In primitive Poland, when the organization of the noble state was not yet established, it appeared that the knightly state would be tripartite (that it would consist of three hierarchical layers).
Traces of this exist in the legislation of King Casimir the Great, as well as in numerous archival monuments:
i) the upper layer: nobility, miles famosus, generally nobilis;
ii) the middle layer: rulers, scartabelli (in the original meaning very different from the later institution of scartabellate) sometimes in the acts “squizio” (in dialect “ścierciałka” etc.) corresponding to the French escuyer, English squire, later esquire, not possessing hereditary coats of arms;
iii) the lower layer: Panosza (familiaris, minister, ministerialis corresponding to the Czech armiger, scitoncse),.
The 15th century brought the leveling of nobility. The lower layers merged partly with the upper, partly with the peasants. In principle, in law, only the highest layer remained, the equal nobility, not allowing any degrees, titles, badges or orders – the “democracy” of the nobility.
Life, custom, practice – in different historical periods in various ways – however, violate this fundamental principle of equality of the noble state against the laws
and constitutions. This is already marked in the titles used by the royal chancellery:
. nobleman in general, nobilis, generosus – is a land official,,
. magnificus – is a senator (magnate),
. illustris – from a princely family.
In public law, four states were supposedly recognized: nobility, burghers, peasants, and the clergy. According to participation in state power, three: royal, senatorial, knightly. These two states – senatorial and knightly (noble) divide the noble state into two layers. In reality, however, the tripartite division of the indivisible noble state remains, not consolidated by any written law – “a nobleman on a farm equal to a voivode” – namely:
i) at the forefront are the Lords (originally comites, barones regni) senators magnates, dynastic princes – kniaz. De iure (except for the kniaz) there is nothing hereditary in this. De facto – inheritance is certain and established here.
ii) the knightly state in general, four-coat of arms nobility (by father and three grandmothers), bene nati et possessionati, landowners. Finally, the carmazins, as it is determined by nothing else but the antiquity of the family.
iii) small nobility, petty nobility, szaraczkowa; here also belong those “odardi et golota” (ragged and rabble), which the acts often mention.
Besides these fundamental layers, there is the new nobility, scartabelli, newly ennobled, adopted into coats of arms, sons of burghers, various newcomers, upstarts from Armenians etc. Basically, only in the third generation could they enjoy the full rights of nobility.
But in reality, they hastened the end of this transitional stage with gold.
The custom of titling was proper to all branches of the nobility. Addressing each other in the old patronymic mode, preserved in Ruthenia and Russia, was abandoned in Poland; addressing by surname with “ski” was considered diminishing, almost an insult. Every nobleman, even with some achievement, quickly acquired some title, associated with some office, even the lowest, and was thus titled, and his children inherited this title in patronymic form.
When the Commonwealth fell and with it the offices and their titles, the position of title-seekers among the nobility became unbearable. Especially when after three generations even the titles resulting from former offices, used patronymically (castellan, castellan’s son, castellan’s daughter) expired. This gave one of the incentives for the spread of efforts for hereditary titles – mostly “counts” – and their legalization by that government, even if occupying, under which after the partitions one was forced to live.
In Polish medieval practice of Polish chancellery, the “honored” title PAN corresponded to the Latin comes. Not as a title but as an honor. It was said and written comes palatinus meaning Pan Voivode. However, the group within the knightly-noble state highest (corresponding to the Western European higher nobility and in reality higher than it, because possessing like the entire Polish nobility – “Reichsunmittelbarkeit” – directness in governance. These are the barons, barones regni. In no case is this a baronial title, belonging to individuals or individual families, but a name, definition, collective concept, to which the lords belonged and which they constituted. The baron title in the later meaning arose much later, first as a feudal title, and then as one of the degrees of “Briefadlu”.
Joachim Lelewel writes [1]: “…..the name comites became an honor only of office, like lord, more common. Comes castellanus was Lord castellan. Comes without the addition of their official name (i.e., without specifying the name of the office) meant a lord, an official, whose office was not mentioned; or also a lord, a family member, whose dignitaries – ancestors paved the way to dignity for him”.
About the barons he says: “those ruling dignitaries and notable ones the Circle took the name of barons ….. each of the counselors individually was not a baron, and only three centuries later (i.e., around 1500) sometimes this baron title began to be added to individual persons, because the baron title meant a collection of counselors or decision-makers, or a class capable of advising, that is, the council lords: it was a collective title of the deliberative body”.
Closer to our times, Julian Blesiczyński, an outstanding expert in heraldry, based on a thorough analysis of the Wiślicki statute (1347) claims: “that barons were called voivodes, starosts, generals of lands, castellans, chamberlains, judges, vice-judges, and sometimes standard-bearers”.
Barons were therefore dignitaries endowed with the right of jurisdiction, “who could represent the person of the king”. That bishops belonged to the highest barons of the kingdom (state) is not to be mentioned: they not only possessed the right of jurisdiction but were indeed “princes of the church”. Writers of the 15th century, speaking of the same persons, alternately write “dignitaries” and “barones”. The word baron (and derived from it baronet) etymologically derives from the German Bannerherr (French banneret), which corresponds to the Polish “banner lords”, who without any doubt should be included in the class of barons as the highest dignitaries in the knightly state, possessing the fullness of knightly rights (plenum jus militare), and hence also the right of jurisdiction on their own territory.
After establishing all this, we can state that in the Middle Ages an individual belonging to the class of barons was a lord or comes, emphasizing that it is not about a title here, based on the possession of some feudal district or county, nor about a title per rescriptum principis, but solely about “définition d’état”.
Translating this into contemporary language, the only equivalent is count; belonging to the highest category of the noble state, to the category of “lords” (speaking in old terms) cannot be expressed in contemporary speech with the addition of the word “lord” even with a capital “P”.
In Russian legislation, there was a similar concept of “natural princes”: when legitimizing them, it was not required to present a grant diploma. This mainly related to Georgian, Tatar princes, etc., but was (rarely) applied per extansionem in other cases. Similarly, the families of Livonian (Baltic) barons were treated.
About the Grocholski Count Title
In pre-partition Poland, the Grocholski did not possess the count title. Their ancestors in the Middle Ages were banner lords (the family banner of Syrokomlów at Grunwald, Koronowo etc.), one of them Jasko was a vice-judge and then a judge of the Kraków Land (†1361). His son, Zaklika (†1379) is called in the acts “nobilis miles dominus”, his son was the starost of Sandomierz (†1420) and the last one’s cousin, was the bishop of Płock (†1425). All of them and the entire family of Syrokomlów belong to the class “Barones Regni Poloniae”, as Jan Długosz testifies in his “Clenodia seu Insignia”.
The Grocholski, our direct ancestors in a straight line, until the end of the 16th century inherit in Grocholicach, Grabowie, Strykowicach etc., then throughout the 17th century and the first 1/4 of the 18th century, although they do not possess hereditary land, they nevertheless sit on significant pledges and rule lands on the ordinance law, which for the concept of “possessionatus” suffices, all are four-coat of arms nobility, and thus all bene nati et possessionatii – Lord Judge -Regimentarz (1705-1768) already firmly settles on hereditary lands (this happened before, but shorter and weaker) and holds a serious office. His elder son (Marcin 1727-1807) gets a seat in the Senate and introduces the whole family into the ranks of senatorial families, admittedly shortly before the end of the Commonwealth, but undeniably. The younger (Franciszek-Xawery 1730-1792) distinguishes himself with a Crown dignitary. They possess fortune and not a small fortune, they stand out above the average land-nobility level.
Even before the fall of the Commonwealth, and outside its borders, the Grocholski began to be called “counts”. When discussing the issue of navigation on the Dnieper and the Black Sea, Patiomkin (1782-84) titles the plenipotentiary of King Stanisław August, the then castellan of Bracław, Marcin Grocholski, as “count”. The titling of the descendants of P. Voivode and his brother P. Sword-bearer as counts and over time earls, is accepted without difficulty and as if automatically: it is understood by itself. In the “statistics of the Podolsk province” from 1825 its author, Marczyński, also does this. And this custom is established, although having no official sanction.
Efforts to legalize the hereditary count title in the Russian state were started in the forties by P. marshal Adolf Grocholski (1797-1863), major of the W.P. but only the relations established in St. Petersburg by the sons of Mr. Henryk from Pietniczan obtained the given legalization, whereupon the formal basis of the Russian State Council accepted the alleged grant of the Hungarian and Czech hereditary count title to the ancestor from our Family Tree Piotr (†1459), which is notoriously inconsistent with reality, but with the signature of the Tsar-autocrat was recognized as a fact for Russia.
Given that all our documents in the years 1917-20 and 1939-45 were destroyed, I provide here an excerpt from the Russian statistical book concerning the matter of the count title of the Grocholski: “Titled families of the Russian Empire, Siergiej Wasyljewicz, St. Petersburg 1910:
An attempt at a detailed list of all titled Russian noble families with an indication of the origin of each family and the time of receiving the title