XVIII amžiaus studijos / The Eighteenth Century Studies

This article examines the alleged plan of Lithuanian Grand Hetman Ludwik Pociej (1664–1730) to remove the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania Augustus II (1697–1733) from the throne and the appearance of the only evidence of this plan – instructions, stored in the Saxon State Archives. Until now historiographers believed that L. Pociej sent voivode of Trakai K. Ogiński to the Russian Tsar Peter I (1682–1725) with a proposal for dethronement, claiming that the King of Poland was secretly negotiating with anti-Russian forces and planning to carry out a coup of absolutism in the Republic. Peter I allegedly agreed to support the Lithuanian aspiration by promising 15 thousand Russian soldiers. However, the instruction is most likely a forgery. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the fact that the timing of the K. Ogiński's trip and the timing of the emergence of the instruction do not coincide. K. Ogiński was sent to St. Petersburg by L. Pociej, or travelled on his own initiative, in December of 1713, yet this alleged instruction the Saxon diplomats showed to the Russian diplomat only in the August of 1714, i.e. nine months later. Novoselsky, mentioned in this instruction, did not actually go to Russia with K. Ogiński, later solving some other problems, the purpose of his mission was actually to meet not with Peter I, but with Alexander Menshikov. Peter I could hardly satisfy the Lithuanian request for help because the dethronement of Augustus II in no way benefited him. A much more realistic scenario is that L. Pociej, through the mediation of K. Ogiński, appealed to the tsar to reserve the office of the Great Lithuanian Hetman for him and asked the tsar whether he supported the deployment of the Saxon army in the Republic. Perhaps a complaint could have been made that Augustus II was preparing for a coup of absolute monarchy. Who could have falsified this document? Most likely option is that the document could have been forged by L. Pociej's political opponents, of whom there were two at the time: Lithuanian Field Hetman, marshal of the Sandomierz Confederation Stanisław Denhoff and elder of Babruysk Jan Kazimierz Sapieha. It cannot be ruled out that the forgery may have been initiated by Augustus II himself.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the dukes Wiśniowiecki rose to the ranks of the most influential nobles of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Their interests, political actions, as well as disagreements or frictions within the family, had a significant impact on the course of political life in Lithuanian and Polish state at the time. The state was going through a period of shocks. Lithuania was overwhelmed by the civil war – a majority of the nobility revolted against the hegemony of the magnates Sapiehas, led by other aristocratic families dissatisfied with the Sapieha family. In 1700, the Wiśniowiecki rose to the leaders of this anti-Sapieha camp. In addition, the state became involved in the Great Northern War (1700–1721). The article discusses his motives, as well as of his brother Michał Serwacy and their mother Anna Dolska, for political actions in which they participated in 1700–1707, as presented in the memoirs of Janusz Antoni Wiśniowiecki. It is based on both published memoirs of Janusz Antoni Wiśniowiecki, covering 1700–1710, as well as an unpublished fragment covering the period of 1707–1708. It is revealed how Janusz Antoni explained political decisions of his close relatives and his own. The motives of those political actions in which the views of the members of the Wiśniowiecki family intersected or did not completely coincide are analysed. The motives of the actions of the dukes Wiśniowiecki and their mother during the decisive years of the Lithuanian Civil War (1700), presented in the memoirs of Janusz Antoni Wiśniowiecki, are discussed. Another set of political actions, the interpretation of the motives of which is analysed in the article, consists of the actions of the Wiśniowiecki and their mother that led into a closer relationship with the Swedes and their protégé on the throne of the Polish and Lithuanian state Stanisław Leszczyński, and which eventually ended in the overt crossing of the Wiśniowiecki into the camp of supporters of Leszczyński and the Swedes in 1707. Memoires reveal the obvious friction between the mother and her sons. The property dispute between the sons, especially Michał Serwacy and his wife, Kotryna Dolska, on the one hand, and the dukes’ mother, Anna Dolska, on the other, had to affect the relationships between the members of the Wiśniowiecki family when they were taking political initiatives. Although the mother was more in conflict with the younger son over property matters, there were frictions in political activities with both sons. The positions of the sons and the mother during the Lithuanian Civil War were especially inconsistent, when Anna Dolska suppressed and hindered her sons' initiatives against the Sapiehas. Janusz Antoni Wiśniowiecki tended to explain his mother's actions both during and after the civil war in Lithuania, i.e. when Anna Dolska tried to persuade Hetman of Left-bank Ukraine Ivan Mazepa to support Stanisław Leszczyński and the Swedes, by her personal motives – a desire to marry Kazimierz Jan Sapieha, and later her intention (or just a proposition) to marry Mazepa. Such an interpretation may indicate a tendency towards a simplified interpretation of the mother’s motives. However, it is not appropriate to completely ignore the son's approach to the motives of his mother's actions. The recollections reveal the close co-operation of the two brothers Wiśniowiecki in the political sphere and the efforts of Janusz Antoni to fully justify his younger brother for the accusations of crossing into the Swedish camp, explaining such decision by his selfless desire to save the Homeland and to protect himself and his relatives from the upcoming threats.

The article is dedicated to the research of the private correspondence of inhabitants of local voivodeships in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the period between the end of 1794 and the first three quarters of 1795. The aim of the article is to see the reactions of state or powiat officers, regular nobles, bishops, lower ranking clerics and friars, university professors and military officers towards changes the that were eliminating the statehood and to reveal general tendencies of the letters. The letters that mention political changes in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the end of the year 1794 to the first three quarters of 1795 are not many – 24 pieces. Most of the letters were written from rural areas, provincial towns and boroughs, 5 letters are from Vilnius and 3 from Grodno. Sometimes the letters mention the Supreme Board of the Land, the Russian imperial institution, which then had taken over the governance. In very seldom cases the fact of swearing oath to the Empire is mentioned. The topic of loyalty to the new government is also rare, mostly when talking about communication with the newly formed administration or officers of the foreign army. The letter that stands out is the one by Feliks Warzyński, the flagbearer of Samogitia and elder of Tirkšliai, the text of which is addressing the breaking of the law during a dietine. The most common topic of private correspondence is the factor of the Russian Imperial army. The authors that wrote on these topics mention taxes, supplying of food and feed, lootings, and the options of protecting their possessions. The letters mention pursuit of favour from the top military leadership and commanders of units. This was a pragmatic, situation based pursuit. The reverberations of the 1794 uprising of T. Kościuszko are not ample in the private correspondence. Residents of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania complained and pleaded, for themselves or their relatives, regarding their status of prisoners, also property and food taken by the military in the course of the uprising. The style of most letters is sufficiently calm and business-like, although sometimes bursting with sadness, hopelessness and uncertainty. Sometimes they tell of the very situation of this deep crisis, mentioning the devastation of the land, hunger and difficulty in communicating.