Article
Patriotism in the Counter-Reformation
Added: 2017-10-30
Added: 2017-10-30
Patriotyzm w okresie kontrreformacji

Text from the collective work: Patriotyzm Polaków, OMP, Kraków 2006.

 

I am not entirely convinced whether the term “patriotism” can be used to describe early Poles’ attitude towards their community. It is quite a complex topic, especially since patriotism, as a term denoting the love of one’s country, did not appear in the Polish language until the 18th century and, therefore, cannot be relied upon when we ponder the attitude of Sarmatist nobility towards the Polish Commonwealth (its land, institutions, authorities and people).

In fact, even the items listed between parentheses in the preceding sentence are quite controversial. We need to think about what exactly we mean when we ask our forefathers about their attitudes towards what we would today call the “homeland”. We cannot even be sure what range of significance the term “homeland” had for them. Was it the land of their fathers? Or did it also denote a different dimension, one much closer to our own understanding of the term[1]? Even if it did include the meaning we are most interested in, we cannot be certain whether that was always the case or whether the contemporary meaning of the word became standard usage at a specific point in time.

However, although this problem is more than a lexical conundrum only, it can be solved: the times of the Polish Commonwealth were marked by the widespread use of Latin. References to Latin immediately lead us to the essential terminological meaning of the term: the Latin word “patria” and the related term denoting citizens’ attitude to their community: “amor patriae”. “Love of the homeland”, i.e. amor patriae, seems to be a key reference in the Latin language, suggesting the existence of the notion of patriotism.

One of the meanings of amor patriae denotes people’s attitude towards their community. Love of the homeland evokes a set of emotions and intellectual reflections which later came to be known as patriotism. Therefore, in this article, I will focus on those dimensions of the love of the homeland – the dimensions which I, as a literary historian, am able to detect in the works written in the Counter-Reformation period.

The initial assumption itself is important: if a scholar’s work refers to the literary creations of a classic period in European culture, endowed with strong aesthetic conventions, he should be aware that any opinions expressed about the reasoning featured in such writings should be strictly filtered through the prism of historical genology (historical poetics). In other words: the studied phenomena are reflected not only in the ideological sphere, but also in the history of literary genres. Therefore, references to the love of the homeland (i.e. to the obligation to sacrifice one’s life to protect freedom) expressed, e.g. in an epos, may not only be an emanation of the patriotic feelings of the author and his contemporaries, but they may also have an important conventional significance: such feelings are what the literary convention calls for and they cannot safely be interpreted as an original manifestation of such feelings or as a reference to historical circumstances. A piece of writing which fully confirms this essential difficulty is, for instance, Gofred abo Jeruzalem wyzwolona (1618) by Tass-Kochanowski, which was an extremely formative work for Polish 18th century epic poetry. The unusual process of Polonization of the Italian original, which is virtually unrecognizable in the text, can be detected not so much in Piotr Kochanowski’s linguistic panache, as in the epic convention. It seems that convention, referring to the historical context, created the right dimensions of “amor patriae”, as it provided ready-made clichés of military patriotic ecstasy, which hardly differed at all from the same embodiments of such topoi in the works by Homer or in texts penned by Virgil. In conclusion: one must proceed with caution as regards old Polish literature, if one seeks to use it to analyse the state of awareness of an auditorium consisting of old Polish nobility.

However, leaving this remark where it belongs, i.e. on the side, let us again attempt to analyse the complex dimensions of the notion of “amor patriae”. I have found (without claiming to have found all that there was to find), at least three expressions of this love, or the practice of nobility’s patriotism: the convention created by Cicero’s “somnium Scypionis”, the one created by usage, i.e. the patria as a set of institutions to which a person dedicated to their country is subject and which constitute a framework for their existence, and finally the dimension which is easiest to capture: the verbalization of lofty feelings towards one’s community through an emotional relationship with everything that constitutes the land of one’s forefathers.

I dare say that the Commonwealth grows out of and becomes rooted in the third fundamental dimension of “patriotism”.

 

The Dream of Scipio tradition

 

The most famous and, at the same time, the artistically fullest manifestation of Cicero’s formula is Song II,12 by Jan Kochanowski with the famous phrases:

“But one who has pledged his services to his commonwealth

Will not need to worry about suffering any harm;

/.../

And if the road to heaven is open to anybody,

It is open to those who serve their country”.

It is one of those texts in the limited but artistically perfect body of work by Jan of Czarnolas, where the poet focuses on virtue and its relationship with the earthly “vanity fair”. This is probably not the best place to demonstrate the stoic nature of Kochanowski’s reflection, but it is worth making some related comments. In the Song, the poet establishes the position of virtue (in contrast to its shadow, i.e. “envy”), which is antagonistic towards the mundane reality; but he also presents a clear hierarchy of virtue, identifying civic virtue as the highest level of virtutis, or indeed, the topmost degree of virtue. In Cicero’s partially lost dialogue De republica, we find an apotheosis of virtue. Scipio dreams of a place where civic virtue is rewarded and fulfilled in the form of a carefree life in heaven:

“...all men who have saved or benefitted their native land, or have enhanced its power, are assigned a special place in heaven, where they may enjoy a life of eternal bliss, for the supreme God who rules the entire universe finds nothing more pleasing than the societies and groups of men, united by law and right, which are called states. The rulers or saviours of states set forth from that place and to that place return”[2].

Echoes of the lively debate about nobility’s virtue, its origin and significance, which was being held throughout the period of old Poland, reverberate across virtually all works by the most important writers of the time: from Mikołaj Sęp Szarzyński, through Piotr Skarga, to Szymon Starowolski and Wacław Potocki. The debate did not have a clear worldview-defining nature (in principle, all of its participants agreed with each other and addressed the topic of civic virtue without discussing other notions); rather than that, it aimed to remind the nobility about a set of fundamental notions[3].

One of the dimensions of civic virtue was the military engagement underlying amoris patriae, which was especially clear in old Polish epic poetry (from Gofred, through Obleżenie Jasnej Góry Częstochowskiej, to Wojna Chocimska by Potocki). Especially in the Sarmatist period, the later in the 16th and 17th centuries you look, the more militaristic the model becomes: the Sarmatist model of knighthood is an essential representation of that trend. Enriched by the vision of the Commonwealth’s foreign policy as the antemurale christianitatis, it will become a fundamental demonstration of the nobility’s virtutis. Military virtue, although I will not attempt to prove this theory in great detail here, will overshadow the civic dimension of virtue (understood as participation in state governance) with respect to “external” engagement. The “protection of the homeland”, emphasized by both Cicero and Kochanowski, will increasingly become synonymous with protecting it while wielding a weapon in hand, rather than with protecting its rights and principles of governance. However, paradoxically, the classical idea of civic virtue as the virtue of protecting state values can be used to define the essential causes of the political conservatism of Sarmatist nobility; after all, those who defended their golden freedoms resorting to apocalyptic predictions or those who prophesized the advent of the night of absolutum dominium for the Polish Kingdom, could do that by referring to Cicero’s “protection of the homeland” - the protection of its accomplishments and government institutions.

It is worth noting that, understood in this way, civic virtue will enable us to explain the process of 16th century co-creation of the governance of the Commonwealth at the time of the executionist movement and the first free election, and in the period of political stagnation after the Swiss deluge. The notion of civic virtue was broad enough to enable the nobility in both the 16th and 17th century to identify with it. The nobility could easily refer to Cicero’s somnium scypionis as a rule defining its public existence.

 

Institutional tradition

 

This tradition is expressed in various texts created in the period. These include narratives which seem free from ideological dominance, as instead of ideological references to amor patriae, they focus on the pragmatic dimension of functioning within the nobility’s polis. This tradition can otherwise be defined as an existential dimension of the nobility’s functioning within state institutions.

This way of thinking may be inferred from many completely different texts. It is worth mentioning, for instance, the intriguing anti-barbaric speeches by Stanisław Orzechowski (1548) and Piotr Skarga’s addresses against the Warsaw Confederation (late 16th century). The persuasive and polemic nature of those contributions clearly seems important. It suggests the manner in which the texts should be read: as an ideological manifestation relying on the values appreciated and accepted by the audience, and therefore touched upon by the speaker. Unveiling the ideological content of the text may be one goal of such an interpretation, while another might be to show certain persuasive gestures, which stem from a certain scale of values accepted by the audience and evoked by the speaker. Hence, I treat those persuasive texts as tools which provide us with insights about the audience’s state of mind at a particular time in history.

The anti-barbaric speeches (Oratio ad equites Maioris Poloniae... and Ad equites Poloni oratio secunda) by Stanisław Orzechowski – also referred to by Tadeusz Sinko as “vulgar pasquinades” – reveal the essential hierarchy of the patriotic values upheld by 16th century nobility. These include: a strong sense of national community, as well as a model of the discourse of virtue so dramatically emphasized by the writer, which is supposed to determine the unique nature of the Commonwealth’s political system. Of course, both of these are used by the author to discourage the nobility of Wielkopolska (in the first speech) or the nobility as a social class (in the second speech) from impeaching King Sigismund Augustus. However, the precise reasoning goes as follows: civic freedom is an essential characteristic of Polish discourse and it can only be practiced on the basis of virtue, clean conscience, and a certain moral transparency of state institutions. Through his improper marriage, the king has tainted this purity and now everything else is going down in flames. The nobility is losing its moral authority and when this moral power is lost, so is freedom.

The Commonwealth’s offices and public institutions are a school of mimetism for its citizens. In such a system, the position of the ruler is much more central than that of all other crown servants. Orzechowski claims that civil servants’ actions are taken into consideration and have meaning not only for themselves but also considering “the Republic, which they administer, enrich and embellish with their outstanding virtues, wisdom and purity”[4]. If civil servants (and especially the top “civil servant” wearing the crown) violate the standard principles of social conduct (virtue, principles of morality or purity of action), the state descends into chaos. This, in turn, compels citizens to react in one of two ways: they must either explain the ruler’s behaviour, trying to justify his misdemeanours, gloss over or overlook the things he has done, or revolt. Both of these reactions have dire consequences for the state.

If misconduct in office causes moral chaos (by way of social mimesis), attempts to conceal and excuse the misdemeanours lead to a distortion of reality and, as a consequence, to the limitation of freedom. This way of thinking calls for a more in-depth analysis. An offence committed by the king has an impact on the freedom of expression of his subjects, restraining the vigorous public discourse of the nobility and taking away the energy associated with virtue and the clear comprehension of reality, undistorted by the need to “shield” the ruler. In his way of thinking, Orzechowski very strongly links the notion of freedom of speech with practicing virtue in the political life of the state. Any disturbance to the discourse of virtue in public life deprives the nobility of their identity. Therefore, they lose their essential position, also as regards external threats: the need to “conceal” the king’s offence weakens the nobility, stripping them of their fundamental safe heaven: the rei-verbae conformity.

Of course, these aspects can be seen in a persuasive, rather than in a descriptive text. However, the importance of the moral discourse for the state model of the Commonwealth has been touched upon by Claude Backvis in his excellent study entitled Les thémes majeurs de la pensée politique polonaise au XVIe siécle. The author analyses texts by writers such as Zaborowski, Orzechowski or Modrzewski and points out the predominance of the moral and ethical (or spiritual) dimension over the pragmatic political interests or even success. In the writings by these authors, it is not territorial conquest that determines whether the state is successful. The yardstick of success for the civic community is its moral higher ground, the practice of virtue and the self-improvement of the citizens. Backvis writes: “The goal pursued by the state is the goal assumed in advance by the social contract hypothesis [...]; in a state which pursues this goal, power may not be sought at the expense of justice and a state of this kind must definitely sacrifice external politics in favour of internal politics”. He then continues: “the purpose of the state’s existence is to ensure freedom because only while being free can one debate the measures able to ensure ‘justice’ in the ever-developing society”.

Orzechowski’s persuasive comments fit perfectly within this model. Yet another, possibly more pragmatic, context for the protection of the institutions of the nobility-based system can be found in the anti-tolerant works by Piotr Skarga. In Upominanie do Ewanjelików (1592), Proces konfederacyje (1595) and in Dyskurs na konfederacyją (1615), we find a description (albeit a rhetorical, i.e. a biased one) of the threat posed to the Commonwealth by “sedition”, an interplay of vested interests and forgetting about the common good. The abovementioned texts evoke a discourse about the rule of law, safeguarded by the state’s political institutions, and hence, despite the natural tendency to antagonize, they paradoxically reinforce the political structure of the Kingdom, despite essential discord or even fundamental conflicts over principles. These structures, as intended by Skarga, constitute the essential plane of reference in the dispute and fulfil the basic stabilization function for the state.

The question posed by Skarga is a question about the limits of the worldview-related dispute within state structures. In general terms, the writer described two opposing models of ideological discourse: one, which needs to be called reformative, as suggested by the author himself, which destabilizes the state structure and creates inequality between the parties to the dispute. Having established the Confederation, the dissident leaders invoke religious unrest (which, as Skarga believes, is frowned upon by the law of the Commonwealth) and use statutes to achieve a dominant position in the religious dispute. They present themselves as the injured party and charge their opponents, invoking a legal act which they themselves adopted, with violating the principles of the Confederation and blame the Catholic party for consciously acting against the dissidents. Second, taking advantage of the facts, dissidents rely on the statutes of the Confederation to convoke assemblies of noblemen of other denominations, which, as the writer emphasizes, are illegal under a royal decree prohibiting the nobility to hold religious assemblies. This causes chaos in the state and triggers political confusion against a new - in the context of traditional standards - religious backdrop.

In brief, the reformation model of action leads to social unrest and political tensions which, in Skarga’s nomenclature, stem from pride, which comes naturally to and is so characteristic of reformists; in a nutshell, they aim to antagonize and undermine the basic principles which unite communities – the law and the subordination of citizens to the authority that they have accepted[5].

By contrast, Skarga also presents another, positive doctrine, which is the Catholic doctrine of the state (or, rather, Skarga’s vision of such doctrine), which stems entirely from brotherly love and subordination to the law (sovereignty).

This Catholic doctrine of the state rooted in brotherly love does not contradict the tough and determined public debate held in the Commonwealth. What is more, it is backed by tradition and standards of conduct – all misdemeanours will be judged by the law and will be prosecuted by competent state authorities.

The descriptive credibility of this argument is undermined by the fact that it serves the purpose of rejecting what seems one of the most potent deterrents acting in favour of the confederation, i.e. the claim that without the Warsaw Confederation “brotherly blood will be spilled”. In Process, Skarga provides a brief and straightforward answer to this claim by referring to the Commonwealth’s republican discourse:

“But from whom? Catholics, as obedient sons, do not have it in their nature – when harmed, they resort to the authorities; they have their king; they have their laws…” (p. D2 recto)

The line of Skarga’s reasoning provided here clearly shows that it is essential to him to demonstrate that reformist action distorts the traditional values of the nobility’s republic.

What is the defence of nobility’s republicanism? It is the very essence of the Catholic discourse – reliance on openness, courage and the power of truth; as such, the Catholic discourse is identical with the (Republican) discourse of the state:

“Love human souls and Christ’s blood that was spilled for them and soon we will vanquish the heathens with the truth, with writing, sermon, debate and example, with our love towards them and with humaneness, with prayer and rich sacrifices made for them at sacred altars. These are our armies and it is to such war against you that the people are called and enticed.

Forgive us for conspiring against you, it is with such and other spiritual means that we seek to destroy heresies, as well as our and your enemies, for your salvation. Since you do not have such armies or weapons against them […], you must be fearful and think about yourselves in other terms” (p. 193).

These words express paradoxical praise for the openness of the public debate, which is a zone of conflict and fierce clash of arguments. According to the Jesuit’s reasoning, the Confederation is a tool which can be used to wrestle the weapon out of the hands of Catholics who would like to take part in the harsh dispute resorting to any means possible, which would be naturally limited by legislation and the state institutions of the Commonwealth: the confederation impedes this form of debate, promoting a discriminatory attitude which, to a certain degree, deforms the public discourse.

A certain vision, if this word is worthy of being used, of the public scene in the Commonwealth can be inferred from the interpretation provided here.

The scene would mainly be consolidated by brotherly love, impeding hatred and persecution. It would be expressed in the equal positions of both parties in the debate, whose form would be defined by a harsh, merciless dispute over principles, reaching as far as to punishment; although ultimately the writer predicts a dignified war of deeds, arguments and examples.

It seems that this dimension of Skarga’s discourse, which feeds into the Commonwealth’s formula of the debate (the equality of the positions of argumentation, basing the debate on a buttress of laws and state institutions and ultimately articulating the things that unite, i.e. love of the homeland as a family community – “dear brothers”), carries a strong positive message. I believe that also the call to an uncompromising struggle, the call to wage a “war for souls” is a positive side of this attitude. Fierce fighting is expected, but responsibility for the deeds committed will be assumed.

In his manner of thinking, the Jesuit writer refers to the category of “good watchfulness”, common values, “peace and law”… seen as values superior to individual goals. It needs to be noted that regardless of whether Skarga says it in earnest (because that is what he thinks) and really describes the way the Catholic majority thinks, or whether this reasoning is used as an argument (to convince the audience that it is indeed the case), he refers to the intellectual foundations of noble Republicanism: the idea of, as beautifully put by Orzechowski, “the society of benefit” – a social contract. In the first case, he does it by describing a particular phenomenon, and in the second case, by alluding to the value and emphasizing its importance and the degree of its acceptance among his audience. Whichever he does, he encapsulates his counter-reformation argumentation in a universally accepted discourse, thus enhancing its importance and rank.

 

Local tradition

 

The immediate fatherland, the neighbourhood, or, to be more specific, neighbourliness and the related values of local patriotism, are considered the determinants of Sarmatism, as well as a characteristic feature of Sarmatists’ identity[6].  This attitude developed not only in the 17th century; many interesting testaments of praise for the local homeland can also be found in earlier periods. Among 16th century writers, the one especially worth mentioning in this context is Stanisław Orzechowski, who was very consistent in referring to Ruthenia as his immediate fatherland and in mentioning his “Ruthenian” origins.

It is, therefore, worth mentioning the several different ways in which the writer used his Ruthenian background to emphasize two issues: first, again, the pragmatic nature of the nobility’s “patriotism” (as Orzechowski makes references to his “Ruthenian” origins for persuasive reasons), and, second, the existence and the dimensions of home-grown “patriotism” in the 1st Republic. Sadly, I will not be able to refer to all the cases where the author alludes to Ruthenia, but I will focus on those which may be related to his political use of Ruthenian references (due to lack of space, I will leave aside the religious uses of Ruthenian references, which are very intriguing and in essence - very modern)[7].

I am not entirely certain whether Orzechowski’s reference to Ruthenia in his first piece of writing (not counting Contiones and other works created in 1543), entitled Wierny poddany (Fidelis subditus, edited in 1543) is indeed the first such example in his work, but it immediately takes on a very important function. Reflections about Ruthenia are placed in the context of musings about the education of a ruler. In the narrative created in this work, a young king residing in Krakow is exposed to a discourse of flatterers, inextricably linked to the setting of the royal court. The writer’s task is to take the ruler out of this context, confront him with reality and, even more importantly, confront him with the definition of the royal office proposed by the author himself, i.e. “tu custos regni es” (you are the guardian of the realm).

 Fidelis subditus describes two types of existence and at the same time two types of education and human paideia. One type of existence is detached from the world and reality and distances man from the surrounding world. The other one is all about real human existence and paideia, based on links to reality, things and facts. The first one is associated with the world of courtly flatterers, while the other one with Ruthenia. The piece reads:

“If monsters make you laugh, let me ask you - what can be funnier than a jester king? You should be a man of stability, a bold and unvanquished Sarmatist. If you abandon the grotesque of the Gauls and effeminacy of the Italians, you will put your entire heart (and your entire power), I believe, into ensuring that true virtue and boldness proliferate in Ruthenia”[8].

The Gallic grotesque or the Italian effeminacy may be invoked here as a consequence of certain proto-Sarmatist anti-courtliness and reluctance towards Italian and French influences. They are associated with the current existence of the young monarch, but juxtaposed with Sarmatist boldness, power and invincibility, which are, in spatial terms, associated with Ruthenia. Furthermore, Ruthenia is, or may become “a school of true virtue”.

It is to that school of Ruthenian balance and virtue that our writer would like to take the king, putting distance between him and Krakow’s “hermeneutic circle” of foreign flatterers. It is also because Ruthenia, as a “gymnasium verae virtutis”, ensures the best possible traditional education for the monarch. The paidetic function of “Ruthenia” is formative for royal power:

“First, you live in labour and in fear, so you have the two best teachers of youth with you to train you in different ways and to enable you to practice fair counselling; in this way, you will acquire the loyalty and the love of your subjects, when they see you, their king […] as you strive to protect them from their enemies”[9].

It is worth noting the demonstrative dimension of this recommended royal conduct, especially with respect to the royal subjects. Both parties benefit: the king confronts reality in Ruthenia in labore et metu, to receive the best education, but also to make this education a force to gain his subjects’ love. This is what Ruthenia has to offer.

In the second edition of the same piece, completed in 1548, Orzechowski adopts a somewhat different strategy as regards references to “Ruthenia”. In the new text, Ruthenia, or to be more precise, “being a Ruthenian” becomes a “rhetorical shield” which the writer uses to justify his offering advice on matters of the state. It is worth remembering that in the first edition, the same function is fulfilled by the title’s subditus - the fact of being a king’s subject. A similar rhetorical disguise can be found in works by other authors. That is the case in: Comentarii de republica emendanda by Frycz-Modrzewski, where this role is played by the “king’s secretary”. Orzechowski, in the second edition of Subditi, uses his status as a Ruthenian as “a shield”. This rhetorical figure is used to remind the ruler of the political situation in the Commonwealth’s South-Eastern borderland in the context of the threat posed to Ruthenia by the Tartars.

This gesture is already revealed at the beginning of the text, underlying the creative sources of the treatise: Orzechowski speaks to the king as a Ruthenian, a patriot, who was forced by the circumstances and by the situation to take a stand in the name of his love for his immediate homeland (charitate patriae). In this rhetorical figure, by reducing the importance of the narrator as a figure, he reduces his entire work to excerpts from “de summorum philosophorum sententiae”. The fragment of Wierny Poddany reflects not only the position of Ruthenia in Orzechowski’s writings, but also contributes to the creation (which is worth pointing out) of a model of nobility’s democracy or republicanism, in which social activism stems from one’s care for good neighbourliness. The “Ruthenian” or “Scythe” that the author of the treatise uses as a disguise, justifying why he, “a Ruthenian nobleman”, dares advise the monarch, fulfils the same rhetorical functions as the adjective “fidelis” used to describe subditi in the first edition of the text. They both break their silence – the first one does it because he is loyal to the ruler in the ruler-subject dialectic, this one ­– because he is a “Ruthenian”. The monarch and the subjects in the first edition are linked with a dialectic union of exercising and being subject to authority, while in the second edition, the relationship is essentially the same, only more concrete: the writer speaks as both a Ruthenian and as a royal subject.  

Yet another hue of “Ruthenian” references by Stanisław Orzechowski can be found in the extremely interesting Diatribe contra calumniam, addressed to Andrzej Miekici. What is most interesting for us in this work is the use of Ruthenian references to establish the writer’s own creative and existential, as well as ideological, strategy of reacting to the challenges created by the antagonizing tensions between two conflicted parties: the Catholics (consistently identified as Roman-Catholics in Orzechowski’s works) and the Protestants. The writer shapes his arguments, which may even be considered a programme of action, which was especially important in 1548, in opposition to two hostile discourses: hypocrisy and pride. Orzechowski ascribes the discourse of hypocrisy to the Catholics. He says that it is because of hypocrisy that he himself was accused of heresy and that many others had been expelled from the Church. Hypocrisy leads to deceit in the Church, constrains the truth and violates the rule of law. Ultimately, however, as ever in his work, Orzechowski does not forget about the always relevant dialectics of the person and the office: his criticism, he observes, is not about the offices, it is about the people. Similarly, the hypocrisy which undermines the Church never reaches its fundamental premises or ideas; it is always the work of those who distort them. According to the author, heresy is a discourse which stems from pride. It is pride understood as the intellect opposing the need to abase oneself before the “catenam Ecclesiae”.

As indicated above, the author’s own intellectual view stands in opposition to the two rejected types of conduct. It is disguised by the – always important to Orzechowski – proximity to life and existence, understood not only as humanistic detachment from abstract issues in favour of “models of true life”, but life understood as gentle summing up of time, a truly Sarmatist enthusiasm for inheriting existence as part of the replacement of generations. Of course, Ruthenia serves as the geographic and cultural disguise for this positive discourse. In his conservative way of thinking, Orzechowski sees traditionalism as the strongest protection against intellectual individualism, plagued by pride.

The author’s next text makes this positive discourse even more specific and although comments about this topic included in the text do not feature direct references to Ruthenia, we can infer, on the basis of comments from Diatribe, that in a sense the writer further details his positive stance. I am referring to the interesting and vast work entitled Tractatus rationem universalis Ecclesiae ac sedis Romanae continens addressed to Mikołaj Brudzewski (1549). The writer again attempts to provide a dialectic description of the debate which sets the framework for the spiritual history of Europe. He refers to the metaphorical attitudes of a stoic and a peripatetic, so popular in the Renaissance period. The former, who represents the discourse of the western Church (as the text talks about celibacy in the Church) is characterised by a chasm between ideas and reality: the excessively idealistic vision of man, resulting not from experience, but from an idealistic way of thinking, presents man with unsurmountable challenges, which has results opposite to the intended ones: discouragement or punishment. The other attitude, characteristic of the eastern discourse (the Greek and Antioch Churches, as well as the Church of Alexandria, and, as a consequence, also the Ruthenian Church), is aligned with human capabilities and matches them; it does not result from the outside but from the perception of the realistic dimension of humanity. The peripatetic philosophy “is applied to human nature and does not overwhelm any of the learners with despair, but fills them with the best hope”[10].

It feeds into the Ruthenian discourse, which is consistently shaped within the Greek, i.e. peripatetic, way of thinking. Considering what the writer previously said about his own position, we can discern a very interesting dimension of the Ruthenian disguise: attachment to tradition, indigenousness, neighbourliness, etc. but also to the peripatetic perspective of reality, related to the observation of existence and expectations of man determined in proportion to human capabilities.

Suplikacja (Ad Iulium Tertium Pontificem Maximum supplicatio de approbando matrimonio a se inito, 1551), one of the key works in the writer’s bibliography, provides yet another new rhetorical “use” of the figure of the Ruthenian: on the basis of the strategy adopted in the text, the Ruthenian becomes synonymous with a “decent man”, juxtaposed with a spoilt Roman. This is not a new way to use the figure of the “Ruthenian” in juxtaposition in Orzechowski’s work (we can remember that Ruthenia appeared in a similar context as “gymnasium verae virtutis” in Wierny Poddany). In Suplikacja, however, the juxtaposition is developed on a much larger scale – first, it spatially covers all of Europe and, second, it is related to the model of Polish statehood constructed in this work. According to the writer’s exegesis (also known from the above mentioned fascinating “two vulgar pasqualis” about the marriage of King Sigismund Augustus to Barbara), it is a model which relies heavily on the moral discourse stemming from the fact that the political system of the Commonwealth is based on the law and personal accountability of the individual for their deeds.

It is precisely this juxtaposition that is worth considering, as it is where this ethical discourse of Ruthenian integrity becomes expressed in the strong-worded reply to the pope, which alludes to a link between this discourse and a model according to which the public debate is shaped:

“You will be dealing not with an Italian but with a Ruthenian, not with a subject of papal sovereignty but with a king’s subject [...] Think not, Julius, that you are allowed the same in Poland as in Italy, where one word you utter may send people into exile...”[11]

Ruthenia belongs to the territory of the Commonwealth and hence Orzechowski continues:

“And he is safe in Poland, where the king, bound by the law, serves the law and may not do as he pleases but must subject his will to the law. The Polish king will not immediately say, when you lift your finger or show the Fisherman’s Ring to support your request: ‘Stanisław Orzechowski, on the order of Julius III you are exiled from my lands’. He will never say this and he could not do it, even if he wanted to. Why, you ask?  Because the law in Poland prohibits anybody to be captured, incarcerated or have his property seized without a ruling made under royal law”[12].

This is the context of the rule of law which makes it impossible to act outside the law in Poland. Orzechowski mentions republican values, also referring to their essential context – respect for the law and for the rule of law. At the same time, he shapes them through the bellicose juxtaposition which, if we consider its use in the text at hand, has a very strong persuasive dimension, and serves the purpose of rhetorical “intimidation” of the addressee, while at the same time referring to a pragmatic side of the entire issue - after all, what would be the final result of condemning Orzechowski to infamy, as planned by the Pope? A ruling which cannot be enforced would only disgrace the person making it.

Ruthenia has yet another dimension in our writer’s work – a dimension which I have not mentioned so far. It is determined by the “rural muses”, frequently evoked in the text and responsible for the imperfect creations of the “Polish Demosthenes”. In his text, the topos of an author’s humility is intertwined with a certain strategy, according to which Orzechowski seeks to present his adventurous existence as a peaceful rural idyll, especially after getting married. It is an idyllic depiction of life which always, more or less strongly, relates to the towers and city walls of Przemyśl used as a background. Traces of this approach can be found in the important, albeit circumstantial and panegyric work: Panegyricus nuptiarum Ioannis Christophori Tarnovii comitis. The importance of this piece, created for a special occasion, can be explained in two dimensions: first, it presents the philosophy of Orzechowski’s writing (philosophia scribendi), and second, the writer uses it to attempt to describe the existential conditions which determine the artistic freedom of a Renaissance writer. As regards the former, Orzechowski understands his task as an author of a panegyric work in Latin as an effort made by someone seeking to break with the “ugly notoriety” of the Polish nation, which is classified by the wise as one of the “gentes barbaras”. This idea requires the author to adopt a position of neutrality. In this special formula, which is so important to him, Orzechowski positions himself as the author in his own otium literarum, distanced from the wide world and its interplay of vested interests:

“I am safe in my rural life as I have been captivated by the power of its charm, so much distanced from the court and the market; a power that consists in the fact that it enables one to perfect his virtues”[13].

It is the only locum which can ensure neutrality and the purity of intentions. It is what determined the important republican formation of the discourse of independence:

“And since such is the course of our lives, what I consider my greatest wealth is to be able to write clearly and present fair judgement of the virtue of our fellow citizens and I ask of all who read this not to think that I have described anybody in this panegyric upon their request or in order to flatter anyone with a view to receiving any distinctions, riches, care or sustenance. I describe the merits of our citizens not to satisfy anybody’s own ambition, but for the greater glory of our country”[14].

This is how Ruthenia surfaces in those comments as a place from which the voice of “oratoris Roxolani” emanates and which, sheltered by the safety and independence evoked by the  rural muses, praises noble families, at the same time working for the “publicam patriae [...] gloriam”. This use of Ruthenia is of course framed by the important dialectics of opposition, which I have repeatedly touched upon when referring to the author’s work: they are always and unchangingly: “only things, and persons and individual examples”[15], recorded by a man who “learned his first Latin writings in Przemyśl, Ruthenia, rather than in Rome, Italy, and who studied Greek writings in Wittenberg, Germany and not in Athens, Greece”[16]. Indeed, it is a reference to the topos of humility, while at the same time constituting praise for sticking to certain things and for the individualistic Sarmatist perspective, which, despite the apparent distance, ensures both participation in European culture and in the politics of the nobility. It is a durable and obvious form of participation in culture and in politics, free from resentment and a sense of inferiority.

In one of the most important texts for the Polish 16th century culture, i.e. Chimera[17], we come across what seems to be an essentially radical political and religious use of musings about Ruthenian roots (although in the above presented argumentation there were clear connotations of these phenomena and their political and religious contexts). The “explanatory” verses seen in the famous woodcuts of human figures present the essential role around which Stanisław Orzechowski’s inventive action revolves. They feature a telling juxtaposition, which at the same time reveals the essential idea behind the treatise: the contrast between exile and settlement. The former is described as chaos, alienation, life without political rules and principles. It contains all the things that damage culture, harmony, hierarchy and order.

In the poem about “Bellerophon” we can find a completely different description of the quality of being settled:

I was given birth by Poland,

Reborn in the Church,

And cared for by sweet Ruthenia ­-

For my fatherland, for the law,

For the holy rites,

Those ancient and those of our fathers,

I will gladly give my life

The values that the author associates with being rooted in one place are reflected in the text’s very accurate interpretation of heresy as, on the one hand, the result of exile (born in exile, because of the exile and doomed to never being able to find a place for itself) and, on the other hand, a force destructive by nature and always originating from the outside. Just as in Chimera, the characterization of stancarism and its anti-social and anti-state nature can also be found in the writer’s letter to Stanisław Czarnocki of 22 June 1561, written as a commentary to Orzechowski’s anti-heretic musings of the 1550s and 1560s. Our author’s argumentation points towards a concise description of the destructive impact of heresy on public life. What is much more interesting for us here is the characterization of the value of Ruthenia, described as the opposite of heresy. In this work, Ruthenia is synonymous with settlement, homeliness, and statehood and, above all, with values related to all things ancient and to faith. It reads, for instance:

“Come forth, you who are avoiding the light, you who are threatening; come forth, I tell you, thief, from Dubiecko’s depths; believe me when I say that Ruthenia has its defenders against the heathen allies you have summoned here; the wise and high-born Walenty Herbut, our bishop, will rise to defend it, as will the pious and scholarly clergymen, and the wisest of the knights and the people, united in universal piety [...] Stanisław Czarnocki, it is within our remit […] to […] fight in defence of our forefathers’ faith inherited from our predecessors, which is loyally protected in this Ruthenian land against the Italian, German and Gallic fugitives who tear our fatherland apart, making it suffer, deprived of the legacy of our piety”[18].

The appellative aspect of these words, just as is the case in Chimera, not only creates a natural opposition between the settled and the exiled, but it also “rallies the troops” by referring to the experience of belonging to one’s immediate fatherland. Let us notice that phrases such as “our native Ruthenian land”, invoking an ancient sense of belonging, harmony and order, are juxtaposed with stancarism or, in broader terms, heresy, which creates an anti-state discourse. The confrontation between the two types of discourse is shaped as a dispute about the model of statehood, rather than of religion or belief only. I find this to be the writer’s important accomplishment in Chimera, which, stemming from a religious debate, resulted in something extremely important for the Polish reform of the Church, i.e. the suggestion that a fundamental relationship exists between denomination or religion and politics, at least in state life. The ancient Ruthenian traditions referred to by Orzechowski are not only the ones which originate from the faith of our forefathers, but also those that result from the governance of the Commonwealth and from the republican tradition.

It is worth mentioning that the above mentioned disguise of “things”– rei, ensured by Ruthenia (preventing abstract divagations, related to peripatetism and references to concrete designations, etc.), and the disguise of tradition and roots, which Ruthenia offers to protect men (as it trains them in laws and customs), is repeated in a similar context in the writer’s Wolborski dispute with Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski[19]. The writer’s education and residence model (it is worth remembering the theory of Greek settlement in Ruthenia, so often referenced by Orzechowski) results in an opposition between “I can” and “I believe”, which we find in  Frycy - the former, associated with Frycz, leads to speech “in parabolas”, bringing about “academicas questiones”:

“It this why our universal Credo, which is superior to your “I can”, not supported by philosophy for a good and happy life, will not mean anything in itself?”[20].

The Ruthenian discourse, “nostrum vulgare credo”, ultimately leads to the transformation of never-ending academic musings about faith, so characteristic of Frycz’s reasoning, into a question of personal life choices faced by man. Hence this surprising judicial and administrative behaviour of the writer in Wolborz. It was not the first and not the last time when he demonstrated such behaviour. Since Orzechowski realized that “you need a noose for a heretic”, rather than scholarly, academic reasoning, such criticism became close to his heart[21].

As the ultimate proof of the hypotheses about the place of “Ruthenia” in the writings of our “Ciceronian” that we have analysed so far, it is worth referring to the comments included in Apologia pro Quincunce. As is characteristic of the writer, the allusions to Ruthenia are accompanied by typical autobiographical preparations.

This is the role of the piece which explains the meaning and objective of the method adopted by the writer, which he fine-tuned in the late 1550s and early 1560s. In Apologia, the praise of the method is expressed through praise for Ruthenia – praise for homely folk philosophy which is interpreted as a safe heaven for the rule of law and the power of persuasion in all types of disputes.

The autobiographic aspect of the praise refers to the motif of otium literarum, whose persuasive outline and fortification in the dispute we are already familiar with. Let us reiterate: isolation becomes an essential meaningful equivalent for reflections about the polis. Isolation does not entail separation or detachment from matters of the state, but only acquiring the necessary distance and the purity and clarity of motivation in action! There is no private interest in this manner of social engagement, as there is no pressure of the foro and sermonibus vulgi.

What exactly is the nature of the “homely counselling”?

“Philosophy, which is an honest and simple friend of the truth, as it teaches - I do not know how - one who has established residence within it that it is not easy to dwell inside it and that it cannot be adopted by ones whose spirit has been broken, who are miserable and have no control over themselves. Therefore, as I wish to please philosophy only, I dedicate myself to philosophy only and I bend my will and shape my deeds gladly to provide the service and I adjust my writings and my speech to do so; I believe the things that are consistent with my pursuits to be true, while finding the people to be unfair judges and making little of [them] ...”[22]

The author refers to a specific defined “place”, where advice is given from and where one can participate in the public discourse – it is the whole of Ruthenia. Such self-presentation may be perceived as a way to lavish praise on Ruthenia. The praise itself is skilfully incorporated into quite a detailed description of the legislative assembly, from the address by Jan Heburt (the author does not forget to provide the readers with an impressive list of Ruthenian politicians) to the separation of senators and the nobility, who withdraw to discuss the problems. Later follows a summary of the discussions held by Ruthenian nobility (whose views are surprisingly consistent with the author’s view, even including his terminology) and it is the summary that raises the addressee’s question: “But you may interrupt me and tell me that it seems to you unlikely that things so difficult and even impossible to grasp for a mediocre mind can be studied by those brave men, who are, after all, mere country folk...”[23]

Orzechowski praises Ruthenia and its knights, as well as the town of Przemyśl, which could easilybe compared to the wisest Italian cities steeped in culture[24], since in Ruthenia “real praise is due for one virtue, which consists in the knowledge of the art of war and scholarly proficiency...”[25] A sense of citizenship is crystallized here in a reliable approach to the virtue of actions, but is also based on knowledge which stems from meticulous study, “from Italian and Gallic philosophers of science”, which makes educated people “prepared to serve the Commonwealth in all manners”. What is more, Ruthenians educated in this way (we still remember the war fame of this area) have an important weapon for defending themselves against scheming new theologians:there are no German theologians here, as we are encouraged to reject them through our studies and carefulness [...]”[26] This group portrait in the context of this small literary piece, is not only “addressed” to duchies such as Lithuania (and we know that the Quincuxa squabble resulted from what Orzechowski had to say about Lithuania and the particular Duchy[27]). The writer’s comments about his beloved Ruthenia also serve as “the final word”, a farewell and the last praise for neighbourly prudentiae ­- wisdom based on personal testimony and the “normal” way of thinking. Ruthenia, so fortified, becomes a response to the portrait of Lithuania and Lithuanians, but is also an announcement of the way of thinking about Sarmatist neighbourliness and wisdom.

“Stanislaus Orichovius Roxolanus” is the Latin signature normally used by the writer.

It seems to me worth concluding that “Ruthenia” - just as the other “key value of existence” revealed by the author only in his final written words contained in letters to Bishop Andrzej Dudycz, i.e. his “wife” – provides a certain ontological, existential justification of the opinions voiced in his texts. They are a form of teaching and a sine qua non condition of an attitude where words, in order to become meaningful, must be processed through life. The attitude is based on the belief that opinions, in order to have significance, must refer to deeds and actions and that human choices have their specific weight and hence they call for an essential dispute, but one that must be resolved. It is “Ruthenia” and his “wife” that had led the writer to the place he occupied in the religious and political disputes of the 16th century. It is a place open to existence, to being and to the concrete. It is a place you defend because you are aware that it is something that shapes you and determines your identity. Finally, it is one of the most interesting places in the religious and political disputes waged by our ancestors in the Commonwealth.  

It is a place that makes one “rooted” and which constitutes, metaphorically speaking, the 1st Republic as a state community within a “society of benefit”.



[1] In the second half of the 16th century, it was certainly already the case, which can be proven by the below-quoted fragment from a song by Jan Kochanowski

[2] Cicero, On the commonwealth, translated by G.H. Sabine, S.B. Smith, Columbus Ohio, 1929.

[3] In his intriguing, albeit still poorly known Wykład cnoty, Jan Kochanowski provided a strong foundation for this debate. I have been alerted to the importance of this brief text by Professor Ewa M. Thompson of Rice University, Houston.

[4] Text after: Orichoviana. Opera inedita et Epistulae Stanislai Orzechowski, ed. by J. Korzeniowski, Krakow 1891, p. 135.

[5] In this strategy, the Jesuit writer was preceded by the great author Stanisław Orzechowski, with his Chimera (1561).

[6] Cf.  Szlachta polska by A. Zajączkowski, Warsaw 1990.

[7] I encourage you, however, to read the comprehensive description of the theme in the new planned issue of “Rocznik Przemyski”, probably already in 2007.

[8] Cum enim mascara risum quaereat, quid, quaeso, tam ridiculum est, quam ex rege mimus? At tu vir esto robustus, fortis et invictus Sarmata, et, relictis mascaris aut Gallis aut mollibus Italis, curabis, censeo, ut te in gymnasium verae virtutis in Russiam totum transferas. Quoted after: Stanisław Orzechowski’s Fidelis subditus in its first edition of 1543; ed. Teodor Wierzbowski, Warsaw 1900. Biblioteka Zapomnianych Poetów i Prozaików polskich XVI-XVIII w., volume XV, pp.  23-24.

[9] Primo vives in labore et metu, hoc est vives cum duobus optimis adolescentiae magistris, qui variis modis exercebunt te ac consilio recto te imbuent; tum vero haec eadem res subditos tibi coniuget et te omnibus amabilem efficiet, cum viderint te, suum regem [...] pro sua salute in hostico excubare. Ibid, pp. 24-25.

[10] Accomodata est enim hominis naturae, neque discentem desperatione frangit, sed spe otima complet..., quoted after: Orichoviana, op. cit., p. 189.

[11] Non enim cum Italo sed cum Rutheno, non sum Pontificiae, sed cum Regiae potestatis homine futura res tibi est [...] Non idem tibi licere in Polonia Juli puta, quod tibi licet in Italia: ex qua tu verbo in exilium homines fortasse potes eiicere [...]. Quote after: Stanislai Orichovii Ad Iulium Tertium Pontificem Maximum supplicatio de approbando matrimonio a se inito, Basilae 1551, pp. 177-178.

[12] At in Polonia secus est, in qua rex ligatus legibus, servus legum est: qui non id facit quod vult, sed quod legibus velle cogitur. Non protinus rex Polonus, ubi te digitis concrepveris, aut annulum illum piscatoris inverteris, mihi iussus abs te dicet: Stanislae Orichovii, mandat Julius Tertius, ex meo regno in exilium abi. Hoc ille nunquam dicet: nec si vellet quidem, potest. Quid ita? Quia lex in Polonia vetat  quenquam capi, aut vinciri, aut proscribi, nisi lege regni convictum. Ibid, p. 178.

[13] [...] vitam hanc rusticam sum secutus earum arcium amore captus, quae ramotae sunt ab aula atque foro, quarum omnis ratio cum in excolenda virtute sit occupata. Quoted after: Stanislai Orichovii Panegirycus nuptiarum Ioannis Christophori Tarnovii comitis, Cracoviae 1558, p. A4 recto.

[14] Et quoniam hunc cursum vitae sequimur, ut in privata vita illas putem esse opes maximas, nempe scribere candide et existimare de virtute meorum civium incorrupte, iccirco petam ab omnibus qui haec legent, ne quid datum esse auribus cuiusque in hac Panegyri a me arbitrentur, neque me haec scripsisse existiment, quo mihi ex cuiusque amplitudine et copia, aut praesidia, aut adiumenta vitae eblandiar nam ego. […] Itaque hac Panegyri privatorum hominum laudes, non ad privatam alicuius ambitonem, sed ad publicam patriae meae gloriam refero. Ibid, s. B2 verso- B3 recto.

[15] [...] res ipsas et personas, et exempla singularia, ibid, s. B3 recto.

[16] [...] primis literas latinas Praemisliae in Russia, non Romae in Italia, graecas autem Vittembergae in Germania, non Athenis in Graecia didicerit, ibid, s. B3 verso.

[17]  Stanislai Orichovii Roxolani Chimera sive de Stancari funesta regno Poloniae secta, Coloniae 1563; on the basis of a translation into Polish by Zygmunt Aleksander Nałęcz Włyński, from a JL manuscript, ref. Cim 572.

[18] Prodi ergo, o lucifuga, ut minitaris, prodi, inquam, o fur, ex hoc gurguisto tuo Dubiecensi; recipere, mihi crede, ut invitasti, ut intellegas Russiam quoque nostram contra impietatem tuam suos habere patronos; non deesse illi doctissimum ac summo loco natum Valentinum Herbortum episcopum, non deesse etiam pios atque eruditos canonicos, non litteratissimos eqestris ordinis viros,  non populum ad communem pietatem konspirantem […] Nostrum est, o Stanislae Czarnoci, nostrum, inquam, est, in hac Roxolaniae terra natis, fidem illam patriam atque avitam, tanquam fidele depositum, contra istos fugitivos Italos, Germanos atque Gallos […] pugnare […] patriae nostrae fures ac latrones pati diripere patrimonium nostrae pietatis. Quoted after: Orichoviana, op. cit., p. 529.

[19] I will leave the “Ruthenian” characteristics of the writer without a lengthy commentary. Interested readers are recommended to read my essay entitled: Stanisław Orzechowski dylematy humanizmu renesansowego, Kraków, Acana 2002, pp. 473-486.

[20]  Based on a translation by Włyński. Etiam ne propterea illud nostrum vulgare Credo, quod omne vestrum exuperat scio, nisi a philosophia adiutum, nil ipsum per se ad bene beatesquae vivendum valebit?, quoted after: Stanislai Orichovii Ad Iacobum Uchanicium cuiaviae episcopum, Fricius sive de maiestatis sedis apostolicae, bmr 1562 (?), p. 72 verso.

[21] I have pointed to the purposeful strategy of such court and administrative conduct of the writer in: K. Koehler, Stanisław Orzechowski..., op. cit., pp. 426-433.

[22] Docet enim hoc, nescio quo modo, eum qui domicilium in ea collocavit philosophia, quae sincera et simplicis amica veritatis est, quam philosophandi rationem aspernatur et respicit nemo, nisi animus fractus et abiectus et arbitrio carens suo. Quapropter quoniam ego huis ipsi, quam dico, philosophiae placere volo et illi studeo soli, libenter ad eius testimonium nutumque omnia mea facta, scripta atque dicta accommodo; cui si quadrant omnia haec nostra, populum, semper veritatis, iniquum iudicem, flocci facio... Quoted after: Orichoviana, op. cit., p. 642.

[23] Sed tu fortasse interpellabis et incredibile tibi videri dices has tam abstrusas res et a vulgari intellegentia remotas milites nostros, fortes illos quidem viros, sed tamen rusticanos, potuisse haec indagare..., ibid, p. 646.

[24] ut sit cum literatissimis municipiis Italicis litterarum scientia comparandum, ibid, p. 646.

[25] vera laus uni virtuti debetur, quae ex scientia rei militaris ac doctrinae elegantia apud nos constat tota..., ibid, p. 646.

[26] ex Italicorum atque philosophorum Gallicorum disciplina […], „ad omnem rei publicae causam idoneos […] neque Germanici etiam theologi scilicet nobis desunt, quorum repugnantia excitat studium nostrum et prudentiam acuit..., ibid, p. 646.

[27] Compare with the reply given by Augustyn Rotundus, which will soon by published by Arcana along with Quincunxa.

Recently added articles

Sponsors:

This website is a part of the project entitled ‘Polish Political Thought and Independence: A Program for the Promotion of Polish Intellectual Heritage Abroad’, generously funded
by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland as A part of ‘Public Diplomacy 2017’ programme, component ‘Collaboration in the field of Public Diplomacy 2017’.
Design by Stereoplan