The Age of Legal Competency in Casimir’s Code (1468), its Origins and the Methodological Significance in Learning about the Functioning of the Lithuanian Custom Law before 1529

Research on the impact that the Lithuanian custom law had on the laws of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, especially the study conducted by Inna Starostina, have created favorable methodological opportunities to search for the origins of the oldest collection of Lithuanian custom law norms – Casimir’s Code, the first code of penal laws released by Casimir Jagiellon (Kazimierz Jagiellończyk, Kazimieras Jogailaitis) in 1468 – and to determine the chronology of these norms. There could hardly be any random details impressed in such an exceptional historical and legal monument, which is why it is truly worthy of greater attention. One such detail is that minors, in terms of who was considered a competent legal subject, were considered children under the age of seven. This precise definition of the age of legal competency was meant to individualize general legal responsibility, as children in the family who were not yet “grown-ups” would be excused from punishment. This exception in the legal relations of the day should be viewed as an expression of humanism, itself being of Christian origins. Starostina has indicated where we should search for the source of the age of minority being under seven: its origins lie in Roman law, where it was widely applied in the Christian Church, both of the East and the West, and in secular law. We come across the concept of the “grown-up” seven-year-old child, similar to the norm in Casimir’s Code, in the Teutonic Order’s Prussian laws. In the Prussian (Pamedėnai) statute book of 1340, § 114, a similar age of legal minority and incompetency (under the age of six) applied for the crime of an underage child (aged nine), such as the drowning of another child, where a child under six could not be held as a competent witness in the drowning case. Presumably, by the age of seven, a child could be a suitable witness. In the mentioned Prussian norms, it would be the father of the accused underage child, i.e., aged nine, who was held accountable for his child’s crime – the drowning of another child. This means that by having reached the age of 10, a child would be held personally accountable for his actions, thus being considered an adult in terms of the law. In the Livonian historical source, the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, a similar fact is recorded how in 1260–1261, when trying to subdue an uprising of the Courlanders, the Order’s soldiers killed (executed the punishment of death for betrayal) all males from the age of 11 amid the ruins of the Dzintars Castle.The emergence of exceptions for legal minors (underage children) in Lithuanian custom law is not yet clear, but it could presumably be dated at least as far back as the baptism of Lithuania in 1387 and before 1468. Hypothetically speaking, another possible source is the Prussian (Pamedėnai) statute book, as from the beginning of the 15th century, it must have applied in Samogitia, when Grand Duke Vytautas gave these lands up to the Teutonic Order, thus obligating the Samogitian nobility to abide by Prussian laws. Lithuanian custom law did not adopt the norm of legal minority (non-competency) for subjects under the age of seven from Polish law. The statutes of King Casimir the Great made no mention of such an age. In Polish law, a male was considered of age from 15, while a female had to be approaching 13 to be considered a competent legal subject. The only section in the statutes of Casimir the Great is § 70 where a different age is given – the age of 12; having reached this age, an adolescent could start the legal persecution of his and his deceased father’s offenders. The age in this norm is related to the influence of Saxon laws.Two versions of legal adult age applied in the laws of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania prior to the introduction of the First Statute of Lithuania (1529): the Polish version – where one was held to be a competent legal subject from the age of 15 – applied in the Ruthenian lands, and the Lithuanian version, wherein the chosen age was that of 17, which is associated with Lithuanian war customs. The Statute confirmed the Lithuanian version, but the later-revised editions introduced the age of 18, which coincided with the age of adulthood confirmed within them: 18 for males and 15 for females. We can see from the legal situations discussed above that Lithuanian and Ruthenian laws operated as independent systems. The definition of legal incompetence of subjects aged seven, i.e., the age of legal minority, is an indicator of exclusively Lithuanian custom law, even though its origins are not entirely clear. The impact of Ruthenian laws is most likely very meagre in search for the source of the laws of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, whereas the influence of Roman law via the Catholic Church or the Prussian statute book is more likely.Research on the origins of the mentioned exceptions and their legal application offered a small yet effective opportunity to confirm that Lithuanian custom law applied beyond the borders of ethnic Lithuania, also helping to determine how it functioned and interacted with local Ruthenian custom law. Even though prior to the adoption of the First Statute of Lithuania both were still separate legal systems in Rus’, they were already being integrated and assimilated. This legal assimilation and integration created reliable provisions within the state, paving the way for the successful implementation of the Statute.