Suchergebnisse

There are many definitions of Soviet censorship in different scientific research studies. Censorship is a complex phenomenon. It is not only a control of the public sector (press and mass media). Censorship covers a multitude of areas – from the public to the private spheres of life, from institutional, regulated control to internal self-censorship. Due to these reasons, studies of censorship are relevant to various scientific fields. The aim of this research is to analize the main concepts of Soviet censorship and trends of these research studies. In order to achieve this aim, scientific works, surveying Soviet censorship from various perspectives aspects were analyzed. The goal was to distinguish the main trends of research studies and to understand focusing on the context to which Soviet censorship is related. The analysis of various concepts of censorship and other concepts used to describe this phenomenon has allowed to highlight the differences between scientists' attitudes towards this phenomenon. The research-based analysis concluded that the main trends of research studies of Soviet censorship are as follows: 1. censorship as one of the features of Soviet occupation; 2. censorship as a part of Soviet culture; 3. censorship as one of KGB's work methods; 4. censorship as a specific connection between creative artists and the Soviet system; 5. censorship as a part of press and publishing history; 6. censorship as part of daily work of memory institutions. In the studines that are focused exclusively on censorship, most of the analysis is oriented towards censorship as an institution (Glavlit) and its work methods. Censorship in memory institutions is presented as "cleaning" of library collections, a destruction of books or development of restricted (special) collections. When analyzing censorship, Lithuanian researchers present this phenomenon as one-sided totalitarian control. Foreign authors quite often base their research on the theories of P. Bourdieu or M. Foucault and present censorship both as a means of control and as a power that defines culture and communication. The concept of soviet censorship in these research studies is also defined in quite a few ways, for example, as a means of control or as a restriction of press and mass media, as a boundary or information barrier. Censorship can be analyzed as an institution, as a work method of that institution (Glavlit) or as one of many features of soviet mass communication. There is a lack of research studies that might give rise to different theories and present a more complex view of soviet censorship.

There are many definitions of Soviet censorship in different scientific research studies. Censorship is a complex phenomenon. It is not only a control of the public sector (press and mass media). Censorship covers a multitude of areas – from the public to the private spheres of life, from institutional, regulated control to internal self-censorship. Due to these reasons, studies of censorship are relevant to various scientific fields. The aim of this research is to analize the main concepts of Soviet censorship and trends of these research studies. In order to achieve this aim, scientific works, surveying Soviet censorship from various perspectives aspects were analyzed. The goal was to distinguish the main trends of research studies and to understand focusing on the context to which Soviet censorship is related. The analysis of various concepts of censorship and other concepts used to describe this phenomenon has allowed to highlight the differences between scientists' attitudes towards this phenomenon. The research-based analysis concluded that the main trends of research studies of Soviet censorship are as follows: 1. censorship as one of the features of Soviet occupation; 2. censorship as a part of Soviet culture; 3. censorship as one of KGB's work methods; 4. censorship as a specific connection between creative artists and the Soviet system; 5. censorship as a part of press and publishing history; 6. censorship as part of daily work of memory institutions. In the studines that are focused exclusively on censorship, most of the analysis is oriented towards censorship as an institution (Glavlit) and its work methods. Censorship in memory institutions is presented as "cleaning" of library collections, a destruction of books or development of restricted (special) collections. When analyzing censorship, Lithuanian researchers present this phenomenon as one-sided totalitarian control. Foreign authors quite often base their research on the theories of P. Bourdieu or M. Foucault and present censorship both as a means of control and as a power that defines culture and communication. The concept of soviet censorship in these research studies is also defined in quite a few ways, for example, as a means of control or as a restriction of press and mass media, as a boundary or information barrier. Censorship can be analyzed as an institution, as a work method of that institution (Glavlit) or as one of many features of soviet mass communication. There is a lack of research studies that might give rise to different theories and present a more complex view of soviet censorship.

There are many definitions of Soviet censorship in different scientific research studies. Censorship is a complex phenomenon. It is not only a control of the public sector (press and mass media). Censorship covers a multitude of areas – from the public to the private spheres of life, from institutional, regulated control to internal self-censorship. Due to these reasons, studies of censorship are relevant to various scientific fields. The aim of this research is to analize the main concepts of Soviet censorship and trends of these research studies. In order to achieve this aim, scientific works, surveying Soviet censorship from various perspectives aspects were analyzed. The goal was to distinguish the main trends of research studies and to understand focusing on the context to which Soviet censorship is related. The analysis of various concepts of censorship and other concepts used to describe this phenomenon has allowed to highlight the differences between scientists' attitudes towards this phenomenon. The research-based analysis concluded that the main trends of research studies of Soviet censorship are as follows: 1. censorship as one of the features of Soviet occupation; 2. censorship as a part of Soviet culture; 3. censorship as one of KGB's work methods; 4. censorship as a specific connection between creative artists and the Soviet system; 5. censorship as a part of press and publishing history; 6. censorship as part of daily work of memory institutions. In the studines that are focused exclusively on censorship, most of the analysis is oriented towards censorship as an institution (Glavlit) and its work methods. Censorship in memory institutions is presented as "cleaning" of library collections, a destruction of books or development of restricted (special) collections. When analyzing censorship, Lithuanian researchers present this phenomenon as one-sided totalitarian control. Foreign authors quite often base their research on the theories of P. Bourdieu or M. Foucault and present censorship both as a means of control and as a power that defines culture and communication. The concept of soviet censorship in these research studies is also defined in quite a few ways, for example, as a means of control or as a restriction of press and mass media, as a boundary or information barrier. Censorship can be analyzed as an institution, as a work method of that institution (Glavlit) or as one of many features of soviet mass communication. There is a lack of research studies that might give rise to different theories and present a more complex view of soviet censorship.

Tte interwar years became a period of active struggle for the restoration of statehood in Ukraine. Te mission to revive the state in a revolutionary way was undertaken by the military circles of the Ukrainian emigration who found themselves outside the homeland after the defeat in the War of Independence of 1917–1921. Lithuania was the country that responded most actively to helping the Ukrainian movement. Support was provided mainly through the paramilitary Lithuanian Riflemen's Union and public organizations associated with the Riflemen's Union. Tis article provides a historiographical review of the scientifc massif that was created by Ukrainian science in the context of studying the problems of establishing and developing relations between the Ukrainian liberation movement and Lithuania through the connecting role of the Union of Riflemen. The work reflects and analyzes studies on this issue, divided into two conditional periods: 1) works published outside Ukraine, in a chronological interval from the end of World War II to the restoration of the Ukrainian state in 1991, the authors, who were mainly participants Ukrainian liberation movement; 2) studies on the problem, published in Ukraine afer 1991.

Tte interwar years became a period of active struggle for the restoration of statehood in Ukraine. Te mission to revive the state in a revolutionary way was undertaken by the military circles of the Ukrainian emigration who found themselves outside the homeland after the defeat in the War of Independence of 1917–1921. Lithuania was the country that responded most actively to helping the Ukrainian movement. Support was provided mainly through the paramilitary Lithuanian Riflemen's Union and public organizations associated with the Riflemen's Union. Tis article provides a historiographical review of the scientifc massif that was created by Ukrainian science in the context of studying the problems of establishing and developing relations between the Ukrainian liberation movement and Lithuania through the connecting role of the Union of Riflemen. The work reflects and analyzes studies on this issue, divided into two conditional periods: 1) works published outside Ukraine, in a chronological interval from the end of World War II to the restoration of the Ukrainian state in 1991, the authors, who were mainly participants Ukrainian liberation movement; 2) studies on the problem, published in Ukraine afer 1991.

Tte interwar years became a period of active struggle for the restoration of statehood in Ukraine. Te mission to revive the state in a revolutionary way was undertaken by the military circles of the Ukrainian emigration who found themselves outside the homeland after the defeat in the War of Independence of 1917–1921. Lithuania was the country that responded most actively to helping the Ukrainian movement. Support was provided mainly through the paramilitary Lithuanian Riflemen's Union and public organizations associated with the Riflemen's Union. Tis article provides a historiographical review of the scientifc massif that was created by Ukrainian science in the context of studying the problems of establishing and developing relations between the Ukrainian liberation movement and Lithuania through the connecting role of the Union of Riflemen. The work reflects and analyzes studies on this issue, divided into two conditional periods: 1) works published outside Ukraine, in a chronological interval from the end of World War II to the restoration of the Ukrainian state in 1991, the authors, who were mainly participants Ukrainian liberation movement; 2) studies on the problem, published in Ukraine afer 1991.

Tte interwar years became a period of active struggle for the restoration of statehood in Ukraine. Te mission to revive the state in a revolutionary way was undertaken by the military circles of the Ukrainian emigration who found themselves outside the homeland after the defeat in the War of Independence of 1917–1921. Lithuania was the country that responded most actively to helping the Ukrainian movement. Support was provided mainly through the paramilitary Lithuanian Riflemen's Union and public organizations associated with the Riflemen's Union. Tis article provides a historiographical review of the scientifc massif that was created by Ukrainian science in the context of studying the problems of establishing and developing relations between the Ukrainian liberation movement and Lithuania through the connecting role of the Union of Riflemen. The work reflects and analyzes studies on this issue, divided into two conditional periods: 1) works published outside Ukraine, in a chronological interval from the end of World War II to the restoration of the Ukrainian state in 1991, the authors, who were mainly participants Ukrainian liberation movement; 2) studies on the problem, published in Ukraine afer 1991.

Sąjūdis (Lithuanian independence movement) as an object of scholarly investigation has a certain history or maybe even a historiographic tradition. One of the first who started to investigate this problem was the representative of lithuanian diaspora in the US, professor of the University of Wisconsin Alfred Eric Senn. The changes of Lithuanian political life during the revival period were analyzed also by the Sąjūdis members themselves: Bronislavas Genzelis and Virgilijus Juozas Čepaitis. However, they often fail to avoid subjective views of certain personalities, their data is not always based on sources. Only at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries Sąjūdis received proper attention from historians. The society at large was presented with scholarly publications, collections of articles and sources on particular subjects. Among these publications one can distinguish the one written by Česlovas Laurinavičius and Vladas Sirutavičius which deals with the political history of Lithuania in 1988–1990. After the careful analysis of scholarly publications dealing with the topic of Sąjūdis, one may notice the tendency to restrict the investigations of the events only prior to the restoration of lithuanian independence in March 1990. However, the process of transformation of spontaneous social renewal movement into a public organization is still remaining a white spot in history. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is, to my mind, political. Historians are not willing to confuse their scientific investigations with their political preferences. In the Lithuanian historiography one might notice a tendency for historical investigations of Sąjūdis to intensify prior to the anniversaries of Lithuanian independence restoration. Historians usually restricted their works to the analysis of the national revival period events taking place in the country's capital. [.]

Sąjūdis (Lithuanian independence movement) as an object of scholarly investigation has a certain history or maybe even a historiographic tradition. One of the first who started to investigate this problem was the representative of lithuanian diaspora in the US, professor of the University of Wisconsin Alfred Eric Senn. The changes of Lithuanian political life during the revival period were analyzed also by the Sąjūdis members themselves: Bronislavas Genzelis and Virgilijus Juozas Čepaitis. However, they often fail to avoid subjective views of certain personalities, their data is not always based on sources. Only at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries Sąjūdis received proper attention from historians. The society at large was presented with scholarly publications, collections of articles and sources on particular subjects. Among these publications one can distinguish the one written by Česlovas Laurinavičius and Vladas Sirutavičius which deals with the political history of Lithuania in 1988–1990. After the careful analysis of scholarly publications dealing with the topic of Sąjūdis, one may notice the tendency to restrict the investigations of the events only prior to the restoration of lithuanian independence in March 1990. However, the process of transformation of spontaneous social renewal movement into a public organization is still remaining a white spot in history. There are several reasons for this, the most important of which is, to my mind, political. Historians are not willing to confuse their scientific investigations with their political preferences. In the Lithuanian historiography one might notice a tendency for historical investigations of Sąjūdis to intensify prior to the anniversaries of Lithuanian independence restoration. Historians usually restricted their works to the analysis of the national revival period events taking place in the country's capital. [.]

The object of this master thesis is a reflection of Lithuanian army officer Stasys Zaskevičius (1892–1968) about political - social life in Lithuania in 1918 – 1945. The author provides a reflection in a memorial study \"One year in our nation's life", allowing to learn and analyze the author's political views, views on important historical events. Research problem of this master thesis was formulated in this way – what are characteristics of St.Zaskevičius' political views and approach to historical events reflected in memorial study. This master thesis is archaeographycal analysis basicly dedicated to St. Zaskevičius manuscript's exploration. The goal of the work – with reference to the second and third parts of St. Zaskevičius memorial study "One year in our nation's life", explore and describe St. Zaskevičius approach to historical events in Lithuania 1918 – 1945. There are two objectives: 1) to evaluate St.Zaskevičius approach of independent Lithuania's political - social life in 1918 - 1940; 2) to analyze St.Zaskevičius approach of the Second World War impact on the Lithuania's political and social life; 3) to evaluate St. Zaskevičius views relation with conpemporary historiography.

Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.

Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.

Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.

Straipsnyje apzvelgiami Apsvietos epochos tyrimai Lietuvoje, bandant perteikti pagrindinius Lietuvos tyreju atradimus, keliamus klausimus ir idejas, besisiejaneias su politiniu to laikotarpio mastymu. Pirmiausia, analizuojant XVIII amziaus Lietuva, aptariama bendroji Lietuvos istoriografija ir istoriniu tyrimu issukiai. Antra, pristatomas Vilniaus universiteto, kaip regioninio to meto Apsvietos centro, vaidmuo. Galiausiai pereinama prie konkreeiu istorijos, literaturos istorijos ir filosofines minties tyrimu. Sioje apzvalginio pobudzio analizeje daugiausia demesio skiriama tyreju monografijoms ir paeioms tyrimu kryptims, bandant sutraukti atskiru tyrimu indeli i vientisos lietuviskosios politines minties tradicija, kurioje XVIII amziaus politinis mastymas dar tik iesko savosios vietos ir reiksmes The article presents the research into the historic period of Enlightenment done in Lithuania, describing the main findings, questions and ideas, which have a connection with the political thinking of the period. First, the general Lithuanian historiography as well as main issues and problematics of the research into Lithuania's XVIII century are presented. Second, the role of Vilnius University as the peripheral centre of Enlightenment is discussed. Finally, main studies dealing with the period in the fields of history, history of literature and philosophy are analysed. In this overview article the main attention is devoted to research studies (monographs) and to particular research directions taken by Lithuanian scholars with an attempt to connect different research contributions into singular tradition of Lithuanian political thought, in which political ideas of the XVIII century are still lacking the assessment of their importance. Adapted from the source document.

One of the brand new areas of historiography is analyzed. Availing of the research of historical conscience launched in Germany, the author explores the possibility of applying this new practice to the analysis of Lithuanians' historical conscience. The perspectives, theoretical-methodological objectives & tasks are analyzed. Special attention is drawn to the ideological aspect of a historical conscience & to the problem of "left" & "right" in the Lithuanians' mass conscience during the last decade. A relationship between the "left" & "right" identity & a specific version of the past being defended, an attempt by Lithuania's politicians to manipulate the historical perspectives, a tendency toward mythologization as evident in Lithuania's contemporary historical conscience is emphasized. Adapted from the source document.