|
|
Baranauskas, laikydamasis paplitusios mados, analogijų su Lietuva ieško visame pasaulyje ir jų visados randa. Toks jo požiūris, deja, paskandina Vidurio Europos, kuriai priklauso ir Lietuva, specifiką, jos jis, beje, visiškai neišmano.
|
|
|
Baranauskas, following the wide spread fashion, is looking for analogies all over the world and always finds them. Unfortunately such his point of view sinks the specific features of the Central Europe, to which Lithuania belongs as well. Besides, he has no idea of these specific features. Most evidently ignorance of the regional specific features, and in the same time ignorance of the most important literature on the analysed theme, is testified, for example, by really dumb disputes with E. Gudavičius and I. Leonavičiūtė concerning the role of warrior retinues in the formation of the Lithuanian State. Contrary to the mentioned authors, Baranauskas denies the role of military retinues, but doesn’t finds functions of social utility characteristic to the retinues, overlooking, that their “harmful activity”, plunder and going on visits, was an embryo of constant tributes, which allowed to emerge the rulers of separate lands, who later became dukes. Why so persistent attempts to deny the role of military retinue are made, is obvious. Having accepted the military retinue theory of Gudavičius, one must recognise his conclusions on the formation of the Lithuanian State as well. Anyhow, this, what Baranauskas names as the date of the state, is just the beginning of the long process of the state. Here, instead of getting involved into dumb disputes, author could read at least L. Lecejewicz, or even slightly out-of-date works of K. Zernack, from which he would understand, that this, what he is trying to deny, is nothing else, but the specific features of Central Europe.
|
