Istorijos šaltinių tyrimai

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 model 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. Alongside the castle another important manifestation of such power was subordinate noblemen who eventually would become local officers and form a part of the organization of the lord’s court. The recipient of the published document – landowner JJan Sławski – also found himself 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.

The oldest foundation and donation related documents intended for Orthodox churches and monasteries and issued by private persons date back to the late 14th century. Until the mid- 15th century only isolated documents are available, however starting with the 1440s the number of documents gradually increases up to the very beginning of the 16th century. In total, 107 documents are known (their register is presented in the article). Throughout the period under investigation most of the document drawers were regional dukes (mostly the Gediminids, several Rurikids), however, starting with the middle of the 15th century persons of noble descent were also recorded among the document drawers. 32 different locations where Orthodox churches and monasteries were provided for have been detected (mostly in the duchies of Kiev, Mstislavl, Pinsk, and Slutsk). The largest number of grants (15) were issued for the maintenance of Kiev Pechersk and Pustynsk monasteries which suggests of the importance of Kiev as the centre of religious authority. Document subscriptions indicate that most of the persons who wrote these documents were laymen. The formular of the documents of this type underwent important changes in the middle of the 15 century and at the turn of the 16th century. First of all, in the mid-15th century important trends in the use of corroboratio (corroboration) and testatio (witnessing) formulae were recorded. Corroboratio was first detected in 1445 and soon became a customary section of the document. The principal corroboratio formulae were taken over from Latin documents, however, their distinctive feature was that almost half of the formulae in 1480-1528 had document transfer certificate which was not used in Latin documents. The introduction of corroboratio in the mid-15th century coincided with certain trends in other types of Ruthenian documents, however the emphasis on document transfer was much less frequent there. Testatio is detectable from 1465, however, it was not frequently used until the beginning of the 16th century. There was a variety of testatio formulae obviously borrowed from Latin documents. Two documents have the final part of the formula indicating “other witnesses” which was common of Latin formulae. Testatio in other types of Ruthenian documents was detectable from the late 14th century and starting with the mid-15th century it became a customary section of the formular. In the middle of the 15th century the formular of foundations and donations was supplemented with pertinentio (transfer of rights) and obligation. At the end of the 15th century the verbal invocatio (invocation), the clause of the “freedom of determination and common sense”, and promulgatio (promulgation) were introduced. The use of the verbal invocatio was rather uncommon as compared to Latin foundations which for the most part had that formula. The lack of the verbal invocatio could be considered as a certain peculiar feature of the Ruthenian GDL foundations. Most common were the Holy Trinity formulae typical of the Byzantine tradition, the Name of the Lord formulae, characteristic of the Latin documents, were less frequent. The clause of the “freedom of determination and common sense”, and promulgatio were adopted from Latin documents. In other types of private Ruthenian documents promulgatio was used from the mid 15th century, foundations and donations were the last ones to adopt this formula. By the beginning of the 16th century, however, it had become a part of most documents of this type. The influence of the Latin document is also evidenced by several documents dating back to the 1520s which were dated indicating Anno Domini. It is worth mentioning that by the 1510s promulgatio and testatio became commonly used and corroboratio was an almost mandatory section of the formular.

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 pattern 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.

The article, which retrospectively covers the publication of sources of the 18th century in Lithuania in the period from the 1910s to present, aims at highlighting the main groups of published sources and discussing problems faced by publishers of texts in other languages. The first half of the 20th century should be considered the beginning of the publication of sources referring to the 18th century. In the said period, the focus lay on sources in the Lithuanian language. Systematic issuing of sources of the 18th century drawn up in other languages (Latin, Ruthenian, Polish and German) was initiated only in the 1950s. Most sources of the 18th century appeared in serial publications. Objectives set by each series of sources reflected on the selection of external sources for publication and the mode of their preparation for printing (facsimile edition, publication in the original language, publication of translation, etc.). In the Soviet times series of source publications were mostly based on the inter-institutional principle and were organized around a certain publishing house, however, the restoration of Lithuania’s independence, the major publication works have been pursued in academic institutes. Publication of sources reflects the mission and strategic objectives of a certain academic institution. Universities, however, play only a minor role in source publication. Documents and other narrative sources have hitherto been prepared for publication with no obligation to comply with certain unanimous system of source preparation or unified principles of their publication. Neither obligatory nor recommendatory instructions for the preparation for publication of a source in another language have been offered. Both – different historiographical schools, their attitude and traditions, character of published sources and the fact that sources are prepared and published by representatives of different fields of science (philology, history, philosophy, art criticism, musicology) with individual approach to the value produced by the source and at times little willingness to cooperate, are accountable for the situation. In each situation different principles of source publication apply which, subject to the nature of the source, requirements posed to the publication and attitude of the editor, can vary even when publishing books in one series. Analysis of published sources allows for the distinguishing of three main trends in the preparation of texts of the 18th century in the Polish language: 1) graphic representation of the authentic source; 2) modernization of the published texts through “correction” of “mistakes”, usage of upper and lower case letters in accordance with the rules of orthography of the contemporary Polish language and introduction of punctuation marks to facilitate the understanding of at times particularly lengthy sentences of the published text, etc.; 3) opting for the “golden mean” with a view to combine both methods of text representation. All these modes of publishing have certain advantages and disadvantages. The most urgent problem is “modernization” of the text when speaking about the preparation for publication of written records made in the Lithuanian territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It is obvious that the time has come to make a decision with regard to the drafting of new publication principles to a greater extent adapted to the Lithuanian contexts, designed to preserve the specificity of texts created in Lithuania and facilitate the analysis of the relics of the Lithuanian language preserved in Polish writings.

The author has reviewed the debatable critique of the publication of Vilnius City Council book of 1657–1662 and offers a few comments. In his opinion, a number of remarks made by the author of the critique with regard to flaws spotted in the publication are correct and his reasoning on the principles of publication should be taken into consideration, however, this is just one of several possible options. It should be noted that the reviewer has allocated a significant part of his text to presentation of historical facts hardly related to the topic of the critique at times referring to authors who had research the topic earlier, yet failing to accurately indicate sources, therefore this review is not considered as functional enough and is viewed as a significant step backwards in the sense of scientific correctitude and at times even scientific ethics. The reviewer’s aspirations to offer a scientific review should be complimented, however, due to the aforementioned reasoning that has little to do with scientific correctitude and facts, the review under consideration cannot be viewed as a successful realization of the said aspirations.