Search

In the middle and second half of the 14th century, significant territorial changes took place in Central, Eastern, and Southeastern Europe. The old political structures, which by that time had outlived their usefulness, were replaced by new ones: the revived Kingdom of Poland, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and the Moldavian principality. These changes took place in a fierce struggle, with confrontations on the battlefield giving way to confrontations on the diplomatic front. In addition to the above-mentioned political formations, the Hungarian king also had an important place in this struggle. Louis the Great of Anjou at one time united the Hungarian and Polish crown into his own hands, after the death of Casimir the Great Polish king who had no male offspring. The Moldovan rulers took advantage of the international political conjuncture in this space, who skillfully conducted their foreign policy based on the principle of the balance of power. First, the problem of heredity in Poland and then in the Hungarian kingdom itself undoubtedly contributed to the strengthening of a still very young state that appeared in the middle of the 14th century, first as a Hungarian march, and which was tasked with moving eastward, and then as an independent state. However, at that time, every political entity had a suzerain, which gave him the right to exist. Vasal addiction varied from case to case. In turn, when such an opportunity arose, the Moldovan rulers could change their overlords based on political interest. In this, they used the strength and power of the Lithuanian princes. At first, being in allied relations with the Koriatovichs, the Moldovan rulers strengthened their state, and then, by the will of fate, they developed friendly relations with Vitovt / Alexander and tried not to spoil relations with him, participating in those planned through the Grand Duke of Lithuania. A special test for the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was the war with the Teutonic Order, which broke out in 1409. The Moldavian soldiers again took part in the Battle of Grunwald in 1410. However, the problem was that the Teutons were supported by the Hungarian king, Sigismund of Luxembourg, who wanted to return the Hungarian influence in Moldova. Thus, the Moldavian principality was drawn into the tangle of international relations in this area where the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was of great importance.

The subject of this article thesis is Polish-Russian diplomatic relations in the early years of the reign of Wladislaw IV Vasa (1632–1635). The thesis focuses on the diplomatic activities conducted between the two countries during the Smolensk war in the years 1632–1634 and immediately after the end of the war. A particularly important issue is the Polish and Russian envoys exchanged in order to ratify peace of Polyanovka. Tematem artykułu są polsko-rosyjskie stosunki dyplomatyczne w pierwszych latach panowania Władysława IV Wazy (1632–1635). Praca koncentruje się na aktywności dyplomatycznej prowadzonej między obu krajami podczas wojny smoleńskiej w latach 1632–1634 i tuż po jej zakończeniu. Szczególnie ważny wątek stanowią wzajemne poselstwa odbywane w celu ratyfikacji pokoju polanowskiego.

Was Stanisław Szafraniec the Polish deputy to the court of Bayezid II? Behind the scenes of the Ottoman-Jagiellonian diplomacy in the first years of Sigismund I the Old’s reign The beginnings of Sigismund I the Old’s reign, despite the lack of sources, have been of interest to researchers for a long time. The achievements of Polish historiography have illuminated the first years of the Jagiellon king’s rule in the Kingdom of Poland relatively well, slightly less comprehensively in Lithuania. Much less space has been devoted to the development of Sigismund I the Old’s foreign policy and its practical implementation, understood as establishing diplomatic relations with foreign royal courts. Thanks to the insightful works of Krzysztof Baczkowski, studies on Polish-Hungarian relations are a positive exception to the general rule. If we want to continue research on the formation of Sigismund I’s diplomacy, it is impossible to ignore the problem of Polish-Turkish relations, also in the international aspect. In studying the subject it is important to pay attention to issues such as the organisation, costs, technical solutions, and personal aspects of parliamentary missions. In my opinion, the figure of Stanisław Szafraniec, Starykoń coat of arms, and his role in the foreign policy of Sigismund I is a good example upon which to base the discussion of the above-mentioned issues.

The artistic activity of the Vasa House has long interested researchers of modern art in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. However, while the artistic investments of Sigismund III and his sons in the most important political centres of the Crown (Kraków, Warsaw) are relatively well known, those undertaken in the capital of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania have not been discussed more broadly, except for the foundation of St Casimir Chapel at the Vilnius cathedral. The main obstacle is undoubtedly the poorly preserved historical fabric, but also the scarcity of written sources. However, Vilnius – the second capital of the state, in a unique way associated with the Jagiellonian dynasty, had a special place in the activities of the Vasa House, as evidenced by St Casimir Chapel mentioned above. The prestige of connections with the Jagiellonians and the propaganda importance of these relationships could not remain indiff erent to both Sigismund III and his successors. The Vasas’ artistic foundations undertaken in Vilnius were therefore meant to expose this affi nity through, among other things, the expansion of the castle or support for the Dominicans. The Vasas were also eager to participate in the works undertaken by their closest associates, an eloquent example of which is St Teresa Church belonging to the Discalced Carmelites, funded by Stefan Pac.

This article provides an overview of financial situation in the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the end of the Middle Ages and beginning of the early modern era when both states entered the period of military revolution. Military conflicts engaging the Kingdom and the Duchy in the 15th and especially in the 16th century were a catalyst for institutional and treasury reforms affecting crown/ducal domains and fiscal systems in both states. The reforms were aimed primarily at increasing the royal and ducal revenues, but in the long run they were conducive to political changes, the most important of which was the parliamentary union in 1569 and establishment of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Although revenues increased and foreign policies of Jagiellonian states proved successful, their treasury systems were never fully modernized. Fixed taxes played a minimal role and allowed the state apparatuses to function relatively efficiently only during periods of peace. The crises, in turn, showed that the Jagiellons’ credit capacity was very limited. Compared to the most developed European countries, the revenue and financial capacity of the Kingdom of Poland, and even more so of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, can be considered very modest.

The birth of parliamentarism in the Kingdom of Poland, its development, and its heyday, referred to in historiography as the ‘golden age’, are associated with the almost two-hundred-year reign of the Jagiellonian dynasty (1386–1572). During the reign of four generations of Jagiellons, the oligarchic monarchy of the fifteenth century was transformed into a parliamentary monarchy of nobles in the next century. One of the institutional foundations and principles of the state was the two-tier parliamentary system, which ensured actual participation in power of the holders of political rights. The year 1468 saw the birth of the Chamber of Deputies, based on the principle of representation, and consequently, the establishment of the bicameral Crown Sejm. The Polish-Lithuanian Union concluded in Lublin in 1569 resulted in legal and political decisions which determined the role and functioning of the Sejm until the collapse of the Commonwealth at the end of the eighteenth century.

The discussion article provides an analysis of a book recently published by Wojciech Krawczuk entitled Records and Regesta of the German Expedition of the Royal Swedish Chancery of King Sigismund III of the Years 1597–1600. The book contains a source edition of the minutes of the royal chancery of Sigismund III Vasa, King of Poland, Grand Duke of Lithuania (1587–1632), and King of Sweden (he retained power in 1592–1599), written around 1600, which has been supplemented by extensive regesta prepared by the editor. This discussion article evaluates this form of providing access to the contents of primary sources against the background of similar source editions consisting of records created by other royal chanceries, namely the chancery of the Kingdom of Poland, the chancery of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the chancery of the dukes of Mazovia. It is noteworthy that increasingly more archival materials are made available online through the websites of various archives and other institutions that preserve historical documents. In view of the growing trend to digitalize primary sources and make them available online, the idea of publishing complete source editions including full source texts, which began at the beginning of the twentieth century, seems unjustified nowadays. Currently, the solution proposed by Wojciech Krawczuk, based on the publication of regesta, appears to be the most favourable. Perhaps it would be appropriate to link the published regesta even more closely to the digitized archival materials by providing each one of them with a link or QR code that would refer to the website hosting the relevant digitalized source. The content of the documents included in the reviewed book differs significantly from the content of the records created by the chanceries of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Swedish documents are dominated by current affairs, primarily concerning military and diplomatic issues, and include much fewer normative acts, such as appointments to offices and bestowals of landed property.

Research objectives: The aim of the article is to trace the origins of the Old Russian text of Tokhtamish Khan’s 1393-dated yarliq-letter to King Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland, as well as the place and time of its emergence. Research materials: The Turkic and the Old Russian texts of Tokhtamish Khan’s 1393 yarlıq-letter to King Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland, as well as published and unpublished auxiliary materials. Results and novelty of the research: It is established that the Old Russian text of Tokhtamish Khan’s 1393 yarlıq-letter to Władysław II Jagiełło of Poland was written down in the royal chancery by the king’s Ruthenian scribe, Małochiej. This text was a record of the embassy of the khan’s envoys which explains its additional information when compared to the Turkic original.

Polotia recepta. A Map of the Principality of Polatsk: Texts and Pretexts of thePower Dispute This study discusses an important aspect of a political message conveyed by Stanisław Pachołowiecki’s map, published in 1580 by G.B Cavalieri’s printing house in Rome as part of The Atlas of the Principality of Polatsk – Descriptio Ducatus Polocensis. The message in question is one of the paratexts, presenting a detailed historical note on Polatsk and the Principality. The main goal of the study is to prove a double hypothesis, first that the note on Polatsk was a key argument legitimising the rule of Stephen Báthory – contested by Tsar Ivan the Terrible – not only over the small territory under dispute but over the whole Great Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and second, that the decision to aim the first Polish-Lithuanian military offensive in the 1577–1582 war at Polatsk was motivated by political rather than military or strategic considerations. In section I, preliminary assumptions, theses and research methods are presented. Then, in section II, the context of the propaganda campaign, as Pachołowiecki’s map ideological framework, is introduced. This is followed by a critical analysis of the historical note, based on Polish and Ruthenian-Lithuanian sources (III.1). The next section (III.2) demonstrates that Polatsk held a central place in the Muscovite political discourse. Having proclaimed himself a heir to the throne of the Great Duchy and to the crown of Poland, Ivan the Terrible seized the land of Polatsk, and the efficient Muscovite diplomacy started to assert the tsar’s alleged dynastic claim to Lithuania and Poland. In this way, the manipulated history of the “recovered Polatsk”, Polotia recepta, argued to be a historical part of Lithuania, can be seen as a reply to the Muscovite discourse of power drawing on dynastic claims to a non-existent duchy, and the key matter is the legitimisation of elective monarchy as opposed to hereditary one. Having discussed the theatrical and iconic form of the Polish triumph over Ivan the Terrible (III.3), the author highlights the long life of the political myth of the Polatsk statehood and its sign ificance for today’s Belarusian identity discourse.

The article analyses achievements of contemporary historiography in the study of the role and significance of the Gorodel Union of 1413 in the formation of the gentry class of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The key subjects of scientific research of Polish, Lithuanian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian historians are identified. It is emphasised that these subjects, as a rule, are not an independent historiographical problem and act as part of a broader research discussion about the causes and results of the Union of 1413 in the system of relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland. In conclusion, it is noted that despite the differences in the interpretation of a number of specific issues, researchers generally agree in the statement that the acts of the Gorodel Union and the heraldic adoption, both in their content and in their consequences, are one of the key stages in the process of forming the nobility of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Artykuł opisuje karierę oraz pozycję polityczną Kacpra Bekiesza i Ferenca Wesseliniego w Rzeczypospolitej za panowania Stefana Batorego. Wyjaśnia w jaki sposób obaj osiągnęli zajmowane stanowiska i dlaczego byli ważni dla monarchy. Warto podkreślić, że są dobrymi przykładami na to jak król elekcyjny mógł pomóc cudzoziemcom w ich karierze w szesnastowiecznej Polsce. Z jednej strony, Kacper Bekiesz osiągnął pozycję służąc w armii w trakcie wypraw Batorego, z drugiej strony Ferenc Wesselini odgrywał istotną rolę jako jeden z wysokich urzędników na polskim dworze. This article is about the career and political positions of Gáspár Bekes and Ferenc Wesselényi in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth during Stephen Báthory’s reign. It explains how they both achieved their positions and why they were important for the monarch. It should be emphasised that both of them are a good example of how the elected Polish king could help foreigners in their career in 16th century Poland. On the one hand, Gáspár Bekes achieved his position by serving in the army before and during Báthory’s wars, on the other hand Ferenc Wesselényi played an important role as a holder of a high office at the Polish royal court.

John III Sobieski had a signifi cant part in the development of the Hungarian uprising which led to the Ottoman attack on Vienna, and which, in this way, posed a threat to Poland and Europe. The involvement in defending Vienna and establishing the “Holy League” forced a change of policy towards the Hungarians and directed expansion towards Moldova and Wallachia. The King of Poland, after taking over Podolia, which took place at the beginning of the war, and after failing to capture Kamianets-Podilskyi, could fi ght with the Turks only on the Moldovan (and possibly Wallachian) territory. Expansion in this direction, however, was not welcome by Emperor Leopold I, who considered these territories to be the rightful countries of the Hungarian domain. It was not possible to maintain the Moldovan throne under Stefan Petru, imposed in early 1684 by Poland. The next Moldovan rulers, Dumitru Cantacuzino and Constantin Cantemir, were strongly opposed to conducting anti-Turkish military activities in their country. The hopes of the Polish king for Constantin Cantemir’s cooperation, despite some agreements, were not based on real grounds, and the political intentions towards the Romanian principalities were a factor here. Sobieski falsely assessed the mood prevailing in Moldovan society; while expecting general support, he met with resistance. Throughout the war, however, Imré Thököly tried to maintain the best possible relations with the King of Poland, persistently and yet unsuccessfully trying to lead to a separatist peace between the Ottoman state and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Jan III Sobieski was active in the domestic policy. He tried to influence pre-parliament dietines so they would elect the King’s sympathetic parliamentarians and to take into account instructions advantageous to the Court. There was lot of assembly in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the King needed many supporters – senators and local noble elites. However, he had a wide range of possibilities on how to win them. People trusted by the Court attended the dietines personally or through their family and political friends. They reported to the King on the results of deliberations, made sure people elected as deputies were recommended by the Monarch and there weren’t disadvantages for the Court in an instruction. Of course, the Court didn’t win the political fight everywhere. Sometimes a compromise with the opposition was necessary. Occasionally Court’s supporters interrupted a dietine to not allow the opposition to win. The King convened often a second dietine, which was sometimes held in secret, with a small circle of trusted people. The methods used by the King weren’t different from methods of opposition and Sobieski took advantage of the cracks in the parliamentary system of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Established under the Henrician Articles of 1573, the institution of Council of the Senate was supposed to be a standing advisory body to the rulers of the Polish- -Lithuanian Commonwealth. Over the fi rst few decades of its existence, the monarchs did not respect the obligation to appoint resident senators as the Council’s members. This changed only in 1607, as a result of a confl ict between the king and the estates and the Rebellion of Sandomierz – the events that mobilised the nobility to enforce the monarch to observe the law in this respect. Since the beginning of his reign, Ladislaus IV Vasa fairly readily convened meetings of the Council, at which its members expressed their opinions on the current problems. The deliberations were usually about the state’s foreign policy, the functioning and internal security of the state, the affairs of war and peace, the military and the treasury, the king’s or the royal family’s private affairs, the Commonwealth’s feoffs, and matters related to private affairs of members of the power elite. Resulting from the monarch’s actions that did not win popularity in the nobility-dominated society, the Chamber of Deputies started with time perceive the Council as an institution detrimental to the state’s interest. The Chamber consequently extort from the king and the senators the duty to read out the reports on the senatus consilia at the diet (sejm) forum. Consequently, the upper chamber’s position was weakened and the Council of the Senate politicised – a process that directly affected Poland-Lithuania’s political system, vastly contributing to its degeneration.

The primary purpose of the authors is to draw attention to the need for continued comparative research into the Polish-Lithuanian unions and the Kalmar Union. The study presents mainly thoughts on the origins of the both unions and the early stages of the formation of those state entities. A comparative analysis has been carried out for, among others, the time of their creation together with their causes and circumstances put in the context of the stages of social, legal-political, and institutional development of the member states. The article also outlines the later history and transformations of these unions: both their factual and legal character, as well as the regulations of their functioning and consequences. These questions are presented mainly in a comparative way, with consideration for differences and similarities between the two unions. The authors bring out the problems of political, social, and economic nature, together with the dynastic policy of the united states; next, they describe similarities between the regulations of the unions regarding the order of succession to the throne. The subject of a synthetic comparison is also the later history of the two unions after they formally ended and their impact on the historical development of both Poland and Lithuania and the northern states. Still, one of the most important issues seems to be the answer to the question why both of the unions wasted their considerable political and military potential for joint action and new opportunities to achieve common political aims in northern and Eastern Europe? It would be worthwhile to compare their durability and influence on the future of their member states. One of the leading research postulates based on the attempts made so far is to compare subsequent stages, transformations and results, both direct and long-lasting, of the analysed unions of the states. The adoption of such a broad research perspective which is only outlined here, and then an attempt at a more comprehensive synthesis requires in the authors opinion collective efforts of many scholars, and especially international cooperation of historians specializing in Polish-Lithuanian and Swedish-Danish-Norwegian relations as well as the history of the Teutonic Order and the Hanseatic League.

The article analyses the impact of maps and plans for military operations in the Netherlands in the 1620s on the modernisation and reform of the art of war in the Republic of Poland. The analysis showed that the source of tactical, operational and strategic knowledge were cartographic sources that reached the lands of the Republic. They were most often brought by people who left the Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the West for education and work and then returned to their homeland. It was established that a typical magnate returning from the journey brought between a dozen and a few dozen or so engravings and his own drawings of the sieges and fortification plans. A common form was to provide maps for correspondence. Cartographic sources were supposed to help evaluate the military actions taken and allow the recipients to “keep an eye on” European conflicts. Thanks to the journey of Prince Wladyslaw Vasa around Europe in the years 1624–1625, a pattern of taking “military science” was formed not only in universities but also in military camps in the Netherlands.

The document from the Book of Inscriptions 270 of Lithuanian Metrica is published for the first time. This is King’s Sigismund II August instruction to the elected in the districts envoys to the Grand Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1572. The instruction contains the Kings’ «precept» to the envoys and also detailed description of the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian current international politics.

In 1648, an uprising broke out in Ukraine that belonged to Poland at the time. The war was not successful for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Cossacks and Tartars, who were helping them during the war, surrounded Zbaraż, about whose defense everyone knew in the country. King Jan Kazimierz decided to set out to rescue the besieged fortress. It was decided that not only Polish troops, but also soldiers of Lithuania would set out for Ukraine. Not only state armies, but also private regiments set out to fight. The article discusses the problem of the reasons for the participation of Lithuanians in the war, which was not only due to the provisions of the union, but also to be in the king’s party. Therefore, only the branches of magnates who belong to the Jan Kazimierz party joined the Polish army. The king’s army reached Zborów, where the battle ended with treaties. The Polish nobility was not happy with them, but they caused a temporary suspension of the war. Important will also be the international echoes of the battle of Zborow with the greater strength of the Cossacks and Tartars.

Pasitelkus prozopografinį metodą, straipsnyje siekiama apibrėžti ir charakterizuoti Aleksandro Jogailaičio laikų LDK pasiuntinių į Lenkijos karalystę korpusą, išnagrinėti atskirų asmenų diplomatinę veiklą, jos ypatumus. Diplomatiniai santykiai buvo palaikomi valdovo vardu, tačiau su Ponų tarybos žinia. 1492–1506 m. įvairiuose šaltiniuose užfiksuota 20 pasiuntinybių, į kurias vyko maždaug 28 asmenys, priklausę Ponų tarybai Relations between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland occupy an important place in Polish and Lithuanian historiography. However, historians did not pay much attention to the role of Lithuanian diplomatic corps (if it existed) in the development of the interaction of two neighbouring states. The aim of this paper is to define the diplomatic corps of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Kingdom of Poland during the reign of Alexander Jagiellonian, and to discuss the emissaries’ different practices and their peculiarities. The prosopographical method was employed, which allowed investigation of common characteristics of the Lithuanian legates in Poland to trace the multiplicity of their career lines. The period under analysis – the reign of Alexander Jagiellonian in 1492–1506 – is very important for the political history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. During this time, the court of the grand duke was fully developed and the Council of Lords was institutionalized de jure. Diplomatic relations were maintained on behalf of the ruler, but with the consent of the Council of Lords. From 1492 to 1506, twenty legations were recorded in different sources, which were held by approximately 28 persons who belonged to the Council of Lords. The issues of union were dealt with in June 1492, August 1496, February 1499, in 1501–1502, and from 1504 to 1506. The highest state officials were sent to Poland: bishops of Vilnius (three times), bishops of Samogitia (three times) and Luck (twice), the voivode of Trakai, the castellans of Vilnius and Trakai, the voivode of Polotsk and the like. To solve the problems of ordinary diplomatic relations and collaboration during the time of wars, the officers from the court of the grand duke were usually sent to Poland as well. It should be mentioned that the ruler’s marshals went to Poland ten times and the court or land marshals went to Poland twice; also, such officers as the Steward or Seneschal (stolnik and podstolnik), the Master of Horse (koniushy), the Cutter (krajczy), the Kitchener (kuchmistrz), and the Treasurer (podskarbnik) went there as well. Comparing the service of the legates of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland, it should be noted that the composition of the Lithuanian diplomatic service was quite different. The Royal Chancery headed by the Chancellor (kanclerz) and his Lieutenant (podkanclerz) was responsible for the foreign policy of the Crown. The situation in Lithuania was similar. However, it was mostly secretaries, notaries or their family members (not marshals and courtiers like in Lithuania) who were Polish envoys in foreign countries. Their social position also differed. Among Polish legates, there were thirty representatives of the gentry, twenty of them were nobles, and nine represented the burghers. Lithuanian legates were mostly aristocrats. It seems more likely that the aim of such Lithuanian policy in choosing diplomatic staff was to send legates who had more political weight; also, the nobles were better educated people with good eloquence.

Notes on royal court on a journey; based on Sigismund III expedition to Sweden in the years 1593-1594 The king of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Sigismund III Vasa (1587-1632) ruled similarly short in Sweden as well, actually his reign covers the period from 1592-1599. In this period, he visited his motherland twice. The first journey in the years 1593-1594 was a coronation expedition. This article discusses the composition of the Polish-Lithuanian court during the first journey. Court accounts as of 1595 published in 1934 by Wanda Dobrowolska provide vital information on the subject. It is estimated that the royal court during the journey consisted of at least 75 people who were named in the court accounts. The total number together with the Queen Anna’s and the king’s daughter Anna Vasa’s woman’s room – without the armed guards – certainly amounted to over 100 people. Among them there were high officials like vice-chancellor Jan Tarnowski as well as the King’s secretary, the Queen’s chancellor Stanisław Fogelweder together with the court service. Special attention attracts a great number of 23 musicians which make 30% of all the people named in the accounts. Diminished as compared to the court in Wawel, the court on the journey, fulfilled well, as one may assume, its functions as the centre of power, the tool to satisfy the basic needs of the King and his family at the appropriate level, and as a tool to entertain the royal family., In Gremium. Studia nad Historią, Kulturą i Polityką, Nr 7 (2013): In Gremium. Studia nad Historią, Kulturą i Polityką

This article strives to present reforms prepared by king’s Sigismund III Vasa supporters as faced with Sandomierz Rebellion (rokosz sandomierski). The king’s opposition focused mostly on critique and accusations of the monarch, rather than constructing one compact program of political reforms. The royalists’ camp appeared far more proactive with their ideas of constitutional reforms. The first idea, whose goal was to reform the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and to strengthen king’s role in the government, was presented to the nobles before the Parliament session in 1606. It involved a long-term project of introducing fixed taxes, which were supposed to finance the maintenance of a professional army. It also dealt with the issue of regaining the Swedish throne. The king demanded that the Parliament should debate on the royal propositions only, fearing that including the nobility’s demands would result in breaking up the session, but his postulate was refused. The commentary to king’s instructions was embodied in a paper entitled Votum szlachcica polskiego pisane na sejmiki i sejm roku pa n skiego 1606 , which undoubtedly originated in the camp of royal supporters. A thorough analysis shows that the document proposed even bolder projects of reforming the army and the Parliament than those proposed by the king. One of the most interesting, and at the same time radical concepts of strengthening the monarchy can be found in the Consilium na tryumfi e krakowskim przy wroceniu si e KJM z Janowca jemu dane napisane . It was written aft er the agreement that the king and the rebellious nobles had come to in 1606 in Janowiec. The document postulates two major reforms, that were considered by the author to be vital in reviving the country. The first one was supposed to build financial power of the Commonwealth by introducing fixed taxes for nobility and payments for the titles given by the king. The other issue, crucial for strengthening the country and empowering the king, was the necessity to dismiss the Chamber of Deputies as it was only causing chaos and paralyzing the proceedings. The author considered the Chamber of Deputies to be nothing more but an unnecessary novelty in the political system. As for the senators, he proposed that their number should be gradually decreased. Those actions were supposed to set the stage for a new organ, a “chamber council”, which would include only the most trusted of king’s men. In the beginning of the 17th century the privileged noble class was not willing to allow for systemic changes that would empower the monarchy in the Commonwealth. The phrase absolutum dominium alone, was a loathed synonym of tyranny and violation of laws and freedom. That is the reason why the radical project of reforms described in Consilium… did not stand a chance of success in the Commonwealth. Propositions that were presented to the Parliament in 1606 on the other hand, should be considered as a realistic and balanced step to empower the monarchy. Had they been presented in other circumstances than the emotional and rebellious atmosphere before the parliament session in 1606, they might have been adopted, at least partially.

Straipsnio tikslas yra palyginti, kaip Žalgirio mūšis ir karalius Vladislovas Jogaila vaizduotas Jano Kochanovskio poezijoje ir Motiejaus Strijkovskio „Lenkijos, Lietuvos, Žemaičių ir visos Rusios kronikoje“ (1582). Kochanovskis mūšiui neskyrė specialaus kūrinio, o apie jį ir karalių Jogailą rašė Vladislovui Varniečiui skirtame, nors nebaigtame darbe bei odėje „Vėliavėlė arba prūsų duoklė“ (1569, išleistas 1587). Autorius lygina Jogailos paveikslą Žalgirio mūšyje su karaliaus Vladislovo vaizdavimu mūšyje prie Varnos lenkų poezijoje XV-XVI amžiais (iki Jano Kochanovskio). Tai leidžia teigti, kad tiek Kochanovkis, tiek Strijkovskis laikėsi abiejų valdovų vertinimo tradicijos: karalius Jogaila nugalėtojas, o Varnietis pomirtine šlove apgaubtas riteris. Tačiau Kochanovskis renkasi renesanso epochai būdingus vaizdinius – pamaldumą, nuolankumą Apvaizdos akivaizdoje, Jogailai dovanotą pergalę ar Varniečio drąsą ir jam lemtą nesėkmę. Tuo tarpu Strijkovskis abiem atvejais renkasi epinį pasakojimą, nors nuo tradicijos pernelyg nenutolsta. Straipsnyje analizuojamas Žalgirio mūšio 600-šimtųjų metų minėjimo kontekstas, primenama nuo Jogailos ir Jogailaičių laikų susiklosčiusi mūšio minėjimo tradicija bei jos sunykimas renkamų karalių laikais ir netekus nepriklausomybės, taip pat kulto grįžimas 1910 metais. Apibendrinant galima kalbėti apie dvi Žalgirio mūšio vizijas: poetinę Kochanovskio ir labiau istorikui metraštininkui būdingą Strijkovskio. Pirmasis poetiškai perteikia vien stereopinius mūšio bruožus, antrasis detalizuoja ir atskiroms detalėms suteikia poetinio iškilmingumo. The article aims to compare how the Battle of Grunwald and King Władysław Jagiełło were pictured in Jan Kochanowski’s poetry and Maciej Stryjkowski’s “Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and all of Ruthenia” (1582). Kochanowski did not dedicate any special piece of writing to the battle and wrote about it and King Jagiełło in an unfinished work dedicated to Władysław of Varna and in the ode “The Banner, or the Prussian Homage” (1569, published in 1587). The author compares the picture of Jagiełło in the Battle of Grunwald with the depiction of King Władysław in the Battle of Varna in the 15th–16th-century Polish poetry (before Jan Kochanowski). This means that both Kochanowski and Stryjkowski upheld the tradition of appreciating the both rulers: King Jagiełło was a winner and Władysław of Varna was a knight covered in posthumous glory. Kochanowski, however, chose images typical of the Renaissance Period – piety and obedience to the Divine, a victory given to Jagiełło or Władysław of Varna’s courage and fate of being doomed to failure. Meanwhile, in both cases, Stryjkowski chose an epic narrative, though he did not depart from the tradition too much. The article examines the commemoration context of the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Grunwald, recalls the tradition of marking the battle started in the times of Jagiełło and the Jagiellonians, and its decay in times of elected Kings and after the loss of independence, and also the return of the cult in 1910. To conclude, two visions of the Battle of Grunwald can be mentioned: Kochanowski’s poetic vision and Stryjkowski’s vision more typical of a historian and chronicler. The first poetically conveyed only stereotypical features of the battle, while the latter gave separate details to poetically solemnise it.

Straipsnyje yra pristatomi duomenys apie portretines Jogailos monetas. Apie tokias monetas buvo rašyta 1981 m. Tada buvo žinomos keturios tokios monetos. Per kitus du dešimtmečius buvo naujai sužinota tik apie vieną portretinę monetą. Kai metalinių daiktų paieškai buvo pradėta naudoti moderni technika tokių monetų buvo randama vis daugiau. Įdomu pastebėti tai, kad 2002 m., vykstant Vilniaus žemutinės pilies teritorijoje archeologiniams tyrimams, čia buvo rastas XIV a. pabaigos lobis, kuriame buvo 18 portretinių monetų, o tais pačiais metais toje pačioje teritorijoje buvo rasta dar viena tokia moneta. 2003–2004 m. atliktų tyrimų metu dar buvo rastos kelios portretinės monetos. Yra nustatyta, kad tokios portretinės monetos yra LDK ir nukaldintos Jogailos apie 1386–1387 m. Taip pat straipsnyje nurodoma literatūra, kurioje buvo analizuojamos tokios monetos. Atkreipiamas dėmesys į šių monetų radimo aplinkybes, atliktus spaudų ir metrologinius tyrimus. Be šių tyrimų buvo atlikti monetų legendų tyrimai. Buvo nustatytas monetų amžius, o seniausios ir labiausiai sunykusios iš jų yra rastos Vilniaus žemutinėje pilyje. Šios monetos buvo kaldintos skirtingais spaudais. Straipsnyje yra aiškinami monetų reversų simboliai. Vienoje straipsnio išvadų yra teigiama, kad portretinės monetos priklauso Lietuvos didžiajam kunigaikščiui Jogailai. Svarbu pažymėti tai, kad portretinės Jogailos monetos atitiko to meto kitų Europos karalysčių monetas. Įdomu tai, kad dėl jų kaldinimo ant atkirptų sidabro gabaliukų, Jogailos portretinės monetos užima svarbią vietą numizmatikos istorijoje. The article describes the portrait coins of Jogaila, the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, minted in Vilnius c. 1386-1387. Until recently, only twenty three units of coinage featuring the monarch’s portrait on one side and a lion with a decorative cord of Tatar design on the other have been known. The article aims to describe seven new portrait coins found in 2002-2004. These finds allow to confirm that the coins belonged to Jogaila, the Grand Duke of Lithuania; they also allow to fully identify the legend, depicted on the obverse of the coins (MAGNA REGIHA=King Jogaila the Great). The newly found coins showed many identical or overlapping die images what allows to conclude that in coin minting the bottom die used to contain a portrait while the upper die would feature a lion and a cord. The images of a lion and of a Tatar cord on the reverse side of the coins imply Jogaila’s claims to all Russian principalities, including those subjugated by the Holden Horde. The use of these images can be viewed as a proclamation dedicated to the Grand Duke of Moscovy and the Khan of the Golden Horde. In terms of design and decoration Jogaila’s portrait coins matched the coinage of other European kingdoms of those times.

Straipsnyje pristatomas Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės politinės tautos susiformavimas XV-XV a. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės politinė tauta pradėjo intensyviai vystytis valdant didžiajam kunigaikščiui Vytautui (1392-1430 m.), kuris visuomet veikė kaip suverenios valstybės ir lygiateisės Lenkijos karalystės partnerės valdovas. Tokiame kontekste išsigrynino Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės valstybės samprata ir politinės vertybės. XV-XVI a. Lietuvos didikų ir bajorų santykiai su valdančiąja dinastija gerokai pakito. Jogailaičių dinastijos atstovai teikė prioritetą Lenkijos karalystės reikalams, todėl Lietuvos kilmingieji turėjo konsoliduotis. Lietuvos didikai susijungė į Ponų tarybą ir įgijo prestižą likusios bajorijos akyse. Lietuvoje susiformavo klientalizmo sistema, o išsilavinę bajorai puoselėjo Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės savarankiškumo idėją. Istoriografijoje priimta teigti, kad Lietuvos bajorija patyrė didelę polonizaciją Liublino unijos išvakarėse. Tačiau šis teiginys reikalauja peržiūrėjimo – Lietuvos bajorija gerai mokėjo šnekamąją, bet ne politinę lenkų kalbą. Kitaip nei Lenkijos karalystėje, Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje vidutinė ir smulkioji bajorija nesukūrė atskiros politinės programos, o didikai išlaikė politinę lyderystę. Po XVI a. vidurio reformų Lietuvoje subrendo politinė tauta, kurią jungė stiprūs klientiniai santykiai, o politinės ir kultūrinės idėjos ženkliai skyrėsi nuo „Sarmatų Lenkijos“. Todėl Liublino unija buvo kompromiso tarp dviejų skirtingų politinių tautų rezultatas.

Kada Vytautas ima tituluotis didžiuoju kunigaikščiu? Vilniaus–Radomo sutartimi Jogaila skyrė Vytautą Lietuvos didžiuoju kunigaikščiu iki gyvos galvos ir priėmė jį savo teisių dalininku. Lietuvos valdovo institucija suskilo į dvi – realųjį didįjį kunigaikštį ir jo siuzereną, nominalųjį valdovą – aukščiausiąjį kunigaikštį. Titulatūra taip pat buvo padalyta, nes 1401 m. sutartis įtvirtino savarankiško Lietuvos valdovo instituciją, o jos valdžios išraišką apibūdino valdovo titulas „magnus dux“. Kitas dokumentas, žymintis Lietuvos atskiro valdovo institucijos atgimimą, buvo 1392 m. Astravos sutartis, kuria Jogaila skyrė Vytautą savo vietininku Lietuvoje. Minėtos datos lyg ir apibrėžia istorinį periodą, kuriame turėtų glūdėti atsakymas į iškeltą klausimą. Tačiau straipsnyje siekiama ne tik atrasti chronologiškai tikslią datą, bet ir aptarti šį klausimą lietuviškoje istoriografijoje plačiau nagrinėtu lietuviškosios valdoviškosios titulatūros požiūriu. Lietuvos krikštas sąlygojo kokybiškai naują valstybės ir valdovo padėtį. Lietuva tapo naujo politinio darinio dalis. Krėvos sutartis ir Jogailos išrinkimas Lenkijos karaliumi pradėjo naują Lietuvos valdovo titulo formavimosi etapą. Lietuvos valdovas, nuo šiol ir Lenkijos karalius, sujungė Lietuvos valdovo titulą su Lenkijos karaliaus titulatūra ir išvyko į Krokuvą. Lietuvos valstybė neteko vienintelės valstybingumą įkūnijančios institucijos – savarankiško valdovo. Tačiau tarp dviejų Gediminaičių šakų kilęs konfliktas buvo atmosfera, kurioje formavosi ne tik Lietuvos valdovo, bet ir visos valstybės titulas. Lithuanian ruler until the Krėva union used to have different titles. Although, in a variety of names the title of Lithuanian ruler was superior to those of ruling dynasty. As a consequence of the Krėva union the title of the Lithuanian ruler was being formed in a framework of two poles: on the one side it was the title of Jogaila as the king of Poland and on the other side it was the title of Vytautas - a local and later an independent ruler of Lithuania. When Jogaila became the king of Poland the Lithuanian title of Lithuanian ruler was combined with that of the Polish king. The formation of the title belonging to the local Lithuanian ruler Vytautas was closely related to the title of patrimonial Lithuanian ruler - Jogaila. The first titles defined Vytautas as a local duke ruling over some territories. Under the Astravą treaty Vytautas become Jogaila's vicegerent in Lithuania. However, on conducting local affairs he did not avoid to title himself as a grand duke of Lithuania in Russian documents. With an increase of his power Vytautas transferred this title of grand duke to German documents. The relationships with the Orden represent only very narrow channel with the outside world. At that time the international language was Latin. It was a high rank diplomatic language. Thus, the Latin document of 1396 where Vytautas titled himself as the grand duke is of very great importance. With reference to this we can assume that Vytautas titled himself officially for the first time as the grand duke of Lithuania. Up to 1396 Vytautas was in conformity with the Astrava's treaty representing himself as a vicegerent, but from 1396 he stepped over the limits of this treaty.

Tekst, poświecony misji Antoniego Potockiego do carycy Anny Iwanowny w imieniu prymasa Teodora Potockiego z VII–VIII 1730 r., ukazuje proces utrwalania praktyki odwolywania sie w polskich sporach wewnetrznych do pośrednictwa Rosji, a tym samym stopniowej utraty suwerenności przez Rzeczpospolitą. At the Origins of the Appealing to Neighbouring Powers in Internal Polish Disputes – the Case of the Year 1730 In 1730, on behalf of Primate Teodor Potocki, his nephew Antoni, Pantler of Lithuania, went to Moscow. Under the guise of congratulating his cousin Anna Ivanovna on her accession to the throne, the primate gave her a memorial in which he denounced the alleged plans for the partition, absolutism and succession of King Augustus II, hostile to the Commonwealth. In fact, the mission’s goal was to obtain Russia’s support in the fight against the king for the distribution of the offices of hetman, and especially the office of Grand Hetman of the Crown, which the king intended for Stanislaw Poniatowski. Antoni Potocki also presented the empress his own secret “Points”. Under the guise of efforts to fulfil Russian obligations in the case of Livonia and Courland, he held talks in Moscow about the takeover by the Potockis of the estates Hory Horki in Lithuania bought by A. Menshikov some time ago. In public matters, he received empty promises, only in favour of his private demands. He also received help from Russia in the process of destroying the Grodno Sejm of 1730. Under the guise of supporting his “relatives”, the empress achieved her overarching goal, which was to maintain the anarchic status quo in the Commonwealth. The curse of Potocki’s mission shows the mechanisms contributing to the consolidation in public life of the Saxon times of the practice of appealing by the Polish elite to Russia’s mediation in internal disputes, and thus to the gradual loss of sovereignty. The annexes present the texts of both secret memorials forwarded to empress by A. Potocki. У истоков явления обращения к соседним державам в польских внутренних спорах – случай 1730 года В 1730 г. в Москву направился от имени примаса Теодора Потоцкого его племянник Антоний, литовский стольник. Под предлогом поздравить свою кузину Анну Ивановну по случаю вступления на российский престол, примас передал ей письмо, в котором разоблачал, вражеские Речи Посполитой, мнимые планы короля Августа II касательно раздела страны, абсолютистской власти и престолонаследия. В действительности, целью посольства было получение поддержки России в борьбе против короля за распределение гетманских чинов, особенно Великой коронной булавы, которую король предназначил, минуя Пилявитов, для Станислава Понятовского. А. Потоцкий представил императрице также собственные тайные «Пункты». Под предлогом хлопотания за выполнение российских обязательств по Ливонии и Курляндии, Потоцкий вел в Москве переговоры о завладении Потоцкими, купленным когда-то А. Меншиковым имением Горы-Горки в Литве. Ответом на публичные дела были пустые обещания, зато российская сторона положительно отнеслась к его личным требованиям. Потоцкий получил также помощь России в процессе уничтожения Гродненского сейма 1730 г. Под предлогом поддержки «родственников» императрица осуществила свою высшую цель, которой, уже давно, была поддержка в Речи Посполитой анархического статус-кво. История миссии Потоцкого показывает механизмы, способствовавшие укреплению в общественной жизни саксонских времен практики обращения польских элит к посредничеству России во внутренних спорах, тем самым постепенной потери суверенитета. В приложениях публикуются тексты обоих тайных посланий, переданных императрице А. Потоцким.