Įtampų slopintojas vel teisėjas, vel valdininkas: taikos tarpininkas pobaudžiaviniame kaime

The article examines how the modern position of the peace arbitrator, the idea of which was borrowed from the ‘court of arbitration’ functioning in the Western world, emerged and was used in the governance structure of the Russian Empire. It reveals the role of the peace arbitrator in the administration and transformation of the post-serfdom village in the governorates of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Hrodna. The following stages in the activities of peace arbitrators are distinguished: (1) 1861–1862, when local landowners chosen as peace arbitrators managed the post-serfdom village, and (2) the time after the 1863–1864 uprising, when attempts were made to turn the Russian peace arbitrators, who had replaced the landowners in this role, into a tool of the Russification of the village. The analysis reveals the independence of the activities of peace arbitrators, which used to cause conflicts with the governorate authorities, police, and military structures.Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kaip Rusijos imperijos valdymo struktūroje atsirado ir buvo panaudota moderni taikos tarpininko pareigybė, kurios idėja buvo nusižiūrėta iš Vakarų valstybėse veikusio trečiųjų teismo. Atskleidžiamas taikos tarpininko vaidmuo administruojant ir pertvarkant pobaudžiavinį kaimą Vilniaus, Kauno ir Gardino gubernijose. Išskiriami taikos tarpininkų veiklos etapai: 1861–1862 m., kai pobaudžiaviniame kaime tvarkėsi taikos tarpininkais parinkti vietiniai dvarininkai, ir laikas po 1863–1864 m. sukilimo, kai juos pakeitusius rusų kilmės taikos tarpininkus mėginta paversti kaimo rusinimo įrankiu. Analizė atskleidė taikos tarpininkų veiklos savarankiškumą, tapdavusį konfliktų su gubernijų valdžia, policinėmis ir karinėmis struktūromis priežastimi

Problem autorstwa siedemnastowiecznego paszkwilu Alfurkan tatarski: wątpliwości i ustalenia

The article attempts to identify the author of a seventeenth-century pasquinade Alfurkan tatarski (Tatar Al-Furqan) aimed against the Tatars of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, or more precisely, those living on the Vokė River in the Trakai voivodeship. The author has analysed the dedications and commentaries to four editions (1616, 1617, 1640, and 1643), paying attention to the life of the Benedictine abbot of Senieji Trakai monastery, Tomasz Pawłowski (c. 1556–1653), who administered the abbey in the years between after 1597 and 1617. The coincidence of his biographical data with the dates of successive editions of the Alfurkan suggests that he could have been the mysterious author of the text.W artykule podjęto próbę wskazania autora siedemnastowiecznego paszkwilu wymierzonego przeciwko Tatarom Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego, a ściślej – zamieszkałym nad Waką w województwie trockim. Przeanalizowano dedykacje i komentarze czterech edycji paszkwilu (1616, 1617, 1640 i 1643). Zwrócono uwagę na biogram opata benedyktynów w Starych Trokach Tomasza Pawłowskiego (ok. 1556–1653), zarządzającego opactwem w latach po 1597–1617. Zbieżność danych jego biografii z datami kolejnych edycji Alfurkanu sugeruje, że tajemniczym autorem paszkwilu mógł być właśnie on

Orientas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos visuomenės tradicijoje: totoriai ir karaimai

Sud. T. Bairašauskaitė, H. Kobeckaitė, G. Miškinienė. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2008. T. 6, 370 p

LIETUVOS BAJORĖS IR ŽEMĖVALDA:NUOSAVYBĖS SANTYKIAI XIX AMŽIAUS ANTROJE PUSĖJE

Rusijos imperijoje privati nuosavybė buvo socialinio ir gender pobūdžio. Imperiniai standartai skyrė bajorų, valstiečių, miestiečių, pirklių, vyrų ir moterų teisę į kilnojamąjį ir nekilnojamąjį turtą, galimybę jį perimti, valdyti ir juo disponuoti. Privačios nuosavybės socialiniai ir teisiniai principai kito. XIX a. antrojoje pusėje suartėjo skirtingų socialinių sluoksnių teisė į nuosavybę, išliko ir skirtumų. Imperijos įstatymai neakcentavo teisės į nuosavybę socialinio aspekto, tačiau atskirai buvo aptariamos vyrų ir moterų teisės

Confrontation between the government, manor, and village after the abolition of serfdom: events of 1861–1862 in the governorates of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Hrodna

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamos baudžiavos panaikinimo problemos Vilniaus generalgubernatoriaus valdomose gubernijose. Aptariamas imperijos valdžios biurokratinis, komunikacinis ir karinis pasirengimas skelbti valstiečių laisvėjimą. Pagrindinis dė- mesys skiriamas stambių dvarų valstiečių reakcijai į reformos sąlygas, pirmiausia privalomus atodirbius dvarui, taip pat valstiečių savivaldai, tapusiai valdžios, dvaro ir kaimo konfliktų priežastimi. Analizuojami konfliktuojančių grupių elgsenos motyvai ir raiška. Raktažodžiai: baudžiavos panaikinimas, inventoriai, kaimo bendruomenė, valsčiai, konfliktas.The abolition of serfdom was one of the most important of the great reforms of the Russian Empire carried out in the second half of the nineteenth century that sought to modernise its social and economic system. Its implementation was complicated due to social, cultural, and mental differences in different parts of the empire, although the reformers tried to take those differences into account by issuing local regulations. The proclamation of the Manifesto of 19 February 1861 provoked a strong reaction of the liberated serfs, but the government was expecting that and preparing for the unrest. The military, police, and bureaucratic cross-communication was strengthened in all the governorates where landlords had serfs (in 43 governorates out of 51), and institutions for administering the peasants were established. After the proclamation of the Manifesto and other acts regulating the reform, issues related to the linguistic variety of the peasantry were urgently addressed (at the Governorates of Vilnius, Kaunas, and Hrodna, the legislative acts were translated into Lithuanian and Polish). Serfs of the private manors took the reform as a deceit because it went against their own vision of freedom. Transferring them to the status of temporary tenants was the main reason that provoked the unrest almost throughout the entire empire. Peasants of larger manors resisted the corvée and other labour duties inherited from the old order. The next wave of rebellion, which was weaker, came during the establishment of self-government institutions: the peasants feared the ‘new order’, which meant that their taxes increased and they were forced to submit to the village and rural district (volost) authorities that they themselves maintained. Flashpoints of peasantry mutinies occurred in large manors and spread to the neighbouring ones. The protests spread most widely in the manors of the Kaunas Governorate, especially in the ones located near the Prussian border (Raseiniai County) and Courland; as for the Hrodna Governorate, the same happened along the border with the Kingdom of Poland. The longest munity took place at the Biržai Manor. The peasantry carried out collective actions mostly within their manors; the only exception was the town of Iwye (Ashmyany County, Vilnius Governorate) where a thousand-strong crowd gathered from several manors. When protesting against the provisions of the reform, peasants pursued the imperative of moral justice. Leaders – the authorities called them instigators – emerged, but the reasoning behind their rise often remains ambiguous. A noticeable part was played by literate peasants, and the role of former sergeants and soldiers from that stratum can also be clearly seen. The actions of the government during the first years of the abolition of serfdom were characterised by a moderate use of force. The governorate authorities were instructed to avoid confrontation and restrict their actions to the use of explanatory measures. Government officials employed the army when words failed to work, but these military interferences were non-violent: so far, no information on the cases of using arms in the process of supressing mutinies of the former serfs in the governorates of Vilnius, Kaunas and Hrodna has been discovered. The peasants were supposed to be scared by the so-called military execution meaning that the household was to be subjected to the obligation of providing material provision to the army. The government believed that isolation (arrest, detention and sometimes temporary deportation) of the most active mutineers or application of disciplinary measures (public whipping) were sufficient to restore order in the countryside. The position of the landowners during the first years after the abolition of serfdom remained ambiguous until the uprising of 1863–1864. They could not force the peasants to work for their manors without the help of the authorities. Leaders of the nobility and peace mediators elected from among the landowners participated in the events as officials responsible for the implementation of the reforms, and manor owners relied on the government. Keywords: abolition of serfdom, inventories, rural community, rural district (volost), conflict

Private correspondence as a source on the history of a noble family: the case of the Białłozor, Koncza and Römer families (1820s–1880s)

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama Bialozorų, Končų ir Römerių giminių didelės apimties privati korespondencija. Adresatai ir adresantai priklausė susigiminiavusiai stambiųjų bajorų grupei, jos atstovų asmeniniai likimai buvo susiję su svarbiausiais XIX a. pirmosios pusės politiniais, socialiniais ir kultūriniais procesais, todėl jų susirašinėjimas vertinamas kaip plačios paskirties istorijos šaltinis. Tų pačių įvykių, aplinkybių ir išgyvenimų aprašymas kūrė vientisą naratyvą, būdingą vienodos pasaulėžiūros, pasaulėjautos ir vertybių sistemos grupei. Aptariama korespondencija tinka tirti šios grupės sociokultūrinį modelį, suformuotą per savęs, kitų asmenų ir pasaulio suvokimą. Raktiniai žodžiai: XIX a., stambūs bajorai, privatus laiškas, šeimos istorija, kultūros modelis.Several memory institutions (Manuscripts Department of the National Library of Poland in Warsaw, Lithuanian State Historical Archives and the Department of Rare Prints and Manuscripts of the Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences) have in their collections an impressive quantity of correspondence of the Białłozor, Koncza and Römer families. A majority consists of letters written over several decades by members of these families in married relationships, as well as their children and grandchildren. As the addressees and addressers were part of the landed nobility, their close relationships and personal destinies correlate closely with political, social and cultural processes, thus this correspondence is viewed as a multipurpose history source. The correspondence under discussion is different to that between friends or acquaintances. Letters within the immediate family circle were usually of extensive length, their content often repeating the content appearing in the addressers‘ journal entries, which suggests a particular private writing genre, such as a “letter journal”. A close-knit group of people would write about the same people, events, circumstances and experiences, thereby creating a uniform narrative and contributing to a written family history. Regardless of the modernisation of society and the changing behaviour of younger generations, a conservative view of the world is evident in the correspondence of three generations of the Białłozor, Koncza and Römer landed nobility families. Differences between letters written by the older and younger generations were mainly related to their scope rather than their content, however, this does not mean that family correspondence is not suitable for observing the impact of society‘s modernisation on the younger generation. Narratives or subjects typical of the same group of correspondents sharing the same sense and view of the world and value system stood out in these letters. Much was written about fundamental family life practices: marriage, birth and death, reflections of feelings and emotions, revelations of their attitudes towards religion and their experience of the world whilst away on journeys. The letters contain a great deal of information about the management of estates, and this alone makes it possible to reconstruct the economic model of corvée labour estates, which underwent modernisation after the abolition of serfdom yet did not completely abandon former practices. The family letters contain numerous impressions relating to the consumption of culture and creative pursuits themselves, allowing us to research the 19th-century person‘s individual and group tastes and preferences. The correspondence under discussion is suitable for reconstructing family histories, the biographies of family members, to analyse daily life and use it for micro-history research, not forgetting that the letters offer a reflection of fragments of life, or extracts of the fabric of day to day life. Therefore, other sources should be used in conjunction with the letters. This is not the only spectrum in which private letters may be utilised however. The private correspondence of the Białłozor, Koncza and Römer families is just as suitable for researching the cultural model of a given social group, formed through the perceptions of oneself, others and the world. Keywords: 19th century, landed nobility, private letter, family history, cultural model