Lietuvos istorijos institutas

The article deals with the issue of assignment and administration of public punishments by Kaunas Castle Court in the late eighteenth century. In the period under investigation, this court imposed capital and corporal punishments, punishments by imprisonment, removal from office and banishment from the city. Death penalty was imposed on those offenders who were accused of homicide, robbery and theft, although the court did not impose qualified methods of capital punishment. Out of corporal punishments, only flagellation (as the principal and ancillary punishment for crimes against life, health and property, never administered to the nobility) and branding (as an ancillary punishment for thieves) were inflicted. The number of imposed strokes ranged from 50 to 400, with the most common number being 100 strokes. During the analysed period, the main place of confinement continued to the so-called Tower (Upper and Lower) Prison. The Upper Tower Prison registry was dominated by relatively short sentences of 3, 6 and 12 weeks, mostly for violent acts (slaps in the face, forfeiture of real estate, assault with a combat weapon, assault on a nobleman’s house and estate). The Lower Tower Prison was used less frequently (as a punishment for beating a nobleman with a non-combat weapon, unlawful incarceration, and unproven criminal charge offence), but the sentences delivered were longer: from 12, 24 weeks to half a year. From 1782 onwards, instead of imposing the death penalty in cases like theft, robbery and homicide, the court began to give imprisonment sentences (fixed or indefinite) which were non-existent under the GDL law and thus had to be carried out in the Kamianets-Podilskyi prison.

In the late eighteenth century, the distance between the changing norms and values and the unchanging material conditions of priests’ everyday lives grew rapidly. The aim of this article is to explore and understand the life and work of the bishop of Livonia, Józef Kazimierz Kossakowski. He was the author of Ksiądz pleban [The Parson], one of the most acknowledged parenetic books promoting new social obligations of priests, however his actions were far from the ideals he promoted. His case is especially interesting because he also wrote a diary describing his life from the childhood to becoming a bishop.

Stanislovo Augusto valdymo laikų (1764–1795) emblematika literatūros tyrimuose laikoma epigonišku ir marginaliu reiškiniu. Šiame straipsnyje, pagrįstame plačia šaltinių (tarp jų – meninių projektų ir dekoracijų aprašymų) analize, mėginama apibrėžti emblematikos raiškos ribas ir funkcijas, jas susiejant su XVIII a. idėjinėmis permainomis, inspiruojančiomis vizualinės, taip pat ir simbolinės, kultūros pokyčius. Tuometinei emblematikai būdingas pagal retorikos taisykles kuriamų daugialypių programų atsisakymas, simbolių ir atributų vienaprasmiškumas, formų schemiškumas, klasikinių citatų ir epigramos vaidmens akcentavimas, mažinantis lemos reikšmę. Tai parodo simbolių tipų (emblemos, hieroglifiko, simbolio) terminologinio statuso pokyčius, nulemtus prancūziškų teorijų (tarp jų – klasicizmo, devizo, ikonologijos, epigramos teorijos). Paminklų ir šaltinių analizė leido konstatuoti, kad Apšvietos epochos emblematika dėl klasicizmo įtakos ir susidomėjimo Antika buvo svarbi ir reikšminga dvaro ir akademinėje aplinkoje. Senojoje kultūroje atsisakius įsitvirtinusių panegirikos ir heraldikos pagrindų, plito universalios moralinės, profesinės, valstybinės valdžios simbolika, pranašaudama modernią simbolio ir metaforos formulę bei šiuolaikinę „emblemos“ kaip sąvokos arba idėjos ženklo sampratą.

Return features heavily in the narratives and lives of Romanian immigrants in London, as a key topic of debate rather than a mere end goal of their migration. By analysing their experiences of temporary return, this paper1 reveals the tensions and contradictions embedded in migrants’ transnational social networks. It applies a two-fold focus: first examining the importance of return for Romanians in London; then considering how experiences of temporary return shape migrants’ social networks. The paper is based on data from my scoping doctoral fieldwork, five weeks of participant observation and interviews with Romanians in northwest London.