Kancelarie Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego i Królestwa Polskiego w latach 1492–1506. Aspekt porównawczy

Abstrakt

The aim of the article is to identify and explain the contrasts and similarities between the royal chanceries of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland in the years 1492–1506. The results of this comparison primarily serve to reconstruct the organization and functioning of the Lithuanian chancery. The comparison focuses on the following aspects: the nature of the institution and its offices; structure; the scope of duties of chancery staff; the composition of officials in terms of secular and ecclesiastical status; staff numbers; and practices and procedures related to documenting governmental decisions and preserving written information. The main differences between the two chanceries were as follows. The Lithuanian chancery was headed by an influential secular figure, with the office of chancellor always combined with that of the voivode of Vilnius. The chancery scribes were divided according to linguistic principles. The lowest-ranking employees bore the distinctive title diak, referring to early forms of written communication organization. There was no position comparable to that of a royal chancery scribe. The Ruthenian formulae ‘правил’, ‘приказал’, and ‘сам’ may have had independent origins, appearing without influence of Latin documents. Further distinctions concerned the composition of the documents within the Metrica and the manner in which they were recorded. The main similarity between the two chanceries lay in features such as the presence of a chief scribe position and the functions of scribes and diaks, which corresponded respectively to those of royal secretaries and clerks. The grand ducal chancery was deeply integrated into the system of governance and administration of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It could not adopt foreign models if doing so threatened the fundamental assumptions of this system. In its operations, the grand ducal chancery relied on custom and tradition, like other administrative institutions of the Grand Duchy. The strength of prevailing tradition made the chancery highly cautious in adopting patterns and models, even from a country with which it shared close political ties and a common monarch. Although the grand ducal chancery was an auxiliary and technical institution closely tied to the ruler, he was unable to introduce innovative changes into its organization and activity.