Istorijos šaltinių tyrimai / Studies in Historical Sources

This article analyses the conception of the frontier between the territories of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Teutonic Order in the 13th–16th centuries and the evolution of their delimitation processes. The author scrutinizes cases of marking of the ancient land boundaries which witness the origins of the conception of the GDL frontier. When analysing borders between the Order and the GDL in the late 14th century – 1420s, the focus lies on the frontiers and conception of their marking established by the eternal peace treaties of Salynas (1398) and Melno (1422). In addition, the article exhaustively covers the evolution of delimitation processes between the GDL and Livonia and Prussia in 1422 – 16th century. The analysis revealed that the Teutonic Order was establishing a territorial state in the Baltic region, setting the boundaries of territorial units when introducing the administration, thus ex-parte tracing certain landmarks with Lithuania. The boundaries were “chains” of implicit geographic objects, mostly rivers. Some of the latter – the Nemunėlis and the Šventoji – are evidenced in the delimitation of the GDL and the Order of the 15th century. Boundaries of other territories, such as Upytė and Šiauliai, are also found in the records. Such territories were “wedged” between the political organizations of the Order and Lithuania. The first descriptions of state frontier strips were recorder in the cross-border treaties of 1338 signed in Livonia by the GDL ruler Gediminas and Master of the Order. Similar realia are featured in Algirdas and Kęstutis’ treaty with the Livonian Order signed in 1367. Later treaty, entered by the Order and Jogaila and Kęstutis in 1379, describes the “peace strip” and shared territories indicating that the GDL lands stretched from the Nemunas to the west for 6 miles. This was a fragment of the state frontier. By the Treaty of Dubysa of 1382 Jogaila presented the Order with the Samogitian lands up to the river of Dubysa which marked the boundary between the territories. Thus the idea of political borders of the GDL was becoming more and more prominent. Frontier descriptions are for the first time featured in the eternal peace treaties of Salynas (1398) and Melno (1422) signed by the GDL and the Order. Their conception is close to that of the “linear” borders (isolated artificial landmarks, measurements in miles mentioned for the first time in the frontier project of 1420). Sections of the “ancient” borderlines were incorporated into the frontier between the GDL and Livonia. Ruler Vytautas’ delimitations with the Order were a qualitatively new step in the conception of the GDL frontier and marked the birth of the idea of state territory. This is corroborated by the terminology, as in the second half of the 15th century and in the 16th century “Vytautas’ borders” were referred to as “old” and “legitimate”. However, the Treaty of Melno of 1422 did not put a period to the evolution of the GDL frontier. In a number of stripes the frontier stretched along barren lands, therefore in the long run the expansion of internal colonization reached the border and expanded beyond it. Hence, the former territorial decisions were reviewed and revised. The development of the GDL frontier with Prussia in the 15th century was marked by the formation of inhabited borderland, thus resulting in border violation related quarrels. In the 16th century the revision and adjustment of borders continued to be the routine of political life. Sources swarm with documents pertaining to formation of delimitation committees and their activities. Revision of the frontier, especially bilateral, allowed the control of its “movement back and forward” and mitigated disagreements between countries.

This article is dedicated to the hitherto little investigated topic of the private document in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 15th – early 16th century. The key problem under consideration is the legal power of such document. Three aspects facilitate its “measuring”: utilization in court, relation to the approbation of the Sovereign, and attitude of the public (possibility of contest). Historical sources suggest of the birth of the private document in the GDL in the late 14th century, however, until the mid-15th century such documents were seldom drawn. Gradually the number of documents announced by private persons – the nobility, gentry and town-dwellers – increased. In the mid-15th century, court rulings related documents, characterized by amplified form and evidencing the emerging niche for the increase in importance of the private document, were started to be drawn, however the role the private document played in court was still rather insignificant. The situation changed dramatically with the introduction of the Lithuanian Metrica in the 1480s. This period witnessed the first cases of the utilization of the private document in court as the key evidence that determined the proceeding of the case. More than 200 cases of such use of private documents in court were detected prior to the announcement of the First Statute of Lithuania (1529). Testaments, acknowledgements of debts, property sales and mortgage papers and other documents were regarded as key evidence in court. Noblemen strived to receive the Sovereign’s privileges corroborating sales of property, however, they were not a compulsory means affirming estate related transactions. The private document was fully sufficient to legalize a transaction. In the second half of the 15th century such documents rapidly acquired the status of a common and widely used instrument supplementing and at the same time affecting private relations.

The author of this article strives to answer the question whether the eviction of the GDL Jews could have been predetermined by the activities of the movement of Judaizing heresy in the second half of the 15th century. The text analyses the preceding historiography related to the eviction of the GDL Jews and dwells on the author’s reasoning, seeking to bring out the European contexts of the eviction of Jews, exhibit the environment in which the decision of such eviction was made and disclose its key spearheads. The fate that awaited the Jews of the GDL in 1495 was similar to that which awaited their coreligionists in Spain in 1492, i.e. full-scale extrusion from the territory of the state. The absolute majority of Jews withdrew from the territory of the country with only an insignificant number of adherents of Judaism undergoing baptism which granted them the right to reside in the territory of the GDL and continue their previous economic activity. Jews evicted from the GDL found shelter in the Kingdom of Poland, which was under the rule of Alexander Jagiellon, and settled close to the borders of the GDL in hope that the eviction law would be repealed shortly. In 1503, i.e. after eight years, the GDL Jews were

This article reviews the attitude firmly entrenched in historiography that Polish noblemen who came to live in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania both prior and after the Union of Lublin were considered aliens. The investigation revealed that in the 15th century and in the first half of the 16th century Poles, and later other incoming nobility, were viewed as “aliens” and perceived as a new and powerful rival to the GDL nobility. Therefore attempts were made to eliminate the former by means of introducing a number of prohibitive protective articles to the First Statute of Lithuania (prohibiting to confer incumbencies and award land, restricting the possibility to become procurator, paying the dowry of a noble woman about to be married in cash, and obligating to prove their noble descent when necessary). On the other hand, when it was necessary, the abovementioned articles were driven through, thus opening new spaces for the formation of future legal standards. In the second stage (second half of the 16th century), following substantial modification of former articles and introduction of new ones in the Second and Third Statutes of Lithuania, modes of settlement of Polish noblemen in the GDL were started to be regulated. The nature of articles was also modified – prohibitions were substituted with permissions, thus facilitating gradual integration of Polish noblemen into the local society. In the second half of the 16th century when the relations with Poland were increasingly becoming closer and at the same time due to internal and external changes in the GDL, new terms denoting incomers, including Poles, were coined, for the most part conveying the ideas of alienage or movement. Changes in the perception of Poles are evidenced by three theoretically tinted legal categories which crystalized out at that time and all of which could also be used to refer to a nobleman relocated from Poland: “alien” (чужоземец, cudzozięmec), “foreigner” (заграничник, zagranicznik), “neighbour” (сусед, sąsiad), and the divergent informal “brother” (brat). In addition, the abundance and variety of terms points at the immigration processes observable in the GDL. Hence, the evolution of the content of articles of the Statutes of Lithuania pertaining to aliens and changes in attitudes simultaneously reflect changes within the noble society of the GDL, as the “medieval” defensive attitudes hiding behind the term “alien” were substituted with factors facilitating the integration of the state.

The goal of this article is to define regularities of litigations of Kaunas citizens in appeal courts and the process as well as peculiarities of the implementation of rulings thereof in Kaunas City Council. Traditional methods of historical investigation are employed, first and foremost including source analysis, descriptive method and the so called technique of case study. Historical facts related exclusively to the city of Kaunas and its citizens are subjected to analysis. The investigated particular litigation between Kaunas citizens was off and on for several decades of the 16th century. Andrius Barčius was the plaintiff and Burgomaster Simonas Gradovskis, after his death – voigt (town administrator) Petras Pečiūga (Pieczuga), assessor, later burgomaster Jonas Gradovskis (Gradowski), and lay judges (scabini) Jurgis Korčakas (Korczak) and Andrius Kotkūnas (Kotkun), as S. Gradovskis’ beneficiaries, were listed as respondents. Andrius Barčius, or Barčys, is an utterly obscure figure in the historiography of Kaunas. He was born before 1539. His grandfather was a wealthy citizen of Kaunas named Baltramiejus Sakanas, Sakonis, Sakūnas (Sakanos, Sakunos, Sakunis), in short referred to as Barčius (Barczius, Barczis), who died around 1519. His son, father of the plaintiff Jonas Barčius, died in 1539. The case is related to Andrius Barčius’ efforts to recover his grandfather’s (Baltramiejus Sakanas) and his father’s (Jonas Barčius) devise. Peripeteia of the case were comprehensively recreated on the basis of surviving books of Kaunas City Council and voigt as well as court books of the GDL Assessors’ and Relatio courts, dating back to the second half of the 16th century and incorporated into the Lithuanian Metrica. Three stages of the litigation have been distinguished: 1) early (1563–1581/1583), apogee of the case (1584–1586), and late (1587–1589). The year 1589 should not be considered the ultimate year of the litigation as due to lack of sources this is the point where further knowledge of the plaintiff A. Barčius and the case itself becomes unavailable. It is possible that by the beginning of the 17th century he had already passed away. The biggest problem that A. Barčius faced in his attempt to recover property was the large time span that had elapsed from the death of his father and grandfather. The property under dispute had long ago (and most often legitimately) been transferred into other hands, therefore its restitution was delicate and troublesome.

The focus of the research lies on the notaries public of the GDL, their role and place in the development of the notarial system in the GDL. The study is based on prosopographic data published by the Lithuanian Catholic clergy which allow the identification of notaries public of the GDL dioceses, analyse their distribution within the dioceses, and monitor their horizontal mobility which is manifested through different places of birth and ordination as well as through the comparison of ordination and service locations in the dioceses. Materials related to more than one place of assignment offer information on service mobility, whereas diagrams of the 15th and 16th centuries indicate the proportions of the number of clergymen in separate dioceses of the GDL. The proportion of the number of clergymen and notaries public is given in percentage. In various years of the 15th century 262 clergymen served in the Diocese of Vilnius, 228 – in the Diocese of Lutsk, 61 – in the Diocese of Samogitia; 13 clergymen served in more than one diocese, data on the place of service of 21 clergymen are unavailable, and 53 clergymen are featured in both lists attributable to the 15th and 16th centuries. The general proportion of the number of clergymen and notaries public in the 15th-16th century has been calculated: on average, notaries public made up 6.2% of the clergy of a diocese, and the percentage mean of notaries public in the dioceses of Vilnius, Samogitia and Lutsk made up 5.6%. It is observable that even though in the 15th-16th century the number of notaries public increased, changes in their distribution proportions within dioceses are insignificant: an increase in the number of those who served in more than one diocese and in the percentage in the Diocese of Vilnius, and decrease in the percentage in the dioceses of Samogitia and Lutsk are observed. The positive aspect is more comprehensive information in the sources on places of clergymen’s service in the 16th century. Making use of the published prosopographic materials, notaries’ public places of birth, ordination and service were subjected to analysis. 11 notaries public (all from the GDL) were ordained in the Diocese of Vilnius in the corps of notaries public of the GDL and all of them served in the Diocese of Vilnius. 2 notaries public (both from Samogitia) were ordained in the Diocese of Samogitia and served there; 10 notaries (5 coming from Drahichyn, 2 – from Mielnik and 2 – from Poland) were ordained in the Diocese of Lutsk, seven of them served in the Diocese of Lutsk, two – in Vilnius and two – in both of the dioceses. 12 persons were ordained in the Diocese of Gniezno (all of them from Poland), 11 of them served in the Diocese of Vilnius; 6 people were ordained in the Diocese of Krakow and served in Vilnius with two serving also in Lutsk; 13 notaries were ordained in the Diocese of Poznan (9 served in the Diocese of Vilnius, 2 – in Lutsk, one – in Samogitia); 21 persons were ordained in the Diocese of Polotsk (9 notaries served in the Diocese of Vilnius, 6 – in Samogitia, and 6 – in Lutsk); one notary public was ordained in the Diocese of Wloclawek (most probably worked in the Diocese of Vilnius) and one in the Diocese of Przemysl (served in the Diocese of Samogitia).

Vilnius Cathedral Chapter established in 1388 by the Bishop of Poznań Dobrogost was lavishly endowed by grand dukes of Lithuania already in the first decades of its existence. In the second half of the 16th century and throughout the 17th century it was also allocated multiple donations from the nobility, higher clergy and other social groups of society which significantly increased the property owned by the cathedral chapter. Although there are quite a few studies analysing the compositional structure and politics pursued by Vilnius cathedral chapter, its financial situation has hitherto not been bestowed adequate attention by historians. This article investigates the annual income received from the common property of the chapter, i.e. the mensa communis as well as demesnes, manors, and houses in Vilnius allocated to the canons from the second half of the 16th century to the 18th century. The revenues coming from the common property were used to support the canons, as well as to defray the costs of the chapter as a corporation. The research is based upon the annual income-expenditure registers compiled by capitular procurators. It should be noted, however, that these registers do not cover the whole period and contain significant chronological gaps. The research revealed that the principal and, starting with the 18th century – the only, source of income was land (manors and groups of villages (districtus, włość)). The chapter rented part of its property to individual tenants, collecting quitrent (census) from the other part through the capitular procurators and local officers (urzędnik). Strzeszyn and Kamieniec were among the most profitable, although later, due to multiple donations, the financial significance of these territories declined. Starting with the 1750s, about 16–20% of the general income would come from interest rates of other manors owned by the chapter. Until the beginning of the 17th century the rent of inns, primarily the privileged inns in Vitebsk, was a significant source of income (about 20–30% of annual income). Later, the importance of this source of income declined and in the beginning of the 18th century these inns were distributed to individual canons or prelates. A small part (about 8%) of the general income came from the residents of the capitular jurisdiction in Vilnius who paid annual quitrent. However, insolvency, frequent fires and pestilence made this source of income unreliable and in the 17th century profits were even lower. Inquiry into income-expenditure registers revealed that in most cases the cathedral chapter managed to strike a balance between income and expenditure. The steadiest period was the second half of the 16th century when in most cases income exceeded expenditure by up to 30%. The financial situation witnessed by the 17th century was least stable. It is no wonder that the financial situation of the cathedral chapter was most complex following the Deluge and the Second Northern War which befell in the middle of the century. Financial situation in the 18th century was quite steady, however, expenditure would exceed income more frequently than not.

This article reveals how a complex international archival research of a supposedly well-known piece of popular history (the glorious transatlantic flight of American pilots of Lithuanian origin Stephen W. Darius and Stanley Girch and abundant controversies surrounding their crash and tragic death in Germany on 17 July 1933) has led the author to an intriguing historiographical puzzle and then – quite surprisingly – to the findings at the US National Archives: the “Darius & Girch” file No. 811.79660M which, after being put in the context of carefully analyzed archival materials from three different countries, proved to be a unique source of wide spectrum revelations and important insights into the factual story of Darius and Girėnas (the flyers became widely known by their Lithuanian names which differ from the transcripts in their American IDs). After 8 decades of permanent lack of reliable information and constant prevalence of guessing and speculations, this file provided the first known solid documentation from the US government institutions which directly pertained to the flight and crash of Lituanica in 1933, and revealed some basic aspects of the federal law regulations, influential political trends and, last but not least, the almighty bureaucratic mechanisms in Washington at the time. The aim of this study was to review all 73 documents contained in the “Darius & Girch” file and to make an attempt to finally exhibit the foggy “American part” of this story: starting with the obligatory procedures and necessary official arrangements which were carried out by or on behalf of the two American pilots before their flight from New York to Kaunas, and finishing with the international response after the tragic end of their flight in Germany and an instantly followed (and widely underestimated) gesture of the Lithuanian government which offered to arrange American pilots state funeral in Lithuania. It obviously indicated a sudden, yet unexplained de jure shift. And at this critical point it was the “Darius & Girch” file which helped finally track it down -how exactly the “American part” of the story ended and gave way to its “Lithuanian part”. The comparative analysis (utilizing data obtained earlier in Vilnius, Kaunas, Berlin, Potsdam and Chicago) enabled to look more thoroughly than ever before into the following aspects: interaction between the Department of Commerce and the Department of State in the process of legalization of the transatlantic flight proposed by Darius; the consideration of sanctions to Darius after the allegedly illegal departure of both pilots; the first report from the US Consulate General in Berlin and initial reactions of Washington to the deaths of the two American citizens; an immediate interaction between the Department of State and Lithuanian officials, approval of the initiative to organize state funeral for the deceased in Kaunas; and finally, a gradual, yet steady political drift from “waiving of claims” to “nonintervention”, then to rejection of the persistent initiatives taken by American Lithuanians and to refusal of any consent to their numerous petitions and pleas to launch the official investigation in Washington, so that the “factual cause” of the deaths of the two naturalized American citizens could be ascertained. The documents in the file suggest that such investigation was never conducted, at least in the three years following the crash, till August 1936. There were several reasons accountable for that. In one of the documents dating back to 1935, the US Secretary of State Cordell Hull made an observation that there were some “objectionable factors” related to the case of Darius and Girch, namely that “The crash which caused the deaths of these aviators has been the subject of much controversy in newspapers throughout the world”. This research disclosed that there were at least two other important “objections” which led to the aforementioned rejections.

Lithuania and the Teutonic Order on an island of the Dubysa river on 31 October 1382. Until recently, only three legal acts of this treaty, all issued by the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila and his brothers, were known in historiography. Two of these acts, featuring the terms and conditions of the four-year peace and of the mutual military aid as well as Jogaila’s promise to take baptism, survived to the present day in the form of parchment originals. The third one, listing the terms of the cession of Samogitia to the Teutonic Order, came down to us only in a copy made in 1410. Although the Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila seems to have issued a certain legal act on the cession of Samogitia to the Teutonic Order in 1382 (this fact can be proved by a documentary source), the preserved text of the act may contain amendments and interpolations made later by representatives of the Teutonic Order for a political purpose. There are several arguments in favour of this assumption. For example, in 1393 the Grand Commander Wilhelm von Helfenstein made notarized copies of some documents on the history of the relationship between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Teutonic Order, particularly pertaining to the Samogitian problem, however, at that time he failed to make a copy of the aforementioned legal act on the cession of Samogitia to the Teutonic Order. The form of this act significantly differs from the form of the two other acts issued by the Lithuanian part in 1382. Besides, mention may be made of another counterpart of the Dubysa peace treaty which was issued by the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein and currently remains deposited in the collection of manuscripts of the Czartoryski Library in Krakow. There is no reference to the cession of Samogitia to the Teutonic Order in this document that has hitherto remained unpublished. The text of the Teutonic Order’s counterpart of the Dubysa peace treaty is reproduced in the appendix to the article, alongside with its translation into the Russian language and the description of the seals most of which unfortunately are in very poor condition.