ENSERFMENT THE PEASANTRY OF THE GRAND DUCTY OF LITHUANIA: THE VISION OF UKRAINIAN AND RUSSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHIES OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19th – EARLY 20th CENTURIES

Abstract

The article is dedicated to examining the perspectives of Ukrainian and Rus-sian historiography from the second half of the 19th and early 20th centu-ry regarding the socio-legal status of the peasantry in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, particularly focusing on the causes, process, and consequences of enserfment. The need for this study is primarily driven by the necessity to deepen the exploration of Lithuanian studies within the historiography of this period concerning peasant history. Furthermore, this topic has not yet been the subject of specialized and thorough research by scientists.

The study establishes that the issue of peasant enserfment in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was addressed to varying degrees by numerous scientists of the second half of the 19th and early 20th century. However, the most represen-tative works within this timeframe were those of Ukrainian researchers F. Le-ontovych, V. Antonovych, M. Hrushevsky, M. Volodymyrsky-Budanov, as well as Russian historians M. Liubavsky and V. Picheta. Thus, the article primarily focuses on analyzing the views of these scientists. It has been determined that the majority of historiographical works on this issue mainly pertain to the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s independent development (before 1569). In essence, the socio-legal aspects of the peasantry’s fate during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth period (1569–1795) were largely overlooked by researchers.

The article demonstrates that interpretations of the causes of peasant en-serfment in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania varied among researchers. Some (N. Tumasov, D. Ilovaisky, M. Petrov) adopted a simplified approach, attribut-ing enserfment to the prohibition of peasant mobility to other lands by the privilege of Lithuanian Duke Casimir IV Jagiellon. Other researchers provided more detailed and substantiated explanations of the primary causes of enser-fment. For instance, M. Liubavsky argued that serfdom emerged as a result of state policies aimed at ensuring regular income from all lands. In contrast, F. Leontovych and M. Volodymyrsky-Budanov prioritized economic reasons, specifically the material and economic hardships of peasants, which placed them in dependence on landowners. M. Hrushevsky emphasized socio-eco-nomic factors, particularly the provision of landownership with stable income to the military-service class.

It has been established that most historians agreed that one of the main mech-anisms of enserfment was the principle of «longevity» of peasants’ residence within the domains of a particular landowner, which bound them to the land and placed them in complete dependence. However, only a few researchers (M. Volodymyrsky-Budanov, M. Liubavsky) strongly emphasized the significant role of Polish and German legal norms, which gained prominence in the state, in the establishment of serfdom. 

The study reveals that historians significantly diverged in identifying the starting point of the enserfment process. Their positions can be grouped as follows: before the mid-15th century (M. Liubavsky, M. Hrushevsky); mid-15th century (N. Tumasov, D. Ilovaisky, M. Petrov); first half of the 16th century (M. Volodymyrsky-Budanov); mid-16th century (V. Yuzefovych, V. Antonovych). The onset of the widespread and peak phase of enserfment is generally dated to the second half of the 16th century.

It has also been established that researchers unanimously agreed that the introduction of serfdom significantly worsened the socio-legal, material and economic status of peasants in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. As a result, peasants lost personal freedom, became fully dependent on landowners and were burdened with corvée labor and tributes.