Papers by Natalya Starchenko
W kręgu patronatu kobiecego w XVII-XVIII wieku, 2018
Sejm Królestwa Polskiego i Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów a europejskie reprezentacje stanowe, 2019
Rocznik Lituanistyczny, 2022
Zarys treści Celem artykułu jest wyjaśnienie na przykładzie województwa wołyńskiego, jak odbieran... more Zarys treści Celem artykułu jest wyjaśnienie na przykładzie województwa wołyńskiego, jak odbierany był urząd sądowy w końcu XVI w.: jak służba patronowi, sposób zarobku czy "służba" szlacheckiej wspólnocie. Narzędziem jest analiza poziomu lojalności urzędników grodzkich w kontekście systemu patronalno-klientalnego, w znacznej mierze defi niującego przestrzeń społeczną, a także analiza dochodu urzędników.
Записки наукового товариства імені Шевченка. Праці Комісії спеціальних (допоміжних) історичних дисциплін, т. CCLXXI, 2018
The author explores time-measuring in Volyn in the last third of the 16th century as based
on the... more The author explores time-measuring in Volyn in the last third of the 16th century as based
on the court records of Volyn Voivodeship. She analyzes how clocks and divine services were
used in the courtroom to regulate judicial hearings and court procedures. She also discusses
time perception in the noble community, i.e. the social or cultural dimension of time. The author
concludes that by the turn of the 17th century, Volyn gentry had fully „domesticated“ and „cultivated“ time, experiencing and conceptualizing it in terms of „clock hours“, both by using it
as they considered it proper, and by manipulating it if necessary. At the same time, they
measured time according to the sun by dividing the day into the good light part and the
„treacherous“ dark part; they stopped court sessions when it was time to light candles and „forgot“ about time whenever slow consideration was needed.
Записки наукового товариства імені Шевченка. Праці Комісії спеціальних (допоміжних) історичних дисциплін, т. CCLXVIII, 2015
Complaints against judges — an integral element of the judicial process — offer ample
material fo... more Complaints against judges — an integral element of the judicial process — offer ample
material for the analysis of the way in which the ritual of nahana against the judge functioned
in the Volyn Voivodeship. ‘Nahana’ is an accusation of acting in bad faith which was treated
as an offence; subsequently, the honour of the accused would be restored through being cleared
of all charges. The concept of nahana against the judge does not feature in the Statute, which
only includes the appeal, yet the Statute norms taken in toto demonstrate that lawmakers were
well aware of the difference between a complaint treated as an offence (‘nahana’), and an
appeal. Quotidian functioning of the judicial system of the Volyn Voivodeship featured included cases that fit the definition of ‘nahana’. In a community that was eager to take offence at
any word or gesture, disputing the actions or decisions of judges would inevitably cast doubt
on their qualifications or good faith, and that would be offensive. The present research undermines the common assumption that appeals replaced the institute of ‘nahana’, and demonstrates that they were treated as two separate practices, and the latter persisted for a long
time.
A significant portion of the article reconstructs distinct stages of the judicial process based
on complaints that are often the only source of information about the quotidian functioning of
courts. Under normal circumstances, practices, gestures and rituals passed undiscussed and
barely noticed. Hence, the heuristic potential of complaints against judges is explored on the
basis of examples from court records. Such complaints are a veritable treasure trove of information about various spheres of life. The article showcases a number of virtually unresearched
aspects of the judicial process and the quotidian life of the gentry.
Записки наукового товариства імені Шевченка. Праці Історично-філософської секції, т. CCLXIV, 2012
The article analyzes the appearance and functioning of scrutinium in the legal proceedings
of the... more The article analyzes the appearance and functioning of scrutinium in the legal proceedings
of the Principality of Volyn. It started in the 1570s as an element borrowed from the Crown
Law, and with the adoption of the Statute of Lithuania in 1588, as an official part of the judicial procedure. Scrutinium is associated with changes in attitude to crime: it is beginning to be
perceived first of all as a social evil, not a personal insult to the aggrieved. However, the transformation of this norm in the court practice, closely connected with the logic and values of the
noble culture as a whole, demonstrates that legislative initiatives did not affect either the judicial system or the conceptions of the nobility in general
Соціум. Альманах соціальної історії , 2020
The author analyzes several accounts of conflicts united by the odpovid (revenge announcement) as... more The author analyzes several accounts of conflicts united by the odpovid (revenge announcement) as a ritual in interpersonal szlachta interactions. The 1588 Constitution treated the odpovid as a defensive (exonerating) element when members of the szlachta were accused
of a criminal misdemeanor that disgraced their honor. The demand that the parties united by the odpovid should be equals framed this ritual as a type of duel for honor, narrowing the scope of its uses and lowering the emotional pitch of interpersonal clashes. Despite that, the court cases analyzed here demonstrate the fundamental violation of the equality principle in the odpovid: members of the szlachta announced revenge against persons outside the szlachta strata, or, vice versa, such persons announced revenge against members of the szlachta. This demonstrates that the ritual, ostensibly exclusive to the szlachta, was also in wide use among other social groups of the Volhynian Voivodeship. Additionally, the author raises the question of whether this was an imitation of the dominant szlachta culture as the normative pattern, or whether this was indicative a much broader issue, namely, the collective nature of the szlachta’s honor which encompassed the entire circle of their dependents who usually became targets for revenge. Could it be said that revenge established the subjectivity of those who
ostensibly appeared exclusively as a substitute for their lord? The author seeks answers to these questions, and more, by applying the tools of the microhistorical methodology, namely, the emic approach to sources. In each of the fragments under analysis, she tries to establish what the actors said, and what they wanted to say. Therefore, the article documents how the expectation that the agents united by the odpovid should be equals not only set the standards and formed the group identity, but also reframed and destroyed it, and tracks which resources fostered the situation.
Український історичний журнал, 2019
The article analyzes how the privileges granted to the Volodymyr, Kyiv and Bratslav Voivodeships ... more The article analyzes how the privileges granted to the Volodymyr, Kyiv and Bratslav Voivodeships at the 1569 Lublin sejm contributed to the establishment of these regions’ szlachta’s self-perception as a political nation (with Rus` as the third member of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). The article is comprised of the 3 main parts.
In part 1, the scholar focuses on the issue she sees as seminal for the discussions at the Lublin sejm regarding the merger of the Ukrainian (Ruthenian) Voivodeships and the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Volhynian szlachta, which juggernauted the struggle at the sejm, treated the union as a merger where their own rights would be secured and guaranteed by the oath sworn by the king, the Senate, and szlachta ambassadors. This fact highlights the agency of Ukrainian szlachta and its belief that it could negotiate with the Crown szlachta as equals. Representatives of the Crown meanwhile believed that these territories were to be returned as an integral part of the state, and that the local szlachta were to have the same rights accorded to the Crown szlachta; their rights were to be confirmed by uniformly swearing an oath to the king and the Crown. Eventually the Volhynians dropped their demand that representatives of the Crown should swear an oath to affirm their rights; in exchange they were allowed to compile a privilege document describing their rights themselves, and the king was to safeguard their rights with an oath. Obviously, the text suggested by the Volhynians was edited by the committee created by the other side, resulting in certain contradictions in rhetoric. These clashing expectations regarding the merger, and whether they will be incorporated “with rights” or “into rights,” can be traced in the Volhynians’ grievances after the Union too.
The scholar analyzes Volhynian legal practice, which attests to szlachta’s insistence on staunch adherence to two privileges: that Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian) language be used in the justice system and administration, and that the Statute of Lithuania be used as the “local” law for Volhynian, Kyiv and Bratslav Voivodeships. She contends that the day-to-day court dealings became the sphere where Ukrainian szlachta perfected the arguments defending their rights and territories ever since the Union of Lublin, and with it their understanding of themselves as a separate political “nation.”
These arguments will be utilized again in the religious polemic following the Union of Brest (1596). The scholar analyzes how the Lublin privileges contributed to the construction of a territorial and legal notion of the “Ruthenian nation” (inhabiting a certain territory and endowed with unique rights) in the polemical texts by Marcin Broniowski, Zakhariia Kopystenskyi and Meletii Smotrytskyi. This notion posed serious competition to a religion-based model of identity (Ruthenian nation as the Orthodox Christian population). This notion was simultaneously expounded by Ukrainian szlachta on the political scene in the 1620s-1640s. By relying on the privileges granted with the Union of Lublin as the basis for the subjectivity of the Ukrainian voivodeships, the authors of religious treatises and szlachta parliamentarians have developed the notion of a Ruthenian nation as the third component of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, equal to Poles and Lithuanians, by the mid-17th century.
To conclude, the scholar offers some of her thoughts regarding future directions in Ukrainian history writing.
Theatrum Humanae Vitae. Студії на пошану Наталі Яковенко, 2012
The nature of power in the Volhynian gentry community is examined through the prism of the confli... more The nature of power in the Volhynian gentry community is examined through the prism of the conflict that arose in the Volhynian dietine of 1593. Consulting a large number of court records dating to the last third of the sixteenth century and the seventeenth century, the author notes the predomonance of symbolic, "mild" violence in relationships between people of unequal standing. The author analyzes the strategic interplay between the "strong" and the "weak"and the rhetoric used by both sides in the struggle for power
Український історичний журнал, 2011
I have analyzed the effectiveness of judicial proceedings in Volyn’ palatinate in the end of XVI ... more I have analyzed the effectiveness of judicial proceedings in Volyn’ palatinate in the end of XVI century based on two years of Luts’k castle court sessions. I underscore the elements of law procedure that mpeded the speedy enactment of decrees, and pinpoint the factors that contributed to conflict settlements. When analyzing the work
of castle court, I took into account the particularities of gentry (szlachta) culture.
Lietuvos statutas: Temides ir Klejos teritorijos. Specialusis “Lietuvos istorijos studiju” lejdinys. Vilnius, 2017
Український археографічний щорічник. Нова серія, 2016
Natalia Starchenko (Kyiv). “Sources Bear Testimony”: Notes On Researching the
Status of Gentry L... more Natalia Starchenko (Kyiv). “Sources Bear Testimony”: Notes On Researching the
Status of Gentry Ladies in the Early Modern Volhynian Society
The author analyzes the specificity of court records as a source and their contingency
on scholars’ preexisting biases based on the historiographical corpus that draws opposite
conclusions about the status of gentry ladies from the same set of texts. The article revises
some approaches to researching the patriarchal power, domestic violence, property
relations in families, and matrimonial strategies. The emphasis is placed on the necessity
of conceptualizing these issues with broader explanatory schemes that take into account
the pragmatics of how court records came into existence, and the entire range of behavioral
models, even the ones that lay outside the boundaries of the norm or the acceptable.
Wives Accused of Murdering Their Husbands:
Female Cruelty, Male Phobias or Relatives’ Financial ... more Wives Accused of Murdering Their Husbands:
Female Cruelty, Male Phobias or Relatives’ Financial Considerations
(Volhynia of the last third of the 16th century through the first third of the 17th century)
Based on a number of cases when gentry ladies were accused of murdering their husbands, I will analyze the following questions: who initiated these accusations; the rhetoric of accusations; whether they had clichéd details; whether these accusations were conditioned by the gender of the accused; how the cases proceeded, and what were the results. I will also focus on the wives’ subjugation to their husbands and the resources that could change the balance of power in a family.
Stereotypical descriptions and conventional sets of tropes in accusatory narratives suggest that the majority of accusations were purely instrumental. Only one case in eight ended in a guilty verdict, with one other case containing strong indications that the wife did indeed commit murder with the help of her servants and courtiers. Crime descriptions ostensibly emphasize the elements conventionally associated with “female” murders. Their analysis in broader context and comparisons with murder accusations against men, however, lift the male-female dichotomy.
A range of factors could relieve tension in conflicts within gentry families. The property of spouses was not united. The notion that the husband should be the only representative of the family in the public sphere had its limits. Finally, marriage was perceived as a public contract, and the Orthodox Church granted divorce with relative ease, even in cases of spousal misunderstandings. A married woman could usually rely on the support of her relatives, personal friendships cultivated through independent communication, and servants.
The peculiarities of the court system remain an underappreciated element in the analysis of domestic violence. A significant number of accusations mask the husbands’ relatives’ attempts to reclaim the widow’s part of the late husband’s property. The strategy was reinforced by the competitive nature of the judicial system: the verbal duel between the sides was supported by slim evidence. Therefore, the accuser often appeared in court with the intention of undermining defendants’ reputation, forcing them to negotiate, and obtaining the goals as the result of a compromise.
Nataliia Starchenko. “In Defence of the Honour of the Gentry Family”: the Case of the Execution o... more Nataliia Starchenko. “In Defence of the Honour of the Gentry Family”: the Case of the Execution of the Servants of Prince Samuel Karol Korecki in Volhynia in 1645
The article demonstrates that a new exploratory framework can shed a new light even on the most seemingly “credible” sources and the events described therein, based on the case when Prince Samuel Karol Korecki ordered the public execution of his servants Jakub Garbowski, Tyszowski and Krasowska. The primary source for the case is the lawsuit filed against Prince Korecki and his wife by Precslaw-Alexander Garbowski of the Sandomierz voyvodeship, the brother of one of the executed men. When read literally, as a veracious representation of the past, it can be interpreted as a startling example of magnates’ despotism, and as blatant disregard for the basic gentry and Christian values. However, I would like to suggest that the text should be analysed as a narrative construct that relies on the peculiarities of the judiciary system of the time: crimes were treated as the injured party’s private matter, and verdicts were built not on a thorough investigation of evidence but rather on the accepted conventions, e.g., on the rhetorical tropes. It is also worth remembering that we only have one side of the story, that of Garbowski, or rather of the plaintiff, the anonymous compiler of the lawsuit who put the rumours into the formula that appealed to the commonly held biases of the gentry.
I would like to underscore the fact that the lawsuit relies on two modes: on the one hand, it exonerates Jakub Garbowski as a loyal servant endowed with all the gentry virtues (since his misdemeanour is elided, we don’t know what the servants’ crime was), and on the other, it’s an indictment of the princely family. Koreckis are accused of denying their servants the right to have their case heard in the official court (they were executed based on the verdict of the demesne court by the judges who were never sworn in). This accusation must have evoked the notion of tyranny, of an individual trampling common law: in the public discourse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it was one of the gravest charges. The rhetorical structure of the accusation is defined by the traditional definition of a premeditated murder, a criminal offence that could incur death penalty and the loss of honour. The accusation also noted that the crime was against Christian values. The article also offers an analysis of the description of the execution, which was meant to underscore Koreckis’ guilt.
I will then proceed to analyse the details that were only mentioned in passing because they could undermine Garbowski’s narrative, like the fact that the executed servants wrote their guilty pleas, or that the charges were based on the testimony that Krasowska gave under oath. Garbowski had to mention the facts because they were bound to come up in court. Based on circumstantial evidence, one could assume that the servants might have been accused of raping (or assaulting) Krasowska. This would explain both the severe punishment (as demanded by the laws) and the outrage of the Korecki family, since the dishonour would fall on the house where the crime was committed. However, the fact that the young woman was executed too doesn’t quite fit, so I would draw the readers’ attention to certain gender-based biases that could have led to the tragic finale.
Garbowski claimed that executing the servants without a court decree was against the law; however, the execution would only seem unlawful when viewed outside the context of gentry’s values. Meanwhile, the Second Statute of Lithuania (under the Union of Lublin, the only legislative authority in Volhynia) maintained that lords had the right to punish their servants, up to and including death penalty. The only condition was that other respected gentry should be present at such a court alongside with the lord (the Second Statute of Lithuania, ch. 3, par. 8): a condition that was satisfied in the case.
The Koreckis were sentenced to banicja (exile) and infamia for not appearing in the Tribunal when their case was to be heard. However, the judges overstepped their competence by stripping the defendants of honour, impinging upon the jurisdiction of the diet court, which dealt with such cases. The final episodes of the story played out in the diet court on December 5, 1646. The court cleared Prince Korecki of all charges (the Princess died earlier), maintaining that he “defended the honour of the gentry family,” and Garbowski was accused of defamation. However, the poena talionis was cancelled because it was noted that Garbowski’s choices were dictated by his grief for his brother.
The article also offers an account of the story from the diary of Prince Albrecht Stanislaw Radzywill, a relative of Prince Samuel Karol Korecki. While his account doesn’t differ substantially from Garbowski’s version (and it does mention the attempted rape), Radzywill’s didactic focus concerns another matter altogether. He underscores that the mighty should defend their honour; in this case, the honour was tarnished by excessive cruelty of the magnate who was needled on by the “evil advice” of a third party. As Prince Konstanty Ostrogski noted in an earlier letter, God rewards the mighty for acting graceful towards the weak because such behaviour lays foundations for a peaceful community and guarantees that the “mighty” are duly respected.
Having analyzed the rape cases and other grave misdemeanors in the gentry milieu of Volhynia, I’ve come to the conclusion that, ideally, the story should have ended in some sort of a compromuse. The guilty party should have compensated the moral losses of the Prince by acknowledging their guilt and agreeing to an act of humility, such as public apologies (penance), and the magnate should have pardoned his servants and practiced Christian merciful. It seems plausible that the participants hoped for this scenario till the very last moment, since the lawsuit mentions an attempt to delay execution. One possible reason why this didn’t happen lies in the fact that the convicted themselves, most likely unprotected by the network of family and familial relations, didn’t have representatives in court. Traditionally, as soon as condlicts grew serious, friends came into play to settle the conflicts and work out a compromise. Prince Korecki’s court apparently didn’t employ effective “crisis managers” who could have foreseen the results of the drastic measures, even if they were undertaken in defence of his honour and well within the boundaries of the law. As the result, Korecki lost his good honour because of the cruelty that was seen as excessive by the community. If the mighty didn’t act accordingly, the community, which included the weak, could withdraw its respect and trust. The case analyzed here proves that even the representatives of the most powerful strata had to uphold the conventional norms of peaceful coexistence despite overt demonstration of status (their property, offices, closeness to the court, public functions).
The scholarship on crimen laesae maiestatis (offence against royal dignity) accusations tends ... more The scholarship on crimen laesae maiestatis (offence against royal dignity) accusations tends to focus on the upper echelons of political elites. Simultaneously, the issues of whether rank-and-file gentry was embroiled in such cases, which deeds or words could be read as an offence, and which situations triggered accusations in the political crime, often slip scholarly attention. These issues are central to my analysis of several casuses that transpired in the Volhynian voivodeship and were reported in court records. These cases concern a maimed minor Lutsk court official, a coinage offence and swearing directed at the monarch, all treated as offences against royal dignity. The seven analyzed documents are appended.
By thе late 16th century the laws of the Polish-Lithunian Commonwealth evince a shift in the perc... more By thе late 16th century the laws of the Polish-Lithunian Commonwealth evince a shift in the perception of law infringements: they are no longer viewed as a private matter of the victim, but rather as a transgression against society at large. Punishments grow sterner, as can be seen from the treatment of incarceration: more acts stipulate for «confinement in a tower» (even for days), the first prohibitions against avoiding punishments through striking peace deals between the confl icting sides are put in place, and the places of incarceration are being set up in
a more unified manner. Concomitantly, incarceration gains prominence as part of the verdicts of the familial courts as a sign of the accused submission and as a precondition for reconciling the opponents, particularly in cases when blood was shed. Alongside lengthier incarcerations, purely symbolic confi nement of several hours or days оссured. There are fixed rituals of such voluntary confinement. Therefore, incarceration marks certain early modern changes in the
gentry legal culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Books by Natalya Starchenko
The vision of the Ukrainian history dominant in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union, which... more The vision of the Ukrainian history dominant in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union, which has not been fully deconstructed after Ukraine gained independence, focused exclusively on the heroic Cossacks and disenfranchised peasants. There was no room in it for the local elites: the Ukrainian aristocracy (szlachta) of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Even after the scholars and the public noticed its presence, the aristocracy remained a marginal presence in the national history. As the result of this biased perspective, Ukrainians, having inherited castles, churches, books, academies and values as their elites’ legacy, to this day know very little about the life and values of those people.
This book invites the readers to take a closer look at the Ukrainian aristocracy. This introduction is done in a somewhat unusual form, through true anecdotes from the life of aristocracy gleaned from court records and other sources from the time. We get glimpses of the elites not only in their best garbs but also in their well-worn home clothes.
The book brings together 105 brief chapters that describe how these people saw themselves, how they fought and made peace, how they fell in love and got married, how unwavering they were in the defense of their rights in court, and how the judiciary functioned. Last not least, these essays explore whether the Ukrainian elites were mere extras and viewers in history or its active makers, resolute and strong in their insistence on defending and expanding their rights and freedoms. Some of these stories may surprise you; Natalia Starchenko, a historian with decades of archival experience, certainly was surprised by some of these twists. Yet the author believes that these characters, with their steadfast insistence on defending their freedom, dignity, honor and rights, are fascinating, and you might even come to love them as much as she does.
The present publication collates the sources, namely, court records of the Volhynian Voivodeship,... more The present publication collates the sources, namely, court records of the Volhynian Voivodeship, that highlight communication strategies during conflicts in the Volhynian szlachta milieu of the last 3rd of the 16th through the early 17th century.
The author focuses on the emergence of the judicial narrative, describes the methodology of working with court records, and offers her own esearch strategies that can be applied when analyzing sources of this type.
Uploads
Papers by Natalya Starchenko
on the court records of Volyn Voivodeship. She analyzes how clocks and divine services were
used in the courtroom to regulate judicial hearings and court procedures. She also discusses
time perception in the noble community, i.e. the social or cultural dimension of time. The author
concludes that by the turn of the 17th century, Volyn gentry had fully „domesticated“ and „cultivated“ time, experiencing and conceptualizing it in terms of „clock hours“, both by using it
as they considered it proper, and by manipulating it if necessary. At the same time, they
measured time according to the sun by dividing the day into the good light part and the
„treacherous“ dark part; they stopped court sessions when it was time to light candles and „forgot“ about time whenever slow consideration was needed.
material for the analysis of the way in which the ritual of nahana against the judge functioned
in the Volyn Voivodeship. ‘Nahana’ is an accusation of acting in bad faith which was treated
as an offence; subsequently, the honour of the accused would be restored through being cleared
of all charges. The concept of nahana against the judge does not feature in the Statute, which
only includes the appeal, yet the Statute norms taken in toto demonstrate that lawmakers were
well aware of the difference between a complaint treated as an offence (‘nahana’), and an
appeal. Quotidian functioning of the judicial system of the Volyn Voivodeship featured included cases that fit the definition of ‘nahana’. In a community that was eager to take offence at
any word or gesture, disputing the actions or decisions of judges would inevitably cast doubt
on their qualifications or good faith, and that would be offensive. The present research undermines the common assumption that appeals replaced the institute of ‘nahana’, and demonstrates that they were treated as two separate practices, and the latter persisted for a long
time.
A significant portion of the article reconstructs distinct stages of the judicial process based
on complaints that are often the only source of information about the quotidian functioning of
courts. Under normal circumstances, practices, gestures and rituals passed undiscussed and
barely noticed. Hence, the heuristic potential of complaints against judges is explored on the
basis of examples from court records. Such complaints are a veritable treasure trove of information about various spheres of life. The article showcases a number of virtually unresearched
aspects of the judicial process and the quotidian life of the gentry.
of the Principality of Volyn. It started in the 1570s as an element borrowed from the Crown
Law, and with the adoption of the Statute of Lithuania in 1588, as an official part of the judicial procedure. Scrutinium is associated with changes in attitude to crime: it is beginning to be
perceived first of all as a social evil, not a personal insult to the aggrieved. However, the transformation of this norm in the court practice, closely connected with the logic and values of the
noble culture as a whole, demonstrates that legislative initiatives did not affect either the judicial system or the conceptions of the nobility in general
of a criminal misdemeanor that disgraced their honor. The demand that the parties united by the odpovid should be equals framed this ritual as a type of duel for honor, narrowing the scope of its uses and lowering the emotional pitch of interpersonal clashes. Despite that, the court cases analyzed here demonstrate the fundamental violation of the equality principle in the odpovid: members of the szlachta announced revenge against persons outside the szlachta strata, or, vice versa, such persons announced revenge against members of the szlachta. This demonstrates that the ritual, ostensibly exclusive to the szlachta, was also in wide use among other social groups of the Volhynian Voivodeship. Additionally, the author raises the question of whether this was an imitation of the dominant szlachta culture as the normative pattern, or whether this was indicative a much broader issue, namely, the collective nature of the szlachta’s honor which encompassed the entire circle of their dependents who usually became targets for revenge. Could it be said that revenge established the subjectivity of those who
ostensibly appeared exclusively as a substitute for their lord? The author seeks answers to these questions, and more, by applying the tools of the microhistorical methodology, namely, the emic approach to sources. In each of the fragments under analysis, she tries to establish what the actors said, and what they wanted to say. Therefore, the article documents how the expectation that the agents united by the odpovid should be equals not only set the standards and formed the group identity, but also reframed and destroyed it, and tracks which resources fostered the situation.
In part 1, the scholar focuses on the issue she sees as seminal for the discussions at the Lublin sejm regarding the merger of the Ukrainian (Ruthenian) Voivodeships and the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Volhynian szlachta, which juggernauted the struggle at the sejm, treated the union as a merger where their own rights would be secured and guaranteed by the oath sworn by the king, the Senate, and szlachta ambassadors. This fact highlights the agency of Ukrainian szlachta and its belief that it could negotiate with the Crown szlachta as equals. Representatives of the Crown meanwhile believed that these territories were to be returned as an integral part of the state, and that the local szlachta were to have the same rights accorded to the Crown szlachta; their rights were to be confirmed by uniformly swearing an oath to the king and the Crown. Eventually the Volhynians dropped their demand that representatives of the Crown should swear an oath to affirm their rights; in exchange they were allowed to compile a privilege document describing their rights themselves, and the king was to safeguard their rights with an oath. Obviously, the text suggested by the Volhynians was edited by the committee created by the other side, resulting in certain contradictions in rhetoric. These clashing expectations regarding the merger, and whether they will be incorporated “with rights” or “into rights,” can be traced in the Volhynians’ grievances after the Union too.
The scholar analyzes Volhynian legal practice, which attests to szlachta’s insistence on staunch adherence to two privileges: that Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian) language be used in the justice system and administration, and that the Statute of Lithuania be used as the “local” law for Volhynian, Kyiv and Bratslav Voivodeships. She contends that the day-to-day court dealings became the sphere where Ukrainian szlachta perfected the arguments defending their rights and territories ever since the Union of Lublin, and with it their understanding of themselves as a separate political “nation.”
These arguments will be utilized again in the religious polemic following the Union of Brest (1596). The scholar analyzes how the Lublin privileges contributed to the construction of a territorial and legal notion of the “Ruthenian nation” (inhabiting a certain territory and endowed with unique rights) in the polemical texts by Marcin Broniowski, Zakhariia Kopystenskyi and Meletii Smotrytskyi. This notion posed serious competition to a religion-based model of identity (Ruthenian nation as the Orthodox Christian population). This notion was simultaneously expounded by Ukrainian szlachta on the political scene in the 1620s-1640s. By relying on the privileges granted with the Union of Lublin as the basis for the subjectivity of the Ukrainian voivodeships, the authors of religious treatises and szlachta parliamentarians have developed the notion of a Ruthenian nation as the third component of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, equal to Poles and Lithuanians, by the mid-17th century.
To conclude, the scholar offers some of her thoughts regarding future directions in Ukrainian history writing.
of castle court, I took into account the particularities of gentry (szlachta) culture.
Status of Gentry Ladies in the Early Modern Volhynian Society
The author analyzes the specificity of court records as a source and their contingency
on scholars’ preexisting biases based on the historiographical corpus that draws opposite
conclusions about the status of gentry ladies from the same set of texts. The article revises
some approaches to researching the patriarchal power, domestic violence, property
relations in families, and matrimonial strategies. The emphasis is placed on the necessity
of conceptualizing these issues with broader explanatory schemes that take into account
the pragmatics of how court records came into existence, and the entire range of behavioral
models, even the ones that lay outside the boundaries of the norm or the acceptable.
Female Cruelty, Male Phobias or Relatives’ Financial Considerations
(Volhynia of the last third of the 16th century through the first third of the 17th century)
Based on a number of cases when gentry ladies were accused of murdering their husbands, I will analyze the following questions: who initiated these accusations; the rhetoric of accusations; whether they had clichéd details; whether these accusations were conditioned by the gender of the accused; how the cases proceeded, and what were the results. I will also focus on the wives’ subjugation to their husbands and the resources that could change the balance of power in a family.
Stereotypical descriptions and conventional sets of tropes in accusatory narratives suggest that the majority of accusations were purely instrumental. Only one case in eight ended in a guilty verdict, with one other case containing strong indications that the wife did indeed commit murder with the help of her servants and courtiers. Crime descriptions ostensibly emphasize the elements conventionally associated with “female” murders. Their analysis in broader context and comparisons with murder accusations against men, however, lift the male-female dichotomy.
A range of factors could relieve tension in conflicts within gentry families. The property of spouses was not united. The notion that the husband should be the only representative of the family in the public sphere had its limits. Finally, marriage was perceived as a public contract, and the Orthodox Church granted divorce with relative ease, even in cases of spousal misunderstandings. A married woman could usually rely on the support of her relatives, personal friendships cultivated through independent communication, and servants.
The peculiarities of the court system remain an underappreciated element in the analysis of domestic violence. A significant number of accusations mask the husbands’ relatives’ attempts to reclaim the widow’s part of the late husband’s property. The strategy was reinforced by the competitive nature of the judicial system: the verbal duel between the sides was supported by slim evidence. Therefore, the accuser often appeared in court with the intention of undermining defendants’ reputation, forcing them to negotiate, and obtaining the goals as the result of a compromise.
The article demonstrates that a new exploratory framework can shed a new light even on the most seemingly “credible” sources and the events described therein, based on the case when Prince Samuel Karol Korecki ordered the public execution of his servants Jakub Garbowski, Tyszowski and Krasowska. The primary source for the case is the lawsuit filed against Prince Korecki and his wife by Precslaw-Alexander Garbowski of the Sandomierz voyvodeship, the brother of one of the executed men. When read literally, as a veracious representation of the past, it can be interpreted as a startling example of magnates’ despotism, and as blatant disregard for the basic gentry and Christian values. However, I would like to suggest that the text should be analysed as a narrative construct that relies on the peculiarities of the judiciary system of the time: crimes were treated as the injured party’s private matter, and verdicts were built not on a thorough investigation of evidence but rather on the accepted conventions, e.g., on the rhetorical tropes. It is also worth remembering that we only have one side of the story, that of Garbowski, or rather of the plaintiff, the anonymous compiler of the lawsuit who put the rumours into the formula that appealed to the commonly held biases of the gentry.
I would like to underscore the fact that the lawsuit relies on two modes: on the one hand, it exonerates Jakub Garbowski as a loyal servant endowed with all the gentry virtues (since his misdemeanour is elided, we don’t know what the servants’ crime was), and on the other, it’s an indictment of the princely family. Koreckis are accused of denying their servants the right to have their case heard in the official court (they were executed based on the verdict of the demesne court by the judges who were never sworn in). This accusation must have evoked the notion of tyranny, of an individual trampling common law: in the public discourse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it was one of the gravest charges. The rhetorical structure of the accusation is defined by the traditional definition of a premeditated murder, a criminal offence that could incur death penalty and the loss of honour. The accusation also noted that the crime was against Christian values. The article also offers an analysis of the description of the execution, which was meant to underscore Koreckis’ guilt.
I will then proceed to analyse the details that were only mentioned in passing because they could undermine Garbowski’s narrative, like the fact that the executed servants wrote their guilty pleas, or that the charges were based on the testimony that Krasowska gave under oath. Garbowski had to mention the facts because they were bound to come up in court. Based on circumstantial evidence, one could assume that the servants might have been accused of raping (or assaulting) Krasowska. This would explain both the severe punishment (as demanded by the laws) and the outrage of the Korecki family, since the dishonour would fall on the house where the crime was committed. However, the fact that the young woman was executed too doesn’t quite fit, so I would draw the readers’ attention to certain gender-based biases that could have led to the tragic finale.
Garbowski claimed that executing the servants without a court decree was against the law; however, the execution would only seem unlawful when viewed outside the context of gentry’s values. Meanwhile, the Second Statute of Lithuania (under the Union of Lublin, the only legislative authority in Volhynia) maintained that lords had the right to punish their servants, up to and including death penalty. The only condition was that other respected gentry should be present at such a court alongside with the lord (the Second Statute of Lithuania, ch. 3, par. 8): a condition that was satisfied in the case.
The Koreckis were sentenced to banicja (exile) and infamia for not appearing in the Tribunal when their case was to be heard. However, the judges overstepped their competence by stripping the defendants of honour, impinging upon the jurisdiction of the diet court, which dealt with such cases. The final episodes of the story played out in the diet court on December 5, 1646. The court cleared Prince Korecki of all charges (the Princess died earlier), maintaining that he “defended the honour of the gentry family,” and Garbowski was accused of defamation. However, the poena talionis was cancelled because it was noted that Garbowski’s choices were dictated by his grief for his brother.
The article also offers an account of the story from the diary of Prince Albrecht Stanislaw Radzywill, a relative of Prince Samuel Karol Korecki. While his account doesn’t differ substantially from Garbowski’s version (and it does mention the attempted rape), Radzywill’s didactic focus concerns another matter altogether. He underscores that the mighty should defend their honour; in this case, the honour was tarnished by excessive cruelty of the magnate who was needled on by the “evil advice” of a third party. As Prince Konstanty Ostrogski noted in an earlier letter, God rewards the mighty for acting graceful towards the weak because such behaviour lays foundations for a peaceful community and guarantees that the “mighty” are duly respected.
Having analyzed the rape cases and other grave misdemeanors in the gentry milieu of Volhynia, I’ve come to the conclusion that, ideally, the story should have ended in some sort of a compromuse. The guilty party should have compensated the moral losses of the Prince by acknowledging their guilt and agreeing to an act of humility, such as public apologies (penance), and the magnate should have pardoned his servants and practiced Christian merciful. It seems plausible that the participants hoped for this scenario till the very last moment, since the lawsuit mentions an attempt to delay execution. One possible reason why this didn’t happen lies in the fact that the convicted themselves, most likely unprotected by the network of family and familial relations, didn’t have representatives in court. Traditionally, as soon as condlicts grew serious, friends came into play to settle the conflicts and work out a compromise. Prince Korecki’s court apparently didn’t employ effective “crisis managers” who could have foreseen the results of the drastic measures, even if they were undertaken in defence of his honour and well within the boundaries of the law. As the result, Korecki lost his good honour because of the cruelty that was seen as excessive by the community. If the mighty didn’t act accordingly, the community, which included the weak, could withdraw its respect and trust. The case analyzed here proves that even the representatives of the most powerful strata had to uphold the conventional norms of peaceful coexistence despite overt demonstration of status (their property, offices, closeness to the court, public functions).
a more unified manner. Concomitantly, incarceration gains prominence as part of the verdicts of the familial courts as a sign of the accused submission and as a precondition for reconciling the opponents, particularly in cases when blood was shed. Alongside lengthier incarcerations, purely symbolic confi nement of several hours or days оссured. There are fixed rituals of such voluntary confinement. Therefore, incarceration marks certain early modern changes in the
gentry legal culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Books by Natalya Starchenko
This book invites the readers to take a closer look at the Ukrainian aristocracy. This introduction is done in a somewhat unusual form, through true anecdotes from the life of aristocracy gleaned from court records and other sources from the time. We get glimpses of the elites not only in their best garbs but also in their well-worn home clothes.
The book brings together 105 brief chapters that describe how these people saw themselves, how they fought and made peace, how they fell in love and got married, how unwavering they were in the defense of their rights in court, and how the judiciary functioned. Last not least, these essays explore whether the Ukrainian elites were mere extras and viewers in history or its active makers, resolute and strong in their insistence on defending and expanding their rights and freedoms. Some of these stories may surprise you; Natalia Starchenko, a historian with decades of archival experience, certainly was surprised by some of these twists. Yet the author believes that these characters, with their steadfast insistence on defending their freedom, dignity, honor and rights, are fascinating, and you might even come to love them as much as she does.
The author focuses on the emergence of the judicial narrative, describes the methodology of working with court records, and offers her own esearch strategies that can be applied when analyzing sources of this type.
on the court records of Volyn Voivodeship. She analyzes how clocks and divine services were
used in the courtroom to regulate judicial hearings and court procedures. She also discusses
time perception in the noble community, i.e. the social or cultural dimension of time. The author
concludes that by the turn of the 17th century, Volyn gentry had fully „domesticated“ and „cultivated“ time, experiencing and conceptualizing it in terms of „clock hours“, both by using it
as they considered it proper, and by manipulating it if necessary. At the same time, they
measured time according to the sun by dividing the day into the good light part and the
„treacherous“ dark part; they stopped court sessions when it was time to light candles and „forgot“ about time whenever slow consideration was needed.
material for the analysis of the way in which the ritual of nahana against the judge functioned
in the Volyn Voivodeship. ‘Nahana’ is an accusation of acting in bad faith which was treated
as an offence; subsequently, the honour of the accused would be restored through being cleared
of all charges. The concept of nahana against the judge does not feature in the Statute, which
only includes the appeal, yet the Statute norms taken in toto demonstrate that lawmakers were
well aware of the difference between a complaint treated as an offence (‘nahana’), and an
appeal. Quotidian functioning of the judicial system of the Volyn Voivodeship featured included cases that fit the definition of ‘nahana’. In a community that was eager to take offence at
any word or gesture, disputing the actions or decisions of judges would inevitably cast doubt
on their qualifications or good faith, and that would be offensive. The present research undermines the common assumption that appeals replaced the institute of ‘nahana’, and demonstrates that they were treated as two separate practices, and the latter persisted for a long
time.
A significant portion of the article reconstructs distinct stages of the judicial process based
on complaints that are often the only source of information about the quotidian functioning of
courts. Under normal circumstances, practices, gestures and rituals passed undiscussed and
barely noticed. Hence, the heuristic potential of complaints against judges is explored on the
basis of examples from court records. Such complaints are a veritable treasure trove of information about various spheres of life. The article showcases a number of virtually unresearched
aspects of the judicial process and the quotidian life of the gentry.
of the Principality of Volyn. It started in the 1570s as an element borrowed from the Crown
Law, and with the adoption of the Statute of Lithuania in 1588, as an official part of the judicial procedure. Scrutinium is associated with changes in attitude to crime: it is beginning to be
perceived first of all as a social evil, not a personal insult to the aggrieved. However, the transformation of this norm in the court practice, closely connected with the logic and values of the
noble culture as a whole, demonstrates that legislative initiatives did not affect either the judicial system or the conceptions of the nobility in general
of a criminal misdemeanor that disgraced their honor. The demand that the parties united by the odpovid should be equals framed this ritual as a type of duel for honor, narrowing the scope of its uses and lowering the emotional pitch of interpersonal clashes. Despite that, the court cases analyzed here demonstrate the fundamental violation of the equality principle in the odpovid: members of the szlachta announced revenge against persons outside the szlachta strata, or, vice versa, such persons announced revenge against members of the szlachta. This demonstrates that the ritual, ostensibly exclusive to the szlachta, was also in wide use among other social groups of the Volhynian Voivodeship. Additionally, the author raises the question of whether this was an imitation of the dominant szlachta culture as the normative pattern, or whether this was indicative a much broader issue, namely, the collective nature of the szlachta’s honor which encompassed the entire circle of their dependents who usually became targets for revenge. Could it be said that revenge established the subjectivity of those who
ostensibly appeared exclusively as a substitute for their lord? The author seeks answers to these questions, and more, by applying the tools of the microhistorical methodology, namely, the emic approach to sources. In each of the fragments under analysis, she tries to establish what the actors said, and what they wanted to say. Therefore, the article documents how the expectation that the agents united by the odpovid should be equals not only set the standards and formed the group identity, but also reframed and destroyed it, and tracks which resources fostered the situation.
In part 1, the scholar focuses on the issue she sees as seminal for the discussions at the Lublin sejm regarding the merger of the Ukrainian (Ruthenian) Voivodeships and the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. Volhynian szlachta, which juggernauted the struggle at the sejm, treated the union as a merger where their own rights would be secured and guaranteed by the oath sworn by the king, the Senate, and szlachta ambassadors. This fact highlights the agency of Ukrainian szlachta and its belief that it could negotiate with the Crown szlachta as equals. Representatives of the Crown meanwhile believed that these territories were to be returned as an integral part of the state, and that the local szlachta were to have the same rights accorded to the Crown szlachta; their rights were to be confirmed by uniformly swearing an oath to the king and the Crown. Eventually the Volhynians dropped their demand that representatives of the Crown should swear an oath to affirm their rights; in exchange they were allowed to compile a privilege document describing their rights themselves, and the king was to safeguard their rights with an oath. Obviously, the text suggested by the Volhynians was edited by the committee created by the other side, resulting in certain contradictions in rhetoric. These clashing expectations regarding the merger, and whether they will be incorporated “with rights” or “into rights,” can be traced in the Volhynians’ grievances after the Union too.
The scholar analyzes Volhynian legal practice, which attests to szlachta’s insistence on staunch adherence to two privileges: that Ruthenian (Old Ukrainian) language be used in the justice system and administration, and that the Statute of Lithuania be used as the “local” law for Volhynian, Kyiv and Bratslav Voivodeships. She contends that the day-to-day court dealings became the sphere where Ukrainian szlachta perfected the arguments defending their rights and territories ever since the Union of Lublin, and with it their understanding of themselves as a separate political “nation.”
These arguments will be utilized again in the religious polemic following the Union of Brest (1596). The scholar analyzes how the Lublin privileges contributed to the construction of a territorial and legal notion of the “Ruthenian nation” (inhabiting a certain territory and endowed with unique rights) in the polemical texts by Marcin Broniowski, Zakhariia Kopystenskyi and Meletii Smotrytskyi. This notion posed serious competition to a religion-based model of identity (Ruthenian nation as the Orthodox Christian population). This notion was simultaneously expounded by Ukrainian szlachta on the political scene in the 1620s-1640s. By relying on the privileges granted with the Union of Lublin as the basis for the subjectivity of the Ukrainian voivodeships, the authors of religious treatises and szlachta parliamentarians have developed the notion of a Ruthenian nation as the third component of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, equal to Poles and Lithuanians, by the mid-17th century.
To conclude, the scholar offers some of her thoughts regarding future directions in Ukrainian history writing.
of castle court, I took into account the particularities of gentry (szlachta) culture.
Status of Gentry Ladies in the Early Modern Volhynian Society
The author analyzes the specificity of court records as a source and their contingency
on scholars’ preexisting biases based on the historiographical corpus that draws opposite
conclusions about the status of gentry ladies from the same set of texts. The article revises
some approaches to researching the patriarchal power, domestic violence, property
relations in families, and matrimonial strategies. The emphasis is placed on the necessity
of conceptualizing these issues with broader explanatory schemes that take into account
the pragmatics of how court records came into existence, and the entire range of behavioral
models, even the ones that lay outside the boundaries of the norm or the acceptable.
Female Cruelty, Male Phobias or Relatives’ Financial Considerations
(Volhynia of the last third of the 16th century through the first third of the 17th century)
Based on a number of cases when gentry ladies were accused of murdering their husbands, I will analyze the following questions: who initiated these accusations; the rhetoric of accusations; whether they had clichéd details; whether these accusations were conditioned by the gender of the accused; how the cases proceeded, and what were the results. I will also focus on the wives’ subjugation to their husbands and the resources that could change the balance of power in a family.
Stereotypical descriptions and conventional sets of tropes in accusatory narratives suggest that the majority of accusations were purely instrumental. Only one case in eight ended in a guilty verdict, with one other case containing strong indications that the wife did indeed commit murder with the help of her servants and courtiers. Crime descriptions ostensibly emphasize the elements conventionally associated with “female” murders. Their analysis in broader context and comparisons with murder accusations against men, however, lift the male-female dichotomy.
A range of factors could relieve tension in conflicts within gentry families. The property of spouses was not united. The notion that the husband should be the only representative of the family in the public sphere had its limits. Finally, marriage was perceived as a public contract, and the Orthodox Church granted divorce with relative ease, even in cases of spousal misunderstandings. A married woman could usually rely on the support of her relatives, personal friendships cultivated through independent communication, and servants.
The peculiarities of the court system remain an underappreciated element in the analysis of domestic violence. A significant number of accusations mask the husbands’ relatives’ attempts to reclaim the widow’s part of the late husband’s property. The strategy was reinforced by the competitive nature of the judicial system: the verbal duel between the sides was supported by slim evidence. Therefore, the accuser often appeared in court with the intention of undermining defendants’ reputation, forcing them to negotiate, and obtaining the goals as the result of a compromise.
The article demonstrates that a new exploratory framework can shed a new light even on the most seemingly “credible” sources and the events described therein, based on the case when Prince Samuel Karol Korecki ordered the public execution of his servants Jakub Garbowski, Tyszowski and Krasowska. The primary source for the case is the lawsuit filed against Prince Korecki and his wife by Precslaw-Alexander Garbowski of the Sandomierz voyvodeship, the brother of one of the executed men. When read literally, as a veracious representation of the past, it can be interpreted as a startling example of magnates’ despotism, and as blatant disregard for the basic gentry and Christian values. However, I would like to suggest that the text should be analysed as a narrative construct that relies on the peculiarities of the judiciary system of the time: crimes were treated as the injured party’s private matter, and verdicts were built not on a thorough investigation of evidence but rather on the accepted conventions, e.g., on the rhetorical tropes. It is also worth remembering that we only have one side of the story, that of Garbowski, or rather of the plaintiff, the anonymous compiler of the lawsuit who put the rumours into the formula that appealed to the commonly held biases of the gentry.
I would like to underscore the fact that the lawsuit relies on two modes: on the one hand, it exonerates Jakub Garbowski as a loyal servant endowed with all the gentry virtues (since his misdemeanour is elided, we don’t know what the servants’ crime was), and on the other, it’s an indictment of the princely family. Koreckis are accused of denying their servants the right to have their case heard in the official court (they were executed based on the verdict of the demesne court by the judges who were never sworn in). This accusation must have evoked the notion of tyranny, of an individual trampling common law: in the public discourse of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it was one of the gravest charges. The rhetorical structure of the accusation is defined by the traditional definition of a premeditated murder, a criminal offence that could incur death penalty and the loss of honour. The accusation also noted that the crime was against Christian values. The article also offers an analysis of the description of the execution, which was meant to underscore Koreckis’ guilt.
I will then proceed to analyse the details that were only mentioned in passing because they could undermine Garbowski’s narrative, like the fact that the executed servants wrote their guilty pleas, or that the charges were based on the testimony that Krasowska gave under oath. Garbowski had to mention the facts because they were bound to come up in court. Based on circumstantial evidence, one could assume that the servants might have been accused of raping (or assaulting) Krasowska. This would explain both the severe punishment (as demanded by the laws) and the outrage of the Korecki family, since the dishonour would fall on the house where the crime was committed. However, the fact that the young woman was executed too doesn’t quite fit, so I would draw the readers’ attention to certain gender-based biases that could have led to the tragic finale.
Garbowski claimed that executing the servants without a court decree was against the law; however, the execution would only seem unlawful when viewed outside the context of gentry’s values. Meanwhile, the Second Statute of Lithuania (under the Union of Lublin, the only legislative authority in Volhynia) maintained that lords had the right to punish their servants, up to and including death penalty. The only condition was that other respected gentry should be present at such a court alongside with the lord (the Second Statute of Lithuania, ch. 3, par. 8): a condition that was satisfied in the case.
The Koreckis were sentenced to banicja (exile) and infamia for not appearing in the Tribunal when their case was to be heard. However, the judges overstepped their competence by stripping the defendants of honour, impinging upon the jurisdiction of the diet court, which dealt with such cases. The final episodes of the story played out in the diet court on December 5, 1646. The court cleared Prince Korecki of all charges (the Princess died earlier), maintaining that he “defended the honour of the gentry family,” and Garbowski was accused of defamation. However, the poena talionis was cancelled because it was noted that Garbowski’s choices were dictated by his grief for his brother.
The article also offers an account of the story from the diary of Prince Albrecht Stanislaw Radzywill, a relative of Prince Samuel Karol Korecki. While his account doesn’t differ substantially from Garbowski’s version (and it does mention the attempted rape), Radzywill’s didactic focus concerns another matter altogether. He underscores that the mighty should defend their honour; in this case, the honour was tarnished by excessive cruelty of the magnate who was needled on by the “evil advice” of a third party. As Prince Konstanty Ostrogski noted in an earlier letter, God rewards the mighty for acting graceful towards the weak because such behaviour lays foundations for a peaceful community and guarantees that the “mighty” are duly respected.
Having analyzed the rape cases and other grave misdemeanors in the gentry milieu of Volhynia, I’ve come to the conclusion that, ideally, the story should have ended in some sort of a compromuse. The guilty party should have compensated the moral losses of the Prince by acknowledging their guilt and agreeing to an act of humility, such as public apologies (penance), and the magnate should have pardoned his servants and practiced Christian merciful. It seems plausible that the participants hoped for this scenario till the very last moment, since the lawsuit mentions an attempt to delay execution. One possible reason why this didn’t happen lies in the fact that the convicted themselves, most likely unprotected by the network of family and familial relations, didn’t have representatives in court. Traditionally, as soon as condlicts grew serious, friends came into play to settle the conflicts and work out a compromise. Prince Korecki’s court apparently didn’t employ effective “crisis managers” who could have foreseen the results of the drastic measures, even if they were undertaken in defence of his honour and well within the boundaries of the law. As the result, Korecki lost his good honour because of the cruelty that was seen as excessive by the community. If the mighty didn’t act accordingly, the community, which included the weak, could withdraw its respect and trust. The case analyzed here proves that even the representatives of the most powerful strata had to uphold the conventional norms of peaceful coexistence despite overt demonstration of status (their property, offices, closeness to the court, public functions).
a more unified manner. Concomitantly, incarceration gains prominence as part of the verdicts of the familial courts as a sign of the accused submission and as a precondition for reconciling the opponents, particularly in cases when blood was shed. Alongside lengthier incarcerations, purely symbolic confi nement of several hours or days оссured. There are fixed rituals of such voluntary confinement. Therefore, incarceration marks certain early modern changes in the
gentry legal culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
This book invites the readers to take a closer look at the Ukrainian aristocracy. This introduction is done in a somewhat unusual form, through true anecdotes from the life of aristocracy gleaned from court records and other sources from the time. We get glimpses of the elites not only in their best garbs but also in their well-worn home clothes.
The book brings together 105 brief chapters that describe how these people saw themselves, how they fought and made peace, how they fell in love and got married, how unwavering they were in the defense of their rights in court, and how the judiciary functioned. Last not least, these essays explore whether the Ukrainian elites were mere extras and viewers in history or its active makers, resolute and strong in their insistence on defending and expanding their rights and freedoms. Some of these stories may surprise you; Natalia Starchenko, a historian with decades of archival experience, certainly was surprised by some of these twists. Yet the author believes that these characters, with their steadfast insistence on defending their freedom, dignity, honor and rights, are fascinating, and you might even come to love them as much as she does.
The author focuses on the emergence of the judicial narrative, describes the methodology of working with court records, and offers her own esearch strategies that can be applied when analyzing sources of this type.