The rise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

The reignof the last of the Jagiellonians, Zygmunt I theOld (1506-1548)and Zyg-munt II August (1548-1572) saw a peak ofthe Polish power, influence, and cul­ tural greatness in Europe. Its capital Krakow was recognized as one of the very few capitals in Europe where real powerpolitics was being played and where the great Renaissance art wasbeingcreated.Nicolaus Copernicus represented thegenius in science, Jan Kochanowski the greatness of Renaissance poetry, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski thebest of theEuropeanpoliticalthought.25

162 3. The Polish-Lithuanian Noble Republic - the stage of the Jewish Authonomy But the end ofthe reign ofZygmunt IIAugust brought anxieties whichresulted in a profound constitutional transformation of the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy. The Kingwas heirlessand his realm was a shaky construction, composedofa collection of territories with different people,economies, political cultures,customs,forms of governmentlet alonelanguages, evenif its elites spoke fluent Latin. Of course,even traditional provincesof the Polish Kingdom, still before the Union of Lublin of1569 had different histories, ethnic composition, languages. But inthe wake oftheRefor­ mation in addition totraditional Catholicism, Judaism and Orthodoxy in the eastern provinces, the newshades of different Protestant faithswere added. Apolitical con­

sensuswas nevertheless sustained, sincethe nobility (szlachta) becamea real politi­

cal hegemon already in the 15thcentury. This political nationmanagedto impose its political outlook and customs on the more and more diversified kingdom, which although bound only by the personal union was nevertheless perceivedincreasingly asonepolitical entity.

Itwasthe nobilitypolitical nation,whichrepresented and gavepolitical unity to

“the mongrel conglomerate”. Szlachta - thepoliticalnation, immensely differentiat­ edin their regional histories, ethnicity, economic well being, languagesor religions, became even more so after the year 1569. It included the Polish and Lithuanian nobles, the Ruthenian boyars, Muslim Tatars, Prussian and Baltic nobility of Ger­

man descent, some Moldavians, Armenians, Italians, Bohemians and Hungarians.

Formally the estates were legally closed, but in practice the intermarriage process with wealthy burghers and peasants wasnot uncommon.26 27Thenumber ofnobles was rising.Inthe middle of the 16th century itwas around 7%ofthesocietyand counting continuously to reachprobablya level of 10-12% at itsnumerical peak, the largest political nation at its time in Europe,by far exceeding the level ofthe nobility with politicalrights in any othercountry. In addition, since the nobility "extended from the top to the bottom of the economic scale, andright across the board in religion and culture, they represented a wider cross-section as well as a greater percentage of thepopulation than any otherprivileged class in any European countries. To be amember of theszlachtawas like being aRomancitizen. The szlachtawerethe na­

tion, the Populus Polonus, while the rest of the people inhabitingthe area were the plebs who did not count politically. While the score ofpatrician families and the princes ofthe Church attempted to establish an oligarchy, the mass ofthe ‘noble people'fought for control of what they feltto be their common weal. It was they

whopressed forthe execution of the laws [...], clearly definedconstitution, and for acloser relationship with the throne”.11

greatest possible extent, Casimir III set up a university in his city of Cracow, [...] with the ap­

proval of Pope Urban V, and appointed scholars from Paris and Prague. ”

26 A. Zamoyski, Poland. A History, Harper Press, London 2009, p. 78. A term "mongrel conglomerate” is used by him.

27 Ibid., p. 79. The second most numerous nobility in Europe was, after Poland, Hungary with approximately 5% at the noble population.

3. The Polish-Lithuanian Noble Republic - the stage of the Jewish Authonomy 163

By theendof theJagiellonian epoch this huge multireligious andmultinational Commonwealth was boundby a fierce consensus of the elites, the nobility both in Poland andLithuaniaconvinced that the Jagielloniandynasty embodied their com­ mon interest. The unity of szlachta as a political nation ensured the unity ofthe country. Forthe Lithuanian elites thepull oftherich and vibrant Polish Renaissance culture was also strongly appealing, let alone the liberties defended by the intri­

catenetwork of the nobility constitutional institutions. But theprospect of a vacant throne did notbode well for the future and there wasthe grave question whether the Jagiellonian domain would survive as one entity. Nevertheless, the ideaof a closer uniongestated and the aggressiveactions of Muscovy disciplinedeven these elites ofboth Poland and Lithuaniawho entertained the idea of conducting theirpolicies separately. Despite weaknesses ofthe personal union createdin 1385, thereexisted yet an old constitutional consensus of the nobility fromboth countries sustained by thesubsequent elections of thekings from theJagielloniandynasty,thehopethatthe union would last,kind ofapolitical genetic code.28

28 See on this A. Bues, ‘The Formation of the Polish-Lithuanian Monarchy in the Six­

teenth Century’ in R. Butterwick (ed.), The Polish-Lithuanian Monarchy in European Context, c. 1500-1795, Palgrave Publishers, Houndmills 2001, pp. 58-91.

29 A. Zamoyski, Poland..., pp. 79-80; Jçdruch describes this slightly differently. He writes that although Lithuania was governed by the same Jagiellonian dynasty and despite “the rise of the system of representation in Poland exerted a powerful influence on Lithuania which, although governed by members of the same dynasty, nevertheless continued under a straight feudal po­

litical structure. At first, the Lithuanian delegation occasionally participated in joint Seym with Poland [1448, 1453, 1564, 1569]. Then in the early 1500s, under the prodding of their ruler, the Lithuanians and Ruthenians started to convene their own Seyms with the participation of their princes and court dignitaries. The first such meeting took place in 1528 in Wilno [...]. In the fol­

lowing year (1529) the Lithuanian court law was codified. Supplemented and expanded in 1566 and 1588 it formed the basis of the Lithuanian Statute [...]. An important step in Lithuanian con­

stitutional development took place in 1566, when the participation of the boyars (Lithuanian and Rutheanian gentry) in the Seyms was assured through the stipulation that the Country Seymiks should convene and elect two deputies each to the Lithuanian Sejm, much on the model of the InLithuania there were nevertheless problems of a differentnature. Since 1385 the civilizational pull of the Polish culture for the Lithuanian eliteswas enormous, but the magnates there weremore powerful and a dominationof oligarchic tenden­ cies was real. Nevertheless,at the beginning of the 16th century there emerged moves to reinforce the constitutional bonds, with the Lithuanian szlachta being granted theSenate of their own,the Council (Rada), as well as their own Sejmin 1559. But the nobility ofthe Grand Duchy was less numerousin comparison tothe magnates than the number ofthe nobility in relation to theirmagnates in Poland. They were also politically immature andthus prone to manipulation. Inaddition,the most pow­ erful Lithuanian family, the Radziwiłł, who rose to power and wealthatthe begin­ ning ofthe 16th century by an intricate policy of marriages with Polish heiresses, entertained aproject of detaching Lithuania from Poland, knowingthat the end of Jagiellonians was coming.29

164 3. The Polish-Lithuanian Noble Republic - the stage of the Jewish Authonomy Such plans were unacceptable for the Polish elites and the aggressive foreign policy of Muscovy reconciledboth sides. In 1547 IvanIV the Terrible tookthe title of Tsar, making it obvious that he wanted to take up the missionofhis predecessors of gathering the old Ruthenian landsunder his scepter. This policy was supported by the Orthodox ChurchofMoscow when after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 a doctrine ofthe Third Rome was formulated, with Mus­ covy nominating itself to be the only legitimate Christian heir to Rome and Con­ stantinople. The Lithuanian elites realized that without Polish support, especially after Muscovy conquered Smolensk in 1514,it had no chanceofsurvival. Moreover, therewere additional threats tothe GrandDuchyfrom the OttomanEmpire and the Crimean Tartars. If the Lithuanian elites hesitated, the Poles wereready to force the issue and singlehandedlytransferredtheUkrainian lands from the Grand Duchy to Poland. The logic of unificationbegantotake itscourse.

Constitutional differences betweenthe Kingdom of Poland andthe Grand Duchy of Lithuania were vast. In 1551 a special commission was set up to make amend­ mentsto the Lithuanian Code of Laws of 1529, the so calledFirst Lithuanian Stat­ ute, as a testinggroundfor the future constitutional reform whichwas to make both countries moreunited. In 1565 Zygmunt II August setup land Sejmiks in Lithuania and in 1566 confirmed the Second Lithuanian Statute in which he renounced a part ofhis competences onbehalf ofthe Lithuanian Sejm. Bydoing this the King made the Lithuanian Sejm similar to theSejmof theKingdomofPoland.Inthe meantime, already by 1551, both Sejms sent their own delegates to the Sejm Walny. In 1563 the Sejm Walny in Warsaw, with the participation of 28 delegates from Lithuania, took up the issue ofthe Polish-LithuanianUnion. Finallyduring the Sejm of 1564, ZygmuntII August ceded the hereditary rights ofthe Jagiellonian dynasty to rule the Grand Duchy ofLithuania tothe Kingdom of Poland. This movewas intended to help elect a ruler of the new, unitary state. A special, Polish-Lithuanian com­ missionwas set up to work out theconstitutional frame of theunion. The stage for a strategic move was ready. With itthewhole geopolitics of the then Western world was altered, and with it the future course of the Jewish people’s lives as well.30

Sejm of Poland. Thus when the Lithuanian Sejm met in Brześć to debate the question of a politi­

cal union with Poland, the representative character of that Sejm had a much broader base. In the same year and at the same time, the Sejm of Poland met in Lublin, some 75 miles away and the negotiations between the two Sejms on the subject of the union started. J. Jędruch, Constitutions, Elections..., pp. 49-50.

30 See on the maneuvers of the Lithuanian elites J. Kiaupiene, ‘The Grand Duchy and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania in the Sixteenth Century: Reflections on the Lithuanian Political Nation and the Union ofLublin’in R. Butterwick (ed.), The Polish-Lithuanian Monarchy...,pp. 82-92.

3. The Polish-Lithuanian Noble Republic - the stage of the Jewish Authonomy 165

3.4.1. The Union of Lublin of 1569

By meeting in Lublin on 1 July 1569 the common Polish-Lithuanian parliament changed the characterof thestate creating the Commonwealth of Two Nations. From now on therewas to be their commonmonarchde iure. Asingle parliament - Sejm would consist ofthe Senate containing 149 senators and the Chamberof Deputies with 168 deputies. Anetwork of uniform Sejmiks selecting deputiesfor acommon Sejm was to be created in Lithuania. Common foreign policy was established and aunified custom union ofthetwo countries wasset up. But the Grand Duchy was to keepits oldlaws- the Statutes of Lithuania, a separate treasury, and its own army with separate commanders: Lithuanian Grand Hetman(Hetman Wielki Litewski) and a Lithuanian Field Hetman (Hetman Polny Litewski). The offices were to besepa­

rateand the ministers of the Kingdom ofPoland, such asMarshal, Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, Treasurer and Marshal ofthe court, were to have their counterparts in Lithuania as well. The Sejm was from now on to meet in Warsaw. The rule was changed after 1673whenit also beganto convene in Grodno (Hrodna) in Lithuania.

The 1569 Union ofLublin constituted one ofthemost profound strategic shifts of the Polish as well as the European politics throughout the ages. The Union strengthened the dominant positionof Poland diplomatically. Anew vast superpower emerged. But at the very same time Poland-Lithuania as one state was confronted with new challengesin theEast.Themain challenge had already for some time been a zero-sum gamecontestwith Muscovy to dominate the huge eastern lands.Itcon­

stituteda land bridgefor the autocratic Muscovy toenter Europe and for the Polish-Lithuania it was treated as the last outpostof the Latin civilization locatedfurthest to the East. This deadly conflictwas lost by Poland-Lithuaniaby the beginning of the 18thcentury.Another strategic change caused by the union was adrastic increase in the diversityoflands, peoples,religions, languages and histories.The new elites, including the new ones ofthe Cossacs soon to emerge, wanted to join the Polish political nationofthe nobility while the masses were increasingly pushed to a status of peasantry and subjectedtoa logic of economic colonization.In thiscontext, also areligioustensionbetweenCatholicism and Orthodoxy was to be soon exploited for the political games in the East.

There were also other long-term consequences not yet contemplated at the Union’s creation. A change of the parliamentary system, with a contingent of the Lithuanian deputies which proved in time to be corrupting. The Sejmiks in Lithuania had different political culture and were subjected quickly to the ma­

nipulations of the magnates. If the Sejmiks in Poland were in factdominated at the timeof theunion by the nobility (with the magnates kept in check) control­

ling the machinery of politics,the election process and Sejm deliberations, the magnates in Lithuania had a considerable control of the political process there, withless numerous middle-class nobility. Once the united parliamentarysystem wascreated the Lithuanianpolitics hadan oligarchic tendency built into it from thebeginning.

166 3. The Polish-Lithuanian Noble Republic - the stage of the Jewish Authonomy Themagnates dominated economically andpolitically,manipulatingthe elector­

al process andcontrollingthe ordinary deputies in a much moredirect way. Oncethe Polish-Lithuanian parliamentary systemacceptedin 1652 the principle ofa unani­

mous voting - known asliberumveto - it favouredLithuanian magnates, who - of­ ten with conjunction with foreign powers- used this mechanism inthe second half of the 17th and 18th centuries to preventmeasures contrary to their interests. Liberum vetopractice enabled the individual Lithuanian deputies, bribed both by magnates, orin time by foreign powerslike Russia, Prussia, Austria or Francetocauseabreak­ down of90% ofallthe Commonwealth Sejms,with the Lithuaniandeputies consti­ tuting just about one third of all Sejm deputies.31

31 See W. Konopczyński, Liberum veto. Studium porównawczo-historyczne {Liberum Veto. A Comparative and Historical Study), Universitas, Kraków 2002, pp. 227-236.

The long term economic consequences of the Union of Lublin of 1569 were significantas well. It resulted witha massivetransfer of wealth from the Kingdom offrom Poland to Ukraine incorporated into itright before the union from Lithuania.

Thus began a huge economicandsocial modernization project executed by the Pol­

ishnobilityand magnates who now hada right to buy land and investin easternter­

ritories, especially in thehugeUkrainianexpanses.This massive modernizing effort had two consequencestobe felt later inthe 17thcentury. On theone handit imitated the nobility-peasants servituderelations in a much morebrutal way in the east so to operate the colossal productive estates and manors. This also provoked an ad­

ditional conflictwhichdidnot existin Poland proper since it mingledwith religious and ethnicissues. Thelocal peasants wereethnically andreligiouslyforeign, mainly Orthodox, from the start. On the other hand a massive transfer ofwealth from the Kingdom of Poland to invest in the eastern lands createdaslowbut incessant dropin the economic potential ofthe entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealthin compari­ son with theWestern Europe’s developments.

Poland atthemoment of theUnionof Lublin in 1569 wasa wealthy country with avibrant economy even if predominantly based on a system ofgrain productionop­

eratedbya manor system. This economy, converted intoahuge exporting machinery ofgrain, mainlythroughthe Vistula Grain Tradeand Gdanskas its outlet to Europe, made the Polishnobility enormouslyrich. It beganto investon a massive scale in the east, starting a civilizationalcolonization ofthe desolate andin fact lawless ter­

ritories. But their wealth was nevertheless toosmall to sustain such a modernizing economic projectinthe vast frontierexpanses causing gradually a general decrease inthePolish-Lithuanian economic potential,while simultaneously connecting iten­ tirely to themanor system.In time othergrave socialand finally political problems were combined with this strategic economic weakness, which eventually did the Commonwealth in.

The huge territories, mainly Ukraine, before the Union of Lublin of 1569 were considered beyond the reach of the Lithuanian andRuthenian magnates. But after 1569they became open to mass colonizationand its manorial economy. Lithuanian

3. The Polish-Lithuanian Noble Republic - the stage of the Jewish Authonomy 167

and Ruthenianmagnatescould now engagein their own colonizationsince theyhad nowcivilizationally, economically, politicallyand last butnot least militarilya more efficient Kingdom of Poland supporting them.Together withthePolish magnates and nobility they engaged in a process ofthe eastern lands’ colonization with enthusi­ asm. But the majorproblem wasthe shortage of people, the new settlers as well as new peasants, to toil huge manorsin a neo-serfdom system. The new settlers were often the runaways, including peasants from the Kingdom of Poland,as well as the recalcitrant subjects-settlers who werelured into the easternterritories called“The Wild Steppes”(Dzikie Pola)by their lords with a promise of the so-called wolnizna, aright to till their plotsof land forseveral years or evenlongerwithout any rent or work for the lord,so toset uptheir viable holding.32 TheJewsfrom Central Poland wereamong migratingto the east as well, although not with thepurposeto till land.

They became hard pressed economically fighting the burghers there in an increas­

ingly zero-sumgame in towns,and were ready tofind a useful economic and exclu­

sive niche inthe manorial neo-serfdom system due to their financial and managerial skills, as well as in therisingprivatetowns. Inthenewcolonized landsthe pressure of the burgers was smallerbut the protectiongivento Jews by their lords more ef­

ficient,due to the sheer utilityof Jewish services.

32 S. Grzybowski, Dzieje Polski i Litwy 1506-1648 (History of Poland-Lithuania 1506- -1648), Forga, Kraków 2000, p. 286-287, Wielka Historia Polski, Vol. 4.

33 Ibid.

Once the time of wolnizna was up such settlers - many of them peasants from Central Poland - often refusedto return toa neo-serfdom system, escapingfurtherto

Once the time of wolnizna was up such settlers - many of them peasants from Central Poland - often refusedto return toa neo-serfdom system, escapingfurtherto