Gdy magnaci nie musieli wpływać na sejmik – szlacheckie postulaty na sejmikach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego XVI–XVIII w.

Abstract

The conviction that the magnates dominated the political life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the era after the Union of Lublin is, at the current stage of research, correct. However, researchers point to moments when factions failed to push their aspirations through. This could have been due to both the factions blocking each other and leaving room for the independent initiative of the middle nobility, as well as their advantage in a particular situation: the weakness of the factions or their indignation in the face of pressure. Certain elements were supported by all the assemblymen (and their patrons). Probably, this is how “estate-wide” demands were created – because they served the entire noble community. The political elite of Lithuania was by no means disturbed by them, they were even lucrative, regardless of faction affiliation. They were both local and estate-wide demands. Local needs were to be met by the construction of a municipal chancellery, a court, the repair of a sejmik chamber or a bridge, ensuring order in the district during interregnum, external (Cossack) danger and in situations requiring the execution of court judgments. Providing for fellow citizens who were impoverished or affected by a natural disaster did not raise objections. Sometimes the demands applied to the entire Principality. This was to equalize the position of Lithuania in the Commonwealth (the creation of: new offices and the archbishopric of Vilnius, the inclusion of county marshals in the Senate, the launch and ordering of the mint and Lithuanian coinage, as well as weights and measures). The nobility did not accept the diminution of the Grand Duchy’s territory, the presence of crown soldiers, and wanted the restoration of the showdowns of the common army or the proper maintenance of border castles. However, the efforts to improve the Statute of Lithuania already show that such demands may have harbored threats to certain interests (not only religious). Concepts that were fundamentally right were then alleged. Other demands, on the other hand, may have arisen as a result of special circumstances, especially when competing parties blocked each other or one of them failed to see to the “proper” conduct of the assembly. In the current state of research, it is very rare to be able to point with certainty to situations where these nobles could have presented their decisions without the influence of the magnates, or, indeed, despite their position. Rather, we are doomed to conjecture. Translated by Stefan Kubiak