Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej: państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Polish |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Warszawa
Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego
2013
|
| Schriftenreihe: | Prace Geograficzne
238 |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Bibliogr. s. 340-384 |
| Beschreibung: | 396 s. Ill., Kt. 24 cm |
| ISBN: | 9788361590279 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 cb4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV041197176 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20180420 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 130731s2013 ab|| |||| 00||| pol d | ||
| 020 | |a 9788361590279 |9 978-83-61590-27-9 | ||
| 020 | |z 8361590277 |9 8361590277 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)880015426 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV041197176 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a pol | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 |a DE-Re13 |a DE-11 | ||
| 084 | |a RL 80817 |0 (DE-625)142361:12872 |2 rvk | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kowalski, Mariusz |d 1968- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1156429811 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej |b państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region |c Mariusz Kowalski |
| 246 | 1 | 1 | |a The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth |
| 264 | 1 | |a Warszawa |b Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego |c 2013 | |
| 300 | |a 396 s. |b Ill., Kt. |c 24 cm | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 490 | 1 | |a Prace Geograficzne |v 238 | |
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache | ||
| 500 | |a Bibliogr. s. 340-384 | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Arystokracja / Polska |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Geografia polityczna |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Klasy wyższe / Polska / biografie |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Państwo / historia |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Regiony / Polska |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Terytorium państwowe / Polska / historia |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Tożsamość społeczna / Polska / historia |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Ustroje polityczne |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Władza (nauki społeczne) / Polska / historia |2 jhpk | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Politisches System |0 (DE-588)4046584-6 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Geopolitik |0 (DE-588)4156741-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Polska / historia |2 jhpk | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Polen |0 (DE-588)4046496-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 651 | 7 | |a Polen-Litauen |0 (DE-588)1060577984 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Polen |0 (DE-588)4046496-9 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Polen-Litauen |0 (DE-588)1060577984 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Geopolitik |0 (DE-588)4156741-9 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Politisches System |0 (DE-588)4046584-6 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 830 | 0 | |a Prace Geograficzne |v 238 |w (DE-604)BV009289192 |9 238 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-026172131 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |g 4793 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |g 438 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804150621595500544 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | SPIS TREŚCI
1.
Wstęp
...............................................................................................................................9
2.
Perspektywa badawcza
..............................................................................................13
2.1.
Badania geograficzno-polityczne i ich historyczna perspektywa
.................13
2.2.
Region polityczny jako element krajobrazu polityczno-geograficznego
....25
2.3.
Cel, założenia i hipotezy badawcze
...................................................................37
3.
Tradycje polityczno-administracyjnej terytorializacji w Królestwie Polskim
i Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim przed Unią Lubelską
.............................................49
3.1.
Rozbicie dzielnicowe Polski
...............................................................................49
3.2.
Nowy status księstw piastowskich
....................................................................51
3.3.
Nowe księstwa lenne w Królestwie Polskim
...................................................55
3.4.
Władztwa duchowne
..........................................................................................56
3.5.
Terytoria wielkich miast królewskich
...............................................................59
3.6.
Ruś Czerwona
......................................................................................................61
3.7.
Przejawy wzrostu statusu polskich możnowładców
......................................68
3.8.
Przywileje polskiej szlachty
...............................................................................75
3.9.
Ustrój terytorialny Litwy i Rusi
.........................................................................79
3.10.
Książęta a kniaziowie
......................................................................................86
3.11.
Nowe księstwa i hrabstwa w ramach Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego
....89
4.
System władzy publicznej Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodów
...........................95
4.1.
Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów jako nowa przestrzeń polityczna
...........95
4.2.
Władze centralne Rzeczpospolitej
.................................................................100
4.3.
Hetman
..............................................................................................................104
4.4.
Zarząd terytorialny
..........................................................................................108
4.5.
Urząd starosty grodowego
..............................................................................111
4.6.
Urzędy i godności ziemskie
............................................................................112
4.7.
Osłabienie władzy centralnej
..........................................................................113
4.8.
Państwa magnackie jako ośrodki władzy
......................................................120
4.9.
Próby reform administracji publicznej Rzeczpospolitej w
XVIII
w.
.........124
5.
Państwa magnackie w systemie politycznym Rzeczpospolitej Obojga
Narodów
........................................................................................................................129
5.1.
Status prawno-ustrojowy szlachcica i jego posiadłości
...............................129
5.2.
Księstwa alodialne
............................................................................................133
5.3.
Ordynacje
..........................................................................................................162
5.4.
Książęta litewsko-ruscy a książęta lenni Rzeczpospolitej
...........................179
5.5.
Księstwa duchowne
.........................................................................................182
5.6.
Hrabstwa i państwa
..........................................................................................183
5.7.
Inne formy państw magnackich
.....................................................................188
5.8.
Złożoność państw magnackich
......................................................................190
5.9.
Związki dynastyczne magnatów
.....................................................................193
5.10.
Starania magnatów o wzmocnienie instytucjonalnych i terytorialnych
podstaw władzy
.......................................................................................................200
5.11.
Państwa magnackie w oczach współczesnych
............................................215
5.12.
Organizacja państwa magnackiego na przykładzie Ordynacji Zamojskiej
4
i księstw Radziwiłłów birżańskich
........................................................................224
5.13.
Cechy państwa magnackiego
.......................................................................244
6.
Tradycje państw magnackich po rozbiorach
.....................................................251
6.1.
Nowe położenie państw magnackich
............................................................251
6.2.
Szczególny status arystokracji i jej dóbr w czasach zaborów
.....................255
6.3.
Status arystokracji i ich posiadłości w Księstwie Warszawskim i Królestwie
Polskim
.....................................................................................................................256
6.4.
Polska arystokracja w Galicji
..........................................................................263
6.5.
Posiadłości arystokratyczne o szczególnym statusie w zaborze pruskim.
264
6.6.
Terytoria miejskie
............................................................................................270
6.7.
Relikty państw magnackich po upadku systemu monarchicznego
...........271
7.
Wpływ terytorializacji władzy czasów Rzeczpospolitej na dzisiejsze
środowisko geograficzne i życie społeczne
.............................................................277
7.1.
Sfera społeczno-gospodarcza i polityczna
....................................................277
7.2.
Sfera kultury
.....................................................................................................282
7.3.
Sfera religii
........................................................................................................286
7.4.
Granice administracyjne
.................................................................................293
7.5.
Krajobraz wiejski i naturalny.....
.....................................................................295
7.6.
Ciągłość arystokratycznych tradycji
..............................................................295
8.
Miejsce państw magnackich w krajobrazie polityczno-geograficznym
nowożytnej Europy
......................................................................................................301
8.1.
Strefy połityczno-ustrojowe nowożytnej Europy
.........................................301
8.2.
Rzeczpospolita
-
szczególny przypadek
......................................................306
8.3.
Uwarunkowania rozwoju Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej
.........................313
8.4.
Uwarunkowania geopolityczne
....................................................................317
9.
Wnioski
......................................................................................................................323
10.
Zakończenie
............................................................................................................337
Literatura
.................................................................................................................340
Inne źródła (źródła historyczne, opracowania statystyczne, bazy danych,
słowniki, encyklopedie, opracowania kartograficzne)
......................................381
The Duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The magnate lordship
as a political region
-
summary
................................................................................385
385
THE DUCHIES OF THE POLISH-LITHUANIAN
COMMONWEALTH
THE MAGNATE LORDSHIP AS A POLITICAL REGION
(summary)
Polish literature on the political-systemic questions related to the Commonwealth of Both
Nations (Polish and Lithuanian) does not define in a clear manner the legal and official sta¬
tus of the magnate
latifundia. A
difficulty appears, associated with their position in space,
perceived from the point of view of political geography. There are authors, who suggest that
the Commonwealth turned into a federation of the magnate manors
(Mączak,
2002),
or into
a mosaic of separate sovereign territories
(Konopczyński,
1986).
Some other ones, like U.
Augustyniak
(2008),
emphasise the low stability of the magnate territorial complexes, their
diverse statuses, and significant spatial dispersion, which makes it hard to consider them as
the separate (or sovereign) political entities. This lack of clear statement concerning the status
of these territories is compounded by lack of appropriate cartographic presentation. The polit¬
ical maps, showing the Commonwealth of Both Nations ignore the existence of the magnate
lordships (landed properties). There are, in addition, only few maps that would present the
magnate lordshieps in the perspective of ownership structure.
This state of knowledge is in glaring opposition to the views, which assign to magnates the
dominating political role in the Commonwealth of the second half of the 17th and the 18th cen¬
turies. It also overlooks the objectively existing administrative autonomy (internal sovereignty)
of the magnate estates, as well as the special (e.g. ducal) status of at least some of the mag¬
nate families (like the families of
Radziwiłł,
Ostrogski,
Wiśniowiecki, Czartoryski,
Zamoyski)
and of their estates (duchies, counties, entails,...). It should be remembered, as well, that in
some cases the magnate states of the Commonwealth continued the traditions of the medie¬
val vassal principalities (like, for instance,
Kopylsko-Słuckie, Zbaraskie
or Ostrogskie), which
were established within the framework of the Lithuanian monarchy as the fiefs of the multiple
descendants of the Gedymin family, the representatives of the local Lithuanian dynasties (like
Holszański
or
Świrski),
and the
Ruthenian
dynasties (supposedly
Czetwertyński,
Ostrogski
or
Zbaraski).
In the period preceding the Polish-Lithuanian Union of Lublin they constituted
an important element of the political and administrative system. One should add to this the
broad privileges associated with the vast estates of the Lithuanian magnates (e.g. court exemp¬
tions in Lithuania and
Ruthenia,
the dependent knighthood). A part of these gained, as well,
with time, a distinguishing status, in the form of duchies (for instance, of
Birże, Nieśwież
or
Ołyka),
or of counties (like that of
Szkłów).
Such a distinguishing status was also assigned
some estates having belonged to the Polish Crown yet before the Union (e.g. Entail of
Zamość,
Entail of
Mirów
Margraviate, County of
Tarnów,
County Estate of Tenczyn). The prestige of
other estates was demonstrated by their extension and organisation, and by the prestige of
the families that owned them (e.g. the
Żółkiew-Złoczów
state of the
Sobieski,
or the Human
386
state
of the Kalinowski and
Potocki).
In the course of evolution of the political and admin¬
istrative system of the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy the owners of the duchies and counties
became all the members of the homogeneous noble class. Yet, one can hardly speak here of
the proper
médiatisation,
since through the development of the general immunity, all of the
landed nobles (the district gentry in Lithuania) gained full authority within their estates (neg¬
ative freedom), as well as a share in execution of public authority (positive freedom). Still, the
exceptional status of dukes, owners of entails, and counts was still respected, this fact divid¬
ing the formally equal noble class into two strata: the titular nobles, usually owning also vast
estates, and the nobles without titles.
Through successive privileges the noble estates, including duchies and counties, lost their
character of fiefs, and became the fully hereditary (allodial) properties. Owing to this, the
nobles and the magnates gained complete freedom of disposal with respect to their properties.
Limitations as to the inheritance could be introduced only upon the agreement from the own¬
ers of the estate, through installation of the institution of entail
(ordynacja).
This particular
institution, borrowed from the German territorial dukes, became the symbolic distinction of
some estates and the families owning them. All of the noble properties, irrespective of their
status (duchy, county, entail, lordship) were subject to common territorial administrative
organisation (districts, lands, voivodships, provinces). Public institutions, functioning in the
framework of this organisation (diets, courts, offices) were, on the one hand, the basis for the
self-organisation of the nobles, residing in a given land, and the platform for the circulation
of information, and, on the other hand
-
the structure, incorporating the regional society
into the political and administrative system of the Commonwealth. The institutions of the
territorial organisation ensured public order, regulated the relations between the members
of the noble class, and, at the same time, constituted a link with the central institutions of
the Commonwealth: the king, the Diet, and the Tribunal (Supreme court). Similar solutions
functioned in Germany, where the districts of the Reich (Reichskreise) and the associations of
counts and barons
(Grafenbanken)
facilitated the cooperation among the rulers of the indi¬
vidual estates, introduced order into their participation in the central organs of the Reich and
the institutions subordinated to them (the parliament and the court of the Reich, as well as the
military), being, at the same time, the symbol of the formal superiority of the emperor. This,
however, did not hamper the strengthening of the power of the German dukes, counts and
barons within their inherited estates.
The territorial organisation of public life, also against the background of the political and
systemic reality of the then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, seems to occlude in the analysis
of the geographical-political landscape
ofthat
time the administrative autonomy of the noble
(but, first of all
-
magnate) possessions. The community organisation concerned primarily
the establishment of the mutual relations between the representatives of the privileged classes
(the diets of the lands, and the courts of the lands), ensuring the feeling of internal safety (the
competence of the borough district heads
-
starosts) and of external safety (taxes for the army,
levy in mass), as well as representation in the central bodies of the community (the Diet, the
Tribunal, and the Free Royal Election). In the case of the Lithuanian and
Ruthenian
territo¬
ries this organisation took ultimately the shape following that of the Kingdom of Poland only
during the preparations to the Union of Lublin. The resulting organisational system encom¬
passed not only the possessions of the district gentry, but also the estates of dukes ( ducal
quarters ) and of the Lithuanian landlords, enjoying a separate status in the political system
of the Great Duchy of Lithuania, and constituting, until the implementation of the reforms,
387
in particular
-
the essential units of the territorial administration,
і
he appearance of a new
legal category on the public forum
-
the nobles, subject to the common Jaws on equal rights
(including the district gentry, the landlords and the dukes)
-
did not change the legal relations
still existing within the framework of duchies, count estates, or other magnates territorial
complexes. The separate legal system of the Great Duchy of Lithuania was maintained, simi¬
larly as this was for the provinces of Volhynia and of Kiev (the Lithuanian Statutes), formally
incorporated into the Polish Crown, lhis legal system distinguished the dukes and the lords
as separate strata. The preservation of the previous rights of dukes was guaranteed in the act
of incorporation of Volhynia and Kiev land to the Crown, as
weil
as in the proper act of the
Union of Lublin. This kind of solution was not inconsistent with the system functioning until
then in the Kingdom of Poland
-
where personal freedom was granted the Polish nobles, along
with absolute authority over their subjects as well as infrangibility of their possessions. In the
thus shaped political and legal system of the Commonwealth the estates of the Lithuanian and
Polish magnates could still function as self-standing territorial units. They were referred to
as magnate lordships. The laws of the Commonwealth granted them formally separate status,
while the power of their owners secured actual autonomy with respect to the community insti¬
tutions of the Commonwealth. This autonomy was complemented with the formal ducal status
of some of the estates and of their owners. Given the traditional position of the dukes, per¬
ceived as autonomous rulers, some families and their estates would enjoy a very specific legal
and administrative status. The families who made it to the magnate group later on also tried to
gain a similar legal status. Some of their representatives achieved this by acquiring the status
of heirs of entail
-
ordynats (like Zamoyski and Myszkowski) or of counts (like
Tarnowski
or
Chodkiewicz), or
-
in the second half of the 18th century
-
of dukes (e.g.
Sapieha, Lubomirski,
Jabłonowski, Massalski,
Poniatowski).
Within the framework of their privileges the dukes and other magnates organised their
own structures of administrative and judicial authority. The subjects of all classes were subor¬
dinated to them, including the free population: the townspeople, free peasents, vassal gentry
and the nobles at the magnate s court. The vassal gentry, in addition, did not enjoy the entire
scope of the noble rights (active and passive) within the public forum of the Commonwealth.
Some of the dukes had also the privilege of knighting their subjects and court members. In
some cases magnates would effectively usurp the public authority of the borough district head
(starost),
meaning that this authority encompassed, within the confines of the estate, not only
their subjects. Such privileges would give menu in practice, almost complete legal public
power (first of all in terms of executive and judicial power) over the population residing both
permanently and only temporarily on the respective territory. The magnates represented, as
well, the interests of the residents of their estates on the public forum of the Commonwealth.
Order and law-abiding were in the competence of the oftentimes quite extensive court and
order-keeping structures, subordinated to the magnate, with own borough heads, sub-heads,
as well as courts and officials of a lower rank. Magnate s power was strengthened by own armed
force (the so-called court militia). This armed force ensured the feeling of safety within the
confines of own possessions, contributed to the forces of the Commonwealth as the element
of the levy in mass, and was also used to exert pressure in the private conflicts and civil wars
on the territory of the Commonwealth. The strongholds, castles and prisons, belonging to a
magnate, were the support infrastructure for the private military and the forces of order. The
magnates would also carry out their own economic and settlement policies. They established
388
new settlements (villages, towns), brought in the settlers, built processing and manufacturing
plants. The economic side of the activities within the estate was managed by the court treasurer
and the lower rank clerks, subordinated to him. In the more advanced schemes the office of
the commissary was introduced, who took care of the entirety of management (including eco¬
nomic, military, court and public order matters) over a given larger territorial complex,
lhe
administrative and organisational schemes, introduced in many of the magnate estates, along
with the effectiveness of the execution of power, caused that numerous magnate lordships
overcome the central institutions of the Commonwealth in the development of the modern
structures of authority. Under such circumstances the sole connection between the subjects
of the magnate and the public life of the Commonwealth was constituted by the taxes, paid
towards the central treasury (the poll-tax and the hearth-tax).
The complexity of the political structure of the Commonwealth was amplified by the ter¬
ritories of the vassal duchies, bishop s duchies and the territories of the large royal cities. They
functioned according to somewhat different principles, but, along with the magnates estates,
strengthened the administrative-territorial decentralisation of the Commonwealth. In the
political order from before the Peace of Westphalia such a complex political-territorial struc¬
ture was a frequent phenomenon, characteristic, in particular, for the modern Germany and
Italy. The duchies of the magnates of the Commonwealth had, therefore, the political and legal
status similar to that of the Italian or German duchies, existing at the same time. Contrary,
though, to the German duchies after the Peace of Westphalia, the magnate states in the Polish
-
Lithuanian Commonwealth, even the most powerful ones and the most pronounced as to
their rank (like duchies and entails) did never acquire the
formalisation
(recognition) of their
separate status on the international forum. With this respect, similarly as the entire territory of
the Commonwealth, they belonged to the order from before the Peace of Westphalia. Polish,
Lithuanian and
Ruthenian
territories were encompassed by the new, pan-European politi¬
cal order only owing to the stipulations of the Congress of Vienna. This, however, does not
negate the political and legal status of the magnate states in the framework of the pre-Peace
of Westphalia res-publica Christiana, which ended for the Commonwealth from this point of
view only due to its partitions between Russia, Prussia and Austria. This status was confirmed
by the family ties of the magnates with the foreign ducal ruling families, maintained also after
the Peace of Westphalia.
The state of the actual administrative and judicial autonomy, ensuring the complete
authority over the subjects of various strata, in connection with the formal status of duch¬
ies, of entails, and counties, allows certainly for the recognition of the magnate dynasties,
persisting within the political structures of the Commonwealth, analogous to the dynas¬
ties, ruling in the German and Italian duchies of the same period (like the ones of Wettin,
Wittelsbach, Wirttenberg,
Gonzaga,
Medici,
de Savoie).
In this context one should in the first
place mention the Lithuanian-Ruthenian dynasties, with their origins reaching well before
the time of the Union of Lublin. These would be first of all the ducal dynasties of Olelkowicz-
Słucki, Ostrogski-Zasławski, Zbaraski-Wiśniowiecki, Korecki, Czartoryski, Sanguszko,
Czetwertyński, Drucki, and Radziwiłł.
Then, among the new magnate families, who gained a
similar and persistent position as to their wealth and prestige, one might certainly mention the
families of Chodkiewicz, Zamoyski, Lubomirski,
Sapieha, Potocki, Sieniawski, Leszczyński,
Sobieski,
Pac, Rzewuski, Jabłonowski, Poniatowski,
and MyszkowskL Many of those acquired,
with time, the ducal titles, like Lubomirski,
Sapieha, Poniatowski, Jabłonowski
and
Sułkowski,
389
or of the heirs of entails (Zamoyski and Myszkowski). The apex of the careers of some of these
families was the ascent to the royal throne of the Commonwealth
(Wiśniowiecki,
Sohieski,
Leszczyński, Poniatowski).
Others would settle for the titles of counts, but this title was for-
mally confirmed yet in the time of the Commonwealth only in the case of Chodkiewicz family.
Less formally, the representatives of this group could be referred to as lords of the ducai mea¬
sure , as this was used with respect to the rulers of the Silesian parts, who did not enjoy the
ducal titles. The actual position, though, was defined by the possession of the pronounced
magnate lordship (frequently a duchy, inherited from the dynasties that had died out), in con¬
nection with the significant place, occupied in public life of the Commonwealth (the high
offices held and the political influence). Yet before the Union of Lublin the centres of the ducal
families were inherited by the
Tyszkiewicz (Łohojsk)
and
Sapieha (Holszany).
Later on, the
ancient duchies became the properties of
Pac
(Czartorysk),
Krasicki (Koszyr), Sapieha
(Druck,
Niesuchojeże), Zamoyski (Ostróg), Leszczyński (Czartorysk, Korzec), Lubomirski (Ostróg),
Jabłonowski (Ostróg), Potocki (Zbaraż, Stepań), Mniszech (Wiśniowiec), Rzewuski (Kowel),
who often used, therefore, the titles of the lords of duchies . The representatives of the major¬
ity of these families would also hold the highest offices (commanders-in-chief, ministers,
province governors), and used them for purposes of extending their political influence and of
increasing their wealth.
The system described had not changed as to the basic principles until the end of existence
of the Commonwealth. The large-scale magnate estates preserved their special status and sig¬
nificance in the spatial organisation of authority. Yet, none of them gained a more autonomous
position, similar to that of the Duchies of the Reich after the Peace of Westphalia, and, in
particular, after the Congress of Vienna. On the other hand, however, the Commonwealth
did not succeed in limiting their traditional separate character and building of a more cen¬
tralised system (she never turned into a modern state). During a long period of time a kind
of equilibrium was maintained between the two levels of the state organisation. The magnate
lordships were not only, in this connection, the large properties, but also duchies or lordships
of a ducal measure , fulfilling the public and legal (stately) functions within the framework
of the Polish-Lithuanian community. When applying the criteria from the period before the
Peace of Westphalia, one should consider both the Commonwealth and the magnate lordship,
functioning within her framework, given the autonomy and status of the latter (and especially
in the case of duchies), to be the organisms of the character of a state. Thus, they were lord¬
ship not only in the broad meaning, attributed in ancient Poland also to a kind of property,
but also in the sense of public and legal (political) units (i.e. as a states). They functioned as
autonomous (legal and stately) administrative-territorial units within the framework of a big¬
ger political and state organism, that of the Commonwealth. If we apply the terminology of
G. Jellinek, we could call the Commonwealth the state of states
(Staatenstaat),
not in view,
though, of the autonomy of the large provinces (Lithuania, Prussia), or of the diet lands, as
this is proposed by some scholars, but in connection with the internal administrative and judi¬
cial autonomy of the magnate, noble, church, urban and vassal lands of the Commonwealth.
This situation was changed only due to the political and systemic transformations of the end
of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, associated both with the domestic initia¬
tives of reform and maintenance of independence (the 3rd May Constitution, the
Kościuszko
Insurrection, and fighting along Napoleons army), and with the order, imposed by the neigh¬
bours (partitions) as well as the international treaties (Congress of Vienna). Both levels of the
390
state
organisation, the Commonwealth and the magnate states, were liquidated.
Individuai
parts of the Commonwealth became the new provinces of the neighbouring monarchies, and
all the magnate states were mediatised within the framework of these provinces. Thus, these
legal and administrative precepts finally introduced the post-Peace of Westphalia order on the
territories having formed until that time Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
The evidence and the reasoning presented above allows for a positive verification of
the proposition, formulated in the introductory part of the report. The magnate lordships,
and other properties, functioning within the framework of the Commonwealth reminded,
as to their status, the properties, functioning within the framework of the German Reich.
Along with other institutions, they formed the structures of the decentralised, pre-modern
Commonwealth, where, side by side with the royal authority, constrained by the privileges
of the particular strata, the noble and burghers self-government, developing on the grounds
of these privileges, as well as the separate rule of the vassals and the clergy, there was also a
place for the functioning of the structures of the magnate states, in many cases maintaining
the traditions of the Lithuanian-Ruthenian duchies. In effect of the transformations of the I8>h
and 19th centuries this system was liquidated, and was replaced by a new political and systemic
order. This liquidation took place with the participation of the partitioning powers. It seems,
though, that the systemic shape of the Commonwealth, including the separate character of the
magnate states, was anyway doomed to collapse. The partitioning powers only accelerated the
process. After some time these powers, though, had to make room for the emerging nation
states. It is highly probable that the poly-ethnic and feudal Commonwealth, along with the
magnate states, functioning inside it, would have to face a similar fate.
The broadly understood political and administrative traditions of the Commonwealth,
though, were not entirely wiped out by the new system. The new provinces of the partitioning
powers gained national autonomy, and even some features of the separate state organisms.
This applied, first of all to the
co
-called Congress Kingdom (Polish Kingdom in the framework
of Russian state). After the World War I these territories became the basis for the re-estab¬
lishment of the sovereign Polish state. In the framework of the new political-administrative
system of the beginning of the 19lh century all of the noble and magnate properties became the
basis for the new local administration. For quite some time the owners of the properties, even
though incorporated into the new political system, preserved a part of the former authority
over the inhabitants of their properties (the authority of the municipal head, including judicial
matters, the remnants of soccage). This lasted more or less until the middle of the 19th century.
Yet, also in the later period, after the appropriation of peasants, the noble estates, then limited
to manor farms, constituted
stül
the separate units of local administration. They also played
a significant role in the socio-economic and cultural life. They preserved a particular signif¬
icance in the Prussian part, where, in the context of the Prussian way toward the capitalism
in farming, the noble manor farms preserved the biggest proportion of the area of the former
noble properties. Further, these manor farms were assigned the status of the administrative
units, equivalent to the rural municipalities, the so-called manor areas. This separate adminis¬
trative status was maintained yet in the sovereign Polish state until
1934.
So, until that time the
owners of the manor farms preserved within the manor areas the authority of the municipal
head, as well as maintenance and organisation of the local administration. Somewhat smaller
-
due to the fact that appropriation was more advantageous for peasants
-
manor areas func¬
tioned until
1918
also in
Galicia
(the Austrian part). It was only in the Polish Kingdom that the
391
very severely diminished manor farms were included, after the appropriation, into the larger
collective municipalities, while preserving only the status of auxiliary units of the village rank.
Some estates constituted still quite vast territorial complexes, encompassing do/ens of
neighbouring villages and manor farms. Being subject to the single-handed policy of their
owners, they maintained their socio-economic separate character amidst the surrounding
areas. Many of them continued the traditions of the former magnate states, and succeeded
in preserving
-
or even acquiring
-
a privileged status. Ihis concerned the traditional entails
in tail, established yet in the limes of the Commonwealth (like those of Zamoyski,
Nieśwież,
Rydzyna), but also the new ones, having the formal character
oí
fideicomissums (like the ones of
Łańcut
or
Opinogóra).
There were several properties in the Prussian part, which acquired the
status of the state lordships (Duchy of
Krotoszyn,
County of Pr/.ygodzice, Kntail of Rydzyna).
In this way they became similar as to their status to the Silcsian duchies and state lordships,
and to the properties of the mediatised dukes and counts in the slates of the German Reich.
Such a status, a proxy of the former political autonomy, ensured for the property, at least in
symbolic terms (often, though, with extended administrative competences), the position of
a kind of state in a state. In view of the progressing administrative centralisation of the state
and of democratic institutions in public life, though, this had a decreasing significance on the
public forum.
The role of the noble and magnate properties in the framework of the political and
administrative system of the Commonwealth, and of the new political-territorial units, hav¬
ing emerged on the area of the Commonwealth after the partitions, caused that their spatial
shape and the socio-economic relations, which existed in them, exert an influence on the
socio-economic life until today. The boundaries of the present-day administrative units in
Poland (municipalities, counties, and even provinces) follow in many cases the course of the
boundaries of the ancient magnate states. The centres of magnate states are frequently nowa¬
days the county seats. The former manor farms, having resulted from the distribution of land
of the ancient estates, maintained their significance in the shaping of the socio-economic and
cultural space. In the reality of the socialist Poland they became the basis for establishment of
the socialised farming enterprises. Nowadays, after the transformation, they became again the
large private farms.
The communist state tried to take advantage of the weakness of the civic traditions among
the descendants of the serf peasants, as well as of the economic and administrative structures
of the former manor farms of the landowners (and of the other nationalised enterprises) in the
development of the socialist variety of the paternalistic socio-political system. The traditions
of personal and public freedoms, characteristic for the European civilisation, were in Eastern
Europe for many centuries first of all the privilege of the noble class. Due to the fact that the
societies of Eastern Europe entered the realm of the European civilisation with a delay, the
privileged strata were the first recipients of its freedom-related traditions. The assimilation of
these traditions by the broader circles of the society required more time and civic education.
In such circumstances the strategy of the communist authorities was effective for a certain
period of time. In the case of Russia, where the traditions of freedom were particularly poor,
the transition from the white to the red tsars could take place without any external inter¬
vention. First, the tsars, and then the communist dictators made use of the particular weakness
of the freedom-related traditions. In the countries to the West of Russia, where the influence
of the western civilisation were much stronger, the existing traditions of freedom, even though
392
limited
to the nobles and the magnates, made introduction of the native autocratic rule
(absolutist, despotic, authoritarian) more difficult. Introduction of such systems turned out,
however, possible, owing to the use of external forces, first of all owing to the Russian (and then
Soviet) interventions. Only such external forces were capable of neutralising the noble (and
post-noble) elites, accustomed to freedoms. As these forces introduced their own political and
systemic order, for a certain period they dealt with the passive attitude of the popular masses,
weakly associated with the freedom-related traditions. The shallower rooting in the European
civilisation, which facilitated and stabilised the development of the freedoms of nobility (the
privileged status of this class with respect to the masses and to the ruler), due to the foreign
intervention (the action of the geopolitical conditions), was, therefore, also conducive to the
introduction a system that would limit freedom in general (although this affected initially
mainly the nobility). The necessity of preserving social calm forced only the respect for the
pre-existing socio-economic and cultural conditioning. In a further perspective, though, this
had to exert influence on the evolution of the socio-political situation, including the spread of
the freedom-related traditions onto the emancipating lower classes.
In the case of the Polish lands in the 19 11 century an instance of the above interrelation can
be provided by the appropriation of peasants in the Polish Kingdom. The tsarist authorities,
wishing to overbid the proposals of the Polish insurgent government of
1863-4,
carried out
the appropriation on conditions much more advantageous for peasants than in proper Russia.
Rural municipalities obtained also the self-government, which, for a long period, was the sole
institution of the public authorities in the Polish Kingdom that was elected by the local society.
The effects of the social unrest after the World War II (the events of
1956,1970
and
1980)
can
be assessed in a similar light. Under the pressure of these events the authorities were forced to
broaden the scope of civic freedoms and the privileges of the particular social groups (farmers,
workers, intelligentsia), to ultimately give up the power monopoly due to the decisions, taken
at the Round Table of the year
1989.
The analysis of the geographical-political landscape of modern Europe enables the percep¬
tion of a distinct sequence of phenomena, shaping the political landscape of modern Europe
along the East-West direction. This sequence seems to explain the general conditions of devel¬
opment of the magnate states. We can distinguish two fundamental politico-geographical
zones in Europe, the western and the eastern ones. The former developed in the Middle Ages
on the ruins of the Western Roman Empire on the basis of the strongly Romanised Celtic and
Germanic peoples. They continued to a high extent the Western Roman traditions. The second
zone developed on the areas subject to a far lesser degree to the Western Roman influence,
mainly on the basis of the Slavonic peoples or remaining under Slavonic influence. This dis¬
tinction has been strengthened by the modern division of Europe along the line of Elbe river
(Lübeck-Trieste),
and then in the
20*
century
-
by the Iron Curtain, separating the communist
block form the free world. Due to these conditions the civic traditions and the average freedom
of individuals decreased in the past quite clearly from the West towards the East. It appears
that mutual influences, exerted by the two zones, expansion to the outside (e.g. of the Muscovy
Ruthenia
to the East), as well as various external influences (like, e.g. the invasions of the
Turkish peoples from the East) brought the emergence of several
subzones
within the two basic
ones, the eastern and the western, these
subzones
being also differentiated along the East-West
line. Broad margin of freedoms of the population at large and limitation of differences between
the classes in the West would turn more eastwards into the special privileges of the aristocracy,
393
which weakened, in a way, the rights of
lhe
subjects, formally free in their majority, farther to
the East the major part of the population was deprived of personal freedom,
hul,
on the other
hand, the very numerous noble class enjoyed an exceptionally broad scope of privileges, and
yet farther eastwards the privileges of the nobility were seriously reduced to (he advantage
oí
the vast competences of the despotic rulers. Ihis differentiation influenced both the social sys¬
tem and the shape of the spatial organisation of the particular countries. In more precise terms
the four zones, roughly outlined, and the middle zone, having developed at the interface of the
Eastern and Western Europe, can be characterised in the following manner:
The western zone. The absolute monarchies of
lhe
West. Quite broad freedoms and rights
of the entire population, limitation as to the privileges of aristocracy (with preservation of a
definite autonomy with respect to the monarch), to the advantage of the third class and the
ruler (centralisation).
The middle-western zone. Germany and Northern Italy. Quite broad freedoms and rights
of the entire population, limited, however, to the advantage of the politically privileged aris¬
tocracy, ruling over autonomous territories (decentralisation). Perhaps an essential element
having exerted influence on the development of this zone was the close neighbourhood of
the middle zone, located to the East, where particularly vast territorial organisms developed,
formally belonging to the same political entity.
The middle zone. This zone developed at the interface of the two main European zones,
under the influence of the direct expansion from the West to the East. Formally politically
associated with the preceding zone, but, in fact, represented by the centralised autocratic mon¬
archies, aiming at independence or domination, with very numerous peasant class, deprived
of personal freedom, and nobility, subordinated to the ruler (decentralisation-centralisation).
Austria, Saxony, Brandenburg.
The middle-eastern zone. This zone developed owing to the selective reception of the
western traditions, first of all by the higher classes (nobility). Lack of personal freedom of
the majority of the population, with simultaneous high number of the nobility, enjoying
particularly broad privileges and rights, at the expense of the subjects and the monarch
(decentralisation). Poland, Hungary, Lithuania proper, Bohemia (until
1620).
The eastern zone. An especially strong position of the ruler with respect to the entire soci¬
ety (both nobility and the lower class, living in personal serfdom), strengthened by the lack
of freedom-related traditions. Local state organisms emerged through expansion and were
themselves subject to invasions from the East. Russia and Turkey.
Side by side with the middle zone, one can also distinguish the intermediate zones, having
developed between the here characterised zones of the East and West of Europe:
Within the borderland of zones
1
and
2
the free communities developed (Switzerland, The
Netherlands, Venice, Genes), which rejected the authority of the monarchs and the territorial
rulers, and preserved the decentralised (republican) system of authority.
Between zones
4
and
5,
as a kind of a transitory form, the decentralised community devel¬
oped, dominated by the powerful landlords, who succeeded for a certain period of time (for
the longest time in the framework of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) to avoid
médi¬
atisation
in the state organisms belonging to zone
5.
The magnate states developed in this
394
transitory zone. Decentralisation with the domination of magnates reminded by its condition¬
ing zone
2,
but featuring the overwhelming serfdom in the lowest social classes (The Balkans
and Russia),
This
regionalisation,
assuming it is in general terms correct, helps in understanding the
systemic conditions of the emergence of the magnate states and the power of magnates in the
framework of the Commonwealth. The logic of the zonal differentiation of modern Europe
along the East-West direction exerted its influence, strengthened by the effects of the Polish-
Lithuanian union (joint action of the conditions from the zone
4
with those of the transitory
zone
4/5).
The uneven spread of the freedom-related traditions, resulting from the histori¬
cal and geographical conditions, along with the associated class privileges, amplified by the
socio-economic division along the
Lübeck-Trieste
line, shaped the political landscape of the
modern Europe. These conditions caused that the magnate states became an essential and
characteristic element of the political-systemic order of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
and of the entire Central-Eastern Europe of the modern era. Of decisive significance was the
characteristic for the Central-Eastern Europe domination of the nobility over the remaining
classes, forming in the case of the Commonwealth synergy with the powerful group of the
Lithuanian
-Ruthenian
landlords. The latter ones, having luckily avoided the absorption by the
eastern European despotism, gained in the framework of the Commonwealth advantageous
conditions for the preservation of the administrative autonomy in their properties (duchies,
magnate states) and acquired control over the public institutions of the monarchy.
The magnate states became the integral element of the Commonwealth, along with the
domination of magnates
-
a characteristic feature of her political life (especially in the sec¬
ond half of the 17th century and in the first half of the 18th century). One might speak of the
subordination of the interests of the entire Commonwealth, including Poland, to the inter¬
ests of the most influential magnate families. This was the consequence of uniting on equal
rights two somewhat different political and administrative systems: of Poland, dominated by
nobility, and of Lithuania and
Ruthenia,
dominated by the magnates. The union was really
hard to avoid. It was generated by the pressure from the alien forces, both from the West and
from the East, characteristic for this part of Europe. This resulted, it appears, in a long period
of functioning of the emerging community in the feeling of sovereignty, in distinction from
the cases of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia, or other Balkan countries. The cost to the Polish
side was the subordination to the interests of the Lithuanian-Ruthenian magnates. The cost to
the Lithuanian-Ruthenian side was Polonisation of the upper classes. One cannot, of course,
exclude the argument that Muscovy and Brandenburg had been yet too weak, while Austria
and
Türkey
too far in order to effectively pose a threat to Poland and to Lithuania and
Ruthenia
separately. At the time of the union, the autonomy of the magnate states, associated with the
domination of the magnates in the Commonwealth, as well as Polonisation of the Lithuanian
and
Ruthenian
elites were the price paid for the formation of community and the temporary
increase of the imperial magnitude of the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy.
It is difficult to assess the influence of the magnates and the magnate states on the func¬
tioning of the Commonwealth. Their significance and role developed in a lengthy process, and
thus one can hardly imagine their absence in the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy. Both these ele¬
ments, the magnates and their states, became the characteristic feature of the Commonwealth.
Their position was questioned in the fundamental manner only at the instant of the emergence
of the modern national awareness. Due to their territorial limitations and the pressure from
395
the neighbours none of the magnate states could transform itself into the seed of a modern
national state (even though one could imagine such a role for the
Radziwiłł
in Lithuania and
Belarus, or for the
Potocki
in Ukraine),
lhe
motherland of the magnates, the Lithuanian-
Ruthenian lands, along with their magnate states, was absorbed by Russia, which had been
aiming for long time at the unification of all the
Ruthenian
lands. This course of events appears
as quite natural in the face of the existing conditions, irrespective of the appearance of the
Polish-Lithuanian union. Location in Eastern Europe turned out to be decisive: on the one
hand determining the particular qualities of the development of local societies (including the
emergence of the magnate states), and their delay with respect to the West, and on the other
hand
-
determining the development of the peripheral despotic monarchies (Russia, Austria,
Prussia, Turkey), which all aimed at subordination of the societies inhabiting the central part
of Eastern Europe. The conditions mentioned made it difficult, or even impossible, to build a
modern and strong state organism in the Commonwealth, capable of resisting the expansion
of the neighbouring despotic powers.
Under different geopolitical circumstances the Commonwealth could potentially (assum¬
ing it would survive the conflict with Russia) continue to exist, gradually changing itself under
the influence of impulses from the West. Yet, the existing configuration decided, most proba¬
bly, both of the appearance and of the collapse of the Commonwealth. The growing power of
the Muscovy and of the eastern German states encouraged Poland and Lithuania to unite their
forces in the defence of their independence and territorial integrity. This, however, could not
prevent the further growth of power of Russia and Prussia, the organisms developing within
the eastern and western peripheries of the broadly understood Eastern Europe (the Slavonic
world). The partitions were becoming unavoidable, since both of these despotic and reaction¬
ary powers have been, on the one hand, taking advantage of the weakness of the republican
and decentralised community in order to broaden their zones of influence, and, on the other
hand
-
they had to react to the first symptoms of the moderns national and freedom-oriented
political thinking in Poland and in Lithuania. The Commonwealth would anyway sooner or
later disintegrate or undergo an essential transformation under the impact from the centrifu¬
gal forces (like the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy). The greed of Russia and Prussia preceded
this hypothetical catastrophe. The modern national movements, Polish, as well as Lithuanian,
Latvian, Ukrainian, Jewish, German or Belarusian, were developing, therefore, not only in
opposition to the tradition of the Commonwealth, dominated by the Polonised nobility and
the magnates, but also in the opposition to the partitioning powers, which replaced the struc¬
tures of the Commonwealth in the space of authority. This coincided with a certain degree of
autonomy of the Polish territories, such autonomy being granted by the partitioning powers
in view of the strength of the national identity of Poles. This meant that the thus understood
new Poland constituted the fourth, side by side with the partitioning powers, direct successor
to the space of authority, formerly occupied by the Commonwealth and the magnate states,
functioning within her framework.
Acceptance of the above arguments makes it possible to positively verify the sec¬
ond, complementary proposition, formulated at the beginning of the present report. The
Commonwealth was doomed to fall, since it belonged to the past order, and it could not
reform itself fast enough
-
in view of the internal conditioning (even though associated with
the position in a definite part of Europe)
-
and the partitioning powers took advantage of
these circumstances in order to expand their empires. One can hardly blame the magnates
396
and their states for the downfall. They were rather a persistent element of the political and
systemic structure of the Commonwealth, having developed through the action of the local
political and systemic, as well as socio-economic conditions. The new tendencies, forcing the
reconstruction of the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy, required, though, a radical rupture with
the ancient order. The magnates, symbolising this ancient order, became the victims of this
ideological transformation.
Translated by:
Jan Owsiński
Adres Autora:
Mariusz Kowalski
Zakład Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania
Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania
im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego
Polska Akademia Nauk
ul Twarda
51/55, 00-818
Warszawa
e.mail:
mar.kow@twarda.pan.pl
Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek
München
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Kowalski, Mariusz 1968- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1156429811 |
| author_facet | Kowalski, Mariusz 1968- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Kowalski, Mariusz 1968- |
| author_variant | m k mk |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV041197176 |
| classification_rvk | RL 80817 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)880015426 (DE-599)BVBBV041197176 |
| discipline | Geographie |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02968nam a2200637 cb4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV041197176</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20180420 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">130731s2013 ab|| |||| 00||| pol d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9788361590279</subfield><subfield code="9">978-83-61590-27-9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z">8361590277</subfield><subfield code="9">8361590277</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)880015426</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV041197176</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">pol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-Re13</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">RL 80817</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-625)142361:12872</subfield><subfield code="2">rvk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kowalski, Mariusz</subfield><subfield code="d">1968-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1156429811</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej</subfield><subfield code="b">państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region</subfield><subfield code="c">Mariusz Kowalski</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Warszawa</subfield><subfield code="b">Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego</subfield><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">396 s.</subfield><subfield code="b">Ill., Kt.</subfield><subfield code="c">24 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Prace Geograficzne</subfield><subfield code="v">238</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bibliogr. s. 340-384</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Arystokracja / Polska</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geografia polityczna</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Klasy wyższe / Polska / biografie</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Państwo / historia</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Regiony / Polska</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Terytorium państwowe / Polska / historia</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Tożsamość społeczna / Polska / historia</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ustroje polityczne</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Władza (nauki społeczne) / Polska / historia</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Politisches System</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4046584-6</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geopolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4156741-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Polska / historia</subfield><subfield code="2">jhpk</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Polen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4046496-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Polen-Litauen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1060577984</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Polen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4046496-9</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Polen-Litauen</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1060577984</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Geopolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4156741-9</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Politisches System</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4046584-6</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="830" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Prace Geograficzne</subfield><subfield code="v">238</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-604)BV009289192</subfield><subfield code="9">238</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-026172131</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">4793</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="g">438</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Polska / historia jhpk Polen (DE-588)4046496-9 gnd Polen-Litauen (DE-588)1060577984 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Polska / historia Polen Polen-Litauen |
| id | DE-604.BV041197176 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T00:41:50Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9788361590279 |
| language | Polish |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-026172131 |
| oclc_num | 880015426 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR DE-11 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 DE-Re13 DE-BY-UBR DE-11 |
| physical | 396 s. Ill., Kt. 24 cm |
| publishDate | 2013 |
| publishDateSearch | 2013 |
| publishDateSort | 2013 |
| publisher | Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego |
| record_format | marc |
| series | Prace Geograficzne |
| series2 | Prace Geograficzne |
| spelling | Kowalski, Mariusz 1968- Verfasser (DE-588)1156429811 aut Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region Mariusz Kowalski The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Warszawa Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania PAN im. Stanisława Leszczyckiego 2013 396 s. Ill., Kt. 24 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Prace Geograficzne 238 Zsfassung in engl. Sprache Bibliogr. s. 340-384 Arystokracja / Polska jhpk Geografia polityczna jhpk Klasy wyższe / Polska / biografie jhpk Państwo / historia jhpk Regiony / Polska jhpk Terytorium państwowe / Polska / historia jhpk Tożsamość społeczna / Polska / historia jhpk Ustroje polityczne jhpk Władza (nauki społeczne) / Polska / historia jhpk Politisches System (DE-588)4046584-6 gnd rswk-swf Geopolitik (DE-588)4156741-9 gnd rswk-swf Polska / historia jhpk Polen (DE-588)4046496-9 gnd rswk-swf Polen-Litauen (DE-588)1060577984 gnd rswk-swf Polen (DE-588)4046496-9 g Polen-Litauen (DE-588)1060577984 g Geopolitik (DE-588)4156741-9 s Politisches System (DE-588)4046584-6 s DE-604 Prace Geograficzne 238 (DE-604)BV009289192 238 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Kowalski, Mariusz 1968- Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region Prace Geograficzne Arystokracja / Polska jhpk Geografia polityczna jhpk Klasy wyższe / Polska / biografie jhpk Państwo / historia jhpk Regiony / Polska jhpk Terytorium państwowe / Polska / historia jhpk Tożsamość społeczna / Polska / historia jhpk Ustroje polityczne jhpk Władza (nauki społeczne) / Polska / historia jhpk Politisches System (DE-588)4046584-6 gnd Geopolitik (DE-588)4156741-9 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4046584-6 (DE-588)4156741-9 (DE-588)4046496-9 (DE-588)1060577984 |
| title | Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region |
| title_alt | The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth |
| title_auth | Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region |
| title_exact_search | Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region |
| title_full | Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region Mariusz Kowalski |
| title_fullStr | Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region Mariusz Kowalski |
| title_full_unstemmed | Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region Mariusz Kowalski |
| title_short | Księstwa Rzeczpospolitej |
| title_sort | ksiestwa rzeczpospolitej panstwo magnackie jako region polityczny the duchies of the polish lithuanian commonwealth the magnate lordship as a political region |
| title_sub | państwo magnackie jako region polityczny = The duchies of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth : the magnate lordship as a political region |
| topic | Arystokracja / Polska jhpk Geografia polityczna jhpk Klasy wyższe / Polska / biografie jhpk Państwo / historia jhpk Regiony / Polska jhpk Terytorium państwowe / Polska / historia jhpk Tożsamość społeczna / Polska / historia jhpk Ustroje polityczne jhpk Władza (nauki społeczne) / Polska / historia jhpk Politisches System (DE-588)4046584-6 gnd Geopolitik (DE-588)4156741-9 gnd |
| topic_facet | Arystokracja / Polska Geografia polityczna Klasy wyższe / Polska / biografie Państwo / historia Regiony / Polska Terytorium państwowe / Polska / historia Tożsamość społeczna / Polska / historia Ustroje polityczne Władza (nauki społeczne) / Polska / historia Politisches System Geopolitik Polska / historia Polen Polen-Litauen |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=026172131&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| volume_link | (DE-604)BV009289192 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kowalskimariusz ksiestwarzeczpospolitejpanstwomagnackiejakoregionpolitycznytheduchiesofthepolishlithuaniancommonwealththemagnatelordshipasapoliticalregion AT kowalskimariusz theduchiesofthepolishlithuaniancommonwealth |