 |
READING HALL THE DOORS OF WISDOM |
 |
 |
HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES |
 |
PAUL V. (1605-1621)
CHAPTER XII.
Russia
and Poland—The End of the False Demetrius— Catholic Restoration under Sigismund
III, King of Poland—The Union of the Ruthenians.
(1)
Whilst Paul V was as yet only
a Cardinal, he had to deal, as a member of the Inquisition, with the case of
Demetrius, who claimed to be the son of Ivan IV, and whose conduct gave grounds
for a hope of Russia’s return to the unity of the Church. Less cautious than
the late Clement VIII, the Polish nuncio Rangoni took
wholeheartedly the part of the new pretender, who did not stint his promises
and of whose genuineness he had no doubt. Since the day on which Demetrius had
thrown himself at the feet of Rangoni, he had won the
heart of the nuncio. Rangoni set the highest hopes on him, and followed his progress in Russia with keenest
attention. Two Jesuits, Fathers Sawicki and Czyrzowski,
who acted as chaplains in Demetrius’ army, kept him informed of the latter’s
progress, and the nuncio promptly forwarded their letters to Rome for the
information of Paul V.
Though the events in the then but little
known East of Europe greatly impressed Paul V, in this affair, as in all
else, he did not at once depart from his wonted circumspection. Not many weeks
after his election, on June 4th, 1605, the Secretary of State, Cardinal Valenti, requested the Polish nuncio to send in a report,
as complete as possible, concerning Demetrius: “the more accurate the report
is,” Valenti added to the letter in his own hand,
“the more it will please the Pope.” At the same time he also asked for a report on the attitude of the King of Poland, and on the
state of public opinion in regard to the Russian pretender.
Meanwhile events succeeded each other with bewildering
rapidity in Russia. On April 13th, 1605, Czar Boris Godunov died suddenly and his son Feodor was proclaimed his successor in
the Kremlin. Whilst the greater number of the provinces recognized Feodor, the
bulk of the army supported Demetrius who, on May 25th, began his triumphal
march upon Moscow. At the entrance of every village he
was welcomed by the inhabitants, who offered to him bread and salt, and his
progress was everywhere accompanied by the solemn pealing of church bells. On
June 10th Czar Feodor was strangled, and ten days later Demetrius made his
solemn entry into the capital of Russia, amid the acclamations of the populace.
In due time news of these events reached Rome where an
accurate report from Rangoni was anxiously awaited.
In his impatience Cardinal Valenti instructed him, on
July 16th, in cypher, to report at once what should be done in order to
strengthen the Catholic leanings which Demetrius had until then manifested, in
case the whole empire were to declare in his favour.
In view of the slowness of the means of communication,
Paul V deemed all further delay dangerous, hence, with a haste which was most
unusual with him, he gave orders, on July 12th, 1605, for a letter to be sent
to Demetrius, congratulating him on his accession to the throne and exhorting
him to hold fast to the Catholic faith.
July, 1605, was nearing its close when Rangoni’s full account under date of July 2nd, reached Rome at last. On twentyseven folio sheets all was set down that spoke in
favour of Demetrius. Every line shows how cleverly and successfully the
pretender had won Rangoni’s confidence. The early
story and the first emergence of Demetrius are described in the light of the
report which Adam Wisniowezki had at one time drawn
up for Sigismund III. The further events since 1604, Demetrius’ audience with
Sigismund III, and the conversion of the pretender to the Catholic Church, Rangoni was able to describe from personal knowledge. As
regards his account of Demetrius’ successes in Russia, he had made use of the
reports which he had received from the Jesuits who were with the army. Opinion
in Poland was described by the nuncio as far more favourable than it really was, though he could not disguise the fact that the Senate was
divided into two parties, one of which was led by Zamoisky,
an opponent of Demetrius, and the other by Zebrzydowski who favoured his cause. Sigismund’s attitude towards
Demetrius was likewise far too optimistically painted by Rangoni.
He even hinted that the king of Poland would lend military assistance to the
pretender.
At the end of the lengthy document, the nuncio
expresses once more the far too favourable opinion
which he had formed of Demetrius, and the prospect which now opened for the
union of Russia with Rome and the war against the Turks, through the new czar.
The nuncio is full of praise for the lofty character of the pretender, his
gifts, his courage, and his devotion to religion. Demetrius, the nuncio
reported, had been very gratified when he told him that, by bringing about the
reunion of Russia with the Catholic Church, he would win worldwide fame, and
that this feat would be recorded for ever by means of a painting to be placed
by the side of similar ones in the Vatican.
Rangoni’s report of July 23rd, 1605, proved decisive for the
Pope’s line of conduct. This account of a seemingly well-informed diplomat who
had been a witness of the events, but who was both too credulous and an
incorrigible optimist, led Paul to think that here was the very ideal of a Christian prince; that Demetrius would procure
for the Church and for Christendom the most splendid triumph, if he was
supported as effectively as possible. Consequently, at the beginning of August, a number of measures were taken with a view to
encouraging the pretender who seemed to justify such great expectations. Briefs
were sent to Sigismund III, to Cardinal Maciejowski,
and to the latter’s cousin George Mniszek who had
great influence with the Polish king. All these personages were exhorted to
take advantage of their influence with Demetrius in order to confirm him in his good intentions with regard to the Catholic Church. “We doubt
not,” the Pope says, “that if Demetrius perseveres in the dispositions in which
he has been up till now, he will be able to bring the Muscovites back to the
Church inasmuch as that people follows in all things
the lead of their rulers.” Inspired by his wholehearted trust in the new czar,
Paul V had also earnestly recommended to him some Carmelite missionaries who
were on their way to Persia. More than that, on August 5th there was question
of sending Rangoni’s nephew, Count Alessandro, to
Moscow, and letters accrediting him were drafted. Meanwhile Rangoni had despatched his private secretary, Luigi Pratissoli, on a confidential mission to Moscow, where, on
July 31st, 1605, Demetrius had been solemnly crowned as Czar. The letter which Pratissoli was charged to deliver to Demetrius reminded the
emperor of his promise to reunite Russia with the Church. The presents for the
czar were in keeping with the letter—they were a Latin Bible, a Crucifix, a
picture of Our Lady and a Rosary.
Rangoni’s confidence seemed justified by the cordial reception
of his nephew who reached Moscow in October, 1605. Provided
with presents, he left Moscow again on December 22nd. An intimate of the Czar,
John Buczynski, had been previously despatched to the nuncio, to negotiate two affairs which
Demetrius had very much at heart, namely the recognition of his imperial title
by the king of Poland, and a papal dispensation which would allow Marina, the
daughter of George Mniszek who had been married to
him by proxy by Cardinal Maciejowski, on November
12th, 1605, to receive Holy Communion from the hand of the schismatical patriarch on the day of her coronation, and to assist at the orthodox service.
As a matter of fact Demetrius
had already established direct diplomatic contact with the Pope who, on
September 11th, 1605, had congratulated him on his coronation and exhorted
him to bring about the reunion of Russia with the Church. The emperor’s
plenipotentiary was Andrew Lawicki, one of the two
Jesuits who had come to Moscow with the imperial army. The Jesuit, who wore the
dress of a Russian priest and had grown a beard and long hair, was the bearer
of two letters of the emperor to the Pope. In the first, dated November 30th,
1605, Demetrius unfolded a plan for a joint crusade of himself, the emperor and the king of Poland against the Turks; the other,
written in December, gave an assurance of protection for the Carmelite
missionaries for which the Pope had pleaded. Lawicki was instructed, independently of the war planned against the Turks, to press
the Pope with a view to the recognition of his imperial title by the king of
Poland and the elevation of Rangoni to the
cardinalate. On January 7th, 1606, Marina wrote a submissive letter to the
Pope, promising to help in the reunion with the Church. This assurance, and
still more so the optimistic reports of Cardinal Maciejowski and the communications of the infatuated Lawicki,
confirmed Paul V in his expectation that the Russian autocrat was about to
carry out the reunion of his empire with the Church. With a view to making the
best use of so favourable an occasion, Lawicki was sent back to Moscow from Rome on April 10th,
1606. He was the bearer of a letter of the same date, in which Paul V gives
unequivocal expression to his hopes. “Since you are all-powerful with your
people,” the Pope wrote, “command them to acknowledge the Vicar of Christ on
earth.” In the Pope’s letters to Marina’s father, and to Marina herself, he
recommended the Jesuits to them, especially Lawicki,
and exhorted them to see to it that the Protestants got no influence over
Demetrius. Lawicki’s instructions were concerned with
the war against the Turks for which the Pope promised help. For the success of
the undertaking, the Pope declared, it was greatly to be desired that Demetrius
and Sigismund should sink their differences; for the rest the Pope would do his
best to promote the prestige of the Czar. Characteristically enough, Rangoni’s cardinalate was passed over in silence. What
impression the request had made on the Pope, who was jealous of his
independence, may be gauged from the fact that on June 3rd, 1606, Rangoni was recalled from his nunciature.
Nor was there any prospect of Demetrius’s prayer for a
dispensation for his wife being granted. On that point there already existed an unfavourable decision of the Roman Inquisition, which
had been unanimously passed at a sitting of March 2nd, 1600, under the
presidency of the Pope himself. In this instance, as on a former occasion, when
there was question of Sigismund III’s coronation as king of Sweden the Holy See
refused to swerve by a hair’s breadth from Catholic principles, however great
the seeming gain might be. So the prohibition of all
participation in a nonCatholic religious service was
rigidly upheld.
Lawicki’s stay in Rome synchronized with that of Count
Alessandro Rangoni at Moscow whither he had gone in
the capacity of papal envoy. His reception, and the promises made to him, had
so completely won him over to the Czar, that he remained content with a purely
passive role instead of bringing pressure to bear on Demetrius in the matter of
reunion, as the Pope wanted him to do. Rangoni merely
noted the Czar’s demands. They were as follows : the
Pope should send to Moscow a few men who would be able to act as secretaries
and chancellors as well as experts in the art of war; he should also help the
emperor to establish relations with France and Spain and persuade the rulers of
these countries to join him in the war against the Turks. In
order to disguise these selfish ambitions, Rangoni was handed, at his departure, a submissive letter of the Czar to Paul V, dated
March 5th, 1606, in which Demetrius assured the Pope of his strong attachment
to the Pontiff and to the Catholic Church. But of any sort of promise in regard to reunion, which was after all the main point,
the letter breathed not a word.
On March 29th, 1609, Alessandro Rangoni met at Mir, near Novogrodek, the bride of the Czar,
Marina Mniszek, then on her way to Moscow. Her numerous retinue included, besides her father, five Bernardine Monks and the Jesuit Lawicki who in 1604 had received Demetrius into the
Catholic Church. The Jesuit was now to act as the emperor’s confessor,
supposing that his change of religion was the fruit of genuine conviction. The
Pope and the Jesuits, blinded by their optimistic hopes of Russia’s return to
the Church, took this for granted, for they gave unqualified credence to the
numerous favourable reports about Demetrius who
seemed to be firmly established on the throne.
In reality the situation was very different. The fresh nuptial
blessing of Marina, and her coronation on May 18th, 1606, were performed
according to the Greek rite by the schismatical patriarch. However, the imperial couple did not receive Holy Communion. Apart
from this detail, there was nothing to show for Demetrius’ oft-repeated
assurances of his devotion to the Holy See. All he sought was to exploit the
friendliness of Paul V to his own advantage, and all the time he kept putting
off the question of reunion with Rome. However, even this intercourse with the
Pope was enough to make the orthodox Muscovites exceedingly suspicious of the
czar. Not only were they shocked by the presence of the two Jesuits, they were likewise hurt by the fact that several Protestants
were in the immediate entourage of the new czar, and that Protestant as well as
Catholic services were held in the Kremlin for the benefit of the imperial
bodyguard. Discontent was further fanned by Demetrius’ marked departure from
the sacrosanct old Russian traditions in regard to dress, conduct and ceremonial. Indignation was roused in
particular by the czar’s love of music at table—a practice abhorred by
the orthodox—and by the fact that he ate beef. However, the schismatical clergy were not the only grumblers; everybody was indignant at the conduct of
the numerous Poles who had come with Marina and who behaved as if they were in
a conquered land. To this must be added the defects which Demetrius betrayed
since an unheard-of stroke of good luck had raised him to the throne of the
czars. Far superior as he was to the Russians as regards ability and culture,
he offended them not only by his boundless pride and by the impudence which led
him to taunt the nobles with their ignorance, and to exalt the merits of the
West to the disparagement of Russia, but also by his prodigality and immoral
life.
It was characteristic of Demetrius’ presumption that
he would heed no warning. Already in February the Jesuit Czyrzowski besought him to be on his guard, inasmuch as a
conspiracy was afoot among the popes and the boyars, and the people were being
roused on the pretext of various innovations. The thoughtlessness of the Czar
is shown in a conversation he had with the Jesuit Lawicki shortly before the catastrophe. The latter’s report is as follows: “Two days
before his death, the Czar sent for me. ... I found him alone in his bedroom
and congratulated him on his coming into his paternal inheritance ... The Czar
thanked me and accepted my presents. He then got out of his chair and we began to walk up and down the room. I turned the conversation to the
subject of religion and the various plans of the Czar, this being the reason
why my Superiors had sent me to Moscow ... Thereupon, Demetrius said he was
thinking of erecting a Jesuit college for the purpose of training teachers for
the future schools ... I took it on myself neither to approve nor to condemn
the project ... The Czar also spoke of his war plans. He dropped the remark
that he was as yet uncertain against whom he would
send his army of 100,000 men, whether against the Turks or against someone
else. In connection with this he expressed his indignation against the king of
Poland for refusing him his proper title. I replied that God’s Providence would
not permit such an enmity between two powerful rulers. The audience ended after
an hour, when Demetrius said he wished to visit his
mother.”
At all times autocracy and revolt have dwelt side by
side in Russia, for the Slav nature is exceedingly passionate and prone to
extremes. Demetrius also was destined to experience this in his own person. On
the morning of May 27th, 1606, a revolt broke out which had been skilfully prepared by the ambitious boyar Wassilij Schujskij. The Czar was
surprised and murdered in the Kremlin. Then the boyars rushed into the city,
calling the people to arms against the foreign “heathens” who had placed an
impostor on the throne. Nearly five hundred Poles fell victims to the popular
fury. Mniszek and the two Jesuits managed to escape
and subsequently succeeded in reaching their own country. After that day of
terror, the horribly mutilated body of Demetrius was summarily buried in
unhallowed ground. However, the ghost of the murdered man would not leave the
conspirators in peace. The corpse was dug up and burnt, then the ashes were
rammed into a cannon and blown to the four winds of heaven. The crown was
seized by Wassilij Schujskij,
the ringleader of the revolt and the representative of ancient orthodox Russia.
Even today the question of the identity of the
murdered czar cannot be considered as finally settled, though a small library
of books on the “false Demetrius” has gradually accumulated. That the man
overthrown with such suddenness had nothing in common with the son of Ivan IV
may be considered as certain. In like manner the official Russian tradition
which identified him with Gregory Otrepjew, an
escaped monk, has been almost universally abandoned. The only thing certain is
the Russian origin of the usurper. Documentary evidence has also completely
disposed of the suggestion that the whole intrigue had been engineered by the
Pope and the Jesuits. If it is asked whose creature Demetrius was, the most
credible opinion is that he was the tool of a party among the boyars hostile to Boris.
How inadequately informed Western Europe was
concerning events in Russia is shown by the contradictory account of the
catastrophe which was spread abroad. According to some, Demetrius had escaped;
according to others he was dead. The first news reached Rome at the end of August, 1606; a month later it was generally believed that
the Czar was dead. Cardinal Borghese wrote these characteristic words at the
time: “ The unhappy end of Demetrius is a fresh proof
of the instability of all things human. May God have mercy on his soul!”.
Subsequently further contradictory news arrived. Even at the end of 1607,
Simonetta, the new Polish nuncio, was assured that Demetrius was alive. The
sons of Mniszek, who came to Rome about that time,
made a similar declaration.
The death of Demetrius did not put an end to Russia’s
troubles. Civil war broke out with all its horrors. Another Demetrius arose and
advanced as far as Tula, when he was defeated and
executed. He was at once succeeded by a third adventurer who claimed to be the
real Demetrius. In these circumstances Sigismund III judged the moment had come
to settle accounts with Poland’s old enemies. He decided on war against the
Muscovites. The struggle was to be protracted until 1618. In Rome he
represented it as a crusade for the spread of the Catholic faith. Nevertheless his hopes of pecuniary assistance did not
materialize at once. Only in 1613, when Paul Wolucki,
bishop of Luzk, came to Rome with mission to do
homage to the Pope in the king’s name, did Paul V grant 40,000 scudi, on August
10th, and these were subsequently supplemented by another 20,000. The
permission to raise money for the purpose from the Polish clergy, which was
first granted on June 1st, 1612, was renewed on May 14th, 1613, and again on
March 7th, 1614. Nevertheless a real tension arose
between Paul V and Sigismund III because the Pope persisted in his refusal of
the red hat to Rangoni, a favour which the king of
Poland greatly desired.
During the struggle with Poland a new dynasty came
into power in Russia. The manifesto which, in 1613, announced to the people the
elevation to the throne of Michael Romanov, a son of a nephew of Anastasia, the
wife of Ivan IV, was full of resentment and contempt for all Latins. Although
the new sovereign saw himself forced to buy peace from Sweden in 1617, and a
year later from Poland, by ceding territory, the attempt of Sigismund III to
reduce Russia into a Polish province failed in the same way as his efforts to
recover his hereditary kingdom of Sweden proved in vain.
Russian historians exalt the maintenance of national
independence. This is both justifiable as well as comprehensible. The same
cannot be said of the way in which the separation (from Rome) was prosecuted
and enforced by the Romanovs during 300 years, for it
was only accomplished by the most blameworthy means. One look at the state of
the gigantic empire supplies the answer to the question whether it was a good
or an ill fortune for the happiness of the Russian people that it was not
permitted, as the Pope desired, to become united with the life-giving spiritual
forces of the Catholic Church.
2
At the time of the Russian troubles, serious
disturbances had also occurred in Poland which, for a time, threatened to
interfere with the progress of the Catholic restoration.
The marriage of Sigismund III with the sister of his
first wife, Constance, of the Stirian line of the
Hapsburgs, which he contracted in 1605, against the will of the diet, had
provoked great resentment in anti-Austrian circles. One section of the nobility
felt aggrieved in the matter of the distribution of lucrative offices. The
contrast between the cold Scandinavian nature of Sigismund and the mobile
character of his Polish subjects became increasingly apparent. A dangerous
political opposition arose headed by Nicholas Zebrydowski,
the Count Palatine of Cracow, with whom the Polish Protestants and the Ruthenian
schismatics allied themselves for the purpose of armed opposition. To this end
they had recourse to the so-called Rokosz, a form of
insurrection which they tried to justify by appealing to the Polish
Constitution. The attack on the king was so violent that at the diet of Warsaw, May, 1607, Sigismund saw himself forced to make a
number of concessions. The schismatics were granted liberty of worship,
whereupon they parted company with the Protestants. The diet declared the
continuation of the Rokosz to be high treason and summoned
its members to lay down their arms. The proposal was rejected and war ensued. It ended with the victory of the royal troops. In 1608 the
Count Palatine of Cracow was forced to surrender. Sigismund thereupon granted a
general amnesty. The consequences of the defeat fell, in the first instance, on
the Protestants. Owing to the vivacious temperament of the Poles, violent
collisions between Protestants and Catholics had occurred before this time.
They now became more frequent. Since the Protestants had made the cause of the
rebels their own, it was not surprising that the king refused to protect them
from the violence of their opponents.
The Papal nuncio, Rangoni,
who since the first outbreak of these internal troubles had given strong
support to the king, had been replaced in September, 1606, by Francesco Simonetta, bishop of Foligno. The
instructions of the new representative of the Holy See were to the effect that
he should keep in closest touch with the king and to cultivate good relations
with Cardinal Maciejowski, Primate and archbishop of Gnesen; with the Grand Chancellor, Matthias Pstrokonski, the Vice-Chancellor, Stanislaus Minski, with the bishop of Leslau (since 1617 bishop of Cracow), Peter Tylicki, and
with the Jesuits. He should press for the rejection of the old demands of the
Protestants which they had renewed during the late troubles. These tended to
the suppression of appeals to Rome in spiritual affairs, the withholding of the
annates from the Curia, and the curtailment of the action of the papal
representative at court and in the diet.
As regards the promotion of the Catholic restoration,
which Paul V had pursued with the greatest attention from the beginning of his
reign, the instructions contain some interesting directions.
Before all else, the nuncio should work for the
establishment everywhere of seminaries for the formation of a capable clergy,
as prescribed by the Council of Trent, and for the introduction, in
monasteries, of strict discipline. Simonetta’s attention is also directed to
the establishment in Poland of the more recent and strict Orders, such as the
Discalced Carmelites. The nuncio was to take great care that in the appointment
of bishops and parish priests, unsuitable persons should be barred. He should
encourage the king in his determination to exclude Protestants from public
offices. On queen Constance the Pope bestowed the Golden Rose. On the subject of the representation of Catholic interests
at the diet, Paul V, on May 1st, 1607, wrote specially to the archbishop of
Lemberg, John Zamoiski. On May 19th, 1607, the Pope
begged the king’s protection for the Jesuits who rendered such signal services
to the Catholics, from the attacks which, it was feared, would be made against
them at the diet.
The Pope watched with particular
satisfaction the work of Cardinal Maciejowski.
On August 3rd he praised him for his manly attitude at
the diet. In the autumn of 1607 the Cardinal held a
provincial synod at Piotrkow, which passed several
useful measures for the reform of clergy and laity. Efforts for the religious
instruction of the people were encouraged by a special Indulgence. The decrees
of the synod were confirmed by the Congregation of the Council on April 12th,
1608. In 1611, the Pope praised the zeal with which Cardinal Maciejowski strove to carry out the visitation of his
diocese of Gnesen which the Holy See had charged him
to undertake. On November 7th, 1609, the Pope had begged king Sigismund to
assist in the reform of the Polish Premonstratensians. In the following year
the Polish sovereign was honoured with the gift of a
sword blessed by the Pope.
The king of Poland rendered a distinguished service to
the Church in 1611, when, on the occasion of the
investiture of the Elector of Brandenburg, John Sigismund, with the duchy of
Prussia, he secured for the Catholics of that country better conditions than
those under which they had lived until then. The elector was made to guarantee
to them freedom of worship and the right of admission to all offices of State
and the exercise of the right of patronage. Moreover, John Sigismund bound
himself to build in a suburb of Konigsberg, within three years, and at his own
expense, a Catholic church, and presbytery, and to endow them with an annual
income of 1,000 florins. The Elector was accorded the right of presentation of
the parish priest, who was to be invested by the bishop of Ermland,
under whose jurisdiction he was placed.
Simonetta lived long enough to see these successes of
the Catholic cause; his death at Warsaw on January 19th, 1612, put a premature
end to his career. The business of the nunciature was carried on for a time by
Cesare Baroffio, Simonetta’s uditore,
until the appointment as nuncio of Lelio Ruini, of Bologna, in September, 1612. The new representative of the Holy See was instructed to look on the establishment
of seminaries ordered by Trent, and the reform of the monasteries, as his first
task. Like his predecessor, Ruini was exhorted to
cultivate good relations with the king, the pious queen, and the Polish
episcopate; especially should he do his utmost to keep alive the bishops’ zeal
for Church reform.
The excellent relations between Sigismund III and the
Holy See, which found expression on the Pope’s part in a money contribution
towards the war against Russia during Ruini’s nunciature, were only strained in some degree, by the unseasonable eagerness
with which the king demanded the red hat for Rangoni.
Paul V did not want to see candidates for this high dignity recommended by princes, hence he offered a decided opposition to the king’s
request. Francesco Diotallevi, who succeeded Ruini in the summer of 1614 was instructed to cut short all
expectation in this respect. The nuncio was likewise to decline a further
subsidy. This was done not for lack of goodwill, the Instruction stated, but
owing to the financial position of the Holy See. For the rest Diotallevi’s instructions were similar to those of his predecessors; the execution of the Tridentine decrees, especially
as regards seminaries, the nomination of good bishops and the appointment of
good parish priests were particularly emphasized. At the sittings of the diet,
the nuncio was to watch lest the slightest concession be made to the
Protestants, for even a slender concession to their insatiable appetite would
all too easily lead to the worst consequences. Among the personalities with
whom the nuncio was instructed to keep in touch the following are singled out
on this occasion; besides the king and queen, the heir to the crown, Ladislaus,
and among the bishops, Albert Baranowski, Maciejowski’s successor at Gnesen, and the bishop of Luzk, Paul Wolucki. During Diotallevi’s nunciature (1614-1621), the king’s persistent
demand of the purple for Rangoni also reacted unfavourably on the relations between Pope and king, inasmuch as for weighty reasons, Paul V was not inclined to
listen to the request. Fortunately this tension did
not affect the progress of the Catholic reform. The king’s real zeal for the
good cause was in no way diminished in consequence, so that Paul V successor
could only thank God from his heart for the change that had been wrought in
Poland.
The reports to Rome of Cosmo de Torres, Diotallevi’s immediate successor, on the state of the
Catholic Church in Poland, gave a most gratifying account of the progress of
the Catholic cause in Poland proper and in Mazuria.
In 1611 it was calculated that out of a total population of fourteen to fifteen millions, one-fourth belonged to the ancient Church.
At a later date the proportion shifted in favour of the Catholics. Catholics
were also on the increase in Lithuania. Though there were many schismatics and
Protestants there, the power of the latter was weakened owing to their having
split up into the most divers sects. In the duchy of Prussia, which was a
Polish fief, the majority of the people had adopted
partly the Lutheran, partly the Calvinist tenets, but on the occasion of a new
enfeoffment, Poland successfully insisted on the construction and upkeep of a
Catholic church at Konigsberg. The bishopric of Ermland constituted a Catholic oasis in East Prussia and the Jesuits had a flourishing
establishment at Braunsberg. At Danzig and Thorn
their action was greatly hampered by the relentless hostility of the
Protestants. Nevertheless, they were able to found a
house at Graudenz, in 1619, and missions at Marienburg (1619) and Bromberg (1621). But in Poland proper
the Society of Jesus displayed a wonderful activity. Opposition was not wanting
there either, but king Sigismund proved a powerful protector.
It was also greatly to the advantage of the Order and
the Catholic cause generally, that lucrative posts were only given to
Catholics. The higher as well as the lower nobility, who were
at all times the mainstay of Protestantism in Poland, returned to the
Church in large numbers and the seats in the Senate of Lithuania and Poland
were once more almost exclusively held by Catholics. In the royal cities
Protestant worship was being increasingly restricted; however, on the estates
of the nobles who enjoyed immunity, measures of this kind could not be applied.
The chief means for the revival and expansion of the
ancient Church in Torres’ eyes was the reform of the secular and regular
clergy, and the spread of the new religious Institutes, the Jesuits, the
Discalced Carmelites and the Capuchins. The reformed
Carmelite nuns and some nursing Brothers also came to Poland during the
pontificate of Paul V. To the Pope’s great joy Sigismund III desired also a
Capuchin foundation, but the project came to nought. Thus the Jesuits remained the main pillar of the Church and they
did great things for her increase in Poland.
The Polish Province which had grown out of the
Austrian Province in 1575, had made such progress that in 1608 it had to be
divided into two, a Polish and a Lithuanian one. A survey of the year 1616
shows that foundations had been made in almost every important town of the
realm. The number of members was no less than 795. At Cracow, the ancient city
where Poland's kings used to be crowned, they had a novitiate and a professed
house. There were colleges at Kalisz, Poznan, Thorn, Yaroslaw, Leopolis, Sandomir, Kamieniec, Lublin and Luzk;
residences were at Przemysl, Rawa, Krasrolrod and Danzig. The most important
establishment was that of Poznan. The Order would have liked to see its college
in that city erected into a university. Sigismund III was favourable,
but the university of Cracow, fearing its competition, successfully prevented a
papal approval of the project.
The heart and centre of the
Lithuanian Province was at Vilna. Already Gregory XIII had raised the college
to the dignity of a university. The Jesuits had at Vilna a novitiate and a
professed house, as well as a second house of probation at Warsaw. In 1616 the
Province of Lithuania had colleges at Pultusk, Plock, Nieéwiez, Lomza, Orsza, Polock, Smolensk, Riga and Dorpat. Braunsberg also belonged to the Province of
Lithuania.
Of the greatest importance were the flourishing
educational establishments of the Jesuits in which the sons of the nobility
were educated in a thoroughly Catholic spirit. By this means the functionaries
and the higher clergy came to be recruited from among men who were permeated
with the spirit of the Catholic reform. Only this new generation could be
depended upon to carry out the Tridentine reform decrees.
The Jesuits displayed a no less untiring activity in
the pastoral ministry. In this they confined themselves by no means to the
towns in which they had residences. On the contrary, they established missions
both far and near. They penetrated into the
Carpathians and into the Ukraine; they even extended their action beyond the
boundaries of Poland, into Silesia and Hungary. In 1615 there was even question
of founding a college at Kiew. For many provinces
where there was a marked shortage of priests, in particular
in Livonia and White Russia, these missions were of incalculable
importance.
The Jesuits’ successes in the pastoral ministry were
no less remarkable than their achievements in the educational sphere. John Argenti, who held a visitation of the Polish and Lithuanian
Provinces, was able to report to Sigismund III in 1615, that a complete change
had taken place everywhere in the religious sphere. Besides the return of many
heretics to the Church, Argenti lays stress on the
renewal of the religious spirit among Catholics, which showed itself in the
frequentation of the sacraments. This was due to the zeal with which the
Jesuits preached the word of God, not only in Polish, but likewise in German
and in Ruthenian, where this was required. The Jesuits bestowed much care on catechetical
teaching and the explanation of the elements of the faith. They also vied with
the other Orders in the care of the sick and the poor and in times of epidemics
they showed a devotion which wrung admiration even from their enemies.
In Poland also there were not wanting enemies of the
Society of Jesus. The boldness of these was seen already in 1606. Among the
many demands which the party of the Rokosz presented
to Sigismund III was this, that the Jesuits, inasmuch as they meddled with
secular and political affairs, advocated absolutism, opposed all liberal
tendencies and urged the subjects to revolt, should be removed at once from
court; all non-Polish members should be driven from the country and the houses
at Cracow, Warsaw, Sandomir, Leopolis,
Thorn, Danzig, Polock, Riga and Dorpat should be
suppressed. Thereupon, no less a personage than Peter Skarga,
the court preacher of Sigismund III, rose up to defend
his Order thus threatened and shamefully slandered. To the many services which
this splendid man rendered to the Church and to his country, he added a fresh
one by his magnificent justification of the Society of Jesus in a sermon
preached by him at Wislica, on September 17th, 1606,
in presence of the king and a number of Senators. The
demand of the Rokosz having been rejected by the king
and the Senate, Skarga was able to write to Aquaviva
that he need have no further anxiety; though their
adversaries had not laid down their arms, the position of the Jesuits in Poland
was nevertheless assured.
As a matter of fact, in December, 1606, a royal decree ordered the return of the Jesuits who had been driven from
Thorn by the Protestant council of the town. The greatness of the change which
had come about was seen at the diet of 1607, for that assembly was decisively
in favour of the Jesuits and assured the continuation of their work.
Notwithstanding all the efforts of their enemies, this decision was again
confirmed in 1609 and 1611. However, the old accusations were not silenced. As
against the assertion that the Jesuits troubled the peace of the realm, the
parish priest Caspar Cichochi showed that the roots
of all the troubles lay in the Confederation of Warsaw. Among the writings by
which the Jesuits defended themselves, a high place belongs to the report on
the state of the Order in Poland and Lithuania which the visitor, John Argenti, addressed to Sigismund III. This document, which
was first published in 1615 and disseminated in several editions, refutes in
detail the accusations against the Jesuits, especially as regards their alleged
meddling with political matters, their stirring up of revolt, and their piling
up of wealth. In his Apologia, Argenti also protests against a pamphlet circulated at first in
manuscript, and published in 1614 at Cracow, under a false date and indicating
a false place of impression. The pamphlet bore the title: “Monita Secreta Societatis Jesu—Secret Orders of the Jesuits.” He
rightly styles this document a monstrous forgery. The author was a Polish
ex-Jesuit of the name of Zahorowski, who sought to revenge
himself for his dismissal from the Society by publishing this libel. In view of the fact that many people took the satire
seriously, Gretser, at the bidding of the General, Muzio Vitelleschi, wrote a
refutation which appeared in 1618.
However, at that time the Polish Jesuits were far more
grievously affected by many gaps in their ranks caused by death, than by
forgeries and pasquinades. One after another the old pioneers died within a
short time of each other: first, in 1611, the great Possevino;
then, in 1612, Caspar Petowski and Justus Rabe. These
were followed, on September 27th of the same year, by Peter Skarga,
and in 1613 by the apostle of Lithuania, Stanislaus Grodziki and in 1615 by Martin Laski. The whole of Poland lamented the death of Skarga. In him the nation lost not only its greatest
preacher, but likewise one of its most devoted sons. The Dominican Birkowski, who preached his funeral eulogy, styled him
another Elias. As a matter of fact, in his famous sermons at the various diets,
before the king and the Polish nobles, this simple religious had exposed, with
admirable courage and rare perspicacity, the existing political and social
evils, and he predicted, should they be allowed to go on, the ruin of the
powerful State: “If you do not amend, the countries united with the kingdom
will fall away, and your realm will be conquered. No longer will you have a
king of your own blood, on the contrary, you will be driven from your own country
to become the objects of the mockery of the enemies whose slaves you vail be.”
In the exhortation to repentance, published in 1610, the “Polish Chrysostom”
sums up once more in stirring fashion the warnings he had given to his beloved
people. When, two years later, at his repeated request, he was relieved from
the office of court preacher and confessor to Sigismund III, both of which
duties he had fulfilled in exemplary fashion during twenty-four years, he retired to Cracow where he soon died at the age of
seventy-six. The memory of this man, distinguished as a preacher, a missionary,
a writer and a patriot, lives to this day in the memory of the Polish people.
His importance at a time when the Church of Poland was in great peril, is
comparable to that of Canisius in Germany and that of Coton in France.
Besides Sigismund III, whom Rubens glorifies in one of
his paintings as the conqueror of heresy, the Jesuits and the episcopate had a
substantial share in the preservation and renewal of the Catholic faith in
Poland, for in the nomination of bishops by the king, the nuncios had
successfully pressed for the choice of truly religious men. Thus when the primatial See of Gnesen became vacant
through the death, in 1608, of Cardinal Maciejowski,
it was in turn occupied by the excellent Albert Baranowski, and, at his death
in 1615, by Laurence Gembicki. The excellent bishop
of Cracow, Peter Tylicki, was succeeded, in 1616, by
Martin Szyszkowski, a man of similar character. The
following prelates were likewise known for their pastoral zeal: John Zomoiski, of Leopolis, Matthias Pstrokonski, at Przemysl until
1609, then at Wladyslawow (d. 1609), and Paul Wolucki, who laboured in the
spirit of the Catholic reform first at Kamieniec,
until 1609, then at Luzk, until 1616, and lastly at Leslau. At Luzk he founded a
Jesuit College. The bishop of Samogitia, Melchior Gedroye,
brought back to the Church almost the whole of the Lithuanian population of
that district.
The significance of the Jesuit Order as well as the
religious efflorescence in Poland, found their visible expression in the
erection of numerous churches, monasteries and
chapels. Foremost among these is the Jesuit church of SS. Peter and Paul at
Cracow, erected in 1597, by the art-loving Sigismund III. in the style of the Gesu at Rome, the magnificently gilt dome of which was
crowned with a cross in 1619.2 The construction was superintended first by the
Jesuit Giovanni Maria Bemardono, of Como, and after
his death by Giovanni Gislenio, of Rome. Specially worthy of attention are the facade of free stone
adorned with sculptures and incrusted with marble, and the beautiful forecourt
which is shut off from the street by a balustrade adorned with statues of the
twelve Apostles. The magnificent church, in which Skarga found a resting place, with its green copper domes, constitutes a
characteristic feature of the panorama of the city. In 1610 archbishop John Zamoiski laid the first stone of the Jesuit church there,
which, with the help of the Polish aristocracy and especially through the
lavish contributions of Elizabeth Gostomska-Siemiawska,
became one of the largest of the whole city. The building, probably planned by
a Jesuit, with tribunes erected over the aisles, provided room for many
thousands of worshippers. At Vilna the Jesuits began by transforming Jagiello’s church of St. John and subsequently raised a
fine tower by its side. The interior, a model of late Gothic spaciousness,
remained untouched. In addition to this—the university church— there arose
another Jesuit church, St. Casimir. It was their principal church and was built
in the new style. Soon a number of baroque churches
rose up in Vilna so that the silhouette of the town reminds one of Salzburg and
Wurzburg. The Bernardinos, who had formed a new
Congregation in 1580, erected many new churches all over Poland. All are
examples of the baroque style which, under the grey skies of the North, evoked
the azure dome of Italy’s sunlit firmament.
The care with which Paul V watched over the religious
future of Poland showed itself also in his efforts to bring about the union of
the Ruthenians with the Roman Church which had been discussed at Brest in 1596.
On May 29th, 1605, he confirmed the faculty to consecrate the Ruthenian bishops
which his predecessor had granted to Hypatius Pociej,
metropolitan of Kiew. In the letter in which Paul V
thanked Pociej for his congratulations on his
elevation to the Apostolic See, the Pope paid tribute to the Metropolitan’s
great zeal in the past and exhorts him in future also to defend, consolidate
and extend the union. Pociej’s situation was
difficult in the extreme; the schismatics were masters of Kiew,
so that he was compelled to take up residence at Vilna, and since the former
had seized the possessions of his metropolitan See, he retained his diocese of
Wladimir.
Realizing these difficulties, the Pope on June 9th,
1606, prayed the Chancellor of Lithuania, Leo Sapieha to do all he could for the metropolitan. In his Instruction, on November,
1606,5 the new nuncio Simonetta, was directed to do his utmost for the
preservation of the union and to cooperate effectively with those who sought to
remove the obstacles that stood in its way. After the death of the chief
opponent of the union, Prince Ostrozskyj, a turn for
the better seemed at hand. His son became a Catholic, introduced the Catholic
religion on his estates and founded a convent of Dominicans to provide teachers
and preachers of the faith. In 1624 Anna Ostrozska,
with whom the line died out, founded a Jesuit College at Ostrog.
Though the most powerful enemy of the union was thus
out of the way, the schismatical agitation was not at
an end. On January 6th, 1608, the Pope wrote to comfort Pociej.
The praise bestowed on that much tried man seems fully deserved, for Pociej laboured unceasingly in
the defence of the union, both by the spoken and the
written word. The obstacles which he encountered in his demand for judicial
recognition of his episcopal office were such that they explain, even if they
do not justify, the violence of many of his utterances. It was particularly
galling for him that the government for the most part gave him but slender
support and that the Polish Latin bishops kept the Uniates at arm’s length. It
was a particularly bitter disappointment to him that the promise to admit the
Ruthenian bishops into the Senate was not fulfilled, though Paul V, in 1611,
expressly recalled it to the king’s mind.
In consequence of the hostility of the schismatics, Pociej saw his loftiest intentions misjudged and suspected.
If he proceeded against the recalcitrants, they
lodged exaggerated complaints against his alleged violence. The defeat which
they suffered in 1609, in consequence of the measures taken by the king at
Vilna, they avenged by attacking and wounding the aged metropolitan in the open
street, August 12, 1609. Notwithstanding all the opposition and the dangers
which Pociej had to encounter everywhere at Kiew, at Minsk and at Leopolis,
whenever he sought to assert his authority, the gallant bishop never relaxed
his efforts for the judicial recognition of the union. When he died, July 13th,
1613, he was succeeded by his coadjutor, Wilamin Rutski, who shared his spirit.
Rutski, the scion of an old noble Ruthenian family, had been
brought up as a Calvinist but had become a Catholic whilst pursuing his studies
at Prague. He completed his education at the Greek College at Rome, under the
Jesuits, and after a period of uncertainty entered the Basilian monastery of
the Holy Trinity at Vilna, in 1609. There a small but
fervent religious family had gathered round the person of Josaphat Kuncewicz, another pupil of the Jesuits and well known for
his deep piety, stern asceticism and exhaustive knowledge of the Greek Fathers.
The monks’ work on behalf of the union drew on them so fierce a persecution on
the part of the schismatics that the Basilians of
Vilna would have been lost but for the protection of Sigismund III. In 1609 Rutski became archimandrite of the monastery. In 1614 he
entrusted the office to his friend Josaphat Kuncewicz who, in the previous year, had erected Basilian monasteries at Byten and Zyrowicz, and who spent
all his energy in forwarding the union. In view of the immense influence which
Josaphat enjoyed with the Ruthenian people, Rutski,
with the consent of the king, raised him in 1617 to the office of coadjutor
with right of succession to the nonagenarian bishop of Polozk.
On the decease of the bishop, Josaphat took up the task of reforming the sadly
neglected diocese. His activity took all forms—visitations, synods, sermons,
the composition of a catechism, with the result that at the end of three years
almost the whole population of White Russia declared itself in favour of the
union.
When Rutski came to Rome in
1615, to give an account of his work as a bishop, he gave the Pope a detailed
description of the situation of the Uniates. He explained that the chief weapon
of the schismatics was the lie that the union was directed against the
Ruthenian rite and served only as a bridge for the introduction of the Latin
rite. To cut short this calumny, at Rutski’s suggestion, Paul V published a solemn declaration, on December 10th, 1615, in
which he emphatically stated that it was not the intention of the Holy See to
alter the Ruthenian rite even in the smallest detail, still less to suppress it
or to replace it by the Latin rite. At the same time, in view of the great
distances, the Pope granted that Ruthenians might receive episcopal
consecration from Latins and Latins from Ruthenians. Moreover, the Pope provided
four burses for Uniat Ruthenians at the Greek College in Rome. However, this
was too slender a help to raise the Ruthenian clergy, whose members had sunk to
a low level, and who, owing to the absence of the law of celibacy, were far too
much involved in the affairs of everyday life.
In these circumstances, Rutski turned his attention to the ancient and venerable Basilian Order which had been
rescued from decadence and filled with fresh vitality by the new archimandrite
Josaphat. Foundations similar to those of Byten and Zyrowic were made at Krasnobrod and Grodno; the spirit which quickened the
monastery of the Holy Trinity of Vilna also penetrated into the ancient houses
of Minsk and Novgorod near Vilna. In 1616, a general noviciate for the Order was founded at Byten and placed under
the direction of two Jesuits.
In the following year Rutski convened a General Chapter at the castle of Ruta which laid down new rules, adapted to the needs of the time. A protoarchimandrite, elected for life by the members of the
Order and approved by the Metropolitan, was to govern the whole Order, appoint
or depose local Superiors, hold an annual visitation of all the monasteries and
watch over the observance of the reformed Rule. Only the bishops were bound by
the law of celibacy. Rutski decreed that henceforth
only reformed Basilians were to be raised to the
episcopal dignity. At the same time, to forestall every ambition, he made the
monks bind themselves by vow not to aspire to bishoprics. At first only eight
monasteries adopted a reform which was to prove so important for the Ruthenian
Church. Seven years later Rutski was able to inform
Rome that over twenty monasteries had joined the reform.1 For the training of
the secular clergy, he erected, with the consent of Paul V, two colleges in
connection with the Basilian monasteries of Zyrowic,
Wladimir and Borun.
All these gratifying developments, as well as the
existence of the union, were threatened, in 1620, by a storm of which Cyril Lukaris was the origin. This Cretan, who had been the evil
genius of the duke of Ostrozskyj, entertained towards
the Catholic Church and the papacy a hatred which was unsurpassed by any of his
fellow schismatics or by the Dutch Calvinists with whom he entertained
relations. With his accurate knowledge of conditions in Poland, Lukaris understood, perhaps he was the first to do so, the
significance of the question of the Cossacks as a means of conjuring up for the
kingdom a most serious danger in the political field,
as well as helping the schismatical Church, of which
he had become the head, to victory over the hated union.
In the spring of the same year, 1620, in which Cyril
reached the goal of his ambition, namely the patriarchal see of Constantinople,
the patriarch of Jerusalem, Theophanos, on his return
journey from Moscow, presented himself at Kiew as his
plenipotentiary. The enemies of the union received the high dignitary of the
oriental-schismatic Church with enthusiasm. When the astute Greek had sufficiently
prepared the ground for his plans, he took, in August, behind closed doors and
windows, a step of the utmost significance. On the ground of special powers
which he claimed to have received from the Greek Patriarch for the Ruthenian
Church, Theophanos pronounced the deposition of Rutski and all the Uniate Ruthenian bishops, replaced them
by schismatics, viz. one Metropolitan and six suffragans and assigned to them
the Sees of the deposed prelates. In taking this step Theophanos looked to the support of the Cossacks of
the Ukraine, whose hetmann, Konasevyc Sahajdacnyi, swore at the consecration of the
orthodox bishops, to guard and defend the newly erected schismatical hierarchy with the whole might of his warlike bands.
The alliance between the schismatics and the Cossacks
took place at a moment when the Sultan threatened the Polish kingdom with a
large army. As a condition of their assistance, the Cossacks demanded the
recognition of the schismatical hierarchy by the diet
which opened at Warsaw at the beginning of 1621. Besides the two archbishops, Rutski and Josaphat, who hastened in person to Warsaw, the
Papal nuncio Diotallevi also rendered signal service
in conjuring this peril. Like his predecessor Ruini, Diotallevi had been instructed to do his utmost for the
preservation of the union. Though ailing, and notwithstanding the cold of
winter, the nuncio hastened to the side of the king, the Latin bishops and the Senators, and to all he made the most
pressing representations.
Though the worst was avoided, Sigismund found himself
nevertheless in so strained a position that he could not think of proceeding
against the schismatics who had violated his royal prerogatives, as he had at
first intended. In like manner, in view of the more than lukewarm attitude of
the Senators both ecclesiastical and lay, towards the union, the importance of
which they failed to realize, the Polish king was compelled to adopt
humiliating half-measures and to defer a decision concerning the schismatical bishops. Among these were several energetic
men, such as the archimandrite of the famous Cave monastery at Kiew, Job Boretskyj, who succeeded
in winning over a large section of the Ruthenian people. Soon the union saw
itself exposed on all sides to grievous attacks which were to reach their
climax in the death as a martyr of Josaphat Kuncewicz,
the splendid archbishop of Polozk.
|
|
HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES |
|