In nineteenth to twenty-first-century Lithuania, the exhibits of almost all museums reflect a certain aspect of Lithuanian history. These exhibits are the quintessence of museum concepts and are presupposed by society and the groups within it, historical memory, scientific and ideological discourses. The most important themes of Lithuanian history exhibits include Lithuanian prehistory, past glory, statehood, resistance to foreign occupation, repressions, exile, trauma, struggle for independence and its restoration and certain personalities who were involved in these processes. Exhibits of Lithuanian prehistory have remained constant since the nineteenth century. Other tendencies of Lithuanian history exhibits in museums have been shaped by time, ideology and politics. Since the Republic of Lithuania in the Interwar period (1918–1940), popular museum themes include Vytautas the Great, the Battle of Žalgiris, medieval castles, rebellions against Russia and especially the prohibition of the Lithuanian press in the nineteenth century. Since the second half of the twentieth century, the musealisation of the memory of personalities, especially writers, is intensifying. After restoring Lithuanian independence in 1990, museums have tackled the acute themes of Soviet occupation, anti-Soviet resistance, exile, trauma and Lithuania's pursuit of independence. Current museological representations of Lithuanian history are rising, fostered by concepts of "living history" and "the past for the present".
In nineteenth to twenty-first-century Lithuania, the exhibits of almost all museums reflect a certain aspect of Lithuanian history. These exhibits are the quintessence of museum concepts and are presupposed by society and the groups within it, historical memory, scientific and ideological discourses. The most important themes of Lithuanian history exhibits include Lithuanian prehistory, past glory, statehood, resistance to foreign occupation, repressions, exile, trauma, struggle for independence and its restoration and certain personalities who were involved in these processes. Exhibits of Lithuanian prehistory have remained constant since the nineteenth century. Other tendencies of Lithuanian history exhibits in museums have been shaped by time, ideology and politics. Since the Republic of Lithuania in the Interwar period (1918–1940), popular museum themes include Vytautas the Great, the Battle of Žalgiris, medieval castles, rebellions against Russia and especially the prohibition of the Lithuanian press in the nineteenth century. Since the second half of the twentieth century, the musealisation of the memory of personalities, especially writers, is intensifying. After restoring Lithuanian independence in 1990, museums have tackled the acute themes of Soviet occupation, anti-Soviet resistance, exile, trauma and Lithuania's pursuit of independence. Current museological representations of Lithuanian history are rising, fostered by concepts of "living history" and "the past for the present".
In nineteenth to twenty-first-century Lithuania, the exhibits of almost all museums reflect a certain aspect of Lithuanian history. These exhibits are the quintessence of museum concepts and are presupposed by society and the groups within it, historical memory, scientific and ideological discourses. The most important themes of Lithuanian history exhibits include Lithuanian prehistory, past glory, statehood, resistance to foreign occupation, repressions, exile, trauma, struggle for independence and its restoration and certain personalities who were involved in these processes. Exhibits of Lithuanian prehistory have remained constant since the nineteenth century. Other tendencies of Lithuanian history exhibits in museums have been shaped by time, ideology and politics. Since the Republic of Lithuania in the Interwar period (1918–1940), popular museum themes include Vytautas the Great, the Battle of Žalgiris, medieval castles, rebellions against Russia and especially the prohibition of the Lithuanian press in the nineteenth century. Since the second half of the twentieth century, the musealisation of the memory of personalities, especially writers, is intensifying. After restoring Lithuanian independence in 1990, museums have tackled the acute themes of Soviet occupation, anti-Soviet resistance, exile, trauma and Lithuania's pursuit of independence. Current museological representations of Lithuanian history are rising, fostered by concepts of "living history" and "the past for the present".
In nineteenth to twenty-first-century Lithuania, the exhibits of almost all museums reflect a certain aspect of Lithuanian history. These exhibits are the quintessence of museum concepts and are presupposed by society and the groups within it, historical memory, scientific and ideological discourses. The most important themes of Lithuanian history exhibits include Lithuanian prehistory, past glory, statehood, resistance to foreign occupation, repressions, exile, trauma, struggle for independence and its restoration and certain personalities who were involved in these processes. Exhibits of Lithuanian prehistory have remained constant since the nineteenth century. Other tendencies of Lithuanian history exhibits in museums have been shaped by time, ideology and politics. Since the Republic of Lithuania in the Interwar period (1918–1940), popular museum themes include Vytautas the Great, the Battle of Žalgiris, medieval castles, rebellions against Russia and especially the prohibition of the Lithuanian press in the nineteenth century. Since the second half of the twentieth century, the musealisation of the memory of personalities, especially writers, is intensifying. After restoring Lithuanian independence in 1990, museums have tackled the acute themes of Soviet occupation, anti-Soviet resistance, exile, trauma and Lithuania's pursuit of independence. Current museological representations of Lithuanian history are rising, fostered by concepts of "living history" and "the past for the present".
In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system
In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system
In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system
In the present work the author reviews the two scientific monographs and twenty scientific articles in which the history of the Lithuanian legal system is investigated. The author aspires to elucidate how did the main subsystems of the Lithuanian legal system – legislation, jurisdiction and jurisprudence – appeared and developed up to the end of the 20th century in the context of evolution of the Western legal tradition. The basic methods of research used in the works are historical, comparative and teleological. The main theses of the reviewed scientific monographs and articles are these: The law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) was created by the Government on the basis of the national Lithuanian law and some elements of the custom Slav law. Substitution of the custom Slav law for the Lithuanian public and private law took place in those provinces in the 14th-16th centuries. The custom Slav law hampered forming of the system of law of the GDL. It was created finally in the middle of the 16th century. The law of the GDL was a medieval estate law. Estate is a legal phenomenon and law determines signs and features of any estate. Main sign of any estate is rights leaved to him by law and protected by state. Estate system, that is an organization of society into classes rigidly divided for political purposes and defined primarily by law, is based on a legal inequality of estates. Any estate is a stable order closed to outsiders. In order to belong to estate any person must correspond to certain conditions determined by law. At the same time any person can belong to a few different social groups but only to one estate. The estate system of the GDL was formed finally in the middle of the 16th century. It was defined by the Second Statute of Lithuania and consisted of four estates: nobility, clergy, peasantry and townspeople. The nobility and the clergy were privileged. They governed the state and exploited bondsmen. In the towns which obtained the Magdeburg Law the townsmen were free, but haven't political rights and privileges. The author believes that all persons were subjects of medieval law of Lithuania, but their legal capacity was not equal. This inequality was determined by law. Volume of legal capacity of these persons depended upon their age, sex, citizenship, religion and estate. It could be changed in accordance with law. Under certain conditions loss of legal capacity also was able. Collective subjects of law were the GDL itself (not its government bodies or officials), the people of Lithuania as a political unit (not estates or ethnographic nations), political confederations of noblemen (if they were sanctioned by the Grand Duke), self-governing territorial units (counties, towns, etc.), guilds organized by craftsmen and merchants and self-governing religions communities. The author believes that a land-ownership in the GDL was divided. Two persons held the same land. One of them was an immediate owner, the second was a superior owner of the land. An immediate owner's right to dispose the land was limited by a superior owner's rights to this land. In the 14th-first half of the 16th century an ancestral land was the main form of land-ownership in the GDL. At first an ancestral land was owned without obligation of vassalage. Since the beginning of the 16th century an owner of an ancestral land was obliged to military service from his land. Since the 14th century a benefice was the second form of feudal land-ownership in the GDL. Gradually a benefice turned into a feud. In 1566 the Second Statute of Lithuania gave the equal rights to all owners of ancestral lands and feuds. They got the freedom to dispose all their lands, but were obliged to military service from their real estate. In the middle of the 16th century the domain of the Grand Duke was divided into the State lands and Throne lands. The Grand Duke's freedom to dispose these lands was limited. Up to the middle of the 16th century there were no permanent circuit courts for land disputes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. All state courts heard land cases in their permanent quarters and moved in locality to survey borders only if it was very necessary. The Government of the GDL stimulated activity of arbitration and village courts and set them to resolve land disputes in locality. The first permanent circuit court (Sub-Chamber court) for boundary disputes was established in every county during the court reform in 1564-1566. Up to the middle of the 16th century jurisdiction of the Church determined by canons was very wide and came into collision with jurisdiction of the State. Besides clergymen and other subjects of the Church spiritual courts prosecuted noblemen, peasants and townsfolk. Competence of secular and spiritual courts was delimited clearly by the Third Statute of Lithuania. In accordance with this Statute spiritual courts could prosecute noblemen, peasants and townsfolk only if a certain case was bound up with religion or marriage. The medieval conception of formal evidences existed and dominated in the GDL from the 13th century up to the 18th century. The court was passive because all evidences were collected and produced by the plaintiff or by the defendant, and legal force of any evidence was determined by Lithuanian custom law and by the Lithuanian Statutes. The author believes that compurgators were not eye-witnesses of crime or event, there testified on oath only about good name of somebody. Compurgators swore together with plaintiff or defendant. Witnesses testified to or against somebody without oath. The legal status of witnesses and compurgators determined by the Lithuanian custom law and the First Lithuanian Statute was partly corrected by the Second and the Third Lithuanian Statutes in 1566 and 1588. Dietsky office appeared in the Ancient Slav State about the 11th century. From the 13th century onwards this office functioned in the GDL. Vizh office was instituted in the end of the 15th century or in the beginning of the 16th century in the GDL. Dietsky and Vizh were court officers executed judgements. Vizh was also official witness in criminal and civil cases. Vozny office was established in the GDL during the judicial reform in 1564-1566. Vozny was an important official of a court of law. He used to be elected by county noblemen. His duty was to inspect damages, wounds, and to witness at a trial. He was an executor of court's sentences. The number of lawyers who took scholastic degrees increased in the GDL in the 16th century. They developed legal terminology, introduced the written form of contracts and elaborated many legal acts. The Lithuanian Statutes should be regarded as the acme of progressive legal theoretical thought and practical activity. They surmounted the codification of the legislation of the GDL and brought the country to the leading position among other European countries. Yet the high standard, progressive spirit and intrinsic humanistic ideas by themselves did not mean that the Statutes were properly applied. In the 16th century, the lack of qualified lawyers complicated application of the Lithuanian Statutes. The legal sophistication of judges was often rather poor. Even members of the Lithuanian Tribunal of the GDL were not professional lawyers. The requirement constituted in the Lithuanian Statutes that only nobility were eligible to the position of judges was hardly observed because for a long time there had been not a single law school or college in the GDL. Why the Faculty of Law had not been founded in the Vilnius Jesuits' Academy before 1641? The author believes that the problem may be viewed in the context of international relations between the Kingdom of Poland and the GDL. In the year of the foundation of Vilnius University, one more event important for the legal development of GDL took place: creation of the highest appeal court – Lithuanian Tribunal. Polish landlords did not tolerate the steps strengthening the statehood of Lithuania. Creation of the Lithuanian Tribunal was a difficult victory of the GDL nobility. It is quite possible that concession to the University of Krakow and recognition of Polish monopoly in preparing lawyers were the cost paid for the mentioned victory. It seemed then more important to have their own appeal court than to prepare lawyers in the GDL. In the one article the author aspires to elucidate what was a medieval university – integral part of the town or feudal benefice, what were professors ant students – full fledged citizens of the town or aliens, and what were courts of the university – State or private, secular or ecclesiastical. The author established that any university in the Middle Ages was a self-governing professional corporation similar with guild or craft. Doctors and scholars (like merchants or craftsmen) elected rector and some others officials who governed and administered justice. Mostly university was an integral part of the town; professors ant students could exercise their rights on an equality with citizens of the town. Sometimes university was ruled by the Bishop or King as a feudal benefice independent from the town magistrates and courts (in this case the relations between town citizens and students were exceptionally strained). A very ample jurisdiction was allowed to the Rector's court, extending to all civil cases and all criminal cases except such as involved mutilation (in those criminal cases the jurisdiction of the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges was recognized). Rector was required to suppress quarrels between students and townsmen, or among the students themselves. If Rector failed to punish offenders, a scholar or doctor was amenable to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. The Bishop always reserved to himself spiritual jurisdiction over professors ant students. An appellate civil jurisdiction was reserved to the town Magistrates, King's or Bishop's judges. It should be recognized that the legal system
The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.
The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.
The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.
The paper explores the epistemic fruitfulness of the contemporary theories of modern relations for historical research about the relations between premodern polities. The application of the neorealist theory in such research is blocked by its assumption that its subject is international system, consisting of sovereign national states. However, there were no such states (and nations) in medieval Europe and most other places in premodern times. The concept of international society of H. Bull is not applicable to premodern polities because of its assumption that Westphalian peace treaty of 1648 was the date of birth of the international law and international society as historical reality. A. Wendt's thesis that in the premodern times international politics was dominated by the Hobbesian culture of anarchy disregards historical evidence about the "Lockean" realities of the dynastic politics in the medieval Europe and other places. In the first part of the article, the corrections to remove these modernist and europocentric deformations are suggested. They include the replacement of the concepts of "international system" and "international society" by the broader notions of "interpolity system" and that of "interpolity society", and the distinction between "sovereign politikes system/society" and "suzerain (imperial) polity system/society", borrowed (with modifications) from M. Wight. Second part and third parts together constitute a case study about the changing roles and challenges of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) as the subject of interpolity relations in XIII–XV centuries. The second part is about the rise of GDL from the polity playing the role of the barrier (but not that of buffer) polity, separating Central European and Eastern European interpolity systems and belonging to both of them, to the regional empire and suzerain polity of the Eastern European interpolity system by the early XVth century. However, Lithuanian hegemony in Eastern Europe lasted only very few years. After 1430, the Eastern European interpolity system was about to transform itself from the suzerain polity system into a multipolar sovereign interpolity system of the type that consolidated in the Central and Western Europe after 1648 and survived for 300 years. However, the political leadership of GDL failed to meet the challenge to maintain an emerging multipolar balance of power in this system. According to the unconventional account of the so-called "feudal war" (1431–1453) in the Great Duchy of Moscow by Alexander Zimin, there was real possibility to establish at least two Russian states in the lands ruled by the Muscovite princes. Great Novgorod was viable polity too, bearing promise of the protobourgeois and protodemocratic Russia. Another viable polity was created in Kazan by Tatars who have changed to sedentary life of agriculturalists, and were about to become the power, filling out the geopolitical space that in older times was held by Volga Bulgaria. However, mainly due to the pursuit by Jagiellonian rulers of GDL and Poland of the dynastic politics in the Central Europe, at least three windows of opportunity to preserve this interpolity system from its annihilation by rising Moscow empire were not used. Last of them was the opportunity to re-establish the independence of Great Novgorod in 1480. These failures of the Lithuanian statesmanship sealed the fate of the Eastern European interpolity system: its disappearance in the Moscow empire. So the history of Eastern European interpolity politics in the XIII–XVIII centuries is another case proving the finding of the recent research by Stuart J. Kaufman, William C. Wohlforth, Richard Little, David Kangi, Charles Jones, Victoria Tin-Bor Hui, Arthur Eckstein, Daniel Deudney, Williams Brenner that a long-lasting balance of power in a interpolity system is rather an exception than rule, the rule being the displacement of the multipolar or bipolar balance of power interpolity systems by empires.
The public figures who proclaimed Lithuanian independence at the end of the First World War treated their move as a restoration of the state, thereby presenting modern Lithuania as a continuation of the Medieval grand duchy. Previous research has already discussed an important prerequisite to further strengthen that continuity: in the interwar period, historians contributed significantly to the understanding that the grand duchy continued to exist after the Union of Lublin, as part of the Commonwealth of the Two Nations. However, less is known about how the period between the third partition of the Commonwealth and the proclamation of the modern Lithuanian state was approached. This article analyses how history textbooks published before 1940 represented the milestones of national oppression and revival during that period. Based on an analysis of several dozen history textbooks, the article aims to show how their authors contributed to the homogenisation of attitudes towards the period 1795 to 1918 in Lithuanian history, and addresses the question of how those who had 'lived through the history' tried to present it to the younger generation.
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.
In the article basing on major L. Karsavin works the development of philosophical, religious, historical attitudes of this famous scientist beginning with early period of his creation and finishing with works of the 4th decade of the 20th century are covered. Although recently the research of this very worthy culture historian and philosopher who was born in Russia, worked in European and Lithuanian universities has become more numerous, there is still shortage of systemic research of his attitudes. Meanwhile his works are topical for nowadays, as in them both significant historical events are evaluated and the future landmarks are drawn. The interest of L. Karsavin in Medieval Western Europe spiritual culture, at the same time Solovyov unity philosophy impact has determined the pecularity of his attitudes. In his early works he still remains in the frame of positivism, although he has already formulated for the sciencee of history new concepts and creates new methodology which he successfully applies in works on the culture of medieval Italy and France, later he dissociates from positivist paradigm and is justly considered the originator of anthropologic direction in history science. There are interesting insights about ambivalent meaning rendered by L. Karsavin to religious foundation are. In the narrow sense of meaning it is the collection of written sources reflecting the life of epoch of interestmiddle estate, but in the broad sense it covers all aspect of historical existence – both religious and social-economic and political; and what is more, the very its hypothetic researcher appears in this religious foundation. In other words he must wind up in the epoch he investigates, penetrate into its spirit. On the basis of little known L. Karsavin article texts his attitude to Russian revolution which the scientist experienced hardly and which essentially changed his own life is discussed.[.].
