History derailed: Central and Eastern Europe in the long nineteenth century

2005 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 215-216
Author(s):  
NIGEL SWAIN
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe

scholarly journals Households of the Nobles and Peasants in Užventis Parish, 1836–1861

Lituanistica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurynas Giedrimas
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Household Model ◽  
History Of ◽  
Household Models ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Household Analysis ◽  
Nuclear Household

The article deals with the households of the nobles and peasants in the first half of the nineteenth century in Užventis parish, Samogitia. In the middle of the twentieth century, John Hajnal and Peter Laslett started researching the history of resident households. The researchers formulated theoretical and methodological foundations for household analysis and encouraged other historians and demographers to undertake similar studies. The researchers who analysed the households of Central and Eastern Europe either refuted or corrected many of the statements proposed by John Hajnal and Peter Laslett and established that the most common household in Central and Eastern Europe was a nuclear household, although in many cases it was also possible to find an extended household. However, it was not clarified at what age people started building new households and which household model dominated in Samogitia. Also, it was not known what the difference between a household of nobles and a household of peasants was. The data on the households of the nobles and peasants also interconnected. The households of landlords were bigger than the households of peasants and the petty nobility, because the menage of a landlord used to be part of the household. After analysing the aforementioned data, it has been discovered that in the first half of the nineteenth century, nuclear household dominated Užventis parish. Extended household models were often found as well. The Catholic inhabitants of Užventis parish married late and had a child every two years. Around 3500 Catholic residents lived in Užventis parish in the first half of the nineteenth century. The analysis of the data showed that nuclear household dominated the Užventis parish in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Hungary's Antisemitic Provinces: Violence and Ritual Murder in the 1880s

Slavic Review ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Nemes
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Ritual Murder ◽  
Blood Libel ◽  
Political Experience ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Jewish Ritual

The subject of this article is the Tiszaeszlár blood libel, one of several sensational Jewish ritual murder cases to unfold in central and eastern Europe in the last decades of the nineteenth century. By focusing on a region far removed from Tiszaeszlár, the article underscores the rapidity with which antisemitic violence traversed Hungary in the early 1880s. In examining the causes, function, and impact of this violence, Robert Nemes demonstrates the centrality of the provinces for understanding the depth and dynamism of political antisemitism in Hungary. Nemes also argues that Tiszaeszlár acted as a formative political experience for many people in the provinces and explores the wider consequences of this event, both in the near and in the long term.

scholarly journals Between Microhistory, Demography, and Rural Studies: The Settlements and Household of the Inhabitants of Kražiai and Užventis Parishes in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

Lituanistica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurynas Giedrimas
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Extended Family ◽  
Rural Studies ◽  
Single Person ◽  
History Of ◽  
Extended Households ◽  
The Town ◽  
Nuclear Household

The article deals with the relation between the settlement and household of inhabitants in the first half of the nineteenth century in Kražiai and Užventis parishes, Samogitia. In the middle of the twentieth century, John Hajnal and Peter Laslett started researching the history of resident households. The researchers formulated theoretical and methodological basics for household analysis and encouraged other history researchers and demographers to undertake similar studies. Researchers who analysed households in Central and Eastern Europe refuted or corrected numerous statements by John Hajnal and Peter Laslett. They found that the most common household in Central and Eastern Europe was the nuclear household, although in many cases it was possible to find extended households. However, there is no clear relationship between the institution and the household. After analysing the aforementioned documents, it was discovered that during the first half of the nineteenth century, the nuclear household dominated the parishes of Kražiai and Užventis. However, the extended family is dominant in the towns of Kolainiai and Pakražantis. The single-person household dominated folwarks and manorial settlements. The relationship between the settlement and the household was significant. Eight types of settlements existed in the parishes of Kražiai and Užventis in the first half of the nineteenth century: the town (miestas, miasto), the township (miestelis, miasteczko, мњстечко), the manor (dvaras, dwór, majątek, имњние), folwark (palivarkas, folwark, фольварк), the manor village (bajorkaimis, okolica, околица), the village (kaimas, wieś, деревня), behind the wall (užusienis, zaścianek, застенок), and the felling (apyrubė, obręb, обруб). The smallest household was in the town of Kražiai, while the biggest household was found in the manor estate in Užventis parish.

Origins: Controversies over Hasidic Shtiblekh

2013 ◽  
pp. 42-76
Author(s):  
Marcin Wodziński
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Jewish Question ◽  
The Political ◽  
The South ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
Political Debates ◽  
History Of

This chapter covers the prominence of the Jewish Question in the political debates of the last years of the Commonwealth, as well as in the later journalism of the Duchy of Warsaw and the Kingdom of Poland regarding interests in hasidim. It analyzes the cradle of Polish Hasidism, Podolia and Volhynia, the south-eastern borderlands of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, where from the 1740s to 1760 the putative creator of the group, Israel ben Eliezer, also known as the Besht was active. Though Hasidism appeared in the lands of central Poland as early as the mid-eighteenth century, the governments that controlled these territories between 1772 and 1830 did not become aware of it until nearly the end of that period that the existence of hasidic groups became an issue in Jewish politics. It explains how the lack of official interest in Hasidism was caused by the very complicated general history of the states of central and eastern Europe at the start of the nineteenth century. The growing wave of interventions in issues related to Hasidism and the fact that the question of the legality of Hasidism became tied up with the issue of religious fraternities.

Taking the Traghetto to the Ghetto; or, Performing Jewish Culture in Venice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Scott Valentino
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Oxford English Dictionary ◽  
Jewish Culture ◽  
European Languages ◽  
English Usage ◽  
Enclosed Space ◽  
Urban Territory

Like empathy, ghetto seems to be a word that has been with us for so long that it's difficult to imagine a time without it. It's a false impression on both accounts, yet another instance of present associations impinging upon, or better overwhelming, past - what shall I say - absence, ignorance, meaninglessness. The word empathy simply did not exist in English before 1903, while ghetto did not have the associations it would later acquire. Initially, a toponym (I repeat, with its own meaning, initially unrelated to the Jews), but subsequently attached to the Jews in the minds of Europeans of the late sixteenth century such that, very quickly, by the time of the formation of the Ghetto of Rome, or better yet for our purposes, of the "Newest Ghetto" in Venice (the shiny one I noted above), to which new arrivals were consigned after the Old Ghetto too had become over crowded, the combination was no longer arbitrary or figurative: a ghetto had become an enclosed space inside an urban territory for Jews. But English seems to have been oddly negligent of this term and this association for much of its history. The Oxford English Dictionary cites a scant three definitions, with not quite a page and a half of examples, none from Shakespeare, or Milton, or Byron, or Tennyson, or Browning, or Melville, or Austen, or Dickens, or Dickenson. This is worth pondering. In all its exhaustive thoroughness, the OED lists only four examples of English usage between 1611 and 1887, none from an author I've ever heard of. My suspicion, which others are welcome to refute, is that usage in French, German, and other west European languages paralleled English in this, and that one would be hard pressed to find the word used by contemporaries in any language other than Italian (and now I've grown quite curious about its frequency in Italian). The linguist Max Weinreich noted that the term was not used to designate the local Jewish living quarters anywhere in Central and Eastern Europe before at least the nineteenth century.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document