Lietuvos istorijos institutas

Simonas Daukantas (1793–1864) introduced the letter <î> for his Lowland Lithuanian dialectal vowel [ẹ] first in gen. sg. m. flexion—from page 44 of his manuscript Historya Justina (HJ; 1834 and / or later); cf. brolî ‘(of) brother’. Approximately from page 142, the grapheme <‑î> in that particular flexion began dominating (as a morphological signifier). Then, approximately on page 242, Daukantas started to denote <‑î> more intensely in other endings as well: in instr. sg. f., iness., nom., and acc. sg. This way he began altering the morphological signifier into a phonetic one (wilontî; kapusî; essantî; diedî). Such phonetic marking of <‑î> flexions became preponderant (in gen. sg. m., iness., and instr. sg. f.) in the latest written part of HJ (in prefaces on pages 1–12) and the layer of later corrections. Further Daukantas started introducing the phonetic <î> [ẹ] more frequently into the stems of the words as well (cf. gîr; kîmiù). Daukantas decided to place the circumflex <ˆ> on the letter <‑i> in the open flexion most probably due to the influence of the Lithuanian texts in East Prussia that contained this diacritic in closed gen. sg. f. flexions on other letters (cf. Daukantas’s HJ <‑ês, ‑ôs>: isz baimês ‘because of fear’; Grecijôs ‘[of] Greece’; weczôs ukês ‘[of] old state [country]’). Sermons (Postilla) by Mikalojus Daukša (1599) could have also had some secondary influence on Daukantas’s decision to select <î>, but Daukša was mostly using <î> in the stem position, while Daukantas began introducing <î> in the endings. The initial usage of the grapheme <î> by Daukantas presupposes such approximate sequence of three manuscripts: (1) HJ pp. 13–400; (2) HJ corrections and writing of HJ prefaces on pp. 1–12; (3) Jstoriję Justinaus (JJ); and (4) Pasakas Pdraus (PaP). Most probably Daukantas chose the letter <î> at the beginning of his stay in St. Petersburg (the end of 1834 and somewhat later). The grapheme is absent from his manuscripts of the Rīga period (before the summer of 1834).

The aim of the article is to present the hitherto unknown facts relating to the appeals of Kaunas citizens filed with the assessors’ court and the court in relationibus of the GDL in the first half of the 16th-mid-17th century. The assessors’ court was the main instance of appeal in the GDL which on the sovereign’s behalf, alongside other cases, dealt with the complaints of the citizens of state or royal cities that were granted Magdeburg rights with regard to the rulings of the courts of the first instance, namely the courts of the council, voigt (vaitas), and benchers (suolininkai), in the said cities. The court in relationibus was a higher level of the assessors’ court. These courts would mostly hear cases forwarded from the assessor’s and other courts. The Lithuanian Metrica is a block of the GDL chancellery books. The Voivodeship of Podlachia is a territory comprising mostly the lands of Drohiczin, Bielsk, and Mielnik which from 1513 was administered by the Voivode of Podlachia, was part of the GDL until 1569 but, following the Union of Lublin of 1569, was handed over to Poland. Out of 12 Voivodeship of Podlachia books at the moment 8 are available for the use of researchers. Out of the documents that are of importance to the city of Kaunas, the following are worth mentioning: firstly a group of files related to the arguments of the former voigt Stanislovas Stanas with the authorities of the city and individual citizens (No. 25, 46–49, 57). They offer important information on the relations between the city’s officials and certain data on the books of the voigt office. Two orders of Žygimantas Augustas (Sigismund II Augustus) with regard of the order of filing appeals with the sovereign’s (assessors’) court and court fees (No. 79 and 95) are of particular importance. Several documents (No. 33, 40, 66) refer to Jonas Kojala, the ancestor of the renowned Lithuanian historian of the 17th century Albertas Vijūkas-Kojalavičius (Albert Wijuk Kojałowicz) (1609–1677) born in Kaunas; there is also unexpected information about the relatives of another famous historian – Pole Marcin Kromer (1512–1589) living in Kaunas (No. 68, 76, 81, 85). Uršulė Liubnerienė-Špilienė’s argument with the Council of Kaunas with regard to the role of the latter in the unlawful sell-out of the timber owned by the woman’s husband Jonas Špilis in Königsberg (No. 88) and the argument of Margarita Šulcienė, the widow of the former voigt Jokūbas Šulcas with regard to the retrieval of the possessions of the late voigt (No. 90) are also worth mentioning.

This contribution aims to show that specific societies are often incorrectly regarded as particularly individualistic, and may be held to be characterised by a specific ‘political subjectivity’, displaying informal coalitions, consisting of informal networks that infiltrate public institutions and undermine the efficiency of the state. For the social sciences, informality has a questionable reputation, because it is at the root of social phenomena such as nepotism, cronyism, patronage, corruption and mafias. Further, the article shows that the State has the monopoly on legality, but lacks legitimacy. This contribution is based on long-term fieldwork in southern and southeast Europe.