Polish-Lithuanian Union Research Articles

„Godłem moim było i będzie zawsze: kraj – jego dobro i jego wola”. Przyczynek do historii rodu Czartoryskich

“My Emblem was and always will be: The country – its goodness and its will.” A contribution to the history of the Czartoryski family The Czartoryski family, originating from the Gediminas family, is mentioned many times in the history of Poland. It has been present in its history since the beginning of the Polish-Lithuanian union. Its importance grew systematically so that in the 18th and 19th century the Czartoryski family became one of the richest and most influential families in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Political connections and friendships gave the opportunity to influence the course of events, while strengthened the position of the family; the growing fortune and income that flowed from it supported these efforts. The characters selected are only examples from among all representatives of the family. They are a testimony that the Czartoryski family has always served, and continues to serve Poland faithfully, both in times of its splendor as well as its decline, supporting with their strength and abilities the efforts for its flourishing and rightful place in Europe.

Spór o powołanie Kościoła narodowego w Koronie w okresie soboru trydenckiego (1545-1563)

Debate on the Creating of the Polish National Church in the Times of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) In the time of the Council of Trent, the Polish nobility often and loudly demanded the forming of the Polish National Church, which would enable them to execute state control over the clergy, its activity, and church property. Popular Protestant ideas coherent with such an idea fulfilled the role of useful weapon in their struggle against the clergy. Even though the idea of the church reform converged with many changes postulated by the contemporary noble reform movement, the state finances, homogeneity of Crown lands and the Polish-Lithuanian union took predominance over church matters. Appropriate conduct of debate, disabling discussion about a reform, was promoted by the clergy itself, which was not interested in loosening their dominant position in the society and becoming subject to civic laws. Protestant deputies to the parliament, who constituted the majority in the lower chamber, could have acquired more benefits, were it not for their reluctance to impose certain solutions on the Catholics, who still dominated in the society. The clergy, in particular bishops, sought some compromise with Protestants, until the Catholic Church itself undertook mild reforms in the third phase of the Council of Trent. The stand of the Polish monarch, Sigismundus Augustus, who – having been raised as a Catholic – opposed the forming of new church and his attitude was also important.

Unions in Medieval Church Law as the Basis for Description of the Legal Nature of the Polish-Lithuanian Union

In church law, the union of churches (unio ecclesiarum) concerned the merger of two and more dioceses under the same bishop. In the Middle Ages, canonists were already pointing to three types of union: 1) aeque principalis; 2) unio per subiectionem, when one of the churches was subject to the other and thus the episcopal dignity remained only in that one, and finally, the third kind, called 3) unio per extinctionem, when two particular churches, usually dioceses, were merged into a single new one. The canonical achievements in the field of union of churches and benefices were collected and summarized, among others, in the treatise De unionibus ecclesiarum atque beneficiorum by Nicolaus Thilen, and in the work of Anaclet Reiffenstuel entitled Ius canonicum universum. The three types of union of churches and benefices presented above, distinguished by their mergers, were adopted into the Code of Canon Law of 1917 (canons 1419 and 1420). The 450th anniversary of the union concluded on July 1, 1569 in Lublin was celebrated in 2019. As a result of this union the Kingdom of Poland, called the Crown, merged with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The canonical models of the union of churches and benefices, developed in medieval canon law, are important for a closer description of the essence of this relationship, starting with the first of them, i.e. the union concluded in 1385 in Krevo. The political relationships established between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania largely corresponded to the three canonical models of the church union indicated above, i.e. unio aeque principalis (1385), unio per subiectionem (1413) and unio per extinctionem seu translationem (1569).

The Oxford history of Poland-Lithuania: v.1: The making of the Polish-Lithuanian union, 1385-1569

The Oxford history of Poland-Lithuania: v.1: The making of the Polish-Lithuanian union, 1385-1569

Contesting Conquests: Nineteenth-Century German and Polish Historiography of the Expansion of the Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Union

SummaryThe problem of conquests and territorial expansion, including their interpretation, evaluation, and legitimisation, has been crucial for European national historiographies. Consequently, attempts by the Holy Roman emperors, particularly of the Saxon and Hohenstaufen dynasties, to control Italy and Burgundy were hotly debated among nineteenth-century German historians, while Poland's union with Lithuania, and the annexation of the vast territories of the east which followed, was a central topic for Polish historians of the time. Modern historians of historiography in both countries have carefully analysed these narratives, emphasising their ideological and political contexts, such as their involvement in the Grossdeutsch versus Kleindeutsch controversy and the controversy between the so-called Cracow and Warsaw historical schools. In this paper I propose a comparative analysis of these two discourses which dealt with analogical issues and, as I demonstrate, developed with a parallel dynamic. Such an analysis, I argue, allows an escape from the paradigm of national exceptionalism, and the discovery of what was typical or, perhaps, constitutive of the discourse on territorial expansion of the time, instead of focusing on the uniqueness of the national context. This analysis embraces the conceptualisation, argumentation, and rhetoric of those nineteenth-century German and Polish historians discussing the expansion of the medieval Holy Empire and early-modern Poland. Moreover, it locates their interpretations within an international context of a broader Western historiographical tradition, involving issues of domination, cultural transfer, and colonialism. Finally, it examines the parallel mechanism of searching for, advocating, and perpetuating the idea of uniqueness of national history.

Między mitem a polityczną racjonalnością. Myśl historyczna Pawła Jasienicy i jej recepcja w dobie Polski Ludowej

Between Myth and Political Rationality. Pawel Jasienica’s Interpretation of Polish History and its Reception in the Era of the Polish People’s Republic Known for writing popular books on the history of Poland, Pawel Jasienica (1909–1970) established himself as one of the most distinguished, non-fiction authors of his era. Looked upon as an history writer who exercised his craft in defiance of the Marxist paradigm, he gained much popularity in the Polish People’s Republic, reaching bestseller status. It would probably be difficult to find a history-lover – at least during the Communist era – who never read one of his books. The paper presented here deals with Jasienica’s historical thought. It has been divided into two parts. The first one aims at offering some insight into key elements of his vision of Polish history, while the second one deals with the reception of his books in the period of the Polish People’s Republic. The author advances the thesis that the interpretation of Polish history put forward by Jasienica had the foundation myth at its core. It was already unknown predecessors of Mieszko the First whom Jasienica wanted to give credit for establishing a code of political action to be followed by future generations of the Polish people. Following the code was necessary to keep the country on the right track. It included abandonment of imperialistic tendencies in what – for want of a better word – can be referred to as foreign policy. Founding fathers of Poland were perspicacious enough to know that they should confine themselves to uniting the so-called “core” Polish lands. Not only were they prepared to drop any plans for territorial expansion but they also fostered the policy of religious toleration, which went hand in hand with their willingness to forge alliances with Pagan rulers whenever it was found necessary for the protection of the country. Jasienica was unstinting in his praise of almost all historical rulers of the Piast dynasty for their adherence to the code just mentioned. Their attitude allowed Poland to survive all historical storms. Unlike the Piast monarchs, however, those of the Jagiellonian dynasty failed – argued Jasienica in the first phase of his writing career – to rely for the conduct of their policy on the ancient principles, inculcating into the Polish politics standards and habits which compared highly unfavorably with those once established by legendary rulers of Poland. With the conclusion of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, the country embarked on a policy clearly out of tune with what Jasienica considered to have been the real Polish ways, veering sharply off its right European track. However, in his last books he changed his views to a surprising extent. The union which at first seemed to be a source of most problems Poland was supposed to struggle with for years to come, now, in the trilogy written in the second phase of his career and dealing with the history of Poland from 1572 to 1795 was glorified as a great historic achievement worth copying by other European nations. The most important conclusion arrived at in the second part of the paper is that critical remarks to be found in the reviews of his books tended to fracture the aforementioned mythical framework of Jasienica’s interpretation of Polish history.

Heritage Mission of Vilnius Temporary Archaeological Commission

The heritage mission of Vilnius Temporary Archaeological Commission (1855–1865) is twofold. It strived to implement the Lithuanian cultural heritage continuum idea of “the past for the future” while performing a didactic task: to collect and publish historical documents and through the use of “Lithuanian antiquities” to organize the historical exposition of Vilnius Museum of Antiquities, creating conditions to recognize an objective history of Lithuania, in particular the period of Polish-Lithuanian union. Relying on 19th century positivistic attitudes this Commission sought for a position of an objective history observer, praising facts and proclaiming that the task of a historian is to show how it really was.Vilnius Temporary Archaeological Commission formed its position as the center for cultural heritage guardianship in the Northwester Krai of Imperial Russia. It regulated archeological excavations, performed scientific consulting and expertise functions, carried out archaeographical and museographical work. However it failed to organize systematic heritage accounting and protection of immovable heritage and sites of worth. Vilnius Temporary Archaeological Commission tried to draw public attention to a subdued nation’s need of an objective look at its land’s past and peculiarities, through the witnesses of its past – historical documents and musealias.

Data pertaining to the outbreak of the Lithuanian insurrection (25 March 1831), retrieved from Swedish diplomatic sources

Similarly to the Polish insurrection of November 1830, the Lithuanian one, occurring in March 1831, retained the attention of the Swedish diplomacy from the very beginning. This was made possible, in the first place, by the fact that the events were connected by a strong link of causality, in the sense that they aimed at severing Poland and Lithuania from the political-institutional system of the Russian Empire and at reconstituting the old one, i.e. the Polish-Lithuanian Union. But the latter’s victory would have first resulted in the radical upheaval of the ratio of forces in North-Eastern Europe, which could have also affected the Swedish-Norwegian political-institutional system, since it was assumed that the Norwegians would not have spared any time in following the Lithuanian and Polish example by denouncing the personal union with Sweden. Moreover, the revolutionary wave sweeping over Europe in 1830 was not one to avoid Sweden. Unlike other areas, the Swedes that opposed King Karol XIV Jan’s government went no further than to criticise it, despite the fact that both the criticism and the programme of the opposition kept increasing in boldness. The Swedish diplomacy therefore approached the issue of the Polish and Lithuanian insurrections from the same perspective, taking particular care to observe their evolution, placing itself in a position of reserveless condemnation of such behaviour. The documents transcribed in the following pages are the diplomatic reports of N. Fr. Palmstjerna, the chargé d’affaires of Sweden in Petersburg, and were selected from the Sveriges Riksarkivet, Kabinettet/UD Huvudarkivet, E2D, 702, the Petersburg fund, 1821, Jan.-iuni. They sometimes contain very detailed information pertaining to the early phase of the Lithuanian insurrection. By introducing them to the academic circuit, we express our hope that they will contribute to the expansion of the research horizon of the history of North-Eastern Europe from the first half of the 19th century.

Lemberg/Lwów/Lvov/Lviv: Identities of a ‘City of Uncertain Boundaries’

Leopolis in Latin, Lemberg in German, Lwów in Polish, Lviv in Ukrainian, this city located in the historic province of Eastern Galicia (Galizien, Galicja, Halychyna) has a history marked by the successive conquests of the region by imperial powers. Founded in the 13 th century by Prince Danylo of Galicia as a fortress against the Tatar and Mongol invasions of the period, then bequeathed to his son Lev (Leo) who built it into the city which bears his name, in the 14th century it came under rule of the kings of Poland for the next 400 years or more, emerging as a major centre of the Polish-Lithuanian union. Its multi-ethnic make-up was nevertheless established very early on, like that of most Central-European cities, as a consequence of coming under the ‘Magdeburg rights’ legal system in 1352. Through this development, the city attracted a large number of immigrants of diverse origins (Germans, Czechs, Poles, Jews, Armenians, Tatars, Moldavians and Saracens, both merchants and artisans, who established themselves in their own ethnic quarters in various parts of the city). They had been invited there by King Casimir the Great who was anxious to develop prosperous urban centres in Poland. It was also this ‘German law’ status (jus teutonicum) that set the city apart from its hinterland, populated by Ruthenian peasants and a Polish petty nobility.

Russian Endeavors for the Polish Crown in the Seventeenth Century

Polish-Russian relations have from their very beginning been characterized by intense political rivalry and military confrontation. This is no surprise, since after the Polish-Lithuanian union (1386, 1569), Poland was drawn into the conflict between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the great Muscovite principality over hegemony in Eastern Europe. Struggles between Lithuania and Muscovy were thus transformed into wars between the Russian state and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. During the reigns of Polish kings Stefan Batory (1576–86), Zygmunt III (1587–1632), and Wladyslaw IV (1632–48), the commonwealth gained a military advantage over its eastern neighbor. This was especially evident during the Time of Troubles (smutnoe vremia), when the Polish army occupied Moscow (1610–12) and when Wladyslaw IV defeated the Russians in the War of Smolensk (1632–34).