The Relationship of a Noble to his Estate in the first half of the Ninetheenth Century: Mykolas Juozapas Römeris (1778–1853)

Straipsnyje, remiantis vieno stambaus žemvaldžio ir pareigūno (Mykolo Juozapo Römerio) patirtimi, nagrinėjamas XIX a. Lietuvos bajoro santykis su dvaru. XIX a. bajoro dvaras atliko ekonomines, ūkines, finansines, socialines funkcijas. Dvarus sąlyginai galima suskirstyti į ,,pajaminguosius” dvarus, kurių paskirtis duoti pelną, todėl dvarininkas juos nuomavo. Bajoro ,,rezidenciją” buvo savininko gyvenamoji vieta, ji taip pat ,,dirbo”, tačiau žemės nuomininkai čia buvo nepageidaujami. Stambus dvarininkas asmeniškai netvarkė dvaro reikalų. Šias funkcijas atliko administratoriai ir ekonomai. Bajoro dalyvavavo valdos administravime instruktuodamas ir komtroliuodamas valdytojus. Dvare plėtojosi socialiniai santykiai. Dvarininkas reguliavo ir palaikė šiuos santykius, remdamasis tradicija. Santykiuose su dvariškiais ir valstiečiais jis laikėsi patriarchalinių principų: globojo ir teisė priklausomus žmones, rūpinosi jų materialine ir socialine gerove, skatino ir baudė. Dvaras, kuriame gyveno dvarininkas su šeima, atliko sezoninės arba nuolatinės rezidencijos vaidmenį. Joje vyko privatus, ,,rustikinis” šeimos gyvenimas, plėtojosi bajorijos komunikaciniai ryšiai provincijoje, su ja dvarininką siejo emociniai ryšiai. Tačiau XIX a. pirmojoje pusėje su rezidencija pradejo konkuruoti miestas, tampantis vis patrauklesniu jaunosios kartos bajorams.Basing on experience of one big landowner and official (Mykolas Juozapas Römeris) the article analyses relationships of a Lithuanian nobleman to his estate in the 19th century. A nobleman’s estate performed economic, financial, and social functions. Estates could be conditionally divided into profit-bringing estates, the purpose of which was to bring profit, and thus they were rented out. A nobleman’s “mansion” was his place of residence, it also would earn profit but there were no leaseholders in there. A big landowner did not handle the estate’s issues personally. These functions were performed by administrators and stewards. The nobleman participated in administering by instructing and controlling managers. Social relations were also maintained at the estate. The landowner regulated and controlled these relations according to existing habits. In relationships with the estate’s staff and peasants he observed patriarchal principles: he had to patronize and judge the subordinates, take care of their well-being and social affairs, he had to motivate and punish them. The estate where the landowner lived with his family functioned either as a seasonal or constant residence. It was the place where private, “rustic” family life took place and where socializing with neighbouring landowners would occur. The nobleman was emotionally attached to such a place. However in the first half of the 19th century cities started to compete in popularity with countryside residences becoming more popular with nobility of a younger generation