The subject of the article comprises Baltic military rites appreciated from the emotional perspective. The chief source of investigation consists of the 4 Teutonic chronicles: The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, The Chronicle of the Prussian Land by Peter of Dusburg and The Prussian Chronicle of Wigand of Marburg. Primarily, the main emotional axis of the story described in the chronicles is analyzed: sorrow vs. joy. Regardless of the subject of the chronicles, i.e. whether these include crusaders or the Balts, military victories are marked with joy while defeats, with sorrow. Still, the joy of victory is not that simple: it rather compensates for the sorrow and involves malevolence (rejoicing because of the enemy's grief). Both the emotional states are expressed in respective rituals: the ritual expression of sorrow is lamenting, while joy is expressed in grateful songs addressing God or the deities. The first part of the article exhaustively discusses the phenomenon of lamenting: the ritualized emotion (the ritual lamenting) is regarded as a special state of mind allowing the weeper to enter into a sacral relationship with the world of gods or souls, thus achieving the ritual aim, i.e. ensuring a successful transfer of the deceased into the world of ancestors. Sorrow as an emotional state becomes the basis for the ritual; it is a special element, enabling the performer of the ritual to achieve special powers. As the ritual action, lamenting has. [to full text]
The subject of the article comprises Baltic military rites appreciated from the emotional perspective. The chief source of investigation consists of the 4 Teutonic chronicles: The Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia, The Chronicle of the Prussian Land by Peter of Dusburg and The Prussian Chronicle of Wigand of Marburg. Primarily, the main emotional axis of the story described in the chronicles is analyzed: sorrow vs. joy. Regardless of the subject of the chronicles, i.e. whether these include crusaders or the Balts, military victories are marked with joy while defeats, with sorrow. Still, the joy of victory is not that simple: it rather compensates for the sorrow and involves malevolence (rejoicing because of the enemy's grief). Both the emotional states are expressed in respective rituals: the ritual expression of sorrow is lamenting, while joy is expressed in grateful songs addressing God or the deities. The first part of the article exhaustively discusses the phenomenon of lamenting: the ritualized emotion (the ritual lamenting) is regarded as a special state of mind allowing the weeper to enter into a sacral relationship with the world of gods or souls, thus achieving the ritual aim, i.e. ensuring a successful transfer of the deceased into the world of ancestors. Sorrow as an emotional state becomes the basis for the ritual; it is a special element, enabling the performer of the ritual to achieve special powers. As the ritual action, lamenting has. [to full text]
The article discuses the problem that was recently raised in the Lithuanian historical literature & public discourse by G. Beresnevieius, A. Bumblauskas, S. C. Rowell: was the medieval Lithuanian state (Grand Duchy of Lithuania; GDL) an empire? Important reason for the emergence of this problem was the partial rehabilitation of the very concept of "empire" due to the dissolution of the the USSR (reputed as "last empire") & the search for common legacies by the historians of the countries involved in the construction of the European Union as a transnational political community. There were important reasons for the traditional historiography to abstain from the use of the concepts of "empire" & "imperialism" in the work on GDL. For Non-Marxist Russian historians, GDL was simply another Russian state, so there could not be Russian imperialism against Russians. For Marxist historians, imperialism was a phase in the "capitalist formation," immediately preceding the socialist revolution & bound to the specific period of world history, so the research on precapitalist empires & imperialism was suspect of anachronism. For the opposite reason, deriving from the hermeneutic methodology, the talk about medieval Lithuanian empire & imperialism was an anachronism for Non-Marxist Polish & German historians too, because they considered as Empires only polities that claimed to be successors to Roman Empire: the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation, Byzantine Empire, Moscow Empire. Lithuanian political elite never raised such claims, although theory of the Lithuanian descent from Romans (Legend of Palemon) could be used for this goal. Starting from path-breaking work by S. N. Eisenstadt "The Political Systems of Empires" (1963), comparative politics, history, sociology, anthropology & theory of international relations witnessed the emergence of the field of interdisciplinary studies that can be described as comparative studies of empires & imperialism. Second section of the paper provides the survey of the theoretical work in this field in search of the ideas useful for the analysis of the peculiarities of the medieval Lithuanian state. This survey includes into its scope the work of S. N. Eisenstadt, I. Wallerstein, A. Motyl, B. Buzan, R. Little, A. Watson, M. Beissinger, Ch.Tilly & M. Doyle, whose book "Empires" is considered as the most important contribution to the theorizing of empires & imperialism up to this date. Adapted from the source document.
The strategy of research into the dissertation object is based on four criteria. First, it is a study of a phenomenon and its development. Second, the study is not confined to the present territory of the Republic of Lithuania. Third, the research problem and questions raised are interpreted in a broader light of examples from the European historiography, which enable to contextualise past features of the local social reality and search for similarities and/or differences as well as common points in the development of the phenomena which existed in different regions. Fourth, the object under analysis is perceived as a phenomenon with a multifaceted structure. Therefore, an attempt is made to look for new theoretical approaches rather than limit oneself to a traditional historical narrative. Historiography has seen attempts to disclose the development of society, uneven social structure, its specific features, etc. through the analysis of one phenomenon. However, this is only possible by looking at that phenomenon from different perspectives and analysing it as a product of different spheres of social reality, because focusing on a single aspect of the phenomenon limits the possibilities for interpretation which would reveal the multifunctional nature of the phenomenon and uneven trajectories of its development. The phenomenon of the castle is one of those problems which has not been analysed systematically and consistently. The existing historiography has mostly perceived the castle as unrelated to the social environment or political circumstances and, therefore, it was frequently presented as a military or architectural object. The castle is defined as a structure comprising three aspects: territory (a), society (b), power-authority (c). The castle is perceived as a nucleus which is uniting and forming a territory; this territory was eventually transformed into a legally, administratively and economically subordinate territory with clearly defined boundaries. It consisted of various social categories defined by different subordination-dependency, including individuals of peasant and non-peasant origin, in such a way forming the castle society, its social organisation. In these territorial and social planes of the castle as a local structure unfolded the power-authority hierarchy with its subjects. The castle was that element of medieval society which concentrated power and helped separate powerful subjects establish their authority over a certain territory and its population. Therefore, from the sociological point of view, the castle performed the roles of symbolic (ideological) and real (direct) authority and a representative of justice in the society of its time. The castle is interpreted as a power-authority structure which was unfolding and creating a specific territory with a subordinate social environment. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four parts, conclusions, a list of sources and literature, and appendices. All sections and their subsections express the structuralist approach toward the problem under analysis which is perceived and interpreted in the comparative perspective of the whole study. The first part attempts to formulate a definition of the castle phenomenon as manifold and changing in time and describe the concept in the European context. The second part constructs the model of the castle territory. It presents the conception of different constituents of the external territory of the castle. This model is based on the examples of European historiography devoted to the problem of the castle. The relationship of the castle with other territorial structures (e.g., village, manor) is analysed in this part as well. The third part investigates the office-bound character of the castle, its (local) society, social groups which belonged to the castle (e.g., unfree peasants, peasant performing military service such as barčiai, keliuočiai, etc.). The social characteristics of the castle (e.g., administration, economy) is analysed from the perspective of the GDL regionalism and in relation to the castle territory. The fourth part analyses the subordination-dependency problem of the castle. Different forms of subordination-dependency are identified (nominal, real, fief, office-bound, mortgage) depending on the socio-political circumstances and their changes are explained. Besides, the typology of castle subordination-dependency is provided by distinguishing the sovereign (state) (a), dynasty (b), church (c), dukes (d), nobility (e), gentry (f).
The strategy of research into the dissertation object is based on four criteria. First, it is a study of a phenomenon and its development. Second, the study is not confined to the present territory of the Republic of Lithuania. Third, the research problem and questions raised are interpreted in a broader light of examples from the European historiography, which enable to contextualise past features of the local social reality and search for similarities and/or differences as well as common points in the development of the phenomena which existed in different regions. Fourth, the object under analysis is perceived as a phenomenon with a multifaceted structure. Therefore, an attempt is made to look for new theoretical approaches rather than limit oneself to a traditional historical narrative. Historiography has seen attempts to disclose the development of society, uneven social structure, its specific features, etc. through the analysis of one phenomenon. However, this is only possible by looking at that phenomenon from different perspectives and analysing it as a product of different spheres of social reality, because focusing on a single aspect of the phenomenon limits the possibilities for interpretation which would reveal the multifunctional nature of the phenomenon and uneven trajectories of its development. The phenomenon of the castle is one of those problems which has not been analysed systematically and consistently. The existing historiography has mostly perceived the castle as unrelated to the social environment or political circumstances and, therefore, it was frequently presented as a military or architectural object. The castle is defined as a structure comprising three aspects: territory (a), society (b), power-authority (c). The castle is perceived as a nucleus which is uniting and forming a territory; this territory was eventually transformed into a legally, administratively and economically subordinate territory with clearly defined boundaries. It consisted of various social categories defined by different subordination-dependency, including individuals of peasant and non-peasant origin, in such a way forming the castle society, its social organisation. In these territorial and social planes of the castle as a local structure unfolded the power-authority hierarchy with its subjects. The castle was that element of medieval society which concentrated power and helped separate powerful subjects establish their authority over a certain territory and its population. Therefore, from the sociological point of view, the castle performed the roles of symbolic (ideological) and real (direct) authority and a representative of justice in the society of its time. The castle is interpreted as a power-authority structure which was unfolding and creating a specific territory with a subordinate social environment. The dissertation consists of an introduction, four parts, conclusions, a list of sources and literature, and appendices. All sections and their subsections express the structuralist approach toward the problem under analysis which is perceived and interpreted in the comparative perspective of the whole study. The first part attempts to formulate a definition of the castle phenomenon as manifold and changing in time and describe the concept in the European context. The second part constructs the model of the castle territory. It presents the conception of different constituents of the external territory of the castle. This model is based on the examples of European historiography devoted to the problem of the castle. The relationship of the castle with other territorial structures (e.g., village, manor) is analysed in this part as well. The third part investigates the office-bound character of the castle, its (local) society, social groups which belonged to the castle (e.g., unfree peasants, peasant performing military service such as barčiai, keliuočiai, etc.). The social characteristics of the castle (e.g., administration, economy) is analysed from the perspective of the GDL regionalism and in relation to the castle territory. The fourth part analyses the subordination-dependency problem of the castle. Different forms of subordination-dependency are identified (nominal, real, fief, office-bound, mortgage) depending on the socio-political circumstances and their changes are explained. Besides, the typology of castle subordination-dependency is provided by distinguishing the sovereign (state) (a), dynasty (b), church (c), dukes (d), nobility (e), gentry (f).
