Authors: Michał Z. Dankowski, Grzegorz Górski

The development of constitutional institutions based on democratic mechanisms led to a marked intensification of political activity, primarily among the so-called noble nation. Until the early fifteenth century, participation in political life was largely confined to narrow circles of magnates and the higher clergy. From that point onwards, however, increasingly broad strata of the emerging noble estate became politically engaged.

In the first half of the fifteenth century, the nobility succeeded in securing from successive monarchs, most notably Ladislaus Jogaila, a series of general privileges ¹ . These culminated in the Nieszawa Privilege of 1454, issued by Casimir IV Jagiellon. This negotiated act formally recognised the constitutional role of territorial assemblies (sejmiki), thereby entrusting the noble nation with a significant degree of co-responsibility for the governance of the state ² .

The territorial assemblies, which evolved from earlier provincial gatherings (wiece), became representative bodies of the nobility residing within a given voivodeship ³ . It is important to stress that the Cerekwica–Nieszawa Privileges did not grant the nobility the right to participate in sejmiki, since this right derived from much older, pre-state traditions. Rather, the monarch confirmed and substantially strengthened the political role and representative function of the nobility in the public life of the Kingdom.

A detailed examination of the institutional foundations, organisation, and constitutional evolution of the sejmiki lies beyond the scope of the present discussion. These issues have been addressed extensively in the scholarly literature, both in synthetic studies and in specialised analyses ⁴ . For the purposes of this study, however, it is essential to identify, within the broader processes shaping the development of the sejmiki, the emergence of forms of political life that may be regarded as approximating modern democracy. From this perspective, a crucial issue is the appearance of political groupings whose activity extended beyond individual sejmik sessions and beyond matters strictly limited to local concerns.

This development was closely connected with the formation of the Sejm of the Kingdom, and later the Sejm of the Commonwealth, within which, alongside the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies emerged. The latter was composed of representatives elected by individual voivodeship (territorial) sejmiki ⁵ , rendering the selection of deputies a matter of statewide political significance.

Broadly speaking, three distinct phases may be identified in this process. During the sixteenth century, a series of developments significantly accelerated the political organisation of society in the Kingdom of Poland ⁶ .

Prior to this, during the initial phase of the emergence of noble democracy ⁷ , in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the principal axis of political division lay in the divergent interests of the Kingdom’s two main provinces: Greater Poland and Lesser Poland. This constituted the earliest and most natural framework for articulating shared political interests within the noble nation, centred primarily on the preservation of provincial distinctiveness ⁸ .

A particularly important issue during the reigns of both Sigismunds was the so-called execution of the laws13. This question constituted the principal axis of political confrontation for several decades and strongly influenced the formation of more durable political groupings.

A key factor shaping the executionist movement and the associated political divide was the religious question. The spread of Protestantism among the Polish nobility in the mid-sixteenth century led to the predominance of Protestants within the faction advocating the execution of the laws. At the same time, the programme of this movement included far-reaching proposals for reforming various elements of the political and social order of the Kingdom. Opposing this faction was a political camp based primarily on the higher clergy, who formed a substantial component of the upper chamber of the Sejm – the Senate, together with a growing number of Catholic deputies. This group perceived the demands of the executionist movement as a threat that could lead to Protestant domination of the state.

Another significant factor contributing to the early formation of political factions was attitudes towards preferred alliance orientations for the Kingdom. In this sphere, a phenomenon of political corruption began to intensify at a relatively early stage. Numerous members of both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies succumbed to the temptation to accept various forms of financial inducements from foreign powers. The Habsburg dynasty pursued particularly active policies in this regard, successfully recruiting a considerable number of parliamentarians into the so-called imperial party. Less powerful, though at times influential, was the faction associated with the House of Brandenburg, which was primarily concerned with securing its succession in Ducal Prussia. This option proved especially attractive to Protestant deputies from Greater Poland and Lithuania. At various times, a French party also played a role in public life. French diplomacy consistently sought opportunities to draw the Commonwealth into its broader anti-Habsburg strategies ¹⁴ .

An additional catalyst for political division was the attitude towards royal marriages, both those of reigning monarchs and those of their offspring. There is little doubt that Queen Bona’s energetic efforts to build her own political faction exerted a profound influence on the emergence of anti-royalist opposition during the reign of Sigismund the Old. A similar dynamic can be observed in connection with the marriage of Sigismund Augustus to Barbara Radziwiłł, as well as his subsequent matrimonial choices. In much the same way, this issue played a major role in mobilising opponents of the throne during the reigns of Ladislaus IV, John II Casimir, and John Sobieski. It must be emphasised that these questions were closely intertwined with political divisions arising from rivalry between Habsburg, French, and Brandenburg interests.

Finally, and no less importantly, a further factor shaping successive compositions of the Chamber of Deputies and influencing the character of the Senate was the persistent demand for constitutional reform. In this context, particular attention focused on problems of royal succession, as well as on attempts to establish clearer formal frameworks for parliamentary procedure, especially within the Chamber of Deputies, and for defining the mutual relations of the three estates of parliament: the King, the Senate, and the Chamber of Deputies. An important strand of these debates consisted of efforts to systematise the law and to reform the judicial system and existing court procedures.

One concept that gradually emerged from these constitutional disputes and gained increasing prominence was that of absolutum dominium ¹⁵ . The defence of established liberties and privileges against perceived attempts by the throne to strengthen royal authority led to growing political polarisation within both chambers of parliament. A crucial factor reinforcing this line of division was a process observable throughout the sixteenth century in almost all European states: the progressive marginalisation of representative bodies (parliamentary assemblies) ¹⁶ in co-decision-making on matters of general state importance. This tendency ultimately resulted in the emergence of absolutist models of government across much of Europe ¹⁷ . Seen in this broader context, the anxieties expressed by Polish political circles were by no means unfounded. It should also be noted that the most significant perceived threat associated with absolutum dominium was linked to Habsburg – or more broadly, German – influence. It is striking that opponents of these absolutist tendencies readily aligned themselves with French policy and, for reasons that are not entirely clear, failed to perceive a comparable danger emanating from that direction.

Until the death of Sigismund II Augustus, these tensions gave rise to two relatively stable political camps: the court party and the anti-court party. A third grouping of comparable durability may be identified in the supporters of the execution of the laws. Each of these groupings articulated a distinct political programme, which it sought to implement by securing majority support in both chambers of the Sejm. At this stage, however, these factions possessed no permanent organisational structures, generally did not formulate written political programmes (although the executionist movement maintained a systematically revised list of demands), and were characterised, owing to a variety of factors, by considerable fluidity in their personal composition. Leadership within these camps was likewise unstable. In this sense, they may be described as largely improvised and formed on an ad hoc basis. At the same time, this distinctive flexibility facilitated the achievement, especially in moments of crisis, of the so-called “general consensus” ¹⁸ , without which effective decision-making by the estates represented in the Sejm was impossible.

The decisive turning point that dramatically intensified political life and accelerated the formation of political factions was the death of Sigismund II Augustus. As a consequence, the principle of the elective monarchy became an unquestioned constitutional foundation of the state ¹⁹ . What is particularly significant is that, already at the first election, it was established that the king would be chosen through a viritim election ²⁰ . This meant that every member of the noble nation was entitled to participate personally in the election of the monarch. Since three royal elections followed in relatively rapid succession, these events became a powerful catalyst for political polarisation.

The key factor shaping the first election and the choice of Henry of Valois was the issue of religious tolerance. The early decades of the second half of the sixteenth century witnessed decisive advances by the Catholic Reformation, while internal conflicts and doctrinal divisions within the Protestant camp significantly weakened its political position. The incorporation of the Ruthenian voivodeships into the Crown in 1569 further intensified discontent among the Orthodox population, who feared an aggressive Catholic campaign in those territories ²¹ . Disputes surrounding these issues crystallised into two principal political camps: Catholic and non-Catholic. The outcome of this confrontation was the Sandomierz Agreement ²² and, subsequently, the Warsaw Confederation ²³ . An additional factor influencing Henry’s election was the widespread conviction that Habsburg candidates embodied, on the one hand, a pronounced inclination towards absolutum dominium and, on the other, an overtly hostile attitude towards religious dissenters. It is noteworthy that those dissenters who supported Henry failed to perceive any comparable danger in his experience of operating within a political system no less centralised than that of the Habsburgs ²⁴ . Even more strikingly, they did not interpret his involvement in the violent religious conflicts in France, including the recent massacre of Protestants during the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, as a threat to their own interests.

The political alignments formed during this election survived largely unchanged until the subsequent election of Stephen Báthory. By that time, the undisputed leader of the anti-Habsburg (or “Austrian”) camp had become the hetman and chancellor Jan Zamoyski. It was Zamoyski’s energetic intervention that led to the proclamation of the Transylvanian prince, initially regarded as an unlikely candidate, as King of Poland. The political camp constructed by Zamoyski played a decisive role during the reign of King Stephen.

Following the king’s unexpected death, Jan Zamoyski undertook vigorous efforts to secure his own election to the throne. These ambitions, however, were thwarted by the prevailing political climate, which proved unfavourable both to the idea of electing a so-called “Piast” (the contemporary term for a domestic candidate) and, in particular, to Zamoyski himself. This situation brought about a profound reconfiguration of the political landscape. Zamoyski was pushed into deep political defensiveness, and his death in 1605 further accelerated the disintegration of the so-called “chancellery” faction ²⁵ .

Against this background, a major factor shaping the dynamics of political life in this period was the so-called Zborowski affair ²⁶ . As a result of the prolonged conflict between King Sigismund III and Jan Zamoyski, together with their respective political camps, a serious political crisis erupted after the chancellor’s death in the form of the Zebrzydowski rebellion ²⁷ , which proved to be a pivotal event, exerting a lasting influence on the practical functioning of political life in both the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the first half of the seventeenth century ²⁸ .

As noted above, the elections of Władysław IV and John II Casimir attracted intense interest from foreign courts, most notably those of the Habsburgs, France, Russia, and Prussia, but did not give rise to durable political factions. Instead, what emerged were temporary cliques rather than stable political formations. A leading role in shaping these groupings was played by the reigning monarchs themselves, in conjunction with a small number of increasingly powerful magnate families. The scale of external interference in the political life of the Commonwealth led, following the abdication of John II Casimir, to a pronounced tendency to favour the election of “national” Piast rulers. Nevertheless, the circles promoting, successively, the candidacies of Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, John III Sobieski, and Stanisław Leszczyński arose on an ad hoc basis and lacked any durability comparable to that of the political groupings that had existed a century earlier.

An additional factor contributing to the deterioration of political life during this period was the increasingly pathological use of the liberum veto ²⁹ . It should be noted that its entrenchment was significantly facilitated by its repeated exploitation under both John II Casimir and John III Sobieski, who, through their supporters, also resorted to the deliberate disruption of parliamentary sessions.

 ¹ These consisted of three royal acts: the Czerwińsk Privilege of 1422, the Warta Statute of 1423, and the Jedlnia–Kraków Privilege of 1430–1433. For the texts of these privileges, see: S. Kutrzeba, Historja źródeł dawnego prawa polskiego, vol. 1, Lviv– Warsaw–Kraków 1925, p. 79–82.

 ² Seeking to encourage the nobility to participate in the war against the Teutonic Order, Casimir IV Jagiellon undertook not to summon the pospolite ruszenie (noble levy), impose new taxes, or enact new laws without the consent of the territorial assemblies (sejmiki). This commitment was made to the nobility of Greater Poland at Cerekwica and to the nobility of Lesser Poland at Nieszawa. For a broader discussion of the origins of these privileges, see: M. Biskup, Trzynastoletnia wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim 1454–1466, Warsaw 1967.

 ³ On the institution of the territorial assemblies (sejmiki), see above all the synthesis by W. Kriegseisen, Sejmiki Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej w XVII i XVIII wieku, Warsaw 1991, as well as numerous monographs published over the past three decades devoted to the activity of individual assemblies. Still of fundamental importance are the classic works by A. Pawiński: Rządy sejmikowe w Polsce 1572–1795: na tle stosunków województw kujawskich, Warsaw 1888; and Sejmiki ziemskie: początek ich i rozwój aż do ustalenia się udziału posłów ziemskich w ustawodawstwie sejmu walnego 1374–1505, Warsaw 1895.

 ⁴ An extensive overview of the scholarly literature is provided, inter alia, in: R. Kozyrski, Sejmiki województw Małopolski właściwej 1572–1648 – stan badań, organizacja, specyfika sejmikowa, propozycje badawcze, “Miscellanea Historico–Iuridica” 2022, vol. 21, issue 1 https:// repozytorium.uwb.edu.pl/jspui/bitstream/11320/14756/1/MHI_21_1_R_Kozyrski_Sejmiki_wojewodztw_Malopolski.pdf [accessed on:

16.08. 2025]. Among recent works, notable examples include: R. Kozyrski, Sejmik szlachecki ziemi chełmskiej 1648–1717, Lublin 2006; A. Król, Sejmik ziem lwowskiej, przemyskiej i sanockiej w Sądowej Wiszni za panowania Wazów (1587–1668), Przemyśl 2023; K. Mazur, W stronę integracji z Koroną. Sejmiki Wołynia i Ukrainy w latach 1569–1648, Warsaw 2006; J. Stolicki, Sejmiki województw ukrainnych podczas wygnania 1648–1700, Kraków 2023; J. Ternes, Sejmik chełsmki za Wazów (1587–1668), Lublin 2004; M. Ujma, Sejmik lubelski 1572–1696, Warsaw 2003; Zwierzykowski M., Samorząd sejmikowy województw poznańskiego i kaliskiego w latach 1696–1732, Poznań 2010, as well as the somewhat earlier study by S. Achremczyk, Życie sejmikowe Prus Królewskich w latach 1647–1772, Olsztyn 1999; J. Choińska-Mika, Sejmiki mazowieckie doby Wazów, Warsaw 1998; A. Filipczak-Kocur, Sejmik sieradzki za Wazów (1587–1668), Opole 1989; Z. Naworski, Sejmik generalny Prus Królewskich 1569–1772. Organizacja i funkcjonowanie na tle zgromadzeń stanowych prowincji, Toruń 1992; S. Płaza, Sejmiki i zjazdy szlacheckie województw poznańskiego i kaliskiego. Ustrój i funkcjonowanie (1572–1632), Warsaw–Kraków 1984; S. Płaza, Sejmiki i zjazdy szlacheckie województwa sieradzkiego. Ustrój i funkcjonowanie (1572–1632), Warsaw–Kraków 1987; A.B. Zakrzewski, Sejmiki Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego XVI–XVIII w. Ustrój i funkcjonowanie: sejmik trocki, Warsaw 2000.

 ⁵ Individual voivodeships and lands customarily sent a fixed number of deputies, generally from one to six. Initially, this had little practical significance, since the Chamber adopted its positions by the consent of individual voivodeships (lands) rather than by counting individual votes. Only in the seventeenth century did the role of individual deputies increase, as a result of the pathological evolution of the institution of liberum veto. A detailed discussion of this process is provided by M.Z. Dankowski, Liberum Veto – chluba czy przekleństwo, Toruń 2019. Formally, the number of deputies amounted to 204, although in practice approximately 190 attended parliamentary sessions, as some deputies from Royal Prussia were merely titular and remained at home. Cf.: S. Ochmann- Staniszewska, Z. Staniszewski, Sejm Rzeczypospolitej za panowania Jana Kazimierza Wazy. Prawo – doktryna – praktyka, vol. 2, Wrocław 2000, p. 25–27.

 ⁶ To a lesser extent and with some delay, this process also occurred in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This situation resulted from the far greater influence exerted on political life in the Grand Duchy by powerful aristocratic families, which clearly dominated the Lithuanian nobility. Only after the Union of Lublin did a partial revival and activation of the broader Lithuanian noble estate occur; even then, however, political life in the Grand Duchy remained markedly less developed than in the Crown. Cf.: J. Bardach, Studia z ustroju i prawa Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego XIV–XVII w., Białystok 1970, p. 11–67.

 ⁷ The revival of political activity associated with the war against the Teutonic Order in 1409–1411 already transcended the previously established framework of political participation. Until that point, political processes had been shaped almost exclusively by secular and ecclesiastical magnates. In this respect, the magnate elites of Lesser Poland had exercised particularly strong influence, a situation that had persisted since the thirteenth century. The early fifteenth century, however, brought about a fundamental change. Through the growing activity of local assemblies (sejmiki), institutionally reinforced by the privileges granted by Ladislaus Jogaila and Casimir IV Jagiellon, broad segments of the emerging noble nation were drawn into co-decision-making in public affairs. Cf.: W. Kriegseisen, op. cit., p. 17–25.

 ⁸ This affected not only internal political relations, most notably the maintenance of a relative balance of influence between the elites of the two principal provinces, but also the sphere of foreign policy. It shaped divergent perceptions of external threats and differing orientations in the search for international alliances. On the origins of this division, see: G. Labuda, W sprawie pochodzenia nazw: Wielkopolska i Małopolska, “Przegląd Zachodni” 1954, no. 5–6, p. 114–119.

 ⁹ For a recent interpretation of the significance of the Nihil novi constitution, see: W. Uruszczak, “Sejm walny wszystkich państw naszych”: konstytucja Nihil novi i sejm w Radomiu w 1505 roku, Radom 2005.

 ¹⁰ It is noteworthy that, at the same time, the so-called general assemblies (sejmiki generalne), which had previously served as forums for coordinating the political positions of individual provinces, also entered a period of decline. This development constituted a significant consequence of the constitutional transformation brought about by the legislation of 1505. The sole enduring exception was the general assembly of Royal Prussia. Cf.: Z. Naworski, op. cit. In exceptional circumstances, the general assembly of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was also revived prior to the general Sejm of 1685. Cf. R. Kołodziej, Litewski sejmik generalny w Słonimiu na tle sytuacji w Rzeczypospolitej przed sejmem 1685 roku, “Res Historica” 2015, no. 40, p. 97–113.

 ¹¹ Among the extensive scholarly literature on this subject, particular attention should be drawn to the following works: S. Grzybowski, Jan Zamoyski, Warszawa 1994 and W. Sokołowski, Politycy schyłku złotego wieku. Małopolscy przywódcy szlachty i parlamentarzyści w latach 1574–1605, Warsaw 1997.

 ¹² Fiscal issues in this period are discussed, inter alia, in: A. Filipczak-Kocur, Skarb litewski za pierwszych dwóch Wazów 1587–1648, Wrocław 1994.

 ¹³ A synthetic overview of the significance of the executionist movement for the development of political life, particularly within the Crown, is provided by W. Konopczyński, Dzieje Polski Nowożytnej. Volume 1: 1506–1648, Warsaw–Kraków–Łódź–Poznań–Vilnius–Zakopane 1936. Among more recent studies, see E. Nowak-Jamróz, Naprawić Rzeczypospolitą. Postulaty szlacheckie z lat 1533–1570, Piotrków Trybunalski 2021. This work also contains an extensive bibliography on the subject.

 ¹⁴ To date, no comprehensive monograph has been devoted to the activities of political factions in the Commonwealth connected with foreign courts.. Fragmentary information on this topic may be found in studies devoted to particular sessions of the general Sejm, as well as in partial analyses of court and opposition factions operating within specific regions of the state.

 ¹⁵ Absolutum dominium was an abstract concept, encompassing in essence everything that was regarded as contrary to the apologetically construed “noble liberty”. In its initial phase, this perceived threat was identified with the model of authority exercised by the Habsburgs and, in effect, carried a strong anti-German undertone. Cf.: M.Z. Dankowski, Strach przed absolutum dominium przyczyną destabilizacji parlamentarnej Rzeczypospolitej w drugiej połowie XVII wieku, in: A. Korytko, B. Krysztopa-Czupryńska (ed.), W Rzeczypospolitej Wazów i Królów Rodaków, Warsaw 2025, p. 227–248.

 ¹⁶ The process of the “extinguishing” of representative assemblies in practice affected nearly all European states. For a broader discussion of this process, see G. Górski, Historia ustrojów państw, Warsaw 2001.

 ¹⁷ The deeper causes of these processes, reaching back to institutional solutions that emerged as early as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, are examined in an insightful study by J. Górska-Szymczak, op. cit.

 ¹⁸ At the time, deliberations in the Chamber of Deputies were dominated by the practice of “forging a consensus”, which consisted in securing an overwhelming majority in support of a given issue while marginalising small minorities. For a broader discussion, see I. Lewandowska–Malec, Sejm walny koronny Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów i jego dorobek ustawodawczy, Kraków 2009.

 ¹⁹ In fact, the elective character of the Kraków throne had already been in operation since the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Cf.: K. Baczkowski, “Panowie przyrodzeni” a elekcyjność tronu w Polsce średniowiecznej, “Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego” 2008, MCCXCI, Prace Historyczne

no. 135, p. 53-63. This principle was subsequently consolidated, although initially it was limited to elections conducted within the Piast dynasty and later the Jagiellonian dynasty. Crucially, however, the act of election remained confined to a narrow circle of the magnate elite, particularly that of Lesser Poland. A fundamental constitutional transformation occurred only after the death of Sigismund II Augustus, when the right of every free nobleman to participate in the election of the king was formally recognised.

 ²⁰ The viritim election denoted precisely this universality of active suffrage exercised by the entire nobility in the royal election. For a broader discussion, see I. Lewandowska-Malec, Wolna elekcja króla Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów, “Z Dziejów Prawa” 2019, vol. 12 (20), p. 147–162.

 ²¹ This issue had, in principle, been regulated following the incorporation of Red Ruthenia into the Kingdom of Poland by Casimir the Great in the mid-fourteenth century. Owing to his decisions, the Kingdom of Poland became, on a European scale, a unique bi-confessional state, in which two state religions were de facto accepted, alongside an unprecedented level of tolerance toward Jews. Cf.: A. Mironowicz, Kościół prawosławny w dziejach Rzeczypospolitej, “Elpis” 1999, no. 1 (14), p. 90–91.

 ²² The Sandomierz Agreement of 1570 constituted an accord among Lutherans, Calvinists, and the Bohemian Brethren. It provided for the mutual recognition of sacraments and for coordinated action against the Catholic Reformation. For a detailed analysis, see K. Długosz-Kurczabowa, Konfesja Sandomierska. Warsaw 2001.

 ²³ The Act of the Warsaw Confederation of 1573 guaranteed unconditional and perpetual peace within the Commonwealth among those “divided by religion” (dissidentes in religione), prohibited the initiation of conflict under any religious pretext, and granted the nobility the right to determine the confession of their subjects. On the significance of this act, see Konfederacja warszawska 1573 roku wielka karta polskiej tolerancji, ed. M. Korolko, J. Tazbir, Warsaw 1980.

 ²⁴ See the remarks on this issue in: G. Górski, Historia ustrojów państw…

 ²⁵ For a broader discussion, see: V. Urbaniak, Zamoyszczycy bez Zamoyskiego. Studium dekompozycji ugrupowania politycznego, Warsaw 1995.

 ²⁶ Samuel Zborowski, a member of one of the most powerful magnate families of the period, killed the nobleman Wapowski during a brawl. Owing to the involvement of King Stephen Báthory and Jan Zamoyski, he was sentenced to death, and the sentence was carried out as a result of Zamoyski’s determination. The case became the focal point of political conflict in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth during the 1580s. Cf.: S. Grzybowski, op. cit., p. 161–178.

 ²⁷ The initiator of the rebellion was Mikołaj Zebrzydowski, Voivode of Kraków, around whom opponents of King Sigismund III rallied. The rebels’ principal slogan was resistance to the aforementioned absolutum dominium. The king was accused of seeking to centralise power on a model inspired by Habsburg practices. Insightful observations on this issue may be found in: H. Wisner, Rokosz Zebrzydowskiego albo sandomierski: cezura epizod z dziejów walk politycznych początki XVII wieku, “Kwartalnik Historyczny” 1983, vol. 90, no. 3.

 ²⁸ One consequence of the Zebrzydowski rebellion was the clarification of the formal conditions governing the exercise of the right of resistance against the ruler, that is, the so-called privilege of de non praestanda oboedientia, in the constitution adopted in 1609 (VL 2, p. 462–463). This act specified the principles under which the lawful withdrawal of obedience to the reigning monarch would henceforth be permissible. Cf.: E. Opaliński, Kultura polityczna szlachty polskiej w latach 1587–1652, Warsaw 1995, p. 43 ff.

 ²⁹ A broader discussion of this issue is provided in the previously cited study by: M. Z. Dankowski, Liberum Veto – chluba czy przekleństwo.