Contents

1 Views 1.1 Attributing and classifying of personalities 2 Minor changes needed 2.1 These two seems doubtfull for me 2.2 The same

Views

Attributing and classifying of personalities

Invitation. Your input to Culture of Lithuania is welcomed.
Some problems of defining personalities or attributing them to certain well-known ideological systems may raise here. I propose a quite liberal variant of it, where definition may not be connected with one certain word. Necessity however to follow certain classifying remains.

My initial ideas on this branch, the ones, concerning period of Lithuanian national Renaissance period: Some artists, writers or other cultural workers of this period are often described as modernists. This definition is not false, but some more concrete things should be added, some specifics of Lithuania.

We should distinguish leading ideas of the Nat. Renaissance from later modernism, which is more known for us. Cultural aspirations of the later Nat. Ren. may be defined as modernism in a cultural context of Lithuania. But they accented also expression of Lithuanian cultural heritage, and their expression may be seen as something simply typically Lithuanian. I mean, that such authors in as Čiurlionis is seen as modernist in Lithuanian context, but it also (and even more) is a representative of Lithuanian culture, when in European or World-wide context. A parallel example may be taken from literature of India. Poet Tagore, well known Nobel price winner is known for us as a representative of culture of India. Making India more understandable and closer for western people is concerned as main his input to Western culture. But in his own country, he was seen as a modernist too, who was changing traditional cultural forms, especially stagnated ones. This way also Lithuanian cultural leaders of the N. Ren. could be seen as modernists, which were broadening cultural forms and changing stagnated ones, in Lithuanian context. They also can be seen as modernists in a wider context, but more for acquainting Western people with Lithuanian culture than for their direct input into Western culture. Čiurlionis is the best example here.

In other way, the later Lithuanian modernists (they depended mostly to later generation, approximately from 4th decade of the 20th century) concerned themselves part of Western modernistic movement and their main purpose (looking generally) was to introduce Western European ideas into Lithuanian cultural life (see the table below).

We see two different movements and two different world outlooks here. The problem is, that both movements collaborated, especially their political wings did, and interchange of ideas between them is well seen. So, many researchers don't pay attention to this difference. Especially in the Soviet period, when national ideas were officially forbidden, mixture in description of these movements was allowed. E. g. philosopher Ramūnas Bytautas, who clearly depends to the first generation, is often described as liberal. And it may be understood in a sense of the second generation (as idea of liberalism).

period and generation	artists, writers, philosophers etc	in a context of Lithuania	in an European context
The National Renaissance period, the younger generation, approx 1905 – 1930	painter and composer Čiurlionis, painter Kazys Šimonis, poet and philosopher Vilius Storastas - Vydūnas, dramatist Sofija Kymantaitė - Čiurlionienė, poets Adomas Jakštas, Motiejus Gustaitis, Liudas Gira, composer Stasys Šimkus, philosopher Ramūnas Bytautas.	reformers and innovators of Lithuanian culture	Representatives of Lithuanian culture, almost unknown before them.
The period between WWI and WWII and post-war years.	poets V Mykolaitis - Putinas, Kazys Binkis, writer Ignas Šeinius – Jurkūnas, artists: all 'ars' group, philosopher Juozas Girnius	Modernists, introducing new Western ideas into Lithuanian cultural life	Central European modernism.

Note: Lists of personalities isn't complete here, nor it's made precisely by prominence. Linas 07:51, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Minor changes needed

These two seems doubtfull for me

   * Lithuanian-speaking people make great jump of literacy, from minimal in the end of 18th century to approx. 80% in the end of 19th century.
   * Lithuanians, Poles and Belaruses declare themselves as different ethnic groups.

• Please give your sources for that rate of literacy, seems unbelievable.

• That would be right, but all that happened in a time when a definition of a nation changed to include all those ,havent changed nationality, secured language all that time, peasants. Thanks to those who reconverted the converted upper strata of the society and incited national thinking.

Now one could think that, say, lithuanian nation(nation in the modern sense of that word) was "extinct" for a while and now reappeared.

Could be the upper strata of the ??? declared themselves the ... But i'm not sure.

ee --Vytautas 08:31, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC) unsigned again, still new here, forget things

[The question is moved from my user talk page]

Thank You. You are right. These percents were incorrect, put inadvertently however. To be precise, their interpretation was wrong. The 20th century had been meant. I've already revised. - The statement about self-declaration also needed some precision. I have done it too.

I put more detail explanation in your talk page in Lithuanian.
Linas 09:10, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

EI, ŽMONĖS. LIETUVIŠKAI mokantys, nors sakinį parašykite lietuviškai. Kam vargti verčiant ir tikslinant kalbą, jeigu jums teks verstis viską atgal?
Linas 09:10, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

The same

That would be right, but all that happened in a time when a definition of a nation changed to 
include all those ,havent changed nationality, secured language all that time, peasants. Thanks to 
those who reconverted the converted upper strata of the society and incited national thinking. 

It's an interesting thing. Lithuanian nation didn't appear from anywhere in the 19th century. Roots of it also existed till this time. I described it in the article, defining it Lithuanian speaking Lithuanians. But they paid more attention to their state nationality (pavaldinybė) than to ethnic accessories (language, manners). But when Poles began to understand nationality in romantic and more ethnic way, Lithuanians had two choices: to put off their ethnic basis and became pure Poles, or to separate from Polish nation (what was done subsequently). - This way, how Lithuanians became a separate nation must be described in the chapter about 19th century in the article. - It was impossible, that all nobles spoke Polish. It didn't take place even in the beg. of the 20 century. It's a fact that nobles, speaking Lithuanian, were slightly segregated by ruling aristocrats, so it wasn't popular among them, to defend Lithuanian culture. - Lithuanian culture included many elements, not only rural, lacking maybe the higher aristocracy only. - We also shouldn't reduce the culture to something ephemeral (as if ones were different Lithuanians, Polish speaking, became Lithuanian speaking), especially one of nation, having such archaic language. Not concealing that nation has had different understanding, we should say, that one Lithuanian culture exists, being continued in time. And we explain it all in modern terms. Additionally, we speak about cultural succeeding here, and do in History of Lithuania about political one. Definition of the culture is based on persistent definition of our language, which always (at least since the 16th century) have been called Lithuanian language. A state with its accessories is political thing, having also different cultural faces in different times. And the fact, that Lithuanians were divided under two nationalities before WWI (Polish with later Russian, and Prussian-German) also prompts to keep proposed direction in defining Lithuanian culture.
Linas 11:21, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)