Udział kapituły wileńskiej w życiu parlamentarnym Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w XVII wieku

LTVilniaus Kapitulos dokumentai liudija, kad jos atstovai gana reguliariai vykdavo į Abiejų Tautų Respublikos seimus, buvo siunčiami į vietinius seimelius – Lietuvos (Vilniaus) konvokacinius ir generalinius (vykdavusius Volkovyske ir Slonime). Siekiama išsiaiškinti, kiek Kapitulos narių ir kokiu juridiniu pagrindu ten būdavo siunčiami, kokia kompetencija (dalyvių ar stebėtojų) jie disponavo, kokių tikslų siekė. Pastebima, kad II Lietuvos Statutas nenumatė Vilniaus Kapitulos narių ar kitų dvasininkų atstovavimo Lietuvos seime, tačiau Vilniaus, Lucko–Bresto, Kijevo ir Žemaičių vyskupai bei ordinarai priklausė Ponų Tarybai. Vilniaus Kapitulos narių dalyvavimas buvo grindžiamas Kapitulos statutu, pagal kurį į visuotinį seimą ji galėjo siųsti 1–2 atstovus. Vilniaus Kapitulos pasiuntiniai nedalyvaudavo seimų posėdžiuose, tačiau stebėdavo jų darbą sergėdami pačios Kapitulos, vyskupijos dvasininkijos ir visos LDK Katalikų Bažnyčios interesus. Atstovai į seimą kartais būdavo išrenkami Kapitulos posėdžiuose, kartais juos paskirdavo ordinaras. Atstovai siųsti ne į visus seimus ir generalinius seimelius, o pagal poreikius. Vilniaus Kapitula siųsdavo du savo atstovus į elekcinį seimą, nors kanauninkai jame dalyvaudavo ir kaip rinkimų teise disponuojantys šlėktos. Skirtingai nuo Abiejų Tautų Respublikos seimo, kur Vilniaus Kapitulos pasiuntiniai buvo tik stebėtojai, konvokaciniuose bei šlėktų seimeliuose jie stengėsi dalyvauti kaip pilnateisiai įtakingi nariai.Reikšminiai žodžiai: Parlamentarizmo istorija; Vilniaus kapitula; Dvasininkija; Abiejų Tautų Respublika seimas; Seimeliai; 17 amžius; History of parliamentarism; Vilnius Chapter; Sejm (Diet); Sejmiks (Dietines); Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštystė (LDK; Grand Duchy of Lithuania; GDL); Katalikų bažnyčios istorija Lietuvoje; 17th century; Parlamentarizmo istorija Lietuvoje; History of GDL; History of Catholic Church in Lithuania; History of parliamentarism in Lithuania.

ENThe acts of the Vilnius Chapter clearly indicate that its representatives were systematically sent to the Sejms (diets) of the Commonwealth, provincial conventions called Lithuanian (Vilnius) convocations and general assemblies, and finally, general dietines at Volkovysk and Slonim. My рифове, in this situation, is to ascertain the legal basis on which the Vilnius Chapter sent its representation to those parliamentary assemblies, since when, in which capacity (as participants or observers), to which ends, how numerous, how selected, with what powers and liabilities, at whose expense, and finally, how it achieved its goals and how it was accounted for their achievements. The literature on the subject of the Chapter participation in parliamentarism of the Commonwealth is very sparse and is insufficient for the needs of research into the phenomenon of the clergy participation in the public life of the country; in any case, it pertains mainly to the relationship within the Crown. Whereas we know almost nothing about the participation of Lithuanian clergy, since there are not preserved the archives (except for the Vilnius and Lutsk) of their Chapters (of the Samogitia and Smolensk) or they were not researched into from this particular angle (of the Vilnius and Lutsk ones). Of crucial interest would be thus examination what caused the clergy to participate in the country's public life (the Reformation progress, a natural need to present own requirements, to defend own interests). Did the clergy limit their interest only to diets, provincial assemblies and general dietines?.Or did they pursue a special policy towards the district dietines (and which ones)? Was it constant, this interest in assemblies, conventions, or dietines, or was it short-term? Since formally the clergy had no official representation in the Sejm of the Commonwealth, what did the participation of their representatives in the Sejm sessions consist in? What was the role played by the clergy in Lithuanian provincial assemblies and dietines, given that we see their signatures under these acts. How this participation was seen by the noble society? And finally, how the effectiveness of the clergy's activity could be estimated? And was the Vilnius Chapter an exception in Lithuania or was it one of several Chapters trying more or less actively to influence the political life of the country within the existing legal frames? The second problem of my special interest is the role played by the Vilnius Chapter in culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Since in theory it was a powerful community of educated people (literate ones), in the nature of things Chapters must have been a crucial element of developing culture, must have influenced its reception and transmission. To which extent, however, the Vilnius Chapter in the analysed period played intentionally this role, and to which it was accidental and Unknowingly? What were the main domains of the creative role played by the Chapter in shaping the culture?. [From the publication]

• Clergymen on the move: journeys by Vilnan canons and prelates in the 16th century / Wioletta Pawlikowska-Butterwick. Acta historica universitatis Klaipedensis. 2014, t. 29, p. 75-97.
• Parliamentarism of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Fourteenth-Eighteenth centuries / Andrzej Rachuba. Przegląd Sejmowy. 2021, 6 (167), p. 43-83.
• The Bishops of the Diocese of Vilnius and Lithuanian domestic politics in 1709-17: attitudes, problems, and solutions / Mindaugas Šapoka. Acta Poloniae historica. 2022, 125, p. 179-206.