Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis

The Franciscan priest Jurgis Ambraziejus Pabrėža (1771–1849) spent most of his life in the western part of the Russian Empire, in Žemaitija (Samogitia), which was annexed by Russia in 1795 during the Third Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. In addition to being a renowned preacher and educator, Pabrėža is considered to be the founder of Lithuanian botanical terminology (still used today), and he is also known as a folk healer and a bibliophile. In many ways, Pabreža’s collection of books is an interesting personal library from the time, representing Franciscan book culture. Based on surviving books and archival sources, the article examines the motivation behind the accumulation of the medical and pharmaceutical collection in Pabrėža’s personal library, analyses the sources of the collection, the composition and subject matter, and the dispersal and migration, and discusses the results of the historical-bibliographical reconstruction of the unpublished part. His healing practice and the preparation of theoretical educational works on health care became the main motives for Pabrėža to collect books on medicine and pharmacy. This was a response to the needs of the poor inhabitants of Žemaitija. In Tsarist Russia, many people, especially ordinary rural people, did not have access to public health-care services or pharmacists. Pabreža devoted a large part of his life to the practice of medicine, making it more accessible to socially at risk members of society.

Many changes took place in the upper echelons of Lithuanian society at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries: a divide began to emerge between the conservative aristocracy and the supporters of Enlightenment ideas. The latter sought reforms, the independence of the state and progress in society. The former did not support the changes, and sought to preserve the former structure of society, often seeking the support of politicians in the Russian Empire. It is important to study not only the actions of the elite of that period in the field of politics, but also their households and lifestyles. The paper explains what can be learnt about factors that may have influenced the health of Ludwik Skumin Tyszkiewicz (1751–1808), one of the most prominent Lithuanian political figures at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. The main character in the article is regarded in historiography as a noble with conservative views, who focused on the accumulation of material goods. The paper investigates what is known about the health problems of the count. It also explains what products were used in his kitchen, and what the stresses were in his life that could have affected his health. The circumstances of his death and funeral are also mentioned.

Because General Żeligowski’s troops occupied Vilnius in the autumn of 1920 and Poland annexed it two years later, the health-care system that operated in Poland at the time began to be introduced in the city and the region. The official guidelines for health policy in Poland derived from the concept of hygiene proposed by Tomasz Janiszewski, the founder of the health system in the country, which focused on social hygiene. Universities played an advisory role in the Polish health system and were involved in educating the public on hygiene issues. In interwar Vilnius, the most prominent figure in this field was Janina Bortkiewicz-Rodziewiczowa, a researcher and senior assistant in the Department of Hygiene of the Faculty of Medicine at Stephen Bathory University. This article analyses her publications aimed at promoting science. It examines the means by which Bortkiewicz-Rodziewiczowa conveyed specific medical knowledge to a lay audience. It also discusses what topics she emphasised most and what reasons led to her choices, and how this correlated with priorities in medical science and health policy at that time. Finally, it touches on an interesting practical aspect, namely what public education strategies applied at the time can still be applied today.

Between the First World War and the Second World War, approximately 280 thousand men served in the Lithuanian armed forces. This is a significant figure for a country that only had a population of two to 2.5 million. Even though the Lithuanian armed forces were only involved in active military operations and low-intensity fighting from 1919 to 1923, servicemen died during the entire period up to 1940. The numbers of deaths during the Wars of Independence are well known; however, the causes of death in the Lithuanian armed forces, both from 1919 to 1920 and in later years, have not been investigated in great depth. We understand that one cause of death in an active army is active combat. In the study of war, deaths in action are further classified into deaths caused by artillery fire, machine gun and rifle fire, bayonets, etc. This allows scholars to determine the effectiveness of weapons systems and tactical elements used on the battlefield. However, the focus of this article is the causes of soldiers’ deaths that are not directly combat related. In the first section, I discuss causes of death in the Lithuanian armed forces during periods of war and peace, and provide a host of examples, which include deaths caused by disease, accidents, homicide and suicide. In the last section, I present the results of quantitative analysis. The quantitative analysis is a case study of a single regiment that demonstrates the predominant causes of death from 1919 to 1940, with a separate analysis of causes of death for the period 1919 to 1920.

The press (books, newspapers, magazines, calendars, etc) in the Lithuanian language educated its readers extensively on the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases in the early 20th century. However, the frequent outbreaks of various epidemics from the 1900s to the 1930s raises the question whether this information really reached its target audience, especially when, as folklore sources show, folk medicine was still heavily relied on in the provinces. The article addresses this question by taking cholera as an example. It compares the methods of protection against cholera and its treatment, as presented in Lithuanian periodicals and professional publications, with narratives of folk medicine collected in archives. In the collected material, the author looks for definitions of the folk concept of communicable diseases (limpamos ligos, the name given to infectious diseases at the time), which may have influenced the limits to which people followed the recommendations of medics in the first half of the 20th century.