Search

The article aims to investigate the possible sources used by the authors of the 1447 Casimir Jagiellon’s charter for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and examine the feasible sources of its individual fragments (its articles and clauses). The process of textual criticism made it possible to suggest the direct sources of both the individual articles and clauses of this charter. The conducted analysis allows us to conclude that the authors of the 1447 charter drew mainly upon the 1440 charter of the Novogrudok Land and then on the act of the 1413 Union of Horodło, and a charter issued by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund Kęstutaitis. However, most of the borrowed articles of the 1447 charter are taken from the 1440 charter of the Novogrudok Land (eight out of thirteen).

Straipsnyje pristatomas mažai dėmesio istoriografijoje sulaukęs Vilniaus elgetų organizacijos funkcionavimo aspektas – Šv. Jono bažnyčios dvasininkų vaidmuo miesto elgetų gyvenime. Tekste nagrinėjamas bažnyčios klebonų bei vikarų ir miesto elgetų tarpusavio santykis XVIII a. Remiantis Šv. Jono bažnyčios dvasininkų asmeniniais dokumentais, bažnyčioje aukotų mišių registrais ir pačių elgetų sudarytais ar su minėta organizacija susijusiais šaltiniais parodoma, kad parapinės Vilniaus bažnyčios dvasininkai rūpinosi ne tik elgetų organizacijos narių sielovada, bet ir finansais, aktyviai dalyvavo organizacijos vidaus gyvenime, o dvasininkų globėjiškumas bei įtaka elgetoms pasireikšdavo ir asmeniniuose šių tarpusavio santykiuose už organizacijos ribų. Reikšminiai žodžiai: elgetos, elgetų organizacija, Šv. Jono bažnyčia, parapija, Adomas Ancipa, Antanas Konstantinas Kosakovskis, Vilnius, XVIII amžius. This paper examines an aspect of the functioning of the organization of Vilnius’ beggars that has not yet been sufficiently covered in the historiography: the role of the clergy of St. John’s Church in the life of the city’s beggars. This text focuses on the relationship between the clergy and the beggars during the 18th century. By using the personal documents of bishops, registers of the masses held in the church, and sources written by the beggars themselves or related to the aforementioned organization, it is shown that the clergy of Vilnius’ parish church not only took care of the spiritual needs of the beggars, but also looked after the finances of the organization and actively participated in its internal life, with their influence on the beggars manifesting itself in their personal relations with beggars beyond the scope of the organization. Keywords: beggars, beggars’ organization, St John’s church, parish, Adam Ancypa, Antoni Konstantin Korwin-Kossakowski, Vilnius, 18th century.

Straipsnyje rekonstruojama išnykusio Dusetų dvaro (dab. Zarasų r.) savininkų ir ribų kaita ilguoju istoriniu laikotarpiu. Nustatyta, kad dvaras pradėjo formuotis, kai Žygimantas Senasis 1508 m. privilegija suteikė dvarą Užpalių seniūnijoje Jonui Radvilai Barzdočiui (Jan Radziwiłł Brodaty). XVI–XIX a. dėl įvairių priežasčių (dvaro įkeitimo kreditoriams, jo stambinimo perleidžiant vienam paveldėtojui, vyriškosios linijos palikuonių neturėjimo, perleidimo giminėms, dvaro nusavinimo į valstybės iždą) Dusetų dvaras ėjo iš rankų į rankas. Paskutinė jo savininkė iki galutinio dvaro konfiskavimo (1847 m.) buvo Apolinara Žabaitė-Pliaterienė (Apolinara z Żabów Platerowa). Nustatyta, kad istoriografijoje tėvoninio Dusetų dvaro savininkai neskiriami nuo šalia išsidėsčiusio leninio Padustėlio dvaro savininkų. Straipsnyje atskirai nagrinėjama šio dvaro istorija iki to laiko, kai Dusetų ir Padustėlio dvarus 1686 ir 1687 m. įsigijo Dinaburgo (Daugpilio) ir Livonijos seniūnas Jonas Andrius Pliateris (Jan Andrzej Plater), o jo vaikaitis XVIII a. 6-ajame deš. įrodė Pliaterių teisę į leninę valdą. Abi valdas XIX a. 5-ajame deš. perėmė Kauno gubernijos valstybės turtų rūmai, kurie iš dvaro suformavo Dusetų fermą ir atskirus ūkinius vienetus, kuriuos nuomojo įvairiems asmenims. Esminiai žodžiai: Dusetos, Padustėlis, tėvonija, lenas, privilegija, konfiskavimas. The article reconstructs the change of owners and boundaries of the extinct Dusetai manor (now Zarasai district) over a long historical period. It was established that the manor began to take shape when Žygimantas Senasis (Sigismund the Old) in 1508 granted the privilege of a manor in Užpaliai borough to Jonas Radvila Barzdočius (Jan Radziwiłł Brodaty). During the16th–19th centuries, due to various reasons (mortgage of the estate to creditors, its enlargement by transfer to one heir, lack of male line descendants, transfer to relatives, expropriation of the estate to the state treasury), the Dusetai manor passed from hand to hand. Its last owner before the final confiscation of the manor (in 1847) was Apolinara Žabaitė- Pliaterienė (Apolonara z Żabów Platerowa). It was established that in the historiography, the owners of the ancestral Dusetai manor are not distinguished from the owners of the nearby Lenian Padustėlis manor. The article separately examines the history of this manor until the time when the Dusetai and Padustėlis manors were acquired in 1686 and 1686. Jonas Andrius Pliateris (Jan Andrzej Plater), the elder of Dinaburg (Daugpils) and Livonia, bought it, and his grandson in the 18th century on the 6th proved the right of Pliater’s to the Lenian estate. Both estates in the 19th century on the 5th were taken over by the Kaunas Governorate Chamber of State Wealth, which formed the Dusetai Farm and separate economic units from the manor, which they rented to various individuals. 19th century in the second half, the manor turned into a village. Keywords: Dusetos, Padustėlis, patrimony, Leni, privilege, confiscation.

On 3 December 1522, the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund the Old issued a charter whereby he confirmed all donations and emoluments granted by his predecessors, by magnates, boyars, and townspeople to the Franciscans of Vilnius established 'there in, about 1387. The documents were brought to the royal attention by prior George of Cracow who asserted that he managed to collect only 54 ones, while the rest must have perished due to the lack of care on the part of his own predecessors. Fortunately, the prior was not right as no less than 27 additional documents did survive to this day. The analysis of all of them (81) allowed us to break down the patrons into such groups as grand dukes 4 (4.9%), magnates 15 (18.5%), boyars 55 (67.9%), and townspeople 7 (8.6%). It was then possible to establish what kind of relations and by what families were maintained between lay people and friars. It has turned out that grand dukes and magnates provided only grants and did this up to the mid-15th century, while townspeople and boyars displayed a more variegated pattem of relations ranging from grants to sales for real price to sales below the real value. The most intense relations between the friars and the boyars started sometime in the mid-15th century, and this correlates well with the advancement of boyars as founders and patrons of churches and undertakers of other charitable activities. The charter of 1522 contains information relevant to the establishment of the mother-house of the Lithuanian Franciscans and its subsequent rise to prominence. It also displays data valuable in terms of historical geography and persons involved. The reason for the making of this charter is to be viewed in the attempts of the Franciscans to safeguard their holdings around the manor of Kena and inside Vilnius by having them declared to be exempt from secular authorities and placed under the regime of ecclesiastical immunity. This concern was timely enough as the movement of Protestant Reformation was gathering pace in German lands and was already felt in this part of Europe as well. Appendix 1 contains a critical edition of this hitherto unpublished charter. Its original is kept in Cracow, at Biblioteka Naukowa PAU i PAN - Ms. 481.

Šiame tekste skelbiama ir komentuojama 1519 m. birželio 9 d. Mikalojaus Radvilos, tuomečio Vilniaus vaivados ir kanclerio, suteiktis Goniondzo žemioniui Jonui Slavskiui. Šiuo dokumentu didikas patvirtino pastarojo iki tol turėtą Mikitino valdą, taip pat pridėjo naujų, nurodydamas konkrečias teisių į nuosavybę sąlygas. Šitos suteikties registras dar 1898 m. skelbtas Vilniaus viešosios bibliotekos Rankraščių skyriaus apraše, o vėliau Rimanto Jaso sudarytame Pergamentų kataloge. Mokslinėje literatūroje šaltinis naudotas mažai. Apie dokumentą užsimena Jaroslawas Kloza bei Jozefas Maroszekas Goniondzo istorijai skirtame veikale; vėliau J. Maroszekas jį mini monografijoje apie Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės ir Lenkijos Karalystės pasienį; trumpai jį pamini ir Deimantas Karvelis bei Raimonda Ragauskienė. Apie dokumentą ir prie jo prikabintą Mikalojaus Radvilos antspaudą žino Edmundas Rimša, tačiau savo straipsnyje jo nepamini. Iš pažiūros galbūt eilinis XVI a. pirmos pusės dokumentas įdomus įvairiais požiūriais. Jo analizė padeda suprasti svarbius Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės istorijos aspektus, suteikia ir naujų duomenų apie konkrečius laikotarpio asmenis. Publikacijai skirtu tekstu sieksime aptarti aplinkybes, kaip ir kodėl publikuojamas šaltinis galėjo rastis; atskleisti dokumento surašymo kontekstą; nušviesti, kokią situaciją sukūrė skelbiama suteiktis; kokie buvo jų (situacijos bei pačios suteikties) likimai; galiausiai aptarti vidines bei išorines rankraščio ypatybes. This is the publication of the grant issued in 1519 by the Voivode of Vilnius and the Chancellor of the State Mikalojus Radvila (Mikołaj Radziwiłł) in favour of landowner Jan Sławski. It is a document written on a parchment in a manner akin to the humanist minuscule. The parchment has a red wax seal of Mikalojus Radvila attached to it. The published document is accompanied by the text aimed at disclosing and relating the history of the issuance and existence of this document. The main reasons for drawing up such document was the m odel of Mikalojus Radvila’s rule in Podlachia. When in 1509 the sovereign Žygimantas Senasis (Sigismund I the Old) conceded the domains in Goniądz and Rajgród to the said nobleman and in 1517 also granted the immunity, Radvila employed several interrelated methods to establish his power in the territory. A longside the castle another important manifestation of such power was subordinate noblemen who eventually would become local officers and forma part of the organization of the lord’s court. The recipient of the published document - landowner Jan Sławski - also found him self in a similar network of the lord’s power. The drawn up document was aimed at establishing and recording the relations between the lord and the representative of the petty nobility. The medium of Mikalojus Radvila’s court (and, we can guess, also the chancellery) was favourable for such task. The Latin text of the grant was written on the parchment by Mikalojus Husovianas (Mikołaj Hussowczyk) who served as M. Radila’s clerk (lat. notarius). The newly discovered data make it necessary to adjust the knowledge of the latter humanist’s biography and activities in the period in question. The document defined the subordination based relations between M. Radvila and the nobleman. The said relations were confirmed by means of granting (verifying) the Mikitin domain and newly allocating a neighbouring domain. Such grant and the domains in Jan Sławski disposition ensured his service to M. Radvila which first and foremost meant military service. The established relations can be interpreted in the context of feudal relations (relationship between lord and vassal, fief, etc.). In this case the published document becomes a rare source shedding light on such relationship "from within". Situations established (or recorded) by the document, the fate of the Radvila family’s rule in Podlachia and that of certain social processes in the state are closely interrelated and mutually supplementary. The death of the Voivode of Vilnius and the Chancellor of the State Mikalojus Radvila in 1522 was followed by unrests in his domains - the discontent was mostly expressed by subordinate noblemen. Jan Sławski was among them. Several court litigations resulted in the landowner being issued with a new privilege for Mikitin domain in 1528. In 1529 together with a group of other noblemen he was freed from the Radvila "yoke". These events occurred in the same year when Žygimantas Senasis issued the land privilege which provided for the restrictions regarding the formation of tiered subordination. In 1522, based on the Sovereign’s order, Slavskis was expected to return the document to the Radvila family. Actually, we cannot tell for sure if he did what he was ordered to do. Later, it was owned by Bona Sforza and after 1569 became a part of the archives of the Crown Treasury in Wawel. In 1765 the archives were relocated to Warsaw and following the occupation of the city, were moved to Russia. In 1799, after the Prussian authorities explicitly declared their wish to obtain archival materials pertaining to the territories under their control, the document most probably was stored in Białystok. In 1854 via Grodno the grant together with other documents reached the Archives of the Ancient Acts established in Vilnius, which later in its own turn handed the parchment over to Vilnius Public Library. There the collection of parchments containing the document under consideration was formed and, despite the evacuation to Moscow during WWI, is still stored in the Manuscript Department of the Wróblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences.

Reconquered during the wars at the beginning of the XVII century, Chernihiv-Siversky lands joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth being devastated and lacking the holistic social structure. Warsaw faced an ambitious task of colonizing the acquired territories. Considering the essence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the key issue that needed to be resolved was the involvement of the gentry in it. Not only were they supposed to be the promoters of the colonial ideology, but they also had to ensure the creation of the effective system of the regional border defence. Thus, the third goal Warsaw aspired to achieve was quite logical – to reward those who participated in the wars with the Muscovite state by giving them the formerly acquired Chernihiv- Siversky lands. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth did not have enough human resources, as there was an excess of the landless and land poor gentry. However, it was spread unevenly throughout the country. The high rates were typical for Masovia. The minor gentry of the Volyn and Kyiv Polissia also hoped to improve their material status. The third centre to supply the Chernihiv- Siversky lands with human resources comprised the palatinates of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which were characterized by a lack of land funds and excess of people from the social strata that was transitional between the peasantry and the nobility, namely the boyars and small gentry. The nobility of the Duchy, which was actively arriving at the vicinities of Chernihiv and Novgorod-Siversky in the period from the conclusion of the Truce of Deulino (1618) to the outbreak of the Smolensk War (1632), can be divided into four groups. The first group was represented by the captains from the times of the Moscow Expeditions, well known and relatively wealthy representatives of the Lithuanian-Belarusian nobility. They joined (or tried to join) the local economic elite of the Chernihiv-Siversky lands. They were allocated more land, given the potential colonization resource. The regional representatives of this group were the families of Pats, Tryzna, and Polubinski. However, only Patsies managed to achieve the set goal. The second group was represented by Chernihiv and Novgorod-Seversky zemstvo officers. They have earned their titles by building long military careers, backed by personal connections to central government (Marshals) or even members of the ruling royal family. If the titles were of the functional nature (chamberian, judge, deputy judge, or notary), the officer needed to possess the corresponding juridical or clerical experience. Among them were those who carried out their activity on the territories adjacent to the Chernihiv-Siversky region (E. Stravinskyi, D. Kerlo) and those who were rooted directly there (S. Ohnytskyi, S. Minvid). The third group of migrants was made up of members of military units led by the influential regional politicians (S. Pats, O. Pisochynskyi, and others). They had the task of developing a basic defence system for the Chernihiv-Siversky lands. Such people were considerably fewer here than in the neighbouring Smolensk palatinate. As a result, the Smolensk War (1632–1634) revealed some of the system`s most fundamental flaws, which the government tried to eliminate after the war was over. This group was sometimes represented by entire military fraternities (Haraburdas). Finally, the fourth group of migrants was comprised of clients, servants, and tenants of the local magnate families. They arrived in the region alongside their patrons and later joined their households (in particular, their economic, military, and clerical units). Their careers were almost completely connected to the Chernihiv-Siversky lands. The representatives of this group constituted the majority of those who stayed in the region after it came under Cossack control.

The aim of the article is to present the social insurance of farmers in Poland and Lithuania. In the study, the following research methods were used: the descriptive method, a literature review, statistical analysis, and an economic analysis of the law. On the basis of the study results, it was concluded that both countries have a different model of social insurance for farmers. This results from political decisions, but also from other aspects which have an impact on agriculture in those countries. It needs to be stressed that in Poland this type of insurance is about 90% subsidized, whereas in Lithuania this system is self‑sustaining. Celem artykułu było przedstawienie ubezpieczenia społecznego rolników w Polsce i na Litwie. W pracy wykorzystano następujące metody badawcze: metoda opisowa, analiza literaturowa, analiza statystyczna oraz ekonomiczna analiza prawa. W wyniku przeprowadzonych badań stwierdzono, że w obu krajach występuje odmienny model ubezpieczeń społecznych dla rolników. Wynika to nie tylko z decyzji politycznych, ale zapewne i z innych uwarunkowań wpływających na rolnictwo w tych krajach. Podkreślenia wymaga fakt, że w Polsce ubezpieczenia te są dotowane w wysokości około 90%, gdy tymczasem na Litwie system jest samowystarczalny.

The research deals with the study of settlement Karaul, dated from 15th–16th centuries. It was found, the scientists had identified Karavul in different ways. V. Antonovich, M. Grushevsky, F. Petrun, M. Kazak localized it near the modern village Rashkovo (Raşkovo) Kamenka district Pridnestrovia Republic. The second group of scientists (Ph. Brun, O. Radzikhovskaya) considered Karaul was near the mouth of the Dniester River. The Polish scientist K. Ozhug saw Karaul near the mouth of the Dnieper and Ukrainian scientist F. Shabuldo suggested seeing of two Karaulas. The first settlement was between Zvenigorod and Sokilts, and the other one was near Chernigorod and Dashev. The article is based on the written sources. There were involved a narrative source (Jan Dlugosz’s chronicle) and ten documentary sources (1410, undated [between 1411 and 1430], 1432, 1442, 1447, 1459, 1469, 1514, 1545 and 1581). The author concluded the data about two different settlements were remained in these sources. Both Karauls were on the Dnister River. The first Karaul was situated on the lands of modern village Katerynivka (near contemporary v. Rashkovo). The name of the forest Kalaur near v.Raszkovo is a rudimentary fact. In author’s opinion, the name of the settlement Karaul can be traced back in the five sources: "Karaulski" (in 1410), "Karawol" (1411), "Karawol" (1447), "Kalaur" (1545), "Kalavur" (1581). By the way, there were some villages with the name Rashkovo. In particular, it is known village Rashkovo on the other (right bank) side of the Dniester River (now it is village Vadul-Rashkov Sholdanesht district Moldova). Another Karaul was located in the mouth of the Dniester River, on the left bank. It should be found on the bank of the Gulf of Karagvol, perhaps now it is village Nadlymanske Odessa region. Probably, the names of this settlement are recorded in the next documents: "Mayak [Karawull]" (in the list of Swidigail’s castles, 1432 (?), "castra nostra Carawl super Dniestr fluvio" (in the award of Polish king Vladislav Varnenchyk to Theodorik Buchatsky, 1442), “Strożowy hrod” (Khan's yarliks, 1461), "Carawl" ("Buchatsky's Division", 1469), "Kural" (Khan's yarliks, 1514), "Karaol" ("Register and Additions to the Acts of the Bar’s Starostwo", 1564). The author suggests that both settlements Karaul appeared in the Golden Horde time. Sources indicate both Karauls were castles and they were located in the strategically important places, on the way from Moldova Principality to the Tatar’s territories. Perhaps, there were the fords across the Dniester Rivers and the customs houses. It was eassy to identify and locate the upper castle Karaul. However, it cannot be said of the lower castle. That’s why the question of identification and localization of the lower Karaul remains open. The first Karaul (it was transformed into v. Kalaur 16th century) was in the possession of hermits of Andriy Sudymuntovych. In the 16th century it was Chechel’s family. Over time, the settlement changed its name and we can see "Rashkowo" on the G.L. de Boplan’s map (the middle of 17th century). The other castle Karaul was in the possession of the Buchatsky-Yazlovets’ family. It was located at the mouth of the Dniester River, at the bank of the Gulf of Karagvol, near modern v. Mayaky Odessa region, because in the sources these toponyms (Mayak and Karaul) meet alongside. The etymology of the word "Karaul" is probably Turkic, and perhaps it means "guard", "watchman", "protection". There are other versions of the origin of this name (includingthis word means "fortress", or "something black").

The article is an attempt to explain in what way the eighteenth-century city of Vitsyebsk got interested in its history which led to the emergence of a number of local texts of historical nature: "The Book of Vitsyebsk Privileges", and "Pantsyrn and Averka’s Chronicle". The main factor of the awakened interest in historical sources and history was the struggle for power. In 1729-1730 and 1748-1750 the city was shaken by two consecutive confl icts over the city's mayoralty which sparked interest in documents of Vitsyebsk registry. This led to decisive steps in order to preserve municipal records. The first "Book of Vitsyebsk Privileges" was compiled between September of 1733 and November of 1735. Its emergence was related to the struggle for power in 1729-1730 and to the drive of the local government to prevent such a situation from happening again in the future. The second edition of "The Book of Vitsyebsk Privileges", by Michał Stawski, appeared in 1758. It was made for the municipal council as an argument in their struggle with the Jewish community. Ten years later its several copies appeared, prepared by Stephen Averka, who wanted to gain money from selling information needed by the local community. While copying "The Book of Privileges", Averka came up with an idea to compile the history of his native city. The first draft of his future chronicle he included in one of the copies of "The Book of Privileges" (May 1768). A manuscript, known as the "Pantsyrn' and Averka's Chronicle" was created by Averka in July 1768. Despite all its imperfections and flaws, the text can be regarded as the first written history of Vitsyebsk.

The article aims to shed light on the privileges accorded by the rulers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as GDL) as a legal means of printed press regulation. It should be noted that so far, the research has mostly been focused on the privileges granted to the printing houses of the Mamoniciai and Vilnius academies. The current research, based on various studies about the privileges granted to other printing houses and new histori­cal sources, attempts to provide a comprehensive analysis of the privilege phenomenon in its entirety, by examining the dynamics of granting privileges, privilege providers and recipients, types of privileges, sanctions imposed and the languages in which printing was allowed. It has been established that during the period of 1569–1793, the 37 privileges by rulers were granted to GDL printing houses. In the second half of the 16th century, the GDL rulers accorded 6 privi­leges, in the 17th century – 8, and in the 18th century – 22 privileges, respectively. The greatest number of the privileges was granted during the reign of Augustus III (the period of 1734–1763) and Stanislaw II Augustus (the period of 1764–1795). During the 29 years of holding the throne, Augustus III granted 10 privileges to the GDL printing houses. Stanislaw II Augustus reigned the GDL for 31 years, during which he issued 7 privileges. Among the GDL rulers were also the individuals who failed to grant a single privilege to the existing printing houses. They were John II Casimir Vasa (1648–1668), whose reign coincided with the wars waged against Moscow and Sweden and Stanislaw I Leszczynski (1704–1709, 1733–1734). On the grounds of the intended business purposes, the privileges granted to the GDL print­ing houses can be classified as publishing privileges (in total 13 privileges, accounting for 35%), the privileges to establish a printing house (in total 9 privileges, accounting for 24%), confirming privileges (in total 11 privileges, accounting for 30%) and miscellaneous privileges (in total 4 privileges). In the 16th and the first half of the 17th century, the privileges accorded by the rulers were not very widespread, as part of the printing houses conducted their activities under the auspices of the GDL noblemen. In the 18th century, GDL saw the predominance of insti­tutional printing house. It is only natural that such printing houses sought the privileges granted by the rulers as an important means to establish themselves in the book print­ing market. Among the GDL institutions having a printing house of its own, was a higher edu­cation institution (Vilnius Jesuit Academy), religious organizations of city-dwellers (so-called fraternities) and monasteries (Catholic, Orthodox and Uniate). The largest number of privileges was granted to the printing house of the Vilnius Jesuit Academy (in total 13 privileges), whereas the printing houses of other GDL institutions (brotherhoods of city-dwellers as well as Catholic, Orthodox and Uniate monasteries) were usually accorded one, two or three privileges. The analysis of thirteen privileges granted to the GDL printing houses revealed that they included penalties foreseen for violating publishing rights. The greatest sanction ever in the his­tory of GDL printing – 5000 florins (Italian coins)– was in 1588 imposed on the GDL nobleman Kazimierz Leon Sapieha for violating the privilege to publish the Lithuanian Statute. In the his­tory of GDL printing, one case should be particularly highlighted, namely, when a large fine was imposed not for illegal reproduction but for resisting the failing to comply with the purpose of the privilege – to establish a printing house. More specifically, the 1701 privilege granted by Au­gustus II foresaw a fine of 1000 kapa (medieval unit of measurement used in the 15–18th century GDL) imposed on anybody for hindering the Mogilev Orthodox brotherhood in their attempt to establish a printing house. The privileges accorded by GDL rulers gave permission to publish books not only in the official literary languages – Polish and Latin – but also in the languages of ethnoconfessional communities such as Ruthenian, Lithuanian and Jewish. Even though in principle, the privileges granted by GDL rulers did reflect benevolence for printing books in the languages of other GL confessions and cultures, the monopoly of the Vilnius Jesuit Academy hindered the development of other printing houses.

Siekdamas graudinti ir linksminti, provokuoti ir inicijuoti, skleisti tikėjimo džiaugsmą ar siūlyti išganymo viltį, šiandien teatras tapo naujų vertybinių iššūkių vieta. Teatro misiją sąlygojo paveldas, istorija ir tradicijos, gebėjimai ar jų nebuvimas, kūrybingumas, vaizduotė ir laikas. Ar gali teatras šiandien egzistuoti be žiūrovų palaikymo, vertinimo ir kritikos? Kodėl ryšys tarp teatro ir žiūrovo kinta, kas lemia ir ar iš tiesų komunikacija tėra vienpusė? Teatro misija - išsaugoti kultūrines privilegijas, užimti svarbią vietą, valdyti situaciją ar laukti, kad geresni laikai ateis? Su teatru siejamos pridėtinės vertės, kuriose glūdi neišmatuojami atradimų, džiaugsmo, laimės ar nevilties, netikėjimo, nuobodulio pažinimai ar kurios priešingai provokuoja, skatina, žemina, apvalo ir pakylėja. Pridedamoji teatro vertė, kaip ir kultūros misija „padaryti žmones laimingesnius", per šimtmečius susiformavusi konstanta, tapo šiuolaikinės politikos gaire. Tiesa, klausimas „Kam šiandien reikalingas teatras?" siūlo tik vieną atsakymą: „Geras teatras reikalingas pro borto publico". Eimunto Nekrošiaus teatras išsaugo savąjį paslaptingumą, nepaisydamas laiko, erdvės ir iššūkių. „Atsiliepti į iššūkius" nėra herojinio teatro dilema, svarbiau „nutolinti horizontą", kad būtų kuriama prasminga komunikacinė erdvė. Vertybės, perduodamos iš kartos į kartą, patriotizmas kaip „natūrali ir visuotina laikysena", kuri būtina, teatras, kalbantis metaforomis apie pasaulio (ne)tobulumą, ir pozicija, liudijanti kūrybinį angažuotumą, rodo idėjinį Nekrošiaus stabilumą (konformizmo atsisakymas) ir orientaciją į išsilavinusią publiką. Teatras, tapęs išbandymų, nesusitaikymo ir bausmės už nepriklausomą laikyseną erdve, išmokė Joną Jurašą „būti ištikimą sau pačiam, savo jausmams ir mintims". Tokia ištikimybė, kai sakai, ką jauti, ir nemeluoji sau, pasak režisieriaus, lemia, kad „įvyksta paslaptingas, beveik mistiškas susitapatinimas su publika“. Kaip pajuntamas tiesos skonis? Kaip atsiranda sava publika? To negalima „dirbtinai sukonstruoti“, nei išprovokuoti, tačiau jurašas šito ir nesiekia. Oskarui Koršunovui svarbiausia atspindėti savo kartos iliuzijas, peržengti tam tikras ribas - rampą, žemą barjerą, įrėminantį avansceną, „ploną raudoną liniją" ar nebijant tikrovės iššūkių desakralizuoti teatro magiją ir eksperimentuoti ne tik su laiku ir erdve, bet ir su aktoriais, žiūrovais ir pačiu savimi, keliant vis sudėtingesnius uždavinius - tartum iš naujo ieškoti prasmės čia ir dabar - toks kūrėjo pasirinkimas. Režisieriaus, mokytojo, teatro pedagogo jono Vaitkaus aktyvi pozicija liudija nepaprastą gebėjimą - tartum atskleisti šiuolaikiško „teatrališkumo" ideologiją: supriešintą visuomenę, kūrybingumo ir padorumo stoką, veidmainystę ir kaukes, kuriomis dangstomasi ir teatre, ir kasdienybėje. The theatre of Eimuntas Nekrošius preserves its mystery, regardless of time, space and challenges. "To respond to challenges" is not a dilemma of heroic theatre; it is more important "to pull off horizon" in order to become partners of common being. Values, passed on from generation to generation, patriotism as "natural and universal posture" are essential for theatre talking in metaphors about (im)perfection and deepness of the world; it testifies the creative altitudes, indicates ideological stability of Nekrošius (refusing conformism] and his orientation towards educated audience. Theatre became the place of challenges, punishment and defiance of independent attitudes; it has instructed Jonas Jurašas "to be faithful to himself, his thoughts and feelings." Such devotion, when you say what you feel, and you don’t lie to yourself, according to the director, is determined by "mysterious, almost mystical identification with audience". "How can you feel the taste of truth? How does your "own audience" appear? This can’t be "artificially constructed" nor provoked, ant it is not the purpose of Jurašas. For Oskaras Koršunovas the most important thing is to reflect the illusions of his generation that seeks for challenges and cognition; to go beyond certain limits - the ramp, a low barrier that frames the proscenium, "a thin red line", or having no fear to take challenges, to desacralize the magic of theatre and to experiment not just with time and space, but also with actors, spectators and yourself, raising more and more complex tasks - as if searching for the meaning here and now - this is the choice of Oskaras Koršunovas. The active position of director and theatre teacher Jonas Vaitkus seeks to reveal and demystify the outcomes of modern “theatricality": hostile society, lack of creativity and decency, hypocrisy and masks, covering theatre and everyday life.

The results of the analysis of the regional privileges of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as GDL), carried out within the scope the research on the history of Lithuanian constitutionality, are presented in the article. Provisions, which are the basis of construction and functioning of the modern state power – the nation‘s sovereignty, separation of powers, rule of law, parliamentarianism, etc., are identified in the regional privileges of GDL. It is inferred, that from the legal point of view all the regional privileges in GDL issued in 1387–1568 were the sources of constitutional law (constitutional legal acts) in the modern sense of the term. The legal connection between the regional privileges and actual Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is revealed.

The main attention in the article is paid to the documents from Lithuanian Metrica concerning the functioning of the institute of “staryna” [old times] in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. A short historiographical review and analysis of the group of public nature sources were made in particular. The following documents belong to the group of the public nature sources: lists/charters [lyst/ hramota], privileges, confirmations, liberties documents [vol’nost’], lease agreements and diplomatic acts. The judicial documents represented by cases [sprava], adjournment of cases, sentences [vyrok/dekret/ukhvala] were studied too. The source study analysis shows that the examined groups of public and judicial documents contain direct or indirect appeals to the institute of “staryna”.

Polish-Lithuanian Seym of 1576 convened at Toruń was the first ordinary parliament under the reign of the second freely elected Polish king, Stephen Bathory (1576–1586). According to the opinion of legal historians this Seym was ineffective since no parliament-adopted statute (in the old-Polish terminology referred to as the constitution) was issued during its stormy debates. This was due to fact that at that time there appeared a serious divergence between what the monarch (who was preoccupied with the civil war between the Crown and the city of Gdańsk) expected from this Parliament and the Polish-Lithuanian gentry that tended toward fundamental constitutional reforms. In my opinion, this Parliament, functioning under the pressure of necessity, went as far as adopting two enactments of the end of November 1576, referred to as the ordinances. One of them dealt with the duty of the towns to accommodate the royal officers. The other one limited itself to appointing special deputies of both houses of the Seym, and equipping them with the task of collecting and administering a socalled defense tax. In the volumes of Metrica Regni Poloniae, numbered 113–115, there were also registered a plenty of privileges issued for towns and some social groups at that period. There were also contained in them some documents illustrative of parliamentary debates.

Straipsnio tikslas – remiantis Kauno parapinės bažnyčios inventoriais, vizitacijų medžiaga, įvairiomis privilegijomis ir kitais archyviniais šaltiniais atskleisti Kauno šv. Petro ir Pauliaus parapijos būklę XVII a., apibūdinti jos materialinę padėtį, sielovadą, švietėjišką ir karitatyvinę veiklą. Nustatyti parapijoje dirbusius dvasininkus ir pateikti jų charakteristikas, poveikį visuomenei. XV a. pradžioje įkurta Kauno šv. Petro ir Pauliaus parapija XVII a. tapo Kauno dekanato centru. Bažnyčios patronatas priklausė valdovui, parapiją rėmė Kauno miestiečiai, bajorai ir dvasininkai. Žymiausiu XVII a. mecenatu galėtume laikyti Pajūrės tijūną Kristupą Krišpiną Kiršenšteiną, 1624 m. fundacija atgaivinusį švč. Trejybės altariją ir suteikusį pajamų bažnyčios užbaigimui. Itin stipriai šv. Petro ir Pauliaus parapija nukentėjo XVII a. vidurio karų metu, beveik trečdaliu sumažėjo bažnyčios pajamos. Po karo parapijos padėtis susinormalizavo tik 1671 m., kuomet buvo konsekruota atstatyta karų metu stipriai nukentėjusi bažnyčia. Žymiausi XVII a. parapijos klebonai buvo Vilniaus kapitulos nariai Mikalojus Slupskis ir Benediktas Žuchorskis. Jiems vystyti sielovadą padėdavo po kelis vikarus ir kitokius bažnyčios patarnautojus. Parapija buvo stipriausia Kauno dekanate, 1669 m. vienintelė turėjo veikiančią parapinę mokyklą ir dvi prieglaudas. Didelė paspirtis organizuojant sielovadą buvo dar 1503 m. parapijoje įkurta Švč. Mergelės Marijos literatų brolija, XVII a. išgyvenusi didžiausio pakilimo laikus. The article describes material conditions of Kaunas St. Peter and Paul Parish in the 17th c., its spiritual, cultural and charitable activities as well as identifies the clergy of the Parish, their personal characteristics and public activities. The main sources of the study are inventories of the Parish, information about visitations, various privileges and other archival sources. Kaunas St. Peter and Paul Parish was founded at the beginning of the 15th century. In the 17th century it became the centre of Kaunas deanery. The patron of the Church was the ruler and the Parish was supported by Kaunas dwellers, noblemen and the clergy. The most famous mecenate of the 17th century could be the noble Kristup Kryszpin-Kirszenstein who allocated the funds necessary to restore the Altar of the St. Trinity and to complete the construction of the Church. During the war of the mid 17th c. the Church was practically demolished. If compared to the Church income of 1653 and 1673, it decreased by one third. The situation came back to normal only in 1671, when the rebuilt Church of St. Peter and Paul was consecrated. The most famous deans of the Parish of the 17th c. were Mikalojus Slupskis and Benediktas Žuchorskis. They were members of Vilnius chapter. They had several vicars and other Church servants to conduct spiritual ceremonies. The Parish was the strongest in the Kaunas deanery: in 1669, it was the sole Parish having a working school and two lodging houses. Founded in 1503, Virgin Mary Literati Brotherhood greatly contributed to the spiritual activities of the Parish. The 17th century was the Golden Age for the Parish.