The Beginnings and Unfolding of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - Litvanya Büyük Dükaliği'nin çikişi

3RD INTERNATIONAL BLACK

SEA MODERN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CONGRESS

March 23-24, 2023

Samsun, Turkiye

EDITOR

Prof. Dr. Mariam Jikia

ISBN - 978-625-367-025-2

3rd INTERNATIONAL BLACK SEA MODERN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CONGRESS

March 23-24, 2023 - Samsun, Turkiye

EDITOR

Prof. Dr. Mariam Jikia

All rights of this book belong to IKSAD Publishing House Authors are responsible both ethically and jurisdically

IKSAD Publications - 2023©

Issued: 26.03.2023

ISBN - 978-625-367-026-9

CONGRESS TITLE

3RD INTERNATIONAL BLACK SEA MODERN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CONGRESS

DATE AND PLACE

March 23-24, 2023 - Samsun, Turkiye

ORGANIZATION

IKSAD INSTITUTE

EDITOR

Prof. Dr. Mariam Jikia

PARTICIPANTS COUNTRY (30 countries)

TÜRKİYE, ETHIOPIA, AZERBAIJAN, ALGERIA, INDIA, NIGERIA, PAKISTAN, INDONESIA, MALAYSIA, GEORGIA, USA, ROMANIA, KOSOVA, ITALY, PHILIPPINES, BULGARIA, SERBIA, MACEDONIA, MOROCCO, FRANCE, RUSSIA, SENEGAL, UKRAINE, HUNGARY, IRAQ, ALBANIA, OMAN, SLOVAKIA, GERMANY, UNITED KINGDOM

Total Accepted Article: 444

Total Rejected Papers: 58

Accepted Article (Türkiye): 212

Accepted Article (Other Countries): 232

ISBN - 978-625-367-026-9

23.03.2023 / Session-1, Hall-6

Ankara Local Time: 09:00 – 11:00

Moderator: Prof. Oleksii MAKARENKOV

Meeting ID: 831 4911 0473 / Passcode: 030303

Title

THE POLITICAL SITUATION IN KARABAKH DURING THE AZERBAIJAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC AND THE KARABAKH AND ZANGAZUR ISSUE IN PARLIAMENTARY DOCUMENTS

"IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW – CASE STUDY OF 1992-1993 ABKHAZIAN ARMED CONFLICT"

THE ROLE OF EUROPEAN UNION IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION – CASE STUDY OF 2008 RUSSIA-GEORGIA WAR

INDONESIA'S GEOPOLITICS AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ARCHIPELAGO'S INSIGHT

RUSSIA'S PLAN TO LAND ON THE BOSPHORUS OF ISTANBUL IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE XIX CENTURY

THE QUESTION OF THE STRAITS IN RUSSIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY

THE BEGINNINGS AND UNFOLDING OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA

DIGITIZED DATABASES OF OLDPRINTED CYRILLIC BOOKS IN EAST EUROPE: THE CASES OF LITHUANIAN AND BELARUSIAN LIBRARIES

PROTECTION OF SEXUAL INTEGRITY (FREEDOM) OF CITIZENS DURING WAR BY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW: UKRAINE CASE

Author(s)

Dr. Prof. Mariam Jikia

Dr. Prof. Mariam Jikia

Ardina JANIBAH

Lita Dwi ARIYANTI Hendri Hermawan ADĠNUGRAHA Ade GUNAWAN Rıa Anisatus SHOLĠHAH

Gökhan Arslan

Affiliation

Lankaran State University Azerbaijan

Georgian Technical University Georgia

Georgian Technical University Georgia

UIN K.H. Abdurrahman Wahid Pekalongan, Indonesia

"Federal University of Kazan (Volga region)

Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation"

"Federal University of Kazan (Volga region)

Gökhan Arslan

Sándor FÖLDVÁRĠ

Sándor FÖLDVÁRĠ

Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation"

Debrecen University

Hungary

Debrecen University

Hungary

All participants must join the conference 10 minutes before the session time. Every presentation should last not longer than 10-12 minutes. Kindly keep your cameras on till the end of the session.

Nurlana Malikli

Prof. Oleksii MAKARENKOV Zaporizhzhia National University Ukraine

POLLEN

ACCORDING

ACCORDING TO SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPE (SEM) METHOD OF ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT

LİTVANYA BÜYÜK DÜKALIĞI'NIN BAŞLANGICI

VE ORTAYA ÇIKIŞI

THE BEGINNINGS AND UNFOLDING OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA

Research Fellow Sándor FÖLDVÁRİ

Debrecen University, Faculty of Humanities, Baltic Studies Lecturer, Debrecen, Hungary

ORCİD: ID/0000-0002-7825-0531

ABSTRACT

From the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea, on a huge territory spread the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (furthermore GDL), which was a powerful and dynamically developing state in Eastern Europe from the early 13th up to the late 14th cc. It conquered the former territories of Kyivan Rus, thus deliberated them from the Mongol yoke, and administered them using the local variation of the Church Slavonic language. The beginnings of the GDL are the subject of debate. Some authors begin its history with the foundation of the Gediminas dynasty and the establishment of Vilnius as a new capital by Gediminas. Albeit he was not the first Lithuanian ruler and much earlier the Lithuanian state was already such powerful that the Halych-Volhynian Principality made a peace treaty with it in 1219. Therefore, the author of the paper is of that opinion the very beginning of the GDL must be counted since 1219 because it is the first documented date referring to the existing Lithuanian state in the sources. Those who begin the history of the GDL in the last years of the 13th century, such as Rowell, mean that the activity of Gediminas was a state-grounding process. On the contrary, we think the peace treaty can be made by existing real powers, hence the state-like entity of the Lithuanians was necessary to exist in 1219. Another turning point was the coronation of Grand Duke Mindaugas for a Lithuanian King in 1253 and it is usually regarded as the beginning of the Lithuanian state. This was however a single and unique act, and nothing followed, nor a dynasty nor any state building by new administrative districts and/or newly learned elite, in comparison with the European states. Mindaugas itself was murdered by his subjects, therefore he hardly was such a conscious and determined king as the state-founder king in Europe, nor as the Grand Dukes of the Kyivan Ruś before, such as Volodymyr the Great and Yaroslav the Wise, who had not been crowned but built a new state with physical buildings and organizing a new administration as well. Those historians regard the coronation of Mindaugas as a state-building, and seem to forget the state as such is not a consequence of a mere act but the coronation itself is the consequence of the statebuilding. On the other hand, the Grand Dukes of the GDL were rulers of a real state, which was administered by documents on the local version of the Chruch Slavonic, because the most of inhabitants of these lands were Slavs who followed the Byzantine form of Christianity, thus the Orthodoxy. Consequently, we compare the different views and approaches to the GDL in the paper, and we argue that it was a real state such as the contemporary European states, although it is evidenced not by the coronation of Mindaugas, which proves nothing, but by the real acts of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes.

Keywords: Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania, Eastern_Europe, Kyivan_Ruś, state_building

1. INTRODUCTION: THE FRAMEWORKS OF TIME AND SPACE WERE

Historically, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (furthermore GDL) existed since the treaty of peace with the Principality of Galich-Volhynian Duchy in 1219, through the personal union with Poland (1386 1569) and the real union (Commonwealth) with Poland (1569-1795) until the third partition of Poland when the largest part (which is significant for these sociolinguistic

problems) was fallen under the rule of the Tsarist Empire, and a smaller part (within the framework of that the literary languages could be evolved) was fallen under the rule of the Habsburg Empire, and the Western part became a province of the Prussian Kingdom resulted in a strong Germanization

Geographically, the GDL was located between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea; approximately between the Western border of the contemporary Podlaskie Voivodeship of Poland and the Eastern border of the present Bryansk County of Russia (Bryanskaya oblast); though the territory changed a lot during its history. – The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth covered (still beyond the GDL) the territories of ―the Crown‖, which consisted of the former territories of the Polish Kingdom bordered by the western edged of the present Greater Poland (Wielkopolska) Voivodeship of Poland, and the southern half of the former GDL (which were moved to the Polish Crown by the establishing the PLC); and the northern part of the former GDL which remained under the name of the smaller GDL after the Lublin Union in 1569.

2. THE POLISH-LITHUANIAN COMMONWEALTH, AS RELATED TO THE GDL:

2.1. The sense and weight of the power of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

Thus, the GDL As can be seen in this map (Figure No. 1), in the Early Modern Age in Eastern Europe there was a huge state phenomenon, namely the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (furthermore: PLC), that is, the ―Republic of Both Nations‖ as they called themselves, which is commonly referred to in the special literature as the Commonwealth in English, just as the British One was called The British Commonwealth. As Professor P. R. Magocsy points out in the text accompanying the map, the Turkish Empire and the Habsburg Empire were similar in weight, size, and power to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth: “The major change in the status of East Central Europe during the sixteenth century was the growth and consolidation of three major states: the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire, and Poland, or the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth. By about 1570 these entities alone accounted for virtually the entire territory through the region.” (Magocsi, 1991: 46)

So, the present Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Lithuanian territories were part of such a significant state at that time, which dominated and determined the development of the history of Eastern Europe in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Age. The largest territory of the PLC reached in 1619. A more detailed and maybe better map of the status in 1619 is accessible in the lately published book by a Ukrainian scholar, Natalia Starchenko, albeit we use the map of Magochy because it concerns the era of the Lublin Union, which was the upper-time limit of the epoch we here deal with. (Starchenko, 2021:584 585) We suggest visiting that more detailed map, too, with detailed designations of provinces and voivodeships of the Republic of Both Nations. Within the framework of this multi-ethnic and multicultural state, different peoples lived according to their traditions, respectively, as well as under the umbrella of the PLC, they had something in common and also a lot of peculiar features that mainly distinguished these peoples from those others who lived outside the PLC. Unfortunately, mainly in today‘s Europe, there is such a misconception (in the circles of amateurs and engaged people) that Eastern Europe would be a single and backward world, defined by some kind of wild social order, symbolized by the great Russian bear but in fact, this is a completely erroneous view since the Eastern Slavs are not united, they are different in aspects of both culture and history. From the rich literature supporting our views, we here within the frameworks refer to an article by American Jacobus Delwaide, published in the Journal of Historical Sciences at Harvard University. We distinguish from his conclusions that after the collapse of Kyiv as a center, for five centuries, that is, half a millennium, the former Kyivan Ruś was subordinated to Vilnius, and then Warsaw, but in no case Moscow. (Delwaide, 2011)

Thus, this Polish-Lithuanian state was as big as the later Russian state of Moscow in the era of Peter the Great. However, in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

was yet much more powerful and heavier than Russia of Moscow. It was the state with the largest territory and the largest population in Europe. Not in Eastern Europe, but in the whole of Europe, the largest state in terms of territory and population. It was located on the lands of modern Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus, in part of the territory of Latvia, Estonia, Russia, and Moldova. The largest size of the state was received during the Truce of Dywilino (Deulino) between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Tsardom of Russia on 11 December 1618. Significant territories were gained by the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Much of these territories, such as the city of Smolensk, belonged earlier to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania before Grand Duchy of Moscow conquered them in the 16th century. (Cooper, 1979:595).

2.2.

The last year marked a sad anniversary: 250 years ago, in 1772, on August 5, the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which had existed as a state union since the 16th century, were first divided between neighbouring great powers: the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Prussia and the Habsburg Empire. Three separations, as is known, were carried out by 1795. (Halecki, 1963; Kaplan, 1972; Kucharzewski, 1944) The fates of the fragments were different. (Kamusella, 2013) In the Russian Tsardom, there were brutal repressions and alienation of all that remained of the society and culture of the Polish-Lithuanian state, thus the evil and deliberate destruction of the European heritage that these territories brought from their former state. This did not reduce but urged the desire of Ukrainians to preserve their identity, already formed as their own, much different from the Great Russian (Kohut, 2014) In the Kingdom of Prussia (which consisted of the eastern and western parts, in administrative and mental aspects too) Germanization took place ―successfully‖, denying literacy in local Slavic languages. However, and at the same time, socio-cultural development was gaining more and

1st Figure East Central Europe, ca. 1570 (Magocsi, 1991 map No.14. (our great thanks to the author for permission)

The sad end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania

more influence, as a result, even in present-day Poland, the ―western‖ cultural regions differ in mentality, political culture, and interpersonal relations, too. (Jedlicki & Łubieńska, 1992) In the third, smallest part of the former Polish-Lithuanian state under the rule of the Habsburgs, in Galicia, both Polish literacy and ‗Ruthenian‘ (that is, ‗Ruśky‘ with a single ‗s‘) have been preserved to a relatively good extent, in comparison with the other two territories where no literacy nor culture was permitted but that of the occupiers. (Danylenko, 2006; 2017)

2.3. Divergence in the development of the East-Slavic peoples of PCL from the sociocultural peculiarities of Muscovy

Then, when Moscow conquered these territories, a false idea began to be developed in Moscow that the center of gravity shifted from Kyiv to Moscow when Moscow assumed the leading role of Kievan Rus. Albeit there was no such role of Muscovy because after the collapse of the Grand Duchy of Kyiv (the Kyivan Ruś), little Moscow was still slowly conquering Novgorod, then Belarusian and Ukrainian territories later, during the weakening of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Here, in the PLC, the Eastern Slavs of the Orthodox confession developed both culturally and socially in a different way than Orthodoxy in Moscow. The latter fell under the power of the idea of the ―third Rome‖, that is, Moscow Orthodoxy was organized in the spirit of the service of imperial aspirations, as around the point of crystallization. (Strémooukhoff, 1953; Toumanoff, 1955; Oglobin, 1951)

On the other hand, on the lands of Kyiv (also Polotsk and Vilna, too) Orthodoxy has preserved the Byzantine tradition the main task of the church and the statesman – it is ―the good of people‖, which has its roots in the long-standing Roman system of law (Spitzer, 1980), then it was transmitted through the legal reforms of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (Head, 2013) Authors in the field agree that Emperor Justinian‘s laws were essentially continuing the roman law, completing it from the point of view of the Christian ruler, whose task is to take care of the ―public good‖, the ―bonum commune‖, while preserving the Roman law. (Ladner, 1975) The survival of Roman law appeared in Western social structures, too. (Planck, 1965) The PLC and its parts followed the European and/or Byzantine tradition in the state-building, while Muscovy did not.

Since the elaboration of the imperial concept of the ―third Rome‖, we consider Orthodoxy in Moscow to be mainly deviating from the essence of Orthodoxy itself, and, in our opinion, Kyiv and Vilna–Polotsk Orthodoxy tried to serve primarily the spiritual and cultural principles of Christianity. Muscovy subordinated its Orthodox Church to its imperial ambitions, and, on the other hand, the Moscow Orthodoxy accepted and completed this job, while the Kyiv Metropolia remained in the way of spreading the Christian values in a more measure. On the other hand, Kyiv and Vilna–Polotsk Orthodoxy was also able to accept European cultural impacts, that is, the bourgeois development during the Renaissance, which is brilliantly reflected in the fact that secular societies of citizens, that is, confraternities, managed schools and printing houses –which was not the case in Moscow. (Isaievych, 1992; Isaievych, 1993; Isaievyč, 1996: 214-239, 241-260) From our point of view, this phenomenon is something other than the appearance of ‗confessionalization‘ in the territory of the PLC (Dmitriev, 2012) via similar processes, like the Reformation in Western and Central Europe, mainly in connection with ―the industry of books as the building of nations through Protestantism‖, according to Benedict Anderson‘s views. (Anderson,1991)

However, unbiased, objective, and impartial views appeared already in the 19th century among those Russian historians in Moscow, who (contrary to Karamzin and his camp) were of the opinion that those East Slavic peoples who lived within the framework of the Polish-Lithuanian state were fundamentally different from the Muscovian, ‗Great Russian‘ people, even in the religious aspect. Although the strongest connection, which was referred to by supporters of East Slavic unity, was a confessional tradition, even in this field those Russian historians recognized many differences. (Yeremieiev, 2019) He refers to Russian Polevoy: ―In this nationality [i.e. in

Ukrainians] we [that is, Russians] can see only two main elements of ancient Russia: faith and language, but even those have been changed by time. Everything else is not ours: physiognomy, morals, dwellings, life, poetry, clothes…‖ (Polevoy, 1830) Still, more examples are given by Yeremieiev in the cited above paper, such as Pogodin, too, and a more detailed depiction of the activity of those Russian scholars who recognized the Ukrainian people as a different nation, equally from the Russians.

As for views of the Belarusian people by unbiased, objective, and impartial Russian historians, the author of this paper does not have sufficient knowledge of the views of Russian historians on independent, different Belarusian culture, so we do believe that Belarusian experts still may complete this. Let‘s give for example the paper of Belarusian R. Voranaŭ, in connection with the reception of Skaryna‘s personality, concerns questions about the views of Russian intellectuals about Belarusians and gives some further literature (Voranaŭ, 2012) Also, on the issues of regarding the Belarusian language as an independent language, distinguishing from Russian, S. Zaprudski‘s work with further literature. (Zaprudski, 2013)

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (PLC) was structurally different from Muscovian Russia, which means that in both cultural and social aspects, there were different local Eastern Slavs inhabiting here, differing from Muscovian Russians, thanks to the social structure of the PLC, they lived here within a much more European society. And it is not entirely without benefit to show that these differences were already recognized by the school of Russian historians who did not follow Karamzin‘s school, even opposed it in several aspects. (Földvári, S. 2023)

2.4. The beginnings of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and its uprising

The beginnings of GDL are subject of debates without any consensus. (Bumblauskas, 1999.) The first mention of the state of Lithuanians refers to the peace treaty with the Principality of GalichVolhyn in 1219 (Baranauskas, 2019), however, some authors state out the GDL begins in 1295. (Rowell, 1994.) The coronation of Mindaugas (Mindowg) happened in 1253; therefore, it is considered to begin the history of GDL since the middle of the 13th century, without any consent on the very beginning. The languages used for the literacy were the local redaction of the Church Slavonic and the Latin, in a smaller measure but of significance. The turn in the history of GDL was the marriage of Lithuanian Jogaila (in Polish form Jagiełło) with Jadwiga, the daughter of Lodovico of Anjou, the Louis of Poland and Hungary, and the personal union of GDL with the Kingdom of Poland. (Halecki, 1974.) It meant the grand dukes of the GDL were elected independently, thus is was not automatically the Polish king became the Lithuanian Grand Duke, moreover, it was possible these rulers were different. Thus, GDL lost the southern half of territories and all remaining independence. (Halecki, 1919-1920. Kiaupienė, 2001. Rachuba, 2002. Wisner, 2008. Seredyka, 1974.) Therefore, it was not a ‗pagan‘ state at all, in contrary to those authors who consider only the western, Roman Catholic states for ‗Christians‘. (Rowell, 1990). Even if Lithuanians cultivated pagan costumes as their confessional identification. The Lithuanian rulers often married Slavic princesses of Orthodox confession, and they baptized themselves, too, according to Orthodox Christianity, thus by the Byzantine-rite form of the Christian religion. Their chancellery was managed in the Church Slavic language, their clerks were Slavic priests and scribes of Orthodox Christianity, and the Orthodox metropolitan in Kyiv (now Ukraine), the chief priest of the Slavic, Orthodox believers, was a well-integrated subject of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes, after Lithuanians conquered the former territories of the Kyivan Ruś, except for the Nordic and Eastern lands. Therefore, it was a de facto Christian state with a huge number of Orthodox believers and a written chancellery language, the local redaction of the Church Slavonic. This was very similar to the role of Latin language played in West Europe. It was a powerful and

dynamically developing state in Eastern Europe from the early 13th up to the late 14th cc administered in the local variation of the Church Slavonic language.

2.5. The Creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and its impacts on the sociocultural development.

After the Union of Lublin in 1569, when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was created, the respective king of Poland was automatically the ruler of the GDL, too, with a formal inauguration procedure for the throne of the grand duke. The territory of the Kingdom was named as the ―Crown‖, in contrary of the territory of the Duchy. However, this turn resulted the Ukrainian lands, were former territories of GDL, became the provinces of the ―Crown‖ and the Duchy (successor of the GDL) remained only on the Lithuanian and Belarusian lands. In these times the inhabitants of the Duchy became to be named ‗Litvin‘ that is, people of the Lithuanian lands (the Duchy), in contrary to the peoples of the ―Crown‖, that is, of Ukrainian and Polish lands. As we have mentioned it above. When Mickiewicz began his poem Pan Tadeusz by an invocation to ―Lithuania‖ it meant the ‗Litvin‘ lands, that is, the lands of the Duchy (and not only Lithuania in the narrow sense): Litwo! Ojczyzno moja! ty jesteś jak zdrowie. ("Lithuania, my country! You are as good health" transl. Marcel Weyland). In this epoch the Polish were of the dominant variety in the diglossia, the High component, while the local vernaculars became the Law varieties, and the Church Slavonic lost its role. However, in the Cossack lands, the language of the administration and diplomatic communication was a local redaction of Church Slavonic, based on the Old Ukrainian. The official documents were sent from the Cossacks to the Moscowian Principality (the Moscowian Rus) were to be translated in Moscow, however, they were written in ―Church Slavonic‖ thus they had to understandable for the readers in Moscow but were not. (Shevchenko, 1996). At the same time, the literary Ukrainian was already elaborated, while the literary Belarusian appeared in the beginning of the 20th century. The literary Ukrainian appeared in the texts and tractates written to the liturgical books. While the very text of the liturgy was conservative, the secular text accompanying the liturgical books were flexible, subject to change hence able to accept the impacts of the time and place. According to Ya. Isaievich, the lay brotherhoods (confraternities) in Ukrainian and Belarusian lands, owned the typographies and schools, were open-mind and market-oriented companies, working for the costumers. Therefore, the books printed in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth by Cyrillic letters, were much closer to the readers than those printed in Moscow. The only and enormous Moscowian Typography, the Pechatnyj Dvor (―Printing Court‖) worked for the tsarist demands according to the orders of the emperor, while the flexible and small typographies in the Ukrainian and Belarusian lands worked according to the request of the market.

2.6. The GDL within the framework of the PLC

On the other hand, Polish social hegemony and, consequently, the spread of Catholicism caused constant complaints (either with a basis or without a basis), which served as a possible ideological basis for Moscow‘s expansionist aspirations. (Ivashko, 2022) It should be noted that such complaints were exaggerated. An example for proving it. At the same time when the Jesuits, supported by Stefan Batory, managed the Vilnius University founded by him (Rabikauskas, 1978), in the same Vilnius (Vilna – the name of that time), the printing of Cyrillic font for the Orthodox denomination flourished: the printing house of Mamonich family from 1574 to 1623, and the printing house of the Vilna Orthodox Brotherhood from 1584 to 1795. (Zernova, 1959) About the character of Vilnius in that time, a much valuable monograph from the pen of L. Tymoshenko has lately been published, highlighting the multicultural and multiconfessional character of Vilna. (Tymošenko, 2020) The books of these Vilna printing houses were also sold in that Moscow, from which the first printer Ivan Fedorov was expelled,

and after being expelled from Moscow, he found a great opportunity with the support of Prince Ostrogsky on the Ukrainian lands in the PLC. (Isaievič, 1975; 1990) In a multi-ethnic and multiconfessional PLC, no one interfered with either Orthodox or other citizens in the development of their cultures, unless Russian attacks from Muscovy. Within the framework of the PLC, after the Lublin union in 1569, a special position was occupied by the GDL. (Zakrzewski, 2000; Rachuba, 2002; Wisner, 1974; 1968; 2008; Seredyka, 1974; Rabikauskas

3. THE LANGUAGE SITUATION IN THE GRAND DUCHY OF LITHUANIA.

3.1. The languages were spoken or written here.

As for the languages, in the western part of PLC (the very kingdom of Poland), the Polish language dominated, and some smaller West-Slavic ones (such as the Kashubian, Polabian, and some others) were still spoken, also the ratio of Germans were of some significance in this territory, while the language-situation was more multilingual in the GDL and in the Ukrainian part of the PLC (the south-eastern part of ―The Crown‖). The latter had been a very part of the GDL earlier, during the personal union (until 1569); and the creation of PLC meant the acquisition of large territories from the GDL to the Polish Crown. Therefore, Slavic languages of GDL and PLC were as follows: Church Slavonic for the literacy (in its local ‗editions‘, see below); Polish; Kashubian, Polabian; (Old) Belarusian; (Old) Ukrainian; and marginally (Old) Russian. The Non-Slavic languages of GDL were Lithuanian; Old Prussian, and in a small ratio Latvian (at the northern edge) and some Finno-Ugric languages (in a much smaller ratio at the northern edge); and the Karaim, also Yiddish as well, and for literacy the Latin, Ancient (and Byzantine) Greek. The historical circumstance determined the sociolinguistic situation, as well. Appeared the diglossia, thus different languages were used by the respective social strata; on the other hand, a few languages were used by every social stratum; that is, no person was monolingual, but anybody was bi- or trilingual (depending on the social stratum), and/or used a fourth language for writing if the person was literate.

The basic terms required for the description of the language situation in GDL and PLC are as follows: a) the diglossia (and triglossia) versus bilingualism (Fergusson, 1959; Uspensky, ) and b) the dialect continuum (Bloomfield, 1935).

3.2. The Baltic languages.

The GDL got its name from the Lithuanians, who compose a branch of Baltic Peoples; the latter ones constitute a branch of the Indo-European peoples. The Baltic branch stays in the closest relativity to the German and Slavic branches; however, the Baltic one is an independent branch, equally with the other ones. This problem is a subject of debates about the national identity of peoples presently inhabiting the former GDL hence it is being used as a tool of historical argumentation and often occurs in the discourses about the GDL (Dziarnovich, 2014-2015). According to the earlier accepted, but already outdated conception of the ―genealogical-treeparadigm‖ (Bradke, 1888), the Baltic languages belong to the satǝm-group of the Indo-European languages, which consists of the Indo-Iranian, Baltic, Slavic, and Armenian, Thracian, Albanian; while the centum-group consists of the Italian, Greek, Celtic, German also Tokharian and Hittite sub-groups and languages. The only isogloss that supports this classification is the k´ > ś phonetic change in the satǝm-group and the lack of it in the centum group. Since there is no other isogloss that divides the Indo-European languages according to the satǝm-centum division, on the other hand, there are several isoglosses dividing the Indo-Europeans elsewhere, nowadays it is accepted to speak about the Western and Eastern groups of Indo-Europeans. By the latter division, the Baltic branch belongs to the Eastern group together with the Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian, and Albanian, also Hittite, while the Western group consists of the Italic, Celtic and German languages. (Szemerényi, 1990, Lehmann, 1993). A more precise model is the

―wave-theory‖ by Schmidt (1872) then developed by Meillet (1908) which is the background of the contemporary concept of isoglosses in the linguistics, too. In all of these conceptions of dividing the Indo-European languages, the Baltic languages are in the closest connection with the Slavic ones, however, it is already not a question if there had earlier existed a ―Baltic-Slavic language group‖ which later separated into Slavic and Baltic or had not; because, according to the model of the linguistic geography, the isoglosses matter but already not any ―genealogical tree‖, since the latter is an outdated model. Hence the Baltic languages definitely are not Slavic, though in close relativity to them (Petit, 2004, Pohl, 1992).

3.3. The language interferences in the GDL. In the epoch of GDL, the Baltic and the Slavic languages were already very different and nonunderstandable for each other; while the Slavic (the spoken ones and the written, died Church Slavonic in its different editions) were close to each other and made significant impacts on each other. (Моysiienko-Nika, 2013) However, some lexical influences between Lithuanian and Slavic languages occurred from the very beginnings of the GDL up to nowadays. The lexical convergences between the Polish and Lithuanian, and phonetic also morphologic convergences (beyond lexical ones) between the Polish and Belarusian in the historical times also in the modern epoch are of significance. These phenomena are to be described within the model of diglossia, threatened below. Convergences and divergences between the Ukrainian and Belarusian dialects are to be described within the model of a dialect continuum

3.4. The bilingualism of the Lithuanian ruling elite in the epoch of dominancy of GDL. The Lithuanian itself was a spoken language in the GDL, with its four main dialects differing from each other in a significant measure: the Aukštaitian, the Žemaitian, the Dziukian, and the Suvalkian. Even nowadays the speakers of the Lithuanian dialects in the respective villages speak different words and pronunciations as well. (Senn, 1945.) The Old Prussian has spoken approximately in the territory of the contemporary Königsberg county of the Russian Federation, though in a wider territory, which was historically named as ―Little Lithuania‖ (Mažioji Lietuva in Lithuanian). This is the language has the earliest written sources among the Baltic ones, and it had died out by the time the other Baltic languages gained their literacy. Latvian, the third Baltic language was spoken in the northern part of the GDL, but in a sporadic measure and most of the speakers lived outside of the GDL. Similarly, the Finno-Ugric Livonian and Estonian were spoken in the northern edge of the GDL in the epoch of its greatest expansion, and most of the speakers lived outside of the GDL. The Lithuanian was spoken in a smaller part of the GDL, and the Slavic languages were spoken in the predominant territory of the GDL. The establishment was bilingual: wives of the dukes and the nobility were often of East-Slavic origin; thus, their mother tongue was Old Russian. Such as the mother of Jogaila (Jagełło), Uliana was a daughter of Prince Alexander of Tver and Anastasia of Halych. She was the second wife of Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, hence his mother tongue was Old Russian.

Two consequences may be derived. The first sociolinguistic conclusion is, that bilingualism had to exist in the GDL; for example, Vytautas (Witold) the Great, his uncle Algirdas (Olgerd in Slavic sources), and his successor dukes spoke to his brothers and military leaders in Lithuanian; they spoke to his relatives in East Slavic (Old Russian), and to the lower class (if they did) in a spoken East Slavic vernacular which would be defined as the ancestor of the Belarusian, although it is a subject of debates. (Dziarnovich 2012–2013) The second sociolinguistic conclusion is, the diglossia had to exist there; since the local redaction of the Church Slavic was the written language of the official documents, later the prosta mova, which was a closer variant of it, as a result of the local vernacular; therefore, according to the concept of Uspensky, B.A., the usage of various redactions of the Church Slavonic means the diglossia existed in the Old Rus; and in the Moscowian Rus, therefore, we do apply this concept on the situation in the GDL,

too. The Achilles heel of Uspensky‘s conception is the Church Slavic belongs to the South Slavic Languages, while the local vernaculars belong to the East Slavic group.

3.5. The linguistic paradigm of the diglossia and its variations. According to Fergusson (1959: 435), diglossia means the two varieties of the very same language are working in different functions of the society: the lower variant (as the spoken Arabic vernaculars, in Fergusson‘s case) functioning for everyday speech and for the lower social strata, while the higher variation (the Literary Standard Arabic) is functioning for the sphere of higher prestige, such as the very literature (belles-lettres), the official language (chancellery-language) and the local diplomacy. Hence, the diglossia did exist in the Old Rus also in the GDL, since the Church Slavonic (in its various ―redactions‖, see below) were understandable for the speakers of the local vernacular, more than, in the Fergusson‘s case, the literary ―standard‖ Arabic (the Fuṣḫa) is hardly understandable for the speakers of the local vernacular, though it depends on their social stratum. According to the followers of Fergusson, the ―extended diglossia‖ means the H and L varieties may belong to different languages (Fishman, 1967). We hardly accept the latter concept, however, if so, it may be applied to the earlier stage of the GDL, Lithuanian was a ―father language‖ of the higher social stratum, and the local redaction of the Church Slavonic was the written language (the H variety) while the local vernaculars, the ancestors of the Belarusian and Ukrainian languages, were the L variety. Thus, if accepting the concept of Fishman about the ―extended diglossia‖, there were existing triglossia, in the sociolinguistic aspect. Moreover, in the later stage of the GDL, Polish became the language of the higher social strata, while the Church-Slavonic-based prosta mova remains the language of the chancellery in Ukraine (in the Cossack State), and the Latin reflourished as the language of the belles-lettres, too; while it was the language of the chancellery in the earlier stage of the GDL for the diplomatic correspondence and writing historical chronicles, as well. Hence the diglossia existed, and in the earlier stage the Church Slavonic (in ―Belarusian‖ redaction) was the H variety, and in the later stage the Polish become the H variety, while the L varieties were the local vernaculars of a dialect continuum. It recalled sharp debates, if a dialect in the region of Podlassie belongs to the Belarusian or Ukrainian, moreover, if the Old Ukrainian or Old Belarusian existed earlier, and if so, then where did it. Disputes about the Old Belarusian/Ukrainian seem to be outdated if using the concept of the dialect continuum: the neighboring language varieties differed only a bit and understood each other, but the widely separated varieties differed much more up to the loss of understandability. (Bloomfield, 1935: 51)

The Tatar-based language of the Belarusian ―kitab‖ books was an example of the sociolinguistic changes. The Tatars of the Golden Hord settled in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then they wrote their book in Arabic script but in a local Slavic vernacular, because they replaced their original language with a Slavic, in a result of the Slavic superstratum and these books are sources of an earlier stage of the Belarusian language.

The Yiddish as a Non-Slavic language is to be mentioned because it played a role in the Lithuanian and Belarusian culture and society, as well, and the Yiddish-Slavic lexical impacts are of significance. The Baltic Germans and their language (Altdeutsch, Low-German) are still to be mentioned, as the Non-Slavic languages were in connection (by lexical and some syntactic impacts) with other languages. In the GDL, the Western territories and the Lithuania Minor were mostly concerned. (Brakas, 1995.)

3.6. The Church Slavonic and its editions.

The language of the translation of the New Testament used by Cyril and Method is named Old Slavonic, while the successor of this is named Church Slavonic. The latter had never been the same in various territories and times but divided into local versions. Thus, there is no single Church Slavonic language, but there are different ―editions‖ (‗Redaktion‘ in German, ‗извод‘ in

Russian; cf. Piccio, 2003). This means that Old Slavonic differs from Church Slavonic, and different ―editions‖ of Church Slavonic differ from each other, as well. Therefore, we speak of local varieties, i. e. ―editions‖ of Church Slavonic. There existed also a ―Ukrainian edition‖ of the Church Slavonic language. (Moysiienko & Nika, 2013) Therefore, there was a language spoken by scribes who ―influenced‖ the formation of the ―Ukrainian translation‖ (Ukrainian edition) - so there was already some Ukrainian literary language of the educated elite in the 1617th cc., and this influenced the local version of the Church Slavonic language, too, so it is called the Ukrainian translation of Church Slavonic. The very Church Slavonic was used for liturgical purposes, while its secular, local version was closer to the vernacular. Therefore, it is a mistake to speak of Belarusian language such as that used in the GDL for official purposes. The chancellery language of the Lithuanian Dukes was a local edition of the Church Slavonic. It is sometimes considered by some Belarusian authors Old Belarusian was the language of the chancellery in GDL, but it is not true and would result in a falsification. Later, in the epoch of the Commonwealth, the written language was the ―prosta mova‖ (i. e. ―simple language‖), which was an artificial variety based on the local edition of the Church Slavonic under a strong influence of the vernacular. (Danylenko, 2006) The ―prosta mova‖ existed in the Muscovian Rus, too, and there occurred a special case of diglossia, too. (Uspensky, 2002) However, the ―prosta mova‖ in the GDL and the PLC was different from that used in the Muscovian Duchy. Moreover, the local vernacular was not the same, unique language – but a dialect continuum, as it was mentioned above. Therefore, the Old Belarusian was not a unique language but a part of a dialect continuum, too, and those texts considered for the monuments of ―Ancient Belarusian‖ are to be considered for the evidence of the ―prosta mova‖. (Suprun, 2013).

1. CONCLUSIONS

The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (furthermore PLC, 1569-1795) consisted of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (furthermore GDL) and the Polish Republic (Rzeczpospolita, ‗republic‘ in Polish). However, the latter was a kingdom with kings elected only by the nobility, and the membership of the ‗parliament‘ (sejm in Polish) based on the social rank. (Lukowski, 2001.) The Grand Duke of the GDL was elected by the noble establishment, too, respectively; however, the

2. Figure Coquests of the GDL in the 13th-14th c. (Magocsi, 1991 map No.7/a. (our thanks for the permission)

Lithuanian Grand Dukes had already earlier been elected, according to the principle of the idoneitas in Latin, i.e. ‗eligibility‘. (Mickunaite, 2002.) The noble-men‘s republic in PLC was unique in the contemporary Europe and the -relatively- most democratic system of government within the frameworks of a feudal state, much differing from the Eastern neighbour Muscovy of a semi-Asiatic system of state. (Dunning. 2001.; Crummey, 2001.) This system was a continuation of the Polish-Lithuanian personal union (1386-1569) and the factors determined the language situation had already rooted in this personal union. However, the huge part of the territory of GDL went to the Polish Kingdom (the ―Crown‖ in the contemporary Polish terminology) since the GDL lost its southern half which became the very ancestor of contemporary Ukraine, in language and cultural aspect, too. The northern part remained, was later named the territory of ‗Litvins‘, in contrary to the territory of ‗Ukrainians‘ or ‗SmallRussians‘, referring to the territorial meaning of the Lithuanian Duchy, emphasizing the difference between the very Lithuanians and ‗inhabitants of Lithuania [in broaden sense]‘. Thus, all the Lithuanians were Litvins, but not every Litvin was a Lithuanian. (Nasevych, 2006. Kuolis, 1999. Marzaljuk, 2003.) The Belarusian national rebirth resulted the usage of ‗Litvin‘ in a narrowed sense of ‗Belarusian‘, which is a false simplification because there were inhabiting in the GDL other peoples, too; such as Jews in a significant ratio, Muslim Karaims and Tatars, Germans in a smaller ratio (the most of Germans inhabited the ―Small Lithuania‖ [Mažioji Lietuva] around Königsberg, which did not belonged to the very territory of the GDL in this epoch; Brakas, 1995), and Baltic peoples as the Lithuanians divided to Žemaitians, Dzukians and Aukštaitians, and Poles in a greater and greater ratio, beyond the Old-Belarusian dialects, which latter still did not shaped an ethnicity in that time.

As for the languages, in the western part (the kingdom of Poland) the Polish language dominated and some smaller West-Slavic ones (as the Kashubian) were still spoken, while the language situation was quite multilingual in the GDL and in the Ukrainian part of the PLC. The latter had been a very part of the GDL during the personal union and the creation of PLC meant the acquisition of large territories from the GDL to the Polish Crown. Different languages were used by the respective social strata; on the other hand, a few of languages were used by every social stratum, that is, no person was monolingual but bi- or trilingual (depending on the social stratum), and used a fourth and/or for writing, if the person was literate. The Polish played a special role in the second and third periods of the GDL (the personal union and the commonwealth), as the language of the establishment and literacy, though differing from the locally spoken languages. Hence the di- and multiglossia, also the bi- and multilingualism were characteristic not only of the speakers, territories, and social strata, but also varying by the historical times, respectfully. The Confessionalization, that is, the shaping of religious institutions and codifying the doctrines, was a determining factor of the formation of the Ukrainian literary language since the 16th century up to the publishing of Kotliarevsky‘s Aeneida in the late 18th c. The noblemen in the Ukrainian territories were not Polonized in such a measure than those in GDL as in the latter the Lithuanian lost absolutely its glory and became the language of the peasantry. The Belarusian dialects had been the language of the villains in the period of the Lithuanian-speaking nobility in the Polish-Lithuanian personal union, then they remained the language of villains in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, too. The first Lithuanian books were printed in a result of the Confessionalization, too (Mažvidas‘ Katechism in 1547 and Daukša‘s one a few decades later), then the Confessionalization did not follow in the Lithuanian people but in the Polish and resulted the Catholic renovation and the birth of the Greek-Catholic Church after the Church Union in Brest (1596). The latter played an important catalysing role in the turn toward the West, as it reflected in the Uniate liturgical books of the typography in Suprasľ: Classical Latin authors were quoted in the Cyrillic, Church Slavonic text of the commentaries.

Therefore, summarising. Since the PLC consisted of the GDL and the ―Lands of the Polish Crown‖ and it was created in 1569 by a territorial and political change of the earlier existed

personal union of Polish Kingdom and GDL, the sociolinguistic situation was determined by factors inherited from the very GDL of a larger territory. Two main changes made influences: –A) a large part of the GDL was attached to the Polish state (the ―Crown‖), namely, the Ukrainian territories, hence the learned elite and the fortune-owning establishment was to face the Polonization and this catalysed the evolving of the Ukrainian literary language (though not for any national but religious purposes: the Polish elite was Catholic while the elite of the ‗Ukrainian‘ lands was Orthodox); and –B) the real election of the Grand Duke changed to the formal inauguration of the respective Polish Kings for the throne of the Lithuanian Duke (though it looked like an ―election‖), thus the nobility (šlachta) of those lands remained in the GDL, became stronger, too, and the very government was in hands of the šlachta. Thus, nothing happened for unfolding any ―Lithuanian‖ nor ―Belarusian‖ identity or language, since that šlachta did not resist to the Polonization as that in the Southern part of the former GDL which attached to the ―Crown‖. Thus, the first step is to characterize those language processes had happened earlier in the GDL and influenced later in the PLC, then the second step is to describe the new changes of language usage in the PLC. On the other hand, new language processes evolved in the PLC, were continued after the ―partition of Poland‖, which must be named more precisely the partition of the PLC (Kamusella, 2013).

REFERENCES:

Anderson, B. R. (1991) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition ed. London and New York: Verso.

Bloomfield, L. (1935) Language George Allen & Unwin: London.

Bradke, P. (1888) Über Methode und Ergebnisse der arischen (indogermanischen)

Alterthumswissenshaft J. Ricker'che Buchhandlung: Giessen.

Brakas, (1995) Mažosios Lietuvos politinė ir diplomatinė istorija = Political and diplomatic history of Lithuania Minor = Die geschichtliche Entwicklung Kleinlitauens und seiner Diplomatie. Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla: Vilnius.

Cooper, J. P. (1979). The New Cambridge Modern History. Cambridge University Press Archive.

Crummey, R. O. (2001.) The Latest from Muscovy. The Russian Review. 60. No.4. 474-486. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2679362

Danylenko, A. (2006) On the Name(s) of the Prostaja Mova in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Studia Slavica Hung. 51, No.1–2. 97–121 DOI: 10.1556/SSlav.51.2006.1-2.6

Danylenko, A. (2017) On the names of Ruthenia in early modern Poland-Lithuania. Essays in the history of languages and linguistics: Dedicated to Marek Stachowski on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Eds. M. Németh; B. Podolak; M. Urban. Księgarnia Akademicka: Kraków. 161-173. https://www.academia.edu/33466998/

Delwaide, J. (2011): Identity and Geopolitics: Ukraine‘s Grappling with Imperial Legacies. Harvard Ukrainian Studies 32/33. 179–207. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711662

Dmitriev, M. [Дмитриев М. В.] (2012) «Православная конфессионализация» в Восточной Европе во второй половине XVI века? [―Orthodox Confessionalization‖ in the Eastern Europe?] Дрогобицький краеєзнавчий збiрник. 16. 133–152.

Dunning, S. L. (2001) Russia s First Civil War. The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty. Pennsylvania U.Press: University Park. (PA, USA).

Dziarnovich A. (2012–2013) Lithuanian Language in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: between Function and Status, Belarusian Political Science Review, 2. 46 76

Dziarnovich, A. (2014-2015) In Search of a Homeland: ―Litva/Lithuania‖ and ―Rus/Ruthenia‖ in the Modern Belarusian Historiography. Belarusian Political Science Review, 3. 90 121 Ferguson, C. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15(2), 325-340. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702

Fishman, J. A. (1967) Bilingualism with and Without Diglossia; Diglossia with and Without Bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues. 23 No.2. 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404560.1967.tb00573.x

Földvári, S. (2023) Comparing the Policies of Stefan Batory and Ivan the Terrible. 9th International Zeugma Conference on Scientific Research, February 19-21, 2023, Gaziantep, Türkiye: The Book of Full Texts. Eds. O. Erkmen & G. Gafurova. İKSAD Publishing House, 2023. 320-333. https://en.zeugmakongresi.org/_files/ugd/614b1f_8e21c477e5ce4ac7898a0dc9715e32e5.pdf

Halecki, O. (1963) Why Was Poland Partitioned? Slavic Review 22, no. 3 432–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/2492489

Head, J. W. (2013) Justinian‘s Corpus Juris Civilis in Comparative Perspective: Illuminating Key Differences between the Civil, Common, and Chinese Legal Traditions. Mediterranean Studies, 21(2), 91

121. https://doi.org/10.5325/mediterraneanstu.21.2.0091

Isaievič, Ya. D. [Исаевич, Я. Д.] (1975) Першодрукар Іван Федоров і виникнення друкарства на Україні [The First-Printer Ivan Fiodoroff and the Unfolding of the Printing in Ukraine] Lviv [Ukraine].

Isaievič, Ya. D. [Исаевич, Я Д.] (1990) История издании Острожской библии. [The History of the Publishing of the Ostrog Bible] Острожская библия: сборник статей, Москва 1990. Isaievyč, Ya. [Ісаєвич, Я.] (1996) Україна давня і нова: Народ, релігія, культура. - Ukraine, Old and New: People, Religion, Culture. Lviv.

Isaievych, Ya. (1992) Early Modern Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine: Culture and Cultural Relations, Journal of Ukrainian Studies, 17, No. 1-2, 17-28, http://ciusarchives.ca/items/show/821

Isaievych, Ya. (1993) Books and Book Printing in Ukraine in the Sixteen and the First Half of the SeventeenthCenturies, Journal of Ukrainian Studies

Ivashko, R. (2022) Essay on policy of the Jagiellonians toward the Church Union on the eve of fall of Constantinople Academia Letters, online resource: https://doi.org/10.20935/AL4694

Ivashko, R. (2022) Essay on policy of the Jagiellonians toward the Church Union on the eve of fall of Constantinople. Academia Letters, online publication: https://doi.org/10.20935/AL4694

Jedlicki, J. & Łubieńska, K. (1992) A Stereotype of the West in Postpartition Poland. Social Research 59, no. 2: 345–64.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40970696

Kamusella, T. (2013) Germanization, Polonization, and Russification in the Partitioned Lands of Poland-Lithuania. Nationalities Papers. 41. No.5. 815-838.

Kamusella, T. (2013) Germanization, Polonization, and Russification in the Partitioned Lands of Poland-Lithuania. Nationalities Papers. 41. No 5. pp 815-838.

Kaplan, H. H. (1972) Some Remarks on Interpretations of the First Partition of Poland. The Polish Review 17, no. 4: 17–19. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25777087

Kohut, Z E. (2014) From Commonwealth to Ukraine: The Reconceptualization of ‗Fatherland‘ in Cossack Political Culture (1660s–1680s). Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne Des Slavistes 56, no. 3/4 269–89.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/26155749

Kucharzewski, J. (1944) Chapter I: The Treaty of Westphalia and the Partitions of Poland. Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 2, no. 3: 630–55.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24724432

Kuolis, D. [Куолис, Д.] (1999) Понятие «литовец» и «литва» в литовской письменности XVI-XVII веков.[―The concept of ‗Lithuanian‘ and ‗Lithuania‘ in the Lithuanian writing of the 16th-17th centuries‖, in Russian]. Славяноведение, 35 No.8. 5. 37-41.

Ladner, G. B. (1975). Justinian‘s Theory of Law and the Renewal Ideology of the ―Leges Barbarorum.‖ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 119(3), 191–200. http://www.jstor.org/stable/986669

Lehmann, W. P. (1993) Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics, N.Y. 1993.

Lukowski, J. (2001.) The Szlachta and the Monarchy: Reflections on the Struggle ―inter maiestatem ac libertatem.‖ Butterwick-Pawlikowski (ed.) Polish Lithuanian..., 132-149.

Magocsi, P. R. (1991) Historical Atlas of East Central Europe, Univ. of Washington Press: Seattle & London, 1991.

Marzaljuk, I. [Марзалюк, І.] (2003) Людзі даўняй Беларусі: Этнаканфесійныя і сацыякультурныя стэрэатыпы (X-XVII стст.). [―People of ancient Belarus: ethnoconfessional and socio-cultural stereotypes (10th-17th centuries)‖, in Belarusian] Магілѐў [Magilyov, Belarus].

Meillet, A. (1908[1950]) Les dielectes indoeuropéens H. Champion: Paris (repr. ibidem, 1950.)

Mickunaite, G. (2002) Grand Duke Vytautas: Establishing Vytautas the Great. CEU College: Budapest.

Moyseienko, V.M. & Nika, O.I. 2013 [Мойсієнко, В. М.; & Ніка, О. І.] «Проста мова» в Україні та Білорусі XVI ст. [―«Simple language» in Ukraine and Belarus of the 16th century‖, in Ukrainian] Kyiv [Ukraine]

Nasevych, V.L. [Насевiч, В. Л.] (2006) Літвіны. Энцыклапедыя ў 2 тамах. Т.2. Беларуская Энцыклапедыя Навук: Мінск. 206-208.

Oglobin, O. (1951) Moskovs’ka teorija III Rimu. [The Muscovian Theory of the 3rd Rome] Munich.

Petit, D. (2004) Les langues baltiques et la question balto-slave. Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 26. No.2. pp. 7-41.

Piccio, R. (2003) Церковнославянский, «древнеславянские языки» и изводы. [―Church Slavonic, ‗Old Slavic languages‘, and translations‖, in Russian] Piccio, R. Slavia Orthodoxa: Литература и язык, Знак: Москва. 403-429.

Planck, J. W. (1965). The Survival of Roman Law. American Bar Association Journal, 51(3), 259–261. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25723151

Pohl, H.D. (1992) Die baltoslavische Spracheinheit – areale Aspekte Indogermanisch, Slawisch Und Baltisch: Materialien des vom 21.-22. September 1989 in Jena, eds. B. Barschei; M. Koziankal K. Weber Verlag Otto Sagner: München. 137-164.

Polevoy, N.A. [Полевой, Н. А] (1830) Малороссия, еѐ обитатели и история. [―Little Russia, its inhabitants, and history‖ in Russian]. Московский телеграф [Moscow Telegraph], 18. 224-225.

Polish-Lithuanian..., (2001) Polish Lithuanian The Polish Lithuanian Monarchy in Europe: Edited volume containing revised versions of papers presented at the II Wiles Colloquium at Queen's University Belfast, 1999. Ed. R. Butterwick-Pawlikowski, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke

Polish-Lithuanian..., (2001) The Polish Lithuanian Monarchy in Europe: Edited volume containing revised versions of papers presented at the II Wiles Colloquium at Queen's University Belfast, 1999. Ed. R. Butterwick-Pawlikowski, Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Rabikauskas, P. (1978). Die Gründungsbulle der Universität Vilnius (30. Oktober 1579): Vorgeschichte, Ausstellung und Bedeutung. Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 16, 113–170. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23563997

Rachuba, A. (2002) Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie w systemie parlamentarnym Rzeczypospolitej w latach 1569-1763, Warszawa.

Rowell, S. C. (1990). Pagans, Peace And The Pope 1322-1324: Lithuania In The Centre Of European Diplomacy. Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 28, 63–98. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23564418

Schmidt, J. (1872) Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. H. Böhlau: Weimar.

Senn, A. (1945) Lithuanian Dialectology. Menasha (Wis, USA)

Seredyka, J. (1974) Konwokacja wileńska, ale jaka? Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej im. Powstańców Śląskich w Opolu, Historia. 12. 121-139.

Spitzer, H. (1980). Does Rome Have a Lesson for Us? American Bar Association Journal, 66(10), 1226–1229. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20746774

Starchenko, N. [Старченко, Н.] (2021): Українські світи Речі Посполитої. [―Ukrainian worlds of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth‖, in Ukrainian] Laurus: Kyiv [Ukraine]

Strémooukhoff, D. (1953) Moscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrine. Speculum, 28(1), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2847182

Suprun, A.E. [Супрун А. Е.] (2013) Выбраныя працы. Праславянский язык. Старославянский язык. Церковнославянский язык. [―Selected works. Proto-Slavic language. Old Slavonic language. Church Slavonic language‖, in Belarusian], Minsk [Belarus]. https://www.twirpx.com/file/1324205

Szemerényi, O. J. L. (1990). Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics. Oxford University Press.

Toumanoff, C. (1955) Moscow the Third Rome: Genesis and Significance of a PoliticoReligious Idea. The Catholic Historical Review, 40(4), 411–447. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25015803

Tymošenko, L. [Тимошенко, Л.] (2020) Руська релігійна культура Вільна. Контекст доби. Осередки. Література та книжність (XVІ – перша третина XVII ст.). [―Russian religious culture in Vilna. Context of the time. Encounters. Literature and bookishness (16th - first third of the 17th century)‖, in Ukrainian.] Коло: Дрогобич [Drohobych, Ukraine]

Uspensky, B.A. [Успенский Б.А.] (2002) История русского литературного языка (XI-XVII вв.) [―History of the Russian literary language (XI-XVII centuries)‖. in Russian] Moscow, https://www.twirpx.com/file/507052/

Voranaŭ, R. [Воранаў, Р.] (2012) Паўстанне Скарыны. Як інтэлектуалы Расійскай імперыі ХІХ ст. паўплывалі на постаць беларускага нацыянальнага героя. [―Skaryna's rebellion. As intellectuals of the Russian Empire of the 19th century influenced the figure of the Belarusian national hero‖, in Belarusian], Палітыяная сфера.18–19, № 1–2. 156-181. https://journal.palityka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/09_Voranau.pdf

Wisner, H. (1968) Konwokacja Wileńska. Z dziejów parlamentaryzmu litewskiego w czasach Zygmunta III. Czasopismo Prawno-Historyczne. 20. No. 2. 75-80.

Wisner, H. (1974) Sejm litewski czy konwokacja wileńska? Zeszyty Naukowe Wyższej Szkoły Pedagogicznej im. Powstańców Śląskich w Opolu, Historia. 12. 111-120.

Wisner, H. (1989) Sejmiki litewskie w czasach Zygmunta III i Władysława IV. Miscellanea Historica-Archivistica. 3. 51-66.

Wisner, H. (2008) Rzeczpospolita Wazów, vol. 3. Sławne Państwo Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, Warszawa.

Yeremieiev, P. [Єремєєв, П.] (2019) Релігійний вимір образу українських земель в російських історичних наративах першої половини ХІХ ст. [―Religious dimension of the image of Ukrainian lands in Russian historical narratives of the first half of the XIX century‖, Ukrainian] VIII Міждисциплінарні читання, Тези доповідей. [―VIII interdisciplinary readings, abstracts‖], Kyiv [Ukraine] https://www.academia.edu/41178408/

Zakrzewski, A. B. (2000) Sejm k W elk ego Ks estwa L tewsk go XVI-XVIII w: ustrój i funkcjonowanie sejmik trocki. Liber: Warszawa. Zaprudski, S.M. [Запрудскі, С. М.] (2013) Аб навуковай рэцэпцыі беларускай мовы ў расіі ў першай палове ХІХ стагоддзя [―About the scholarly reception of the Belarusian language in Russia in the first half of the 19th century‖, in Belarusian] XV Міжнародны з’езд славістаў (Мінск, 20–27 жніўня 2013 г.): Даклады беларускай дэлегацыі. [―15th International Congress of Slavists (Minsk, August 20-27, 2013): reports of the Belarusian delegation‖], Eds. Lukashanec et al. Minsk [Belarus], 37–52. https://www.academia.edu/8454929/

Zernova, A.S. [Зернова, А. С.] (1959) Типография Мамоничей в Вильне (XVII век) [―The printing house of Mamonich‘s‖, in Russian], Книга. Исследования и материалы. [―Book. Research and materials‖] 1, 167-223.