The article is dedicated to discussion about the opportunities artists had in the eighteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania, what factors were defining artist’s career and his valuation and how it changed along with social and cultural shifts in the country. Historical sources retain names of around 700 artists that worked in the eighteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The artists belonged to a peculiar inter-estate stratum with significant differences in education, social and economic situation. Majority of artists lived and worked in towns, with smaller part working in the manors of noblemen under continuous service or temporary contracts, and also there was a small number of artist friars who did jobs in various convents of the country. Social and economic situation of artists in towns was similar to that of craftsmen, yet artists working in the manors of aristocrats usually had status of the middle-rank manor officials. Still, eighteenth-century artists were able to achieve higher levels of career than most of craftsmen because of the rank of their patrons. The work of artists was in demand mostly in higher levels of society and that determined better pay, sponsoring of studies and other kind of encouragement. Career opportunities for artists were usually defined by their reputation and education. The top level of the career was occupied by the status of royal court artist, which was a guarantee of high qualification. Noblemen of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Church hierarchy, when trying to realize important projects sought to engage the royal masters. Artists that studied abroad were also in demand. Noblemen of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, because of the deficit of good artists, tried to keep those artists that worked long-term in their manors. Career of a court artist guaranteed steady payment and legal protection, however artists not always desired long-term service because of the significant limitations on their life and work. Difficulties in searching for a decent master encouraged noblemen to keep artists in their manors while teaching arts to local kids. The need in arts for vocation or special gifts is demonstrated by the fact that only a small part of children selected by the noblemen were able to learn painting. Apart from the ties to influential customers, to the career of an artist were important links to requested architects, also familial links to the ruling elites of towns and important officials of the courts. In the second half of the eighteenth century, especially at the end of the century, attitude towards artistic occupation has incurred significant changes. Social status of famous artists, large compensations and ennoblement affected attitudes towards arts among both the society and the artists, and promoted its prestige. Rise of prestige of the profession was aided by the fact that society started appreciating more of the local artists (artists-fellow countrymen). They have begun to be mentioned in various contexts among the most deserving of the nation.
On the basis of correspondence between Jean-Emmanuel Gilibert and the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Stanislaw August, the article reveals issues of adaptation of a foreign scientist in the late eighteenth-century Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The attention is focused on the life of J.-E. Gilibert, his financial situation, his life and work conditions with the emphasis on health problems and psychological situation of the scientist, as well as the circumstances of his return to France. The research revealed, that one of the most important problems that faced J.-E. Gilibert upon his arrival to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the insufficient financing of his life and work. There were problems with his salary as the payments were late by half-year or more. Because of the non-payment of his designated salary, the scientist was forced to borrow with high interest in France and send money to Lithuania. Analysis of the correspondence shows that even upon the ninth year of his arrival to Lithuania, J.-E. Gilibert was still demanding to be paid for the time he was the director of the school in Grodno. J.-E. Gilibert was not satisfied with his living conditions in Grodno. In his contract with Antoni Tyzenhaus it was stated, that J.-E. Gilibert and his family will be provided with the living quarters suited for his status as doctor. However, the scientist was especially unhappy and even shocked that musicians of the town theatre and dancers lived much more comfortably than he did. The environment in Grodno also affected psychological condition of the scientist. J.-E. Gilibert enjoyed sharing his observations and to learn from experience of other researchers. However, he seriously lacked such social ties in Grodno. J.-E. Gilibert suffered from the feeling of isolation because he did not speak Polish and was unable to freely communicate with Grodno inhabitants, except for other foreigners.
Journal:Archivum Lithuanicum
Volume 21 (2019): Archivum Lithuanicum, pp. 209–232
Abstract
In the spring of 2019, historian Olga Mastianica-Stankevič found the previously unknown tome of Lithuanian grammar, Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar (Trumpas lietuviškos gramatikos konspektas), in the archive of Mečislovas Davainis-Silvestraitis in the Library of the Institute of Lithuanian Literature and Folklore. The hectographed grammar book has a small format of 185 × 115 mm, with 32 pages, and without any information concerning the author, place or date of publication. This grammar book is not included in Lithuanian Bibliography of 1862–1904. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar is genetically related to Petras Avižonis’s Lithuanian grammar (1898 or 1899). These two works are similar in structure, the Lithuanian material presented, usage of Latin terms and alphabet. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar is more concise than Lithuanian grammar by Avižonis, but it is not an abbreviated version. This can be seen from the paradigms of nouns, adjectives and verbs: in Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar there is usually one example provided, but in Lithuanian Grammar it is often not in the first but in the second position, thus understood as a variant of the norm. If the Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar was made by shortening Lithuanian Grammar, the order of the norm variants would probably coincide, i.e. the first variant of Lithuanian Grammar would remain in the same position in the Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar. This feature suggests that Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar reflects an earlier version of Avižonis’s grammar, not yet edited by Jonas Jablonskis. This is confirmed by an analysis of the use of nasal letters in both works. The Russian inserts and simplified accent system (two accents, gravis and acute) of Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar suggest that this work was prepared to teach Lithuanian to those who were proficient in Russian, perhaps students who lived St. Petersburg. Lithuanian Grammar by Avižonis was hectographed in late 1898 or the beginning of 1899. Short Compendium of Lithuanian Grammar was probably completed by the end of 1897, before the grammar of Avižonis was edited by Jablonskis.