Suchergebnisse

Zsfassung in engl. Sprache

The article focuses on the practice of grand-ducal demesne pledging in 1502–1522. Close attention is paid to pledge deed types and the rules of the disposition of the pledged property. The research demonstrates that open-ended contracts prevailed during the discussed period. This type of deed allowed the creditors to use the entire income of the pledged property for an indefinite period. Fixed-term agreements limiting the use of the pledged property for several years and more beneficial for the treasury were relatively rare. They primarily occurred when a former contract was being renewed, or a creditor changed, making it possible to modify the earlier provisions.

The book under review is a translation of the Lithuanian monograph - Tarp Romos ir Bizantijos: Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės politinės kultūros aukso amžius (XV a. antroji pusė – XVII a. pirmoji pusė), published in 2016 ; Istorijos katedra ; Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas

Researchers of the sixteenth-century European diplomacy discuss diplomatic networks and daily life activities of ambassadors conditioned by the development of residential diplomacy. At the same time, historians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth study diplomatic phenomena of a different kind since a resident mission system was not developed in Poland-Lithuania. The practice of temporary legations persisted and led to the development of distinctive features of envoys' diplomatic activities during their missions. It also is possible to see different circumstances when looking into the question of the professionalization of Polish-Lithuanian diplomats and their personal qualities relevant to their diplomatic missions. The study of this problem reveals that, in the case of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a relatively strong patron-client relationship occurred as well as close links between the patronage system and organisation of diplomatic activities. Research into the practice of assigning envoys to diplomatic missions makes it possible to establish that almost all lower-rank envoys between the midand last decade of the sixteenth century were clients of the Radziwill family, dominating the political life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at that time. One of the main tasks of the Radziwill clients nominated as diplomatic envoys was to supply information to their patrons. At the same time, we can also see an attempt to control diplomatic communications with foreign countries. This group of Radziwill clients, who performed various diplomatic missions, is the subject of the analysis presented in this article. I try to determine here the reasons for appointing particular clients as foreign envoys and see how their diplomatic functions influenced their future careers.

Researchers of the sixteenth-century European diplomacy discuss diplomatic networks and daily life activities of ambassadors conditioned by the development of residential diplomacy. At the same time, historians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth study diplomatic phenomena of a different kind since a resident mission system was not developed in Poland-Lithuania. The practice of temporary legations persisted and led to the development of distinctive features of envoys' diplomatic activities during their missions. It also is possible to see different circumstances when looking into the question of the professionalization of Polish-Lithuanian diplomats and their personal qualities relevant to their diplomatic missions. The study of this problem reveals that, in the case of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a relatively strong patron-client relationship occurred as well as close links between the patronage system and organisation of diplomatic activities. Research into the practice of assigning envoys to diplomatic missions makes it possible to establish that almost all lower-rank envoys between the midand last decade of the sixteenth century were clients of the Radziwill family, dominating the political life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at that time. One of the main tasks of the Radziwill clients nominated as diplomatic envoys was to supply information to their patrons. At the same time, we can also see an attempt to control diplomatic communications with foreign countries. This group of Radziwill clients, who performed various diplomatic missions, is the subject of the analysis presented in this article. I try to determine here the reasons for appointing particular clients as foreign envoys and see how their diplomatic functions influenced their future careers.

Researchers of the sixteenth-century European diplomacy discuss diplomatic networks and daily life activities of ambassadors conditioned by the development of residential diplomacy. At the same time, historians of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth study diplomatic phenomena of a different kind since a resident mission system was not developed in Poland-Lithuania. The practice of temporary legations persisted and led to the development of distinctive features of envoys' diplomatic activities during their missions. It also is possible to see different circumstances when looking into the question of the professionalization of Polish-Lithuanian diplomats and their personal qualities relevant to their diplomatic missions. The study of this problem reveals that, in the case of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a relatively strong patron-client relationship occurred as well as close links between the patronage system and organisation of diplomatic activities. Research into the practice of assigning envoys to diplomatic missions makes it possible to establish that almost all lower-rank envoys between the midand last decade of the sixteenth century were clients of the Radziwill family, dominating the political life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania at that time. One of the main tasks of the Radziwill clients nominated as diplomatic envoys was to supply information to their patrons. At the same time, we can also see an attempt to control diplomatic communications with foreign countries. This group of Radziwill clients, who performed various diplomatic missions, is the subject of the analysis presented in this article. I try to determine here the reasons for appointing particular clients as foreign envoys and see how their diplomatic functions influenced their future careers.

New practice of the representation of the state based on the former tradition of diplomatic activity was formed in the first interregnums. State officers of the GDL assumed the functions of the sovereign, on the highest level collectively representing the country in the course of the diplomatic relations with the state of Muscovy. Muscovy maintained both official and semi-official diplomatic contacts with the representatives of the GDL political elite, thus unconsciously acknowledging their prerogative to represent the state. Pre-union practice of parallel diplomatic connections, utilized by members of the GDL Council of Lords and Muscovy barons, served as the formal basis for the abovementioned not regulated diplomatic contacts with the Muscovite Court. However, the diplomatic relations maintained on the highest level not only transcended the tradition of parallel contacts, but also contradicted an important attitude of diplomatic representation, stating that the principle of hierarchy should be followed in intercommunion, strictly observing existing levels of authority in respect of each other. Until the Union of Lublin it functioned as the organizational system of Lithuanian-Muscovian cross-border relationships: the monarch of Muscovy would only contact the sovereign of Lithuania, members of the Boyar Duma exclusively communicated with members of the Lithuanian Council of Lords, Metropolitan of Muscovy cultivated relations with the Bishop of Vilnius, etc. The Court of the Muscovian Monarch decided to allow compromises in the then applicable principles of cross-border relationships when pursuing the implementation of Ivan IV's plans to become the Monarch of the Republic. Seeking acceptance in the environment of the GDL political elite, the ruler of Muscovites found himself under the necessity to make allowances willi regard to the principles of the hierarchical diplomatic relations and maintain direct communication with the Lithuanian political elite.[.

This article analyzes the norms and forms of the diplomatic ceremonial that secured and maintained the interstate relations existing between the continuously quarreling Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Muscovy. Attention is paid particularly to the ceremonial's mediating function found at various levels of formal interaction – governing the monarch's representation and hierarchical communication, ceremonies of festive receptions and meetings accompanying every phase of contact. Thus in the chosen time-frame of Lithuanian and Muscovite diplomatic relations we were looking not for situations revealing the nature and extent of interstate conflicts but for cases exhibiting the mediational function. The diplomatic ceremonial performed the mediating function for differences between the states by first of all creating an order for diplomatic relations in the form of mutually recognized roles for the participants in diplomatic communication through formal interaction, thus ensuring communicational efficacy. This helped the ruler to preserve the positions appropriate to his status in communicating with the representatives of another sovereign, while also helping the latter properly to represent their own monarch. Secondly, the ceremonial softened states of conflict, most often by formally masking existing differences between the two sides or providing opportunities for other forms of contact. Finally, it helped overcome limits of political and social otherness existing between both states and their societies and sanctioned changes in forms of interstate coexistence.

This article analyzes the norms and forms of the diplomatic ceremonial that secured and maintained the interstate relations existing between the continuously quarreling Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Muscovy. Attention is paid particularly to the ceremonial's mediating function found at various levels of formal interaction – governing the monarch's representation and hierarchical communication, ceremonies of festive receptions and meetings accompanying every phase of contact. Thus in the chosen time-frame of Lithuanian and Muscovite diplomatic relations we were looking not for situations revealing the nature and extent of interstate conflicts but for cases exhibiting the mediational function. The diplomatic ceremonial performed the mediating function for differences between the states by first of all creating an order for diplomatic relations in the form of mutually recognized roles for the participants in diplomatic communication through formal interaction, thus ensuring communicational efficacy. This helped the ruler to preserve the positions appropriate to his status in communicating with the representatives of another sovereign, while also helping the latter properly to represent their own monarch. Secondly, the ceremonial softened states of conflict, most often by formally masking existing differences between the two sides or providing opportunities for other forms of contact. Finally, it helped overcome limits of political and social otherness existing between both states and their societies and sanctioned changes in forms of interstate coexistence.

New practice of the representation of the state based on the former tradition of diplomatic activity was formed in the first interregnums. State officers of the GDL assumed the functions of the sovereign, on the highest level collectively representing the country in the course of the diplomatic relations with the state of Muscovy. Muscovy maintained both official and semi-official diplomatic contacts with the representatives of the GDL political elite, thus unconsciously acknowledging their prerogative to represent the state. Pre-union practice of parallel diplomatic connections, utilized by members of the GDL Council of Lords and Muscovy barons, served as the formal basis for the abovementioned not regulated diplomatic contacts with the Muscovite Court. However, the diplomatic relations maintained on the highest level not only transcended the tradition of parallel contacts, but also contradicted an important attitude of diplomatic representation, stating that the principle of hierarchy should be followed in intercommunion, strictly observing existing levels of authority in respect of each other. Until the Union of Lublin it functioned as the organizational system of Lithuanian-Muscovian cross-border relationships: the monarch of Muscovy would only contact the sovereign of Lithuania, members of the Boyar Duma exclusively communicated with members of the Lithuanian Council of Lords, Metropolitan of Muscovy cultivated relations with the Bishop of Vilnius, etc. The Court of the Muscovian Monarch decided to allow compromises in the then applicable principles of cross-border relationships when pursuing the implementation of Ivan IV's plans to become the Monarch of the Republic. Seeking acceptance in the environment of the GDL political elite, the ruler of Muscovites found himself under the necessity to make allowances willi regard to the principles of the hierarchical diplomatic relations and maintain direct communication with the Lithuanian political elite.[.

New practice of the representation of the state based on the former tradition of diplomatic activity was formed in the first interregnums. State officers of the GDL assumed the functions of the sovereign, on the highest level collectively representing the country in the course of the diplomatic relations with the state of Muscovy. Muscovy maintained both official and semi-official diplomatic contacts with the representatives of the GDL political elite, thus unconsciously acknowledging their prerogative to represent the state. Pre-union practice of parallel diplomatic connections, utilized by members of the GDL Council of Lords and Muscovy barons, served as the formal basis for the abovementioned not regulated diplomatic contacts with the Muscovite Court. However, the diplomatic relations maintained on the highest level not only transcended the tradition of parallel contacts, but also contradicted an important attitude of diplomatic representation, stating that the principle of hierarchy should be followed in intercommunion, strictly observing existing levels of authority in respect of each other. Until the Union of Lublin it functioned as the organizational system of Lithuanian-Muscovian cross-border relationships: the monarch of Muscovy would only contact the sovereign of Lithuania, members of the Boyar Duma exclusively communicated with members of the Lithuanian Council of Lords, Metropolitan of Muscovy cultivated relations with the Bishop of Vilnius, etc. The Court of the Muscovian Monarch decided to allow compromises in the then applicable principles of cross-border relationships when pursuing the implementation of Ivan IV's plans to become the Monarch of the Republic. Seeking acceptance in the environment of the GDL political elite, the ruler of Muscovites found himself under the necessity to make allowances willi regard to the principles of the hierarchical diplomatic relations and maintain direct communication with the Lithuanian political elite.[.

This article analyzes the norms and forms of the diplomatic ceremonial that secured and maintained the interstate relations existing between the continuously quarreling Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Muscovy. Attention is paid particularly to the ceremonial's mediating function found at various levels of formal interaction – governing the monarch's representation and hierarchical communication, ceremonies of festive receptions and meetings accompanying every phase of contact. Thus in the chosen time-frame of Lithuanian and Muscovite diplomatic relations we were looking not for situations revealing the nature and extent of interstate conflicts but for cases exhibiting the mediational function. The diplomatic ceremonial performed the mediating function for differences between the states by first of all creating an order for diplomatic relations in the form of mutually recognized roles for the participants in diplomatic communication through formal interaction, thus ensuring communicational efficacy. This helped the ruler to preserve the positions appropriate to his status in communicating with the representatives of another sovereign, while also helping the latter properly to represent their own monarch. Secondly, the ceremonial softened states of conflict, most often by formally masking existing differences between the two sides or providing opportunities for other forms of contact. Finally, it helped overcome limits of political and social otherness existing between both states and their societies and sanctioned changes in forms of interstate coexistence.