Suchergebnisse

Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Lithuania's cultural policy: 1927 - 1940

The establishment of the Lithuanian state and the consolidation of independence in the Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) was accompanied by the construction of an appropriate collective memory and the accompanying historical narrative. The Catholic Church in Lithuania at that time was an authoritative institution that influenced various spheres of domestic life in the country; therefore, it could also influence the collective memory. This article attempts to answer whether the Catholic Church in Interwar Lithuania sought to form a collective memory. It is stated that the Lithuanian Episcopate did not demonstrate a purposeful desire to form a collective memory because it did not have a clear and unified approach to the culture of memory. There were other reasons: at first it was hindered by the worries of creating an independent ecclesiastical province of Lithuania, and from the end of the 1930s the Church's relations with the government became strained, as the latter hindered the social activity of Catholic society. The Church did not specifically shape its own story about the creation of a modern Lithuanian state and the history of modern Lithuania. However, the Church turned to this past when, in defending the freedom of action of the Catholic Church, it wanted to emphasise the role of the Church in the creation of an independent state of Lithuania.

The establishment of the Lithuanian state and the consolidation of independence in the Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) was accompanied by the construction of an appropriate collective memory and the accompanying historical narrative. The Catholic Church in Lithuania at that time was an authoritative institution that influenced various spheres of domestic life in the country; therefore, it could also influence the collective memory. This article attempts to answer whether the Catholic Church in Interwar Lithuania sought to form a collective memory. It is stated that the Lithuanian Episcopate did not demonstrate a purposeful desire to form a collective memory because it did not have a clear and unified approach to the culture of memory. There were other reasons: at first it was hindered by the worries of creating an independent ecclesiastical province of Lithuania, and from the end of the 1930s the Church's relations with the government became strained, as the latter hindered the social activity of Catholic society. The Church did not specifically shape its own story about the creation of a modern Lithuanian state and the history of modern Lithuania. However, the Church turned to this past when, in defending the freedom of action of the Catholic Church, it wanted to emphasise the role of the Church in the creation of an independent state of Lithuania.

The establishment of the Lithuanian state and the consolidation of independence in the Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) was accompanied by the construction of an appropriate collective memory and the accompanying historical narrative. The Catholic Church in Lithuania at that time was an authoritative institution that influenced various spheres of domestic life in the country; therefore, it could also influence the collective memory. This article attempts to answer whether the Catholic Church in Interwar Lithuania sought to form a collective memory. It is stated that the Lithuanian Episcopate did not demonstrate a purposeful desire to form a collective memory because it did not have a clear and unified approach to the culture of memory. There were other reasons: at first it was hindered by the worries of creating an independent ecclesiastical province of Lithuania, and from the end of the 1930s the Church's relations with the government became strained, as the latter hindered the social activity of Catholic society. The Church did not specifically shape its own story about the creation of a modern Lithuanian state and the history of modern Lithuania. However, the Church turned to this past when, in defending the freedom of action of the Catholic Church, it wanted to emphasise the role of the Church in the creation of an independent state of Lithuania.

The establishment of the Lithuanian state and the consolidation of independence in the Republic of Lithuania (1918–1940) was accompanied by the construction of an appropriate collective memory and the accompanying historical narrative. The Catholic Church in Lithuania at that time was an authoritative institution that influenced various spheres of domestic life in the country; therefore, it could also influence the collective memory. This article attempts to answer whether the Catholic Church in Interwar Lithuania sought to form a collective memory. It is stated that the Lithuanian Episcopate did not demonstrate a purposeful desire to form a collective memory because it did not have a clear and unified approach to the culture of memory. There were other reasons: at first it was hindered by the worries of creating an independent ecclesiastical province of Lithuania, and from the end of the 1930s the Church's relations with the government became strained, as the latter hindered the social activity of Catholic society. The Church did not specifically shape its own story about the creation of a modern Lithuanian state and the history of modern Lithuania. However, the Church turned to this past when, in defending the freedom of action of the Catholic Church, it wanted to emphasise the role of the Church in the creation of an independent state of Lithuania.

The images of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Union of the Kingdom of Poland in Lithuanian collective memory (end of the 19th c. – 1940)Since the end of the 19th century the Lithuanian national movement created several narrations about national history, which presented a negative evaluation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Union of the Kingdom of Poland. Polonization of Lithuania was highlighted as the most negative consequence of these Unions.All unions formed under the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Union of the Kingdom of Poland got negative evaluation in the discourse of Lithuanian nationalism. However, the Union of Lublin was considered to be the greatest harm – it was evaluated as a fatal moment in the Lithuanian history giving rise to the processes of dangerous Lithuanian national ethnic identity loss. The Lithuanian national movement proclaimed cultural and political independence, and declared that the revival of historical ideal of the Unions' national identity was unacceptable for the Lithuanian nation.When discussing the Lithuanians' rights to political independence with the Polish public figures and reacting to ambitions of the Polish political figures to restore Poland with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth national borders of 1772, in the Lithuanian press the image of two Unions (usually, the Union of Lublin) was presented as the symbol underlying the Lithuanian national political and cultural dependence. The image of the Union of Lublin was like an obligatory illustration of the Lithuanian nationalism discourse underlining the negative consequences of the union for the Lithuanian nation. It was the Union of Lublin that became the generalized image of all unions and the symbol of Lithuanian political, ethnic, cultural dependence, the memory location underlying the traumatic memory.The initiatives of the Polish public figures to actualize the memories about the unions caused the Lithuanians' negative response and numerous discussions. A similar situation happened in 1913 when the Polish society mentioned the 500th anniversary of the Herald Union. The celebration of this anniversary was evaluated by Lithuanians as a Polish attempt to revive the political union ideal – as an attempt to make Lithuania a part of Poland. The debates of those times were used by the public figures of the Lithuanian national movement in order to emphasize the orientation of the Lithuanian national movement towards the cultural and political emancipation and underline that the Lithuanians do not accept any idea of state revival reasoned by historical unions.The image of unions in the interwar Lithuania of the 20th century was the most vivid in propagandist discourse during the fights for Lithuanian independence and when trying to restore the historical capital, Vilnius. This image was used as a rhetoric figure of propagandist discourse symbolizing the Lithuanian slavery and a threat of its dependence on Poland. Obrazy unii między Wielkim Księstwem Litewskim a Królestwem Polskim w litewskiej pamięci zbiorowej (koniec XIX w. – 1940 r.)Od końca XIX w. litewski ruch narodowy tworzył narracje historyczne, w których unie między Wielkim Księstwem Litewskim (dalej WKL) a Królestwem Polskim oceniano negatywnie. Za największy negatywny skutek unii uznano polonizację Litwy.W litewskim dyskursie nacjonalistycznym negatywnie oceniono wszystkie unie zawarte między WKL a Królestwem Polskim, jednak jako największe zło traktowano unię lubelską – decydujący punkt w historii Litwy, od którego rozpoczął się groźny proces utraty tożsamości przez naród litewski. Litewski ruch narodowy głosił dążenie do wolności kulturowej i politycznej. Towarzyszyła temu deklaracja, że dla narodu litewskiego nie do przyjęcia jest odrodzenie historycznej unijnej idei państwowości.W toczącej się w prasie litewskiej dyskusji z polskimi działaczami społecznymi o prawach Litwinów do samodzielności politycznej oraz w reakcji na ambicje polskich działaczy społecznych przywrócenia państwowości Polski w granicach Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodów z 1772 r., obraz unii (najczęściej lubelskiej) pojawiał się jako symbol zależności politycznej i kulturowej narodu litewskiego. Wizja unii lubelskiej była obowiązkową ilustracją litewskiego dyskursu nacjonalistycznego, świadczącą o negatywnych skutkach unii dla Litwinów. To właśnie unia lubelska stała się uogólnionym obrazem wszystkich unii oraz symbolem niewoli politycznej, narodowej i kulturowej Litwinów, traumatycznym miejscem pamięci.Inicjatywy polskich działaczy, by przywrócić pamięć o uniach, wywoływały negatywną reakcję ze strony Litwinów i rodziły dyskusje. Tak się stało, na przykład, w 1913 r., gdy polskie społeczeństwo obchodziło jubileusz 500. rocznicy unii horodelskiej. Obchody te oceniono jako próbę Polaków ożywienia idei unii politycznej – dążenie do uczynienia z Litwy części Polski. Ówczesne dyskusje działacze litewskiego ruchu narodowego wykorzystali do tego, by podkreślić swoje dążenie do emancypacji kulturowej i politycznej oraz zaznaczenia, że Litwini nie akceptują żadnej idei odrodzenia państwowości, opartej na uniach historycznych.W okresie międzywojennym na Litwie obraz unii najbardziej był dostrzegalny w dyskursie propagandowym w okresie walk o niepodległość Litwy oraz w dążeniu do odzyskania historycznej stolicy Wilna. Obraz ten wykorzystano jako figurę retoryczną dyskursu propagandowego, symbolizującą niewolę Litwy i jej uzależnienie od Polski.

The article analyzes the aspiration of the interwar political and cultural elite of Lithuania to turn Klaipėda Regionacquired in 1923 into integral part of the state of Lithuania by construing collective memory that wouldunify Lithuania Minor and Major. The attention is focussed exclusively on the initiatives whose authors werethe political and cultural elite of Lithuania that identified itself with the tradition of Lithuania Major.KEY WORDS: collective memory, Lithuanian nationalism, Lithuania Minor, Rambynas, Martynas Jankus. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15181/ahuk.v24i0.296

According to the historiographical tradition, Pilėnai Castle was besieged by the army of the Teutonic Knights in 1336. When the defenders of the Castle, led by Duke Margins, realized that it was impossible to defend themselves any longer against the much larger enemy force, they made a decision to commit mass suicide. They did this in preference to being subjugated and enslaved by the Teutonic Order. The author of the article surveys symbolical meanings that the name of Duke Margins acquired in the cultural memory of Lithuania since the beginning of national revival in the 19th century until the end of the 20th century as well as the influence of the discourse of Lithuanian nationalism and alternation of political regimes upon notional transformations of the name of Duke Margins. It is argued that the gravitation of the image of Duke Margiris and Pilėnai Castle which has been persisting in the cultural memory of Lithuania for more than one century testifies that this image has become an example of a sampler Lithuanian heroism and is constantly brought up-to-date in the context of Lithuanian identity first and foremost. The usage of the relevant image of Duke Margins aims at making a response to the challenges made to the Lithuanian identity while the name of the Duke of Pilėnai acquires new symbolic meanings in the cultural memory of Lithuania.

According to the historiographical tradition, Pilėnai Castle was besieged by the army of the Teutonic Knights in 1336. When the defenders of the Castle, led by Duke Margins, realized that it was impossible to defend themselves any longer against the much larger enemy force, they made a decision to commit mass suicide. They did this in preference to being subjugated and enslaved by the Teutonic Order. The author of the article surveys symbolical meanings that the name of Duke Margins acquired in the cultural memory of Lithuania since the beginning of national revival in the 19th century until the end of the 20th century as well as the influence of the discourse of Lithuanian nationalism and alternation of political regimes upon notional transformations of the name of Duke Margins. It is argued that the gravitation of the image of Duke Margiris and Pilėnai Castle which has been persisting in the cultural memory of Lithuania for more than one century testifies that this image has become an example of a sampler Lithuanian heroism and is constantly brought up-to-date in the context of Lithuanian identity first and foremost. The usage of the relevant image of Duke Margins aims at making a response to the challenges made to the Lithuanian identity while the name of the Duke of Pilėnai acquires new symbolic meanings in the cultural memory of Lithuania.

According to the historiographical tradition, Pilėnai Castle was besieged by the army of the Teutonic Knights in 1336. When the defenders of the Castle, led by Duke Margins, realized that it was impossible to defend themselves any longer against the much larger enemy force, they made a decision to commit mass suicide. They did this in preference to being subjugated and enslaved by the Teutonic Order. The author of the article surveys symbolical meanings that the name of Duke Margins acquired in the cultural memory of Lithuania since the beginning of national revival in the 19th century until the end of the 20th century as well as the influence of the discourse of Lithuanian nationalism and alternation of political regimes upon notional transformations of the name of Duke Margins. It is argued that the gravitation of the image of Duke Margiris and Pilėnai Castle which has been persisting in the cultural memory of Lithuania for more than one century testifies that this image has become an example of a sampler Lithuanian heroism and is constantly brought up-to-date in the context of Lithuanian identity first and foremost. The usage of the relevant image of Duke Margins aims at making a response to the challenges made to the Lithuanian identity while the name of the Duke of Pilėnai acquires new symbolic meanings in the cultural memory of Lithuania.

In the first decade of independence of interwar Lithuania, propaganda as purposeful and ideologically coherent spread of own ideas was used mostly by political movements of that time. Political propaganda became a prerogative of political regime just after the state's takeover on December 17, 1926, when the power was usurped by the authoritarian regime of Antanas Smetona. This regime implemented two successful propaganda campaigns: The Move of Vilnius Repossession and The Campaign of Vytautas Magnus Anniversary. The political regime was not the ideological author of those campaigns, but successfully adopted the ideas grown in the Lithuanian nationalism discourse, which echoed the objectives of nationalistic political regime. By the Move of Vilnius Repossession it was tried to instil to the Lithuanian society that Vilnius is the Lithuanian town and the true capital of Lithuania in defiance of political realities (the town was under the Poland power in 1920-1939) and The Campaign of Vytautas Magnus Anniversary (1930) helped to create the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas (1350-1430) cult that was used to legitimize the authoritarian regime of that time. The last-mentioned campaign also served for predication of Lithuania's rights to Vilnius.

In the first decade of independence of interwar Lithuania, propaganda as purposeful and ideologically coherent spread of own ideas was used mostly by political movements of that time. Political propaganda became a prerogative of political regime just after the state's takeover on December 17, 1926, when the power was usurped by the authoritarian regime of Antanas Smetona. This regime implemented two successful propaganda campaigns: The Move of Vilnius Repossession and The Campaign of Vytautas Magnus Anniversary. The political regime was not the ideological author of those campaigns, but successfully adopted the ideas grown in the Lithuanian nationalism discourse, which echoed the objectives of nationalistic political regime. By the Move of Vilnius Repossession it was tried to instil to the Lithuanian society that Vilnius is the Lithuanian town and the true capital of Lithuania in defiance of political realities (the town was under the Poland power in 1920-1939) and The Campaign of Vytautas Magnus Anniversary (1930) helped to create the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas (1350-1430) cult that was used to legitimize the authoritarian regime of that time. The last-mentioned campaign also served for predication of Lithuania's rights to Vilnius.

In the first decade of independence of interwar Lithuania, propaganda as purposeful and ideologically coherent spread of own ideas was used mostly by political movements of that time. Political propaganda became a prerogative of political regime just after the state's takeover on December 17, 1926, when the power was usurped by the authoritarian regime of Antanas Smetona. This regime implemented two successful propaganda campaigns: The Move of Vilnius Repossession and The Campaign of Vytautas Magnus Anniversary. The political regime was not the ideological author of those campaigns, but successfully adopted the ideas grown in the Lithuanian nationalism discourse, which echoed the objectives of nationalistic political regime. By the Move of Vilnius Repossession it was tried to instil to the Lithuanian society that Vilnius is the Lithuanian town and the true capital of Lithuania in defiance of political realities (the town was under the Poland power in 1920-1939) and The Campaign of Vytautas Magnus Anniversary (1930) helped to create the Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas (1350-1430) cult that was used to legitimize the authoritarian regime of that time. The last-mentioned campaign also served for predication of Lithuania's rights to Vilnius.

According to the historiographical tradition, Pilėnai Castle was besieged by the army of the Teutonic Knights in 1336. When the defenders of the Castle, led by Duke Margins, realized that it was impossible to defend themselves any longer against the much larger enemy force, they made a decision to commit mass suicide. They did this in preference to being subjugated and enslaved by the Teutonic Order. The author of the article surveys symbolical meanings that the name of Duke Margins acquired in the cultural memory of Lithuania since the beginning of national revival in the 19th century until the end of the 20th century as well as the influence of the discourse of Lithuanian nationalism and alternation of political regimes upon notional transformations of the name of Duke Margins. It is argued that the gravitation of the image of Duke Margiris and Pilėnai Castle which has been persisting in the cultural memory of Lithuania for more than one century testifies that this image has become an example of a sampler Lithuanian heroism and is constantly brought up-to-date in the context of Lithuanian identity first and foremost. The usage of the relevant image of Duke Margins aims at making a response to the challenges made to the Lithuanian identity while the name of the Duke of Pilėnai acquires new symbolic meanings in the cultural memory of Lithuania.