Search

The category of the body is the main object of this study. The paper hopes to further examine the “corporal” theme in the research of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania while simultaneously aiming to outline the countours of the concept. Being a legal codex, The First Statute of Lithuania (1529) was chosen as a foundational text for this study since it pertains to various aspects of both public and private life. Albeit not exhausting all possible interpretations, three bodies were examined more closely: that of a nobleman, of the grand duke, and of the state (the Grand Duchy) – each more abstract than the former. First of these can be associated with terms of status and honour, the second functions as if by extensions of ducal officers and medias, while the third is characterized by the matters of indivisibility, inalienation and membership. Moreover, three different properties (or faculties) were attributed to the body: epistemological (via senses and body marking), agential (as a mean to excercise one’s will and freedoms), and individualizing (as in the problem of belonging). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Problems / Problemos is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Straipsnis skiriamas LDK valdovų privilegijoms kaip teisinei spaudos re­guliavimo priemonei. Iki šiol daugiausia tyrinėtos privilegijos, suteiktos Mamoničių ir Vilniaus akademijos spaustuvėms. Sujungus tyrimus su duomenimis apie kitų spaustuvių privilegijas, bandoma šį reiškinį tirti kompleksiškai. Straipsnyje tikslinamas suteiktų privilegijų skaičius, ap­tariami įvairūs jų raiškos aspektai. Nustatyta, kad 1569–1793 m. LDK spaustuvėms buvo suteiktos 37 valdovų privilegijos. Didesnė privilegijų dalis buvo skirta reguliuoti spaustuvių, spaustuvininkų ir leidėjų santy­kiams, mažesnioji – oficialiai patvirtino spaudos įmonių steigimą. XVI a. ir XVII a. pirmoje pusėje valdovų privilegijos nebuvo itin paplitusios, nes dalį spaustuvių globojo didikai. XVIII a. LDK dominavo institucinės spaustuvės ir privilegijos joms tapo svarbia priemone įsitvirtinant knygų spaudos rinkoje.

Copyright of Menotyra is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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 Stanisław I Leszczyński (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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The report seeks to discuss the social functions of the celebrations as well as to introduce the tradition of royal representation in the times of August III and also its adaptation in the celebration programme of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Celebration for a ruler had old traditions, their ceremony and images used in occasional decoration were firmly set. However, every celebration had its own specificity, depending on the place, organizers and the political reality. This specificity is revealed in descriptions of celebrations in so far as the observer or reporter tried and was able to advert it. In the 18th c. press and occasional literature two aspects of celebration for rulers are usually highlighted: in the events of the celebration, an idealised portrait of the ruler and the role of a celebration organizer are both displayed. The calendar design for the ruler was impressive with the dates of the king's election and coronation, birthdays and named-days. One of the most important celebrations in Vilnius was an annual celebration of the ruler's nameday on August 3rd. In the capitals of the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth these celebrations differed. In Warsaw, where August III himself often participated, the celebration was directly related to the person of the ruler (the highlight of the festival was a ceremony of awarding the Order of White Eagle and some kinds of entertainment loved by the king - an opera or a target hit contest). In the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a place Augustus III had never been, the honoring of the ruler had more symbolic meaning. During the celebration the local political conjuncture and social hierarchy were revealed. 18th century Vilnius had neither a Royal Palace nor the Parliament and therefore the most important institution was the Lithuanian Supreme Tribunal. Traditionally, the Marshal of the Tribunal was responsible for the ruler's celebration in the city. The Marshal acted as the intermediator to accept the ruler's name-day congratulations from Vilnius city governors. In the case of another member organizing the celebration the marshal found himself among the most prestigious guests of the ceremony. The ruler's name-day celebration in Vilnius had a distinctive decorative tradition. Generally they were held in the Arsenal (Cekhauze) and fireworks, which were placed on both banks of the river Neris, as well as in the river, comprised the main visual attraction. Sapieha's Palace and the park in Antakalnis were also chosen as other places for celebration. The decoration content of the celebration was similar to the occasional literature where the motives of the ruler's glorification interlace with the role of the ruler as a celebration organizer. The main focus of the decoration was placed on the emblems and monograms of the ruler and well-wisher inscriptions describing the glorification of both. For example, during the celebration organized by Józef Sollohub the central celebration decoration was a figure of "Fortune" pointing to Sollohub and his wife's monograms, crowned with mitres where the firework was lit by the Lion figure of Sollohub's coat of arms. Whereas the nobility started to acquire significant political weight in the state, the glorifications motives were to be taken from the image of the rulers, while the rulers- portraits had more conventional than individual features. The celebration decoration was related to ancient ruler's images. Although the ruler's power at that time was weakened and the nobility did not appreciate the demonstration of the ruler's power, the nation security from the inner and outside enemy was traditionally treated as the most significant task, which was obviously depicted in the ruler as a symbolic protector decoration. In Vilnius, the celebration decoration was often depicted as a knight with king's insignia (sword and scepter) or military attribute (armor regiment). Another very important element of decoration was the symbol of justice. On one hand justice and law was traditionally attributed as the ruler's function, on the other, it was connected with supreme tribunal power as a judiciary institution and its ruler's activities. For example, when a celebration was initiated by Michal Antoni Sapieha the triumphal gate was decorated with a "Justice" statue with inscriptions depicting "Sapieha Themis" motives. The most exclusive celebration directly connected with the personality and politics of Augustus III was organized by the Lithuanian tribunal Marshal Michal Ksawery Sapieha in Antakalnis Palace in 1759. That year witnessed Sapieha receiving the Order of White Eagle and the celebration was widely covered by the press. The decorations showed the significance of Vettines in Europe including the emblems of the rulers of different countries in which Augustus III had relations with. Another also very important part of the decorations were emblems with military inscriptions depicting Austria, Russia, France and Sweden in the Seven Years- War where these countries and Augustus III, as a ruler of Saxony, had fought together. A distinctive decoration programme was used in the 1763 exequies dedicated to Augustus III, organized in St. Casimir church and arranged by Vilnius magistrate. The decorations of the funeral embodied a certain ruling balance. The city saw the rule of Augustus III as a period of peace and tranquility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It was a usual practice from the times of the Roman emperors and even prior, to attribute the victories of the military leaders to the rulers. Sigismund the Old demonstrated his initiative by assembling the army and seeking to reverse, in 1514, the course of the war of 1512- 1522 with Moscow, in the direction more favourable to Lithuania After the loss of Smolensk, an important victory was achieved against Moscow's troops at Orsha. The ruler was not involved in the battle, with quite a significant part of the troops - 4000 soldiers - staying away at quite a distance in the camp in Borisov. The joint Lithuanian and Polish units were led on the battle field by Great Hetamn of Lithuania Konstantin Ostrozskij. The article analyzes how this situation is reflected in the written sources about the battle. The question about the role of the ruler's figure in historical sources prompts a closer look at the narrative texts dedicated to the Catholic part of Europe as well as literary works composed on certain occasions. Among the official letters carrying the news of the victory, the letter by Sigismund the Old to the pope appears of the utmost importance and has been published repeatedly. The sole circumstance of the king speaking on his behalf leads to the association of all the events with the king's actions. The letter rings a pronouncedly triumphant note and serves the obvious propaganda objective - to depict the enemy in a negative light and to aggrandize the author's mission and success. Of a similar content, only shorter in length, are also the letters to other rulers, church dignitaries and relatives (these are not discussed in greater detail). Of importance was the letter by the papal legate Jacobus Piso (hung. Jakab Piso) written from Vilnius to his friend Joannes Coricius (Coritius, Corycius, Goritz). It is of a totally different nature and continues the tradition of humanist letters dedicated to public reading. It has also been repeatedly published. Despite its different nature, the letter also demonstrates the author's gratitude for the ruler Sigismund's favourable disposition and depicts the king, as befitting, against the background of the military action as the main author of the victory. The letter does not mention any names of the military leaders. As an exception, by the end of the letter, outside the context of the war, alongside with other trivia of interest, appears a characteristics of Konstantin Ostrozskij. Most of the poetical works dedicated to the victory at Orsha, were first of all promptly published in Krakow; subsequently they were included into the collection Carmina de memorabili cede Scismaticorum Moscouiorum published in Rome in 1515. The article discusses the poems in terms of the depiction of the ruler. Of them, stand out the poems written in Vilnius by Andreas Cricius (Andrzej Krzycki), the then-secretary of Barbara, the first wife of the king. They mention most of the military leaders that took part in the battle (Konstantin Ostrozskij, Janusz Świerczowski, Wojciech Sampolinski, Jurgis Radvila) and other details. Yet other poetic works dedicated to the victory, by Joannes Dantiscus (pol. Jan Dantyszek), Valentinus Ekius (Valentin Eck, Eckius, Ecchius), Christophorus Suchtenius (Christoph von Suchten), Casparus Ursinus Velius, Bernardus Vapovius (Bernard Wapowski), - are examples of laudatory writing dedicated to the occasion and include little realistic detail, mostly relying on the opposition of the pictures of victorious Sigismund and smitten Moscow's ruler, whose losses are especially emphasized. Despite some shared features, repetitive common places (loci communes) and motives, these authors each had their own poetic concept, distinct in their creative ideas, poetic composition, completeness, poetic form, intonation and poetics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the late Lithuanian chronicles (the 1st half of the 16th c.) history is recounted according to the gesta ducum model that prevailed in Europe until the 18th c. Such narrative firmly stands upon genealogical frames. In the chronicles dukes and nobility come from the ancient Romans. There are also accounts about three dynasties of Lithuanian rulers. Analogues in this case would be genealogies of the rulers of Latium-ancient Rome and of the rulers of France. It is obvious that the model comes from Western standards. Counting generations of legendary rulers in this fictitious genealogy would not make much sense because, on the one hand, one can see how easily new links are inserted, on the other hand, the dynasty of Columns (Gediminaičiai), according to the chroniclers, does not even have any blood relation with the previous two - the Palemonids and Centaurs. Chroniclers follow a widely spread legend (in the 15th-16th centuries) about Gediminas's inferior origin but they transform it. Gediminas's brother (according to the chroniclers - father) Vytenis becomes a marshal of a previous grand duke. The new ruler is elected by the nobility who allegedly typify the community of the country and are the ones who represent its interests. This idea is undoubtedly taken from the West, primarily from Poland; but on the other hand, such was the reality of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th-16th centuries. Chroniclers portray rulers by using well-known medieval stereotypes and typology. Legendary ancestors of Lithuanian nobility flee from Nero's violence in ancient Italy. The emperor (in the Bychowiec chronicle he is replaced by Atila), according to the chroniclers, is a cruel and unpredictable ruler. Such tyrant is Vytautas's brother Žygimantas; a tyrannical scheme is not alien to Alexander Jagiellonian. To these grand dukes chroniclers incriminate a Nero-like ambition to exterminate nobility. Žygimantas is assassinated by conspirators, whose actions are justified by the authors of the Bychowiec chronicle, and even the death of Žygimantas's son Mykolas is described by the word zdoch (kicked the bucket). The chronicle also says that Alexander Jagiellonian is befallen by God's wrath - he becomes paralyzed. It is obvious that the chroniclers are not sparing in their contempt for Nero-type rulers. It is interesting that in the continuations of the 2nd redaction of the chronicles, which draw upon Marcin Bielskis's chronicle (1551), the characteristics of this ruler becomes positive - it is claimed that he had been compliant to the requests of his subordinates. "Good rulers". 1) The chronicles mention "a Roman Duke Palemon" who is the originator of the Lithuanian state. His sons Barkus and Kunas establish the first towns, while his grandson Kernius "invents" the name of Lithuania. In this case we see the type of ruler-establisher, builder. It is rather frequent in chronicles. For instance, Gediminas after his prophetic dream establishes the capital Vilnius. 2) A certain ideal of the chroniclers is the grand duke, who is a victorious warfarer. According to the Vytis (Pogonia) coat of arms legend in the chronicles, the knight represents a mature ruler who is able "to defend his patrimony by sword", that being the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Out of all the historical rulers the ones especially exalted are Algirdas and Vytautas. The latter had expanded the state's borders "from sea to sea". 3) A good ruler is just and peaceful. According to the author of the Bychowiec chronicle, "in the state of Algirdas there was great orderliness", he maintained "peaceful" relations with the Grand Duke of Moscow, but "without any reason" the latter violated peace. It is obvious that the author writes from a 16th c. perspective, when Moscow, under the pretext of defending Orthodox believers, actually started attacking the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. 4) Vytautas is praised as a wise ruler in the chronicles, though this description is inherited from the first edition (15th c.) of chronicles. 5) Also the chroniclers knew the concept of the kind ruler, loved by his subjects, but placed it in legendary times. 6) The component of saint rulers is noticeably weak in the chronicles as the mentioned records of historiography had been created before the end of the canonization process of Prince Kazimieras (Casimir). Only in the legendary part of chronicles one finds the hagiographic story of the Saint Princess Paraskeva-Praxedis, which combines Orthodoxy and Catholicism, later adored by Uniates. Also, the author of the the Bychowiec chronicle exalts Vytautas as "the second apostle of God", but this is another type-function of a ruler. 7) As was mentioned before, Vytautas in the Bychowiec chronicle is exalted as a ruler Baptist. Attention should be paid to the division between Polish and Lithuanian historiography: Maciej Miechowita (1519) attributed merits of baptizing Lithuania and Samogitia only to Jogaila (Jagiello), the author of the Bychowiec chronicle - merits the baptizing of Samogitia and Lithuania "Zawilejska" environs - exceptionally to Vytautas. There is no doubt that the Bychowiec chronicle follows the Lithuanian tradition. One more feature of the Lithuanian chronicles is that they do not contain the physical characteristics or descriptions of appearance of their characters (as well as the rulers). This portrayal must have been taken from Russian chronicles/annals. In conclusion one can claim that the images of rulers and genealogy presented in the chronicles reflect cultural heterogeneity of the chroniclers and their sources and also the rather tense political and cultural situation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 1st third of the 16th c. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Menotyra is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)