tyrimai. Until now the largest work about interbellum Lithuanian Army was written by V. Statkus. Later, works by A. Liekis, G. Surgailis, V. Lesčius were issued. Nevertheless, new studies on interbellum Lithuanian Army history are missing and there is a lack of new information which would allow to fill in "white stains" that have not been filled in for years. The purpose of the article is to take a history amateur's look at unanswered questions, debatable circumstances, sources and assessments of the actions of the Lithuanian Army in the decisive 1938 – 1940. The author makes a conclusion that comparative analysis of the Lithuanian army and other countries' armies of the same period is insufficiently applied in historical researches, experiences of military conflicts and World War II are hardly discussed in the aspects of army organisation, tactics, weapons, etc. Occupation of the independent Republic of Lithuanian resulted in divide between the Lithuanian and emigrants' writings and sources. Peculiarities of these sources must be considered when researching the history of the Lithuanian Army. Some of them, e.g. the statutes of the Lithuanian Army are rarely used. Studies of the Lithuanian Army history should contain more historical evaluations, which though probably debatable would enrich and popularise it. A publication in the form of a reference book, in optimum case compiled by a group of historians, about the interbellum Lithuanian Army, its history, organisation, weapons, other aspects of army life and activities, containing references to major researches, is highly needed.

Straipsnis analizuoja keletą klausimų. Pirmiausia – tai Japonijos UNESCO komiteto siūlymas Jaotsu mieste, Gifu prefektūroje, saugomus dokumentus, įrodančius Chiune’ės Sugiharos atliktus žydų gelbėjimo veiksmus Antrojo pasaulinio karo metais Lietuvoje, 2017 m. įtraukti į UNESCO tarptautinį registrą „Pasaulio atmintis“. Vėliau aiškinama, kodėl Japonijoje domimasi Sugiharos veikla 1940-ųjų vasarą Kaune, taip pat šio klausimo istoriografijos analize. Pagrindinė priežastis – Sugiharos žmonos Yukiko išleista knyga „Vizos gyvenimui“, kuri parengta pagal paties Sugiharos nepublikuotus memuarus. Po jos pasirodė kitos knygos, pavyzdžiui, Hillel Levine „In search for Sugihara“ ir kitos. Nėra abejonių, kad Sugihara Kaune dideliais kiekiais išdavinėjo vizas, bet kol kas vis dar nežinomas tikslus išgelbėtųjų skaičius. Paties Sugiharos ataskaitoje Japonijos vyriausybei, rašytoje 1941 m. vasario 28 d., minima, kad Kaune buvo išduotos 2139 vizos, bet bendras Sugiharos išgelbėtųjų skaičius įvardijamas apie 6000 asmenų. Pažymėtina, jog šiuo metu Rusijoje ir Europoje pasirodė naujų tyrinėjimų, susijusių su Sugihara, o šiame straipsnyje gretinamos ir analizuojamos skirtingos istoriografinės pozicijos, susijusios su Sugiharos išgelbėtų asmenų skaičiumi. Galiausiai apibendrinant esamus tyrimus tampa aišku, kad labai svarbu rasti ir išanalizuoti Imigracijos tarnybos Tsurugoje, taip pat pabėgėlių registracijos Kobėje dokumentus. This article addresses several questions. First of all, the Japanese committee of the UNESCO applied documents held in Yaotsu Town, Gifii Prefecture, concerning historical facts how Sugihara rescued Jews from the Holocaust in Lithuania during WWII, as a candidate of the Memory of the World Resister in 2017 - UNESCO. Later, it presents the reasons, due to which the memory about Sugiharas activities in Kaunas in the summer of 1940 was enhanced in Japan, and quite a lot of attention was given to the analysis of historiography on Sugihara. The main trigger was his wife Yukikos memoirs provided in her book entitled Visas for Life, based on Chiune Sugiharas own hand written, unpublished memoirs. Later, other books followed, such as Hillel Levines In Search for Sugihara, and others. There is no doubt that Sugihara issued visas on a large scale in Kaunas, but the exact number of persons rescued is still unknown and disputable. In Sugiharas own report to Japanese government dated February 28, 1941 it is said that in Kaunas 2,139 visas were issued. But usually the number 6,000 denoting the number о persons saved by Sugihara is given. However, some new researches about Sugihara have already appeared in Europe and Russia. The article presents different historiographical considerations about people saved by Sugihara. Finally, summing up the discussed material, it is very important to discover and examine documents of Immigration Office in Tsuruga and reports on registration of refugees in Kobe.

Adolfas Šapoka (1906–1961) yra vienas žymiausių XX a. Lietuvos istorikų, kurio populiarumą visuomenėje liudija kelių leidimų sulaukusi jo redaguota „Lietuvos istorija“, istoriografinės koncepcijos pristatytos keliose monografijose, dešimtyse straip snių. Tačiau jo straipsniai kaip istorijos mokslo raidos šaltinis leid žia atskleisti ne tik istoriko autentišką metodologinį pasir engimą ir ideologines pažiūras, motyvaciją „kurti mokslą“, bet taip pat ir svarbų nepriklausomos Lietuvos istorijos mokslo raidos etapą – jo profesionalėjimo pradžią. Apie Adolfą Šapoką rašo istorikas Valdas Selenis. To mark the anniversary of the historian Adolfas Šapoka Adolfas Šapoka (1906–1961) was one of the most famous 20thcentury Lithuanian historians. His popularity is proven by the fact that his book Lietuvos istorija (A History of Lithuania) has been reissued several times, and his historiographical concepts have featured in several monographs and quite a few articles. However, his articles are a source of the evolution of the science of history, and reveal to us not only his authentic methodological preparation and ideology, the motivation to "make science", but an important period in the evolution of the study of history during Lithuania’s independence, at the beginning of his career. The historian Vladas Selenis writes about Adolfas Šapoka.

Straipsnyje svarstoma Pirmojo pasaulinio karo įamžinimo ir atminties problema Lietuvoje, keliamas klausimas, kodėl 1914 m. įvykiai mums nėra svarbūs, skirtingai nei Vakarų Europai. Tarpukario spaudoje Didžiojo karo reikšmė – tai nulinė istorinio laiko skaičiuotės valanda, atskaitos taškas, nuo kurio prasideda naujas taikus gyvenimas. Didysis karas buvo riba, pakeitusi lietuvių tautos gyvenimą. Tačiau žuvusių karių kultas Lietuvoje iš tikrųjų buvo siejamas su 1919–1920 m. kovomis. Nežinomo kario kultas Lietuvoje įsitvirtino ne tik dėl nacionalizmo ideologijos, bet ir dėl mentalinių pokyčių, kuriuos nulėmė Didysis karas. Moderniosios Lietuvos istorinį naratyvą reikėtų pradėti nuo Didžiojo karo pradžios. Svarbu ištyrinėti, kaip karas buvo įsivaizduojamas, kaip reprezentuojamas, kaip atsimenamas arba "pamirštamas". Prezidento A. Smetonos viešose kalbose ir tekstuose Didysis karas tapo atminimo ir pradžios simboliu. Įsiplieskus Didžiajam karui, Lietuvoje pradėjo formuotis tautinė, o ne etninė ir ne regioninė tapatybė. Karas pakeitė ir Lietuvos miestus. Pasibaigus Pirmajam pasauliniam karui, lietuvių politinis ir kultūrinis elitas valstybingumo pradžią pradėjo sieti su Lietuvos Tarybos veikla. Lietuvių istorikai Pirmojo pasaulinio karo tyrimų nesiėmė nei tarpukariu, nei po 1990-ųjų. Lietuviškame diskurse Pirmasis pasaulinis karas, kaip esminis modernios Lietuvos atsiradimo veiksnys, gilesnių tyrimų nesulaukė. Tačiau nepakanka vien konstatuoti, kad Pirmąjį užgožė Antrasis, kad Lietuva, kaip valstybė, nebuvo Didžiojo karo dalyvė. Paradoksalu, bet lietuvių istoriografija, "ieškodama" valstybingumo pradžios, sugrįžo prie Šapokos nustatyto istorijos kanono.