Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Socialinių santykių bizantiškosios civilizacijos šalyse VII-XIV amžiuje tipologijos metmenys
Get PDFThe main concepts which the author operates in his attempt to describe typologically a type of social relations in the area of Byzantine civilization in the Middle Ages are: an Asiatic mode of production, a slave mode of production, feudalism, and so-called semi-feudalism. According to E. Gudavičius, there were two ways of historical development of humankind: the main one (extensive) and the exceptional one (intensive). The absolute majority of civilizations developed towards the pattern of the main way. The first exception was Ancient Greece in the archaic period (VIII-VI century BC). The most important thing was that the idea of private property was born during that period. Rome also continued to develop in this direction, but at the end of antiquity, it reached a deadlock (during the barbarian invasions in the IV-V century AD). Nevertheless, the Roman ruins were "radioactive": Germanic tribes became acquainted with the idea of private property. Because of that, the allodial property of land and a holding of individual producers were born. So the exceptional way of production had reborn and had acquired a new quality. As a contrast, the productive cell of civilizations of the main way remained the community. There had been no private property. Such kinds of societies were ruled by a despot or a board of priests. These are the main features of the Asiatic mode of production. According to E. Gudavičius, the type of social structure characteristic of the Byzantine Empire and Russia could be described as semi-feudal. There were latifundia in Byzantium, but the owners of these latifundia exploited not the individual holdings of peasants but the whole communities. So the social structure of the Byzantine Empire remained transmixed between the slave and feudal modes of production. There was the same mixed model in Russia as in Byzantium. The ruling minority possessed private property, but peasants had no private property (it belonged to the community), though they had individual holdings. The ruler of Russia was even more autocratic than the Byzantine emperor. The countries of Southeastern Europe adopted the political as well as the sociocultural structure of the Byzantine Empire: the state was centralized, the church was subordinated to the state, the aristocracy did not rely on private property but on state distribution or redistribution, etc. The most advanced country of Southeastern Europe before the Ottoman conquering was Serbia: both Western and Byzantine cross-currents are visible in the mixed character of its political system, intermediate between the fief system and autocratic bureaucracy. According to P. Gunst, the lack of West European feudal property in land caused the absence of real feudal features in the area of Byzantine civilization. Because of that, the regions to the east of Central Europe developed on a different basis altogether. At the end, it should be said that there is not a properly developed conception yet about the type of social structure of the area of Byzantine civilization in the Middle Ages and also about certain subregions of the mentioned area (Byzantium, Russia, Southeastern Europe). It looks like the most successful term describing the social specifics of the medieval Byzantine area is semi-feudalism, but this conception is not properly developed either. So the conclusion is clear: there is still much to study if we want to describe the type of the Byzantine region\u27s social structure more thoroughly
"Jano" mįslė: kūrybiško operavimo marksistine teorija atvejis sovietinėje lietuvių istoriografijoje?
Get PDFAcademician Juozas Jurginis was one of the most outstanding figures in the Soviet Lithuanian historiography. Analysis of his most fundamental book "The Strengthening of Serfdom in Lithuania" disclosed subtle symptoms of "erosion" in the Soviet version of Marxism. Resting on distinctions suggested by A. Bumblauskas (Communist pragmatism, Stalinism - Leninism, Marxism), the analysis regards this study as an effort to dissociate from the Stalinism-Leninism. Being a virtuosic master of Marxist theory, J. Jurginis noticed and emphasized the problem of different ways in which serfdom and feudalism developed in Eastern and Western Europe. Moreover, the region of Eastern Europe was perceived by him as uneven in terms of social and economic relations. In essence, J. Jurginis formulated "ideologically dangerous" hints indicating that Russia and Lithuania were qualitatively different countries in their historical development. J. Jurginis did not attribute Russia to the "maximum" region of Western Europe, while Lithuania according to his conception was close to this civilization space. These insights lead to the conclusion that J. Jurginis covertly challenged stereotypes of the Soviet historiography
Kai kurie paprotinės teisės niuansai remiantis hagiografiniais šaltiniais: interpretacijos bandymas
Get PDFEarly sources about vendetta custom are some papers of the German Order provided in the XIII century. Some of these customs reflect in the Statutes of Lithuania, in some judicial cases of the XVI century, and in modified law records of other Baltic tribes, first of all in the Prussian Pamedė statute-book (XIV). But we can also find vendetta custom in hagiographical sources of late X-early XI centuries, sacred for St. Wojciech and St. Brunon of Querfurt martyrdom in Baltic lands.
The motives of murdering the missionaries let us think like that. As St. Vaitiekus came from Polish lands, he was attacked as a Polish agent or ally. Another motive—he was murdered as he was recognized as a person who was dipping people into water (baptizing) or torturing them in other ways. Here we can find elements of vendetta customs.
There is no direct data about reasons for murdering St. Brunon in the hagiographic sources provided to him. It is said that Netimer\u27s brother Zebedene, who probably came when he found out about Netimer\u27s baptism, told them to kill Brunon. It is worth being said that Netimer, the leader of one of the Baltic tribes, killed his anonymous brother because he didn\u27t want to be baptized. So the anger of Zebedene was directed against Brunon as the causer of those events. Thus, there also arises a motive of vendetta.
According to E. Usačiovaitė, St. Vaitiekus was sacrificed for Baltic gods. But earlier mentioned motives for killing the missionaries don\u27t allow giving prominence to sacral motives. If St. Vaitiekus was sacrificed to gods, how would Prussians later render his head or body as a ransom to Polish Duke Boleslaw the Brave? In the case of St. Brunon, he could incur the displeasure of pagans when he threw their idols into the fire, but it didn\u27t happen like that. So, it doesn\u27t allow denying the vendetta motive for disposing of the first missionaries into Baltic lands.  
Šemetų genealogija XV-XVI amžiuje
Get PDFThe beginning of the Šemetas\u27 kin is related to the middle of the 15th century when the ancestor of this family, Šemeta Nemeikaitis (the son of Nemeikis), was mentioned. He had 2 sons: Mikalojus and Jonas, who were descendants of 2 ramifications of the Šemetas\u27 kin. It is unclear when and why the first (Jonas) offshoot was called by Šemetas\u27 name. But at the beginning of the 16th century, Jurgis Jonaitis (Jurgis the son of Jonas) had this name as a surname. The earliest reference of Nemeikaičiai-Šemetas\u27 family shows us that they were the relatives of Galiginas and his kin (Račkaičiai, Jackaičiai, Radaičiai, and Butkaičiai). The above-mentioned kin\u27s main patrimonial domains were Voverys (nowadays Vaverka in Belarus). They were the offspring of Galiginas, who participated in the union of Horodlo in 1413 when he got the Polish coat of arms of Swan (Labędi). This armorial sign was saved and used by the kin of Galiginas. The Šemetas\u27 family was closely related either by blood or marriage to noble kin like Kantautas, Chodkevičiai, Zavišos, Iljiničiai, and others. Finally, in the 16th century, the Šemetas\u27 family moved their residence to Samogitia. The activity of the family men in public life started expanding when they began to live in Samogitia. Therefore, they had duties that were often closely related to this region. Merkelis Šemeta was the vice-prefect (Slavic - podstarosta, Latin - vice-capitaneus) of Samogitia. After that, he became the governor (tivun) of Palanga, Tendžiogala, and Beržėnai. Finally, he occupied the place of the castellan of Samogitia. He had a son, Vaclovas, who was the podkomorzy (the judge of land-ownership cases) of Samogitia. Later, he was the castellan of Polotsk and Smolensk. The second son, Merkelis, was the podkomorzy of Ukmergė and Vilnius and the magistrate of the treasury of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (henceforth GDL). At first, Stanislovas, the brother of Merkelis, was vice-prefect of Telšiai, and after that, he became the governor of Pajūris. Eventually, he occupied the office of the GDL as a kuchmistrz (Lat. magister coquille). Merkelis Vaitiekaitis Šemeta was the marszalek (Lat. marszalcus) of the king and the governor of Dirvėnai. He inherited the latter office from his father Vaitiekus Jonaitis Šemeta. Merkelis Stanislovaitis Šemeta was the most famous from this kin in the political sphere. He was a member of the Liege Lords Council (rada panow). He was trustworthy because nobles confided in him to defend various interests against the sovereign. Moreover, the monarch appreciated Merkelis as a person, and he was appointed to edit the Second Lithuanian Statute. In 1569, M. Šemeta, together with other famous representatives of the GDL elite—the Lithuanian liege lords—were participants in the Parliament (Sejm) of Lublin when the project of the union was discussed. The middle of the 16th century was the biggest culmination of the Reformation. Most noblemen of the GDL, including the Šemetai, corresponded very intensively with Duke Albrecht, who was a resident of Prussia. Duke Albrecht advised urgently to send their children to foreign countries for studies (mostly to Germany, which was the cradle of Protestantism). Therefore, when the new religion spread, it was needed to support at first Lutheran and later Calvinistic communities and churches. In the region of Samogitia, the Šemetai distinguished themselves as diligent protectors and supporters of the Reformation. It is certainly true that brothers Jonas and Vaclovas Šemetas belonged to the local elite of the GDL and took an active part in the Reformation movement. It is supposed that in 1567, Merkelis (succeeded by his son Jonas) was the person who took care of and supported the Lithuanian Lutheran School in Tauragė. Jonas and Vaclovas had received a good education at Leipzig University. They were interested in the accumulation of books in their private libraries and communicated with highbrows of that time. It is possible that they were associated with the well-known intellectual, historian, and annalist Maciej Stryjkowski
Vokiečių ordinas: sena ir nauja. - Rec.: Boockmann H. Vokiečių ordinas. Dvylika jo istorijos skyrių (iš vokiečių k. vertė A Nikžentaitis ). Vilnius, 2003. 296 p .
Get PDFRec.: Boockmann H. Vokiečių ordinas. Dvylika jo istorijos skyrių (iš vokiečių k. vertė A. Nikžentaitis). Vilnius, 2003. 296 p.Rec.: Boockmann H. Vokiečių ordinas. Dvylika jo istorijos skyrių (iš vokiečių k. vertė A. Nikžentaitis). Vilnius, 2003. 296 p
