| Abstract [eng] |
Problems on which the current thesis is focused are determined by limiatations and narrowness of the theoretic premises which prevail in Moldavian as well as in Romanian historiographies. This historiographic situation „imprisoned“ the typological interpretation of Moldavian society in the period before the Otoman domination into quite narrow range. Both Romanian and Moldavian historians from pre-comunist period made systematic attempts to find feudalism in the juridical sense in medieval Moldova. In the communist era situation has changed but historians got into even narrower Procrustes‘ bed because of the ideological reasons: it was obligatory to apply unilinear Marxist-Leninist schema to medieval Modova. It is natural that at least, according to published texts, nobody among Romanian neither Moldavian historians had any doubts that Moldova before the Otoman domination (as well as later) was feudal in the sense of Marxist socioeconomic formation. There are no signs of renewal in the post-communist/post-soviet Romanian and Moldavian historiographies neither (at least from the point of view of classic Marxism). Actually, there are only two prevailing tendencies: or Marxism is rejected at all, or there is a repeating of cliché from communist historiography which sometimes even take rather simplified and distorted shapes. Such a situation in both Romanian and Moldavian historiographies does not correspond neither a quantity of accumuleted empirical data nor a quantity of adequate solutions to more particular issues and problems. It directly results the main problem: I dare to claim that there is no adequate, conceptualized and debated enough interpretation of socioeconomic structure of early Moldova based on classic Marxist theory of modes of production/formations yet (I am inclined to name this trend of Marxism as endosocietal, i.e. „internal“). I would like to ground the novelty of the dissertation using three arguments: theoretic-methodologic, thematic and historiographic. Theoretic-methodologic argument. Combination of two Marxist approaches and application of both of them in the case study is an absolute methodological innovation in Lithuanian historiography, although one can find application of such a combination in Anglosaxon as well as in Russian historiography (works of Daniel Chirot and Nikolay Kradin). Clear and accurate definition of basic criteria which should enable to typologise various pre-capitalist societies in a standardized way is a crucial thing. Such a set of typological criteria as a character of exploitation (individual/collective) and a character of relation between direct producer and means of production (individual/collective) was not formulated in a clear, coherent way in Lithuanian historiography before neither. One can find attempts like this al least in Anglosaxon historiography but in another context (eg. texts of Robert Brenner). No doubt, we could also regard as methodologic innovation the „calibration“ of two typological scales and their application in the particular case study. It allows to move the discussions about the variation of Marxist conception of evolutions of societies into another, more systematized context. Thematic argument. Lithuanian historiography is especially poor from the point of view of subjects of general history. There are only very few texts dedicated to the problems of history of medieval Moldova and no one at all dedicated to social history of Moldova in Lithuanian historiography. Researches of other peripherial societies are necessary in order to dicuss conceptions of Lithuania as also one of peripherial societies (for example, the conception of peripherial feudalism) in a wider comparative context and to elaborate its adequate spatial and chronologic models. Historiographic argument. The complex critical analyses of Moldavian/Romanian medieval and theoretic historiography accomplished in the current dissertation from the relevant point of view also should be treated as a quite new and provocative phenomenon in respect to Moldavian and Romanian historiography. It is posible that radical reinterpretation of the nature of medieval Moldavian society will encourage discussions among Moldavian and Romanian historians themselves and will make some contribution into rennovation of historiographies of those countries. The most important conclusions of the thesis are as follow: 1. On the basis of endosocietal features described above I can state that from this point of view we can treate the social structure of Moldova in the middle of 14th – in the middle of 16th centuries as a hybrid of clan semi-feudal and communal politarian type. 2. Because of the very limited basis of written sources and ambiguity of conceptions in the Romanian/Moldavian historiography determined by the state of written sources there could be twofold exosocietal typology of medieval Moldova: a. Moldova was involved into European-Middle East world-economy (trading political economy); b. exosocietal factor was not important enough for Moldova in the relevant period and is able to be ignored. |
