LUDWIG VON PASTOR'S

HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES

VOLUMES XXV & XXVI . 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.

 

 

CHAPTER XIII.

Relations of Paul V with the Emperors Rudolph II, Matthias and Ferdinand II—Good Results of the Catholic Restoration in Germany—The Bohemian Revolution and the Beginning of the Thirty Years War.