The Self-Perception of Lithuanian–Belarusian Jewry in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries

2001 ◽  
pp. 19-31
Author(s):  
Vital Zajka
Keyword(s):  
Religious Practice ◽  
The Self ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Distinct Part ◽  
Relative Tolerance ◽  
Social Opportunities ◽  
Eighteenth And Nineteenth Centuries ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
Grand Duchy

This chapter examines the Lithuanian–Belarusian Jewry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. From the earliest times of their settlement in the easternmost Slavonic and Baltic territories, the Jews have been aware of their special status, first as discoverers of lands beyond the limits of the Jewish world of that time, and then as a distinct part of that world. Potential economic and social opportunities and freedom of religious practice and self-government, combined with the benevolence of rulers and the relative tolerance of the surrounding population, gave rise to the distinctiveness of Lithuanian–Belarusian Jews in relation to the rest of Ashkenaz. The term ‘Lithuanian–Belarusian Jewry’ refers to the Jews who lived in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, including the protectorate of Kurland, after the Union of Lublin in 1569. In Yiddish, the land was referred to as ‘Liteh’ and its Jews referred to themselves as ‘Litvaks’. Jewish Liteh also included the region of Podlasie that became a part of the Polish crown territories (the ethnically Polish part of the Commonwealth) as a result of the Union of Lublin.

scholarly journals History representations and interpretations in contemporary Lithuanian theatre

Menotyra ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Steiblytė
Keyword(s):  
Social Environment ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Memory Politics ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
Grand Duchy

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.

Introduction

2001 ◽  
pp. 3-19
Author(s):  
Antony Polonsky
Keyword(s):  
Jewish Life ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
World War ◽  
History Of ◽  
Eighteenth And Nineteenth Centuries ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
Second World ◽  
Grand Duchy

This introductory chapter briefly explores Jewish life and Polish nationhood within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth up until the Second World War. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was a dual state, created in 1569 by the union of the kingdom of Poland with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It was extremely heterogeneous in character. The history of Poland–Lithuania throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries raised the questions of who was a Pole and what should be the boundaries of the future Polish state. For the Polish political élite, there was no question that the goal was the reconstitution of the country within its 1772 frontiers. This created a new interest in documenting the ‘Polishness’ of the borderlands (kresy) of the former Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Stories and the Self

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Krause ◽  
Markus Appel
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Lower Degree ◽  
Contrast Effects ◽  
Self Perception ◽  
Self Perceptions ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

Abstract. Two experiments examined the influence of stories on recipients’ self-perceptions. Extending prior theory and research, our focus was on assimilation effects (i.e., changes in self-perception in line with a protagonist’s traits) as well as on contrast effects (i.e., changes in self-perception in contrast to a protagonist’s traits). In Experiment 1 ( N = 113), implicit and explicit conscientiousness were assessed after participants read a story about either a diligent or a negligent student. Moderation analyses showed that highly transported participants and participants with lower counterarguing scores assimilate the depicted traits of a story protagonist, as indicated by explicit, self-reported conscientiousness ratings. Participants, who were more critical toward a story (i.e., higher counterarguing) and with a lower degree of transportation, showed contrast effects. In Experiment 2 ( N = 103), we manipulated transportation and counterarguing, but we could not identify an effect on participants’ self-ascribed level of conscientiousness. A mini meta-analysis across both experiments revealed significant positive overall associations between transportation and counterarguing on the one hand and story-consistent self-reported conscientiousness on the other hand.

Manuscript Catalogs and Inventories of Books from the Lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – Some Problems of Publishing Rules

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 107-121
Author(s):  
Lilia Kowkiel ◽  
Arvydas Pacevičius ◽  
Iwona Pietrzkiewicz
Keyword(s):  
Primary Source ◽  
Digital Form ◽  
Historical Sources ◽  
Historical Texts ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
Grand Duchy ◽  
Book Culture

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.

D?r al-?arb as the Motherland? The Muslim Tatars of (the Grand Duchy of) Lithuania and Social Contract

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-177
Author(s):  
Egdūnas Račius
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Social Contract ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The Social ◽  
State And Society ◽  
Muslim Minority ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Grand Duchy

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.

“History Misappropriation or Compreension?” (Russian Lihuanian Studies in the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century)

2020 ◽  
Vol 58 ◽  
pp. 219-236
Author(s):  
Andrey Yu. Dvornichenko
Keyword(s):  
20Th Century ◽  
Russian Empire ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Medieval History ◽  
Scientific Paradigm ◽  
Russian State ◽  
History Of ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
Grand Duchy

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.

LIETUVOS DIDŽIOSIOS KUNIGAIKŠTYSTĖS KARIUOMENĖS KASDIENINIO GYVENIMO STANDARTAI 1764–1788 M.

2018 ◽  
pp. 198-217
Author(s):  
Valdas Rakutis
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
Local Communities ◽  
Supply System ◽  
Ruling Elite ◽  
Ordinary Life ◽  
Economic Unit ◽  
Grand Duchy Of Lithuania ◽  
A Company ◽  
A Current ◽  
Grand Duchy

The article analyses ordinary life of the Armed Forces of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the period between the beginning of the rule by the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Stanisław August Poniatowski, and until the reforms by the Four-Year Sejm (1788–1792). In the period of interest it was a small (up to 4,000 soldiers), independent army, made up from national contractors, mostly cavalry detachments, the main unit being a flag of 30–100 soldiers, and the so-called foreign contractors (cavalry, infantry and artillery), the main unit being a company of 60–100 soldiers. In 1775–1777, division by contractors’ ethnicity was replaced with the territorial divisions. The main changes took place in the national cavalry, where two equally sized brigades of hussars and petyhorcy were created, whereas majority of foreign contractors were reorganized into infantry. Peace-time armed forces was an important factor for the Lithuanian public, the ruling elite and the local communities. Army was not a tool for use in large international politics, it was more of a current order preserving instrument. Army supply system was based on the independent economic unit, governed by the unit commander. Attempts by the Lithuanian Military Commission to impose greater control gave insignificant results, although the reforms of 1775–1775 were able to strengthen control of the treasury and procedures, making relationships more visible and transparent, and the actual composition of the armed forces was very close to the theoretical provisions. The economic weakness of the nation after the First Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and lack of correlation between recovery of the treasury and army financing put bridles on the army, preventing it from development and change. In spite of all 1764–1788 reforms, the Lithuanian armed forces remained a stagnating institution, where routine and established traditions dominated over novelty and change. Keywords: Armed Forces of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, ordinary army life, rule of Stanisław Poniatowski, Military Commission, Military Department of the Permanent Council.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document