Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas iki šiol netirtas klausimas: kaip 1582 m. pabaigoje Kauno mieste buvo įvestas Grigaliaus kalendorius? Skurdžios šaltinių žinios liudija, kad Kauno miesto savivaldos institucijos oficialiojoje raštvedyboje naująjį Grigaliaus kalendorių perėmė iš karto, t. y. 1582 m. spalio 15 d. Įprastas Julijaus kalendorius buvo giliai įsirėžęs ne tik į paprastų miestiečių, bet ir į savivaldos raštininkų sąmonę ir atmintį, todėl jie ir vėliau kartais skirdavo „naująjį“ ir „senąjį“ kalendorius, bet jokių nepasitenkinimo ženklų, peraugančių į pasipriešinimą naujam laiko skaičiavimui (Vilniaus ortodoksų atvejis), ar net atvirus neramumus, kokie 1584–1589 m. vyko Rygoje, šaltiniuose aptikti nepavyko. Todėl daroma išvada, kad Kaune Grigaliaus kalendoriaus recepcija buvo sklandi ir nesukėlė jokių karštų kontroversijų.
A unique inventory of Lithuanian Metrica books compiled in September–October, 1641, which had thus far escaped the attention of Lithuanian Metrica researchers, was discovered in the Vilnius Chapter’s collections (F 43) at the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. It was compiled by the notary public Fr Laurynas Mocarskis (Wawrzyniec Mocarski). Due to objective shortcomings, Mocarski’s list cannot be considered a proper inventory of the Lithuanian Metrica books, but, lacking other material, it is nonetheless an important and useful auxiliary source helping us to understand the development of the entire complex of books of the Lithuanian Metrica and subtleties in the history of individual books.
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.
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.