The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.
The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.
The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.
The paper deals with the main presuppositions of the emergence of political science. The aim is to show that the rupture in the history of political philosophy in the Renaissance, the refusal of the classical political thought about human nature as zoon politikon and about purpose of state, and the birth of modern political ideas about politics as mechanics, was conditio sine qua non for the emergence of the new political science. Main philosophers who initiated this rupture were N. Machiavelli and Th. Hobbes. The 17th century scientific revolution and Enlightenment helped to bring the methods of natural sciences into philosophy. All those ideas were fused together in Positivism which played a pivotal role in the emergence of Political science.
The main point of this work concerns basic premises and its interrelation of liberalism: doctrines of human rights, moral individualism and state neutrality. Locke's and Dworkin's liberal conceptions help to reveal the deep structure of liberal mind, its inconsistence and limitation. There are identified Protestant world-view and Renaissance humanism as a fundamental sources of liberal ideas. Individual and its autonomy is revealed as a central idea of liberal politics. There are shown substancial differences between early and contemporary liberal mind.
The main point of this work concerns basic premises and its interrelation of liberalism: doctrines of human rights, moral individualism and state neutrality. Locke's and Dworkin's liberal conceptions help to reveal the deep structure of liberal mind, its inconsistence and limitation. There are identified Protestant world-view and Renaissance humanism as a fundamental sources of liberal ideas. Individual and its autonomy is revealed as a central idea of liberal politics. There are shown substancial differences between early and contemporary liberal mind.
Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.
Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.
Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.
Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.
Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.
Many scholars have studied the role and function of history during Baroque and Renaissance in Europe. However, they often ignored that the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield. Aiming to better understand the dynamics of the conflict in the field of history-thinking during the period 1580–1661, the definition of the Jesuits' historiographic canon (coherently implemented at a European level) is the main goal of this research. The study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits' method of history making has been defined as the object of this thesis. The emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. The thesis demonstrates that the Jesuits, during the period 1580–1661, had actually elaborated an historiographic canon as an answer to the spread of the new scientific method and the dissemination of new moral and political values. This canon was based on the methodological theories of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and on the unionist prescriptions of Antonio Possevino. We proved that the canon was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate with examples from Spain (J. de Mariana) to Lithuania (A. W. Koialowicz). Finally, we concluded that the historical production of A. W. Koialowicz could be described as a representative example of the implementation of this historiographic canon. This is the main reason for the discrepancies between A. W. Koialowicz's main sources and his historical accounts: he needed to abide with the rules and philosophy of his Order.
Some novelty of this paper lays in the fact, that the XVIth century Lithuanian Statutes (or the Statutes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania) of 1529, 1566 and 1588 have been analyzed so far from historic, but not from legal and constitutional point of view. Therefore, historiographical approach concerning the Lithuanian Statutes was important, but not the only one in this paper. The object of this research is the texts of the Statutes (of 1529, 1566 and 1588) as such. Therefore, the first chapter of the paper is devoted to the very notion of the "Statute" in legal context of XVI century Lithuanian state, trying to understand, what exactly meant this document for the then Lithuanian civic society. The second and third chapters are related to some historic background of adoption of these documents, trying to explain their very nature and influence of the last Statute of 1588 on the Union of Lublin, i.e. the Union of Lithuanian state with Polish Crown. The last chapter is devoted to idea of parliamentarism in the text of the last (the third) version of the Lithuanian Statute (1588), trying to identify its five features as follows: a) exceptional role of the Sejm (parliament) in country's legal and political system; b) the Sejm as representation of the then civic nation; c) reguliar elections; d) imperative mandate and e) traditional parliamentarian functions: legislation and taxation. The paper ends with some conclusions, saying that i) the Lithuanian Statutes and especially its last version of 1588 have been adopted as a result of the idea of rule of law, so popular among Lithuanian nobility during Renaissance epoch; ii) rather strong concept of parliamentarism have been found in the text of the 1588 Statute, including remuneration of MPs, representation and traditional legislative competence of the parliament.
Some novelty of this paper lays in the fact, that the XVIth century Lithuanian Statutes (or the Statutes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania) of 1529, 1566 and 1588 have been analyzed so far from historic, but not from legal and constitutional point of view. Therefore, historiographical approach concerning the Lithuanian Statutes was important, but not the only one in this paper. The object of this research is the texts of the Statutes (of 1529, 1566 and 1588) as such. Therefore, the first chapter of the paper is devoted to the very notion of the "Statute" in legal context of XVI century Lithuanian state, trying to understand, what exactly meant this document for the then Lithuanian civic society. The second and third chapters are related to some historic background of adoption of these documents, trying to explain their very nature and influence of the last Statute of 1588 on the Union of Lublin, i.e. the Union of Lithuanian state with Polish Crown. The last chapter is devoted to idea of parliamentarism in the text of the last (the third) version of the Lithuanian Statute (1588), trying to identify its five features as follows: a) exceptional role of the Sejm (parliament) in country's legal and political system; b) the Sejm as representation of the then civic nation; c) reguliar elections; d) imperative mandate and e) traditional parliamentarian functions: legislation and taxation. The paper ends with some conclusions, saying that i) the Lithuanian Statutes and especially its last version of 1588 have been adopted as a result of the idea of rule of law, so popular among Lithuanian nobility during Renaissance epoch; ii) rather strong concept of parliamentarism have been found in the text of the 1588 Statute, including remuneration of MPs, representation and traditional legislative competence of the parliament.
Some novelty of this paper lays in the fact, that the XVIth century Lithuanian Statutes (or the Statutes of Grand Duchy of Lithuania) of 1529, 1566 and 1588 have been analyzed so far from historic, but not from legal and constitutional point of view. Therefore, historiographical approach concerning the Lithuanian Statutes was important, but not the only one in this paper. The object of this research is the texts of the Statutes (of 1529, 1566 and 1588) as such. Therefore, the first chapter of the paper is devoted to the very notion of the "Statute" in legal context of XVI century Lithuanian state, trying to understand, what exactly meant this document for the then Lithuanian civic society. The second and third chapters are related to some historic background of adoption of these documents, trying to explain their very nature and influence of the last Statute of 1588 on the Union of Lublin, i.e. the Union of Lithuanian state with Polish Crown. The last chapter is devoted to idea of parliamentarism in the text of the last (the third) version of the Lithuanian Statute (1588), trying to identify its five features as follows: a) exceptional role of the Sejm (parliament) in country's legal and political system; b) the Sejm as representation of the then civic nation; c) reguliar elections; d) imperative mandate and e) traditional parliamentarian functions: legislation and taxation. The paper ends with some conclusions, saying that i) the Lithuanian Statutes and especially its last version of 1588 have been adopted as a result of the idea of rule of law, so popular among Lithuanian nobility during Renaissance epoch; ii) rather strong concept of parliamentarism have been found in the text of the 1588 Statute, including remuneration of MPs, representation and traditional legislative competence of the parliament.
