Przenikanie się sfery publicznej i prywatnej w życiu Jana III Sobieskiego i Marii Kazimiery

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: ATR, XVII a.; Abiejų Tautų Respublika (ATR; Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów; Žečpospolita; Sandrauga; Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth); Bajorai; Dvaras; Jonas III Sobieskis; 17 amžius; Marija Kazimiera; Radvilos (Radziwill; Radvila family); Sapiegos (Sapiega family); Valdovai; Valdovo privatus ir viešas gyvenimas; Jan III Sobieski; Manor; Maria Kazimiera; Monarchs; Noblemen; Radziwill, Sapieha families; Ruler's private, public lives; The Lithuanian XVII c. history.

ENThe problem of separation between private and public spheres in the early modem times applied both to the Western European states (France, the Netherlands, England, Italy, Spain), and to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Yet, the position of Polish elective kings and their families was much more difficult than that of hereditary European monarchs. On the one hand, they were supposed to provide their private financial means for public ends (The Henrician Articles, the Pacta Conventa) and subordinate their private lives to their office (constitutions regulating the question of royal spouse, forbidding the king to purchase own estates and the princes to hold secular offices). On the other - neither their offspring’s future was provided for (all future royal elections vivente rege were banned), nor their maintenance needs (constant deficit of the royal treasury). John III Sobieski was allotting his own private money for the defence of the country, furnishing of the royal castle, but at the same time, due to the concern of his family, he was conducting a forbidden dynastic policy and collecting money for the future election.This was of important consequences both for him, and for the whole Commonwealth. Resorting to illicit practices (attempts at enthronement of Prince Jakub, wielding power through councils of the Senate, purchasing lands by the agency of substitutes, the sale of offices), he risked conflicts with the opposition, which is clearly visible in numerous contemporary political writings. This impaired his authority as the head of the state and contributed to the failure of his plans to create a hereditary dynasty, while on the scale of the whole state it deepened the privatisation of public-legal relations and further degenerated the political system. [From the publication]