Lietuvos istorikų bendrija 1918-1940 m. Profesiniai kolektyvinės biografijos aspektai

The object of this research is the Community of historians in Lithuania during the interwar period which coincides with the beginning of professionalisation process of the historical science. The author analyses community of historians as a social-professional group. The work is divided in three chapters devoted to three important factors of the profession of historians: 1. Professional (non professional) education; 2. Qualification degrees; 3. The work in professional institutions and organisations. The author of study focuses his attention on the conditions maintaining a thesis for a degree, possibilities to be employed by professional science research institutions, also competition in ,,the Historical Field’’. In recent decade were publicated a number of works, which deals with interwar lithuanian historiography and historians. There were discussed questions about participation of historians in international historical congresses, methodological reflections, studies abroad and work in Vytautas the Great University. This work is fulfilling the breaks in this literature, as there are no special studies of scientifical competition, cultural and social capital of historians. The author of this work also uses for the first time a prosopographical method as a tool in the studies of intellectuals in Lithuania. The innovation comes from the field of so-called ,,New Social History’’ –social history of intellectuals, which also are related to the history of professions. While a Dictionary of historians in Lithuania is not prepared yet and there cannot be found so many encyclopaedical articles devoted to historians, this method enables the author to use wider spectrum of sources for his study –from archival personal files, letters, proceedings of institutions to printed literature including necrologues, memoires, articles. The author is the first researcher who have tried to make total number of historians in 1918-1940’s Lithuania and to show ,,the limits’’ of this community. He also made comparison between interwar lithuanian, polish and swedish Historical Communities and for this case the author is using the works of modern polish historians Jerzy Maternicki and Wit Górczyński, also swedish historian Håkan Gunneriusson. Term ,,The Field’’ came from the works of french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. It means the Space of Conflict and Competition, which could be compared with, ,,The Field of Battle’’, where competitors are fighting for the monopoly of important form of capital. This field exists only when the gamblers start to compete. The Community of historians, analysed in this work, includes 73 persons. The author divide this group into 4 categories: 1 . Professionals (22 persons, 30, 1 %); 2. Private scientists (24 persons, 32, 8 %); 3. Representants of other professions (attorneys, economists, geographers and etc. 21, 28, 7 %); 4. Amateurs (21, 28, 7%) The last two categories appeared because of using one generalising selection criteria –at least one original historical work, had to be published by the person concerned. Professional Education gained slightly more than a half of whole community of historians (63, 8%). In the universities of Russian Empire were educated 29 persons (39, 7%). They methodologically were influenced by russian positivists. Mainly they studied the law. After establishing the University of Lithuania in 1922 (from 1930-The University of Vytautas the Great) during whole period of independence of the state there were educated 43 historians (58, 2 %), 36 (50 %) of them were educated abroad. The main aim of the studies abroad (mainly in german speaking countries) was to defend doctoral thesis and to gain Ph. D. degree. 16 of historians realised their aspirations. The most important result of these studies was rising national historical science on higher level of professionalism. The Qualification degrees. In period of 1918-1940’s lithuanian historians had defended 20 doctoral dissertations and 4 habilitations, only 4 of them in the University of Vytautas the Great. There were a few unical cases –Antanas Kucinskas was the only one private scientist, which had gained Ph. D. in native university, Juozas Jakstas defended the only one dissertation from the field of general history. Stasys Matulaitis was the only one, who without any formal professional education (he was a physician) had gained a doctor degree in Belarus – the country which was under control of soviet regime. There were high requirements for the defence of dissertations in the University of Vytautas the Great, because the most part of professorship were educated in the universities of Russia, where these requirements were almost similarly strict. The work in professional institutions and organizations. In the analysed period existed rough defect of the institutions where historians could be employed in Lithuania. The most important of them (if not say the only) were the University of Vytautas the Great and the Branch of History in the institute of Lithuanian studies, which was established in 1939, just before the soviet occupation. The Representants of younger generation and private historians were struggling for the positions in these institutions, but the most influential positions (deans of faculties, rectors) almost never were occupied by historians. Close to the end of 1930’ies scientific issues and publications came under control of representants of younger historians. The struggle and rivalry within the Historical Field became more active in the second half of 1930’ies when the new generation began to try enter the academic world. 9 young historians had started to work in scientific institutions. Their success depended on the social capital and networks, which they accumulated during a period of their studies at the university. In Lithuania, so as in Sweden, the competition and conflicts were between two generations and ideological, ,,camps’’. The young historians had tried to enter into scientific institutions for the wages (economical capital) and for the authority (symbolic capital). Their elder colleagues tried to keep status quo and academic hierarchy to patronise their favourites, which could continue their, ,,school’’.