Privačių valdų dvaro (palivarkinio) ūkio raidos bruožai XVI a. antrosios pusės Žemaitijoje

LTSis straipsnis yra dalinis apibendrinimas, kartu ir tęsinys pastaruoju metu atliktų privačios žemėvaldos dvaro ūkio raidos tyrinėjimų. Jame siekiama įvertinti Žemaitijai būdingas dvaro ūkio formavimo aplinkybes ir prielaidas, susijusias su XVI a. antrosios pusės teisine baze, komunikacinėmis Žemaitijos tarptautinės prekybos galimybėmis. Analizuojant žemės matavimo taikymą privačiose valdose, stengiamasi nustatyti šios praktikos specifiką, taip pat svarbiausios to meto ūkio aktualijos - dvaro arimų ir dvaro ūkio organizacijos - bruožus. Svarbu pažymėti, kad XVI a. dvarai plėtė savo pajamų šaltinius ne tik iš žemės ūkio. Ūkinių veiklų spektras tuo metu gerokai išaugo ir apėmė ne tik ūkininkavimą, valstiečių prievolių išplėtimą, bet ir laikomų miestelių gyventojų, turgų ir prekyviečių mokesčius, muitus ir t. t. Tačiau šių veiklų analizė reikalauja kiek kitos krypties ir gerokai platesnių tyrimų, todėl šiame straipsnyje minėtos temos nebus nagrinėjamos. Koncentruojantis į ūkine prasme organizuotų valdų arealo komunikacijos kontekste pagrindimą, taip pat į žemės matavimo dvaro ūkinėms struktūroms įtaką, šiame tyrime nebus reflektuojama ir privačių valdų socialinės organizacijos tema, plačiai aptarta istoriografijoje. [Iš teksto, p. 294]

ENEven though Žemaitija was not one of those regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania where manor estates developed intensively during the late-medieval and early-modern periods, efforts can be detected from the mid-sixteenth century in manors in this region to increase income from agriculture. Such activity required increased attention from owners to the management of their estates, a certain flexibility in organisation and commercial nous. All this relied on changes in the organisation of farming, the old order and understanding of the environment. Hitherto scholars have regarded such changes as being weakly expressed with no determining effect on the local economy and its society. Recent analysis of private and church-owned property during the second half of the sixteenth century and the early seventeenth century in Žemaitija, changes took place more actively and intensively than has been realised so far. Furthermore, these changes affected areas which researchers have not studied in greater detail such as the planned formation and social structure of manorial estates. Here we present an intermediate summary of our research, analysing the circumstances behind and preconditions for manorial economic development typical of Žemaitija, which are connected with the formation of the legislative basis for manor formation during the secon half of the sixteenth century and the natural and logistic endowments of Żemaitija in the context of international trade. Analysis is made of aspects of the application of land reform models on private estates and we present the most important forms of manorial economic organisation.The development of propitious economic conditions during the sixteenth century which waxed and subsequentiy waned in east-central Europe over quite a short period also affected Żemaitoja, which had found itself between two competing zones of economic influence ever since the days of the Hanse. The lack of powerful rivers to link Žemaitija direcdy with the ports of Riga, Königsberg and Gdańsk determined for a while the somewhat peripheral economic status of Žemaitija. As trade increased markedly in the afore-mentioned Baltic ports in the middle of the sixteenth century, landowners found it convenient to exploit the local logistical situation to develop existing markets further. In order toi increase their income, a considerable number of Żemaitijan gentry and members of the ruling elite set about quite quickly using the new measurement of land in hides to exploit their land more effectively and enlist peasants to serve their manorial economy. Our research shows that as the new grand-ducal land-measurement system was introduced, certain issues arose on manorial estates. New developments were exploited on private Żemaitijan estates more by newcomers to the region than by established landowners, unlike on grand-ducal estates, primarily to measure peasant land rather than the owner's own land, arable fields and appurtenances. Without carrying out broader studies of private estates, social status and the specificities of international trade it is difficult to say conclusively what specifically determined this state of affairs. However, we may assert that this was connected with opportunities for manorial economic development which were for many reasons restricted. We show that we may encounter various forms of commercial farm development on private estates from manorial arable farming to separate quite well-organised farms on a given estate. [From the publication p. 325-326]