The state structure of the grand duchy of Lithuania in light of historiographical concepts

The second half of the 14th century became a landmark for Central and Eastern Europe. Olger Gediminid, Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) Governor, managed to win a number of victories over the Golden Horde troops and to join the vast majority of the former Rus-Ukraine lands to his possessions. This is how the new dynasty, the Gediminids, emerged which for several centuries dominated over the eastern frontiers of European civilization. Undoubtedly the primary task for the new government was the formation of the state authorities, political institutions and border security. That is the process of the state structure formation for GDL had been taking place including the annexed territories. Accordingly the main purpose of the publication is to study the form of the state that determines its territorial and national-territorial organization. The stated problem is extremely complex. Completely resolving it within a single publication is impossible. Therefore, for now, the object of our attention will be the historiographical works in which reserchers studied GDL state structure. In its turn it will facilitate further historical and legal research of this area.

Despite the curiosity of this problem, the topic is not popular in modern historiography. The vast majority of researchers (with the except of some scientists, discussed below) do not dive into the essence of the problem, but adhere to the views of the classics of Lithuanistics at the end of the 19th first third of the 20th century. Obviously it depends on several problems. In our view the first one is that GDL like any other state had undergone reform processes while its developing. Accordingly there was a change in the state structure at different times, as a result it complicates the formulation of generalized conclusions. The second problem is related to a limited source base. And it is not about the absence of chronicles or acts because to some extent they are sufficient. The question is how much they relate directly to the problem we outlined. The third problem relates to the methodological foundations of historical legal studies, including the narrow-profile studies to which this study belongs.

The vast majority of scholars from different countries and at different times paid attention not so much to the state-legal status of individual lands / principalities within the GDL, but to the whole state structure as it was. The most widespread was, and to some extent is, the concept of a federated GDL system. One of the most influential Lithuanian historians of the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries M. Lyubavsky noted: "All other lands that had been joined the Lithuanian-Rus state took a separate position from Lithuania as independent parts of the state united only by a single power. Their state position in connection with their governmental status wich had the stamp of the ancient identity made them look like members of the political federation" (Liubavskyi, 1892: 26). This feature was preserved later as well, namely during the reign of Casimir, Alexander and Sigismund: "The Lithuanian-Rus state in the defined period had a federal character, without losing it until the very end of its independent existence" (Liubavskyi, 1915: 87-88).

M. Dovnar-Zapolsky also held the same opinion. Pointing to the peculiarities of the annexed territories relationship with the central government, the scientist argued that "the whole state could be recognized as built on a federal basis, albeit a little peculiar. This state organization peculiarity consists in some kind of deviations from pure scheme of the federal system" (Dovnar-Zapolskyi, 1901: 85).

M. Grushevsky also wrote about the federation of the GDL. He believed that "GDL did not turn into the centralized state either while Vytovt reign, or later" (Hrushevskyi, 1998: 10). Though the scientist agreed in general with the conclusions of M. Lubavsky and M. Dovnar-Zapolsky at the same time he expressed some of his reasoning: "It only was a rapprochement with the federal system not a true federation because until the second half of the 16th century neither detailed forms, nor representations of land in the central organs, nor forms of local selfgovernment were produced. And the central government itself did not have the character of an authority elected by members of the federation. Eventualy integrity of lands was broken inside via the chain of the new fenomenons social and political by nature, and they pulled deeper into its system" (Hrushevskyi, 1998: 14).

This concept did not raise any objections among individual historians of law. Let's say it was fully supported by R. Lashchenko. According to him, Kyiv region, Volyn, Podillya and Chernihiv-Sivershchyna "being the part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian, these lands, with their entire system of volosts (parishes) in each, retained their independence according to their ancient customs. These principalities dependence from the centre consisted mainly in that they had to pay tribute to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the so-called "tribute" and to participate in military campaigns on behalf of the owner. Thus the whole state structure was a federal by nature"(highlighted in ed.) (Lashchenko, 1924: 10-11).

M. Chubaty also considered the state structure of GDL as federation: "The federal character of the whole land is manifested in the federation of lands for small Ukrainian provinces, official princes, commoners, the lords' and landowners' feuds, Church, estates and cities with Magdeburg law" (Chubatyi, 1947: 4).

The authority of the voiced findings by well-known scientists of the second half of the 19th early 20th centuries was so "infallible" that they are present in modern historiography. In particular, Lithuanian historian E. Gudavichius in support of the well-established opinion about the form of the GDL state system, noted: "Within the whole Lithuanian state since the 16th century a federation of lands of a new estates [stanova] structure was formed. The core of which was three Lithuanian provinces [voevodstvo] (Vilenske, Troitske Zhmudske elderships [starostvo] D.V.) which had a clear political hegemony. The state had not been fully centralized but it was united by a single system of territorial government positions" (Hudavychius, 2005: 406). At the same time the scientist claimed that the Grand Duke of Lithuania Vitovt by his actions in domestic politics "essentially destroyed the system of separate principalities ... However, as a result of the crisis in the thirties of the 15th century in the Rus' lands the appanage possessions of the Gediminids top appeared. They were destroyed by 1470" (Hudavychius, 2005: 393). The Ukrainian historian O. Rusyna also mentioned the autonomy of principalities on Ukrainian lands as part of the Lithuanian state. In her opinion, the vassal dependence of Volodymyr Olgerdovych, Dmytro-Korybut Olgerdovych, Fedir Lyubartovych and others from the Lithuanian prince Jagiello "found outward expression in "obedience", payment of annual tribute and, if it was necessary, providing military assistance to the "master"; apart from that their possessions remained virtually autonomous parts of the Lithuanian state" (Rusyna, 1998: 69). F. Shabuldo believed the autonomy of the principalities remained even after the abolition of the separate principalities at the end of the 14th century: "And in the status provinces [voevodstvo] former principalities remained separate administrative territorial units which kept significant feudal autonomy though often with outlines of borders which had been changed" (Shabuldo, 1987: 103).

At the same time there are several other concepts for this problem. In the fullness of time, the above conclusions of M. Lyubavsky had been criticized by the famous historian of law F. Leontovych. He believed that "there can hardly be a political federation where the union agreement established today is being broken tomorrow, where the federal part falls away from its whole, quite often by purely accidental circumstances, as it was the usual case in specific Rus ... It is even less appropriate to speak about the "federal" nature of the Lithuanian-Rus state in the 15th and 16th centuries" (Leontovych, 1894: 178-179(2)). F. Leontovich also spoke about the impossibility of using the existing statute certificates of Zemstvo as an argument in the matter of the federal system. According to these documents, the domestic life of the lands was carried out "not by their political separation and identity, not by the right of the territorial self-government (political decentralization), but only by granting, that was very fragile and not a strong argument, which could be deprived of any power and at any moment by the will of the same authority which gave it" (Leontovych, 1894: 178-179).

The well-known researcher O. Yefymenko expressed an interesting opinion. She believed that the principalities that were part of the GDL possessed some sovereignty from the central government untill the middle of the 15th century. The researcher wrote: "There is no state in the specific period but rather the assembly of the states, since each principality was politically independent. The Lithuanian-

Russ state is undoubtedly a state, but still very far from its future unification. Kyiv, Volyn and Podillya regions have retained much of their regional identity, which was reflected in particular tribal differences and long-lasting political isolation" (Efymenko, 1906: 105-106).

N. Molchanovsky wrote about the political independence elements of separate principalities, in particular Podillya. In his opinion the rulers of Podillya princes "The Koriatovichis could enter into relations with the Polish and Hungarian kings, could seek their friendship and support, establish trade relations with the institution, etc., but Podillya as it is,which was inhabited mainly by the Rus tribe, had a politically independent position under the Koriatovichis" (Molchanovskyi, 1885: 226-227). N. Molchanovsky's findings were substantially reinforced in one of our previous publications. Having analyzed a considerable mass of various written and archeological sources, we came to the conclusion the Koryatovichis princes while ruling by Podil land managed to achieve sovereignty from the central power of the GDL. It was reflected in their legal, political, military, economic and cultural activities (Vashchuk, 2018: 4-19).

Another researcher V. Zaikin identified several periods in the process of development for the form of the GDL state system. The first period refers to the times of Vitovt, who "tried to create a unitary (monolithic) state out of all the lands which were subordinated to him, but having met resistance from some (especially Ukrainian) lands, he had to leave them limited statehood". In the second stage which came after Vitovt's death, "the lands united by him formed a federal Lithuanian-Ukrainian-Byeloruss State, which was called The Grand Duchy of Lithuania. "In the second half of the 15th century the third stage held" Duchy changed from the federation to the unitary state". It is in this form that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania will become part of the unitary Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569 (Zaikyn, 2004: 77-78). In addition, the scientist expressed an interesting reflection on the effects of the Union of Krevo regarding the issues we are investigating: "Until 1569 this connection was very weak and had either the form of the Polish kings protectorate over the Grand Duchy, or the personal union of the Kingdom and the Grand Duchy" (Zaikyn, 2004: 78).