The Reaction of the Sejmiks of Kyiv, Bratslav, and Chernihiv Voivodeships to the Pacification Initiatives of August II (1698–1699)

Abstract

The article reveals an aspect of the history of the sejmiks of Kyiv, Bratslav, and Chernihiv voivodeships in exile during the early reign of August II in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in the years of 1698–1699. This was when two pacification Sejms were convened when the new king tried to calm the civil confrontation in the country after the split election in the time of the Interregnum after Jan III Sobieski died. In 1698–1699, all three exile sejmiks were held in Volodymyr in the Volyn Voivodeship. Based on the sejmik acts study, it was found that the moderate royalist political position characterized all three exile sejmiks. The sejmiks of the Kyiv and Bratslav voivodeships were driven to do so by problems in their domains with the Cossacks of the Right Bank Ukraine, as well as by the opportunity to join the royal benefits at the time of the king's efforts to gain the favor of the nobility. The sejmik of the Chernihiv Voivodeship, which was non-territorial, demonstrated symmetrical political activity for the benefits achieving, generally focusing on compensation for their estate losses. The last one sejmik also implemented support to the Lithuanian republican nobility's efforts of granting the Coaequatio Iurium approval by the Sejm. The study also reveals that the Kyiv and Bratslav sejmiks were partly encouraged by the king's initiative to wage war against the Ottomans in 1698, but they completely joyfully welcomed the news of the signing of peace with Porta in 1699 and the return of previously lost lands to the Commonwealth. The loyalty of the exile sejmiks to the king did not prevent them from criticizing the royal authorities and making proposals for governance and improvement of treasury and military affairs. One of the main objects of criticism of the sejmiks was the foreign Saxon army that the king brought with him to the country on the eve of his coronation. They also criticized the king's methods of governance, which the nobility considered inconsistent with the established political regionalism and autonomy of local rights and law.