XX a. pirmosios pusės Aukštadvario apylinkės lietuvių ir kitataučių etniškumo samprata renkantis gydymosi praktikas

LTXIX a. – XX a. pirmojoje pusėje Lietuvoje pradėjo formuotis / susiformavo priešprieša „oficialioji medicina vs liaudies medicina“, kuri iš dalies rėmėsi ir etniniais aspektais. Straipsnyje analizuojami priešpriešos „savas – kitas“ kitimas renkantis gydymosi praktikas. XX a. pirmojoje pusėje Aukštadvario miestelyje, kuris pasižymėjo daugiakonfesiškumu (jame, nepaisant įtampų, darniai sugyveno lietuviai, lenkai, žydai, totoriai), greta oficialiosios medicinos buvo paplitusios liaudies medicinos tradicijos. Užkalbėtojai buvo priskiriami „kitokiems“, turintiems nepaprastų savybių ar galių. Taigi, pasirenkant gydymosi praktiką, atsiskleidžia priešpriešos „savas – kitas“ du aspektai: etniškumo samprata ir mitinė suvoktis (bendraujant su kitokia veikla užsiimančiaisiais). Tyrimais atskleista, kad nelaimės / ligos metu priešprieša „savas – kitas“ išblanksta; „oficialioji medicina vs liaudies medicina“ Aukštadvario apylinkėse nesusiformavo. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Etniškumas; „Savas – kitas“; Liaudies medicina; Oficialioji medicina; Užkalbėtojas; Ethnicity; ‘Self-other’; Folk medicine; Official medicine; Faith healer.

ENIn the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, an opposition between standard medicine and folk medicine, which was partly based on ethnic aspects, formed in Lithuania. Folk medicine traditions were common alongside standard medicine in the town of Aukštadvaris, which was characterised as multi-confessional in the first half of the 20th century (despite the tensions, Lithuanians, Poles, Jews and Tartars lived together harmoniously). The folk medicine tradition included healing with spring water, medicinal substances of various origins, infusions, and folk magic in the form of incantations and spells. However, practitioners of folk medicine, with extraordinary qualities or powers, were classified as ‘other’. Thus, the choice of treatment reveals other two aspects: the concept of ethnicity, and mythical perception (when dealing with people engaged in other activities). The article analyses the alternation between the self-other opposition, in the choice of treatment in the Aukštadvaris region.Official medical services in the town of Aukštadvaris were provided by a doctor, the Lithuanian nobleman Vladas Mongirdas, and a Polish pharmacist, Henrikas Polukardas, in the first half of the 20th century. Families of Polish noble descent, and richer polonised ones, Jews and Tartars, looked to Mongirdas when they fell ill. Villagers approached Mongirdas only in more serious cases, because of the payment aspect. According to his nobility, Mongirdas was ‘self’ to the nobility and people who considered themselves to be from the nobility, but he was ‘other’ due to his ethnic identity and his views. For Jews and Tartars, the doctor was ‘other’ according to ethnicity. For poor Lithuanians (mostly country people), Mongirdas was ‘self’ according to his ethnic identity.Choosing to call a doctor was mostly determined not by ethnicity but by the difference in economic situation in the Aukštadvaris region in the first half of the 20th century. Due to the broad erudition and the national views of Dr Mongirdas, an opposition between the official doctor and the village liekorius, or an opposition between official medicine and folk medicine, did not form in the Aukštadvaris area. The choice of folk medicine as a treatment was determined by the difference in economic situation in the Aukštadvaris area in the first half of the 20th century: mainstream medical treatment was too expensive for the rural poor, although Dr Mongirdas charged very little for treating the poor. There was inter-ethnic cooperation at the personal level of folk medicine. Regardless of the ethnic identity of the faith healer, he or she was feared as the ‘other’ with greater powers. Attitudes towards foreign liekorius were different: Hungarians were considered to be good and reliable, and gypsies were considered to be untrustworthy. In the event of illness, the self-other opposition, based on the concept of ethnicity or mythical perception, declined, because the most important thing was to restore the patient’s health. Practitioners of official medicine (the doctor and the pharmacist) and the more informed practitioners of folk medicine (the midwife, herbalist, faith healer) treated everyone regardless of their ethnic group. [From the publication]

• Burtai ir tikėjimai Vilniaus krašte ketvirtame XX a. dešimtmetyje : mitologiniai recidyvai ar liaudies magija? / Gintaras Beresnevičius. Metai. 2006, Nr. 12, p. 110-122.
• Daugiatautė Lietuva : Lietuvos etninių mažumų istorija / Grigorijus Potašenko. Kaunas : Šviesa, 2008. 158 p.
• Gyvatės ryšys su gyvybe ir jos atsiradimu / Nijolė Laurinkienė. Tautosakos darbai 2004, 28, p. 70-77.
• Kitataučių įvaizdis lietuvių folklore / Laima Anglickienė. Vilnius : Versus aureus, 2006. 271 p., 4 iliustr. lap.
• Lietuvininkų gydymosi nuostatos XX a. pirmojoje pusėje / Jonas Tilvikas. Tautosakos darbai 2016, 52, p. 167-188.
• Lietuvių liaudies medicina : etnografiniai ir folkloristiniai aspektai : XIX amžiaus pabaiga - XX amžiaus pirmoji pusė : monografija / Ramūnas Trimakas. Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008. 213 p.
• Lietuvių mitologija / parengė Norbertas Vėlius ; [redaktorė Rima Mekaitė]. Vilnius : Mintis, 1995-2004. 3 t. (606, 466, LXIV, 605 p.).
• Lietuvos etnologijos ir antropologijos enciklopedija / sudarytoja Vida Savoniakaitė. Vilnius : LII leidykla, 2011. 516 p.
• Savas ir kitas šiuolaikiniais požiūriais / sudarytoja Vida Savoniakaitė. Vilnius : Lietuvos istorijos instituto leidykla, 2014. 443 p.
• Tarp religinių, kultūrinių, socialinių priešpriešų: lietuvininkų liaudies medicina XIX–XX a. pirmoje pusėje / Jonas Tilvikas. Logos (Vilnius). 2016, 89, p. 183-192. 2017, 90, p. 184-195.
• Tradicijų sankirtose: ‘Kito’ tapatumas / Rita Repšienė. Tautosakos darbai 2004, 28, p. 33-40.