XVIII amžiaus studijos / The Eighteenth Century Studies

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 It is based on both published memoirs of Janusz Antoni Wiśniowiecki, covering 1700–1710, as well as an unpublished fragment covering the period of 1707–1708.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.

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.

Augusto III valdymo laikotarpiu Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje vyko atkaklios kovos tarp didikų grupuočių. Didikų giminės dėjo pastangas patraukti į savo pusę bajoriją ir laimėti seimelių rinkimus. Šioje kovoje nė viena iš grupuočių negalėjo užsitikrinti dominuojančios padėties, kadangi, vos pajutusios kylančią vienos didikų giminės jėgą, imdavo telktis mažiau įtakingų giminių koalicijos. Tokia taktika sudarydavo sąlygas ne tik užkirsti kelią vienos giminės dominavimui, bet ir atverdavo galimybes laimėti rinkiminėse kampanijose į Abiejų Tautų Respublikos Seimą ar Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės Vyriausiąjį Tribunolą. Straipsnyje, remiantis 1746 ir 1752 metų didikų grupuočių rinkimų į Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės Vyriausiąjį Tribunolą planais bei 1752 m. Abiejų Tautų Respublikos Seimo rinkiminės kampanijos dokumentacijos analize, išryškinamos konkrečios politinės grupuotės susiformavimo priežastys, jos tikslai, struktūra, veiklos strategija bei šios strategijos efektyvumas. Prieinama prie išvados, kad Augusto III valdymo laikotarpiu įsitvirtino praktika prieš kiekvienus rinkimus sudaryti konkrečiame seimelyje galimų būti išrinktų kandidatų sąrašus. Tokie sąrašai buvo sudaromi tiek deputatų rinkimams į Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės Vyriausiąjį Tribunolą, tiek ir pasiuntinių rinkimams į Abiejų Tautų Respublikos Seimą. Palaipsniui įsitvirtino visuotinė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės seimelių kontrolės sistema.

Antoine-Charles du Houx, Baron de Vioménil (1728–1792) was sent by the French Government after Colonel Charles-François Dumouriez (1729–1823) to provide guidance to the leaders of the Bar Confederacy during the years 1771–1772. However, if Colonel Dumouriez is famous because of his activities during the French Revolution, namely for the determinant role he played at the Valmy battle (1792), it is different when it comes to the Baron. Except for some articles in the 19th century biographical encyclopedias and a short biography centered on the role he played during the American Revolutionary war published in 1935, there is no study on him. In spite of this, Baron de Vioménil’s career is a matter of interest, for he participated in the major conflicts the French army took part during the reign of the kings Louis XV and Louis XVI. The baron’s archives, which include abundant correspondence related to his campaigns, are preserved today in the Académie François Bourdon, le Creusot, Burgundy. Being inaccessible for a long time they have not been thoroughly

Rusijos imperijos stiprėjimas XVIII a. lėmė Abiejų Tautų Respublikos bajorijos politinių ryšių, įgyvendinamų per „Šiaurės sostinę“, susiformavimą ir palaipsninį jų įsigalėjimą. Mokslinėje literatūroje plataus atgarsio sulaukusi Simono Martyno Kosakovskio (Szymon Marcin Kossakowski, 1741–1794) biografija yra akivaizdus liudijimas, kaip dalies Lenkijos ir Lietuvos didikų prorusiška orientacija, o svarbiausia – jų užmezgami asmeniniai kontaktai Sankt Peterburge tapdavo pagrindiniu spartaus kopimo karjeros laiptais bei praturtėjimo veiksniu. Daug mažiau tyrėjų dėmesio iki šiol sulaukė klausimas apie tai, kaip patys Rusijos imperijos politinio elito atstovai žvelgė į tuos Abiejų Tautų Respublikos didikus, kuriems Rusijos valstybės vardu būdavo suteikiama nuolatinė ar laikina protekcija. Naujų Rusijos imperijos diplomatinių šaltinių ir korespondencijos įvedimas į istorijos mokslo apyvartą suteikia unikalias galimybes pažvelgti į Simono Kosakovskio asmenybę bei politinę karjerą jo politinių „kuratorių“ ir partnerių Rusijos imperijoje akimis. Straipsnyje pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas Rusijos diplomatinės pasiuntinybės tarnautojų ir Abiejų Tautų Respublikoje dislokuotos Rusijos kariuomenės vadų vertinimams S. Kosakovskių atžvilgiu. Taip pat remiamasi pačios Rusijos imperatorės Jekaterinos II bei jos favoritų išsakytu vertinimu. Atliktas korespondencijos ir kitų šaltinių, saugomų Rusijos valstybiniame karo istorijos archyve, Rusijos valstybiniame senųjų aktų archyve ir Rusijos imperijos užsienio politikos archyve, tyrimas leidžia daryti išvadą, kad, nepaisydamas nepalankių charakteristikų, apie jį nuolat išsakomų daugybės ne itin gražių epitetų bei Rusijos diplomatų ir karo vadų išreiškiamo akivaizdaus nepasitikėjimo, paskutinysis Lietuvos didysis etmonas S. Kosakovskis nuosekliai siekė išlaikyti savarankiškumą savo pasirinktame prorusiškos politikos lauke ir iki pat savo žūties 1794 m. atkakliai atsisakė pripažinti, kad yra tik įrankis Rusijos vykdomos politikos rankose.

Abiejų Tautų Respublikos viešajame gyvenime svarbų vaidmenį turėjęs klientelės reiškinys tyrinėtojų vertinamas neigiamai. Sunku būtų nesutikti su tokiu vertinimu, tačiau klientelės problema išryškėja tada, kai imame kelti klausimą apie kliento ir patrono santykių raidą. Būtent šiuo aspektu straipsnyje analizuojama Sapiegų kliento, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės bajoro Adomo Chmaros karjera. Atliktas tyrimas leidžia teigti, kad nuo pat karjeros pradžios Lietuvos pakanclerio Mykolo Antano Sapiegos dvare būsimąjį Minsko vaivadą Adomą Chmarą ir Lietuvos pakanclerį siejo kliento ir patrono santykiai. Kunigaikščiai Sapiegos visą laiką dalyvavo A. Chmaros gyvenime, tačiau priklausomybė nuo jų palaipsniui silpo ir XVIII a. 8-ajame dešimtmetyje A. Chmara tapo sąlygiškai nepriklausomu ir ekonomiškai save aprūpinančiu politiku. Nepaisant to, kad A. Chmaros santykiuose su pakancleriu M. A. Sapiega klientinę priklausomybę keičia tariamai bičiuliški santykiai, artimesnio ryšio nederėtų ieškoti. A. Chmara tampa Lietuvos raikytojo Ksavero Sapiegos bei Lietuvos kanclerio Aleksandro Sapiegos partneriu. Ir nors vėliau politiškai A. Chmara nutolsta nuo Sapiegų, jis iki pat Abiejų Tautų Respublikos gyvavimo pabaigos išlaiko pagarbą šiai giminei, niekada prieš ją nestoja, o be to, yra dažnas svečias tiek Ružanuose, tiek ir Derečyne. A. Chmara puikiai žino, kieno dėka padarė politinę karjerą ir kas padėjo suformuoti ekonominius pagrindus sėkmingai karjerai. XVIII a. pabaigoje A.

This article uses a demographic method to study the parish register of births at Raguva Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. Most of these parish register records are stored in the Rare Books and Manuscripts Department of the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania. Some of them have been digitized and published on the website www.epaveldas.lt. The chronological sample of the study consists of the eighteenth century (1700–1800) parish register records data, which recorded 10,071 individuals born during the analysed period: 4,891 women and 5,180 men. The tasks of the research are: to determine the distribution of births by gender and class, to determine the number of children born to married or unmarried women; identify the most popular names for each class and gender by separately examining individuals baptized with two or more names. Of the 10,071 births recorded during the period in analysis, 4,891 women and 5,180 men were identified. The distribution of children born by class is as follows: peasants – 9,688 (of which 4,715 girls and 4,973 boys), nobles – 383 (of which 176 girls and 207 boys). The names of 57 peasant women and 67 peasant men were identified during the study. The names of 48 women and 46 men of the nobility were identified. The most popular Christian names of peasant women were Kotryna, Ona, Dorotėja, Marijona, Elžbieta, Ieva, Barbora, Apolonija, Kristina; men – Jonas, Kazimieras, Juozapas, Jurgis, Jokūbas, Motiejus, Mykolas, Simonas, Stanislovas. The most popular names of noblewomen: Ona, Marijona, Kotryna, Teresė; men – Juozapas, Mykolas, Jonas, Ignotas, Antanas, Kazimieras. 95% names of the baptized individuals were common to both classes. Analysis of the sources revealed that 434 individuals were given 2 or more names. These are 225 peasant children (104 girls and 121 boys) and 204 nobility children (85 girls and 119 boys). Most actively two and more names were given in 1781–1800. Two names are common to both nobles and peasants; three names – more common among nobility. After analysis of the problem of giving a Christian name it can be concluded that only in 10% of cases the choice of a Christian name was determined by the names of godparents, 7% by parents' names and only 3% by the names of the saints of that day. Other reasons accounted for 0.1% of all naming cases. In as many as 80% of all cases the reasons for choosing the names have not been identified. After examining the data on the number of illegitimate children it was concluded, that in 1700 to 1800, 113 illegitimate children were registered in Raguva: 108 peasant children (50 girls and 58 boys) and 5 nobility children (2 girls, 3 boys). Most illegitimate children were born between 1761 and 1800.

Recent decades saw historical scholarship to pay more attention to the phenomena which were earlier considered unimportant or, in some cases, non-existent. Intimate relations between men and women who were not yet married, extramarital affairs, cohabitation, etc. were rediscovered and reassessed as indispensable to the more accurate understanding of the formation of marriages, families and