Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais:
Mit engl. Zusammenfass.
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Lithuanian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Vilnius
LII Leidykla
2005
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Zusammenfassung: | Mit engl. Zusammenfass. |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T: Lithuania's cultural policy |
| Beschreibung: | 300 S. |
| ISBN: | 9986780713 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV036446207 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20100920 | ||
| 007 | t| | ||
| 008 | 100510s2005 xx |||| 00||| lit d | ||
| 020 | |a 9986780713 |9 9986-780-71-3 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)255293580 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBV508587824 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a lit | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,44 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Mačiulis, Dangiras |d 1969- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)13156403X |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais |c Dangiras Mačiulis |
| 264 | 1 | |a Vilnius |b LII Leidykla |c 2005 | |
| 300 | |a 300 S. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T: Lithuania's cultural policy | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a Mit engl. Zusammenfass. | |
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1927-1940 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Kulturpolitik |0 (DE-588)4033581-1 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Litauen |0 (DE-588)4074266-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Litauen |0 (DE-588)4074266-0 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Kulturpolitik |0 (DE-588)4033581-1 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Geschichte 1927-1940 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 0904 |g 4793 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020318461 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1820595839366594560 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
TURINYS
ţVADAS
. 7
KULTÜROS
VALDYMAS:
NUO MENO
TARYBOS
ІИ
VISUOMENINIO DARBO VADYBOS
. 13
Nuo
Meno
tarybos iki KultQros
гтпц
. 13
Kulturos
геікаіц
departamentas
. 33
Visuomeninio darbo vadyba
. 41
KULTÜROS FINANSAVIMAS
IR VALDŽIOS
PRIORITETAI
KULTÜROS
SRITYfE
. 55
Valstybinis
kulturos finansavimas
. 55
Valdžios
prioritetai
kulturos srityje
. 68
KULTÜROS
FONDO STEIGIMO
EPOPEJA.
89
Pirmieji
kulturos fondo projektai
. 89
Jubiliejinii|
тещ
kampanijos
paženklinti
projektai
. 96
1938-1939
metą
projektai
. 101
Vietoj epopéjos epilogo
.
Ili
PAVELDOSAUGA TARPUKARIO LIETUVOJE
. 113
Lietuvos jvaizdis
. 113
Tautiškumo ilgesys
. 121
Valdžios
rupinimasis paveldosauga
. 125
Tautinés tradicijos kurimas
. 133
6
DVARy KULTÜRINIS
PALIKIMAS
TARPUKARIO
LIETUVOJE
. 139
Lietuviškas dvaro jvaizdis
. 139
Dvarq kulturinis palikimas
. 148
Susirupinusiują
dvarij kulturiniu palikimu laikysena
. 152
Dvai
-ц
kulturinio palikimo „atradimas"
. 165
TAITONES KULTÜROS
PAIEŠKLJ
INSTITUCIONALIZAVIMAS
. 171
Tautinés savasties
ieškojimai .
171
Antaño
Smetonos
lituanistikos instituto steigimas
. 176
Nespéti nudirbti lituanistikos darbai
. 190
NUO
SIMBOLINÊS
BAŽNYČIOS
IKI
TAUTINIO HEROJAUS KULTO
. 193
Simbolinés
bažnyčios
statyba
. 193
Tautinio herojaus
paieška
. 200
Herojaus kulto kürimas
. 203
Tautinio herojaus kulto prasmés
. 214
„NAUJOJIROMUVA":
KULTÜROS
VIZIJA
VIRTUSI
POLITIKA
. 219
Tautos
vienybés projektas
. 219
Romuviečiai
ir
valdžia
. 230
Kulturinés
autonomijos idéja
. 239
„Svetimi"
tautinéje kultüroje
. 246
AUTORITARINIS REŽIMAS
IR
KÜRYBINÈ LAISVÉ
. 263
PABAIGOS
ŽODIS
. 279
ASMENVARDŽILJ
RODYKLÈ
. 279
SANTRAUKA ANGLy KALBA
. 279
LITHUANIA'S CULTURAL POLICY:
1927-1940
Dangiras
Mačiulis
Summary
This book examines the state policy with regard to culture during the period
of Smetona's authoritarian rule between the coup of
17
December
1926
and
the occupation of Lithuania in
1940.
Perceiving policy both as its theoretical
and ideological construction and its practice (regulation and control of con¬
crete management, the functioning of state institutions, and die search of
methods and means), an attempt is made to shed light on the following
questions:
(1)
the endeavours to extend the influence of the government on
the creative spheres and to channel culture in the direction acceptable to and
sponsored by the regime;
(2)
the scope of the contribution of the political
regime in determining the search for ethnicity in Lithuanian culture, and
(3)
the degree of the freedom of creation in the authoritarian state. In this
research of cultural policy the issues of education were excluded deliberately
as a sphere of concern taken for granted by any modern state; instead attention
was focused on other fields, and primarily on the creative sphere.
Culture Management During die period between the declaration of
independence and
1926
die issues of culture and art were entrusted to the
Ministry of Education, the main concern of which was the formation and
implementation of the educational system. Consequently, die problems of
culture and art were dealt with only perfunctorily. Such a situation made the
artists themselves use their initiative and take the organization and coordi¬
nation of the cultural life into their own hands. In the spring of
1926
the
Lithuanian Artists Union prepared a preliminary project of an art council and
presented it to die Christian Democrat government with a proposal to set
up that council at the Ministry of Education; the council had to be competent
in the matters of art and had to act as an advisory organ at the Ministry of
282
LITHUANIA'S CULTURAL POLICY:
1927-1940
Education. That time the Ministry rejected the proposal, however, soon after
the election
(8-10
May
1926)
to the third
Seimas,
the new government
agreed with the idea of setting-up an art council.
Mykolas Sleževičius'
coa¬
lition government, consisting of Peasant Populists and Social Democrats and
adhering to the policy of expanding democratic rights, maintained that the
role of the government was central and decisive in the solution of political
questions, while in the matters of culture society had to assume overall
responsibility. And it was the duty of the government to create the most
favourable conditions for involving society in cultural activities and initiatives.
Thus, the government welcomed all social cultural initiatives, and the Art
Council was established as an advisory body of the Minister of Education on
all matters relating to art and artists and on the formulation of state policy
on culture. Nevertheless, the functioning of the council was short-lived: after
the coup of
17
December the authoritarian regime did not need its services,
and in the spring of
1927
its sessions were discontinued. The authoritarian
regime was not in any need of a council which would remind the authorities
of the cultural problems or even lay claim to the formation of such policy.
The idea of the art council (under a different name
-
art commission) was
revived by the Department of Culture of the Ministry of Education in
1934.
The establishment of this department witnessed new tendencies in the man¬
agement of culture
-
an effort to introduce stricter organization and a bias
desirable by the political regime. The artists themselves greeted this official
initiative in the hope of deriving a certain benefit from it -some improvement
in the functioning of cultural institutions, greater encouragement and finan¬
cing of creative initiatives. And it was little wonder given that the state was
the only real sponsor of art and culture, and the material circumstances of the
artists were not easy. An indirect characteristic of the situation can be the
absence of an art market in Lithuania at that time
-
through the entire period
of inter-war independence not a single specialized shop of artworks was
established in the country. The only buyer of art was the Mikalojus
Konstan¬
tinas
Ciurlionis Gallery, which considered the support of Lithuanian artists
one of its principal aims. Practically that was realized by buying artworks for
this state-owned art gallery. The artists and writers, aware of the absence of
governmental support and attention, envied the art life in the totalitarian
states such as Italy and even the USSR (but not France), where attention and
care to art was much greater than at home.
Prizes and state-organized competitions could be treated as state support
of the arts. However, the prizes could not solve the problems of backing the
artists, neither could writers subsist on their publications
—
the incomes were
SUMMARY
283
too small. The endeavours of the authorities to institutionalize creative ac¬
tivities coincided with the tendencies of the artists to organize themselves into
unions in the expectation to have their interests better represented and to
achieve more reliable support of the state. It must be noted that such hopes
were kept alive by indefinite promises of the authorities. The first to unite
were the writers, who established their union in
1932.
Although the artists themselves saw the necessity of uniting into creative
organizations, the very process was slow and protracted until
1934
when the
authorities became involved in it. Encouraging the establishment of creative
unions, the authorities treated them as institutions of social education, con¬
tinuing the citizen's national education, begun at school. Besides, the orga¬
nization was to be the first step towards the formation of the artists' corpo¬
ration, envisaged by the authorities.
Therefore, on the
10
April
1935
decree of the Minister of Education, the
Art Commission was revived, and the artists rallied behind it to set up the
Lithuanian Artists Union. Following its establishment the former Art Com¬
mission of the Ministry of Education was dissolved. The Commission became
redundant, since its functions were taken over by the new Union, which was
to become the official institution, representing and uniting all Lithuanian
artists. This Union was necessary for the Department of Culture merely as
a tool to control the world of artists. True, the regime, though endeavouring
to rally workers of creative spheres into unions, did not drive them by force
as this was a case in the neighbouring totalitarian countries. Instead, attempts
were made to introduce organizational structure and to have influence over
the established unions. That this was the case is attested by the situation in
the Lithuanian Journalists Union, which was headed by the ideologist of the
Nationalist Union
-
the chief supporter of the authoritarian regime
-
Izido-
rius
Tamošaitis
between
1
December
1934
and
15
April
1939.
The scenario of uniting artists was similar to that of another corporative
institution
-
the establishment of the Chamber of Labour in
1934-1936.
It
must be added that certain groundwork had been done before the setting
down to corporative activities of the authorities. In May
1934
all trade unions
were closed, thus 'creating conditions' to defend the professional interests only
of those who were employed in die organizations under the aegis of the
government, no matter whether the interests were those of the bricklayers or
the artists. The Lithuanian Artists Union was treated like a trades union
-
that was namely the opinion of the artists themselves.
284
LITHUANIA'S CULTURAL POLICY:
1927-1940
The endeavours of the authorities to organize the artists into creative
unions were associated with the then popular idea of corporativism
-
Italy's
corporative experience seemed attractive. In
1936
the Chamber of Labour was
established as a corporate institution, and the former Chamber of Agriculture,
Commerce, Industry and Handicrafts was re-organized. The 'trend' of setting-
up corporations covered culture as well, and it manifested itself in the projects
for the 'construction' of the Chamber of Culture.
In the autumn of
1938
the director Vytautas Soblys of the Department
of Culture stated that in Lithuania, where progress had been made in the
creation of the chamber system, the establishment of a chamber of culture
'would mean the crowning of the Lithuanian chamber system.' He hoped that
the Chamber of Culture would become the organizer of the Lithuanian
national culture and all cultural corporations would rally round. In his opin¬
ion, independent corporations could be those of literature, music, painting,
theatre, press and liberal professions; and they could serve the basis for the
formation of those corporations. Meanwhile the existing professional organ¬
izations, such the Writers Society, the Musicians Society and the Artists and
Journalists Unions would be asked to join corresponding corporations. The
director of the Department of Culture argued that the establishment of
corporations would be useful to their members, since they would be assured
material wellbeing and a certain place in society and in the state; in their turn
the members of the corporations would be under an obligation to serve the
Lithuanian nation and state; and the Chamber of Culture would be concerned
not only with the wellbeing of their corporations, but with national culture
in general.
Though the planned establishment of the Chamber of Culture was not
implemented, it nevertheless served the political regime well in blocking the
project of setting up a culture foundation, which originated on a social
initiative following the neighbours' example. In Latvia and Estonia culture
foundations were established as independent and stable financial sources to
support the society's creative initiative and artistic activity and also to further
the development of culture conducted by the state institutions. The idea of
establishing a culture foundation, originating 'from beneath', clashed with the
government policy to manage and regulate the creative initiative. Therefore
the government prevented the set-up of the foundation and in accordance with
the idea of a corporate state was going to establish a chamber of culture, which
was to control cultural and creative organizations. The state was not inclined
to relinquish the most effective means of influencing the art world
-
state
summary
285
sponsoring. Thus, in
1938
the State Savings Bank earmarked
10,000
litas
for
the awards of art works. When the chairman of the Lithuanian Artists
Union came to thank the manager of the Bank, the latter said that 'the prize
would be allocated in future as well depending on the conformable behaviour
of the artists'.
Prior to
1934,
i.e. before the appearance of the Department of Culture
-
an institution concerned with culture
-
the management of the issues of
culture was dealt with only accidentally. In the first years after the coup the
state did care much of culture
-
there were more important matters. Never¬
theless, the state was not indifferent to culture
-
it considered itself to be
authorized to impose certain requirements on art: the artists, creating patri¬
otic art and thus helping the state to foster the patriotic feelings of the citizens,
had to serve the state.
Attention to cultural issues increased in
1934,
when Juozas Tonkunas
became Minister of Education, and the appointment of the new minister was
marked by the establishment of the Department of Culture. This Department
sought to take control of the whole cultural life. That entailed the adoption
of a number of laws and decrees, regulating various spheres of cultural
activities: the Law on Folklore Gathering, the Rules of Literary Awards and
the Law on Bookshops
(1935);
the Laws on Public State Libraries and on
the Museum of Vytautas the Great
(1936);
the Rules supplementing the Law
on Public State Libraries and the Statute of the Culture Museum of Vytautas
the Great
(1937);
the Statute of the An tanas Smetona Institute of Lithuanian
Studies
(1938)
and the Law on Theatre
(1939).
The objective of the Department of Culture to hold sway over the entire
cultural life was difficult to implement: the Department lacked clear-cut
guidelines in its work and the formation of cultural policy was not its strong
point. The Ministry of Education continued to assert that the art, directed
by the state, was the best guarantee that is would 'remain artistic and national
enough'. However, the bureaucratic apparatus was not competent enough to
solve ideological issues and merely acted on instructions from above.
The Nationalist Union was not of much help either, despite the statement
in its
1928
programme that the aim of the Union was 'national culture,
developed in a free, independent and democratically and judicially governed
Lithuania'. However, a more precise definition of national culture, indicating
the directions and priorities of the activity, was not presented. In
1934
that
was a stimulus for the Nationalist Union to project an ideological institution,
a kind of'ministry of national propaganda'. Even several drafts were proposed
286
LITHUANIA'S CULTURAL POLICY:
1927-1940
(their authors drew their ideas from Nazi Germany) about the way propagan¬
da should be conducted.
All the drafts shared the proposition that the issues of culture should be
assigned to a concrete ideological institution, which was to establish the limits
of national culture and safeguard them with the help of censorship and thus
ensure the trends acceptable to the regime. In
1934
no propaganda department
was set up, instead of it the Department of Culture was established to perform
the same functions. True, the Department did not become 'a helmsman of
the cultural life'
-
the ideologist of the national culture
-
as had been
envisaged by the regime. Its activity lacked ideological resolve since the
Department itself had no national ideology, which was conceived as a closed
system of views, values and ideals, the entirety of which could 'serve as
guidelines' in the formation of cultural policy.
The idea of the Ministry of Propaganda was revived by the new
Vladas
Mironas'
cabinet of ministers, approved by Smetona on
24
March
1938.
In
that year the Management of Social Work (henceforth
MSW)
was established;
it was headed by the Nationalist ideologist Professor Izidorius
Tamošaitis.
The
MSW
was to become an institution for the formation of the national
ideology, the creation of which was still a goal to be achieved. Taking into
account a moderate character of Smetona's authoritarian regime, it was not
at all easy to offer a consistent ideology and to draw a line of the ideological
taboo. Besides, an ideological interpreter, competent of flexibly solving current
ideological issues, was necessary. High hopes were placed on the
MSW,
which
was to become such an ideological interpreter, capable of combining theory
with practice.
The
MSW
was short-lived
-
due to its unrestricted censorship activity and
interference in all spheres of die cultural life it soon acquired bad reputation.
The Nationalists themselves could not conceal their disappointment over the
activity of the
MSW.
Nevertheless, despite the critique in the Nationalist
press, there were no requirements to close the institution. Instead there were
proposals only to re-organize it into a ministry of national culture, which
would take over all cultural spheres: the press, literature, theatre, arts, music,
museums, public libraries, choruses, etc., and that would allegedly lead to the
appearance of the explicit guidelines, desirable for the political regime.
A ministry of national culture might have been established but for the
changes in the government. The cabinet of ministers of Jonas
Černius
did away
with the officious
MSW
to enhance his 'liberal' image. Simultaneously the
hoped-for political guidelines of die cultural programme failed to materialize.
summary
287
In Search of National Culture On the eve of Lithuania's independence
the chief obstacle in the creation of its own national culture seemed the
political and national oppression. In actual fact, after the recovery of indepen¬
dence, this problem did not resolve by itself, it even became more compli¬
cated. Lithuanian culture was faced with the issue of national identity, which
in turn required the definition of the cultural tradition. After the coup of
17
December
1926
it remained a burning issue, since Smetona's regime was
oriented towards the establishment of the elements of nationalism.
In the
1
930s the interest in the national tradition grew increasingly, more
precisely it was a search of this tradition, promoted by the endeavour to create
one's own high culture. Independent Lithuania was being created taking into
account the one-time ducal Lithuania. That was the proof of the ability of
the Lithuanian ethnicity to manage the state on its own drawing on the spirit
of the Lithuanian countryside, which had preserved die most significant
feature of nationality
-
its language. These two sources of national tradition
-
ducal Lithuania and the Lithuanian ethno-cultural heritage
-
were side by
side; their place, weight and interrelationship, however, were unstable and
underwent permanent change together with society. Ducal Lithuania's heroic
past could be inspiring in the struggle for independence; meanwhile independ¬
ent Lithuania and ducal Lithuania, according to Vytautas Kavolis, were too
different both in scale and in problems that an authentic link could be found
between them.
When in the thirties doubts arose concerning the aptitude of ducal Lit¬
huania in the entrenchment of the national element (in Juozas Keliuotis' words
'the epoch of the grand dukes was too distant and too different from our
times'), a glance was cast at the ethno-cultural heritage in the countryside in
search of a steadier foundation. That, however, turned out to be too close
to serve a basis for a centuries-old tradition. For a Lithuanian, who had just
left his ramshackle hut, the ethno-cultural heritage could not seem a relic of
the glorious past, it was rather a reminder of his poor being, something to
get rid of, and not a value to be zealously treasured. On balance, though the
'moss-grown hut' was not attractive, it nevertheless was a clear and direct
allusion to one's cultural originality and ethnic heritage (according to Jonas
Aistis: 'The countryside tradition is old. It is old Lithuanian') and one had
only to find a way of combining modernity with nationality. Besides, the
linking of the present and the past as an uninterrupted historical process was
complicated by the discord with history
-
the idea in the social historical
conscience that after the Union of Lublin Lithuania somehow had ceased to
288
LITHUANÏA'S
CULTURAL
POLICY:
1927-1940
exist. Therefore attempts were made to replace the national history by the
national tradition, which embraced the ideas of statehood and ethnicity. The
tradition discounting a successive inspection of the past facilitated the con¬
nection of the ethno-cultural heritage of yesterday's countryside with the
archaeological legacy, thus presenting an appearance of a successive develop¬
ment of the Lithuanian culture and offering a vision of the eternity of the
national culture. The tradition of nursing one's national pride was pertinent
to the political regime based on nationalistic ideology. On the other hand it
was a serious obstacle for the formation of the protection of the cultural
heritage, since it conditioned a selective attitude towards the cultural heritage,
treating it as necessary only in so far as it served the basis to validate the
national tradition. The ethno-cultural and archaeological heritage was suffi¬
cient for that purpose.
The selective attitude of the government to the cultural heritage was
revealed most clearly in its treatment of the cultural heritage of estates. The
authorities neither encouraged nor prevented the destruction of that heritage
which seemed alien to society. No attempts were made to form a more
favourable attitude to it; in general this cultural heritage was ignored.
In
1933
the ideologist of the Nationalist cultural policy Vytautas
Alantas,
having resigned himself to the idea that national culture could not emerge so
quickly, considered 'laying the foundation stone to the growing culture' the
most important task of his generation. In his view that cornerstone could be
an authentic nationality, linked to the history of the nation, its ethno-cultural
heritage and, understandably so, the Lithuanian language. Naturally a more
serious scholarly viewpoint on the cultural heritage and history of the nation
was considered indispensable. The intention to define nationality and to lay
the foundation for the nascent national culture induced the Ministry of
Education to organize scholarly Lithuanian studies and set up the
Amanas
Smetona Institute of Lithuanian Studies in
1938.
In answer to what independent Lithuania achieved, Algirdas Julius Greimas
stated that its greatest achievement was the nation's passing of the maturity
test
-
the Lithuanian became aware that he was neither a Pole nor a Bela-
rusian, he was a Lithuanian. It was namely then that a purely Lithuanian
revolution
-
Lithuania's Lithuanization
-
took place. Shortly after the coup
of
17
December
1926
the official newspaper Lietuva wrote that after many
years of political oppression the Lithuanian nation lagged behind its neigh¬
bours; and a significant part of it became impoverished both materially and
spiritually by surrendering themselves to the foreign influences. The authoritarian
summary
289
regime proposed the most powerful weapon to reduce foreign influences: 'At
everything that is alien look with the greatest distrust; take anything alien only
in case of necessity; having let in a guest, don't let him feel a master in your
home; don't open your heart and soul to him' since 'a foreign commodity
and a strange custom, accepted with open arms, are the most dangerous and
powerful weapons of your enemy'.
In the formation of national culture, the disposal of foreign influences was
considered the key to success. This condition was also regarded as vital by
the editor Keliuotis of the Naujoji Romuva, the most influential and funda¬
mental journal in independent Lithuania; its publication was initiated in the
Catholic circles in
1931.
The Naujoji Romuva, more precisely the Catholic
intellectuals around it, formed the discourse of national culture, which the
regime accepted almost in its entirety, without supplementing it and only
eliminating one or another unacceptable idea. From the very start the move¬
ment presented itself as a champion of 'cultural independence' and proclaim¬
ed that after winning the political freedom it was time to get rid of foreign
patronage, because reliance on non-Lithuanians or foreigners as leaders of the
cultural life 'humiliates the nation, damages its reputation and seeks to prove
that we are creatively impotent'. The Naujoji Romuva argued that foreign
influences were intent upon stifling the genuine Lithuanian spirit and called
for a drastic action against this phenomenon.
The Naujoji Romuva did not lack suspicion on its pages with respect to
foreigners. Presenting the ideas and tasks of the journal in his lectures to the
public during his trips Keliuotis asserted that the foreigners undermined
Lithuanian self-confidence and destroyed the nation's consolidation. He main¬
tained that foreigners, having occupied influential positions in the theatre,
university, commerce, medicine, and advocacy 'want to smother us from
within'. Keliuotis did not insist on fencing off completely from the foreigners,
nevertheless, he was quite confident that national culture could be created only
on one's own, since a foreigner who came 'to help us' brought 'his spirit, alien
to us'. Therefore national minorities were to be tolerated only in as much as
they did not block up the elite of Lithuanian orientation to have the lead in
all spheres of life. It is no wonder that practically there were no anti-Semitic
statements by persons from the Naujoji Romuva milieu. In their opinion, the
closed autonomous Jewish culture did not cause any danger to the purity of
the Lithuanian national culture.
Sympathizing with other nations' striving to become modern states, Ke¬
liuotis asserted that Lithuania, too, 'had to be national, in essence' and that
the cooperation between the nation and the state had to be particularly close,
290
LITHUANIA'S CULTURAL POLICY:
1927-1940
harmonious and effective, since 'nationalism was Lithuania's greatest support'
and 'the Lithuanian state was impossible without Lithuanianness'. In the
campaign for the national state there originated the appeals: Lithuania for the
Lithuanians. 'Let's rely on ourselves and our compatriots. Let's rally all
Lithuanian creative forces to reveal and realize the genius of our nation'. At
that time the Lietuvos
aidas
rejoiced to see that 'the slogans for the positions
of national culture were receiving a growing response among enlightened
people'
-
the newspaper referred to that process as 'a crucial breakthrough'
in the spiritual life of the nation.
Unequivocal was the following statement of Maceina: 'The minorities are
always a foreign body in a national state; they never identify themselves with
the body of the nation and become part of its organism. Therefore, in our
time the boundaries of the state must coincide with those of the nation (original
emphasis); while within the nation the residing foreigners must either be
assimilated into the culture of the nation until full denationalization or be
resettled into their own state or leave as guests'.
In respect to nationalist statements the Naujoji Romuva did not display any
great originality except radicalism, which again was exquisitely camouflaged by
intellectual rhetoric. Nationalist radicalism was presented by the journal as a
generation gap between the parents who did not and possibly would not get rid
of the habit of glancing to the East and the children who shared no sentiments
for the East, relied only on themselves and had a liking only for the West.
In
1933
Keliuotis assured that the generation conflict would grow in
Lithuania and he understood it as a struggle against foreign influences. In
1933 Petras Babickas
proposed not to tolerate those Lithuanians whose
children were addressed to by the nurses in German, while in
1939
A. Tarulis
already requested that a law should be adopted envisaging that all cultural
enterprises, serving Lithuanian culture be in the hands of the Lithuanians.
Besides, the Nationalists also expressed a wish that only 'people of Lithuanian
origin' would be engaged in the work related to national culture. In a certain
sense they would be recognized as 'a kind of racists', which, however 'would
differ radically from the Hitlerite or scientifically disposed racists', since in the
activity of Lithuanian culture the Lithuanian Nationalists only 'instinctively
adhered to pure Lithuanianness' for fear that 'an outsider, having not quite
understood us, in particular if he happened to be extremely influential, would
not detract us albeit unconsciously from the selected track'.
According to Kavolis, in independent Lithuania the sphere of the cultural
interest narrowed from the relationship of the individual with the universe to
SUMMARY
291
the relation between Western civilization and the Lithuanian folk culture.
Meanwhile the Romuva circles were concerned with the West only in as much
as it could be of use in the formation of national culture. Besides, the West
did not seem particularly attractive to the ideologists of national culture. In
their view, the Western world, pervaded by philistinism, was far removed
from the ideal model of the world, existing in their imagination, and that
promoted cultural self-isolation. On the other hand, the West was found
attractive due to its cultural Christian tradition and civilization achievements.
In this ambiguous situation the people of the Romuva found the following
outcome: to take the West into consideration only when it was essential to
adopt civilization achievements. Therefore the openness to the West was
demonstrated only in so far as was it necessary for the implementation of the
Romuva programme of Lithuania's modernization. And it also did not pre¬
clude Maceina from naming modern Western civilization as the chief enemy
in his works on social philosophy.
Smetona did not seem to have a liking for the radical ideas of the Naujoji
Romuva
-
he spoke up for 'human nationalism' and maintained that there was
no 'contradiction between the old and the young'. At the same time he was
fully aware that national culture, based on the monopoly of Lithuanianness,
could be created and established only by the young generation, which did not
accept foreign cultures and was unequivocally in favour of a national state.
Therefore he wordlessly endorsed their ideas and was ready to justify their
actions. Well-timed and helpful was the radical position of the young in the
defence of the purity of national culture as well as their reproach to the
regime, creating a national state and accomplishing Lithuanian hegemony, for
the situation that the highest positions in the field of culture were held by
the people of 'another' ideology. The young generation had declared on many
occasions its determination to implement still more decisively the programme,
proposed by Smetona himself: 'To revive everything that is one's own, and
to renounce and reject everything that is alien'. Besides, Smetona's speech,
containing this idea, was published in the Naujoji Romuva. It must be added
that in defending the purity of national culture and resolutely opposing foreign
influences, the authorities often found themselves in a tricky situation as a
consequence of international diplomacy. That is illustrated by the story of the
Lithuanian Society for the Acquaintance with the Culture of the USSR
Nations. The regime was not at all in raptures about Soviet culture, however
it helped the Society to survive when doubts arose about its further
raison
d'être.
Meanwhile the Naujoji Romuva was not under any obligation to
292
LITHUANIA'S CULTURAL POLICY:
1927-1940
international politics and could more freely express what the regime thought,
but could not say in public.
The stance of the Romuva people on nationalism, who were familiar with
the Western world, should not come as a surprise
-
after all, Smith had
observed that nationalism was a programme of the people, who experienced
the influence of the modern, secular, and in particular, Western culture and
scholarship. The contacts of the national intelligentsia with the West called
forth a desire to raise the cultural level of the nation to that of the West;
and the idea of the national state originated and was implemented as a project
of modern Lithuanian culture. It was believed that the modernization pro¬
gramme of national culture would be successfully realized and negative con¬
sequences would be avoided if that task was entrusted to the representatives
of the dominant ethnic community, which, in its turn, encouraged a negative
attitude to non-Lithuanians and to the West, and led to cultural self-isolation.
The Authoritarian Regime and Creative Freedom After the coup of
17
December
1926
the new political regime adhered to the opinion that the
objective of art was 'to stimulate noble feelings in the nation' and to draw
it to 'lofty deeds' and regretted that 'with few exceptions art does not intend
to contribute to the education of patriotism'. It was the conviction of the
authorities that all artists could not forget that they were members of their
nation and that they had to do their duty not only for their Muse but also
for their nation.
The artists and cultural institutions were often reminded of their duty to
the nation, and the theatre was possibly the most frequent addressee of such
admonitions. On the occasion of the celebration of the tenth anniversary of
the National Theatre, the official newspaper wrote: 'doing credit to the state
it must be said that the authorities have not put any bridle neither on theatre
nor on any other high cultural values and have no intentions of doing that'.
At the same time an allusion was made that the theatre could exist only going
hand in hand with the state and properly repaying the state and nation for
the support. Though the regime claimed that it was not going 'to put a bridle'
on the artists, it nevertheless tried to steer the course of art into 'the national
direction' and remind die artists of their duty to the state and nation and
to condemn those who 'in the name of unknown cultural ideals emphatically
disclaimed all responsibility for the state and its interests'.
Art must serve the nation
-
a thesis, which was unquestionable in die
totalitarian states
—
was proclaimed by Smetona not quite categorically and
somehow indecisively: 'Art is not only for art, but for the nation and even
more for the nation'. He interpreted such a 'hesitant' decision as follows: 'Art
SUMMARY
293
is a magnificent factor in the nation's life, in particular of our nation, not
yet fully reborn
.
Art is crucial in inspiring and animating national con¬
sciousness'. The dictator's situation enabled Smetona to speak in ambiguities,
the more so that there were people who were ready to interpret them
'correctly'. Thus, Aleksandras Merkelis argued that in Smetona's opinion the
statement that art and science were an end in itself was true only to a certain
extent: 'In general, both art and science must be useful practically, they must
serve the nation, in other words, come to its aid wherever it might be
necessary and honestly serve even the needs of politics'.
Smetona, however, did not propose any conception of cultural policy and
seemed not to have tried to do that
-
instead the Nationalist ideologist of
cultural policy Vytautas
Alantas
did that. He not only gathered the ideas of
the dictator into a consistent structure as far as possible but also attempted
to present his own more coherent vision of the formation of national culture.
True,
Alantas'
programme was both concrete and radical. Maintaining that the
existential basis of the state was culture, he argued that the state had a right
to interfere even in the private life of the individuals if that was in the
interests of the public. Although he imagined ideal Lithuania as 'a volunteer
camp of cultural labour', he argued that those who were able but not willing
to participate in the cultural movement should be 'encouraged persuasively in
one way or another'. This idea was also acceptable to the leaders of the
Department of Cultural Affairs, who considered that the state could organize
compulsory attendances at the theatre, concerts and lectures.
It was then a small step from the coercion of national culturalization to
the restriction of creative freedom, delimiting the boundaries of national
culture and defining the ideological taboo. Everything depended upon the will
of the authoritarian regime. If the radical Nationalists had assumed power,
Jonas Aistis, as a creator reflecting on the Lithuania of Smetona's day, would
not have written: 'there was freedom galore for me'. The 'concern' of the
regime for the artists can be accounted for by the most peculiar feature of
Smetona's rule -the misuse of unlimited power was practiced only in as much
as it was necessary for the maintenance of one's positions. Merkelis maintained
that the Nationalist government interfered little in the management of cultural
affairs: 'The economic life was more or less regulated and controlled by the
government, while the cultural life was liberal and guided by the principle
laissez
faire, laissez
passer. However, one could agree with Merkelis' idea only
with reservations, since the authoritarian regime, nevertheless, made attempts
to subordinate both art and literature for its interests, but did it inertly
-
inertia was characteristic of the regime.
294
LITHUANIA'S CULTURAL POLICY:
1927-1940
Doubts can be cast on the complete liberalism of the cultural life taking
into consideration a mere fact of the existence of censorship. Independent
Lithuania lived without censorship only for a short period. After the coup of
17
December
1926
it was re-introduced again and was more painstaking. The
Ministry of Defence was entrusted with press censorship, which was deter¬
mined not only to guard military secrets but also to prevent any public doubts
about the legality of the regime.
The government, formed after the coup, claimed that it was not at all an
adherent of strict press censorship, still less of an eternal censorship; which,
nevertheless, was not eased. On the contrary, it became heavier. This tendency
could be illustrated not by the imposition of new laws but by the growing
indefiniteness of censorial prohibitions, which enabled the regime to treat any
regulation freely and thus extend the scope of undesirable information.
According to the Law on the Press, adopted in November
1935,
censors¬
hip was taken over by the chief executives of the counties, but censoring was
not relaxed. The transfer of censorship from the Ministry of Defence to the
chief executives of the counties
-
from a military to a civilian institution
-
did not bring about any liberalization of censorship. In this way the govern¬
ment attempted to cover its endeavour to take the control of the press and
other mass media into its hands. This was clearly visible in the new Law on
the Press. The fact that censorship was not mentioned in the Law did not
mean that monitoring disappeared or eased. The Law simply legitimated an
indefinite (and at the same time stricter) control 'taking into consideration
the security or other matters of the state or nation', which entitled the
Minister of the Interior or the chief executive of the county to prohibit the
dissemination of publications or to confiscate them. Censorship became
harsher also due to the fact that the new Law had no clause on preliminary
supervision; instead only the censoring of printed publications was introduced.
That made the publishers be more cautious with the publication of some
books for fear of having to deal with censorship and incurring financial losses.
However, one must agree with
Liúdas Truska
that Article
33
of the Law was
the most stringent, according to which the editor of any newspaper or
magazine could be required 'to publish an article or some other message,
which the Prime Minister or his attorney deemed it necessary in the interests
of the state/nation security or any other considerations'. Besides, the government
had a right to indicate the editors where to place the article in the newspaper
and in what font. The Catholic press asked more than once to be excused
from publishing obligatory political articles, but these requests were unsuccess-
summary
295
ful.
The attempts to evade publishing enforced information usually ended in
failure for the publisher.
Press censorship also strictly controlled publications imported from abroad
and spreading the ideas of various religious sects, Communism, National-
Socialism, irrespectively of the language.
Censorship was intolerant to any criticism of the regime and did not
bypass even the Nationalist press, when it critically touched upon the govern¬
ment's policy. Censorship was not merely indifferent to the critical attitudes
towards the government, it also fought against books, which 'by their frivo¬
lous criminal contents negatively influenced the students' and 'destroyed the
dignity of Lithuanian literature and aggravated the creativity of true writers'.
Such a decision was taken on the confiscation and destruction of the adven¬
ture novel Mirusitfjtf,
Uivas
[Das TotenschiffJ by
B. Traven,
issued by the
Teachers Bookshop.
Although the authoritarian regime was intent on controlling culture and
creative activity, its attempts, nevertheless, were not resolute and decisive.
True, not everybody in the ruling circles was satisfied with censorial indeci¬
sion. The attitude of the authoritarian regime towards the creative circles was
moderate and restrained: the establishment of obligatory norms for the cre¬
ative world was not implemented under compulsion. Nevertheless, attempts
to regulate creation witnessed a non-democratic nature of the political regime;
and that promoted the rise of internal creative self-censorship. The presence
of censorship was vital for the artists, especially when they were dealing with
social problems or critical issues in their works.
On balance, a moderate nature of this very regime was attested by the fact
that its cultural policy did not acquire any obvious directive character, did
not seek at any cost to subordinate culture for its propaganda purposes and
did not establish obligatory norms of creation for all artists.
TransUtion:
Alfonsos
Laučka |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Mačiulis, Dangiras 1969- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)13156403X |
| author_facet | Mačiulis, Dangiras 1969- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Mačiulis, Dangiras 1969- |
| author_variant | d m dm |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV036446207 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)255293580 (DE-599)GBV508587824 |
| era | Geschichte 1927-1940 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1927-1940 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV036446207</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20100920</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t|</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">100510s2005 xx |||| 00||| lit d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9986780713</subfield><subfield code="9">9986-780-71-3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)255293580</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBV508587824</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">lit</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,44</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mačiulis, Dangiras</subfield><subfield code="d">1969-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)13156403X</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais</subfield><subfield code="c">Dangiras Mačiulis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Vilnius</subfield><subfield code="b">LII Leidykla</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">300 S.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T: Lithuania's cultural policy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mit engl. Zusammenfass.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1927-1940</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Kulturpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4033581-1</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Litauen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4074266-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Litauen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4074266-0</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Kulturpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4033581-1</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1927-1940</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0904</subfield><subfield code="g">4793</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020318461</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Litauen (DE-588)4074266-0 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Litauen |
| id | DE-604.BV036446207 |
| illustrated | Not Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2025-01-07T13:11:29Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9986780713 |
| language | Lithuanian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-020318461 |
| oclc_num | 255293580 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 300 S. |
| publishDate | 2005 |
| publishDateSearch | 2005 |
| publishDateSort | 2005 |
| publisher | LII Leidykla |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Mačiulis, Dangiras 1969- Verfasser (DE-588)13156403X aut Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais Dangiras Mačiulis Vilnius LII Leidykla 2005 300 S. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T: Lithuania's cultural policy Mit engl. Zusammenfass. Geschichte 1927-1940 gnd rswk-swf Kulturpolitik (DE-588)4033581-1 gnd rswk-swf Litauen (DE-588)4074266-0 gnd rswk-swf Litauen (DE-588)4074266-0 g Kulturpolitik (DE-588)4033581-1 s Geschichte 1927-1940 z DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Mačiulis, Dangiras 1969- Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais Kulturpolitik (DE-588)4033581-1 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4033581-1 (DE-588)4074266-0 |
| title | Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais |
| title_auth | Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais |
| title_exact_search | Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais |
| title_full | Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais Dangiras Mačiulis |
| title_fullStr | Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais Dangiras Mačiulis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais Dangiras Mačiulis |
| title_short | Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927 - 1940 metais |
| title_sort | valstybes kulturos politika lietuvoje 1927 1940 metais |
| topic | Kulturpolitik (DE-588)4033581-1 gnd |
| topic_facet | Kulturpolitik Litauen |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000002&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=020318461&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maciulisdangiras valstybeskulturospolitikalietuvoje19271940metais |