16. The Image of the Infidelis in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: A Comparison of the Trends in the Creation of Anti-Jewish and Anti-Muslim Stereotypes

2015 ◽  
pp. 329-346
Problemos ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 111-119
Author(s):  
Darius Kuolys

By refering to the examples of different cultural traditions, Arūnas Sverdiolas in his study Constitution and Preservation described the mechanisms that are involved in the creation of culture – constitution and preservation. The goal of this article is to show how these mechanisms operated in the reality of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The article analyzes the roles that the Lithuanian political society gave to legislation, upbringing, historical narratives, heroic and occasional poetry while constituting and preserving itself.


Politeja ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (6(57)) ◽  
pp. 91-105
Author(s):  
Alvydas Nikžentaitis

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.


Author(s):  
O. Yashchuk

The article analyzes the titulature used in the documents of the Book of Inscriptions No. 8 of the Lithuanian Metrica. The study of documents clearly indicates 1713 ruler’s titles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which are classified into 47 different variants. The author characterized the system of presentation of the supreme power through the title of a ruler and its reception by the subjects. The article provides specific features of the modern and previous rulers systems of titulature. It reveals the use of titles "king", "grand duke" and "hospodar". The obtained results demonstrate that the title of the ruler is used in both extended and abridged versions. Most often, the abridged version contains the title of "king", which is a consequence of its greater prestige compared to the title of "grand duke". The author examines the system of using titles of rulers within one document. It is established that the first use of the title is often the most complete. In the case of documents drawn up on behalf of the ruler, the first title denotes the prerogatives of the ruler. "King by the grace of God", "King and Grand Duke by the grace of God", "King of Poland by the grace of God", "By the grace of God" with the addition of a name in all cases are most often used as the first titles in the documents created during the reign of the ruler Sigismund I the Old. The supreme power emphasizes the sacred origin of their prerogatives by adding "by the grace of God" to the title of a modern ruler. In the same case, there is no deliberate emphasis on the sacralization of power of previous rulers. The article provides an analysis of combinations of titles of rulers. In documents drawn up on behalf of the ruler, the title of "king" is often combined with the title of "grand duke", which is characteristic of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. On the other hand, it is typical to frequently use the title of "hospodar" for documents originating from subjects of rulers. The study has confirmed that the remoteness of the reign of the Grand Duke from the time of the creation of the document reduces the variability of the titulature. Vytautas and Sigismund Kęstutaitis are titled exclusively as "grand duke". The titulature of Casimir IV Jagiellon and Alexander Jagiellon has more variations. In documents originating from the subjects, the ruler is often referred to as "his mercy", "hospodar", "his mercy king" and "his mercy hospodar".


Menotyra ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Steiblytė

The text deals with (re)interpretations of history in professional contemporary Lithuanian theatre.According to historians, nowadays there are few dominating narratives about Lithuanian history: the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with the grand dukes in the forefront, the only Lithuanian king Mindaugas, and the history of the 20th century wars, occupation ant battles for independence. Based on that, the text provides an attempt to figure out how these narratives are represented and reinterpreted in contemporary Lithuanian theatre with the 20th century stories dominating the repertory of historic performances. Those are both confirming the predominant narratives and reinterpreting them and establishing new relation with personalities and events dominant in memory politics. The text also deals with the narrative of the victim that dominates historic Lithuanian self-perception. Two performances help as examples understanding how this narrative can be strengthened or criticised. The last part of the text presents the place that Polish, Russian and Jewish minorities get in contemporary Lithuanian theatre to represent their versions of history and asks whether contemporary Lithuanian theatre is contributing to the creation of a more involving social environment.


2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karol Łopatecki

THE ORIGINS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF WŁADYSŁAW IV’S MILITARY REGULATIONS FOR FOREIGN CONTINGENTS Summary Władysław IV’s military reforms are recognized as one of the most important historical, military transformations in Poland. This ruler modeled his reforms on Swedish and Western European solutions by creating a foreign military contingent. In principle, it sought to abandon the recruitment of expensive, undisciplined and often disloyal soldiers from neighboring countries. His solution was to create a contingent of the king’s subjects led by individuals knowledgeable in the conduct of modern warfare. In 1629, even before ascending to the throne, he began putting together a new type of regiments – one with domestic recruits led by professional foreign officers. At the end of 1632, Moscow attacked the Ground Duchy of Lithuania. Władysław IV, an elected king, went to the aid of the fortress, leading forces modeled on foreign military designs. Consequently, this led to the creation of the so-called “foreign contingent.” On September 6th 1633, military regulations were announced for these new type of military forces. Those rules were a faithful translation of Gustav II Adolf’s 1632 military regulations. They were originally in force in the Polish Kingdom’s armies, and from the second half of the 17th century, also in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. During the first half of the 17th century, those regulations were not used by the contingents recruited from abroad or by reiter cavalry. Despite attempts to marginalize these regulations, they survived until the end of John III Sobieski’s reign. During this period, minor editorial changes can be noted, along with the addition and removal of minor legal directives. It was not until the reign of Augustus II the Strong that new foreign contingent regulations, based on Saxon ideas, were introduced.


Author(s):  
M. Тaranenko ◽  
M. Taranenko

The article considers the problem of formation and development of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the legal assessment of the situation of the Ukrainian lands conquered by Lithuanians. In the context of this problem, the authors analyze in detail the main stages of the Lithuanian state during the reign of Mindaugas, the creation of a centralized system of power and the establishment of the ruling Gediminas dynasty, active expansionist foreign policy during the reign of Prince Olgerd. It is clear that the authors are particularly interested in the process of conquest of Ukrainian lands by Lithuanians through the so-called “quiet expansion” and its main consequences that occurred in the socio-political life of the Ukrainian and Lithuanian peoples. In this context, the authors thoroughly analyze the process of assimilation of Lithuanians by Ukrainians, who were in the state-building and cultural relations much higher than their conquerors. Lithuanians borrow from the Ukrainians the Orthodox faith, the Old Russian language, “Russian Truth”, becomes the main source of law before the adoption of the Lithuanian Statutes. As a result of assimilation processes, Lithuanians who lived on Ukrainian lands forgot who they were – Lithuanians or Ukrainians. Along with the positive phenomena, the article analyzes the negative innovations introduced in Ukraine at this time: the removal from power in Kiev of the princes of the Rurik dynasty and the arrival of representatives of the Lithuanian Gedeminovich dynasty and the creation, unlike Kievan Rus, a strong centralized Lithuanian state. The article analyzes the process of changing the legal status of the Ukrainian lands-principalities, which became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, at the initial stage of its formation and development (broad autonomy with elements of federalism) and during the period of enhanced centralization of grand ducal power and their transformation into governorates of the Lithuanian state in the second half of the XV century. According to the authors of the article, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, despite its different names (Lithuanian-Russian, Russian-Lithuanian states, etc.), was not a Ukrainian state.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 107-121
Author(s):  
Lilia Kowkiel ◽  
Arvydas Pacevičius ◽  
Iwona Pietrzkiewicz

Historians and publishers of historical sources have a lot of problems with the texts written in different languages and alphabets, which were created at different times, in the multilingual areas inhabited by many nations following different religions. The historians of book culture have the same problems with texts of inventories and catalogues of books, which are the primary source of knowledge about the content of libraries. At present it’s also important the historical texts to be published in the digital form. This article is a part of the discussion on this very important subject.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-177
Author(s):  
Egdūnas Račius

Muslim presence in Lithuania, though already addressed from many angles, has not hitherto been approached from either the perspective of the social contract theories or of the compliance with Muslim jurisprudence. The author argues that through choice of non-Muslim Grand Duchy of Lithuania as their adopted Motherland, Muslim Tatars effectively entered into a unique (yet, from the point of Hanafi fiqh, arguably Islamically valid) social contract with the non-Muslim state and society. The article follows the development of this social contract since its inception in the fourteenth century all the way into the nation-state of Lithuania that emerged in the beginning of the twentieth century and continues until the present. The epitome of the social contract under investigation is the official granting in 1995 to Muslim Tatars of a status of one of the nine traditional faiths in Lithuania with all the ensuing political, legal and social consequences for both the Muslim minority and the state.


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 219-236
Author(s):  
Andrey Yu. Dvornichenko

The abundant Russian historiography of the medieval history of Grand Duchy of Lithuania (Lithuanian-Russian State) has become in the last decades the centre of the discussions and is often subject to groundless criticism. This historiography was not very lucky in the Soviet period of the 20th century either, as it was severely criticized from the Marxist-Leninist position. When discussing Russian historiography the author of this article is consciously committed to the Russian positions. There are no reasons to consider this historiography branch either Byelorussian or Ukrainian one, as that was really Russian historiography, - the phenomenon that formed under the favorable specific conditions of Russian Empire before the beginning of the 20th century. The said phenomenon can be studied in different ways: according to the existing then main trends and schools or according to their affiliation with specific universities of Russian Empire. But according to the author of this article the best way to study the issue is in accordance with the main concepts of history. And then the pre-revolutionary historiography appears as an integral scientific paradigm that turns out to be the most divaricate branch of the Lithuanian studies of the time. It created, in its turn, the most vivid and objective historical picture that can still serve as the basis for the studies of Lithuanian-Russian state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document