Search

The article’s objective is to reveal what food products were used in the cuisine of Sigismund II Augustus and in what ways they were supplied when the Ruler resided in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, according to the data of the court account books of 1543–1546. The topis has not been exhaustively studied thus far. Researchers have not given the analysis of these court account books through the prism of cuisine suffi cient attention. The analysis shows that plenty of different kinds of meat – of domestic and wild animals and birds – were delivered to the court kitchen of the Ruler. When the Ruler resided in Vilnius Lower Castle during fasting, pikes from about 20 ponds constructed in Viršupis estate were supplied. Additionally, Elders of the Ruler’s estates sent diff erent types of fish. Also, dairy products were consumed, such as eggs, bread, cereals and sweet baked products, local vegetables and fruit as well as imported lemons, rice and a variety of spices. Beer, mead and wine – the accounts mention Rhine and Hungarian ones – were supplied to the Ruler’s court. The court account books of 1543–1546 are the vital source that reveals the assortment of food products and their supply.

The article was submitted on 20.07.2022. Послание польского короля и великого князя Литовского Сигизмунда II Августа французскому королю Карлу IX Валуа от 28 июля 1568 г. освещает проблему польско-французских торговых противоречий, возникших в связи с проводившейся последним Ягеллоном политикой противодействия русско-французской коммерции в Нарве в 1560‑х гг. Будучи уверенным, что французские негоцианты обогащаются на поставках оружия и боеприпасов русской стороне, польский монарх в условиях кризиса в Великом княжестве Литовском предпринял меры для прекращения торговли в Нарве и ее полной блокады. Следствием стал захват французских торговых судов, шедших в Нарву или идущих из нее, польскими каперами. Это вызвало возмущение короля Карла IX, который при помощи посла в Дании Шарля де Данзе отстаивал свободу торговли и плавания в Балтийском море. В тексте публикуемого письма польский король взывает к чувствам французского монарха в рамках христианской морали, в то же время пытаясь показать силу, значимость польского короля и его государства для Respublica Christiana, а также легитимность занимаемой им жесткой позиции по вопросу «нарвского плавания». Все это делает послание Сигизмунда II Карлу IX ценным историческим источником, чье значение полностью раскрывается в контексте дипломатической корреспонденции Балтийских войн периода 1560‑х гг. Публикуемое впервые, послание дошло до нас в составе коллекции П. П. Дубровского (РНБ, Санкт-Петербург). Представлены текст письма на латыни, а также его перевод на русский язык. The message of the Polish king and Lithuanian grand duke Sigismund II Augustus to the French king Charles IX of France from July 28, 1568, highlights the problem of Polish-French trade controversies, which arose due to the policy of Jagiellon against Russian-French commerce in Narva in the 1560s. Believing that French traders were enriching themselves by supplying weapons and ammunition to Russia, the Polish monarch, in the crisis in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, took measures to cut off trade in Narva and blockade it completely. As a result, French merchant ships sailing to or from Narva were seized by the Polish privateers. It aroused the indignation of Charles IX who, with the help of Charles de Danzay, his ambassador in Denmark, defended the freedom of trade and navigation on the Baltic Sea. The text of the letter appeals to the feelings of the French monarch within the framework of Christian morality, while at the same time trying to show the power and the importance of the Polish king and his state to the Respublica Christiana, and the legitimacy of the tough stance he took on the “Narva navigation”. All this makes the letter from Sigismund II Augustus to Charles IX a valuable historical source whose importance is revealed in through diplomatic correspondence in the Baltic wars of the 1560s. Published for the first time, it comes from the collection of P. P. Dubrovsky (62, № 61), Russian National Library (St Petersburg). The article publishes the text of the letter in Latin as well as a translation into Russian. Исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке Министерства науки и высшего образования Российской Федерации в рамках Программы развития Уральского федерального университета имени первого Президента России Б. Н. Ельцина в соответствии с программой стратегического академического лидерства «Приоритет-2030».

The aim of the article is to analyze the views of Ivan Ivanovich Lappo regarding the circumstances of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin. The opinions of this historian were presented in the context of the views of Russian pre-revolutionary historiography, especially of such authors as Nikolay Gerasimovich Ustryalov, Mikhail Osipovich Koyalovich, Nikolay Alexeyevich Maksimieyko, Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavskiy and Fedor Ivanovich Leontovich. The article belongs to the vast area of studies on the history of historiography, the undertaking of which allows the assessment of the current scholarly achievements and research methodology, and thus making new research postulates. It should be noted that, despite some evolution, the fundamental assessment of the Union of Lublin in Russian pre-revolutionary historiography remained negative. However, the circumstances and reasons for its conclusion were perceived differently. Although the description of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin was not the main research goal for I. Lappo, he carried out a fairly detailed reconstruction of the Sejm of Lublin and the circumstances of the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian union in 1569. It seems that the aim of such a procedure was not only to explain the attitude of Lithuanians towards Poles and the legal relationship between the Grand Duchy and the Crown, but first of all to support of the historian’s fundamental thesis that, as a result of the Union of Lublin, the Grand Duchy did not lose its independence and distinctiveness. This historian not only reported the course of the Sejm of Lublin and the decision of the Act of the Union of July 1, but also confronted the views of Poles and Lithuanians concerning the conditions of the Union and the way it was concluded. According to him, the historical reality and the political system of the Grand Duchy until 1569 corresponded to the project of a union presented by Lithuanians. In his opinion, the aim of Poles was not to bring about real unification based on the principles of equality and fraternity, but to force Lithuanians to enter into a union through the implementation of old rights and privileges. In some parts of his research, however, the scholar differentiated between the radical attitude of the Chamber of Deputies of the Crown and the more conciliatory position of the Senate. The description of King Sigismund Augustus’s activities presented by I. Lappo turned out to be quite paradoxical and partly incoherent. On the one hand, the historian claimed that the monarch was under the influence of Poles and betrayed the Grand Duchy. On the other hand, he quoted a number of cases in which the king’s attitude contradicted this general opinion. Lappo’s general attitude towards the Union of Lublin remained negative. The historian clearly sympathized with Lithuanians, seeing Poles as merely caring for their own interests to the detriment of the Grand Duchy. The analysis of Lappo’s views made in this article shows that there are elements in his concepts that testify to the connection with the traditional narrative of Russian historiography, as well as new and original ideas.

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.

The paper describes the manuscript "Kronika za Zygmunta Augusta w Knyszynie zmarłego roku 1572" (A Chronicle written during the reign of Sigismund II Augustus who died 1572 in Knyszyn), which is currently being prepared for publication. The author provides an interpretation of the content of the Chronicle and tries to find the motivation behind the work along with its ideological message. He also makes initial attempts to establish the possible author of the text. The Chronicle is presented as a rarely recalled, but still interesting testimony to the times of the first Interregnum, which reveals much on the mechanics of the political life of the Commonwealth.

Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio rengtos medžioklės, savo reikšme Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje (toliau LDK) peržengusios ekonominį bei ūkinį aspektus, XVI a. buvo viena iš didžiojo kunigaikščio dvaro, jo sociumo konsolidacijos galimybių, taip pat puikus būdas užmegzti ir palaikyti artimus santykius su valdovu. Straipsnio objektas – LDK valdovą Žygimantą Augustą bei LDK didįjį medžioklį (rusėn. ловчий великий, lenk. łowczy hospodarski, łowczy wielki, lot. praefectus venationum, vok. Oberjagermeister) Mikalojų Radvilą Rudąjį suartinusios medžioklės, jų vaidmuo stiprinant abipusį emocinį ryšį ir šios pramogos įtaka tolesnei Mikalojaus Radvilos Rudojo karjerai. Straipsnyje atskleidžiama, kaip draugystė derėjo su oficialiomis vyriausiojo LDK medžioklės ūkio pareigūno – didžiojo medžioklio – pareigomis. In the sixteenth century, the hunts held by the grand duke of Lithuania, which in their significance in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania superseded the economic aspect, were one of the opportunities of consolidation of the grand duke’s court and his environment as well as a perfect occasion to start and maintain close contacts with the ruler. A passion for hunting and friendship united Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis (Mikolaj Radziwill the Red), the grand master of the hunt of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (ловчий великий in Ruthenian, łowczy hospodarski, łowczy wielki in Polish, praefectus venationum in Latin, Oberjagermeister in German) and the ruler Žygimantas Augustas (Sigismund Augustus). Such a relationship evolved not only during the time spent together in the hunt, but also during the organization of hunts. The grand master of the hunt accompanied the ruler throughout the whole duration of the hunt and therefore often travelled with him. The emergence of this office alleviated the efforts of the ruler to restrict wilful destruction of forests and hunting areas, because grand masters of the hunt were put in charge of all forests owned by the ruler of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Appointing Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis to this office signified appreciation of his hunting skills and was an initial stage in his career that influenced his subsequent relationships with the ruler; it granted him exclusive hunting rights which not only demonstrated the ruler’s favour and friendship, but also yielded tangible economic gain. The actual load of the organization of the hunt was borne by the masters of the hunt (ловчий in Ruthenian, łowczy in Polish, venator in Latin), who were hierarchically subordinated to the grand master of the hunt. Being next to the ruler, the grand master of the hunt of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania occupied the position of the hunting companion, while in the process of organization he would assume responsibility for the coordination of preparatory actions and for social aspects of the hunt. The established duties and functions of grand masters of the hunt of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not change up until the end of the sixteenth century, and the significance of this office did not lose any of its importance. After the death of Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis, whose relationship with the ruler was primarily based on a friendly emotional connection intertwined with the official duties of the grand master of hunt of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, this office remained in the hands of important families of the Grand Duchy: the Valavičius, the Naruševičius, the Radvila, and others who ‘inherited’ it from their next of kin.

The article describes the controversial correlation of forces in Livonia’s fight to retain its status quo. The geopolitical situation caused Livonia, though a sovereign but highly dependent state, to gradually disappear. Livonia’s structure was far from monolithic; it was a complex of secular, church, order and city jurisdictions. There were estates that had either lost or acquired rights. Internationally, this European province, whose territory was being claimed by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Sweden, Denmark, and Russia, was incapable of surviving in the intensifying political and military confrontations that dominated the region in the last third of the 17th century., Дается развернутая панорама противоречивого соотношения сил в борьбе Ливонии за сохранение своего status quo. Стремительно менявшаяся геополитическая ситуация сложилась не в пользу существования Ливонии как сильно зависимого, но все же самостоятельного государственного образования, что привело к его постепенному упразднению. Внутреннее устройство Ливонии не было монолитным, это был сложный конгломерат различных юрисдикций: светской, церковной, орденской, городской. Здесь тоже были сословия, потерявшие или приобретшие свои права. Во внешнеполитической перспективе европейская провинция, на которую заявляли свои права польско - литовское государство, Швеция, Дания и Россия не могла устоять в обострившейся обстановке военно-политического противостояния сил, доминировавших в регионе, и к концу XVI в. это стало очевидным фактом.

Translated by PhD Andreas Keller. The article was submitted on 18.04.2014. The article describes the controversial correlation of forces in Livonia’s fight to retain its status quo. The geopolitical situation caused Livonia, though a sovereign but highly dependent state, to gradually disappear. Livonia’s structure was far from monolithic; it was a complex of secular, church, order and city jurisdictions. There were estates that had either lost or acquired rights. Internationally, this European province, whose territory was being claimed by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Sweden, Denmark, and Russia, was incapable of surviving in the intensifying political and military confrontations that dominated the region in the last third of the 17th century. Дается развернутая панорама противоречивого соотношения сил в борьбе Ливонии за сохранение своего status quo. Стремительно менявшаяся геополитическая ситуация сложилась не в пользу существования Ливонии как сильно зависимого, но все же самостоятельного государственного образования, что привело к его постепенному упразднению. Внутреннее устройство Ливонии не было монолитным, это был сложный конгломерат различных юрисдикций: светской, церковной, орденской, городской. Здесь тоже были сословия, потерявшие или приобретшие свои права. Во внешнеполитической перспективе европейская провинция, на которую заявляли свои права польско-литовское государство, Швеция, Дания и Россия не могла устоять в обострившейся обстановке военно-политического противостояния сил, доминировавших в регионе, и к концу XVI в. это стало очевидным фактом.