Search

Рецензия на сборник документов «Россия и независимость Финляндии: 1899–1920 гг.» (М.: «Политическая энциклопедия», 2021). В трех томах опубликовано 1358 документов (более 42% предстают перед читателем впервые) из ГА РФ, РГИА, РГАСПИ, РГАЭ, РГАВМФ, РГВА, из архивов МИДа ‒ АВПРИ и АВП РФ, Архива Президента Российской Федерации и Национального архива Финляндии. The article presents f review of the collection of documents "Russia and the independence of Finland: 1899-1920." (Moscow: "Political Encyclopedia", 2021). In three volumes, 1358 documents were published (more than 42% appear before the reader for the first time) from the State Archives of the Russian Federation, RGIA, RGASPI, RGAE, RGAVMF, RGVA, from the archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs - AVPRI and AVP RF, Archive of the President of the Russian Federation and the National Archives of Finland.

The article examines legislation of the early modern period, namely Lithuanian Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania through the prism of gender analysis. The term “gender” is used not in the biological sense but as a system of interpersonal interactions, that is as a social construct which makes the basis for the stratification of society by gender. Gender is considered one of the three (along with race and class) most important elements which form synergetic systems of domination and subordination. Therefore, legislation of the 16th–17th centuries is considered in relation to equality of rights and possibilities for different sexes. Given the fact that the problem of relationships between a man and a woman lies in the plane of gender history, it should be studied by using gender history methods.The first (1529) and the second (1566) editions of the Lithuanian Statute are the subject matter of gender examination in this article. The third edition (1588) is not considered since Ukrainian lands became part of the Commonwealth as a result of the Union of Lublin (1569). Hence, the Statute of 1588 did not apply to those territories, whilst the Statute of 1566 continued to be in force there. The article analyses regulations of those parts of the Statute which formed foundations of social institutions and first of all that of the family and therefore directly affected gender relations.Having analysed legal regulations of the Lithuanian Statute, the author argues that legislation of the early modern period was based on gender norms and gender identities, ensured preferential attitude towards men and denied equal rights and opportunities for women. Thus, already at the legislative level regulations of the Lithuanian Statute laid conditions for gender asymmetry. That resulted in discrimination against women and dominance of men.

The article’s objective is to reveal what food products were used in the cuisine of Sigismund II Augustus and in what ways they were supplied when the Ruler resided in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, according to the data of the court account books of 1543–1546. The topis has not been exhaustively studied thus far. Researchers have not given the analysis of these court account books through the prism of cuisine suffi cient attention. The analysis shows that plenty of different kinds of meat – of domestic and wild animals and birds – were delivered to the court kitchen of the Ruler. When the Ruler resided in Vilnius Lower Castle during fasting, pikes from about 20 ponds constructed in Viršupis estate were supplied. Additionally, Elders of the Ruler’s estates sent diff erent types of fish. Also, dairy products were consumed, such as eggs, bread, cereals and sweet baked products, local vegetables and fruit as well as imported lemons, rice and a variety of spices. Beer, mead and wine – the accounts mention Rhine and Hungarian ones – were supplied to the Ruler’s court. The court account books of 1543–1546 are the vital source that reveals the assortment of food products and their supply.

On 27 September 1735 in Warsaw, the Pacification Sejm convened by King Augustus III began its proceedings. The sessions were to last until 8 October 1735. The Sejm’s primary purpose was to end war hostilities and to lead the intervention troops out of the Commonwealth. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was represented by 48 deputies elected at pre-Sejm sejmiks held in August. Their election was confirmed by the fact that all the sejmiks were held and concluded. It is worth noting that most of the deputies were from the middle nobility, oft en associated with specific magnate factions. While serving them, the noblemen also sought to maximise their own benefits and interests. Ten deputies had already performed parliamentary functions at the Convocation Sejm, and twenty-four took part in the Election Sejm. About fourteen Lithuanian deputies were to speak during the proceedings of the Pacification Sejm, 31 times in total. Therefore, it should be assumed that about thirty deputies were already associated with the Saxon camp with a high degree of probability. This number could have been even greater because the resolutions of the pro-Augustus confederation council convened on 9 November 1735 after the would-be Sejm were to be signed by as many as forty-four deputies. One wonders, however, about the credibility of those signatures, made under threat and fear of reprisals from Saxon supporters. However, it is worth noting that the deputies in favour of a quick election of the Sejm Marshal were usually supporters of the Saxon. The opponents supported King Stanisław Leszczyński, who demanded that Russian troops be withdrawn before the Marshal would be chosen. In this situation, the Sejm was broken, to which the Lithuanian deputies also contributed.

The article explores the discursive questions connected with the preparation and conclusion of the Ukrainian-Polish treaty of Hadiach in 1658. In particular, the content of the agreement and factors that led to the fact that the idea of the Hadiach treaty (realignment of the Commonwealth into a state of three nationalities) remained unrealised are analysed. The attention was paid to the fact that Polish-Ukrainian negotiations and the conclusion of the agreement in the set near Hadiach in 1658 were conditioned by a number of factors relating to the current Ukrainian-Polish, Ukrainian-Moscow and Polish-Moscow relations. The prime factor that made the Hetman’s government of Ivan Vyhovsky negotiate with the authorities of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the fact that it looked for a medium of reconciliation and further state development of Ukraine because there was a growing threat from Moscow. In Warsaw, in return, having made the most from the dire situation of Ukraine, the authorities longed for solving the “Ukrainian question” by the peaceful return of the lost Ukrainian territories in 1648. They also hoped that in the context of successful development of negotiations with Chigirin, it would be possible to get an advantage over Moscow in the long-running confrontation over dominance in CEE. The content of the treaty of Hadiach that was worked out during the long negotiations mirrored the trend when the Ukrainian part, which was more interested and acted with a weak diplomatic hand, had to agree to the terms dictated by Warsaw. Although, in general, the position of Ukraine in the reformed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth should have resembled the position of Lithuania, Chigirin was forced to accept territorial restrictions, Warsaw's refusal to liquidate the church union, and so on. The author concluded that the prime factor, which eventually led to the collapse of the idea of Hadiach, was the reluctance of the Polish political elite to recognise equal rights for Ukraine and the Cossacks, and the fact that Warsaw sleepwalked when Moscow troops invaded Ukraine and Hetman Vyhovsky desperately needed the promised help.

The death of Kazimir IV Yahailavich in 1492 led to the break of the personal union between the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania. These two states had got separate monarchs, who became the sons of Kazimir – Jan Olbracht and Alexander. The period of 1492–1501, the Alexander’s reign in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, was a serious test for the independence of this state. The transition from a personal to the more formal dynastical union had been thrown the Grand Duchy before a hard dilemma. On the one hand it wanted to keep the alliance with Poland that already had a long historical tradition, was supported by a large body of agreements and provided its benefits. On the other hand the Grand Duchy sought to defend its sovereign rights that the Poland had not recognized always. There are a number of facts that could proof the perception by Poland and Jan Olbracht of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Alexander as subordinated powers. For instance, Jan Olbracht named himself as a Supreme Duke of Lithuania. He used to conclude international agreements in the name of Aleksandr. The King of Poland tried to appoint the Catholic bishops in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In his tern Alexander sometimes emphatically referred to him as his elder brother in official documents. He also used to mint coins with the coat of arms of not only the Grand Duchy of Lithuania but also the Kingdom of Poland. Specific features at that time was that they were strongly conditioned by the family ties of two monarchs. All of Kazimir’s sons, including Jan Olbracht and Alexander sought to maintain family and dynastic unity, to support each other. It came in full force in the international relations. For example two or even three of the Yahajlavichy brothers could enter into an agreement with foreign states. In general, we can say that some signs of dependence of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania on Kingdom of Poland, which still be traced, belonged mainly to the external, symbolic attributes of statehood. They hardly hurt the fundamental principles of sovereignty of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The more acute problem was the union between the two states. The conditions to elect Alexander as a King of Poland was a new bilateral agreement. The Piotrkau-Mielnik Union of 1501 became such an agreement. In actual fact, it covered a fusion of two states into the one country, one king, one soim (parliament) and so on. But this plan had never become truth. The ratification of the union was postponed for a long time in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and in 1505 it was denied any approves at all. As a result, the states turned back to the personal union, to that type of relations exciting before 1492. For the Grand Duchy of Lithuania it meant to keep on the sovereign state status.

In the middle and second half of the 14th century, significant territorial changes took place in Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe. The old political structures, which by that time had outlived their usefulness, were replaced by new ones: the revived Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Moldavian principality. These changes took place in a fierce struggle, with confrontations on the battlefield giving way to confrontations on the diplomatic front. In addition to the above-mentioned political formations, the Hungarian king also had an important place in this struggle. Louis the Great of Anjou at one time united the Hungarian and Polish crown into his own hands, after the death of Casimir the Great Polish king who had no male offspring. The Moldovan rulers took advantage of the international political conjuncture in this space, who skillfully conducted their foreign policy based on the principle of the balance of power. First, the problem of heredity in Poland and then in the Hungarian kingdom itself undoubtedly contributed to the strengthening of a still very young state that appeared in the middle of the 14th century, first as a Hungarian march, and which was tasked with moving eastward, and then as an independent state. However, at that time, every political entity had a suzerain, which gave him the right to exist. Vasal addiction varied from case to case. In turn, when such an opportunity arose, the Moldovan rulers could change their overlords based on political interest. In this, they used the strength and power of the Lithuanian princes. At first, being in allied relations with the Koriatovichs, the Moldovan rulers strengthened their state, and then, by the will of fate, they developed friendly relations with Vitovt / Alexander and tried not to spoil relations with him, participating in those planned through the Grand Duke of Lithuania. A special test for the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the war with the Teutonic Order, which broke out in 1409. The Moldavian soldiers again took part in the Battle of Grunwald in 1410. However, the problem was that the Teutons were supported by the Hungarian king, Sigismund of Luxembourg, who wanted to return the Hungarian influence in Moldova. Thus, the Moldavian principality was drawn into the tangle of international relations in this area where the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was of great importance.

Here we present a checklist of the families Cantharidae, Lampyridae, and Lycidae of Luxembourg. The earlier references are summarized and new information on the some species is reported. Furthermore, Cantharis (s. str.) paludosa Fallén, 1807, Cantharis (s. str.) terminata Faldermann, 1835, Erotides cosnardi (Chevrolat, 1831), and Lopheros rubens (Gyllenhal, 1817) are cited for the first time for Luxembourg based on specimens preserved in the National Museum of Natural History or on a photo reported on the iNaturalist platform.