Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
"Russiana gloriatur ecclesia" ir šv. Brunono Kverfurtiečio misijų klausimas
Get PDFThe issue discussed in the article refers to the geography of the archdioceses, established by St. Bruno of Querfurt and the meaning and the circumstances of the appearance of the term "Russiana gloriatur ecclesia" mentioned "in the name of the Russian king" by the name Nethimer and the hagiographer Peter Damian (the first half of the 11th century). The greatest attention is focused on the letter to the king of Germany Henry II (the future emperor), written by St. Bruno himself and to the insert, written by Peter Damian, describing the martyrdom of St. Bruno Boniface\u27s (1009).
It becomes clear in the research that St. Bruno of Querfurt, after being anointed the archbishop of missions or pagans in 1004, did his work in at least several peripheries: in Hungary and in Kiev Russia, i.e., among "black Hungarians", Kiev Russia and Pechenegian, i.e., among Pechenegs. For the latter St. Bruno anointed the bishop and he also visited three Pechenegian lands. Another periphery, where people were sent by St. Bruno (the bishop and the monks), was Sweden. Finally the missionary himself came to Russian-Lithuanian border, where he was killed. All this geography shows, that St. Bruno of Querfurt did his missions and established the archdioceses in particular peripheries, in territories not available for any political influences, where other bishops were not doing their work and which didn\u27t lie within other bishops\u27 jurisdiction.
With the view of avoiding the violation of political and church subordination law in relationship to other bishops and the rulers, supporting them, St. Bruno, if we trust hagiographical sources, visited Prussia, but he didn\u27t do any missions there—instead he immediately headed for the Russian-Lithuanian border. While considering that we can answer the question why there is a mention of "Russiana gloriatur ecclesia" in Peter Damian\u27s hagiography. The hagiographer perhaps has in mind the archdiocese, established by St. Bruno, the core of which was Kiev Russia. Because the bordering lands, where St. Bruno and the people sent by him worked, were on the border with Kiev Russia. Since the first archbishop of this missionary archdiocese was St. Bruno himself "Russian Church" took pride in him, i.e. the former and the present disciples of St. Bruno. Thus, while mentioning Russiana gloriatur ecclesia Peter Damian might have had in mind the people who still remembered St. Bruno, his disciples, the congregation of Russian Latin Church.
Rex russorum, mentioned in the same hagiography, might have meant not the "Russian" king, who lived in Lithuania, and who allegedly belonged to the sphere of Kiev Russian geopolitical influence, but the leader of the tribe, who lived in Lithuania, turned into such "king" due to a more familiar name of Russia.
Since St. Bruno of Querfurt did his missions in different peripheries, related to Kiev Russia, the Russian-Lithuanian border, the subject of our concern, should be closer to Kiev Russia. This should be taken into consideration while dealing with the issue of Russia\u27s mention in the sources. Therefore it is possible to agree with the argument, stated by D. Baron, that Peter Damian hadn\u27t confused us with Russians, but the conclusion made by E. Gudavičius, that all sources, speaking about the land of the "Russian king" speak about one and the same geographical area
Latvijos ir Estijos požiūris į Klaipėdos atplėšimą nuo Lietuvos 1939 metais
Get PDFThe article focuses on a topic that has never been tackled and constructively investigated in historiography. The issue of Klaipėda, which was one of the key international problems for Lithuania in interwar years, affected the international status and the stability of its northern neighbor countries, including other Baltic states - Latvia and Estonia. In 1923, having confirmed the annexation of Klaipėda region to Lithuania, they were both concerned that Lithuania would retain it, thereby preventing the historical German expansion from renewing in the northeast direction. In essence, the subject of Klaipėda did not prevent Lithuania from cooperating with Latvia and Estonia and from clustering into the Baltic Entente. This question did not belong to the "specific" problems pointed out in the peace treaty of the 12th of September 1934, which constituted an exception in the cooperation of the three Baltic countries.
Latvia\u27s backing of Lithuania in seeking to preserve Klaipėda is more tangible. The decision made by the Latvian government to transform the Consulate in Klaipėda into a General Consulate and to appoint Janis Seskis, a well-known politician and diplomat, as Consul is considered as support to Lithuania. The activity of the Latvian General Consul in Klaipėda was useful for Lithuania, giving the impression that not only Germany had exceptional rights in the Klaipėda region but that Latvia was also interested in it. The three-day visit of the Latvian navy to Klaipėda harbor (from the 5th to the 8th of August in 1935) is also considered as a beneficial action on the part of Latvia.
Estonia\u27s attempt to mediate in the argument between Germany and Lithuania over Klaipėda in 1938 by advising Lithuania to give Klaipėda to Germany by good will before they occupied it by force is not treated as an action directed against Lithuania either. That action was determined by the Estonian military and diplomatic office\u27s belief that peace and stability could be preserved in Europe by satisfying Germany\u27s ethnically-based territorial requirements. Estonian leaders also assumed that the most dangerous enemy of Estonia was the USSR, which could also be resisted with the help of Germany. Therefore, no Baltic country could afford to be in conflict with Germany.
The loss of Klaipėda was considered by Estonia as an inevitable and imminent event, whereas Latvia treated it as a reprehensible fact of German expansion that Lithuania had to face and experience. Yielding Klaipėda did not stabilize the international status of Baltic countries but worsened it because the danger of USSR aggression became more intense, especially and primarily for Estonia and Latvia. This fact only indicates once more that the security of all three Baltic states is undivided
Reliatyvistinė paveldosaugos samprata: prielaidos, principai, galimybės
Get PDFThe relativistic conception of the heritage protection phenomenon is actualized in this article – the motives of such viewing existence, its underlying theoretical principles are formulated, and some tendencies of modern theory of the heritage protection are criticized based upon it. The conclusions of comparative analyses of various social heritage protection concepts and practices, and the experience of the international heritage protection (UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICCROM), give preconditions for the existence of this conception. In the first case, the comparison of the European, USA, Japanese, and other examples states that there exist different, and sometimes incompatible and even contradictory interpretations of this conception. In the last decade of the 20th century, it was also realized in the international heritage protection: from the search for universal standards of the heritage protection, one came to the acknowledgment of its relativity. Its angular point is considered to be the Nara Document on Authenticity (1994). Unfortunately, the relativistic perspective is not sufficiently adopted in the theoretical plane of the heritage protection, and this, first of all, leads to some mistakes and failures. The most typical and vivid of them is the presentation of one society\u27s conception, most often that of the European countries, as the whole of the heritage protection phenomenon. There still is the vital and progressive evaluation. Moreover, there dominate the researches oriented to generalization (and at the same time to the partial levelling), but not to the revelation of the concrete social conceptions of the heritage protection. This illustrates perfectly well one of the most popular matrixes (paradigmatic model) of the heritage protection research – critical analysis. Three underlying principles of the relativistic conception of the heritage protection are stated based upon the modern provision of the heritage protection practice – the principles of multiperspectiveness, conventionality, and equivalence. They respectively describe that the heritage protection is ideologically and practically expressed as a variety of conceptions, that these conceptions are determined by the lifestyle and needs of a concrete society, and that all conceptions are equally good and correct
Rec.: Musial Bogdan. Sowjetische Partisanen. Mythos und Wirklichkeit. Paderbom: Ferdinand Schoning, 2009. 590 S
No full textŠventojo Brunono mikrohagiografijos klausimas
Get PDFDie Hagiographie des heiligen Bruno bilden drei Werke. Zwei von ihnen gehören dem Marterungstypus (Passio): der Wipertsbericht (die 1. Hälfte des 11. Jh.) und "Das Leben des heiligen Romuald" von Peter Damiani (die 40. Jahre des 11. Jh.). Das dritte - ein Gesamtwerk der Lebens- und Marterungsbeschreibung (Vita et Passio) - ist nur in einer späten Querfurter Redaktion (die Wende des 15. und 16. Jh.) erhalten. Die Ortsfeststellung der Ereignisse Wiperts bezeugt Preußen, "Das Leben des heiligen Romuald" - Russland, die Querfurter Redaktion - Böhmen und Ungarn. Außer den Hagiographiewerken spiegeln die Legende auch ihre Bruchstücke in den Chroniken und Traktaten ab. Sie bilden die sogenannte Mikrohagiographie, welche die Gesamtansicht der Legende in ihren Ortsfeststellungsversionen darbringt. Man sieht in der Chronik Thietmars von Merseburg (1018) die Übergabe der Anfangserzählung, wo man über die Ereignisse in Preußen spricht. Thietmar schreibt über den Martertod des Heiligen im Grenzgebiet Russlands und Preußens und berichtet über den Loskauf seines Leibes durch den Polenfürsten (ohne die Ernennung des Landnamens) Boleslaw den Tapferen. Dabei benutzte Thietmar die Anmerkung der Quedlinburger Annalen (etwa 1009), welche über das Grenzgebiet Russlands und zum ersten Mal ernanntes Litauen sprach, hat aber ihm unbekanntes Litauen in Preußen umgewandelt. Die Mikrohagiographie entwickelte sich weiter in Sachsen auf dem Grund des Thietmarberichtes, hat doch die Ortsereignisse schon in Böhmen und Ungarn festgestellt. Darüber können wir aus "Den Werken der Magdeburger Erzbischöfe" (das zweite Viertel des 12. Jh.) erfahren. Die Verschmelzung der Tradition beider großen Missionare Ottos III - des böhmischen Bischofs Adalbert und Brunos von Querfurt - verursachte solche Umwandlung (der Pole Boleslaw wurde später als der Böhme Boleslaw angenommen). Endgültige Schöpfung dieser Entwicklungsrichtung ist die Querfurter Redaktion. Die Entwicklung der selbst preußischen Version ist in dem Bericht Wiperts festgestellt, daran aber kam sie zum Ende. In "Dem Leben des heiligen Romualds" sehen wir die Ortsfeststellung Russlands (ohne Namenbezeugung "des Russenkönigs"). Man tauft hier diesen Herrscher und sein Land, was schon vor zwanzig Jahren ohne die Teilnahme des (damals sehr) jungen Brunos geschehen wurde. Alle drei Hagiographiewerke der Brunolegende haben dieselbe Tatsachenfabel: die Scheiterhaufenerprobung - die Taufe des Häuptlings - die Ermordung des Heiligen. Es ändert aber überall die Ortsfeststellung. Man spricht von der Leibesbestattung, von den darüber errichteten Kirchen oder Klöstern, von den Heilungswundern - von allem, was für die Kanonisation unentbehrlich ist. Es gibt aber keine Spur solcher Einrichtungen in Sachsen, Böhmen, Ungarn und Russland, denn hätten die Polen das Leib losgekauft. Manche glaubwürdige Spuren findet man in Polen. Es ist aber bisher unmöglich, sie zu bestätigen: alles hat die Heidenrevolte der 30. Jahre des 11. Jahrhunderts vernichtet. Der Bericht Thietmars bleibt aber unverneinbar: alles ereignete sich in dem Annahmungsraum von Boleslaw dem Tapferen, was damals als Preußen verstanden wurde
Vidaus prekybos tinklo raida lietuviškose gubernijose 1861-1914 metais: išvežiojamoji ir išnešiojamoji prekyba
Get PDFTill the 1861 years reforms town\u27s and township\u27s dwellers bought goods usually at dolly-shops, shops, markets, and marts. Village dwellers bought items from itemsman\u27s or in the alehouse. Merchants, townspeople, tradesmen used to sell self-made production from workshops or in the markets and marts. Noblemans organized trade at the alehouse. Peasants handled rarely. Only the most sophisticated and minded peasants were engaged in commercial activity.
Under the serfdom conditions, mighty merchants and townspeople strife, juridical confines of economic activity, and itemsmans and shoppers well-organized trade system at the villages formed peasants uninterested in enterprise. During the reforms season, in the villages, spread mobility trade forms. It was also influenced by the sparse web of townships, in possession of the right to organize markets and marts.
But the liquidation of serfdom gave the way to enter the trade. Increasingly, peasants and townspeople were involved in the trade business. Simultaneously, the web of domestic trade increased—the number of markets, marts, and dolly-shops. While the web of domestic trade was spreading, the emporium became more available. Therefore, after the 1861 reforms, the demand for mobility trade forms at the markets declined.
The consumers wanted to purchase necessaries of life every day and at a convenient time. This inside trade form, due to its impermanent timetable of work, could not satisfy. The increasing demands of the dwellers, the requirements of permanent realization of goods, roused by industrial production. Furthermore, the specialization of trade enterprises showed up. The products of agriculture and the goods of amateurs prevailed in the markets. The industrial production had to make its way to the market. To meet the needs, there were found more static trade companies. These companies, in the second part of the XIX century, took over some markets\u27 functions, especially like trade of industrial production and important goods
