Mariae Vitae kongregacijos misionieriška veikla

The research of Jewish conversions and their concepts in Vilnius city and Vilnius bishopric is aimed at the activity of congregation Mariae Vitae (1737-1864) - unique both in Lithuania and in Europe at large. According to the rule of Mariae Vitae Congregation, it had to deal with religious and lay education of converted girls (mainly Jewish) and provide them with practical skills of work so they could establish in Catholic society. The innovatory social program of Mariae Vitae Congregation, including education and financial help, answered to possible problems of neophytes in Poland and Lithuania of the 18th-19th centuries. There was no institution dedicated to the care of Jewish catechumens and Mariae Vitae Congregation filled that gap, relieving the integration to Catholic society. The Jews themselves opposed this practice and tried to regain lost members of the community, but these attempts could be successful only if a neophyte was already an adult and showed a will to come back. Besides honest will to baptize, widowhood, potential marriage with a Catholic, and financial problems could be very real spurs to turn to Mariae Vitae sisters

Karšuvos laukai, bajorlaukiai ir bajorkaimiai XIV–XVIII amžiuje: šaltiniai, statistika, tęstinumas ir lokalizacija

This paper examines the connection of pre-Christian fields with the 16th c. noblemen’s fields and the 17th–18th c. noblemen’s villages (okolica) on the basis of systematic source complexes. The sample of Karšuva district (powiat) in Samogitia was chosen for the study. After grouping the processed source material, the continuity of the names of the fields and noble villages is proven, thereby assuming the continuity of the field structure in the noble villages. After applying the mapping methodology, the geography of the noble villages and peasant villages of Karšuva is restored.Straipsnyje sisteminių šaltinių kompleksų pagrindu nagrinėjamas ikikrikščioniškojo laikotarpio laukų ryšys su XVI a. bajorų laukais ir XVII–XVIII a. bajorkaimiais. Tyrimui pasirinktas Žemaitijos Karšuvos mažojo pavieto pavyzdys. Sugrupavus apdorotą šaltinių medžiagą įrodomas laukų ir bajorkaimių vardų tęstinumas, iš to darant prielaidą dėl lauko struktūros tęstinumo bajorkaimiuose. Pritaikius kartografavimo metodiką atkuriama Karšuvos bajorkaimių ir kaimų geografija

Šauliai Nepriklausomybės kovose

The Riflemen Union (RU) of Lithuania was established on the initiative expressed by the Military Intelligence of the Ministry of National Defence and Lithuanian intelligentsia. The purpose of the organization was to consolidate society for a struggle against the enemies of Lithuania. During the war against the Bolsheviks, guerrilla detachments began to appear which, however, had to be united, armed, and employed expediently for the fight against the fighters of General Bermont-Avalov and the approaching soldiers of Poland. The RU of Lithuania became the uniting force of the fight detachments to banish the Bermont soldiers out of Lithuania. The Riflemen took the city of Šiauliai and kept it until their own forces had arrived. It was the most successful operation of RU. During the fights against the soldiers of Bermont, the Union performed according to guerrilla tactics. They were involved in around 100 armed conflicts. The fighters of Russian General Bermont-Avalov had not yet been banished when the Polish soldiers started robbing the local population on the Lithuania-Poland border. The newly created RU units performed the task of defending the local inhabitants. When the war broke out with Poland, RU established four field headquarters to coordinate RU activities at the front as well as in the rear. There were Riflemen from the small town of Perloja in the Union who distinguished themselves particularly in many actions by beating off the Polish attacks in various parts of South-East Lithuania. Unfortunately, in the tightest point of the struggle, disagreements between the Ministry of National Defence and RU emerged, which were adjusted by applying appropriate laws. Despite the denial of the need for RU and their patriotism expressed by most of the officers, the members of the constituent Seimas acknowledged the merits of RU in the struggle for independence. After the fights with Poles were finished, a neutral zone was appointed to be guarded exclusively by RU, led by officers—regional instructors. For their participation in the fights for independence, members of RU and volunteer creators of the Army were granted the privilege to acquire land on favorable terms

Lietuvių, rusų ir vokiečių istoriografija Lenkijos ir Lietuvos unijos klausimu

The investigations in the Poland-Lithuania union were carried out first in Polish and Russian historiography and later in the Lithuanian one. During the 30-40\u27s the latter studies dealt with the earliest pre-union Lithuanian history and emphasized the independent, long-lasting monarchy and the Lithuanian statehood inside the union. Signing the Krėva treaty in 1385, Jogaila did not think about incorporating Lithuania into Poland but intended to rule both states by himself. Thus, in 1385, only a personal inter-state relationship was stated (A. Šapoka). After the restoration of an independent Lithuanian ruler dynasty in 1392, Jogaila possessed no power in Lithuania and did not issue any documents (K. Jablonskis). The rule of Jogaila and his heirs in Lithuania was interrupted. Such a situation remained unchanged until the Lublin union, which did not abolish the Lithuanian state but constituted the union of two states (A. Šapoka, K. Avižonis, B. Dundulis). However, after the Lublin union, Lithuania was left "with limited statehood" (J. Jakštas). The 17th and 18th centuries were the centuries of rapprochement rather than merging of two states and two political nations (A. Šapoka). During Soviet times, Lithuanian historiography, influenced by Russian historians\u27 works, evaluated the Lublin union negatively, describing it as the burial of the Lithuanian state, the intensification of noble privileges, and an obstacle to social progress (J. Jurginis). Russian historiography appropriated the Lithuanian state and called the Grand Duchy of Lithuania the West Russian state, the continuation of the Kiev state in the territory of Western Russia. According to this historiography, the biggest part of the territory and population belonged to the Russian ethnos. Its early Christianization and, consequently, written language and spiritual culture gave priority to the Eastern part of that state. The political life, under conditions of full decentralization, was determined by the federation of regions (mainly Russian ones). The disputes concerned only the nature of the ethnos: whether it was Russian or Byelorussian during the 15th and 16th centuries. Russian historiography was unanimous about the Lublin union, which interrupted the natural development of the Lithuanian state and subordinated Lithuania to the political, cultural, and religious interests of Poland. Liberation came only in 1795 when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was incorporated into the Russian Empire. The parliamentary union was treated from the point of view of Russian researchers who investigated the early state of Lithuania. M. Lubavski studied the diet of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania until 1569. He treated the parliamentary history of the 15th and 16th centuries as a growth of political consciousness of noblemen and, consequently, their search for greater political rights together with the Polish szlachta. So, the real union came in 1569. V. Pičeta dealt with the economic and social system. Thus, he stated that the real union was determined by the estate privileges and the Lithuanian noblemen\u27s strive for consolidation and increase of these privileges following the Polish szlachta. Meanwhile, J. Lappo was interested in the Russian ethnos, and his estimation of the union was based on it. German historians considered that the Lithuanian state was formed in the ethnic Lithuanian territory and the Russian annexation came later. However, Lithuania showed religious tolerance in the Russian territories and provided them with a wide self-government (H. Jablonowski). German historians agreed that the union created a two-state Poland-Lithuania state—Doppelreich (J. Pfitzner, G. Rhode, M. Bockmann, S. Ekdahl). Some of them (G. Rhode, H. Gersdorf) thought that the union was initiated by Poles and was not directed against the German Order, with which Poland had no conflict since 1343. In 1385, the Poles represented the interests of "Poloniae Minoris." It was only M. Hellmann who thought that the union was in one way or another directed against the German Order. He emphasized the significance of the union for the whole Central Europe. K. Forstreuter pointed out the late Christianization of Lithuania and its importance. Thus, the union was more important in cultural rather than political respect. Poland was wiser in solving this problem than the German Order, which approved only armed force against pagans (Heidenkampf). Lithuania remained in that noble Republic (Adelsrepublik) only because it was under the Russian cultural influence and regained its cultural peculiarities (K. Lemack). However, during the 17th and 18th centuries, Lithuania remained in the shadow of Poland and had limited self-government (M. Hellmann, K. Zemack)

Romantinė baltofilija Latvijos istoriografijoje

In this article it is shown that romantic Balticphilia (a historical, cultural concept of the authors who treat the past of the Balts, the first Paganism, as a separate, civilized, closed system, putting it in opposition to Western, Christian culture) takes root in Lithuanian historiography and doesn\u27t induce its modernity, nor its overthrowing of historicism; it only weakly influences Latvian historiography. Balticphilic works are clearly not plenty. They don\u27t even make up a separate historiographical section. Latvians haven\u27t had such a phenomenon as Daukantas who had, for a long time, traced the direction of foundational, historical thought. The very first Latvian nationalist, G. Merkelis, was not a romantic, but he supported the ideals of the Enlightenment. Many of the Latvian Renaissance men were only slightly interested in history, and they, therefore, drew their attention to the research of culture and art. The most notable XIX century Latvian historian, Janis Krodznieks, was not a romantic, but a critic. Protestant ethics and the critical German historiographical influence encouraged the critical debates of the Latvian historians. Between the First and Second World Wars, Balticphilic idealization of the past was almost unprecedented, because Latvia didn\u27t have international territorial problems. History, as well, didn\u27t play such a big part in the revival of society nor such an educational role, as it did in Lithuania. Balticphilic phenomena in Latvian historiography are, however, precedented. A number of Latvian historians, treating Livonia like a German state, idealized the Lithuanian Grand Duchy, indicating that it was not solely Lithuanian, but Latvian too; a pure state of the Balts. In 1858, J. Alunanas published a rather abstract Lithuanian historical work that covered the space of time up until the Battle of Zalgiris, and, in 1885, F. Veinberas published a joint Latvian and Lithuanian history, up until Lithuania\u27s unionization with Poland. In these works, Lithuanian princes were extolled, while the reception of Christianity was valued as the largest misfortune. The most distinct Balticphilic phenomenon in Latvian historiography is the demonstration that, until the German arrival at the end of the XII century and the beginning of the XIII century, Latvians didn\u27t have a real, fully-worthy state system. Kuoknese and Jersika were real states, but they were divided, not united. Of the most solid, most valuable Latvian historical Balticphilic texts, A. Svalis\u27 are the most distinguished: „True Latvian History," „Latvian History" (a course manual), and „Latvian Cultural History" (two volumes)

Latvijos ir Lietuvos istoriografijos paralelės: bandymai bendradarbiauti ir problemos tarpukaryje

The object of this study is the links and cooperation between Latvian-Lithuanian historians. Presumptions of historiographic parallels are being ventilated in the study on institutional and individual basis so that the links between past Latvian-Lithuanian historians would be identified. The study describes the ways how cooperation of Lithuanian-Latvian historians was evidenced, when there were the most favourable circumstances: in the context of academic institutions\u27 launching and practice. The reasons for national historiography\u27s insularity are outlined, which did not enable the cooperation of academic historians to be developed. There are no specific cooperation facts highlighted in the study, but trends, the cooperation opportunities during the academic historiography genesis in Latvia and Lithuania (during interwar). The main Latvian-Lithuanian historiography trends presented in a study reflect well up till now characteristic institutional - academic, social indifference of Latvian-Lithuanian historiography