Lithuanian Statute Research Articles

O PRAWNOKARNEJ OCHRONIE NASCITURUSA W III STATUCIE LITEWSKIM

Legal and Criminal Protection of ‘nasciturus’ in the Third Lithuanian StatuteSummary The Third Lithuanian Statute of 1588 regulated the issue specified in the title only partly and quite inconsistently. On the one hand, the Third Statute introduced criminal responsibility for injuring a pregnant woman, which caused a miscarriage; nevertheless, the penalty was insignificant. On the other hand, the legislation stipulated that carrying out a capital punishment must be put off until a child’s birth, which shows the the Lithuanian legislator’s intention to respect the fetus’ right to life. The Statute also provided for the death penalty for abortion and infanticide; nevertheless - contrary to the German law applied in cities - it did notintroduce an explicit distinction between these two crimes. Another inconsistency of the Statute is a lack of punishment in case of a homicide of a bastard child.

KILKA UWAG O ZNACZENIU III STATUTU LITEWSKIEGO W GALICJI

Some Observations on the Significance of the III Lithuanian Statute in GaliciaSummary The Lviv National Vasyl Stefanyk Scientific Library of Ukraine holds a manuscript entitled “Zbiorowa treść Statutu litewskiego jako prawa obowiązującego w prowincjach polskich pod panowaniem rosyjskim będących” (The Collected Content of the Lithuanian Statute: The Law in Force in the Polish Provinces now under Russian Rule”). It was compiled in 1820 by Wacław Michał Mieczkowski, a judge of the Tarnopol (Ternopil) Oblast’. The way the material was arranged in this document helped users find their way around the mass of provisions in the Statute. Mieczkowski’s compilation suggests further research should be done on the role of the Lithuanian Statute with respect to other sources of the law in Austrian Galicia.

PIERWIASTKI ROMANISTYCZNE W PRAWIE SPADKOWYM I STATUTU LITEWSKIEG O

Roman Elements in Testamentary Regulations of I Lithuanian StatuteS u m m a ryRoman law, alongside Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Polish, German and canon law, was one of the many sources of I Lithuanian Statute of 1529. However, it is still not clear how and within what scope the authors of the Lithuanian codification used Roman law. At some point researchers of the subject held the view that the reception of elements of elaborate Roman law could not have possibly happened before II Statute of 1566, from witch such elements were transferred to III Statute of 1588. It seems, however, that a number of Roman elements were already present in I Statute; later on, in the course of the creation of II and III Statute, Roman elements were considerably multiplied and expanded. An interesting subject for research in this connection is testamentary law in I Lithuanian Statute. For instance, Roman law did not allow for wills to be drawn up by minors, slaves, heretics, sons who remained under the authority of their fathers, and by insane persons. The same regulations are to be found in I Statute. It should be emphasized that the reception of Roman legal institution by the Lithuanian codification went as far as to include even exceptions to the general rules; thus, sons were allowed to make wills with respect to their separate property, and insane persons were allowed to make wills when they were in a sound state of mind. I Statute also adopted the Roman legal principle that allowed a testator to freely change his will at any moment in his life. An impact of the Roman legal system can also be seen in I Statute regulations concerning the capacity to be a witness to will making. Under I Statute, persons lacking will-making capacity and women could not be witnesses to will making. It also appears that disinheritance as a legal sanction for hitting or insulting one of the parents was taken over by I Statute from Roman law, perhaps via Byzantine law.An analysis of the regulations of I Statute leads one to the conclusion that the first codification was already under the influence of Roman law, and that the influence was more significant that previously believed. In view of the above observations, further research on the issue may lead to interesting results.

KILKA UWAG O BADANIACH NAD ROMANIZACJĄ STATUTÓW LITEWSKICH

SOME REMARKS ON THE STUDY OF THE ROMANIZATION OF LITHUANIAN STATUTESSummary The article is dedicated to the issues connected with the reception of Roman Law in the Lithuanian statutes of 1529, 1566, and 1588. After an analysis of the existing scholarly accomplishments in the field, one cannot but conclude that the study of the influence of the Roman Law on Lithuanian codifications has hardly been started yet. Despite the fairly long tradition of research in this field, so far only selected elements of the first and second statutes have been analyzed in order to identify Roman constituents. The research carried out in 1930s by Raphael Taubenschlag, Franciszek Bossowski, and Karol Koranyi demonstrated which Roman Law noticeably influenced the statutory regulations pertaining to family law, law of property, law of succession, criminal and procedural law. Their observations partly confirmed the findings previously made in the nineteenth century by Aleksander Mickiewicz, Franciszek Morze, and Ignacy Daniłowicz. At the same time, nothing is still known about the scope of Romanization in the third Lithuanian statute or about the transformations which Roman elements underwent in each of the statutes. Without further study of the subject, one cannot assess the role of Roman law in the Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita).It seems that the most fertile ground for identification of Roman elements in the third Lithuanian statute is tutorship and succession law, especially testamentary succession. Some interesting and original observations could be made on the basis of a more thorough comparative analysis of the pertinent Roman and Lithuanian regulations.

Henryk Rzewuski a prawo dawnej Rzeczypospolitej

Henryk Rzewuski’s (1791–1866) works cannot be a source of knowledge about Polish-LithuanianCommonwealth’s legal history. The pieces of information given by him have been at times one-sided and deceptive. Nevertheless, they may – if used with a critical approach – provide details on the old jurisprudence in the 19 th century and on the praxis of applying the old law under Russian rule. They also can be a research base on the author’s views on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth’s legal and political system, as well as their portrayal in the 19 th -century gaweda szlachecka (literary genre associated primarily with noble storytelling, specific to Polish literature of that time). It is also worth continuing the search for – mentioned in Rzewuski’s manuscript – the two-volume Remarks on the Lithuanian Statute written by his father, Adam Wawrzyniec Rzewuski and allegedly published in1782, in Nieświez. Although there is no certainty whether this work ever existed, it is worth searching for it.

WPŁYW PRAWA BIZANTYJSKIEGO NA OPIEKĘ W RUSKIEJ PRAWDZIE I W I STATUCIE LITEWSKIM

The influence of Byzantine law on tutelage in the Russkaya Pravda and th e First Lithuanian StatuteThe article is dedicated to the influence that Byzantine law had on Russian law (with a particular focus on the Russkaya Pravda) and on the First Lithuanian Statute of 1529.The paper analyses the main channels of influence that Byzantine law had on the ancient Russian law. It happened primarily through intensive trading and political contacts between Kiev and the Byzantine Empire. Such contacts, without any doubt, were established as early as the first half of the 10th century. An important factor in the influence Byzantine law exerted on Russian law was constituted by treaties (known as „dogovory”) concluded between these states in the years 907, 911, 944, and 971. The influence of Byzantine law in Rus intensified especially after the Kievan princes adopted Christianity in its Greek tradition in 988. At that time, Byzantine law codes spread across Rus; an important role in their spreading was played by the so-called Kormchie Knigi, which contained the norms of church and secular law. The codes were bound to influence legal practice, especially in the field of family, guardianship and inheritance law, which traditionally lay within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts. At the same time, princes significantly intensified their legislative activity. The acts of the Kievan and Novgorod princes are inspired by the solutions adopted in Greek law, and contain many references to this law. The influence also spread onto the Russkaya Pravda (Russian Justice), especially in its later version. All in all, the influence of Byzantine law in Rus was quite significant, which fostered the development of Russian law. It mostly affected private law and procedural law, but also, to a limited extent, criminal law. In the field of private law, the strongest influence of Greek law was felt in marriage, guardianship and family law.The provisions o f the Russkaya Pravda with respect to guardianship were modeled on the respective regulations of the codes of Byzantine law - the Ecloga and the Procheiron. The Russian code defined the position of the widow in a way reminiscent of Byzantine law - after the husband's death she was the continuer of the previous family arrangement; her rights to family property (of which she could freely dispose) and relations with children were also defined in a similar manner. Similarities can also be discerned in the regulations on the remarriage of widows, in particular, the legal consequences of this act: remarriage resulted in the loss of the right of custody over children in favor of the husband’s relatives.These provisions of the Russkaya Pravda in the field of guardianship law certainly exerted some influence on the development of the legal institution of guardianship at the time when Russian lands were included into the Lithuanian state. This was reflected in privileges granted to the Lithuanian szlachta (gentry), which reiterated the principles known from the Russkaya Pravda. This, in particular, applies to the privileges that defined the legal position of a widow (privilege of 1447). The same principles also constituted the grounds of verdicts adopted by Grand Duke’s court in cases from the field of guardianship law. With the passage of time, a significant body of experience was gathered, which laid the foundations for the respective provisions of the First Lithuanian Statute. The provisions of the Statute that regulated widows’ guardianship over children (Statute I, VI, 6) show a kinship with the provisions of the Russkaya Pravda and, through it, with the Ecloga and the Procheiron.It seems, therefore, that there was a substantial flow of ideas and readymade legal structures between Byzantine law, based on the principles of the ancient Roman law, and Russian law, whose output was, in its turn, used by the Lithuanian legislature.

KILKA UWAG NA TEMAT ROLI III STATUTU LITEWSKIEGO W WYKŁADZIE PRAWA KRAJOWEGO NA PRZEŁOMIE XVIII I XIX WIEKU

Some Remarks on the Role of the Third Statute of Lithuania in Courses on National Law at the Turn of the Nineteenth CenturySummary The long-term validity of the Third Lithuanian Statute of 1588 is a factor often highlighted in the scientific literature devoted to the history of the Lithuanian-Russian lands. The two and a half centuries that the codex operated have left a lasting imprint on the legal relations of these vast territories. In Belarusian lands once belonging the Republic and separated from it by the First Partition, the Statute was abolished as a consequence of the repression after the November Uprising in 1831. In the western and south-western guberniyas, the Statute survived somewhat longer; it was repealed in 1840. In academic circles, both Polish and international, the post-Partition fate of the Lithuanian codex has not yet been clarified. It seems that one aspect which is worth paying attention to in studies on the condition of the Statute after the Partitions is its role in the teaching of law in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Surviving sources, in form of the lecture courses, students’ notes, reports intended for educational authorities and examination tables leave no doubt that the Statute of Lithuania was the very basis of national law lecture courses, both at the University of Vilnius, as well as at the High School and then Lyceum in Kremenets and the Academy of Polotsk. In the lectures of Adam Powstański, Ignacy Danilowicz, Aleksander Korowicki, Józef Jaroszewicz, Ignacy Ołdakowski, and Aleksander Mickiewicz, the Statute was always depicted as one of the most important sources of national law, which maintained its currency, and whose provisions were cited most frequently to illustrate the legal institutions under discussion.

PRAWO NA LITWIE NA PRZEŁOMIE XVIII I XIX WIEKU

LAW IN LITHUANIA AT THE TURN OF THE 19TH CENTURY Summary In the Polish and international literature, there is an almost complete absence of work which covers the issue of the history of the Third Statute of Lithuania after the Partitions of the Commonwealth directly, as a separate research problem. On this issue, there are only hints in papers of extremely different natures on the widest variety of specific questions. There is a long way to go before we have a reasonably complete image of the fate of the Statute in the post-Partition era. It would seem that papers on this question should move in a number of basic directions. The starting point should be a comprehensive study of the legal acts issued after the Partitions for the Lithuanian and Rus lands of the former Commonwealth, in order to track the changes which introduced them to the law of the time. One great challenge will be to understand judicial practice in the West and Northwest guberniyas in the Empire. It would also be worth looking more closely at the codification work conducted in the Białystok Region which gave rise to the drawing up of a project based on the Lithuanian Statute. In the same context, it is also worth studying the almost unknown Polish work on the Western Code drawn up in the years 1830-1837. One crucial issue which is still waiting for a researcher is the role of the Third Lithuanian Statute in legal teaching in the eastern territories of the former Commonwealth at the turn of the 19th century, and especially in centres like Vilnius, Krzemieniec and Połock.

KILKA SPOSTRZEŻEŃ NA TEMAT PRAWA LITEWSKIEGO NA PRZEŁOMIE XVIII I XIX WIEKU W ŚWIETLE KSIĄG ZIEMSKICH SZAWELSKICH

A FEW OBSERVATIONS ON LITHUANIAN LAW AT THE TURN OF THE 18TH-19TH CENTURY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SZAWLE (ŠIAULIAI) LEDGERSSummaryResearch on the legal, and especially forensic, practice in Lithuania after the dismemberment of Poland-Lithuania (1795) – an area of study embarked on only recently – should make up an important aspect of enquiry on the state of the law of Lithuania following the Partitions. In particular the aim should be to show the relationship between the former Lithuanian law and the new provisions introduced by the Partitioning Power. The specific nature of this relationship is shown by the example of the land court register (księgi ziemskie) for Szawle (Lith. Šiauliai) for 1794-1803. These records clearly show evidence of the efforts of the Russian Generals Sergei F. Golitsyn and Alexander P. Tormasov to restore the Lithuanian courts after the intermission caused by the Kościuszko Insurrection of 1794. The Russians introduced new instruments to jurisprudence including the duty to submit reports on the activities of the courts to the Russian military authorities, the use of the Julian calendar, and the issue of decisions and judgements on behalf of the Empress Catherine II. Details of these new requirements were defined in the ordinances issued by Nikolai V. Repnin, and frequently invoked. A Russian provinces act and new regulations on legal representation were also resorted to in court practice. In addition to these “foreign” elements, Šiauliai court practice shows that the old law and the 16th-century Lithuanian Statute and statutory acts passed by the Parliament of pre-partitional Poland-Lithuania still continued to be used.

Рецепція литовського статутового права у Гетьманщині наприкінці 1680-х – початку 1760-х рр.: модернізація чи відстоювання «старизни»?

Рецепція литовського статутового права у Гетьманщині наприкінці 1680-х – початку 1760-х рр.: модернізація чи відстоювання «старизни»?

LIETUVOS STATUTŲ PRIĖMIMO PRIEŽASTYS, JŲ SANTYKIS SU LIUBLINO UNIJA IR LDK PARLAMENTARIZMO BRUOŽAI

Some novelty of this paper lays in the fact, that the XVIth century Lithuanian Statutes (or the Statutes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania) of 1529, 1566 and 1588 have been analyzed so far from historic, but not from legal and constitutional point of view. Therefore, historiographical approach concerning the Lithuanian Statutes was important, but not the only one in this paper. The object of this research is the texts of the Statutes (of 1529, 1566 and 1588) as such. Therefore, the first chapter of the paper is devoted to the very notion of the “Statute” in legal context of XVI century Lithuanian state, trying to understand, what exactly meant this document for the then Lithuanian civic society. The second and third chapters are related to some historic background of adoption of these documents, trying to explain their very nature and influence of the last Statute of 1588 on the Union of Lublin, i.e. the Union of Lithuanian state with Polish Crown. The last chapter is devoted to idea of parliamentarism in the text of the last (the third) version of the Lithuanian Statute (1588), trying to identify its five features as follows: a) exceptional role of the Sejm (parliament) in country’s legal and political system; b) the Sejm as representation of the then civic nation; c) reguliar elections; d) imperative mandate and e) traditional parliamentarian functions: legislation and taxation.The paper ends with some conclusions, saying that i) the Lithuanian Statutes and especially its last version of 1588 have been adopted as a result of the idea of rule of law, so popular among Lithuanian nobility during Renaissance epoch; ii) rather strong concept of parliamentarism have been found in the text of the 1588 Statute, including remuneration of MPs, representation and traditional legislative competence of the parliament.

Reception of the Russian Statute of Civil Procedure of 1864 in Lithuania during 1918–40

The authors of this article examine historical reasons underlying the enactment of the Statute on Civil Procedure of Russia of 1864 in Lithuania after the declaration of independence in 1918. The Statute of 1864 became effective in 1883, when Lithuania was still part of Russian Empire. In 1918 Lithuania declared independence, but due to the fundamentally changed economic and social living conditions of the society it was impossible to restore the validity of the Third Lithuanian Statute of 1588, which was valid until 1840. It was therefore a logical step to receive the legal acts which were valid until August 1, 1914, including the Statute of 1864. The receipt of the Statute of 1864 is also justified by the fact that the Statute was a modern legal act and borrowed many progressive ideas from the civil procedure law of Western countries, especially from France. The authors, based on historical sources, also examine the problems of the interpretation and applications of the Statute of 1864 by the Lithuanian courts during 1918–40. Such problems were related to the new organization of the court system in Lithuania, lack of qualified lawyers, translation of the Statute from Russian language to Lithuanian language, lack of Lithuanian doctrine of law in the area of civil procedure, disagreement regarding the possibility of the application of the former case law of Russian courts, especially Russian Senate, etc. Nevertheless, the Statute has been successfully applied until the 1940 and it was one of the reason that the Lithuanian Code of Civil Procedure was not adopted until 1940. The Statute of 1864 was again rediscovered after 1990, when the restoration of Lithuanian independence was made, and important changes in the Code of Civil Procedure of 1964 were introduced. The Statute of 1864 was also analyzed during the preparation of the new Code of Civil Procedure of Lithuania of 2002.

The legal analysis of Statute of Lithuania of 1588 relating to involvement in crime and complicity in the crime

In this article, we studied the rules providing responsibility for the concealment of the crime, misprision, theconnivance and complicity in the crime in accordance with the Lithuanian Statute of 1588. We also determinethe influence of the Lithuanian Statute of 1588 on the development of criminal law in the Hetman state.

Lithuanian law of the 15th-16th centuries

AbstractThe student of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) repeatedly encounters the following well-known statement in documents, “We do not break old custom, neither do we introduce novelties.” This course of action, which prohibited breach of tradition as well as promulgation of new laws, has been called “Lithuanian conservatism.” However, these statements coexist alongside an extremely active reform policy. How can this apparent contradiction be explained?Historiography has not solved the problem thus far. The present article attempts to so by analyzing the interaction between custom (starina) and innovation (novina) in legal documents of the GDL.A comparison of the privileges granted to the Kiev region and Samogitia with the First Lithuanian Statute allows us to contend that facts belie the so-called Lithuanian “conservatism.” Every rewriting of the privileges brought about the introduction of new clauses tending generally to expand the nobility’s privileges and superseding the old legislation. Tradition both concealed and guaranteed subsequent reforms.

Prawo i praktyka testowania w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w XVI i XVII wieku

The first codification of inheritance law in Lithuania was enshrined in the 1st Lithuanian Statute of 1529. Subsequent amendments to the Statute took effect in 1566 and 1588. They set forth the principles of bequeathing that provided that the last will was to be made when thetestator was still in good health, it required the presence of witnesses, and needed to be subsequently endorsed by a court with proper jurisdiction. When the first two Statutes were in force, frequent witnesses of the will were members of the clergy who, apart from enjoying respect, belonged to the relatively small group of the literate in those times. Later, however, in the 17th and 18th centuries, it was members of the family, or friends, who were called to testify, and the last will made in accordance with the binding laws was subsequently enforced upon the testator's death, even if it lacked the seal. The Lithuanian inheritance law was adjusted to the needs of the people in Lithuania, where acts of the last will were usually drafted in the last weeks of a person's life, when the illness prohibited the testators to make a will in the presence of a clerk in office. The Act provided for such situations, thus enabling the ill, disabled and the illiterate to leave a will as well. After the testator's death, the last will was executed and duly entered in land and mortgage (land register) files. The entries included: the date of the act, entered according to the Julian or Gregorian calendar, the names of the witnessing clerks, information on the persons present at the activation process, as well as the details of the testator and the beneficiaries of the will. The last will was usually read out at the funeral. Certain legacies, e.g. in favour of churches or temples, were frequently challenged by the family of the testator. In towns and cities, the principles of inheritance were usually regulated by Magdeburg law, which sought to protect the interest of natural heirs. It included a remedy not known in statutory law, i.e. specific performance, obliging to implement the last will within a year. That principle did not, however, precise the date of which that one-year period would run: the death of the testator, or the date at which the will was filed for activation. Further, last wills could not be executed if they contained provisions contradictory to common law, good practice, or the principles of piety or honesty. Last wills of the modern times made in the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had a specific structure and consisted of a preliminary protocol (invocativo, intitulario, arenga, a testing ability condition); the actual part (dispositio, corraboratio) and a final protocol (date, witness details, signatures)

The Legal Status of Female Guardians in 1530s Lithuania

As may be seen from the legal sources of the time, the institution of guardianship of children was fully formed in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania by the beginning of the 16th century. Both the First Lithuanian Statute of 15292 and the court cases of the Books of Court Records of the Lithuanian Metrica – that is, the collection of documents of the chancery of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – provide various examples of guardianship, covering such questions as the choice and change of guardians, and their rights and obligations.

The Genealogy of Šemetas' in 15th-16th century

The beginning of the Šemetas' kin is related to the middle of the 15th century when the ancestor of this family, Šemeta Nemeikaitis (the son of Nemeikis), was mentioned. He had 2 sons: Mikalojus and Jonas, who were descendants of 2 ramifications of the Šemetas' kin. It is unclear when and why the first (Jonas) offshoot was called by Šemetas' name. But at the beginning of the 16th century, Jurgis Jonaitis (Jurgis the son of Jonas) had this name as a surname. The earliest reference of Nemeikaičiai-Šemetas' family shows us that they were the relatives of Galiginas and his kin (Račkaičiai, Jackaičiai, Radaičiai, and Butkaičiai). The above-mentioned kin's main patrimonial domains were Voverys (nowadays Vaverka in Belarus). They were the offspring of Galiginas, who participated in the union of Horodlo in 1413 when he got the Polish coat of arms of Swan (Labędi). This armorial sign was saved and used by the kin of Galiginas. The Šemetas' family was closely related either by blood or marriage to noble kin like Kantautas, Chodkevičiai, Zavišos, Iljiničiai, and others. Finally, in the 16th century, the Šemetas' family moved their residence to Samogitia. The activity of the family men in public life started expanding when they began to live in Samogitia. Therefore, they had duties that were often closely related to this region. Merkelis Šemeta was the vice-prefect (Slavic - podstarosta, Latin - vice-capitaneus) of Samogitia. After that, he became the governor (tivun) of Palanga, Tendžiogala, and Beržėnai. Finally, he occupied the place of the castellan of Samogitia. He had a son, Vaclovas, who was the podkomorzy (the judge of land-ownership cases) of Samogitia. Later, he was the castellan of Polotsk and Smolensk. The second son, Merkelis, was the podkomorzy of Ukmergė and Vilnius and the magistrate of the treasury of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (henceforth GDL). At first, Stanislovas, the brother of Merkelis, was vice-prefect of Telšiai, and after that, he became the governor of Pajūris. Eventually, he occupied the office of the GDL as a kuchmistrz (Lat. magister coquille). Merkelis Vaitiekaitis Šemeta was the marszalek (Lat. marszalcus) of the king and the governor of Dirvėnai. He inherited the latter office from his father Vaitiekus Jonaitis Šemeta. Merkelis Stanislovaitis Šemeta was the most famous from this kin in the political sphere. He was a member of the Liege Lords Council (rada panow). He was trustworthy because nobles confided in him to defend various interests against the sovereign. Moreover, the monarch appreciated Merkelis as a person, and he was appointed to edit the Second Lithuanian Statute. In 1569, M. Šemeta, together with other famous representatives of the GDL elite—the Lithuanian liege lords—were participants in the Parliament (Sejm) of Lublin when the project of the union was discussed. The middle of the 16th century was the biggest culmination of the Reformation. Most noblemen of the GDL, including the Šemetai, corresponded very intensively with Duke Albrecht, who was a resident of Prussia. Duke Albrecht advised urgently to send their children to foreign countries for studies (mostly to Germany, which was the cradle of Protestantism). Therefore, when the new religion spread, it was needed to support at first Lutheran and later Calvinistic communities and churches. In the region of Samogitia, the Šemetai distinguished themselves as diligent protectors and supporters of the Reformation. It is certainly true that brothers Jonas and Vaclovas Šemetas belonged to the local elite of the GDL and took an active part in the Reformation movement. It is supposed that in 1567, Merkelis (succeeded by his son Jonas) was the person who took care of and supported the Lithuanian Lutheran School in Tauragė. Jonas and Vaclovas had received a good education at Leipzig University. They were interested in the accumulation of books in their private libraries and communicated with highbrows of that time. It is possible that they were associated with the well-known intellectual, historian, and annalist Maciej Stryjkowski.

Politinis realizmas ir iliuzijos : LDK bajorijos pozicijos

The article analyzes the position of the nobility of the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania (GDL) manifested under the threat of the second partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The analysis is based on the existing material from Seimelis (Dietine) of the Vilnius, Trakai, Kaunas, Ukmergė, Upytė, Žemaitija, Breslauja, Gardinas, Lyda, Volkovyskas, Naugardukas, and Brasta Pavietas (district) of the period of May 27-28, 1793. The aim of the article is to clarify the attitude of the Lithuanian nobility to wards the situation in the state, to discuss the demands they made to Seimas (Diet), and the influence on that part of the nobility which was not directly involved with the leadership of the confederacy. The conclusion is made that in GDL activities of Dietine were mostly controlled by the general confederacy which, however, failed to dominate in Lyda, Trakai, Naugardukas, and Brasta. The instruction of Seimelis of Trakai Region Central Pavietas evidences the interests of Vaivada (Governor) Juozapas Mikalojus Radvila. In Lyda, Naugardu kas and Brasta the nobility representing Dietine were influenced by the faction supporting Stanislovas Augustas. In GDL, Dietine instructions of 1793 reflect the demands to preserve the rights of GDL within the common state. Even under the threat of partition, the Vilnius, Lyda, Ukmergė, and Kaunas Dietine were demanding to preserve the rights of GDL that were established by the union act, to retain the Lithuanian Statute, to oppose the transfer of local magistrates from the province territories to other areas, etc. The analysis of Dietine instructions refute the interpretation at present prevalent in historiography, claiming that all the instructions were coordinated with the Russian envoy and that their content was the same everywhere. A detailed analysis of instructions from Gardinas, Upytė, Naugardu kas, Volkovyskas, and Brasta Dietine has shown that the text provided by the confederacy had been revised. The final version of the instructions reflects the interests and influence of different members of the nobility. The instructions exibit the attitude of the nobility towards the political situation and the presence of the occupation army in the country. The officers of the highest rank - bishops and governors - were not directly involved in Dietine activities in 1793. The most important posts in the offices belonged to officials of the lower rank. The nobility were aware of the threats and felt the analogy with the first partition. Thus, most of them were trying to stay away and not to participate in the fall of the state. On the other hand, part of the nobility were hoping that the republic would continue its existence and were seeking to establish the principles of its government. Finally, there were those who were only interested in gaining personal profit.

The dispute among vilnius humanists regarding Latin, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian

SummaryEven before the Lublin Union (1569) between Poland and Lithuania there was an important linguistic controversy among Lithuanian Humanists. In the wider context of a general ‘Latinization’ of the culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the so-called ‘Latinizers’ (Agrippa, Rotundus, Michalo Lituanus) harked back to a classic language such as Latin, thedignitasof which was considered to be undisputed. The Latin language could compete with other languages of culture used inside the Grand Duchy, primarily with Ruski. According to the Latinizers the identity of Latin and Lithuanian was the principal evidence to support the derivation of the Lithuanians as a people from the Romans. Promoting Latin was equivalent to promoting vulgar Lithuanian from the point of view of the Latinizers. In this paper I discuss the textual aspects of the debate about theliterae(Latin vs. Muscovite or Ruthenian) exposed in the works of Michalo Lituanus (Tractatus de moribus Tartarorwn, Lithuanorum et Moschorum, 1615[1550]) and Augustinus Rotundus (Preface to the second Lithuanian Statute, 1576). Possible implications of the dispute for the question of the Ruthenian language are investigated, too.

Alt, T. F. The Language of the Lithuanian Statute of 1529: Orthography, Phonology Inflections. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1978. 486 pp. Appendices.

"Alt, T. F. The Language of the Lithuanian Statute of 1529: Orthography, Phonology Inflections. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1978. 486 pp. Appendices." published on 08 Dec 1981 by Brill | Schöningh.