No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
Feudalism is difficult to define. One may follow the example of Marc Bloch by stressing what feudalism is not. Clearly the feudal patterns which various scholars have described are always subject to the objection that some available data do not fit. Indeed, this defect is inherent in virtually any attempt to generalize.
However, because scholars have asserted that feudalism existed in sixteenth-century Lithuania, it is of interest to ascertain whether their assertions are reasonably accurate under the more common criteria for determining the existence of feudalism. I have come to the conclusion that when judged by those criteria, the social and political order of sixteenth-century Lithuania may not be regarded as typical feudalism except from a Marxist point of view. I am inclined to regard the early sixteenth century as a period when tendencies were developing which point, rather, in the direction of a dynastic state.
1 Bloch, Marc, La Société Féodale (2 vols.; Paris, 1949), II, 241 Google Scholar; Feudal Society, trans. L. A. Manyon (London, 1961), p. 443.
2 Even in the view of Marc Bloch who, building on West European concepts of feudalism, has emphasized social and spiritual links as the hallmarks of feudalism, landholding relationships are important elements of the feudal background, if not decisive to his definition of feudalism. Marc Bloch, La Société Féodale; cf. M. L. Boutruche's report in “IXe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Paris, 28 aout-3 septembre 1950,” Rapports, I, 417-71.
3 Stephenson, Carl, Medieval Feudalism (Ithaca, 1942), p. 14.Google Scholar
4 Ganshof, François L., Feudalism (London, 1952), p. xv.Google Scholar
5 Hintze, Otto, “Wesen und Verbreitung des Feudalismus,” Staat und Verfassung (Leipzig, 1941), p. 74–109.Google Scholar
6 The political view concedes the importance of the manorial system but treats it as a consequence rather than as an integral part of feudalism. See Stephenson, Medieval Feudalism, pp. 13-14. Vernadsky, George, “Feudalism in Russia,” Speculum, XIV (1939), 304-5Google Scholar, among others, treats it as an integral part of feudalism. Although like Hintze, a supporter of the political-economic view, he deplores Hintze's broad terminology and his failure to note the existence of a nomadic feudalism.
7 Bober, Mandell M., Karl Marx's Interpretation of History (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), pp. 50–55.Google Scholar
8 Vladimirtsov, B, “Le Régime social des Mongols,” Le Féodalisme nomade (Paris, 1948)Google Scholar. See esp. pp. 110-68 and 204-42. Cf. an attack on Vladimirtsov's position: Krader, L, “Feudalism and the Tatar Policy of the Middle Ages,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, I (1958), 76–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 E.g., 
(1st ed., Moscow and Leningrad, 1946; 2nd rev. and exp. ed., 2 vols., Moscow, 1952-54
10 Generally historians have either assumed or argued for the existence of feudalism in Lithuania. The Russian historian Liubavsky has argued for it with moderation, stressing that the contents of Lithuanian laws generally limit the possibility of asserting feudalism. On the other hand he seems to have been eager to see or to infer conditions which would imply the existence of feudalism. For example, in dealing with the problem of military service, he asserted that grants of land must have been made with the obligation of performing military service, and that when princes or upper nobles were granted lands “with all the boyars on those holdings,” the boyars had to perform military service for their lords who in their turn must have been in some similar relationship to the Great Prince of Lithuania. 
, CLXII-CLXIII (1892), CLXVI-CLXVII (1893), pp. 312, 620. Liubavsky, who lays great stress on political feudalism, sees pure feudalism of the Western type in the second half of the fifteenth century. 
, ed. F. A. Brokgauz and I. A. Efron, LXX, 522. The Polish historian Kamieniecki goes further and forcefully asserts the existence of feudalism, insisting that the boyars formed the military service class.
Kamieniecki, Witold, Spoleczenstwo litewskie w XV wieku (Warsaw, 1947), p. 68
Google Scholar. Kamieniecki supports the economic view which discovers feudalism in Lithuania on the basis of economic forces, much like that advanced in 
., eds. A. N. Nasonov, L. V. Cherepnin, and A. A. Zimin (Moscow, 1955), pp. 752-56.
11 The search for some general patterns in human history is one of the themes of R. Coulborn, ed., Feudalism in History (Princeton, 1956). Specific comparisons between Eastern and Western feudalism may be found in Mitteis, Heinrich, Der Staat des hohen Mittelalters (6th ed.; Weimar, 1959), pp. 396-98, 401-2Google Scholar. For the person interested in comparative feudalism, particular attention might be paid to some aspects in Western countries which at first sight do not appear to be characteristically feudal. References to such aspects may be found in many works. Significant aspects have been subsumed under the term “new feudalism” or “bastard feudalism.” See McFarlane, K. B., “Parliament and ‘Bastard Feudalism',” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fourth Series, XXVI (1944), 53–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and” ‘Bastard Feudalism',” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XX (1947), 161-80.
12
(Moscow, 1910), pp. 160-70.
13 For an examination of this question see 
, III (1889). G. Vernadsky, apparently relying on Vladimirsky-Budanov, has stressed the uncertainty of the origins of the pomestie grant. See Vernadsky's review of 
(Paris, 1948) in Speculum, XXIII (1948), 691-96. There is a contrary view which sees the pomestie as the outgrowth of conditions in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Muscovy: 
(New York, 1953), p. 144. 
(3rd ed.; St. Petersburg, 1909), I, 418, considers the pomestie to have appeared first in the fourteenth century. See the testament of Ivan Kalita of 1327-28: 
, III (Moscow, 1955), 255-56.
14 Backus, O. P., “Die Rechtsstellung der litauischen Bojaren, 1387-1506,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, VI (1958), 14–32 Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as “Rechtsstellung
15
, XXX (1907), No. 5, pp. 229, 231, 261-73, No. 6, pp. 230- 37, 263-64. This view is supported by 
(Prague, 1924), p. 114.
16
(Lvov, 1905; photolith reprint, New York, 1955), Vol. LXII, where greater mobility enjoyed by boyars in the sixteenth century in advancing in the ranks of the nobility is stressed, thus allowing for a less clear-cut hierarchy than that described by Leontovich. Lappo sees this too. See his 
, pp. 117-19. Cf. footnote 10.
17
(Moscow, 1958), p. 176.
18
, LXX, 522.
19
, p. 245.
20 Działynski, T., ed., Zbior Praia Litewskich od roku 1389 do roku 1528 (Poznan, 1841), pp. 98–99 Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as ZPL.
21
..., p. 348.
22 ZPL, p. 34.
23
..., p. 344 (art. 3).
24
(Moscow, 1909), pp. 14- 17.
25
(Moscow and Leningrad, 1946), I, 23-24.
26 One might wonder whether there was a hierarchical consciousness which could be considered feudal. At best, this would be difficult to document.
27
..., p. 347.
28
..., pp. 175-79.
29
..., pp. 347-48.
30 ibid., p. 347.
31
(15 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1862-92), I, Nos. 45, 47, 49, 50, 52, 56, 60, 70 pts. 1-2, 72, 75, 78, 112, 117; III, No. 100 (hereafter cited as 
(5 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1846-53), II, Nos. 14, 34, 76, 82, 167 (hereafter cited as 
(8 series in 35 books in 37 vols.; Kiev, 1859-1914), VIII (Book 4), Nos. 36 pts. 1-2, 37, 40 pt. 1, 41, 46, 51, 55, 58 (misprinted as 56) (hereafter cited as 
(14 vols.; Vilna, 1867-1904), VII, Nos. 9, 10 (hereafter cited as 
, IV, Nos. 5, 6, 45, 55, 98, 99, 121, 151, 163, 174, 239, 240, 265, 284, 285 (hereafter cited as ALS).
32 ALS, IV, Nos. 284, 285.
33 Ibid., IV, Nos. 55, 179.
34
, II, No. 117; ALS, IV, No. 239.
35 ALS, IV, Nos. 5, 6, 45, 98, 99, 151, 239, 265.
36 Backus, “Rechtsstellung,” pp. 23-27.
37 E.g., 
, I, Nos. 42, 57, 59, 75, 105; 
, VIII (Book 4), Nos. 31 pt. 1, 35; M. B. 
, CCXI, No. 105; C3, VII, Nos. 4-9.
38
, VIII (Book 4), Nos. 3 pt. 2, 39 pts. 2-4, 53-54, 62; 
, I, No. 117; II, No. 100; ALS, III, No. 192, IV, Nos. 239-40.
39
, 1, Nos. 70 pt. 2, 75; 
, VII, Nos. 4-9.
40
, VIII (Book 4), No. 31 pts. 1-2; ALS, III, Nos. 186-88.
41
, XXX, No. 5, p. 224; 
(Yurev, 1911), pp. 192-93.
42 Some zemiane did receive lands without right of disposition; 
, I, No. 117; ALS, IV, No. 239. The Great Prince of Lithuania confirmed most grants to and by zemiane when the right of disposition of land was involved: e.g., ALS, III, No. 431, IV, Nos. 99, 163, 239. That suggests that a zemianin was, at least, not always entitled to the right of disposition.
43 Some grants to zemiane contain such a profusion of rights as to make them indistin guishable from grants to princes or pans: 
, II, No. 100; ALS, IV, Nos. 239, 240.
44 ALS, IV, Nos. 106, 207-9, 225-28.
45 3, II, No. 164.
46
..., p. 346.
47 ibid., p. 348.
48 E.g., 
(continuous in Vols. CXCV, CXCVII, and CXCIX, Moscow, 1900-1901), p. 358 (hereafter cited as 
, XX (St. Petersburg, 1903), No. 90 (hereafter cited as 
).
49 E.g., 
, I, Nos. 45, 49, 56, 60, 78, 112; II, No. 100; ALS, IV, Nos. 55, 75, 98, 130, 157, 163, 164, 170, 174, 239, 240, 265; 
, VIII (Book 4), Nos. 37, 40 pt. 1, 46, 51.
50 E.g., 
VIII (Book 1), Nos. 25, 26, VIII (Book 4), Nos. 28, pts. 3 and 5, 32 pt. 2; 
.(one volume in two parts; Warsaw, 1896-97), Part 2, pp. 174-75, No. 735 (hereafter cited as 
)
51 ALS, IV, Nos. 5, 45.
52 One case alone, from 1500, is unclear, PEE, XX, No. 69. (This is also available 
, pt. 2, 64-65, No. 550.) A zemianin Dremlik Taliushkovich went from Lithuania to the kingdom of Poland because he wished to avoid service. “Thence he made attacks in a malicious manner” on the Lithuanian land, and, as a consequence of his entire pattern of conduct, the Great Prince of Lithuania seized his land. Dremlik's brother, Olekhno, complained to the Great Prince that Dremlik used force and looted extensively from him. The Great Prince allowed Olekhno to sell his half of the land to a buyer. Is this an example of confiscation of land for failure to perform service? Failure to perform service is clearly part of the justification for the seizure of the land by the Great Prince of Lithuania. The word treason or the word traitor never appears. Poland, to which Dremlik fled, was an ally of Lithuania. Nonetheless, the pattern of behavior is that encountered in other cases labeled treason.
53
(Minsk, 1960), pp. 42-44, 46.
54 Backus, “Rechtsstellung,” pp. 20-21. I have earlier stated, Motives of West Russian Nobles in Deserting Lithuania for Moscow, 1377-1514 (Lawrence, 1957), p. 38, that the obligation to perform military service was implicit. To be sure, by contrast with the appropriate wording of the privilege of 1387, the wording of the privilege of 1413 does not directly assert the obligation, but I have become convinced that such an obligation is meant.
55 3, II, No. 161.
56
, pp. 141-43.
57 ALS, IV, No. 82.
58
, pp. 355-58, uses lists of payments only to demonstrate wealth of nobles by number of horses supplied in war and fails to discuss implications of payments.
59
..., p. 347. An equivalent of the phrase laudum patriae does not appear in Russian texts of the Statute of 1529.
60 Kantorowicz, E. L., The King's Two Bodies (Princeton, 1957), p. 236.Google Scholar
61
..., p. 5.
62 ibid., p. 42, n. 5.