THE NOBLE DEMOCRACY 269noble squadrons of Red Ruthenia were withheld from the campaign against the
Swedes because they were still in action against rebellious bands of mercenaries
in their own province. In private cases, however, the nobility were most reluctant
to act. Once, when the Starosta of Sanok called on his neighbours to apprehend
Olbracht Grochowski of Dynow, for tax evasion, only one man reported for ser-
vice: that man was Jerzy Ossolinski, Chancellor of the Crown.
Private wars persisted right until the end of the Republic. In most cases they
were purely local vendettas, caused, as Lozinski puts it, by amor et demon.
Tartar raids, unpaid soldiery, brigandage, and unloving neighbours were as
common as the four seasons, and everyone took precautions against them in his
own way. In the unruly south, there was a regular pool of professional mobsters
who hired themselves out to needy noblemen. Yet in a few cases, the wars took
on the character of major campaigns. The conflict in the early 1700s in Lithuania
between the so-called 'Republicans' and the Sapieha, formed an important side-
line of the Great Northern War.
In the course of the Middle Ages, the szlachta had developed a ritualized pro-
cedure for conducting their vendettas. A nobleman who felt aggrieved would
write out a challenge in which he detailed the slights he had suffered and his
terms for satisfaction. This 'challenge' — in Polish odpowiedz; in German,
Absage; in Latin, litterae diffidationis — was equivalent to a declaration of pri-
vate war. It would usually state its author's intention to execute summary just-
ice on whoever it was that had given offence, to burn down his house and crops,
and not to rest until one or the other were dead. It was deposited in the district
court, to be delivered by the usher. After that, providing the stated justifications
were judged to be genuine, all action taken was perfectly legal. The neighbour-
hood put up its shutters whilst the contestants and their retainers did battle with
fire and sword until a decisive result was obtained. Unfortunately, the nobleman
who observed established procedures diminished the chances of success by giv-
ing due warning of his intentions. In consequence, the formal challenge was
often neglected in favour of a surprise attack or midnight raid. For practical pur-
poses, there was little advantage in having the law on one's side.
When public order was threatened, however, the royal courts were empow-
ered to exact sureties against a citizen's peaceful conduct. The level of the
surety, or vadium regalium, was fixed in accordance with the status of the
prospective disturbers of the peace and with the scale of their suspected opera-
tions. Any subsequent transgression led automatically to the forfeiture of all
payments made. But it made little difference to established habits and traditions.
No one of influence in the Republic was able to promote appropriate legal
reforms. The magnates with their large armies were safe enough; the lesser
noblemen were either dependent on the magnates' favours, or unwilling to
envisage the growth of royal judicial power. All were required to defend them-
selves as best they could.
Stanislaw Stadnicki (c. 1560-1616), the 'Devil of Lancut', was an archetypal
figure of the Anarchy, at once a notorious gangster and yet at the same time one