Lietuvos istorijos institutas

The first book by Simonas Daukantas, PRASMĄ ŁOTINÛ KAŁBOS (Grammar of Latin), was published by St Petersburg publisher Christian Hintze in 1837 (in Lithuanian). Daukantas did not use the grapheme <I> in any of his Lithuanian manuscripts, only <J>. At that time, it was assumed that while setting the text, the typesetters would expand the single <J> grapheme into two—<I> and <J>. The tactics they applied in setting (interpreting) the grapheme <J> in Daukantas’s manuscript for Lithuanian words divides the text of the Grammar of Latin into four segments: (1) <J‑> (Jwardes) pp. 1–20; (2) <I‑ > (Iwardes) pp. 21–87;(3) <J‑> (Judum) pp. 88–94; (4) <I‑ > (Iungînes), and <J‑> (Jungînę) pp. 95–126(117). Judging by the three different styles of rendering and transforming <J‑>, there might have been at least three different typesetters involved in this work. Moreover, the typesetters not only rendered and transformed the capital <J‑> into two other capital letters, sometimes they also substituted <J‑> for the lowercase letters <i‑ or j‑>. The first and the third typesetter most probably exploited analogous tactics: the first typesetter in the first segment possibly both stayed with Daukantas’s <J‑> and transformed it into the lower case letter <j‑> (jems; he set neither <I‑ > nor <i‑>); the third typesetter in the fourth segment possibly split Daukantas’s <J‑> into <I‑ > and <J‑> interchangeably and likewise into <i‑> (iems) and <j‑> (jèms). The diversity in interpretations of Daukantas’s <J‑> in the Grammar of Latin, occasionally erroneous, leads to the assumption that Hintze’s typesetters in St Petersburg did not speak Lithuanian. There was no easy way for them to make informed choices about the expected graphemes. Printed outside of Lithuania, Daukantas’s Grammar of Latin suffered additional variation due to the ignorance of the typesetters. Latin words used by Daukantas also began with the capital <J‑> when needed (one surviving page of a Daukantas manuscript “Apsirikimai” [Errata] confirms this, e.g. Jnfinitivus). Throughout the entire book, the typesetters consistently transformed it into <I‑ > (Infinitivus)— this was the usual way of representing Latin spellings. This means that the typesetters were well aware of Latin printing conventions, in contrast to Lithuanian ones. The Errata of the Grammar of Latin were most probably set by two different typesetters as well—probably by the first and the second, since on p. 129 the letter <J‑> was always (6×) used, even in the Latin words (in contrast to the expectation), and on p. 130(119)— only <I‑ > (7×). In certain cases, the typesetters reversed the direction of substitution: they turned the lowercase letters into their upper case equivalents <i, j> → <I, J> (ISPAUSTE, PARSERGIEJEMAA). But since Daukantas made an obvious distinction in the lowercase letters <i> and <j>, it was not difficult for the typesetters to represent them rather accurately. They even used the capital grapheme <Î> (PÎRMOJE) with the circumflex diacritic, which was alien to Daukantas due to his preference for <J‑> that might never attract a circumflex. The typesetters must have interpreted <î> → <Î> themselves.

The article reviews development of the military of one part in the Commonwealth of Both Nations, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, from the viewpoint of estate based structure, calling and professionalism. It reveals that, just like in the other armies of the eighteenth century, in Lithuania most of the estate structure could be found in cavalry, especially in the National Cavalry Brigades, and the least – in artillery and engineering corps. Estates did not carry only the negative meaning if the general level of education and skills among nobility was higher than the indicators in other estates. However, because of the generally low level of education before the reforms of the Commission of National Education, military units with estate based privileges (e. g. National Cavalry Brigades) were noted for a low level of professionalism and showed themselves poorly in the course of 1792 war with Russia and the uprising battles of 1794. At the same time, front guard regiments, made-up of Tartars and less privileged individuals, demonstrated much higher standards because estate exclusivity was accompanied by experience and military traditions carried over from the Seven-Year War. The highest standards of professionalism were maintained in the Lithuanian artillery and engineering corps. The progress was notable during the Four-Year Sejm, especially in the winter of 1791–1792. Infantry units were able to harmonize privileges of the estate structure with professional requirements and could be considered as matching the military of other countries in peace time. There was no place for calling in the army of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania prior to 1788 drive for expanding the military, and only during the war of 1792 attention was given to the skills of people, holding offices. During uprising of Tadeusz Kościuszko many gifted soldiers came to the fore, and even civilians with leadership gifts who led both improvised rebel units and large military units, thus opening pages of the noble tradition of uprisings in the nineteenth century, where calling and professionalism gradually pushed out the relics of estate-based military.

Anthropology reveals a rich diversity of human cultures, while also highlighting our commonalities. The discipline is a distorted mirror of this unity in diversity, however, so long as anthropologists from only a few, privileged cultures dominate the process of global knowledge construction. The World Council of Anthropological Associations (WCAA) was founded to address this. The WCAA provides a global platform for democratic participation in the spirit of a new ‘world anthropologies’ paradigm, which recognises that our understanding of other cultures is perspectivistic, and hence, to be fully understood, every culture needs to be contemplated from the multiple perspectives of all ‘anthropologies’.

Through the case study of life and creation of Jan Bobrowski (1777–1823), student at Vilnius university department of literature and free arts, the article analyses how the first generation of professional intelligentsia came to life. Personal life and creation of Jan Bobrowski show, how in the junction of the eighteenth–nineteenth centuries a society was gradually emerging, in which professional career rather than social background was considered the indicator of personal success of a human being. J. Bobrowski chose his life in accordance with his calling. Educational work helped him not only to realise his intellectual aspirations, but also permitted ensurance of his material wellbeing. Active professional intellectual work placed J. Bobrowski among the ranks of the emerging intelligentsia. Educational works of J. Bobrowski served as educational popularization of science, whereas his participation in Vilnius Charity Fellowship had signs of social messiahship. This new group, represented by J. Bobrowski, which did not belong to estate structure, created personal space that matched their expectations. Wife of J. Bobrowski could also realize her creative potential whereas independent educational work provided her with opportunities to leave traditional social role of a woman.

Straipsnyje, remiantis lauko tyrimų duomenimis, nagrinėjami šiauriniame Teherane gyvenančių iraniečių ritualinio mandagumo ta’ârof samprata bei praktikos ir jo raiška tarpkultūrinėje komunikacijoje. Analizuojama, kaip šiuolaikiniai iraniečiai suvokia ritualinį mandagumą, kokios ritualinio mandagumo praktikos sutinkamos dažniausiai, ar iranietiškojo mandagumo konfigūracija yra stabili pasikeitus kultūrinei aplinkai. Šiuolaikinės visuomenės ritualinio mandagumo tyrimui pasitelkiama įvaizdžio (ang. face) išsaugojimo teorija, taip pat straipsnyje remiamasi iraniečių įvaizdžio bei diasporos tyrimų duomenimis. Atliktas tyrimas parodo sostinės gyventojų eminį ta’ârof suvokimą, atskleidžia ritualinio mandagumo vartojimo praktikas ir parodo jo raiškos tendencijas tarp Lietuvoje gyvenančių iraniečių.

This article investigates the influence of Simonas Daukantas’s (1793–1864) book BUDĄ Senowęs- Lëtuwiû Kalnienû ĩr Ƶámajtiû (The Character of the Lithuanian Highlanders and Samogitians of the Old Times) (1845; hereafter Bd) on Jonas Mačiulis-Maironis’s (1869–1930) Apsakymai apie Lietuvos praeigą (Stories about Lithuania’s Past) (1891; hereafter ALP), which was reprinted in 1893 and 1906 as History of Lithuania. The fourth reprint in 1926 was titled Lithuania’s Past. Maironis’s work was popular and used as a textbook, so it had a significant impact on Lithuanian readers. Although the introduction “Užgyvenimo vieta” (“Place of residence”, p. 10) and chapters “Ukiszka vyresnybē” (“Heads of State”, pp. 18–19), “Pilēs ir miestai” (“Castles and Cities”, pp. 19–20), “Karionēs” (“Battles”, pp. 20–23), “Prekyba” (“Trade”, p. 23), “Namu gyvenimas” (“Home Life”, pp. 23–26) are obviously based on Daukantas’s Bd, the author never mentions this fact. Moreover, it seems that Maironis was influenced by Daukantas’s style, which he emulates, at times employing the elements of essay and poetry, or using long rhythmic sentences, which are sometimes reminiscent of hexameter and other times of Lithuanian folk song melodies and rhythms. Along with a significant part of Daukantas’s style and vocabulary, Maironis absorbed his dominant themes, motifs, personalities and places, images of daily life and nature. Maironis not only repeats all this in his ALP but also transfers them to his poem Lietuva (Lithuania).