The Johns Hopkins Press of Baltimore


  =American Journal of Mathematics.= Edited by FRANK MORLEY, A.
       COHEN, Associate Editor, with the coöperation of CHARLOTTE
       A. SCOTT, A. B. COBLE, and other mathematicians. Quarterly.
       8vo. Volume XLVI in progress. $6 per volume. (Foreign postage,
       twenty-five cents.)

  =American Journal of Philology.= Edited by C. W. E. MILLER, with
       the coöperation of M. BLOOMFIELD, H. COLLITZ, T. FRANK, W. P.
       MUSTARD, and D. M. ROBINSON. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XLV in
       progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign postage, fifty cents.)

  =American Journal of Psychiatry.= E. N. BRUSH, C. M. CAMPBELL,
       GEORGE H. KIRBY, A. M. BARRETT, and H. DOUGLAS SINGER,
       Editors. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume IV in progress. $5 per volume.
       (Foreign postage, fifty cents.)

  =Hesperia.= HERMANN COLLITZ and JAMES W. BRIGHT, Editors.
       Twenty-one numbers have appeared.

  =Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports.= 8vo. Volume XXI in progress. $5
       per volume. (Foreign postage, fifty cents.)

  =Johns Hopkins Studies in Romance Literatures and Languages.= D. S.
       BLONDHEIM, GILBERT CHINARD and H. C. LANCASTER, Editors. 8vo.
       Two numbers have appeared.

  =Johns Hopkins University Circular=, including the President’s
       Report, Annual Register, and Catalogue of the School of
       Medicine. Nine times a year. 8vo. $1 per year.

  =Johns Hopkins University Studies in Education.= E. F. BUCHNER,
       Editor. 8vo. Nine numbers have appeared.

  =Johns Hopkins University Studies in Geology.= E. B. MATHEWS,
       Editor. 8vo. Five numbers have appeared.

  =Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political
       Science.= Under the direction of the Departments of History,
       Political Economy, and Political Science. 8vo. Volume XLII in
       progress. $5 per volume.

  =Modern Language Notes.= J. W. BRIGHT, Editor-in-Chief, G.
       GRUENBAUM, W. KURRELMEYER and H. C. LANCASTER. Eight times
       yearly. 8vo. Volume XXXIX in progress. $5 per volume. (Foreign
       postage, fifty cents.)

  =Reports of the Maryland Geological Survey.= Edited by E. B.
       MATHEWS.

  =Terrestrial Magnetism and Atmospheric Electricity.= L. A. BAUER,
       Editor. Quarterly. 8vo. Vol. XXIX in progress. $3.50 per
       volume. (Foreign postage, 25 cents.)

       *       *       *       *       *

  THE ECLOGUES OF BAPTISTA MANTUANUS. By W. P. Mustard. 156 pp.
       $1.50.

  THE PISCATORY ECLOGUES OF JACOPO SANNAZARO. By W. P. Mustard. 94
       pp. $1.25.

  THE ECLOGUES OF FAUSTUS ANDRELINUS AND JOANNES ARNOLLETUS. By W.
       P. Mustard. 123 pp. $1.50.

  THE ECLOGUES OF ANTONIO GERALDINI. By W. P. Mustard. 84 pp. $1.50.

  MARTIAL, THE EPIGRAMMATIST AND OTHER ESSAYS. By K. F. Smith. Edited
       by W. P. Mustard. 180 pp. $2.

  WEST FLORIDA CONTROVERSY, 1798-1813. By I. J. Cox. 702 pp. $3.

  AN OUTLINE OF PSYCHOBIOLOGY. By Knight Dunlap. 145 pp. 84 cuts.
       $2.50.

  THE LIFE AND STORIES OF THE JAINA SAVIOR PĀRÇVANĀTHA. By M.
       Bloomfield. 256 pp. $3.00.

  AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP AND ECONOMIC WELFARE. By J. H. Hollander. 132
       pp. $1.25.

  PUBLIC HEALTH AND INSURANCE: AMERICAN ADDRESSES. By Sir Arthur
       Newsholme. 284 pp. $2.50.

  CHINA AT THE CONFERENCE. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY. 435 pp. $3.00.

  TABLES OF √(1 - _R_²) AND 1 - _R_² FOR USE IN PARTIAL
       CORRELATION AND IN TRIGONOMETRY. By J. R. MINER. 50 pp. $1.50.

  VECTOR ANALYSIS AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. By F. D. MURNAGHAN.
       136 pp. $2.75.

  FATHER TABB: A STUDY OF HIS LIFE AND WORKS. By F. A. LITZ. 303 pp.
       8vo. $2.50.

  INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS, WASHINGTON.


            A complete list of publications sent on request.




                       THE REFORMATION IN POLAND
                    SOME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS




     SERIES XLII                                            No. 4


                    JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES

                                   IN

                    HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

                       Under the Direction of the

             Departments of History, Political Economy, and
                           Political Science




                       THE REFORMATION IN POLAND

                    SOME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS


                                   BY
                            PAUL FOX, PH. D.




                               BALTIMORE
                        THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS
                                  1924




                           COPYRIGHT 1924 BY
                        THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS




                  J. H. FURST CO., PRINTERS, BALTIMORE




                           TABLE OF CONTENTS


     Preface                                                    vii

     Chapter I.   Development of the Reformation in
                    Poland                                        9

     Chapter II.  Social Causes of the Polish Reformation        64

     Chapter III. Wealth of the Polish Church in the
                    XVIth Century: Its Effect on the
                    Polish Nobility                              84

     Chapter IV.  The Conflict between the Polish Nobility
                    and the Clergy: Its Economic Aspects        101

     Appendix                                                   138

     Bibliography                                               149




                                PREFACE


In the foreword to his book on “The Reformation in Germany,” Prof.
Henry C. Vedder makes this statement: “The great religious struggle
of the sixteenth century was only a phase of the social revolution
then going on in Europe and effecting a transformation of all its
institutions. Momentous economic changes were the underlying cause
of political and religious movements.… The external events of the
Reformation have been told before with substantial accuracy; what
is now needed is illumination of the facts by the light of this new
knowledge.”

The present study on the Reformation in Poland attempts to gather
together material of social and economic nature and to point out that
the underlying causes of the rise and spread of the Reformation in
Poland were chiefly social and economic rather than religious, or
even purely political. Viewed in this light, the rapid rise and the
phenomenal growth of the Polish Reformation, as well as its almost
complete collapse in the course of the following century, become
quite intelligible. Had the movement had its roots in deep religious
convictions, it would have survived the changes in social institutions,
but, having been inspired and stimulated in its early development by
economic motives, it lost its dynamic force with changed economic
conditions by the end of the sixteenth century.

Owing to the fact that the writer has had access to only a part of the
great abundance of source material bearing on this subject, the study
does not pretend to be exhaustive. However, it has the merit of being
the first attempt to portray the development of the Polish Reformation
in the light of economic causes, and in the judgment of the writer the
conclusions here reached and the interpretation given the movement are
essentially sound.

In this place the writer wishes to express his indebtedness to Dr. John
M. Vincent, Professor of European History at Johns Hopkins University,
for his encouragement in the prosecution of this study and for his
valuable suggestions and criticisms, and to Miss Mary C. Stokes, of the
Historical Department in the University, for her careful reading of the
manuscript before its going to press.




                       THE REFORMATION IN POLAND

                    SOME SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS




                               CHAPTER I

                DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFORMATION IN POLAND


_The Background of the Polish Reformation._--The Reformation found in
Poland a fertile soil and a congenial atmosphere for its spread and
growth.

To begin with, the attitude of the Polish princes was one of
independence. They had from early times carefully guarded and
vigorously defended their royal rights and prerogatives against the
church’s pretensions and efforts at usurpation of power. When, for
instance, Stanislaus Szczepanowski, bishop of Cracow, encouraged by
Gregory VII’s triumph over Henry IV, attempted to make Gregory’s policy
prevail in Poland by placing himself at the head of the disaffected
powerful Polish aristocracy, to whom a strong executive power was
distasteful, and who desired to dethrone the reigning king and to
enthrone his weak subservient brother, Boleslaus the Bold (1058-1080)
did not hesitate to put the rebellious bishop promptly to death.[1]
When Archbishop Henry Kietlicz, under the influence of Innocent III
(1198-1216), determined to introduce the Gregorian reforms into Poland
at any cost, Wladislaus, surnamed Langshanks (1202-1206), resolutely
opposed the move even at the cost of his throne.[2] Again, when the
Polish clergy opposed a change in the payments of tithes, from payments
in kind to payments in money, Boleslaus the Bald, of Silesia, ordered
the imprisonment of Thomas, bishop of Breslau, together with one of his
canons, had them put in stocks, and though the archbishop of Gnesen
excommunicated Boleslaus and the Pope ordered the archbishops of
Gnesen and Magdeburg to proclaim a crusade against him, Boleslaus did
not yield until Thomas made peace with the prince by paying a fine of
2000 silver marks and by agreeing to payments of tithes in money.[3]
And when later the bishop of Breslau opposed the levying of a tax on
the clergy for the benefit of the prince’s treasury, Boleslaus’ son,
Henry, now prince of Silesia, exiled the recalcitrant bishop. Though
excommunicated for this act by the archbishop of Gnesen, he did not
permit the bishop’s return until after five years of exile, the bishop
finally yielding and submitting to the tax.[4]

Besides these instances, there were others. Leszek the Black
(1279-1288) was at odds with the bishop of Cracow, Paul of Przemankow.
The bishop, an implacable enemy of the king, conspired against
the king, incited the aristocracy against him, and caused even an
invasion of Little Poland by the Lithuanians and the Jadźwings. The
king dispersed the invaders, confiscated the bishop’s property, and
imprisoned him in the Castle of Sieradz, putting him in stocks. It was
only when the Pope threatened Leszek with excommunication that the
king liberated the imprisoned bishop.[5] In the fourteenth century
Casimir the Great (1333-1370) imposed a tax on episcopal property.
The Polish high clergy resented that, and excommunicated the king.
Casimir ordered the priest, who brought the bull of excommunication to
him, to be seized and drowned in the Vistula River. And since Casimir
was a powerful and popular ruler, the clergy took due warning, and
desisted from further provocative steps.[6] Moreover, it is worthy of
note that while in Germany the right of investiture was surrendered
as early at 1122 by the Concordat of Worms, in Poland the princes
defended and retained the right as late as 1206.[7] And in the second
half of the fifteenth century, taking advantage of the existing schism
in the church at that time, they again regained it, and made it a
permanent and indisputable prerogative of the Polish crown.[8] Even
such a loyal son of the church as Sigismund the Old (1506-1548) did not
allow the Pope to interfere with his right in this particular. When at
the beginning of Sigismund’s reign the Pope deliberately nominated a
candidate for the bishopric of Płock, the king refused to accept the
papal nominee, stating that he would never consent to such violation of
the country’s laws by allowing anyone else to nominate the kingdom’s
senators. Again, when later in Sigismund’s reign Pope Hadrian VI was
delaying his approval of the king’s nomination of Leszczyński to the
bishopric of Posen, Sigismund notified the Vatican that the Pope’s
refusal to comply with his just wishes might result in unpleasant
consequences to the Holy See; whereupon the Vatican at once approved
Leszczyński’s nomination to the bishopric of Posen.[9]

An equal measure of independence characterized the Polish high clergy
in respect to its relation to the Vatican. Prince Wladislaus II
(1138-1146), striving to establish a strong unified and centralized
government in defiance of the provisions of his father’s will, which
divided the kingdom among four of his sons, aroused the opposition
of the aristocracy and of the clergy, to whom a strong centralized
government was very unpalatable. James of Żnin, archbishop of
Gnesen, as leader of the opposition, excommunicated the stubborn
ambitious prince, and forced him to abdicate. Wladislaus appealed
his case to Conrad III, emperor of Germany, and to the Pope. Both
of them responded, the emperor with a military expedition and the
Pope with a legate. When on arrival in Poland the Pope’s legate,
Cardinal Guido, was unable to secure a return of the throne to
Wladislaus, he excommunicated the opponents, and placed the country
under an interdict. The Polish bishops, however, paid no attention
to the legate’s excommunication and interdict; and Wladislaus,
though supported by the Pope, had to remain in exile until his death
in 1159.[10] Wladislaus, surnamed Langshanks (1202-1206), in his
opposition to the Gregorian reforms, upon which Pope Innocent III
insisted, had the support of many high church dignitaries among the
Polish clergy. Philip, bishop of Posen, for instance, refused to
promulgate in his diocese the papal interdict, under which Archbishop
Kietlicz was instructed to place the country.[11] To what extent the
Polish clergy disregarded papal decrees may be seen from the fact that
though Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) decreed a general enforcement of
celibacy among the Roman clergy, marriage among the clergy of Poland,
according to the historian Długosz, was still generally common as late
as the close of the twelfth and the first quarter of the thirteenth
century.[12] It is quite instructive to note that even such high church
dignitaries as John Łaski and James Uchański, both archbishops and
primates of Poland, the first from 1510 to 1531 and the second from
1562 to 1578, were very unfavorably disposed toward the Vatican. As
bishop and secretary of state, Łaski declined to support the Pope’s
project of forming a league against the Turks. As archbishop of
Gnesen and primate of Poland, he worked for the emancipation of his
archbishopric from Rome to such an extent as to alarm not only his
enemies, but even his friends and the king himself.[13] Uchański’s
orthodoxy and loyalty to Rome had been long under suspicion at the
Vatican; so much so that when Sigismund Augustus (1548-1572) appointed
him to the bishopric of Chełm, the Pope did not ratify the appointment
for several years, and when the king promoted Uchański to the bishopric
of Kuyavia, the Pope refused to sanction the promotion altogether. This
served only to estrange Uchański from the Vatican still more, and led
him, especially on his elevation to the archbishopric of Gnesen, to
entertain plans and to advocate the advisability of calling a National
Synod and of withdrawing the Church of Poland from the jurisdiction
of Rome.[14] When the papal legate, Commendoni, dreading such a
consequence, urged the Vatican to forbid, contrary to the decisions
of the Council of Trent, the holding of Provincial Synods in Poland
for fear that one of them might at any time be turned into a National
Synod, the Polish bishops rose in protest against it in the senate of
the Diet, going even so far as to declare that the king, and not the
Pope, was their overlord and judge.[15]

The people, too, manifested the same spirit of independence in their
attitude toward the church, whenever occasion demanded. In the eleventh
century they arose in rebellion against the oppression of both state
and church, particularly the church, owing to the foreign character of
its clergy and their burdensome exactions. They demolished churches
and monasteries, drove out the priests and the monks, and reverted
to paganism.[16] In the struggles of the state with the papacy for
supremacy the people generally supported the state. This explains the
boldness and self-confidence of the Polish rulers, with which they
successfully opposed the pretensions of the papacy much longer than the
German emperors.[17] The papal anathema, hurled against recalcitrant
princes and shaking the very foundations of Western thrones, fell in
Poland without causing much disturbance or harm.

Another factor, which in a large measure prepared the soil for the
spread of the Reformation in Poland, was humanism.[18] The new turn
in literature and philosophy reached Poland early in the fifteenth
century, and found many friends both among the laity and among the
clergy.[19] One of the most distinguished Polish humanists was John
Ostrorog (1402-1501), a doctor of both laws from the University of
Erfurt and a strong advocate of the supremacy of the state over the
church. In his dissertation, “Monumentum pro reipublicae ordinatione
congestum,” Ostrorog wrote in 1473:

     The Polish king recognises nobody’s supremacy save that
     of God; instead of assuring the new Pope of his obedience
     he will sufficiently fulfill his duty if he congratulate
     him, and at the same time remind him that he should rule
     the church justly. It is below the dignity of the king to
     write to the Pope with humility and humbleness.… The clergy
     should help bear the burdens of the state as well as other
     citizens; there is no need of being indignant when the king
     orders the melting of church utensils for public needs.
     The church has gold not for the purpose of keeping it, but
     for the purpose of helping the needy. All payments for the
     benefit of the Pope should be abolished. Poland needs all
     the funds she can spare for war with invaders and for the
     preservation of domestic order and peace. The proclamation
     of jubilee papal bulls as well as fees for funerals,
     marriages, etc., should be prohibited. The king should
     nominate the bishops. In order to decrease the number
     of idlers, the establishment of monasteries in cities
     should be restricted, the admission for foreigners to them
     prohibited, and sermons in the German language diminished
     in number.[20]

“Such were the predominant sentiments of the time,” says Dr.
Lewinski-Corwin, “in true keeping with the teachings of humanism, which
spread in Poland through constant contact with Germany and Italy, in
the principles of which several generations preceding the Reformation
had been reared, and in accordance with which they shaped their views
and opinions.”[21]

The condition of the Polish church and the character of the Polish
clergy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, too, were favorable to
the spread of Reformation ideas in Poland. Lorkiewicz characterizes the
Polish church and the Polish clergy of this period thus:

     The church, which by its calling and its nature, should
     be the guardian of the oppressed, the defender of the
     weak against the strong, the moral guide of men, and
     the regulator of social conditions, had allied itself
     with those social factors which sap the very life-blood
     of society, offering it in exchange only a form without
     content, a body without a soul. It had become a ballast,
     not such as steadies the easy movement of a light vessel,
     but such as threatens the storm-tossed ship with certain
     destruction. The clergy, if it is fit to use such
     unpalatable comparison, was at this time like an old church
     beggar, who, having said the prayers that had been paid
     for, had nothing more pressing to do than to hurry and in a
     particular and characteristic manner waste the alms he had
     received.[22]

The Polish clergy led as dissolute a life as did the clergy elsewhere
in Europe. The Polish bishops were far more interested in their
incomes, their social standing, and in their political influence than
in religion and morals. The indignation of the nobles, therefore,
at the freedom the clergy enjoyed from taxation and other burdens
was intense. They were strongly opposed to church tithes and to
ecclesiastic jurisdiction, and resented papal interference in matters
of state.[23]


_Pre-Reformation Reform Movements._--Into this receptive Polish
soil the seed of religious reform had been sown from time to time
for nearly four hundred years; and as it grew and developed, though
greatly hindered from time to time, it helped to create an atmosphere
favorable to the main religious reform movement of the sixteenth
century. The followers of Peter Waldo, persecuted in Italy, sought
safety in other countries. As early as 1176 some of them found refuge
in Bohemia, and others settled in Poland, near Cracow.[24] Here they
spread their master’s teachings, and found many adherents both among
the Czechs and among the Poles. Polish chronicles record the names
of a number of Waldensian Poles.[25] In time these Waldensians must
have become sufficiently numerous and active; for Pope John XXII found
it imperative to appoint in 1326 a special Inquisitor for Poland in
the person of Peter of Kolomea, a Dominican,[26] and in 1330 the
Inquisition discovered that there were many Poles and Czechs visiting
the Waldensian churches in Italy and making liberal contributions to
them.[27]

Wyclif’s influence reached Poland by way of Bohemia through the Masters
of the University of Prague, who at the Polish king’s request became
the reorganizers of the University of Cracow.[28] Andrew Gałka, a
professor in the University of Cracow, an ardent admirer of Wyclif and
a diligent student of his works, wrote a poem in which he praised the
English reformer, and denounced the priests as servants of the German
emperor and his Antichrist, who suppressed the truth and taught the
common people falsehoods.[29] For this poem and for having Wyclif’s
works in his possession he was expelled from the University and
imprisoned. He escaped, however, from his imprisonment, and sought the
protection of Boleslaus of Silesia, whence he carried on an extensive
correspondence, justifying his position and urging his readers to read
Wyclif’s works.[30]

Owing to the existence of close political and intellectual
relations[31] between Bohemia and Poland in the fifteenth century,
Hussitism found easy access to the latter country, and attracted many
followers and sympathizers from among the Poles. Its anti-German,
anti-papal, and nationalistic character found a responsive chord
in their hearts. Huss and his ideas met with great favor on the
part of many of them. At the Council of Constance the Polish lay
representatives sided with the Bohemian delegation, and loyally
defended Huss and his cause to the last. A number of powerful Polish
aristocratic families, like Spytek of Melsztyn, Abraham of Zbonsz,
Dersław of Rytwian, and others, became ardent supporters and defenders
of Hussitism.[32] Abraham of Zbonsz harbored and protected Hussite
preachers in his possessions for years in spite of the fact that
he was excommunicated for this offense by the bishop of Posen.[33]
Hussitism was spreading in Poland to such an extent as to cause alarm
among the church authorities. The archbishop of Gnesen, Nicholas
Tromba, called a synod to assemble at Kalisz, at which it was decided
to apprehend suspected heretics and to deliver them into the hands of
ecclesiastical tribunals.[34] Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki used his
influence with the king, and secured from him the Edict of Wieluń
(1424). By this edict the new teachings were declared to be deadly
errors of heretics, contemptible to God, detrimental to the Christian
faith, enervating to the body politic, inflammatory of perverse
hearts, and should be repulsed and kept out of the country, if need
be, by the sword. Heretics, protectors of heretics, and heretical
suspects were to be regarded as traitors, and were to be punished
by death. Those coming from Bohemia and entering Poland were to be
examined by Inquisitors, and if suspected of heresy, they were to be
detained. Polish subjects, whatever their class or condition, visiting
or residing in Bohemia, were to return to their country by next
Ascension Day; and if they failed to do so, they were to be regarded
as heretics, subject to punishment as heretics. Obstinate heretics
were to be punished by confiscation of property in favor of the crown
treasury,[35] and neither the offenders themselves nor their posterity
were to be admitted to any public office or to any official honors. And
Polish merchants were forbidden to export anything to the heretics of
Bohemia.[36]

In spite of this drastic edict, intended to check the spread of
Hussitism in Poland, the Bohemian Hussites sent some of their
emissaries to Cracow in 1427 for the purpose of conducting religious
discussions. The Polish historian Długosz, who was Cardinal Oleśnicki’s
secretary, reports that such a discussion, in which the Hussite
representatives and the Roman Catholic doctors of the University of
Cracow participated, was actually held in the city of Cracow in 1431,
in the presence of the king, and characteristically adds that the
heretics were vanquished, but would not admit it.[37]

On January 30, 1433, due again to Cardinal Oleśnicki’s influence,
another royal edict was issued against the heretics. Its intention was
to lend effectiveness to ecclesiastical excommunications by providing
for seizures by the starostas[38] of the property of excommunicated
church offenders, who had been under the ban of the church for more
than a year without effort to have it lifted.[39]

It seems that even this measure did not materially help to keep the
Hussite heresy in check. After the death of Wladislaus Jagiello in 1434
the Hussites were strong enough to offer some opposition to the regency
of Cardinal Olesńicki; for he and his party entered into a pact of
confederation at Korczyn on April 25, 1438, for the purpose of acting
together to subdue any possible political or religious disturbance.[40]
To counteract this, the opposition, headed by Spytek of Melsztyn, the
acknowledged leader of the Hussites, entered into a similar pact on
the third of May of the year following. This step on the part of the
Hussites led to a clash between the two confederated parties, resulting
in Spytek’s death, confiscation of his property, and in the ruin of the
Spytek family.[41]

That all these measures were ineffective to check the spread of
Hussitism in Poland is further evident from the fact that Casimir
Jagiello (1447-1492), the king who restored to the Polish crown the
right of investiture, lost to the Pope in 1206, issued in 1454 an order
to the civil authorities in the dioceses of Gnesen, Posen, Włocław, and
Płock to the effect that they cooperate with the appointed inquisitors
in running down heretics.[42] It must not be supposed, however, that
Casimir Jagiello was a zealous defender of the Roman Church and a
determined opponent of Hussitism. In 1462 he entered into an alliance
with the excommunicated Hussite king, George Podjebrad of Bohemia,
and maintained the alliance in the face of strong inducements as well
as threats from the Catholic party to break it. When the Pope in his
opposition to Podjebrad had gone so far as to attempt a crusade against
the Hussites in Poland, Casimir sternly prohibited the proclamation of
it.[43] In the western parts of Poland the traces of Hussitism were so
deep that as late as 1500 the nobility of Great Poland demanded the cup
at communion.[44] The work of the Hussites was reenforced by demands
for reform, made by loyal sons of the Church of Rome, who had caught
the spirit of Hussitism. Two men, both professors of theology at the
University of Cracow, though at different times, Matthew of Cracow
and James of Paradyż, became especially conspicuous within the Polish
Roman Catholic Church in the fifteenth century for their advocacy of
reform. Matthew of Cracow was born in 1330 of a family of town clerks
(Stadtschreiber). Having received his preparatory education in his home
town, he went to study theology at the University of Prague, where he
took all the University degrees one after another, and finally in 1387
became professor of theology. In 1394 he went as professor of theology
to the University of Heidelberg, and in 1396 he was made rector of
that University. In 1397 he was called to Cracow for the purpose of
reorganizing the University, founded in 1364 by Casimir the Great.

The University of Prague made an indelible impression upon him, and to
its influence he felt that he owed everything. His conception of the
church and his views of church matters were likewise the product of
the University of Prague. And Matthew became not only a theologian,
but also a reformer. While at the University of Cracow, he published
in 1404 a pamphlet under the title, “De squaloribus curiae Romanae.”
In it, as well as in his sermons, lectures, and other writings, he
condemned simony, defended the superiority of church councils over
the Pope, severely criticized the existing form of religion as a mere
semblance of Christianity, held the stupidity of church theologians
responsible for the decline of scriptural religious faith, and demanded
reforms.[45]

As the spirit of the University of Prague made Matthew of Cracow, so
the spirit of Matthew’s theology made James of Paradyż. Born about
1380, James entered the monastic Order of the Cistercians at Paradyż
at the age of twenty. In 1420 he was studying at the University of
Cracow, from which in 1432 he received its highest degree, namely that
of Doctor of Decretals, or of Theology. In 1431 he participated in the
famous public discussion with the Hussites in the king’s presence.
Though loyal to the Church of Rome, James nevertheless became an ardent
advocate of church reform, particularly of the monastic life. He went
so far as to propose the confiscation of monastic property of all
monastic orders which had become too worldly. In consequence of this
revolutionary proposal, he was forced to leave his Order at Mogila
and his chair of theology at the University of Cracow. Accustomed to
the discipline of the monastic life, however, he entered the Order of
the Carthusians at Erfurt, and continued his labors along the line
of church reform both by preaching and by writing until his death in
1464.[46]

That by the beginning of the sixteenth century the ground in Poland was
fairly well prepared for the spread of the coming Reformation is made
further evident by the character of some of the books published and the
opinions circulated in the country at that time. In 1504, for instance,
there appeared from the press in Cracow two significant books, “De vero
cultu Dei,” and “De matrimonio sacerdotum.” These books contained views
decidedly unfavorable to the church, and, as it was to be expected,
were condemned by it. In 1515, Bernard of Lublin, writing to Simon
of Cracow, expressed the opinion that the Gospel was all-sufficient
for faith and practice and that all other precepts of men could be
dispensed with.[47]


_The Spread of the Reformation in Poland. First Period, 1518-1540:
Early Beginnings and Struggles._--The Reformation reached Poland soon
after its outbreak in Germany, and spread rapidly. Following lines of
least resistance, it penetrated through the established channels of
trade and commerce and education into the larger commercial centres,
where there was a considerable German element, and into the life of
the country aristocracy, which sought knowledge and culture in the
universities of Germany.

The first Polish city to feel its influence and to respond to it was
the important commercial city of Danzig. In less than a year from
the posting of Luther’s theses on the door of the castle church at
Wittenberg, Luther’s reform doctrines were preached and championed in
Danzig. The man who accepted them and began to preach them publicly was
James Knade, a monk and preacher at the Church of St. Peter and St.
Paul. Knade renounced his monastic vows, married Anna, the beautiful
step-daughter of James Rohboze, a wealthy burgher of Danzig, and,
fearlessly opposing Rome and Roman practices, advocated reforms in the
church. Being a popular preacher, liked and respected by the people
of the city, his activity was very dangerous to the Church of Rome.
He was, therefore, seized, by order of the bishop of Kuyavia, tried,
found guilty, and imprisoned. Shortly after his imprisonment, he was
released, but had to leave the city. He took refuge on the estate of a
country gentleman by the name of Krokow, near the city of Thorn, where,
protected by his patron, he continued his reform activity without
further interference.[48]

Suppressed for a time, the reform movement broke out again four years
later with accumulated force. The interval had given the people of
Danzig time to think, to form opinions, and to take sides either
for or against the Reformation. The year 1522, therefore, found the
majority of the people of Danzig in favor of the Reformation. Some,
however, wanted to carry it through conservatively, others by radical
action. The advocates of conservative reform were drawn from among
the well-to-do, and included the city council. The radicals came from
the plebeian class, and represented the wishes of the common people.
The conservatives favored the dogmatic aspect of the new reform
movement, and opposed changes in organization, forms, and practices.
The radicals, on the other hand, kept their eyes on the practical
aspects of the new ideas, and proposed to carry them out to their
logical limit.[49] The leader of the conservative reform party was
Dr. Alexander, a Franciscan friar, an eloquent preacher, thoroughly
educated and well balanced. The leader of the radical reform party was
James Hegge, at first preacher at various churches outside the city
wall, then prebendary of St. Mary’s, the largest and most beautiful
church in the city, and still later of St. Catherine’s. Hegge was
likewise an eloquent and popular preacher and a man of a very practical
turn of mind.

While Hegge was the first to come forward in July, 1522, with a fresh
attack upon the Church of Rome and its clergy, advocating the necessity
of religious and ecclesiastical reforms both in doctrine and in
practice, the conservative reform party, headed by Dr. Alexander, was
able to control and to guide the movement for some time.[50] At length,
however, the control of it passed into the hands of the radicals.
These were not satisfied with any half-way measures, like preaching the
new doctrines, while still retaining the old forms and practices. They
began to demolish all sacred pictures, to clean out the churches of all
forms of idolatry, and to give up old practices.[51] Owing to their
strength and pressure, the conservative city government was induced to
issue a proclamation, freeing all monks and nuns from their monastic
vows, forbidding new candidates to enter any monastic order, and
restraining all monks from preaching, hearing confessions, soliciting
contributions, and visiting homes.[52] Conscious now of its power,
the radical reform party went still farther, and demanded a share
in politics and in the government of the city, with the result that
early in 1525 it finally overthrew the conservative aristocratic city
council, and established a popular city government.[53] The new city
council closed all monasteries and convents, abolished Roman forms of
worship, took possession of all church property, and appointed Lutheran
preachers.[54] In its results, then, the Danzig Reformation was not
only religious and ecclesiastical, but also social and political.

The accomplished reforms, however, were too thorough-going and too
far-reaching to be lasting. The ecclesiastical authorities and the
overthrown city council appealed to King Sigismund I (1506-1548) for
help. The king, a loyal Catholic, first sent a commission to inquire
into the situation and to restore the old order of things. When the
insurrectionary city government would not yield to the representatives
of the royal commission, the king in person set out for Danzig,
accompanied by an armed force, forced the new city government into
submission, punished fifteen of the revolutionary lay leaders by
ordering them to be beheaded, and restored the former aristocratic city
government and the Roman Catholic form of worship.[55]

In reality the king’s intervention restored only the old political
order of things. The old religion was restored in outward appearance
only, and for the time being as a matter of expedience. At heart the
people of Danzig remained thoroughly sympathetic with the new religious
teaching and the proposed religious reforms. So did the aristocratic
city council now restored again to power as a result of the king’s
intervention. With the restoration of the conservatives to power
every effort was made to preserve the old forms of worship. At the
same time the conservative aristocratic city council saw to it that
to the pulpits of all the more important city churches only preachers
sympathetic with the new teaching were appointed.[56] Under the
leadership of this council and such conservative and tactful men as Dr.
Alexander, Urban Ulric, Peter Bischoff, Pancratius Klemme, and Klein,
the Reformation in Danzig went forward quietly, and by 1540 became an
accomplished fact, not only in spirit, but also in form. This being the
case, the king acquiesced.[57]

The Reformation spread rapidly to other West Prussian cities, and
was accepted everywhere with enthusiasm. In the city of Thorn, the
birth-place of Copernicus, Luther’s doctrines were preached as early as
1520-1521. That they were favorably received and found many adherents
may be seen from the following incident. The papal legate Ferrei,
having come to Thorn at this time, proceeded publicly to burn Luther’s
portrait and some of his writings before the Church of St. John.
The residents of the city made an attack on him and his followers,
drove them away with stones, and rescued Luther’s picture from the
flames.[58] It is more than probable that the ferment the Reformation
was causing at Thorn was partly responsible for the publication in
that city, July the 24, 1520, of the king’s Thorn Edict, by which
the importation of Luther’s writings into the land were forbidden
under penalty of confiscation of all property and of exile from the
country.[59]

In Braunsberg, the seat of the bishop of Warmya, the Lutheran form of
worship was introduced in 1520 without the bishop’s persecution of the
innovators. When the cathedral canons upbraided the bishop for his
leniency, he laconically replied that Luther based his doctrines on
the Scriptures, and that whosoever felt himself capable of refuting
them was welcome to undertake the job.[60] Other West Prussian cities,
too, felt the force of the new movement, and responded to it in varied
degrees. The Reformation struck roots into the West Prussian soil so
deeply that even the vigorous suppression of it in Danzig in 1526 and
the following reaction through West Prussia were unable to exterminate
it.[61]

The attitude of the West Prussian cities toward the Reformation exerted
a strong influence on the Duchy of East Prussia, since 1466 a vassal
principality of Poland.[62] In 1525, the year when the Reformation
resulted in most far-reaching changes in Danzig, Albert Hohenzollern,
Grand Master of the Order of the Teutonic Knights, left the Roman
Church, accepted Lutheranism, secularized the possessions of the Order
with the consent of the Polish king, and by the Treaty of Cracow
of the same year became the secular hereditary ruler of the vassal
Duchy of East Prussia with a right to the first seat in the Polish
Senate.[63] The Pope and the German emperor naturally protested against
this arrangement, but without any effect. Owing to the popularity of
the Reformation in West Prussia and the revolution it caused in the
city of Danzig, and fearing that a refusal to grant Albert’s request
might lead him to bring to a head the reform movement in the whole of
Prussia and possibly tear the whole Prussian territory away from the
kingdom, Sigismund I preferred to sanction the arrangement described
above even at the risk of being suspected of disloyalty to the Church
of Rome.[64] In accordance with the agreement made with the Polish
crown, Duke Albert commanded, by an edict issued July 6, 1525, that
the Holy Gospel, the word of Christ, pure and simple, be preached in
his possessions “under the penalty of exile.”[65] At the same time he
made every effort to evangelize the population of the Duchy. For this
purpose he secured through Bishop Speratus of Pomerania the publication
at Wittenberg of Luther’s Shorter Catechism. A copy of this catechism
he sent in 1531 by Nipczyc to Chojnicki, archdeacon of Cracow, who read
it eagerly.[66]

The introduction and legalization of the Reformation in East Prussia,
one of Poland’s autonomous provinces, exerted a potent influence in
favor of the movement’s spread in other parts of the country. Duke
Albert became a patron and promoter of the new movement. He established
in Königsberg a press, from which thousands of Polish religious
pamphlets and books were issued, and a university, in which several
generations of Polish Protestant ministers received their education.
Thus East Prussia became a place of refuge for reformers and adherents
of the new faith, persecuted in other parts of Poland, as well as a
training ground for Polish Protestant clergy, and a source of Polish
Protestant literature.[67]

In the neighboring Duchy of Mazovia the Reformation did not make much
progress. Yet even here it evidently met with some success; for Duke
Janusz of Mazovia felt it to be necessary to issue in 1525 at a council
assembled in Warsaw an edict, forbidding, under penalty of death and
confiscation of all property for the benefit of the ducal treasury, the
possession and reading of Luther’s writings in whatever language, the
teaching of his doctrines, or any discussion of them with anyone.[68]

Owing to the close proximity of Great Poland to Saxony and Wittenberg,
Luther’s reforms reached it quickly. In 1524 King Sigismund found it
necessary to dispatch a special emissary in the person of Nicholas
Tomicki, starosta of Kościan, to the town of Kościan to suppress the
spread of heretical views there, and to call upon the town authorities
to assist Tomicki in his mission in every way possible.[69] In the
city of Posen, according to Prof. H. Merczyng, Luther’s doctrines
were preached publicly from the pulpit of Mary Magdalene’s Church by
its preacher, John Seklucyan, in 1525.[70] For this offense Seklucyan
was removed from his post by the magistracy of the city at the king’s
behest. He found a protector, however, in the powerful magnate Andrew
Górka, who sheltered him in his own palace in Posen, and secured for
him from the king in the course of time a position as secretary of
customs in that city.[71] Seklucyan remained in Posen until 1544,
when he removed to Königsberg, where he was very active for a number
of years in the preparation and publication of Polish Protestant
literature.[72] The Reformation found favor with and protection from
some of the most powerful aristocratic families of Great Poland, like
the Górkas, Bnińskis, Tomickis, Ostrorogs, and Leszczyńskis.[73] The
German reform movement was reenforced in Great Poland by the arrival
there in 1548, on their way to East Prussia, of the Bohemian Brethren,
exiled from their own country. During their brief stay in Great
Poland, under the protection of the Górkas, they made many friends,
won a considerable following, and laid the foundation for the Bohemian
Brethren Church of Great Poland. Though forced to move on by a royal
decree, issued on request of the bishop of Posen, many of them returned
later, when conditions had changed, and settled in Posen and other
places of Great Poland. By 1557 the Bohemian Brethren had thirty
churches in Great Poland, and some of the foremost families, like the
Leszczyńskis, Krotowskis, Ostrorogs, Opalińskis, and Tomickis, accepted
their form of the Christian faith.[74]

In Little Poland, too, the Reformation was making a good deal of stir
among certain classes of the population, and was creating a good deal
of uneasiness among its opponents. The new ideas, soon after their
appearance in Wittenberg, began also to be circulated in the city of
Cracow. Luther’s books were imported into the city in defiance of the
Edict of Thorn, were freely circulated and read, and his doctrines were
even publicly preached.[75] So popular were Luther’s writings and his
ideas in this city, that they caused the king, writing from Grodno,
February 15, 1522, to Chancellor Szydłowiecki, to recommend to the
City Council of Cracow that it diligently cooperate in the enforcement
of the Edict of Thorn.[76] A little more than a year later, March
7, 1523, a new edict was issued in the city of Cracow, in which the
king recognized that the penalty provided in the Edict of Thorn had
failed to check the circulation of Luther’s books and the spread of
his teachings in the capital, and consequently made it more severe.
The transgressors of the edict were to be punished not by exile, as
heretofore, but by burning at the stake as well as by confiscation of
their property.[77] Evidently even this edict failed to accomplish the
desired object; for three months later, August 22, 1523, another royal
edict appeared. This new edict provided for the search of the homes
of the residents of the city of Cracow for heretical books whenever
the bishop of Cracow should ask the city magistrates that such search
be made. It also provided for the censorship by the rector of the
University of all books printed in the city or imported from abroad.
Persons in whose possession heretical books were found, or publishers
and booksellers who published, imported or sold heretical books, were
to be punished according to the provisions of the royal edicts.[78]
This edict also calls on other municipalities to adopt similar measures
for the stamping out of heresy.

These royal decrees were called forth not by imaginary fear of a
non-existent evil, but by actual and steady growth of the Reformation
in Poland. There are a number of episcopal court cases on record of
persons arrested and tried for heresy. In 1522 the parish-priest of
Bienarów, near Bicz, Voyvodship of Cracow, was arrested for praising
and sympathizing with Martin Luther. In 1525 sixteen persons were
charged in the city of Cracow with professing Luther’s teachings,
breaking fast-day regulations, denying the efficacy of prayers for the
dead, the existence of purgatory, and the value of confession. These
persons were of the lower social class, artisans, organists, singers,
etc. In the face of the severe penalties provided for such offenders
by the royal edicts, all the accused naturally denied being guilty
of the charges. In 1526 there were two cases of priests charged with
heresy. One of these was Bartholomew, rector of the school of Corpus
Christi in the suburb of Kazimir; the other Matthew of Ropczyce.
The latter was sentenced to confinement in the clerical prison at
Lipowiec. There was also a case of a book-dealer, called Michael, who
was charged with the importation of heretical books; and one of a
Bohemian blacksmith charged with denial of Christ’s presence in the
consecrated host. In 1530 another book-dealer by the name of Peter
was charged with importing Luther’s Catechism. He defended himself
by stating that he possessed only six copies of it. On December 10,
1532, four influential citizens of Cracow were charged with professing
Lutheranism. A similar case came up the year following. Book-dealers
seem to have been the worst offenders and the hardest to deal with. In
1534 two Cracovian book-dealers, Hieronimus Wietor and Philip Winkler,
were charged with selling books containing Lutheran doctrines. At the
same time similar books were found to be in the possession of Matthew
of Opoczyn, rector of the church at Sieciechów. The most significant
case on record, however, was that of James of Iłża, preacher of the
Church of St. Stephen, Cracow, “artium magistri et collegiati minoris
collegii.” James started to preach Luther’s doctrines openly from
the pulpit of his church in 1528. When called to account for it, he
denied being guilty, and his case was dismissed. But when he continued
preaching the heretical doctrines publicly, he was again haled before
the bishop’s court. This time he was ordered to retract the Lutheran
errors publicly from his pulpit. Instead of doing that James escaped to
Breslau. In consequence of that he was at once adjudged and condemned
as a heretic.[79]

It is evident that neither royal edicts, nor episcopal court decrees
were able to check the spread of the religious reform movement in
Poland. The new ideas invaded even the king’s court, and found
followers among those nearest to the king and to the queen. Justus
Decius, the king’s private secretary, was an admirer of the Reformation
and knew Luther personally. Francis Lismanini, an Italian Franciscan,
private confessor of Queen Bona, was a most ardent promoter of the new
movement.[80]

The spread of the Reformation in Poland is registered not only in
the royal edicts, but also in the resolutions and decrees of the
ecclesiastical provincial synods. The clergy were not particularly
desirous to carry on a war with the religious innovators. At the
provincial synods of 1520 and 1522 the Polish hierarchy took no action
whatever regarding the new movement. The synod of 1523 did not go
beyond reaffirming Leo X’s bull, excommunicating Luther and condemning
his teaching, and repeating the king’s edicts which penalized the
innovators and the promoters of innovations. Instead of fighting the
new movement, the Polish clergy were ready to negotiate with the
Protestants and to make concessions. In fact, they went so far as to
lay before Pope Clemens VII in 1525, through a special envoy, the
Primate’s Chancellor Myszkowski, their hard lot, and to appeal to him
to call a general synod together for the purpose of bringing about a
restoration of church unity. The Pope, however, engaged at the time
in a conflict with the emperor, made only promises and exhorted the
Polish clergy to greater religious zeal, at the same time conferring on
the primate of Poland full powers to deal with the spreading heresy as
circumstances might demand, either to suppress the heresy or to absolve
the heretics.[81]

Complying with the Pope’s exhortation, the next provincial synod,
assembled at Łęczyca in 1527, adopted more definite and decided
measures to combat effectively the spread of the heretical movement.
It resolved that every bishop in the diocese appoint an Inquisitor,
selected either from the regular or from the secular clergy, who
would be on the lookout for heretics, and who would report them to
the bishop in order that they might be properly punished.[82] But the
synod did not stop with repressive measures. It realized the futility
of repression without effective prevention. Therefore, it further
resolved to improve the general intellectual character of the Polish
clergy. Every bishop was to seek out expert theologians and eloquent
preachers, who would be able to instruct the people and to expound to
them the Scriptures in a rational and intelligent way. These were to
be given appointments especially in places infected with heresy.[83]
And that the clergy might not lack for subjects to preach upon, every
clergyman was recommended to provide himself with the Scriptures, the
Church Fathers, Homilies, and other similar books.[84] Then, too, the
synod of that year was especially concerned about the atmosphere of
the king’s environment. It resolved that the king be requested to keep
a learned preacher at court, to hear him every holy day, and especially
during the sessions of the Diet. In this connection the bishop in whose
diocese the Diet met was charged to appoint such a preacher for the
king, in case the king failed to provide himself with one.[85] The next
two synods, of 1530 and of 1532, favored the use of stern measures
against the importation of heretical books and against the adherents of
heretical doctrines.[86]

But these synodical edicts were no more effective in checking the
spread of the Reformation in Poland than were the royal decrees.[87]
Instead of intimidating the adherents of the new religious movement,
they stimulated them to greater boldness. In 1534 at the provincial
diet of Grodzisk the nobility of Great Poland demanded books in the
Polish language, particularly the Bible. Every nation has writings in
its own language, it asserted; but as for us, the priests want us to be
ignorant.[88]

The steady growth of the religious reform movement in Poland led its
opponents to the employment of extreme repressive measures. In 1534 the
Polish clergy secured from the king an edict, forbidding the Polish
nobility to send its youth to any seat of learning known or suspected
to be heretical. Those that were at such universities were recalled.
If any refused to return, they were to be deprived of all rights
and privileges of citizenship. As was to be expected, the edict was
ignored. Hence, in 1540, in response to an appeal from the clergy, the
king issued a call on the starostas to enforce the aforesaid edict[89]
and on the bishops to report any violations of it in order that the
recalcitrant parties might be duly punished.[90] By a law of 1538,
owing to the tendency of Germans to take up with heretical ideas,
only native Poles were to be appointed to abbacies of Polish monastic
institutions.[91] Moreover, in 1541 the king went so far as to threaten
those receiving and harboring heretical ministers with the loss of all
nobility rights and privileges.[92] And to cap the climax, in 1539,
Peter Gamrat, bishop of Cracow, ordered Catherine Zalaszowska, an
eighty-year old lady, the wife of Melchior Zalaszowski, a member of the
Cracow City Council, to be burned, because of her opposition to the
adoration of the eucharistic host. The order was carried out, and the
old lady was executed.[93]

However, this execution of Catherine Zalaszowska by the ecclesiastical
authorities, and the threats of the king of 1540 and 1541, mark both
the climax of the opposition and the end of the first period of the
religious reform movement in Poland, the period of its early beginnings
and defensive struggles. From now on the movement assumes an aggressive
attitude.


_Second Period, 1540-1548: Growing Aggressiveness._--By 1540 German
Lutheranism in Poland became reenforced by Calvinism from Geneva.
This new form of the religious reform movement recommended itself
more favorably to the Poles because of its non-German origin, its
recognition of laymen in church councils, and because it was considered
more appropriate for a free republic.[94] Conversions to Calvinism
among the higher classes in Poland became now more and more frequent.
The relatives of the once famous Bishop and Cardinal Oleśnicki, the
Stadnickis, the Sienieńskis, the Firleys, the Jazłowieckis, the
Szafraniec family, and other aristocratic families of Little Poland
became adherents of Calvinism.[95] The Grand Hetman of Poland, Jan
Tarnowski, though not an avowed adherent of Calvinism, yet corresponded
with John Calvin,[96] and openly opposed ecclesiastical jurisdiction
and Rome’s influence.[97] And in 1539 Calvin dedicated his Commentary
on the Mass to the young Crown Prince, Sigismund Augustus.[98]

From now on the religious reform movement became the most important
topic of general discussion everywhere and among all intelligent
classes of Polish society. The abuses, faults, and shortcomings of the
church were being keenly felt and freely talked about. Questions of
faith, doctrine, and church dogmas were engaging everybody’s attention,
and were discussed on every occasion and at every opportunity. They
constituted the main topic of conversation, and sometimes of heated
discussion, at dinners, feasts, and social gatherings, particularly if
members of the clerical profession were present.[99]

This general interest of the intelligent classes of the Polish people
in the Reformation and the free discussion of the very fundamentals
on which the existing ecclesiastical system rested were creating a
great deal of uneasiness among the higher clergy, and caused them to
put forth still more determined efforts in defense of the old faith
and the old form of worship, not altogether from religious motives but
also from economic and social considerations. The new movement was
undermining their material resources as well as their social position
and influence.[100] Every effort must, therefore, be made and every
means employed to check this movement, if such a thing were possible.
Thus at the Synod of Piotrków in 1542 the clergy resolved to demand of
the king a strict enforcement of the royal edicts against heresy. It
resolved, also, to forbid parents to send their children to heretical
schools; to prohibit the reading of heretical books, which many were
doing under the pretense of trying to qualify themselves to refute the
heresy; to search homes for heretical writings; to enjoin the local
authorities to keep a close watch over the booksellers and printers;
to seize suspected works; and to punish all transgressors immediately
and without delay. The synod of 1544 reaffirmed the stand of the
church on these points, taken at the synod of 1542. All these decrees
remained largely ineffective, for they needed for their enforcement the
cooperation of civil authorities, which, however, could not now readily
be obtained, since all the royal edicts and the synodical decrees
against heresy violated constitutional rights granted the nobility in
the fifteenth century.[101] The synod of 1547 was, therefore, forced
to acknowledge the powerlessness of the church to cope with the new
movement, and to admit that in many dioceses of Poland even the clergy
were seriously affected by the spreading heresy, and that the church
was in imminent danger of being swamped by it.[102]

The futility of the decrees of the synod of 1542 becomes still more
apparent in the light of the stand of the Polish nobility at the Diet
of Cracow the following year. Open aggressiveness and sympathy with
the Reformation is here in evidence. The nobility demanded of the king
at this Diet and secured (1) the retention within the country for
purposes of defense against foreign aggression of the annates paid
to the Pope, and (2) the revocation of the unconstitutional edict of
1534, reaffirmed in 1540, forbidding Polish citizens to study, or to
educate their children abroad in universities infected with heresy. In
compliance with the urgent request of the senators and the deputies
the king agreed to send an embassy to the Pope with a petition, which
was more a notification than a request, that the annates be allowed
to be retained in the country; and should the Pope refuse to agree to
that, he was to be at once notified that the annates would not be
allowed to be given or exported from the country any more.[103] As
to the second point, the edicts forbidding Polish citizens to visit
certain places abroad were abrogated, and they were again given full
liberty to visit foreign countries for any purpose whatever, provided
they were not accompanied by a military retinue, or went to engage
in war. But, returning, they were not permitted to import heretical
books, or to disseminate among the common people doctrines not accepted
by the Roman Catholic Church. Whoever should be found guilty of this
offense, was to be prosecuted according to the laws of the kingdom
against heretics.[104] This measure reveals a recognition on the part
of the king of the impossibility of restraining anyone from personally
accepting the new teaching, particularly any of the nobility. The only
thing it seeks to guard against is the public dissemination of the new
teaching among the common people.

These significant gains stimulated the adherents to the Reformation
and its sympathizers to greater and more open activity. The new
movement, as has already been noted, had penetrated even into the royal
court, and had found followers among those nearest to the king. The
environment of the Crown Prince had been strongly saturated with the
new ideas, and every effort was made to win the young prince over to
the new cause. Two of his preachers began openly to denounce the abuses
of the church. They were John Koźmiński, known also as Cosminius, and
Lawrence Prasznicki, called also Prasnicius and Discordia. The latter
became very well known among the Protestants later on.[105] Their first
public attacks on the church and demands for reform were naturally of a
general character, and that enabled them to continue their activity at
court for some time.

At this time the Protestants began to appeal to the masses of the
nation through religious literature, published in the vernacular.
The works of Andrew Samuel appeared in the Polish language, and
other heretical books, likewise in the language of the people, were
freely imported and circulated. Moreover, there were now within the
country men who wrote in the spirit of the Reformation in Polish,
and had their writings printed. Nicholas Rey, the father of Polish
literature, published his first satirical work in 1543. It consisted
of a conversation, in which a gentleman, a bailiff, and a priest
participated, and in which the author severely rebuked the cupidity
of the clergy and the folly of the people for regarding their payment
of tithes as the essence of morality and religion and for relying on
that for their salvation, while at the same time he pointed out the
essential character of faith. The same year there appeared anonymously
from the press in Cracow the first Polish catechism published in
Poland, in which the new reform doctrines were taught, and which
contained also some of Rey’s verses. Other of Rey’s writings followed
in 1545, 1546, and 1549. In all of these the writer championed the new
doctrines, at first cautiously, but later quite frankly. In 1544 John
Seklucyan published his Confession of Faith, and somewhat later his
Polish translation of the four Gospels appeared[106] in Königsberg.

This new kind of appeal of the reformers to the people caused the
king to issue from Brześć in Lithuania, July 10, 1544, a threatening
mandate to the starostas, stirring them up to vigilance and to a strict
enforcement of the law. Whoever dared to import, sell, buy, possess, or
read such books was to be punished by death.[107]

This mandate was the last of the repressive measures issued by the
old king against the Reformation. Owing to his age and without doubt
also to a growing conviction of the futility of an attempt to stem the
tide of ideas and convictions, especially in the realm of religion, he
ceased to combat the movement with edicts and mandates. In this period
of relative quiet the reform forces gathered new strength and courage
for their great activity in the following reign.[108] This inactivity
on the part of the king gave rise to rumors among the opponents of the
Reformation that the king was favoring the spreading heresy. These
rumors were given color by the king’s Order to the Starostas, issued
in Cracow, August 9, 1546, to forbid Polish citizens in the king’s
name to take part on either side in the religious war which had broken
out in Germany at this time.[109] This order was issued by the king in
spite of the fact that Paul III, in a letter, dated July 3, 1546, had
urged Sigismund I to take an active part in that war on the side of the
forces defending the cause of the church.[110]

At this time too, the reform movement began to make an open breach
in the ranks of the Roman clergy. The first notable case was that of
John Łaski, known also as John a Lasco, a nephew of the famous Primate
of Poland of the same name. John Łaski had spent a number of years
in studies abroad, had come into personal touch with the reformers
of Wittenberg and Geneva, had accepted the Reformed faith, and in
1542 resigned his prebendary of Gnesen.[111] In 1541 Andrew Samuel, a
Dominican monk, brought to Posen by Bishop Branicki, a preacher at
Mary Magdalene’s Church and a very learned man and an eloquent speaker,
became a Protestant. In 1543 another Dominican monk, John Seklucyan,
through whose influence Samuel had been led to accept the new teaching
and to preach its doctrines openly, broke with the Church of Rome, and
became very active in developing a Polish Protestant literature under
the protection and with the aid of Duke Albert of East Prussia.[112] In
1544, again, Stanislaus Lutomirski, a parish priest of Konin, became a
Calvinist.[113] Lutomirski’s example led Felix Krzyżak, known also as
Cruciger, prebendary of Niedźwiedź, to embrace Calvinism in 1546, and
through his influence the magnate Stanislaus Stadnicki was induced to
do the same thing. In 1547 James Sylvius, prebendary of Chrzęcice, in
the possessions of the Filipowskis, also went over to Calvinism.[114]

Moreover, the close contact of the court clergy, in great degree
liberal in matters of religion, with the patriciate of the city of
Cracow, for years favorably disposed toward the new religious movement,
helped to promote the spread of the new doctrines. Beginning in 1545,
frequent secret meetings for purposes of religious and theological
discussions were held in the home of the nobleman John Trzycieski, in
which members of the upper social classes, the town patriciate, the
neighboring szlachta, the court clergy, the canons of the cathedral
chapter, and the king’s secretaries participated. Of the townspeople
we know the name of one, Wojewódka; of the szlachta, we know names of
Trzycieski, Karmiński, James Przyłuski, Filipowski; of the clergy,
Francis Lismanini, James Uchański, Zebrzydowski, Adam Drzewicki, and
Leonard Słonczewski. The last three became bishops later on, and
one of them, Uchański, archbishop and primate of Poland, a strong
advocate of a Polish National Church. The promoter and leader of these
secret meetings was Francis Lismanini, a Franciscan monk and private
confessor of the queen. It was chiefly he who procured and distributed
heretical books among the members of this select group, and spread the
new religious ideas among his monastic brethren. In these meetings
outside visitors, stopping temporarily in the city, also participated.
Imbued with the new spirit, the clerical visitors carried the new
doctrines wherever they went, and preached them to their hearers.[115]
Similar meetings were being held in Posen, of which Samuel and
Seklucyan were the product.[116]

The growing interest on the part of the people in the Reformation, the
aggressive character of the movement, and the increasing defections
among the clergy created consternation among the Polish bishops. These
high church dignitaries began now to feel that it was not safe any more
to rely on the lower clergy. The synod of 1547, therefore, charged the
bishops not to allow any priest to preach without a special permit
from the bishop of the given diocese. Bishops that were careless in
observing and enforcing this synodical ruling were to be fined 100
“grzywień.”[117]


_Third Period, 1548-1573: Triumph and Dominance._--As the Reformation
in Poland was steadily gathering strength and growing in influence,
King Sigismund I died on Easter Sunday, April 1, 1548, and was
succeeded by his son Sigismund Augustus, crowned since 1530 to succeed
his father as king of Poland. Sigismund Augustus was a truly religious
man, believing sincerely in the fundamentals of the Christian religion,
but indifferent to the forms in which they were to be expressed. He
adhered to the Church of Rome as the state church in which he had been
brought up and to whose forms of worship he had become accustomed. At
the same time he associated closely with Protestants, read Protestant
books, and took part in discussions on theological questions. Calvin,
as we have seen, had dedicated his Commentary on the Mass to him. Among
his closest and most intimate friends were Protestants like Nicholas
Radziwill the Black, grand hetman of Lithuania and brother-in-law of
the young king, and Francis Lismanini, at one time private confessor of
the king’s mother.[118]

It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that the Roman See and the
Polish clergy were considerably apprehensive of the future of the
Catholic Church in Poland, while the Protestants, on the other hand,
looked forward with confidence, counting on the support of the young
king. Just as soon as the news of the death of the old king reached
the Pope, he at once dispatched to Poland a legate in the person
of the Abbot Hieronimus Martinengo to carry to the young king his
condolences, his congratulations, and his apostolic blessing, and to
secure from him assurances of his loyalty to the Church of Rome and of
his purpose to follow, in religious matters, in the footsteps of his
father. The nuncio arrived in Poland in August, 1548. The king received
him cordially, assured him of his respect for the Apostolic See, and
advising him not to wait for the meeting of the next Diet, dismissed
him.[119]

The Protestants, too, became now very active, preaching their doctrines
openly, and holding services on the estates and in the villages of the
szlachta. Their forces were strengthened by the arrival in Poland in
the summer of 1548 of the Bohemian Brethren. They had been expelled
from Bohemia and were on the way to East Prussia, where they were
offered the hospitality of Duke Albert. On their arrival in Posen, they
were cordially received by the Starosta-General of Great Poland, Andrew
Górka, castellan of Posen. During their stay in Posen they preached
publicly, and found many followers.[120] Ordered by the king, at the
request of Bishop Idźbieński of Posen, to move on, they left; but
their brief stay prepared the ground for future work, and established
connections which enabled them to return later on.[121]

Scarcely had the bishop of Posen freed the city of the Bohemian
Brethren, when he had a new case of heresy to deal with. The prebendary
of St. John’s, Andrew Prażmowski, began to preach Calvinistic doctrines
from the pulpit of his church. The bishop drove Prażmowski out of
his diocese. However, this did not stop Prażmowski’s activity as
a Calvinistic preacher. Finding refuge in Radziejów, Kuyavia, and
protected there by the powerful magnate, Raphael Leszczyński, voyvoda
of Brzezść and starosta of Radziejów, he prepared there the ground for
the spread of Calvinism, and laid the foundation for the establishment
of the Calvinistic Church in this voyvodship.[122] The same thing was
happening in Little Poland, where Lismanini, though now under the
ban of the bishop of Cracow, was nevertheless very active, spreading
Calvinistic doctrines. Catholic priests one after another began now
to leave the Church of Rome, to preach the Reformation doctrines,
and to reorganize their churches and the form of worship by doing
away with the mass and with pictures and by introducing the cup at
communion.[123] Moreover, the aristocracy openly encouraged the spread
of Protestantism in their possessions. Calvinistic churches sprang up
at Alexandrowice of the Karmińskis, at Chrzęcice of the Filipowskis,
at Pińczów of the Oleśnickis, and at Secynin of the Szafraniec
family.[124] Karmiński and Filipowski had been members of the secret
circle in Cracow, meeting for purposes of discussion of the new ideas.

At the Diet of Piotrków, 1547-1548, the szlachta had in the very first
article demanded the preaching of the pure word of God without any
human or Roman admixtures. All this, however, had been done rather
quietly as yet. But now at the very first Diet, called by the new king
to meet in Piotrków again in 1548, questions of religious reform were
brought boldly to the front. The szlachta demanded freedom to speak of
God freely in every place, which thing the clergy forbade. But when the
issue was raised in the Senate, the king replied that to speak of God
was the prerogative of the clergy, and that he would follow them.[125]

To such an extent had the reform movement spread, that it became
necessary for the Calvinists of Little Poland to establish a better
church organization. In effect they held the first synod in 1550 at
Pińczów, in the possessions of Nicholas Oleśnicki, a descendant of the
famous Bishop and Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki. Shortly thereafter they
appointed Felix Krzyżak (Cruciger) of Szczebrzeszyn as superintendent
of the Reformed Churches of Little Poland.[126] At the same time the
clergy of the Roman Church were becoming more and more restless.
Stanislaus Orzechowski, a canon of the cathedral chapter of Przemyśl
and a man of noble rank, came out with denunciations of the evils
of the church and with threats of marriage. Immediately a number of
priests, Martin of Opoczyn, Martin Krowicki, Valentine, prebendary of
Krzczonów, and others, proceeded to take wives unto themselves. In
spite of their marriages, some of them still held to their charges,
and argued for a married clergy.[127] Leonard Słończewski, who had
openly criticized the Pope and the clergy while preacher of St. Mary’s,
Cracow, now bishop of Kamieniec, preached against Peter’s primacy, the
celibacy of the clergy, and their loose moral lives.[128] Maciejowski,
bishop of Cracow, though by no means a supporter of the Reformation,
yet favored certain reforms, like the cup at communion and a married
clergy. Francis Stankar, professor of Hebrew in the University of
Cracow, propounded views of the Trinity which were contrary to those
held by the church. When charged with heresy and arrested by the
bishop, he escaped with the help of the neighboring szlachta, found
refuge at Dubieck in the possessions of the magnate Stanislaus
Stadnicki, established a school there with five teachers, and continued
to disseminate his ideas.[129]

This state of affairs stirred up the bishops to action. John Dziaduski,
bishop of Przemyśl, having previously warned Orzechowski, who had
married in spite of the warning, proceeded to try him along with
some of the other married priests; but fearing interference from the
szlachta, he condemned them in their absence without a hearing. Andrew
Zebrzydowski, bishop of Cracow, summoned Conrad Krupka to justice; and
when Krupka appeared accompanied by a number of friends, the bishop
refused to hear him, and condemned him as a heretic without a trial.
Orzechowski being a nobleman, his verdict had to be confirmed by the
king before it could be executed. The king confirmed the verdict, and
forwarded it to Kmita, starosta of Przemyśl for execution. Orzechowski
was to be deprived of honor, his possessions were to be confiscated,
and he was to be exiled. But Kmita, knowing the feeling of the szlachta
in this matter, would not execute the verdict.[130]

In the ecclesiastical attack on Orzechowski, the szlachta saw an attack
upon its own special privileges. When Orzechowski appealed his case to
the Diet in 1550, the Diet took it up readily. The matter created such
a commotion as to cause the Diet to break up without any results.[131]
Instead of taking due warning, the bishops proceeded to exercise
their authority in a still more high-handed way. In 1551 the bishop
of Przemyśl condemned the magnate Stanislaus Stadnicki for protecting
heretics. He did this in Stadnicki’s absence, without a trial, and
against the protests of Stadnicki’s attorney. The Primate of Poland,
Dzierzgowski, archbishop of Gnesen, showed his zeal by condemning
as heretics Christopher Lasocki and James Ostrorog, two of the most
powerful and distinguished magnates of Great Poland. In all these cases
the bishops did not fail to declare distinctly that all the property
of a condemned heretic was subject to confiscation.[132] The Polish
szlachta, regardless of religious affiliation or sympathies, rose
almost to a man in most indignant protests against such high-handed
usurpation of power on the part of the hierarchy and against such
brutal attacks upon their most fundamental rights. At the provincial
diets in the fall of that year, at which delegates were chosen to the
next Diet, the szlachta voiced their indignation against the clergy,
and instructed the chosen deputies to the Diet of 1552 to protest
against ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to demand its abolition.[133]

The Diet of 1552 met at Piotrków toward the end of January. The
Chamber of Deputies elected as its president Raphael Leszczyński,
starosta of Radziejów, an avowed Calvinist, who during the mass at the
opening of the Diet stood in the church with his head covered. He was
the chief spokesman of the injured and aggrieved szlachta. When the
Chancellor had finished reading the appeal from the throne to consider
problems of defense, Leszczyński rose in the name of the Chamber and
the szlachta, stating that the Chamber would take no action on any
matter until the grievances of the szlachta, arising from the abuse
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction were removed. In this attitude the
Protestants were supported even by loyal Catholics. In the ensuing
debate the bishops were left without any support. The secular senators,
among whom were several very influential Protestants, sided with the
Chamber of Deputies. The leaders of the opposition to ecclesiastical
jurisdiction were: in the Senate, John Tarnowski, castellan of Cracow
and grand hetman of Poland, a loyal Catholic; in the Chamber, Raphael
Leszczyński, starosta of Radziejów and president of the Chamber, an
ardent Calvinist.[134] The struggle resulted in the suspension of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a year, the szlachta agreeing to pay
the customary tithes, the payment of which had in many instances
already been stopped.[135]

From 1552 to 1565 the Protestants dominated all the Diets, electing
invariably a Protestant as president of the Chamber of Deputies.

The united opposition of the Polish szlachta to the Polish clergy in
1552, the election of an avowed Protestant to the presidency of the
Chamber in that year, and the actual, even though temporary, suspension
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,--all this had a most stimulating
affect on the religious reform movement in Poland. Felix Krzyżak and
Francis Stankar, who had fled to Great Poland from the persecution
of Bishop Zebrzydowski in 1551 and had found protection at Ostrorog
in the possessions of Stanislaus and James Ostrorog, returned now to
resume their work in Little Poland.[136] For this they were now all the
better qualified as a result of their acquaintance with the work of
the Bohemian Brethren in Great Poland. They began to hold conferences
and synods, thereby stimulating the interest and enthusiasm of the
Protestants in the reform movement. The Protestant nobles, having the
right of recommending candidates for vacant churches within their
possessions, made now direct appointments of men sympathetic with the
reform movement. In this way into many of the churches the new form
of worship was introduced. At the same time many of the nobles began
seriously to question the fundamental right of the clergy to tithes,
and stopped payment, even though they had agreed in 1552 to continue
this practice.[137] They took these bold steps, believing that the
young king was with them. They drew that inference from the king’s
close intimacy with Lismanini, who was now an avowed Calvinist, and
with others equally well known for their heretical sympathies and
contacts.[138]

This growing boldness and aggressiveness of the Protestants provoked
the clergy to renewed defensive and offensive activity. At the synod of
Piotrków in 1554 the clergy were seriously inclined toward conciliatory
measures, and after a long debate, finally resolved to invite the
dissidents and schismatics to the next synod in an effort to reconcile
them with the Mother Church.[139] But they did not stop with that. They
further resolved to appeal to the Pope for help; they requested the
Vatican to send special legates to Poland to assist the Polish clergy
in their struggle against the spreading heresy, and since the agreement
of 1552 was now expired, they began to make fresh use of their
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The first one to set the example again
was the archbishop of Gnesen, Dzierzgowski, and his first condemnatory
verdict fell on Stanislaus Lutomirski, who had left the Church of Rome
twelve years before by accepting Calvinism. Here was another clergyman
of noble rank condemned by an ecclesiastical tribunal as a heretic, and
thus deprived of honor, property, and country. The next one to exercise
his jurisdiction was the bishop of Posen, Czarnkowski, who rendered
verdicts of heresy against several citizens of that city. Dziaduski,
bishop of Przemyśl, continued persecuting heretical preachers in his
diocese. These episcopal condemnations, however, were of no effect;
for the condemned persons always found protection in the possessions
of some powerful magnate, in whose territory only his own jurisdiction
prevailed. In consequence of this the bishops resorted sometimes to
violence in order to execute their verdicts, though not necessarily
with more success. Bishop Zebrzydowski of Cracow, for instance,
summoned before his episcopal tribunal Martin Krowicki, who having
become a Calvinist, married, left the priesthood, and was residing at
Pinczów, in the possessions of Stanislaus Oleśnicki. When Krowicki
did not appear, the bishop condemned him without a trial, and planned
to seize him by strategy. Krowicki was taken violently, thrown into
a wagon, and carried away to the bishop’s prison. But when Oleśnicki
was informed of what had happened, he set out in pursuit of Krowicki’s
captors, overtook them, drove them away, and rescued the victim.[140]

While the bishops were vainly prosecuting and persecuting the
heretics, the Protestants were steadily strengthening their ranks
by perfecting their organization and by effecting a very important
union of the Calvinists with the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland.
During his temporary retreat in Great Poland in 1551, caused by
Bishop Zebrzydowski’s persecution, Felix Krzyżak, superintendent of
the Calvinistic churches of Little Poland, became acquainted with the
Bohemian Brethren there, and invited them to unite with the Calvinists
of Little Poland. After two preliminary conferences between the
representatives of both groups, one held in Little Poland at Chrzęcice,
in the possessions of Filipowski, and another in Great Poland at
Gołuchow, in the possessions of Raphael Leszczyński, a Protestant
synod was called together to meet at Koźminek, near Kalisz, in August,
1555, at which time a union between the two above mentioned bodies was
effected. The basis of agreement was that each body retain its separate
organization and its form of worship, while both were to work toward
gradual uniformity in both respects.[141]

The growth of Protestanism and the development of opposition had
made the religious question exceedingly acute, and placed it at the
Diet of 1555 in the very forefront of problems calling for immediate
settlement. The importance of this question was fully recognized by
the king himself, who had placed it among the matters to be discussed.
Encouraged by the gains made at the Diet of 1552 and provoked by
the high-handed repressive measures employed by the bishops, the
Protestants planned to make a still more determined stand at this Diet
against ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. At the provincial diets they
chose, therefore, some of the most powerful magnates and most ardent
Protestants, like Leszczyński, Ostrorog, and Marszewski of Great
Poland, and Ossoliński, Siennicki, and others of Little Poland, as
deputies of the Chamber.[142] The bishops, realizing the seriousness
of the impending conflict, came out in force, and were ready to make
concessions, if need be.[143] The Diet, called for the 22nd of April,
1555, met in first session on the 28th. As could have been expected,
the Chamber again chose a Protestant for its president in the person of
Nicholas Siennicki. In his speech of welcome to the king on behalf of
the Chamber the next day, Siennicki stated the wishes of the szlachta.
In brief, they wanted the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and
full religious liberty. A project of adjustment was, therefore, worked
out, having the full approval of the king and the secular members of
the Senate, providing: (1) that everyone be at liberty to keep at home
or at his church such clergymen as preached the pure Word of God; (2)
that these be free to follow their own ritual and ceremonies; (3)
that those wishing it be allowed to have the communion administered
in both kinds; (4) that priests deprived of their benefices have them
restored for the length of their lives, whereupon the lords were to be
free to choose such priests as they might wish, or, where the former
incumbent was already dead, the nobles could do as they pleased; (5)
that all episcopal judgments in religious matters against whomsoever
issued be declared null and void; (6) that the clergy be free to
marry; (7) that all the clergy, whatever their rank, be declared
entitled to their former incomes, according to old customs; (8) that
blasphemy against the Trinity and the Eucharist as celebrated by the
Roman Church, attacks upon the form of worship of that church, and
forcible conversions of Catholics be prohibited; and (9) that all these
provisions have the approval and guaranty of the king and be made
binding until the restoration of universal peace either by a national
or a provincial synod.[144]

By this document Protestanism in Poland would have been placed on
a basis of full equality with the Roman faith. But when this bill
was presented to the bishops, they promptly rejected it. Thereupon
new plans of adjustment were worked out one after another only to
be rejected by the bishops. Finally, it was resolved that the king
call together on his own authority, at a time most convenient in his
judgment, a synod at which the king himself with his council of state
should be present. Until then peace should be preserved in the country;
ecclesiastical jurisdiction against whomsoever was to be suspended; the
execution of all pending ecclesiastical judgments was to be abandoned;
and people were to refrain from all blasphemies and disturbances
growing out of religious differences.[145] The bishops, however,
remained inflexible; they would not yield an inch in spite of the fact
that they had considered making concessions. They protested against
the suspension of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and through the
archdeacon of Kalisz, Francis Krasiński, appealed to the Pope for
counsel and for help.[146]

Nevertheless, in spite of the bishops’ protests, the decision of the
Diet prevailed and remained in force. By it ecclesiastical jurisdiction
became suspended until the meeting of a National Synod to be called
together at a convenient time by the king, and Protestantism was for
the time being legally recognized, receiving full freedom of worship
and the legal right to all the church property already in the hands of
Protestants. It was not as much as the Protestants had hoped to gain;
nevertheless it was a considerable advance and a marked victory for
them.

In accordance with his agreement to call a National Synod together
to settle the existing religious differences, the king took steps to
secure the Pope’s sanction of this move and of several contemplated
reforms. He sent Stanislaus Maciejowski, castellan of Sandomir and
crown court marshal, to Rome with congratulations to the new Pope, Paul
IV, and with the request for his sanction of the following proposed
reforms:

 1. The mass and all church services to be held in the Polish language;

 2. Communion in both kinds;

 3. A married clergy; and

 4. The calling of a National Synod to settle the existing religious
 differences and troubles.


The Pope was astonished at the request, and refused to sanction the
suggested reforms absolutely. To the fourth point he acceded, but never
really intended to keep his promise.[147]

The nature of the proceedings and the decisions of the Diet of 1555
and the proposed religious reforms for which the Polish king asked
papal sanction caused the Apostolic See a good deal of concern, and
led the Vatican to send at once Louis Alois Lippomano, bishop of
Verona, as special legate to Poland. From this time on the Apostolic
See kept a special envoy in Poland constantly to watch the course of
events. Lippomano was a man without tact, and not at all particular
in his choice of means to accomplish his objects. His reputation had
preceded him, and his arrival in Poland in October, 1555, stirred up
the Protestant element in the population to great indignation. The king
received him cordially. But owing to his lack of tact, Lippomano soon
lost the king’s favor, and won the ill-will even of good Catholics.[148]

To mend matters, the legate started to exert his influence first on
those nearest to the king. He wrote a letter to Nicholas Radziwill the
Black, palatine, chancellor, and grand marshal of Lithuania, the most
powerful magnate in the Grand Duchy, an ardent Calvinist, whose zeal
contributed greatly to the spread of Protestantism in Poland as well
as in the Grand Duchy. In this letter Lippomano endeavored to win and
convert Radziwill to the Church of Rome. Radziwill, however, could not
be won back to the Roman Church. He replied, exposing the unfavorable
character of the Catholic clergy, and let this correspondence be
published. The publication of this correspondence made Lippomano still
more unpopular in Poland, and changed completely whatever friendly
attitude the king may have had toward him.[149]

Having failed at court, Lippomano turned now to the bishops to arouse
their loyalty and to rekindle their zeal. But here, too, he failed to
meet with better success. Many of the bishops were ready to capitulate
and to negotiate with the szlachta in order to save their bishoprics
and their incomes. Some of them, like Drohojowski, bishop of Kuyavia,
and Uchański, bishop of Chełm, were actually favorably disposed
toward the reform movement. Others, again, like Zebrzydowski, bishop
of Cracow, owing to past association with the reformers, were under
constant suspicion. The only men among the Polish hierarchy upon whom
the nuncio could rely were the Primate of Poland, Dzierzgowski, and
the bishop of Warmya, Hosius; and of these two the primate had to be
largely discounted as he had neither the learning nor the ability to be
of any help in such a difficult situation. The legate had, therefore,
no easy sailing to find support for his plans among the Polish bishops,
or to keep them from associating with heretics.[150]

Seeing the fruitlessness of his efforts among the bishops, he turned
to the lower clergy, visiting churches, holding conferences with the
members of the cathedral chapters and the parish priests. Here he met
with better response and greater success. He discovered that the lower
clergy were both more loyal and more concerned about the real needs of
the church and the remedies to correct existing evils.[151]

In this connection it is of interest to note the independence of the
Polish bishops as regards their attitude toward Rome. A provincial
synod under the presidency of the papal nuncio was called to meet at
Łowicz on September 6, 1556. The Polish bishops wanted to confer _in
corpore_, without the presence of the nuncio, and then to present to
him the results of their conference and to get his opinion. The Polish
bishops were opposed to permitting the nuncio to exert undue influence
on their deliberations, and in this attitude they were supported even
by Hosius, the one Polish prelate upon whom the nuncio counted most.
The nuncio, however, would not consent to any such procedure in the
deliberations. The disagreement became so acute that Bishop Hosius had
to act as mediator between his colleagues and the legate. Since the
latter would not yield, the bishops finally agreed to confer together
in his presence.[152]

If the results of the Diet of 1555 made the Apostolic See vigilant
as regards Poland, it is not to be wondered at; for such vigilance
was imperative. The Protestants were now more active than ever. The
Calvinists of Little Poland energetically developed their work in all
the churches occupied by them before the Diet of 1555 and acknowledged
by the Diet as theirs in the royal cities, particularly Cracow and
Posen, and even in the territories of the royal domain wherever
Protestants were found. They founded schools at Pińczów, Secynin, and
Koźminek. They were holding frequent synods, and were strengthening
and perfecting their internal organization.[153] If the Calvinists of
Little Poland were active, so were also the Bohemian Brethren of Great
Poland. The number of their followers increased to such an extent
that by 1557 a separate senior or superintendent for Great Poland was
appointed by the central administrative authority in Moravia.[154]
Moreover, to counteract Lippomano’s activity, the Polish Protestants
invited to Poland two distinguished reformers, Francis Lismanini and
John Łaski. Both of these arrived in the country toward the end of
1556. The first, being a foreigner, the Catholics succeeded in having
banished from the country by order of the king, though not until after
a good deal of effort.[155] The second, however, being a distinguished
native, could not be banished. So he stayed, and worked faithfully,
though fruitlessly, for a union of the Lutherans with the other two
already united Protestant bodies, the Calvinists of Little Poland and
the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland.[156]

When the new Diet, called for November 25, 1556, assembled in Warsaw,
the Protestants were well represented in it. They came out in full
force to counterbalance the presence and any possible influence of
the papal nuncio on the deliberations of the Diet. The king, being in
need of money for a war which was threatening with the Knights of the
Sword, had to court the favor of the Chamber in order to get it to vote
the necessary contributions for the conduct of the war. The pressing
problems before the new Diet were, then, those of defense and of
religion. According to the rescript of the preceding Diet, the problem
of “egzekucji praw,” or of the execution of laws, a matter similar to
the English “quo warranto,” which had come up for consideration at that
time and had been postponed until the next Diet, was to be taken up and
considered first. However, it was decided to lay this problem aside
again until a more opportune time, owing to the more pressing question
of adequate finances for the conduct of the coming war. The Chamber
was ready to vote the necessary contribution, on condition, however,
of a satisfactory settlement of the existing religious differences.
Thus the religious question again became the most important, and on
its solution depended the success of any program for a proper defense
of the country.[157] But no satisfactory solution of the religious
problem was in sight. The Chamber, therefore, proposed that, in case
a better adjustment of the religious differences was impossible at
this time, the decisions of 1555 be continued in force and be more
strictly observed. The spiritual lords were most reluctant to give
their assent to this proposal. The Chamber, again, threatened that
it would not otherwise vote the necessary funds for the conduct of
the war. Hence, the king issued an edict, dated January 13, 1557,
continuing the religious settlement of 1555 in force during his absence
from the country, with the added provision that should anyone in any
way violate those decisions, the king would regard such violations as
an offense against his person and against his government, would judge
the offenders in the king’s courts, and would punish them according to
law.[158] Thereupon the Chamber voted the needed contribution.

By this edict the king hoped to placate both of the contending
parties. As it happened, the edict did not really satisfy either
party. Consequently it was never made public, was not enforced, and
was finally recalled. However, if it had been made public, and if
it had been enforced, it would have done away with ecclesiastical
jurisdiction; for from now on cases of heresy, being regarded as an
offense against the king’s person, would have been adjudicated in the
king’s courts rather than by ecclesiastical tribunals.[159]

In consequence of this turn of events at the Diet of 1556-1557, the
papal legate, Lippomano, immediately left Poland for Rome. There he
complained of the lack of religious fervor and zeal on the part of
the Polish hierarchy, attributing to their religious indifference the
vigorous growth of Protestantism in Poland, and of the king that he
was permitting everyone to believe and to worship as he pleased.[160]
His complaint of the Polish bishops was not altogether groundless. How
little they apparently cared for the spiritual welfare of the church is
shown by their attendance at the synod of 1557, which met at Piotrków
on May 17. Besides the archbishop of Gnesen, there were present two
bishops only, Zebrzydowski, bishop of Cracow, and Uchański, bishop of
Chełm. The other bishops were represented by their delegates. Moreover,
one of the bishops present, Uchański, asked his colleagues to vote at
the next Diet for the introduction into the Polish church of communion
of both kinds. But the delegates of the cathedral chapters opposed
this suggested innovation most decidedly, and turned it down.[161]

Meanwhile the Reformation was making steady progress, not only in the
possessions of the szlachta, but also in cities and among government
officials. And owing to the fact that Protestants were now found among
senators, starostas, royal court officials, and among the king’s most
intimate friends, punishment of heretics was becoming increasingly more
difficult.[162] In Little Poland the Calvinistic churches had become
so numerous that for administrative purposes they were divided in 1560
into districts, over which superintendents were appointed both clerical
and lay,--clerical, to care for the spiritual welfare of the churches,
and lay, for the administration of temporal affairs. At the joint synod
of the Calvinists and the Bohemian Brethren at Włodzisław, on June
15, 1557, on motion of the distinguished reformer John Łaski, it was
decided that steps be taken to effect a union with the Lutherans, such
as had previously been effected between the Calvinists of Little Poland
and the Bohemian Brethren of Great Poland.[163]

At the Diet of 1558-1559, called at Piotrków for November 20, 1558,
the Protestants were again in full control, and for president of the
Chamber of Deputies they again elected Nicholas Siennicki, who presided
over its deliberations in 1555. The foremost problem before the
present Diet was “the execution of laws,” and, of course, inseparably
connected with it was that of religion. Growing out of these, there
were the further problems of the exemption from military service of the
mayors of ecclesiastical villages, ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
the participation of the clergy in royal elections. Bishop Uchański
moved in the Senate that problems of religion be set aside until the
calling of a national synod, in which both the clergy and the laity
would be free to participate. He argued that only such an assembly so
composed and gathered for that particular purpose would be able to
adjust the troublesome religious differences. The Chamber was willing
to set matters of religion aside until a national synod could be called
together, but on condition that ecclesiastical jurisdiction, not only
in matters of religion, but in all matters, with all cases pending, be
suspended. Knowing the seriousness of the situation, yet very reluctant
to surrender their jurisdiction, the bishops pledged themselves to use
it with utmost care. But the new papal legate, Kamill, bishop of Sutri,
refused to countenance any idea of calling a national synod, to which,
besides the Roman clergy, the laity and the heretics would be admitted.
The Chamber, on the other hand, was equally determined to do away and
for good with ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all matters.[164]

Next, in connection with the larger problem of the execution of laws,
the Chamber questioned the legality of the exemption from military
service of the mayors of ecclesiastical villages. It was found that
according to the Code of Casimir the Great the mayors of ecclesiastical
villages were required to render military service. The Diets of 1538
and of 1550 confirmed the old law, requiring compliance with its
provisions, unless the clergy produced documentary evidence of special
privileges of exemption for such cases. The Chamber of 1558, therefore,
demanded that the clergy produce the documentary privileges they
claimed to possess,[165] but the evidence was not forthcoming.

Thereupon a still more serious question was raised, namely, that
concerning the clergy’s participation in royal elections. Since the
bishops were ever appealing to canonical law rather than to the law of
the land, and since they regarded the interests of the Church of Rome
and their loyalty to the Pope of greater importance than the interests
of the country and their loyalty to the Polish king, the Chamber
through its spokesman, Hieronimus Ossoliński, a Protestant, argued in
the Senate in the king’s presence that from such a weighty matter as
the election of a Polish king the bishops, whose allegiance is divided,
should be excluded.[166]

This proposal capped the climax. It now became fully evident to all
that the difficulties had become practically insurmountable, and
instead of diminishing they were constantly increasing. The king
proposed, therefore, a dissolution of the Diet. His proposal, being
acceptable to all parties, was put in effect February 8, 1559.

At this Diet the Protestants had been in indisputable control, and
in their struggle with the hierarchy had made considerable advance.
They had demanded the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the
appeal to canonical law, not only in questions of religion, but in all
other matters. They had proved that mayors of ecclesiastical villages
were subject to military service in time of need, and not exempt from
it as the clergy claimed. They had raised the question of the right of
the bishops, as representatives of a foreign potentate, to participate
in the elections of the Polish king.

In the face of the growing strength and aggressiveness of Protestanism,
it is interesting to note the policy of the Catholic Church toward
the state, toward its own clergy, and toward Protestanism, as that
policy is revealed in the decisions of the synod of 1561. The Polish
Catholic clergy fully realized by this time the precarious position of
the Catholic Church in Poland, and decided upon conciliatory measures.
To show the king their loyalty and generosity, they agreed to make
a liberal contribution, 60,000 thalers, to the king’s treasury for
purposes of defense. To win the people back to the Mother Church,
they resolved on reforms in the life of the Polish episcopate and
the abandonment of the persecution of Protestants. The bishops were
urged to live more simply, to give more personal attention to the
administration of their dioceses, to establish schools, to assist
in the education of the sons of the poorer gentry by providing free
maintenance for them at their episcopal courts. To reclaim the
Protestants, they resolved now to treat them kindly.[167] Even the
Vatican adopted a conciliatory attitude toward the Polish government
by immediately confirming the king’s appointment to the archbishopric
of Gnesen in 1562 of Bishop Uchański, who for years had been a
suspected heretic and a persona non grata to the Holy See.[168]

Nevertheless, whenever their incomes were at stake, the Polish bishops
were still quick to resort to their ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and
to excommunicate those failing to pay their tithes according to the
agreement at the Diet of 1555. If the excommunicated person remained
under the ban for a year without an effort to have it lifted, his
property was to be seized and confiscated. The execution of such
episcopal decrees was not easy; for the civil authorities declined
to act. And even if there were officials who tried to execute such
decrees, they found the task was altogether too difficult to perform.
For instance, Lasocki, a well known Arian Protestant, failing to pay
his tithes to the cathedral chapter of Cracow, was excommunicated.
After a year Chancellor Ocieski, who was at the same time starosta
of Cracow, ordered his possessions seized. The Protestant nobility,
aroused by this order, came armed, one thousand men strong, to Cracow
on May 14, 1561, and refused to allow the seizure of Lasocki’s
estate.[169]

This and other similar cases determined the course of action of the
Protestant nobility at the Diet of Piotrków, 1562-1563. The Protestants
were well represented, and again elected one of their number, Raphael
Leszczyński, as president of the Chamber. They protested now, not only
against ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters of heresy and tithing,
but also against the edicts issued against heresy by Sigismund I.[170]
They appealed to their special privileges received at Czerwińsk in
1422 and at Jedlnia in 1430, guaranteeing them freedom of person
and inviolability of property rights, and to the constitution of
the Diet of Radom, 1505, which made the royal edicts against heresy
unconstitutional. For that constitution, known as “Nihil novi,”
explicitly declared that no new fundamental law could be passed without
the common consent of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.[171]
In these matters the Chamber again had the full support of all the
temporal peers in the Senate, regardless of creed. As a result of these
protests the king issued instructions to the starostas to respect the
constitutionally guaranteed privileges of the szlachta. By this act all
the edicts against heresy were practically annulled and the execution
of judgments of ecclesiastical courts, whether in cases of heresy or in
case of failure to pay tithes, was made impossible.

At the next Diet, assembled in Warsaw toward the end of November, 1563,
the clergy made a show of presenting their privileges, exempting the
mayors of their villages from military service, with the declaration
that they were doing it “ad informationem” and not “ad judicum.” The
indefiniteness of the documents was apparent. But the Chamber, though
predominantly Protestant again with Nicholas Siennicki presiding,
was inclined to be conciliatory. It agreed that the clergy should
enjoy personal exemption from the so-called “pospolite ruszenie,”
or general rising in arms, but it did express the feeling that they
should share in the burdens of defense by money contributions. After
several consultations with the papal legate, the clergy declared their
willingness to make a substantial contribution to the country’s defense
at this time, but could not obligate themselves regarding the future;
and that they would do this on condition that the law passed at the
last Diet virtually doing away with ecclesiastical jurisdiction be
repealed and that the Edict of Warsaw of 1557, which had then been
expressly recalled by the king as unconstitutional, be enforced. These
reservations and conditions were not acceptable. And when the bishops
refused to recede from the position they had taken, the king signed a
manifesto, imposing a tax of 20 groszen per łan, or 20 groats per hide
of land, of which 10 groszen were to come from the tithes.[172] This
evoked a veritable furor among the bishops. But it was useless. The
king was firm; and from now on to the end of his reign whenever a tax
was imposed for purposes of defense, the same proportion was to come
from the tithes.[173]

The notable victories achieved by the Protestants over the Roman
clergy at the last two Diets opened the way wide to the spread of the
Reformation. They also encouraged the szlachta to go still farther in
their efforts to emancipate themselves from the power of the clergy.
With ecclesiastical jurisdiction practically abolished, the szlachta
began now to question the legitimacy of tithes. They were led to
this by the insistence of the clergy that the tithes be paid, and by
continuing to summon before their courts those who failed to do so
and even the starostas who, in compliance with the law of the Diet
of 1562-1563, refused to execute the verdicts of their courts. When,
therefore, the Diet of 1565 assembled at Piotrków on January 18, the
Chamber under the presidency of Nicholas Siennicki wanted to know the
ground on which the szlachta was required to pay the tithes and the
purposes for which the clergy were using them. And since the clergy was
unwilling to share the burden of the country’s defense, the szlachta
was disinclined to pay the tithes.[174] The Deputies complained also
about the summons served by episcopal courts on the szlachta for
non-payment of tithes and on the starostas for refusing to execute
episcopal decrees; whereupon the king sanctioned a law making all such
summons null and void.[175] This was the last blow administered to the
effectiveness of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; and as a result of it the
victory of the Protestants was complete.

An idea of the relative strength and influence of Protestantism at
this time may be gained from the composition of the Senate in the Diet
of 1569, the number of Protestant parishes in the realm, and from a
complaint of Peter Skarga, the greatest Jesuit preacher in Poland at
the close of the 16th and the beginning of the 17th century. The total
number of senatorial seats in the Diet of 1569 was 133. Of these 70
were occupied by Catholics, 15 of whom were bishops, 58 by Protestant
dignitaries, 2 by Greek Orthodox senators, and 3 were vacant. Of the
total number of senators the Protestants came close to having one-half,
and, exclusive of the Catholic bishops, the Protestants outnumbered
the Catholic temporal peers by three.[176] The number of Protestant
parishes in Poland toward the close of the 16th century, according to
Professor Henry Merczyng’s researches and calculations, was about 600,
or one-sixth of the total number of Roman Catholic parishes in Poland
including Lithuania. The same relative proportion existed between the
Protestant and the Catholic szlachta of Poland at this time.[177]
That this estimate of Professor Merczyng’s of Protestant strength
in Poland at this time is very conservative can be seen from Peter
Skarga’s complaint, made at the close of the 16th century, that two
thousand Romanist churches had been converted into Protestant places of
worship.[178]

To make their strength felt still more politically, the Protestants,
including the Lutherans, the Calvinists, and the Bohemian Brethren,
entered into a certain form of union at Sandomir, April 14, 1570, known
as _Consensus Sandomiriensis_. By this agreement, while each body
retained its organization and form of worship, the three Protestant
bodies pledged themselves to preserve peace and harmony among
themselves and to act together politically.[179] Due to the political
strength of the Protestants, the Polish szlachta entered during the
interregnum after the death of Sigismund Augustus into a Pact of
Confederation at Warsaw in 1573, by which religious toleration and
equality were legally established in the realm, and had to be sworn
to by every newly elected king.[180] This marked the climax in the
development of the Reformation in Poland.

The causes of this remarkable development of the Reformation
movement in Poland were not only political, as previous studies have
sufficiently established, but also social and economic. To show this is
the purpose of the present study.

       [1] Walerjan Krasiński, Zarys dziejów Reformacji w
           Polsce, Warsaw, 1903, vol. i, p. 26; Wł. Smoleński.
           Dzieje narodu polskiego, Warsaw, 1904, p. 21.

       [2] Smoleński, pp. 30-31; Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 29-30.

       [3] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 31.

       [4] Ibid., vol. i, pp. 31-32.

       [5] Smoleński, pp. 41-42.

       [6] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 34.

       [7] Smoleński, p. 31.

       [8] An interesting and detailed account of this incident
           is given by Stanislaus Smolka in his Szkice
           historyczne, Warsaw, 1883, pp. 259-281. See also
           Eugene Starczewski, Możnowładztwo polskie, Warsaw,
           1914, pp. 114-115.

       [9] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 34-36.

      [10] Smoleński, pp. 25-26.

      [11] Ibid., p. 31; Krasiński, vol. i, p. 30.

      [12] Smoleński, p. 31; Krasiński, vol. i, p. 37.

      [13] Starczewski, p. 72.

      [14] Vincent Zakrzewski, Powstanie i wzrost Ref. w Polsce,
           Leipzig, 1870, p. 112. When the Roman Inquisition
           called Uchański to appear before it to give account
           of himself and to be tried as a heretic, he refused
           to do so, protesting against being called a heretic
           before a previous trial (see Zakrzewski, p. 140).

      [15] Zakrzewski, pp. 179-180.

      [16] Smoleński, p. 19.

      [17] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 32.

      [18] Smoleński, p. 93.

      [19] T. Grabowski, Literatura luterska, Posen, 1920, p.
           13. Many of the Polish bishops were great admirers of
           Erasmus, and they constituted, says Grabowski, the
           vanguard of the reformers.

      [20] See E. H. Lewinski-Corwin, The Political History of
           Poland, N. Y. 1917, p. 138; Smoleński, pp. 80-81.

      [21] Lewinski-Corwin, p. 138.

      [22] Antoni Lorkiewicz, Bunt Gdański Roku 1525, Lemberg,
           1881, p. 7.

      [23] Lewinski-Corwin, p. 137.

      [24] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 37-38.

      [25] Artur Górski, Ku czemu Polska szła, 2nd Ed., Warsaw,
           1919, p. 55.

      [26] August Sokołowski, Dzieje Polski. Wiedeń, 1904, vol.
           ii, p. 250.

      [27] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 38.

      [28] Grabowski, p. 6.

      [29] “Cantilena vulgaris de Wikleph.” See Piotr
           Chmielowski, Historja literatury polskiej, vol. i,
           pp. 77-78.

      [30] Ibid., vol. i, p. 78.

      [31] The Bohemians or Czechs fought together with the
           Poles against the Order of Teutonic Knights, and
           twice offered the Bohemian crown to the Polish King,
           Wladislaus Jagiello. The Poles and the Lithuanians
           had separate colleges of their own at the University
           of Prague, established by Queen Hedwig, and Polish
           youth resorted to that University in large numbers.
           Huss corresponded with King Jagiello, and his close
           associate, Hieronim of Prague, spent some time in
           Poland, spreading his master’s ideas.

      [32] Smoleński, p. 75.

      [33] Zakrzewski, pp. 19-20.

      [34] Smoleński, p. 75.

      [35] This violated fundamental constitutional rights
           granted the “szlachta” at Czerwińsk in 1422, and
           therefore could not possibly be enforced. See
           Appendix, No. 14. The term szlachta denotes in its
           narrow meaning the gentry, in its large and general
           meaning the Polish nobility as a whole.

      [36] Volumina legum, vol. i, p. 38, folio 85. For text see
           Appendix, No. 1.

      [37] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 50-51.

      [38] The starostas were royal administrators and judicial
           officials similar to the Frankish counts.

      [39] Volumina legum, vol. i, fol. 193 ff. See Appendix,
           No. 2.

      [40] Ibid., vol. i, fol. 140; Zakrzewski, p. 18. See
           Appendix, No. 3.

      [41] Ibid., fol. 141; ibid., pp. 18-19.

      [42] Raczyński, Codex diplomaticus Majoris Poloniae, p.
           172 ff.; Zakrzewski, p. 20.

      [43] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 54-55.

      [44] Górski, p. 117.

      [45] Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 66-70; Grabowski, p. 6.

      [46] Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 70-71.

      [47] Lorkiewicz, p. 97; Górski, p. 56.

      [48] Lorkiewicz, pp. 32-33.

      [49] Ibid., pp. 40-41, 43, 68.

      [50] Ibid., pp. 50-51, 58-59.

      [51] Ibid., pp. 43, 68.

      [52] Ibid., pp. 58-60.

      [53] Ibid., pp. 58-75.

      [54] Smoleński, p. 94.

      [55] Lorkiewicz, pp. 119-148.

      [56] Ibid., pp. 153-155.

      [57] Ibid., pp. 154-155; Krasiński, vol. i, 81-82.

      [58] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 80-81.

      [59] Balzer, Corpus Juris Polonici, vol. iii, pp.
           579, 584. Original in Acta Tomiciana, vol. v,
           fol. 284, ff., and in Friese, Beiträge zur
           Reformationsgeschichte in Polen, vol. ii, No. 1, p.
           36. See Appendix, No. 4.

      [60] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 81.

      [61] Ibid., vol. i, p. 81.

      [62] R. N. Bain, Slavonic Europe, Cambridge, 1908, pp.
           24-25.

      [63] Ibid., p. 59; Lewinski-Corwin, pp. 131-133.

      [64] Theiner, Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae,
           vol. ii, fol. 429; Lewinski-Corwin, p. 182; Bain, p.
           59.

      [65] J. Janssen, History of the German People, vol. v, pp.
           114-115.

      [66] Urkundenbuch zur Reformationsgeschichte des
           Herzogthums Preussens, Leipzig, 1890, vol. i, p. 337;
           vol. ii, p. 289.

      [67] Zakrzewski, p. 28.

      [68] Volumina legum, vol. i, fol. 448, p. 223. For text
           see Appendix, No. 5.

      [69] See Edict of Dec. 28, 1524, appendix, No. 6.

      [70] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 83 n. Dr. Warmiński, however,
           claims that this date has no documentary support,
           that we do not know anything certain of Seklucyan
           until the year 1536. See his Andrzej Samuel i Jan
           Seklucyan, Posen, 1906, pp. 18-21n., 22.

      [71] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 83n.; Warmiński, p. 23.

      [72] Warmiński, pp. 19-21.

      [73] Smoleński, p. 94; Starczewski, p. 69.

      [74] Ludwik Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 101 n. 42.

      [75] Zakrzewski, p. 24.

      [76] Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, vol. iii, pp. 649-650.
           See Appendix, No. 7.

      [77] Ibid., vol. iv, p. 3. See Appendix, No. 8.

      [78] Ibid., vol. iv, pp. 29-30. See Appendix, No. 9.

      [79] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 82-84, Prof. Merczyng’s note.

      [80] Zakrzewski, pp. 23-24, 226-227. Roman Pilat, Historja
           poezji polskiej, Warsaw, 1909, p. 30.

      [81] Theiner, vol. ii, fols. 426-429; Zakrzewski, pp.
           29-30.

      [82] Zakrzewski, p. 30.

      [83] Ibid., p. 30.

      [84] Ibid., pp. 30-31.

      [85] Ibid., p. 31.

      [86] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 84.

      [87] Zakrzewski, p. 31.

      [88] Grabowski, p. 16; Alexander Brückner, Dzieje
           literatury polskiej, Warsaw, 1908, vol. i, p. 82.

      [89] See text of the king’s letter in Appendix, No. 10.

      [90] Ibid., No. 11.

      [91] Volumina legum, vol. i, p. 257.

      [92] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 85.

      [93] Zakrzewski, p. 40; Warmiński, p. 10.

      [94] Lewinski-Corwin, p. 139; cf. also David Hannay,
           Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. xxi, Article “Poland.”
           Lutheranism penetrated into Poland by 1520, Calvinism
           by 1534, the Bohemian Brethren by 1548, and the
           Anabaptists by 1533, preceding the Calvinists by one
           year (Kubala, Orzechowski, p. 100, n. 23).

      [95] See Starczewski, pp. 84-131.

      [96] Reformacja w Polsce, vol. i, No. 1, pp. 65-67.

      [97] Starczewski, pp. 105-106; L. Kubala, Stanisław
           Orzechowski, pp. 31-33.

      [98] Zakrzewski, p. 41.

      [99] Ibid., p. 44.

     [100] Ibid.; Smoleński, p. 103.

     [101] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 85.

     [102] Ibid., vol. i, p. 86.

     [103] Quoted by Zakrzewski from the Crown Register for
           1543, as the Constitution in the Volumina legum, vol.
           i, fol. 566 ff. omits that particular provision. See
           Zakrzewski, pp. 240-241. First instance of the use of
           Polish. See Appendix, No. 12.

     [104] Zakrzewski, p. 241. See text in Appendix, No. 12.

     [105] Ibid., p. 47.

     [106] Alex. Brückner, Mikołaj Rej. Lemberg, 1922, pp.
           17-25; Dzieje lit. pol., Warsaw, 1908, vol. i, p.
           102; Zakrzewski, pp. 48-49.

     [107] Zakrzewski, p. 242; for text, see Appendix No. 13.
           It is of considerable interest to note the various
           royal and ecclesiastical measures of Sigismund I’s
           reign against the Reformation. In 1520, by the Edict
           of Thorn, the importation and sale of Luther’s works
           was prohibited; in 1523 censorship and search of
           residences was introduced; in the same year the
           heretics of Łęczyca were excommunicated, and in 1527
           the synod of Łęczyca renewed the Inquisition; in
           1534 the Poles were forbidden to resort to foreign
           educational institutions; in 1541 the Polish nobles
           were forbidden to harbor heretics under penalty of
           deprivation of nobility rights; and in 1544 the
           Polish clergy abroad were ordered to return home
           under penalty of deprivation of their benefices
           (Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 100, n. 22).

     [108] Zakrzewski, p. 49.

     [109] Crown Register, Bk. 70, ZF. fol. 643, cited by
           Zakrzewski, pp. 242-243.

     [110] Raynold, Annales Ecclesiastici ad annum, 1546, No.
           97, cited by Zakrzewski, p. 243.

     [111] Alex. Brückner, Różnowiercy polscy, Warsaw, 1905,
           p. 7 ff.; John Fijałek, in Reformacja w Polsce
           (Reformation in Poland), Quarterly of Reformation
           Historical Society, Warsaw, 1922, Nos. 5-6, p. 1 ff.;
           Dalton, John a Lasco.

     [112] Warmiński, pp. 3 ff., 42 ff.

     [113] Zakrzewski, p. 50.

     [114] Ibid., p. 53.

     [115] Ibid., pp. 52-58; Roman Pilat, Hist. poezji pol., p.
           30.

     [116] Warmiński, p. 17.

     [117] Zakrzewski, p. 53.

     [118] Ibid., p. 56.

     [119] Theiner, vol. ii, folios 560, 561, 563-565.

     [120] Zakrzewski, p. 59.

     [121] Ibid., p. 60.

     [122] Ibid.

     [123] Ibid.

     [124] Ibid.

     [125] Brückner, Dz. lit. pol. vol. i, p. 102; Zakrzewski,
           p. 246, n. 11a.

     [126] Jos. Łukaszewicz, Dzieje kościołów wyznania
           helweckiego, Posen, 1853.

     [127] Kubala, Orzechowski, pp. 28-37; Zakrzewski, p. 65.

     [128] Brückner, Dz. lit. pol., vol. i, p. 102.

     [129] Zakrzewski, p. 61.

     [130] Kubala, p. 30.

     [131] Zakrzewski, p. 61.

     [132] Ibid., pp. 65-66.

     [133] Ibid., p. 67.

     [134] Kubala, pp. 31-32.

     [135] Ibid., pp. 35-37; Zakrzewski, p. 69.

     [136] Zakrzewski, p. 69.

     [137] Ibid., p. 71.

     [138] Ibid., p. 70.

     [139] Ibid., pp. 72, 251; Eichhorn Hosius, vol. i, p. 212.

     [140] Zakrzewski, pp. 72-73.

     [141] Łukaszewicz, Dz. kośc. helw. w Małopolsce, pp. 20-44.

     [142] Zakrzewski, p. 75.

     [143] Ibid., pp. 75-76.

     [144] Ibid., pp. 80-81.

     [145] Ibid., pp. 91-92.

     [146] Theiner, vol. ii, fols. 576, 577; Zakrzewski, pp.
           92-93.

     [147] Zakrzewski, pp. 94-95.

     [148] Ibid., pp. 96-97.

     [149] Ibid., p. 97.

     [150] Ibid., p. 98.

     [151] Ibid., pp. 98-99.

     [152] Ibid., pp. 103-104.

     [153] Łukaszewicz, Dz. kośc. helw., pp. 247-248;
           Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. i, pp. 15-34.

     [154] Łukaszewicz, O Kościołach Braci Czeskich w
           Wielkopolsce, p. 49.

     [155] Lismanini went to East Prussia, where he found
           protection, and whence he was sent on missions to the
           King of Poland by Duke Albert.

     [156] Brückner, Różnowiercy polscy, pp. 74-89; Zakrzewski,
           pp. 99-100.

     [157] Zakrzewski, pp. 106-107.

     [158] For the original, see Friese, Beiträge, vol. ii, No.
           1, p. 269.

     [159] Zakrzewski, pp. 108-109.

     [160] Ibid., p. 109.

     [161] Ibid., pp. 109-110.

     [162] Ibid., pp. 110-111, 259, n. 34.

     [163] Łukaszewicz, O Kościołach Braci Czeskich, pp. 46-48.

     [164] Zakrzewski, pp. 132, 134.

     [165] Ibid., pp. 117, 118.

     [166] Ibid., pp. 119-126.

     [167] Ibid., p. 144.

     [168] Ibid., p. 152.

     [169] Ibid., pp. 146-147.

     [170] See Appendix, No. 14.

     [171] Smoleński, pp. 77, 78, 91.

     [172] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 661.

     [173] Zakrzewski, pp. 178-179.

     [174] Ibid., pp. 199-200, 201-207.

     [175] Ibid., p. 206; Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 694.

     [176] Henry Merczyng, Zbory i Senatorowie w Dawnej Polsce,
           Appendix in Krasiński, vol. iii, pp. 143, 262-263.

     [177] Ibid., p. 143.

     [178] Winter, Poland of Today and Yesterday, p. 305.

     [179] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 237-242; Zakrzewski, p. 219.

     [180] Vol. leg., vol. ii, pp. 124-125; see also Reformation
           in Poland, Nos. 5-6, pp. 54-70.




                               CHAPTER II

                SOCIAL CAUSES OF THE POLISH REFORMATION


The phenomenal spread of the Reformation in Poland was due, first
of all, to certain social causes. Among these probably the most
potent were the Renaissance, the art of printing, the influence of
foreign universities, particularly those of Germany and Switzerland,
religious toleration in Poland in the sixteenth century, and the fact
that the new ideas were accepted, championed, and maintained by the
upper classes of the population, thus giving the Reformation movement
a certain prestige, popularity, and much needed moral and material
support.

As in the West, so also in Poland the way for the religious Reformation
was prepared in a large measure by the Renaissance. The new learning,
together with the new temper of mind resulting therefrom, reached
Poland early in the fifteenth century, won many enthusiastic followers
among the educated nobility and even among the higher clergy, and
exerted a powerful influence over the minds of the upper classes in the
nation throughout the sixteenth century. Many of the Polish bishops
were ardent admirers of Erasmus, among whom were Tomicki, Maciejowski,
Zebrzydowski, Padniewski, and Myszkowski. Their episcopal courts as
well as those of some of the Polish magnates, including that of Hetman
Jan Tarnowski, were centres of humanistic culture.[181]

The most notable representatives of the new temper of mind and
exponents of the new ideas were John Ostrorog, who died in 1501, John
Łaski, known also as John a Lasco, and Andrew Frycz Modrzewski; the
first living and writing in the fifteenth and the second two in the
sixteenth century. In his Monumentum pro reipublicae ordinatione,
published in 1456, John Ostrorog opposed the Polish king’s humble
submissiveness to the pope, the payment of annates, the proclamation
in the country of papal jubilees and indulgences for the purpose of
collecting money, contended for the separation of the Polish church
from Rome, and advocated state control of clerical education.[182]

John Łaski (1499-1560), nephew of the primate of the same name,
was the most ardent and conspicuous Polish humanist and patron of
humanists before his acceptance of the Reformation and his break with
the established church. He had spent some time with Erasmus at Basel,
purchased the great scholar’s wonderful library, the use of which,
however, he left to his master until his death, and on his return home
in 1526 became a zealous promoter of humanistic studies in his own
country and the most distinguished patron of a number of young Polish
humanists, among whom were Modrzewski, Andrew Trzycieski, Rullus,
Hosius; the Silesians, Pyrser, Lang, Ephorinus, Frederick of Freistadt;
the Hungarian Antoninus, the Frenchman Aignan Bourgoin, known also as
Anian, and the Englishman Coxe.[183]

Andrew Frycz Modrzewski (1503-1572) was educated at the universities
of Cracow and Wittenberg, and at the latter institution he became
intimately acquainted with Melanchthon. On his return to Poland he
became secretary to Prince Sigismund Augustus. In 1546 he joined the
Cracow circle of humanistic religious reformers, to which belonged
Andrew Trzycieski, a fellow student of Modrzewski at Cracow, the
publisher Wojewódka, the jurist James Przyłuski, James Uchański, deacon
of the Cathedral Chapter, later archbishop and primate of Poland,
Zebrzydowski, also deacon of the Cathedral Chapter and later bishop of
Cracow, Lismanini, the Franciscan confessor of the queen, and others.
In 1554 he published in Basel in the establishment of John Oporin his
De republica emendanda, the fourth part of which consisted of his
intended work, De Ecclesia, in which he dealt with the problem of
church reform. Modrzewski was primarily a humanist, secondarily an
advocate of religious reform. He strongly favored the establishment of
a national church, independent of papal jurisdiction,[184] and leaned
toward Calvinism.[185]

In the first half of the sixteenth century humanism reached the height
of its development and influence in Poland, and as a result brought
about a radical mental and spiritual change. It freed the individual
from the mediaeval burden of religious and intellectual authority; and
while it did in turn impose new authorities, yet it awakened a sense of
criticism, of intellectual and spiritual inquiry, and of independent
judgment.[186] This new critical attitude of mind constituted a well
prepared soil for the reception, growth, and development of the new
seed of religious reform. This accounts in a large measure for the
easy and rapid spread of the Reformation in Poland. In their search
for truth the humanists disregarded the authority of the church, and
subjected the established faith and ecclesiastical order to criticism.
Criticism led, in turn, to rebellion against the dogmas of the church
and its organization.[187]

Another factor contributing to the spread of the Reformation in
Poland was the art of printing. The first printed book, Gutenberg’s
Bible, appeared from the press at Munich in the year 1455. Ten years
later books in the Latin language were printed in Cracow by a certain
Gunther Zainer, who, it is claimed, had been invited to Cracow by the
University.[188] Later Zainer is said to have removed to Augsburg,
where he was to open a permanent printing establishment.[189] The
earliest known print struck off in Cracow was a calendar for the year
1474, Calendarium anni Domini 1474 currentis, a copy of which is
preserved in the library of the University of Cracow.[190] Immediately
following this publication there appeared two editions of Joannis de
Turrecremata Explanatio in Psalterium Davidi, the first in 1473-1474,
the second in 1475. Until recently this book was regarded as the
earliest publication printed in Poland.[191] Contemporaneously with
Turrecremata’s work there appeared from the press in Cracow two other
interesting books, namely, St. Augustine’s Opuscula, de doctrina
christiana, de praedestinatione Sanctorum (1473-1474), and Franciscus
de Platea’s Opus restitutionem, usurarum et excommunicationum
(1475).[192]

Books in the Slavic language in cyrilic characters were printed in
Cracow as early as 1491 by a certain enterprising German printer
from Neustadt, Franconia, by the name of Schwaipolt Fiol.[193] In
1492 Fiol was summoned before an ecclesiastical court to be tried
for openly expressing heretical opinions. After that nothing more is
heard of his printing and publishing activity.[194] The first Polish
book was printed in Breslau in 1475. Its title was Statuta synodalia
Wratislawiensia episcopi Conradi Oelsnensis, item statuta episcoporum
Petri Nowak et Rudolphi Ruedesheimii, and it contained in Polish the
Lord’s Prayer, Ave Maria, and the Apostles’ Creed. A copy of this book
is to be found in the British Museum.[195]

Whatever printing was done in Cracow in the second half of the
fifteenth century was, however, sporadic. Permanent printing and
publishing business had not been established until the beginning of
the sixteenth century. This was first accomplished in 1503 by John
Haller, a merchant of Cracow, who imported a printer from Metz, Caspar
Hochfeder by name, with all necessary equipment. Chmielowski claims
that Hochfeder was the printer who had previously been in Cracow
and had printed Turrecremata’s, Augustine’s, and de Platea’s works,
and not Zainer. It is also known that in this undertaking Haller was
assisted by Georg Stuchs von Sulzbach. From this time on Cracow had a
permanent printing establishment, owned and managed by John Haller.
This enterprising merchant owned also a paper mill and maintained
a bookstore.[196] After Haller’s death in 1525 the business was
efficiently carried on by his widow, and merited a considerable degree
of renown.[197]

Encouraged by the example and success of Haller’s enterprise, others
soon entered the publishing business, and the number of printing
presses in Cracow multiplied rapidly. In the first half of the
sixteenth century the Polish capital was the proud possessor of the
printing establishments of Florian Ungler, Hieronimus Wietor, Matthew
Scharffenberger, Siebeneicher, Wierzbięta, Lazarus Andrysowicz,
and of Piotrkowczyk.[198] Ungler was the first one of the Cracow
printer-publishers to attempt Polish prints. Among his employees was
a certain John of Sącz (Jan z Sącza), who later became a very active
promoter of Polish printing. In 1533 this John of Sącz, known now also
as Małecki and Sandecki, had a printing establishment in Pułtusk.
By 1536 we find him in East Prussia at first as printer-publisher
and afterwards as Lutheran pastor and superintendent at Elck.[199]
Ungler’s successors became Stanislaus of Zakliczyn and Gregory
Przeworski.[200] The largest and best in point of output and quality of
work was the printing establishment of Andrysowicz. By it were printed
the constitutions of the Polish Diet, Wujek’s Bible, and many other
important and valuable books of the sixteenth century.[201]

In the years 1503-1536 there were published in Cracow alone two hundred
ninety-four printed books, or as many as in the whole of England
in the same period.[202] Thus, the Polish capital became the centre
of cultural activity, not only for Poland, but also for eastern and
south-eastern Europe. “The earliest books for Hungary, Moldavia,
Transylvania, Ruthenia, and Lithuania were printed in Cracow.”[203]

But Cracow was not the only Polish city in which printing
establishments were to be found. Other cities had them, too. In the
first half of the sixteenth century printing establishments were found
in Wilno, Pułtusk, and Poznań. Later, in the course of the second half
of the same century, printing presses were established in Lublin,
Brześć-Litewski, Kowno, Łosk, Nieświez, Łowicz, Płock, Kalisz, Pińczów,
Raków, Zamość, Warsaw, Gdańsk, Chełm, Lwów, Kiev, and other provincial
cities and towns.[204]

Moreover, many of the Polish printer-publishers were either open
adherents of the Reformation or in sympathy with it. Some of the
Cracow printers, though remaining in the Catholic Church, yet for the
sake of business printed and circulated Protestant books. Wietor,
suspected of heresy, had to make a confession of the Catholic faith
before an episcopal tribunal. The printer Andrysowicz was placed on
the index.[205] Some were open adherents of the Reformation. The
court printer, Michael Wierzbięta, was a Calvinist, an elder in the
Reformed Church of Cracow, and in his establishment were printed
Calvinistic books and pamphlets as well as many of the best Polish
literary productions of the time.[206] Alexander Rodecki, another
Cracow printer-publisher, conducting printing establishments also at
Raków and at Łosk, was an Arian. His daughter Judith married Sebestian
Sternacki, who was also a publisher of Arian literature at Cracow and
Raków. Sebestian Sternacki’s son, Paul, married Catharine Siebeneicher,
and continued as publisher of Arian literature.[207] Other Protestant
printers were Daniel of Łęczyca, an itinerant printer, Bernard
Wojewódka, active at Brześć-Litewski, and Cyprian Bazylik, who married
a niece of one of the earliest Cracow printers, Wolfgang Lerma von
Pfaffenhoffen.[208]

Besides a number of printer-publishers, there was in Cracow and in
Poland in general a considerable number of booksellers thoroughly
sympathetic with the Reformation movement. One of the earliest Cracow
booksellers imbued with the new religious ideas was Georg Fenig, of
Crailsheim, Würtemberg. He had been in Cracow as early as 1515. In
1520 he was in Leipzig, where he had a bookshop and where he became
a Lutheran. In 1527 he returned to Poland, and settled in Poznań.
After his death in 1538 his widow carried on the business until 1551,
when she removed to Königsberg in East Prussia with her daughter, who
married there John Seklucjan, formerly of Poznań.[209] Other Cracow
booksellers, favoring the Reformation, were Sebestian Pech, Michael
Królik, Zachaeus Kessner, Jean Tenaud, of Bourges, and Estienne Le
Riche, of Lyon.[210] Pech and Królik were Calvinists, and were in
constant touch with Geneva, Zurich, and Basel. Just as soon as a new
book was published in Switzerland it at once found its way to Poland
through these intermediaries. Pech maintained a bookstore not only in
Cracow, but also in Lwów.[211] The largest Cracow bookseller in the
second half of the sixteenth century, and a very influential member of
the Lutheran congregation there, was Zachaeus Kessner. His business
connections extended throughout Poland and northern Hungary, and
he dealt chiefly in books of scholarly value.[212] John Policjusz,
a former business manager of Kessner’s, became a bookseller at
Zamość.[213] Jean Tenaudus was a Frenchman and a leading Calvinist,
who came into touch with Polish Calvinists through Geneva. He came to
Poland in 1558, and was first a teacher in the Calvinistic gymnasium
at Pińczów and later principal of the Calvinistic school in Cracow,
conducting a bookstore at the same time. Owing to his fame as a
bookdealer, he won the honor of being designated by King Stephen
Batory in 1578 as court bookdealer.[214] Estienne Le Riche, known
also as Stephen Dives, of Lyons, seems to have succeeded Tenaud, and
was an important intermediary in the book business between Poland
and the West.[215] As a result of this active book trade in Poland
in the sixteenth century, the writings of Luther and Calvin and of
other reformers were speedily imported into Poland and received wide
circulation. As early as 1520 Luther’s books were brought to Cracow,
sold in the university buildings to the students, and were read and
discussed by them with the tacit approval of the faculty until they
were condemned by Pope Leo X.[216]

In the spread of intelligence regarding the new religious movement the
Polish magnates, favoring and supporting the Reformation, played also
an active and important part. A number of them established printing
presses of their own for the distinct purpose of religious propaganda.
Thus, for instance, Michael Radziwill, the Black, an ardent supporter
of Calvinism, founded a printing press at Brześć-Litewski, where
Calvinistic literature was printed, and where in 1563 the Radziwill
Bible was published. John Kiszka, starosta of Żmudź, established
presses at Łosk and Nieśwież. These together with Raków and for a time
with Pińczów were publication centres for Arian literature. At Nieśwież
in 1572 Budny’s Arian Bible was published. The presses at Pińczów
were maintained by the Oleśnickis. Moreover, we must not fail to bear
in mind that one of the earliest, most prolific and most influential
Polish Protestant publication centres was Königsberg in East Prussia,
where Prince Albert had established one of the best and largest
printing and publishing enterprises of the time for the dissemination
of the Reformation doctrines both in his own duchy and throughout
Poland.[217]

These Protestant presses were kept busy, printing pamphlets, books,
and the Scriptures or portions thereof. This literary output consisted
partly of translations and partly of original writings. A good deal of
it was polemical, making a severe attack on Catholicism. What helped to
stimulate this publishing activity was the fact that by a statute of
1539 the royal edicts of 1520 and 1523, forbidding the dissemination
of heretical literature, were revoked, and freedom of the press was
established in Poland.[218] From the presses of Königsberg John
Seklucjan fairly flooded Poland with religious literature between the
years 1544 and 1559. Among his publications deserving mention there
were: A Confession of Christian Faith, published in 1544, Luther’s
larger and shorter catechism and a collection of hymns (1547), a Polish
translation of the New Testament, effected by Stanislaus Murzynowski
and published in 1550-1553, and Seklucjan’s volume of homilies
(1556).[219] Here, too, appeared in 1552 Małecki’s translation of
the New Testament.[220] This Małecki is the same person whom we met
before in Cracow and at Pułtusk as printer-publisher under the name of
John of Sącz. Following Seklucjan’s example, Scharffenberg published
in Cracow in 1561 John Leopolita’s translation of the Bible, known
as the Leopolitan Bible. The Calvinistic or Radziwill’s Bible, as we
have already noted, appeared at Brześć-Litewski in 1563, the Arian or
Budny’s Bible at Nieśwież in 1572, and the Catholic or Wujek’s Bible
in 1599.[221] Among the Protestant publications of this time deserving
mention were also two significant volumes of homilies, Nicholas Rey’s
published in 1557, and Gregory’s of Żarnowiec, which appeared in
1572-1580.[222] Both of these works have survived in various editions
the vicissitudes of time to the present day, and are still in use in
Protestant homes of Poland. The Arians, too, made a large and credible
contribution to Polish religious literature, consisting of translations
of the works of Stankar, Lismanini, Ochino, and Socino, and of original
writings of their leading representatives. Among the leading Arian
writers of the sixteenth century were Martin Krowicki, Gregory Paul
or Pauli, Peter of Goniądz, Simon Budny, John Niemojewski, and Martin
Czechowic. Czechowic had studied at Poznań and Leipzig (1554), and was
the most distinguished of the Arian writers. His most important works
were published between the years 1575 and 1583, his Racovian Catechism
appearing in 1575, his translation of the New Testament in 1577, and
the Epistomium, a polemical work, in 1583.[223]

We have seen that the number of books printed in Cracow alone in the
years 1503-1536 was two hundred ninety-four. The total number of
books printed in Poland toward the end of the fifteenth and during
the sixteenth century is estimated to have been seven thousand
five hundred.[224] This extensive printing and publishing activity
contributed greatly to the popularization and spread of the ideas of
humanism and the doctrines of the Reformation.

Then, too, the spread of the new ideas in Poland was due to close
intellectual connections between Poland and the West and to the
influence of German and Swiss universities. It was customary for the
sons of the Polish aristocracy and the well-to-do gentry to frequent
foreign universities for the purpose of rounding out their education.
The leaders of that day, whether in science, literature, or politics,
were invariably men educated abroad. Moreover, visits home on the part
of the Polish students, regardless of whether they were studying in
Germany, Switzerland, or Italy, were more common and frequent in the
sixteenth century than today.[225]

The University of Cracow, famous for its learning, attracting students
from all over Europe, and flourishing in the fifteenth century, lost
its influential position and its drawing power with the beginning of
the sixteenth century, owing to its reactionary character and its
pronounced opposition to the new current of thought and learning. The
universities of the West and of the South superseded it in influence
and attractiveness. The flow of foreign students to Cracow ceased;
and Polish students began to turn now more and more to German,
French, Swiss, and Italian universities in search of learning and
knowledge.[226] Up to 1525 the sons of distinguished Polish families
still frequented the University of Cracow, spending their first years
there and then finishing their studies in universities abroad. After
that, however, the character of the student body at the university
changed entirely. The sons of the Polish aristocracy disappeared;
they turned to other universities. The names appearing on the
university register after 1525 were names of the small gentry, the
town population, and the peasantry.[227] The youth of the Protestant
families in particular had nothing to gain by registering at the
University of Cracow; it, therefore, sought the universities of
Wittenberg, Zurich, and Basel, especially so by the middle of the
sixteenth century.[228]

The Polish students were eager to become acquainted with the new ideas,
they absorbed them readily, and on their visits home or their final
return they disseminated them in their own country. So great was the
exodus of Polish students to German and other foreign universities,
and so great the danger of infecting the country with the new
religious doctrines and practices through the channel of intellectual
intercommunication that the reactionary elements in the country found
it necessary to force the king to pass laws forbidding the Polish youth
to frequent foreign universities infected with heresy or suspected of
such infection.[229]

It is of great interest to note that in the sixteenth century Polish
students were registered in considerable numbers in nearly every German
and Swiss university of any consequence. They were at Wittenberg,
Leipzig, Königsberg,[230] Frankfort on the Oder, Heidelberg, Herborn,
Altdorf, Marburg, Freiburg, Würzburg, Dillingen, Mainz, Ingolstadt,
Zurich, and Basel.[231] The German universities most largely attended
by Poles were Wittenberg, Leipzig, Königsberg, and Frankfort on the
Oder. The number of Polish students registered in these institutions
of learning in the course of the sixteenth century was over two
thousand.[232] At Heidelberg there were in the course of the century
about one hundred and sixty-five Polish students,[233] at Altdorf,
from its foundation in 1575 until 1617, two hundred and seventy,[234]
at Marburg, from 1527 to 1628, about seventy,[235] and at Basel,
from 1549 to 1570, also about seventy.[236] At Wittenberg we find
representatives of prominent Cracow families among Luther’s students as
early as 1520.[237] By the end of the same decade the number of Polish
students in that university had considerably increased, and there were
found among them Stanislaus Orzechowski, Stanislaus Warszewicki, I.
Krotowski, I. Lipczyński, three Górkas, two Ostrorogs, Tomicki, and
Grudziński.[238] After 1530 the sons of the Polish nobility flocked to
Wittenberg in steadily growing numbers.[239]

The universities most popular with the Poles were the Protestant
universities rather than the Catholic. The relative proportion of
Poles attending German Protestant and Catholic universities was, in
the sixteenth century, six to one.[240] The most popular Catholic
university was Ingolstadt, registering in that century three hundred
and sixty-five Polish students and occupying the fifth place among the
German universities frequented by Poles.[241] Freiburg in the course of
fifty-six years, from 1575 to 1631, during a period when the Catholic
reaction had already set in, registered less than a hundred Polish
students.[242] Dillingen, Würzburg, Mainz, founded by Catholic bishops
for the purpose of counteracting the influence of the Protestant
universities and under the control of the Jesuit Order, began to draw
Polish students with the rise of the Catholic reaction after 1564.[243]
Of the Protestant universities the most popular with the Poles were
Wittenberg, Königsberg, Heidelberg, and Frankfort on the Oder,--all
centres of Lutheranism. Of the Swiss universities the one most largely
attended by Poles was the University of Basel. The Swiss universities
together with Altdorf, Herborn, and Marburg in Germany were centres of
Calvinism, and were sought and frequented by Calvinistic sympathizers
from among the Poles.[244] At Altdorf, where the number of students was
comparatively small, the Poles constituted in some years one-fourth
of the total student body. Owing to their numerical strength, the
honorary rectorship of the university was held twice by one of their
number, in 1583-1584 by Nicholas Ostrorog, and in 1609-1610 by Adam
Sienieński.[245]

The Polish students registered in the German and Swiss Protestant
universities were the sons of the Polish aristocracy and the well-to-do
Polish gentry.[246] At Altdorf, for instance, we find the sons of such
Calvinistic aristocratic families as the Firleys, the Ostrorogs, the
Naruszewiczes, the Wollowiczes, the Lanckorońskis, the Wiśniowieckis,
the Krotowskis, and the Sienieńskis; of the Calvinistic well-to-do
gentry, namely, the Gołuchowskis, the Reys, the Przecławskis, the
Lipskis, the Czernows, the Grochowskis, the Balls, the Boguszes, the
Zielińskis, the Ossolińskis, the Przyjemskis, the Pieniążeks, and
the Suchorabskis; and later, with the beginning of the seventeenth
century, of such Arian noble families as the Przypkowskis, the
Stoyeńskis, the Lubienieckis, the Otwinowskis, the Filipowskis,
the Dudyczes, the Hoyskis, the Niemieryczes, the Taszyckis, the
Morsztyns, the Szlichtyngs, and even the Radziwills.[247] At Herborn,
in the years 1611-1619, there were the Ostrorogs, the Gołuchowskis,
the Drohojewskis, and the Rożyckis. These, too, were sons of
Calvinistic families.[248] At Marburg, in the years 1601-1620,
we find representatives of the Lithuanian Calvinistic szlachta
from around Słuck and Kieydany, the Swięcickis, the Rekuckis, the
Ceraskis, the Estkos, the Kozdryns, and the sons of Calvinistic
pastors, the Wannowskis, Krosniewieckis, and the Molesons.[249] At
Wittenberg, Leipzig, and Frankfort on the Oder there were to be found
the sons of the powerful aristocratic families, the Mniszeks, the
Ostrorogs, the Lanckorońskis, the Myszkowskis, the Radziwills, and
the Przyłęckis.[250] Finally, at Basel we find in the years 1549-1570
representatives of the best and most influential Polish families. From
Great Poland there were the sons of the Zbąskis, the Ostrorogs, the
Rozrażewskis, the Nadarzyckis, the Łasickis, and of the Woynowskis;
from Little Poland, the Myszkowskis, the Dłuskis, the Gnoyeńskis,
the Lipnickis, the Ossolińskis, the Czyzowskis, the Pieniążeks, and
of the Słupeckis; from Mazovia, Iłowski; from Lithuania, Skumina,
Tyszkiewicz, Kiszka; from Kuyavia, Zebrzydowski; from the district
of Sieradz, the Lutomirskis, Zalewski, Kotkowski, Paklepka; from the
eastern provinces, Drohoyowski, Strzelecki, Drzewińiski, Strzechowski,
and Uhrowiecki.[251] All these names found on the register of the
University of Basel are well known in connection with the Reformation
movement in Poland. The bearers of them played prominent rôles in
Polish politics and in the spread of the Calvinistic and later of the
Arian faith in their native land.[252]

Another significant cause furthering the spread of the Reformation in
Poland was Polish religious tolerance. In the sixteenth century Poland
was a country not only of political liberty, but also of intellectual
freedom and of religious liberty. To be sure, owing to the pressure
exerted by the clergy upon the kings, royal edicts, forbidding the
dissemination of the new doctrines in the land and imposing severe
penalties upon transgressors, were issued freely. However, these edicts
violated constitutionally guaranteed liberties of the nobility, and,
consequently, were never approved by any diet; hence, they had not the
force of law, and remained largely a dead letter.

As to the attitude of the kings themselves, they were rather tolerant
of differences in religious belief and practice. Sigismund the Old,
while a very good and loyal Catholic and a ruler who seemed to be
easily induced to issue decrees proscribing the new religious movement,
was very tolerant personally. When Johann Eck, the German Catholic
theologian and zealous opponent of Luther, called on him to adopt a
stern policy and to use severe measures in suppressing Lutheranism in
Poland, the king replied that his desire was to rule over the goats as
well as over the sheep.[253] When, again, in July, 1546, Pope Paul III
urged him to take an active part on the side of the cause of the church
in the religious war which had broken out in Germany at this time,
Sigismund I not only refused to do so, but also by royal order forbade
Polish citizens to engage even privately in any way on either side of
the German controversy and conflict.[254] Then, too, it was Sigismund
I who in 1525 consented to the secularization of the Teutonic Order and
of the Duchy of East Prussia, then a part of the Polish kingdom. And it
is a well known fact that his court was unusually liberal and a safe
shelter for humanists and humanistic sympathizers with the Reformation
movement.

If Sigismund I was tolerant, his son, Sigismund Augustus, who
succeeded his father to the throne in 1548, was still more so. Reared
in the liberal atmosphere of the court and educated by humanists in
sympathy with the ideas and doctrines of the Reformation, Sigismund
Augustus was a religious liberal. Out of state policy he remained
in the Catholic Church and stood by it, though to all appearances
his personal convictions and sympathies leaned in the direction of
the Reformation movement, certainly so in his earlier if not in his
later years. He surrounded himself with humanists and with supporters
of the Reformation. He read books of the reformers, participated in
religious discussions with his friends, and corresponded with Calvin.
He formed an intimate friendship with Nicholas Radziwill, the powerful
magnate and grand hetman of Lithuania, and an avowed and staunch
Calvinist, and married his beautiful sister, Barbara, who, too, had
embraced the Calvinistic faith. With Franciscus Lismanini, the former
Franciscan confessor of his queen mother, he maintained a friendly
connection for years, even after Lismanini had become openly known as
an ardent admirer and sympathizer with Calvinism. He favored certain
church reforms, and had gone so far as to send an embassy to Rome to
secure the pope’s sanction of them, which sanction, however, was not
granted. And when at one time the Pope urged him to exterminate the
heretics from his land, Sigismund Augustus gave the Holy Father this
characteristic reply: “I fear that by trying to pull up the tares, I
might uproot the wheat also.”[255]

The same religious broad-mindedness, liberality, and tolerance
characterized the person and the reign of the third notable Polish
king of the sixteenth century, Stephen Batory (1576-1586). King Stephen
was a faithful Catholic, a generous supporter of Jesuitism, and a ruler
who saw the strength of the royal power in a close alliance with the
Church of Rome. Yet, in spite of his strong Catholic loyalty, he would
not tolerate any religious persecution. He steadily discountenanced all
religious disturbances, and firmly kept his coronation oath to maintain
peace among the adherents of different religious faiths, asserting that
he did not wish to violate anybody’s conscience.[256] He, too, like
Sigismund I, wished to rule peaceably over the goats as well as over
the sheep.

When we turn from the kings to the nation, we meet with the same
broad-minded liberality and tolerance. The Polish nation of the
sixteenth century loved liberty no less than at any other period
of its history. Liberty constituted the foundation and was an
essential characteristic of all its institutions, political and
social. The Polish nobility worked and fought strenuously for its
political rights and privileges, and having secured them, guarded
them jealously. Naturally, therefore, when the question of religious
liberty once arose, the Polish nobility immediately applied to the
sphere of religion the same principle it had established in the
realm of politics. It insisted on freedom of thought, on liberty of
conscience, on toleration of divergent views, beliefs, and practices.
In 1539 freedom of the press was established, and in 1556 full liberty
of conscience.[257] To secure the realm still further against any
possible religious intolerance, dissensions, persecutions, or strifes
and conflicts, the ruling classes entered, on the death of Sigismund
Augustus, into a compact, sealed by the Confederation of Warsaw on the
twenty-eighth day of January, 1573, mutually pledging themselves to
maintain religious peace and toleration in the land.[258] This compact
was confirmed by the Diet, became a part of the Polish constitution,
and had to be sworn to by succeeding kings on their accession to the
Polish throne.[259]

Owing to this remarkable degree of religious toleration, Poland became
a land of refuge for persecuted religious dissenters and reformers of
other European countries. Here found refuge such men as Franciscus
Stankar, Blandrata, Negri, Lelio and Faustus Sozzino, Bernard Ochino,
Alciati, Gentilis, Franciscus Lismanini, and Peter Statorius,[260] all
of whom were Italians of extreme religious views and unwelcome even
in Switzerland; and later at the beginning of the seventeenth century
the German anti-trinitarians, Crell, Smalz, Ruarus, and Stegmann[261]
also found refuge in Poland. Bernard Ochino, driven out from Zurich,
came to Poland in December, 1563, and in appreciation of the freedom of
thought and of conscience there existing, dedicated his twenty-eighth
dialogue to King Sigismund Augustus. Ochino had opposed the execution
of Servetus, and admired Poland’s religious toleration.[262] Ruarus
was led to emigrate to Poland by the reports of its “golden liberty of
conscience established by the constitution of the Estates and sworn
to by Polish kings.”[263] Besides these extremists, others sought and
found refuge in Poland from religious persecution in their homelands.
The most notable case is that of the Bohemian Brethren. While as a
group they were ordered to move on to East Prussia, where Duke Albert
offered them asylum, many of them remained in Poland, and exerted
a powerful influence on the Reformation movement in that country.
Moreover, at Cracow, Vilna, Posen, Tarnov, and Lublin there actually
existed Protestant congregations composed not only of Germans, but also
of Italian, French, English, and Scotch religious refugees.[264] The
Scotch congregations were naturally Calvinistic, and some of them were
still in existence by the middle of the eighteenth century. Such names
as Gordon, Hyson, Sinclair, Pipe, Leigh, French and Ross still appeared
on the Calvinistic rolls at that time.[265]

In this connection it is worth noting that while in liberal England
hundreds of persons were executed for their religious convictions in
the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in Poland there
was only one such execution, that of an eighty year old lady in the
city of Cracow in 1539.[266]

The remarkably rapid spread of the Reformation in Poland was,
therefore, due in no small measure to Polish religious toleration.

Finally, in our study of the social causes of the growth of the
Reformation in Poland, we must by no means overlook the fact that the
Polish religious reformation was a class movement. It was accepted,
adhered to, and championed by the upper classes of Polish society; in
the cities by the commercial population, largely German, and throughout
the country by the nobility, the large magnates and the well-to-do
gentry, particularly the large magnates. This was due to the
circumstance that both of these classes were in close contact with the
outside world and with new movements abroad; the first chiefly through
commercial intercourse, the second through educational, social, and
diplomatic relations.

This class aspect of the movement was both its strength and its
weakness. The fact that the Reformation won to itself, and was accepted
by, the most alert, socially most influential, and politically most
powerful classes constituted its strength. It lent the movement a
certain dignity and prestige, made it unavoidably popular, and assured
to it rapid spread and certain victory. In its strength, however,
lay also its weakness. The Polish Reformation remained an upper
class religion. It did not filter through down to the masses of the
population; it did not grip, transform, and revitalize the people. This
circumstance harbored the movement’s inevitable doom from the very
beginning, however glorious that beginning might have been and however
phenomenal the development.

The Renaissance, the art of printing, the influence of foreign
universities, religious toleration, and the aristocratic character of
the Polish Reformation,--these were, then, some of the most important
social causes of the growth of the Reformation in Poland.


     [181] Roman Pilat, History of Polish Literature (Historja
           literatury polskiej), Lwów, 1909, vol. ii, No. 1 p.
           24.

     [182] Peter Chmielowski, History of Polish Literature
           (Historja literatury polskiej), Lwów, vol. i, pp.
           90-91.

     [183] Stanislaus Kot, Andrew Frycz Modrzewski, Cracow,
           1919, pp. 13-15.

     [184] Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 197-202.

     [185] Kot, pp. 189-190.

     [186] Cf. Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 150-152, and Smoleński,
           Hist. of Poland, p. 93.

     [187] Cf. Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, p. 28.

     [188] See Arthur Górski, Poland’s Objective (Ku
           czemu Polska szła), Warsaw, 1919, p. 46, and
           Lewinski-Corwin, A Hist. of Poland, p. 142.

     [189] Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, pp. 36-37.

     [190] Chmielowski, vol. i, p. 153.

     [191] Ibid.; Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, p. 36.

     [192] Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 153-154.

     [193] Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 3, p. 181.

     [194] Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, p. 37, n. 1.

     [195] Chmielowski, vol. i, p. 174; cf. Lewinski-Corwin, p.
           142.

     [196] See Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 3, p. 181;
           Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 154, 155; Pilat, vol. ii,
           No. 1, p. 38.

     [197] Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, p. 36.

     [198] Chmielowski, vol. i, p. 155; Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1,
           p. 38.

     [199] Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 3, p. 182.

     [200] Ibid.

     [201] Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, pp. 38-39; Chmielowski, vol.
           i, p. 155.

     [202] Górski, p. 47.

     [203] Lewinski-Corwin, p. 143.

     [204] Pilat, vol. i, No. 1, p. 39; Chmielowski, vol. i, p.
           155.

     [205] The Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 3, p. 184.

     [206] Ibid., vol. i, No. 3, p. 184.

     [207] Ibid., vol. i, No. 3, pp. 186-187.

     [208] Ibid., vol. i, No. 3, p. 188 and n. 1.

     [209] Ibid., vol. i, No. 1, pp. 44-45.

     [210] Ibid., vol. i, No. 1, p. 45.

     [211] Ibid., vol. i, No. 1, p. 45.

     [212] Ibid., vol. i, No. 1, pp. 46-47.

     [213] Ibid., vol. i, No. 1, p. 47.

     [214] Ibid., vol. i, No. 1, pp. 48-49.

     [215] Ibid., vol. i, No. 1, pp. 49-50.

     [216] Kot, Modrzewski, pp. 7-8, 64.

     [217] See Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, p. 39, and Brückner,
           History of Polish Literature, vol. i, pp. 102-103,
           113.

     [218] Kubala, Orzechowski, p. 55.

     [219] Chmielowski, vol. i, pp. 189-190.

     [220] Ibid., p. 189.

     [221] Ibid., p. 190.

     [222] Ibid., p. 192.

     [223] Ibid., pp. 192, 193.

     [224] Ibid., p. 155.

     [225] Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, pp. 56, 57; Kot, Modrzewski,
           p. 31, n.

     [226] Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 1, p. 15.

     [227] Chmielowski, vol. i, p. 160.

     [228] Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 1, p. 15.

     [229] See Appendix, No. 10. The number of Polish students
           at Wittenberg was so considerable by 1535 that John
           Cochlaeus, a Catholic polemical writer, called
           attention to the danger of this to the Catholic
           Church (Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p.
           166), and the result was the Edict of Feb. 4, 1535;
           repeated March 22, 1540; revoked in 1543.

     [230] “Collegium Albertinum,” founded by Albert II in 1544,
           with a distinctively Lutheran character.

     [231] Historical Quarterly (Kwartalnik Historyczny), Lwów,
           vol. xxviii, No. 1, pp. 83-88; The Reformation in
           Poland, vol. i, No. 2, pp. 105-133.

     [232] Historical Quarterly, vol. xxviii, No. 1, p. 84.

     [233] Ibid., p. 84.

     [234] Ibid., p. 85.

     [235] Ibid., p. 87.

     [236] Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 2, p. 128.

     [237] Kot, Modrzewski, p. 8.

     [238] Ibid., p. 15; Kubala, Orzechowski, p. 2; Pilat, vol.
           ii, No. 1, p. 56.

     [239] Kot, Modrzewski, p. 29, n. 2.

     [240] Historical Quarterly, vol. xxviii, No. 1, p. 87.

     [241] Ibid., p. 84.

     [242] Ibid., p. 87.

     [243] Ibid., pp. 87-88.

     [244] Ibid., pp. 84-87.

     [245] Ibid., p. 85.

     [246] Ibid., p. 85; Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 2,
           p. 128.

     [247] Historical Quarterly, vol. xxviii, No. 1, pp. 85-86.

     [248] Ibid., pp. 86-87.

     [249] Ibid., p. 87.

     [250] Ibid., p. 88.

     [251] Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 2, p. 128.

     [252] Ibid., p. 128.

     [253] Ad invictissimum Poloniae regem Sigismundum de
           sacrificio Missae contra Lutheranos, Joannes Eckius,
           1526, referred to by Krasiński, vol. i, p. 88.

     [254] See above, p. 38.

     [255] Pilat, vol. ii, No. 1, p. 32.

     [256] Krasiński, vol. ii, p. 42.

     [257] Kubala, Stanislaus Orzechowski, p. 7.

     [258] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 841-843.

     [259] “Quod vero supra hisce literis, privilegia,
           libertatis ecclesiasticas, cum caeteris
           confirmavimus, id nihil articulo juramenti derogare
           volumus; videlicet pacem, et tranquilitatem,
           inter dissidentes de religione, tuebimur, et manu
           tenebimus, etc., quem inconcusse, firmiter et
           inviolabiliter, ac cum effectu, nos observaturos
           promittimus, ac spondemus” (Confirmatio Generalis
           Omnium Jurium a. 1576, in Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol.
           913).

           “Pacemque et tranquillitatem inter dissidentes de religione
           tuebor, manutenebo, nec ullo modo, vel jurisdictione
           nostra, vel officiorum nostrorum, et Statuum
           quorumvis, authoritate quemquam affici, opprimique,
           causa religionis, permittam, nec ipse afficiam, nec
           opprimam” (Literae de praestito juramento, sworn to
           by Henry de Valois, Stephen Batory, and Sigismund
           III, see Vol. leg., vol. ii, folio 863, 892, 1096).

           It is interesting to note also Sigismund III’s
           confirmation of the Confederation of Warsaw:
           “Confoederationem inter dissidentes de religione,
           non solum juramento, uti a Serenissimis, Henrico,
           et Stephano, Regibus Poloniae et Praedecessoribus
           suis factum est, conservabit; verum etiam processum
           et exequutionem utrique parti servientem, contra
           violatores ejus oblatam, sub juramento observabit:
           et ut ab Ordinibus Regni quamprimum instituatur,
           sedulo curabit” (Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 1099). The
           significance of this confirmation becomes still more
           striking when one recalls the strongly reactionary
           character of this ruler.

     [260] Reformation in Poland, vol. i, No. 2, p. 129.

     [261] Ibid., p. 134.

     [262] Ibid., p. 123.

     [263] Ibid., p. 136.

     [264] Krasiński, vol. ii, pp. 135-136.

     [265] Łukaszewicz, A History of Calvinistic Churches in
           Little Poland (Dzieje kościołów wyznania helweckiego
           w Małej Polsce), Posen, 1853, p. 308.

     [266] See above, p. 33.




                              CHAPTER III

              THE WEALTH OF THE POLISH CHURCH IN THE XVITH
                  CENTURY: ITS EFFECT ON THE NOBILITY


One of the most potent causes of the spread of the Reformation in
Poland in the sixteenth century was the enormous wealth of the Polish
church. Owing to the liberality of princes, kings, magnates, and
pious devotees, the church became a great economic power. Its large
landed estates and great financial resources were both exasperating
and enviable. It was one of the largest landowners in the country. Its
financial resources were greater than those of the crown. It happened
not infrequently that the king had to come to the powerful church
dignitaries to ask them for financial contributions to the state
treasury for purposes of government and defense. By the side of the
baronial estates and princely incomes of some of the Polish bishops the
wealth of even the most powerful magnates faded into insignificance.

In Great Poland, out of a total of 33,000 “łanów kmiecych,”[267] or
hides of land under peasant cultivation, the church was in possession
of 3,430 łanów or of 10.33 per cent.[268] In some districts and
palatinates the estates of the church were more concentrated than
in others. In the Palatinates of Poznań and Kalisz, for instance,
they formed only 6 per cent. of the total land area under peasant
cultivation, while in the Palatinate of Inowrocław they rose to 12
per cent., in the Palatinate of Brześć to 16 per cent., and in the
Palatinate of Łęczyce to 22 per cent.[269]

In Little Poland, out of a total of 5,455 villages and 205 towns, the
church owned 772 villages, 83 sections, or parts of villages, and 28
towns.[270] Allowing 5.3 villages to a square mile, the proportion then
prevalent, 2 sections to a village, and a quarter of a mile to a town,
we find that the landed property of the church in Little Poland in the
sixteenth century covered an area of 160 square miles in a total of
1,013 square miles, and constituted about 15.5 per cent. of the total
estimated land area of the province.[271] This property was about
equally divided between the secular clergy and the monastic orders, the
former owning 360 villages, 65 sections, and 12 towns, and the latter
372 villages, 18 sections, and 16 towns.[272] Fully one-half of the
ecclesiastical lands in Little Poland,--388 villages, 49 sections, and
9 towns, or between 440 and 450 landed estates,--were located in one
palatinate, namely, that of Cracow.[273]

Mazovia had an area of 578.3 square miles, 5,990 villages numbering
23,361 hides of land under peasant cultivation, and 94 towns. The
church here was in possession of 15 towns and 505 villages comprising
5,849 hides of land. This was 16 per cent. of the towns, 8.7 per
cent. of the villages, and 25 per cent. of the land under peasant
cultivation.[274] The church lands in Mazovia were very intensively
cultivated; for while the general proportion of “łanów kmiecych” to
a Mazovian village was only 3.9, within the area of ecclesiastical
estates the proportion was 11.5.

The Palatinate of Podlasie consisted of an area of 173.72 square miles,
and numbered in the sixteenth century 1,304 villages, 26 towns, and
14,455 “włók wiejskich,” or village hides of land.[275] Of the 1,304
villages 30, or 2.3 per cent. containing 678.75 “włók wiejskich,” or
4.7 per cent. of the total acreage under village cultivation, were in
possession of the Roman Catholic clergy.[276] The apparently small
landed property here of the bishopric and the cathedral chapter of
Łuck was further supplemented by various income producing privileges
like fishing rights, rents, and tolls. For instance, besides his lands
the bishop of Łuck had the right to maintain and operate a “liburnam
et navigium” on the River Bug near the town of Drohiczyn. On account
of its productiveness the operation of this ferry became a bone of
contention in 1570 between Christopher Iwanowski and the bishop.[277]

In Volhynia the bishopric of Łuck owned several tracts of land
numbering 14 villages with an area of 2.77 square miles, and the
cathedral chapter of Łuck was in possession of 5 additional villages
of 64 hides of land, covering an area of 0.8 of a square mile.[278]
Besides the Latin bishopric of Łuck, there were in Volhynia two Greek
Orthodox bishoprics, Łuck and Włodzimierz. The two owned together good
sized landed estates. The figures for the totals are lacking. But one
of the estates of the Greek Orthodox bishop of Łuck numbered 6 villages
of 33 hides of land. The estates of the bishop of Włodzimierz consisted
of two sections, including 13 villages and 1 town and covering an
area of 4.38 square miles.[279] In Podolia the estate of the bishop
of Kamieniec consisted of 13 villages and 1 town and had an area of
2.4 square miles. This was further supplemented by a few other smaller
properties.[280]

When we come to Red Russia, we find that in that part of Poland the
landed property of the church was composed of 98 villages and 8 towns,
forming 3 per cent. of the total land under peasant cultivation in
Red Russia.[281] Here most of the ecclesiastical lands were located
in the “Ziemie” or districts of Sanok, Lwów, and Halicz. In the first
they made up 5 per cent. of the total peasant cultivated lands, in the
second 4 per cent., and in the third 3 per cent., although in the
districts of Lwów and Halicz they maintained a percentage of four.[282]

In Ukraina by far the most extensive and the best located estates were
those of the Latin clergy. The largest contribution in the nature of
a land tax paid into the Commonwealth Treasury in 1581 was that of
the cathedral and the cathedral chapter of Wilno, 158 and 133 Polish
florins respectively. The only other large land owners, approaching
anywhere near the clergy, were the Wiśniowieckis and the Kmitas, the
former paying a contribution of 110 złp. and the latter of 90 złp. All
the rest averaged only 35 złp.[283]

It is evident, therefore, that the Polish church belonged in the
sixteenth century to the class of large property owners. Even in the
eastern provinces of Podlasie, Volhynia, Podolia, Red Russia, and
Ukraina, where its lands constituted a smaller percentage of the
total land area cultivated by peasants than in the western provinces,
the ecclesiastical estates were invariably large. Compared with the
individual holdings of the Polish nobility and even of the crown, the
estates of the bishops, cathedral chapters, and monastic institutions
were everywhere baronial.[284]

To get a still clearer idea of the extent of the landed property of the
church in sixteenth century Poland, it will be well to look at it a
little more closely in the various sections of the country and compare
it with that of the crown and of the nobility. We have seen that in
Great Poland the church owned 10.33 per cent. of the land under peasant
cultivation, in Little Poland 15.5 per cent. in Mazovia 8.7 per cent.
of villages and 25 per cent. of “łanów kmiecych,” in Podlasie 2.3 per
cent. of villages and 4.7 per cent. of “włók wiejskich,” and in Red
Russia 3 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation. For Volhynia,
Podolia, and Ukraina the figures are very incomplete, and consequently
the approximate proportionate amount of church property unknown. But
judging by the size of some of the ecclesiastical estates we have
observed in these palatinates, it is safe to infer that the percentage
of church property in them was not smaller than in the immediately
adjoining provinces.

Turning our attention now to the crown lands, we discover that in the
most important sections of the country they were considerably smaller
than those of the church. In Great Poland the crown lands constituted
only 9 per cent. of the total property under peasant cultivation,[285]
in Little Poland 7.5 per cent.,[286] in Mazovia 4.6 per cent.[287] From
this it is evident that in Little Poland and in Mazovia the landed
property of the church was more than twice as large as that of the
crown. In Great Poland, taken as a whole, the disproportion was not
quite as striking; yet in the Palatinate of Łęczyce, where the crown
lands formed only 9 per cent., those of the church were more than
twice as large, 22 per cent.[288] In Podlasie the crown lands gained
in size, assuming a proportion of 19.4 per cent.[289] But in Volhynia
and Podolia they were very small in the sixteenth century; in fact,
compared with the estates of the church and the secular aristocracy in
these provinces, the royal estates were very insignificant there.[290]
This disproportion was somewhat made up in Red Russia, where the
crown lands comprised 22 per cent. of the total area under peasant
cultivation,[291] while those of the church formed only 3 per cent.
This comparison reveals clearly the fact that only in two provinces,
Podlasie and Red Russia, the royal lands occupied a more favorable
position in respect of size than those of the church. In all the other
provinces of the country the landed property of the church was larger,
in some decidedly larger, than that of the crown. This, as we shall
see later, had a very important bearing on royal and state finances,
the problem of defense, and the attitude of the Polish nobility toward
the church and its clergy. The economic implications in this matter
were deeprooted and farreaching.

The individual possessions of the Polish bishops, abbots, and cathedral
chapters were, by the side of those of the Polish nobles, princely.
Speaking generally, they surpassed in size the estates of the secular
magnates. The cathedral chapter of Lwów, for instance, had a landed
estate of 10 villages,[292] that of Łuck of 5 villages comprising 64
“łanów kmiecych” and covering an area of 0.80 of a square mile,[293]
and that of Gniezno of far greater proportions.[294] The landed
estate of the cathedral chapter of Cracow consisted of 46 villages,
14 sections, and 1 town.[295] The endowments of monastic institutions
were on the whole, of even greater proportions. The monastery of
Trzemesz in Great Poland was endowed with 40 villages comprising
200 “włók chłopskich.”[296] In Little Poland the number of monastic
institutions was very large, and they were all well provided for. The
Abbey of Tyniec, the oldest in the country, possessed 44 villages,
4 sections, and 5 towns; the convent of the Klarysek at Sącz, 48
villages; the monasteries of Miechów, 42 villages, 2 sections, and 1
town; Pokrzywnice, 29 villages, 1 section, and 1 town; Łysa Góra, 21
villages, 1 section, and 2 towns; Sieciechów, 21 villages, 1 section,
and 1 town; Jędrzejów, 20 villages, 1 section, and 1 town.[297] In
Mazovia, the Abbey of Płock was in possession of 20 villages, and the
Abbey of Czerwieńsk of 63 villages.[298] Especially striking as to
size were the episcopal estates. The bishop of Poznań owned in the
county of Poznań 16 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation, in
Mazovia, 19 villages, and in Little Poland, 3 villages.[299] The bishop
of Łuck owned in Podlasie 100 “włók osiadłych,” besides “liburnam et
navigium” on the River Bug near Drohiczyn, and in Volhynia 14 villages
covering an area of 2.77 square miles.[300] The estate of the bishop
of Kamieniec in Podolia consisted of 13 villages and 1 town, covering
an area of 2.40 square miles, besides a number of other smaller tracts
of land.[301] The bishop of Chełm had 11 villages, 3 towns, and other
minor real estate properties. This last estate was evidently a very
small episcopal estate; for as late as the beginning of the eighteenth
century the bishop of Chełm was regarded as “a sola paupertate
commendabilis.”[302] The bishop of Przemyśl was lord of 18 villages and
3 towns, and the archbishop of Lwów of 29 villages and 5 towns.[303]
The wealthiest of the Polish prelates were the archbishop of Gniezno,
primate of Poland, and the bishops of Płock and Cracow. The archbishop
of Gniezno was grand lord of 200 villages; 30 in the county of Gniezno,
20 in the Palatinate of Łęczyce, and 130 in Mazovia in the Palatinates
of Rawa and Mazovia, covering 20 square miles.[304] The bishop of Płock
was the owner of the most extensive landed possessions in Mazovia. His
estate consisted of 232 villages and 6 towns.[305] The landed estates
of the bishop of Cracow were the most extensive, numbering from 280 to
300 villages and covering an area of from 50 to 70 square miles.[306]

Excepting the royal lands, the largest estates, whether in Great or in
Little Poland, were those of the bishops or monastic institutions. They
completely overshadowed the estates of the Polish nobility. Two-thirds
of the landed estates of the nobility of Great Poland consisted of
one village each. Even the magnates of Great Poland had comparatively
small possessions. Large estates were exceptional in Great Poland, and
they were either royal or ecclesiastical.[307] In Mazovia the only
large land owners were the king and the clergy. There was absolutely no
magnate in the entire duchy equal in wealth to the bishop of Płock. In
fact, outside of the clergy, there were no magnates in Mazovia.[308]
Nor was there a magnate in Little Poland equal as a landlord to the
bishop of Cracow. The wealthiest of them, Prince Constantine Ostrogski,
could boast of only 80 villages, an estate one-fourth the size of that
of the bishop of Cracow. The next wealthiest aristocratic family,
the Jordans, were lords of only 33 villages, the Zborowskis, 30, the
Komorowskis, 29, the Szafraniec family, 22, and the rest had 10 to 20
villages each. To equal the landed property of the bishop of Cracow,
it would have been necessary to combine the estates of ten wealthiest
and foremost aristocratic families of Little Poland, whose combined
properties numbered 292 villages, about the number of those of the
bishop.[309] Viewed in the light of their landed property, the Polish
bishops were not only ecclesiastical, but also secular princes. In
fact, a number of them bore princely titles. The archbishop of Gniezno
and primate of Poland was prince of Łowicz; the bishop of Warmia was at
the same time prince of Warmia; the bishop of Cracow was prince of the
Principality of Siewiersk; the bishop of Płock was prince of Pułtusk;
and the prebendary of Płock was prince of Wieluń.[310]

These princes of the church were also in the habit of leaving princely
private fortunes to their relatives. Many Polish aristocratic families,
like the Oleśnickis, the Myszkowskis, the Rytwianskis, the Górkas,
and the Łaskis, owed their great wealth and power to having been left
large fortunes by some of their ancestors who had occupied high offices
in the church.[311] Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki and Peter Myszkowski,
both bishops of Cracow at different times, were notable examples in
this particular. Peter Myszkowski, born in 1505 and educated abroad
at Padua, on his return home received a large number of benefices,
the canonries of Cracow and Gniezno, the prebendaries of Gniezno,
Płock, Łęczyca, and Poznań, and the deanery of Cracow, so that he
was called “the prebendary of the whole of Poland.” In 1563 he was
appointed under-secretary of state, and at the same time coadjutor of
the bishop of Płock. In 1568 he became bishop of Płock and in 1577
bishop of Cracow. In the last named office he remained for fourteen
years until his death in 1591. He left his nephews a private fortune of
8,000,000 Polish florins, besides large landed estates purchased from
the Oleśnickis.[312] One of his successors in office, Andrew Lipski,
dying in 1630 as bishop of Cracow, left a private fortune of 900,000
ducats, not counting any real estate property. John Kuczborski, bishop
of Chełm, left in 1623 in cash alone 500,000 ducats. In this connection
let us recall that the bishop of Chełm was regarded as the poorest of
the Polish bishops, and held up as an example of poverty. Karaffa,
bishop of Płock, on his death in 1615, left his brother 7,000,000
thalers.[313] These legacies bespeak the handsome incomes of the Polish
high church dignitaries.

Although some of the largest ecclesiastical estates were frequently
situated along the borders of the country, and were sometimes in
a somewhat primitive condition,[314] yet as a rule the lands of
the church were most favorably located, and were compact and very
productive.[315] They were usually grouped around the episcopal sees
or monastic institutions in the most productive, most thickly settled,
and most easily accessible parts of the country. A large portion of the
landed property of the bishop of Poznań was located in the county of
Poznań, in close proximity to the episcopal see and to the city. In the
county of Gniezno, the lands of the archbishop of Gniezno constituted
22 per cent. of its area cultivated by peasants. In the Palatinate
of Łęczyce, the most thickly settled and the most productive, the
ecclesiastical lands made up also 22 per cent. of the total under
peasant cultivation. In Mazovia in the Palatinate of Płock 71 villages
belonged to the bishop of Płock. In Red Russia in the most thickly
settled and most productive district around Lwów the church lands
constituted 5 per cent. of the area cultivated by peasants. And when we
come to Little Poland, we find that half of the ecclesiastical lands
of that province,--388 villages, 49 sections, and 9 towns, or between
440 to 450 landed estates,--were located in the Palatinate of Cracow.
The counties containing most of them were Proszowice, Szczyrzyce, and
Ksiąsk, Proszowice leading with 183 ecclesiastical estates.[316] The
number of “łanów kmiecych” per square mile shows that these counties
were the best cultivated, most productive, and the richest. The County
of Proszowice numbered 62.7 “łanów kmiecych” to the square mile, the
County of Ksiąsk 40.1, and that of Szczyrzyce 32.4. In the Palatinate
of Sandomir the County of Wiślice, where again numerous ecclesiastical
estates were found, numbered 41 “łanów kmiecych” to the square
mile.[317]

Another interesting characteristic of these ecclesiastical lands was
that they invariably bordered on royal property. This close proximity
of ecclesiastical estates to royal was to be found everywhere in
Poland in the sixteenth century. This fact showed clearly that
the ecclesiastical estates owed their existence to royal grants;
that they had been carved out of the royal domain, and of the best
portions of it.[318] For wherever the ecclesiastical estates were
large and numerous, there existed also a corresponding diminution
of royal property. In Great Poland, Mazovia, and in Little Poland
the ecclesiastical property was twice as large as the royal. In the
Palatinate of Łęczyce, where the church owned 22 per cent. of the
land cultivated by peasants, the king owned only 9 per cent. In the
Palatinate of Płock, where the bishop of Płock owned 71 villages, the
king had only 12 villages.[319] In the Palatinate of Cracow the church
owned 440-450 landed estates, while the king owned only about 240 to
250 estates in that rich and easily accessible section.[320]

In the light of these facts it is not to be wondered at that the royal
treasury found itself in the sixteenth century constantly embarrassed;
that the szlachta demanded “egzekucji praw,” that is, the return of
royal property illegally acquired; and that it was exceedingly jealous
of the privileged position of the clergy and envious of its wealth.

In this connection it is well to note that a similar proximity to royal
lands characterized also the large estates of the secular aristocracy.
In fact, the three groups of lands went invariably together. The
natural inference, therefore, is that the estates of the secular
aristocracy, as the estates of the clergy, were carved out of the royal
domain. That this was actually the case there seems to be no doubt.
This further explains the jealousy of the secular aristocracy of the
clergy. It was a question of which class would be more successful in
courting the favor of the king, and as a result of it could secure
additional grants of royal land. And since the estates of the church
already were disproportionately large, the magnates naturally kept a
jealously watchful eye on the clergy.

Striking as is the foregoing picture, it is necessary, in order to
make it still more realistic, to supplement it with a number of
details. It is necessary to bear in mind that the statistics here
cited, giving the landed wealth of the Polish church in the sixteenth
century, are minimum statistics; that while they are the best we
have of the period, they are not always complete for every province;
and that they do not include the private properties cultivated by
serf labor. These statistics are based on Income Registers of the
Commonwealth Treasury. They invariably give only minimum property
figures, and only for properties from which contributions were actually
collected, omitting those that succeeded in evading the payment of
these contributions.[321] Then, too, they are not always complete.
For instance, the extent of the church’s landed property in Great
Poland is calculated on the basis of statistics for only six out of
the eight palatinates.[322] For the Palatinates of Sieradz and Wieluń
there are no figures. Yet we know that they, too, included church
lands; for the Prebendary of Płock was prince of Wieluń. Nor do our
statistics include the principality of Warmia. We know, also, that
the bishop of Warmia was prince of that principality. Due to the same
fact, the real extent of church lands in the eastern provinces is
likewise somewhat uncertain. Moreover, as has already been stated,
the foregoing statistics do not include private lands cultivated by
serf labor; for gentlemen paid no land tax from the “łany” which they
exploited directly by means of forced labor. They give only estates
cultivated by tenant peasants. The tax known as “łanowe” or “poradlne”
was paid by peasants only. The private estates of the clergy and of the
nobility, cultivated by serf labor, were free from this tax,[323] and
consequently not listed in the tax registers. In the fourteenth and the
first half of the fifteenth century the “łany” of the peasants were a
great deal more extensive than the demesne estates of the nobility,
clerical and lay. In the sixteenth century the peasant lands and the
demesne estates were about equal in area. By the seventeenth century
the ratio was inverted, greatly to the peasants’ disadvantage.[324]
In no way, then, is our picture of the extent of the Polish church’s
landed property in sixteenth century Poland overdrawn. On the contrary,
it need be supplemented in a number of details. Its lines can safely
be still more sharply and clearly drawn, making the picture still
more striking. It is estimated that in France the landed property of
the church constituted from one-fifth to one-fourth of the lands of
the country;[325] in Poland, according to Dr. Kubala, the lands of
the church constituted one-third of the entire landed property of the
commonwealth in the sixteenth century.[326] As late as 1791, after a
considerable portion of ecclesiastical lands had already been sold in
1790, particularly in Galicia, the peasants of ecclesiastical lands
still constituted 10.5 per cent. of the entire population of the
country at that time, or one-sixth of the peasantry alone.[327] At that
time, besides their lands, the clergy owned also over one-tenth of the
houses in Poland, or 153,551 out of a total number of 1,434,919.[328]

Moreover, in addition to these large estates and the income derived
from them, the Polish clergy were entitled to one-tenth of the gross
receipts which the nobility derived from their estates, to one-tenth
from the peasantry, jura stolae, free gifts of the pious, and, as a
specially privileged class, to exemption from practically all public
burdens, although the Greek Orthodox clergy were placed on the same
footing with the peasants as regards taxation.[329] The tithes paid
to the clergy by the nobility were voluntary at first, but by the
middle of the fifteenth century they were made compulsory;[330] and
in consequence became very obnoxious to the nobility, for they were
the only tax the nobility paid.[331] Before the thirteenth century the
prince called upon the population of ecclesiastical estates as well as
on that of the estates of the knighthood to participate in the building
of new or in the rebuilding of old strongholds, but in the course
of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, owing to the immunities
granted the clergy, the princely right to summon the population of
ecclesiastical estates to perform any work on defenses was either
very much curtailed or altogether abolished.[332] Also, the mayors of
ecclesiastical villages were largely exempt from participation in the
country’s defense prior to the reign of Casimir the Great (1333-1370).
In Casimir’s time a law was passed, making these mayors liable to
military service.[333] The clergy, however, disregarded and evaded
the provisions of this law after Casimir’s death. It was not until in
the second half of the sixteenth century that the nobility brought the
clergy to terms in this regard. Taking their actual receipts plus the
value of their exemptions into account, Dr. Kubala estimates that the
Polish clergy of the sixteenth century were recipients of one-half of
the national income.[334]

It was this enormous wealth of the Polish church and its clergy,
actual and potential, that made the Polish nobility very restless,
and gradually led it as a class to an open revolt from the Roman
Catholic Church and to a determined opposition to the Roman clergy, its
pretensions, its greed, and its exactions. This all the more so, since
owing to its great wealth, the Polish clergy had lost its religion
and its moral authority. It was far more concerned about its social
position, its political influence, and its tithes than about religion
and morals. Monastic discipline was loose. The ignorance of the lower
clergy was proverbial. Simony was the order of the day, paving the way
to higher ecclesiastical appointments. The higher clergy were wholly
indifferent to religion, and cared far more for comfort, luxury,
and the enjoyment of life than for the things of the spirit. Bishop
Zebrzydowski of Cracow used to say: “Believe in a goat, if you wish,
only pay me your tithes.”[335] John Drohojowski, learned, prominent,
and influential, for years bishop of Kuyavia, preached only twice in
his church during that time.[336]

Indifferent as the Polish clergy were in matters of religion and
morals, they were never found napping in matters of property and the
exaction of tithes. It was this greed, this completely materialistic
character of the Polish clergy, together with their immense wealth
resulting in great influence and unscrupulous power, that chiefly paved
the way in Poland for Hussitism in the fifteenth century and for
the Reformation in the sixteenth century. As early as 1406 and 1407
the Polish nobility in conventions at Piotrków assembled deliberated
regarding measures to safeguard itself against the exploitation of
the clergy.[337] In 1432, owing to a war with the Teutonic Knights
and the need of large sums of money, regular taxation of the clergy
was being considered.[338] In the course of the first half of the
fifteenth century, due very likely to the unprecedented grants of
Wladislaus Jagiello to the church, the nobility proposed a confiscation
of ecclesiastical estates.[339] This proposal, as we shall see later,
was repeated again several times in the sixteenth century. At that time
the nobility protested also against the concentration of prebendaries
and benefices in the hands of a few specially favored and privileged
ecclesiastics, and against the exportation of annates to Rome.[340]
These protests, too, were renewed in the sixteenth century. In 1544
the Diet voted that the king take steps to secure the Pope’s consent
to the retention of the papal tax within the country for purposes
of defense.[341] The desired papal consent had evidently not been
given, for the Diet of 1567 voted the retention of the annates, with
the king’s consent, even though against the wishes of the Pope.[342]
These annates amounted to 21,266 florins annually,[343] and were to
strengthen the national treasury (Skarb rawski). But according to the
treasury registers these annates were not being paid in. In every
annual summary report of the Treasury a note is found, stating that the
higher clergy, from whom these annates were due, had not paid them in,
with the exception of Krasiński, bishop of Cracow, and his successor,
Peter Myszkowski.[344] So stubborn were the bishops that the Diet of
1569 threatened them with collecting double the amount from all the
delinquent payers, and the Diet of 1576 had to call upon them again to
comply with the law regarding annates.[345]

By a law of 1496 and 1505 the nobility, with its eye on the wealth
of the church, restricted all the higher ecclesiastical offices and
preferments to itself and its sons, excluding from them the townspeople
and all plebeians.[346] In 1510 and again in 1527, as the needs of
the country were steadily growing, it was proposed that the clergy
share in carrying the burdens of the country’s defense along with the
nobility. In all proposed measures of treasury reform in the sixteenth
century the clergy were singled out as the wealthiest estate in the
land and placed at the head of the lists of those best able to help
bear public burdens. In some of the proposals they were asked to give
up their tithes to the needs of the country, and bishops and abbots
were urged to contribute the annates to the national treasury.[347]
The clergy, however, protested vigorously. They were opposed to any
taxation of their property; at the same time they were also reluctant
to make voluntary contributions.[348] The collection of the “subsidium
charitativum” was always a very difficult matter. Out of the 40,000
florins, which the clergy agreed in 1510 to contribute toward the
country’s needs, only 7,000 florins actually came into the national
treasury.[349] At the synod of 1577 the clergy manifested the greatest
reluctance to make any contribution,[350] and the same thing was true
in every case until the end of Poland’s national existence toward the
close of the eighteenth century.[351] Yet in justice to the clergy it
must be said that once in a while they did manifest unusual liberality.
Inspired by the new religious reform movement of the century, the
nobility went so far in 1536 and 1537 as to propose confiscation
and a sale of all ecclesiastical estates, which were tax-free, and
on account of which the nobility had to bear all the heavier public
burdens.[352] In 1563 it at last succeeded in securing actual taxation
of ecclesiastical property.[353] In 1576 it again protested against
the great wealth of the church.[354] And so practically throughout
the sixteenth century it struggled under the inspiration and with the
help of the religious reform movement against the social and economic
oppression and exactions of the Roman clergy.


     [267] A Polish _łan kmiecy_ (laneus agricolae) was of
           two sizes, large and small. The large _łan_ called
           Frankish, was used as a land measure chiefly in
           Little Poland, and equalled 43.2 morgi, or about
           57 acres. The small _łan_, known also as Flemish,
           used in Great Poland and Mazovia almost exclusively,
           equalled 30 morgi, 16 hectares, or approximately 40
           acres.

     [268] Historical Sources (Źródła dziejowe), Warsaw,
           1883-1909, vol. xii, p. 135; cf. p. 72.

     [269] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 135.

     [270] Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 72-73; cf. table to p. 71.

     [271] 772 villages plus one-half of 83 sections = 814
           villages. This divided by 5,455, total number of
           villages, = approximately 15 per cent. Or on the
           basis of 5.3 villages to a square mile: 814 divided
           by 5.3 = 153.5 square miles. This gives us 15.5 per
           cent. of total land area of 1013 square miles.

     [272] Źr. dz. vol. xiv, pp. 72-73.

     [273] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 75; cf. chart to p. 71.

     [274] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 54-55.

     [275] A włóka was the Lithuanian land measure corresponding
           to the Polish łan, containing about 40 acres.

     [276] Źr. dz., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 52.

     [277] Ibid., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 123; see also pp. 212-225.

     [278] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 105.

     [279] Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 103-104.

     [280] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 106.

     [281] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 354.

     [282] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, pp. 66, 354.

     [283] Ibid., vol. xxii, pp. 599-600.

     [284] Cf. ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 355.

     [285] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 133.

     [286] While the church owned in Little Poland 772 villages,
           83 sections, and 28 towns, the possessions of the
           crown consisted only of 469 villages, 60 sections and
           14 towns (see Źr. dz., vol. xiv, Table to p. 71).

     [287] In Mazovia the ecclesiastical possessions numbered
           505 villages and the royal only 262 (see Źr. dz.,
           vol. xvi, pp. 50-51).

     [288] Źr. dz., vol. xii, p. 133.

     [289] Ibid., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 52.

     [290] Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 97-98.

     [291] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 354.

     [292] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 266.

     [293] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 105.

     [294] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 136.

     [295] Ibid., vol. xiv, Table to p. 71.

     [296] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 137; vol. xiv, pp. 83-84.

     [297] Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 72-73.

     [298] Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 57.

     [299] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 136; vol. xvi, p. 57; vol. xiv,
           Table to p. 71.

     [300] Ibid., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 123; vol. xix, p. 105.

     [301] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 106.

     [302] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 266.

     [303] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 266.

     [304] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 83; vol. xvi, pp. 56-57.

     [305] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 56-57.

     [306] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 86.

     [307] Ibid., vol. xii, pp. 138-144, 168.

     [308] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 61, 62.

     [309] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 86.

     [310] Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 97, chap. ii, n. 4.

     [311] Starczewski, p. 66.

     [312] Ibid., pp. 120-121.

     [313] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 129-130, n.

     [314] Źr. dz., vol. xiv, pp. 78, 79, 80.

     [315] Ibid.

     [316] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 75; cf. chart to p. 71.

     [317] Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 32, 98, 104; vol. xvi, p. 20.

     [318] Ibid., vol. xii, pp. 136, 137.

     [319] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 54-55.

     [320] Ibid., vol. xiv, table to p. 71.

     [321] Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 1, 5.

     [322] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 135.

     [323] Ibid., vol. viii, pp. 392, 424.

     [324] Polish Encyclopaedia, Geneva, 1921, vol. ii, No. 2,
           p. 85.

     [325] W. S. Davis, A History of France, p. 44.

     [326] Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 20.

     [327] T. Korzon, Internal History of Poland (Wewnętrzne
           dzieje Polski), vol. i, chart to p. 320; see also
           vol. iii, p. 253.

     [328] Ibid., vol. i, p. 160; vol. iii, chart to p. 250.

     [329] Źr. dz., vol. viii, pp. 147, 399.

     [330] Smoleński, pp. 49, 74; see also Caro, History of
           Poland (Dzieje Polski), Warsaw, 1900, vol. iv, p. 40.

     [331] Źr. dz., vol. viii, p. 399.

     [332] S. Kutrzeba, Constitutional History of Poland
           (Historja ustroju Polski), Lwów, 1912, 3rd ed., vol.
           i, p. 64.

     [333] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 5.

     [334] Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 21.

     [335] See Brückner, History of Literature in Poland
           (Historja literatury w Polsce), Warsaw, 1908, vol. i,
           pp. 99-100, 123-124.

     [336] Kot, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski, Kraków, 1919, p. 121.

     [337] Smoleński, p. 75.

     [338] Caro, vol. iv, p. 35.

     [339] Brückner, vol. i, p. 100; cf. Caro, vol. iv, pp.
           85-89.

     [340] Brückner, vol. i, p. 100.

     [341] “De spiritualibus beneficiatis, qui sacerdotes actu
           non sunt, erit Sacrae Majestati curae, ut apud
           Pontificem Romanum impetret, quo possint personaliter
           ad hoc bellum proficisci, per quem quidem Nuntium
           annatas impetrare conabitur, quas ei nostri Episcopi,
           contra Concilii Basiliensis decretum pendabant” (Vol.
           leg., vol. i, fol. 585).

     [342] “We permit that the annates be kept within the Crown
           for the defense of the Commonwealth” (Vol. leg., vol.
           iii, fol. 729).

     [343] Źr. dz., vol. viii, p. 143.

     [344] “Annatae ab episcopis juxta constitutiones sunt
           omnes retentae, nullus enim illorum eandem thesauro
           r. p. intulit, praeter olim Krasiński episcopum
           Cracoviensem et modernum episcopum Cujaviensem”
           (Note in “Ks. Kwarty 11” of the year 1578. Similar
           notes are found in “Ks. Kwarty 12” of the year
           1580 and in Bk. 15 of the year 1581). Regarding
           Bishop Myszkowski the Crown Register under date of
           March 13, 1578, contains this note: “annatam ex
           episcopatu Cracoviensi intulit, quam nos in usum
           belli Gedanensis conversam esse hisce literis nostris
           testamur” (Źr. dz., vol. viii, p. 143).

     [345] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 782, par. 12, fol. 908, par.
           9. It looks as if the actions of the Diets of 1569
           and of 1576 had produced some results.

     [346] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 262 ff., 302 ff.

     [347] Źr. dz., vol. viii, pp. 383, 385.

     [348] A. Sokolowski, History of Poland (Dzieje Polski),
           Vienna, 1904, vol. ii, pp. 220, 227.

     [349] Ibid., p. 220.

     [350] Źr. dz., vol. iv, p. xxiii.

     [351] Korzon, Internal History of Poland, vol. iii, p. 169.

     [352] Sokołowski, vol. ii, pp. 282-283.

     [353] See above, pp. 60-61.

     [354] Vol. leg., vol. ii, Laws of 1576.




                               CHAPTER IV

            THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE POLISH NOBILITY AND THE
                      CLERGY: ITS ECONOMIC ASPECTS


Besides the great wealth of the church as such, there existed a whole
series of potent causes, all essentially economic in their nature,
leading to a revolt from the established church and furthering the
spread of religious reform.

The social classes in Poland affected by the Reformation were the
townspeople and the szlachta or nobility. Of the two the most
influential class as well as the most instrumental in the promotion of
the religious reform movement was the nobility. The townspeople were
unfortunately largely of German nationality, foreigners in a foreign
land, and consequently without either social or political influence.
The nobility, however, was both Polish and politically powerful. In the
sixteenth century it constituted not only the Polish nation but also
the Polish state. Hence, as in Germany the Reformation owed its firm
foothold to the protection of the German princes, so in Poland it owed
its spread to the protection of the Polish nobility, particularly the
magnates.

The political foundation underlying the szlachta’s favorable attitude
toward the Reformation, its open revolt from the established church,
its bitter and determined conflict with the Roman hierarchy, and its
enthusiastic support of the new religious movement consisted of a
number of special fundamental rights and privileges guaranteed it by
various royal charters. The first important charter was the Pact of
Koszyce of 1374. By this pact, in exchange for its consent to extend
the right of succession to the Polish throne to the daughters of Louis
of Hungary, including even the youngest, Jadwiga, the Polish nobility
as a class was guaranteed exemption from all public burdens except a
nominal tax of two “grosze” per “łan kmiecy,” which in reality was paid
by the peasantry rather than by the nobility, freedom from royal levies
of special or extraordinary taxes, compensation for military services
outside the country and damages for injuries or losses sustained in the
course of such foreign campaigns.[355] Moreover, royal appointments to
high public offices of state in any part of the country were restricted
by this pact to the native nobility therein resident to the exclusion
of possible foreign favorites of the crown.[356] Thus, by this pact
the szlachta obtained a very important economic advantage, and secured
itself as a class against arbitrary fiscal oppression or political
discrimination by the king.

In 1422, forced by fiscal and judicial abuses and economic oppression,
particularly by the forcible measures employed by the clergy in their
collection of tithes from heretical and recalcitrant Hussite members
of the nobility,[357] the szlachta took advantage of a war exigency,
and in the camp at Czerwińsk, Mazovia, on the eve of a military
expedition against the Teutonic Knights, exacted another charter from
the king, Wladislaus Jagiello, known as the Privilege of Czerwińsk. By
this charter, among other things, the Polish nobility was guaranteed
inviolability of its hereditary property rights against any arbitrary
action either of the king or any of his official representatives. The
king promised the nobility not to seize or to confiscate, nor to allow
any of his officials to seize or to confiscate the hereditary property
of any one of his subjects, whatever his rank or condition, without
due process of law.[358] This royal guaranty henceforth precluded
any unfair oppressive exactions from the szlachta under threat of
confiscation of property or any arbitrary interference with the
property rights of any szlachcic on the part of either the king or his
officials. That the exaction of this guaranty was a foresighted master
stroke on the part of the Polish nobility is proved by the Edict of
Wieluń, issued only two years later, which decreed the confiscation
of property of heretics.[359] Had it not been for the Privilege of
Czerwieńsk, the Polish nobility would have been left wholly at the
mercy of the clergy.

A few years later Wladislaus Jagiello, desirous to secure the Polish
throne for his sons, born of his fourth marriage, sought to obtain
their recognition as his successors by the Polish estates. The Polish
nobility acceded to the wish of the king, but in consideration of
this concession sought and obtained at Jedlnia in 1430 the famous
charter generally known as the “Neminem captivabimus, nisi jure victum”
privilege. This charter constituted the Polish “habeas corpus” act.
According to its terms no nobleman could be arrested except upon the
verdict of a court or when actually caught in the act of committing
arson, murder, rape, or village plunder.[360] By its provisions the
personal liberties of the Polish nobility were both enlarged and more
securely guarded. The two privileges, that of Czerwieńsk and that of
Jedlnia, were of great importance and value to the Polish nobility;
the former guaranteed the inviolability of its property, the latter of
its persons.

The other two very important charters obtained by the Polish nobility
were the Statutes of Nieszawa of 1454 and the “Nihil Novi” Constitution
framed by the Diet of Radom in 1505. The distinguishing features of
these two documents were matters of jurisdiction and legislation.
By the first the szlachta freed itself from the jurisdiction of
royal administrative officials. From now on it was subject to the
jurisdiction of the starostas, the royal administrative and judicial
officials, only in four kinds of cases, arson, murder, rape, and
theft. In other cases it was subject to the jurisdiction of provincial
courts, for which, according to the Statutes of Nieszawa, it secured
the privilege to nominate in the event of vacancies four candidates
for judge, assistant judge, and court clerk. From these nominees of
the provincial szlachta the king selected one for the respective
vacancy.[361] In this way by its control of the provincial judiciary
the szlachta assured for itself a fairer administration of justice. By
the second it freed itself from arbitrary legislation. According to the
Constitution of Radom the king was not permitted to make any new laws
without the common consent of the senate and the representatives of the
szlachta.[362] By this constitutional provision the rank and file of
the nobility represented in the Chamber of Deputies came now into full
control of legislation, and became masters of their own destinies.

By these charters the Polish nobility was guaranteed the most important
fundamental rights and liberties of free citizens, freedom from
taxation without its consent, security of person and of property, fair
administration of justice, and immunity from arbitrary royal decrees
jeopardizing its fundamental rights. Protected by these guaranties the
Polish nobility was free to assume and to maintain any attitude it
pleased toward the Reformation movement. It could with a reasonable
degree of safety defy the king and Pope alike. This is what helps us
to understand the spread of the Reformation in Poland in the face of
numerous royal edicts against heresy and heretics, with their extremely
severe penalties of exile, confiscation of property, infamy, and even
death.

The economic basis of the ecclesiastical revolt of the Polish nobility,
and a most powerful motive therefor, was created by the commercial
and industrial transformation of Poland in the sixteenth century. The
chief causes leading thereto were three significant historical events,
all happening during the second half of the fifteenth century; namely,
the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, the discovery
of America by Columbus in 1492, and Poland’s final complete triumph
over the Order of the Teutonic Knights, sealed by the Peace of Thorn
in 1466. The first closed the old paths of commerce with the Levant
and the Orient; the second opened up new trade routes and new markets
to the West; the third added West Prussia with the city of Danzig
to Poland, and gave that country control of the lower course of the
Vistula River and free access to the sea.

Owing to the first two historical events, the commercial centre of
Europe shifted from the coasts of the Mediterranean to the coasts of
the Atlantic and the Baltic, and the countries lying along these coasts
profited by this change.[363] The cities of Antwerp, Bruges, Amsterdam,
and Danzig became great emporia of Northwestern Europe. Toward the
close of the fifteenth and during the sixteenth centuries the commerce
of the Baltic turned out to be the hub of European commerce with the
port of Danzig as its centre. From 1466 on the commerce of that city
grew steadily. In 1428 the number of ships that arrived in Danzig
was 110. In the years 1422, 1429, 1430, and 1432 flotillas of 70,
61, 40, and 59 ships laden with corn sailed from its port. In 1474,
1475, and 1476 the ships arriving in Danzig numbered 403, 525, and
634 respectively. Again, in 1490, 1491, and 1492 the number of ships
sailing from Danzig was 720, 607, and 562 for the respective years.[364]

The main articles of its import were cloth from the Netherlands,
England, and Scotland; linen from Scotland; salt from France, Germany,
England, and the Netherlands; horses from southern Sweden, Finland,
and the islands of Oeland, Gottland, and Bornholm; iron from Sweden;
and wines, beer, and hops, fish, and southern fruits and vegetables
from the South of Europe.[365] The principal articles of its export
were agricultural and forest products, wheat, rye, barley, leguminous
vegetables, lumber, ashes, pitch, and tar. The chief producer of its
exports as well as the chief consumer of its imports was Poland.[366]
Toward the close of the fifteenth and throughout the sixteenth century
that country was the granary of Southern and Western Europe. Its grain
was in great demand in cities of Italy, Portugal, and Spain as well as
in the markets of Holland, Scandinavia, France, and Scotland. In 1527
the Senate of Venice voted a premium on grain imported from Poland, and
later in the second half of the sixteenth century a number of Italian
rulers and the Pope himself addressed urgent requests to the city of
Danzig for grain shipments.[367] Its lumber and forest products were
used by Holland, England, and Scotland for ship-building purposes.[368]

The annexation of West Prussia with the city of Danzig by the Treaty
of Thorn, was, therefore, a very significant and happy event as
regards the commercial and economic development of Poland. The place
she had lost in the commerce of the East as a result of the fall of
Constantinople into the hands of the Turks she now regained on the
Baltic. This event enabled her to participate in the new world commerce
by opening up to her a new unobstructed way to new and greater world
markets. The change wrought was not only in the direction, but also
in the nature and the volume of her commerce. The old eastern commerce
was mainly transit commerce; its principal beneficiaries were the
townspeople of the Polish cities. The new commerce assumed the form of
export and import commerce; and its chief beneficiaries turned out to
be the Polish nobles as the producers of export commodities.[369]

This change in commercial routes and in the nature and volume of
the new commerce exerted a profound influence on Poland’s economic
and social conditions. The great demand for grain in Western Europe
and Poland’s new and easy access to world markets led to a revival
of Polish agriculture, resulting in a more intensive cultivation
of the soil, increasing exports of agricultural products, growing
prosperity, and in new deepening interest on the part of the Polish
nobility in agriculture rather than in war. Thus, while Western Europe
was rapidly passing from an agricultural to an industrial stage of
economic development, Poland after the middle of the fifteenth century
became transformed into an intensely agricultural country, growing and
exporting grain by way of the Vistula and the Baltic to meet the demand
of western markets.[370]

To facilitate the new commerce all hitherto existing trade restrictions
and barriers were removed, tolls on products transported either
by water or by land were abolished, and commerce was given free
movement. By a statute of Casimir Jagiello of the year 1447 the
principal navigable rivers of Poland were opened to unobstructed water
transportation, the public good and abundance of necessary commodities
being now regarded as more important than fishing rights. At the
same time all internal tolls were annulled and abolished and their
collection prohibited.[371] The new regulations with their penalties
for their transgressors were renewed and reaffirmed in the reign of
John Albert in 1496.[372] And since there were some who disregarded
these statutory provisions, as for instance the burghers of Thorn, John
Albert promised to exercise special vigilance in their enforcement in
order that water transportation to Danzig might be free and safe.[373]
Nevertheless, in spite of these laws, there still were complaints in
the Diet of 1538 against the collection of transport tolls by private
individuals. In consequence of these all privileges granted private
individuals and towns to levy and collect road and bridge tolls, with
the exception of such as were necessary for the convenience of the
travelling public, were abrogated altogether.[374] Due to the removal
of all commercial barriers and obstructions and a good and convenient
channel of export, such as the Vistula was, Poland’s commerce grew by
leaps and bounds, bringing unprecedented prosperity to the country.

To meet somewhat adequately the demands of trade and at the same time
to take advantage of the unusual opportunities for gain and enrichment,
the Polish landowners turned to agriculture in dead earnest. This
caused a change in the method of agriculture and created a great demand
for more land and for more labor. Intensive agriculture and large scale
production of agricultural products became the rule of the day. From
the middle of the fifteenth century on through the sixteenth century
the demesne estates of the Polish nobles and of the clergy were in
process of enlargement by various methods. Waste and fallow lands were
brought under cultivation, swamps were drained and made productive,
and forests were cleared and the clearings were converted into fertile
farms.[375] Expropriation of village mayorships was another method by
which the demesne estates were being enlarged. In the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries Polish princes, and following their example, the
magnates and the clergy, in order to encourage colonization, offered
special inducements to German colonizing entrepreneurs by allowing
them for their services a certain amount of land free of charge
and of all public burdens, and by granting them special rights and
privileges, which placed them practically on an equal footing with the
Polish nobility. These mayorships with their rights and privileges
were hereditary. By a statute of 1423, however, the Polish landlords
were given the right to buy out these village mayorships from their
owners.[376] The steps necessary to be taken were to summon such a
village mayor before a “judicium terrestre,” and to notify him of the
intention of the lord of the manor to expropriate him. To be sure, the
statute declared that this procedure was to be applied only against
useless or rebellious mayors; but there was nothing easier to prove
than the rebelliousness of a village mayor whom the lord of the manor
wanted to expropriate. This method of enlarging the demesne estates was
profitable to the lords in more ways than one. It transferred to the
seigniorial reserve and its lord not only the land of the expropriated
village mayor or mayors, but also the labor, the feudal dues, and all
the rights and privileges which the village mayor or mayors formerly
enjoyed.[377] This practice lasted from the middle of the fifteenth to
the middle of the sixteenth century, and was resorted to by the Polish
clergy as well as by the Polish nobility.[378]

Still another method of increasing the demesne estates of the lords was
by incorporating into the demesne estate temporarily vacant peasant
leaseholds. This practice became very common after the middle of the
fifteenth century. Owing to the depreciation of money values and the
rise of prices, especially for agricultural products, lands leased to
peasants at a certain fixed money rental were not very profitable. The
lands of the manorial estate cultivated by the lord directly by forced
labor were yielding far more alluring returns. Hence, it came about
that whenever a peasant left his lot, the lord of the manor, instead of
settling it by leasing it out to another peasant family, simply annexed
it to his seigniorial reserve and cultivated it by forced labor. This
practice proved so profitable that the lords began gradually to resort
to all sorts of oppressive methods for the purpose of driving the
tenant peasants away from their leaseholds, so that they could then
declare the deserted leaseholds as vacant, and annex them to their
demesne estates. There were also instances of unceremonious transfers
of peasant families to the manors and of straightforward seizures of
their leaseholds. This was frequently done in case a peasant’s house
burned down. Instead of rebuilding it, the lord preferred to show his
hospitality by transfering the peasant’s family to the manor, where
they became his servants.[379] The incorporation of deserted peasant
lots into the lord’s private domain was especially tempting inasmuch as
such “deserted” or “vacant” peasant lots were free from the “poradlne”
or “łanowe,” a tax of two “grosze” paid by the nobility into the royal
treasury.[380]

Land ownership was looked upon as a special privilege of the Polish
nobility. The szlachta, therefore, strove with determination toward its
complete monopolization and toward the monopolization of agricultural
production.[381] Its next step was to exclude the townspeople from
land ownership, to prohibit the clergy further to enlarge their landed
estates, and to restrict access to all the higher ecclesiastical
offices with their rich benefices to itself and its sons. To that end
it employed legislative means. By the Constitution of 1496 the Polish
nobility excluded the townspeople together with the peasantry from
owning any landed estates and from access to any high offices in the
church. According to the provisions of that document people of plebeian
rank could neither buy new landed estates, nor continue to hold those
they were already in possession of. They were called upon to dispose
of their lands as speedily as convenient under penalty of being
deprived of them.[382] In like manner they were excluded also from
the higher appointments in the church. Lured by the wealth connected
with these appointments, the Polish nobility by law restricted
eligibility to them to its own class.[383] The restrictions regarding
ecclesiastical appointments were reaffirmed by the Constitution of
1505, and violations of them were to be punished by perpetual exile
and confiscation of property.[384] These restrictions, however, were
frequently disregarded and violated. Foreigners and plebeians in favor
at the papal court succeeded in getting cathedral appointments and
appointments to other high church offices and lucrative benefices.
Against these flagrant violations of the law the szlachta rose in
protest at the Diet of 1532, demanding enforcement of the statutes of
1496 and 1505 and punishment not only of those who contrary to law
secured higher ecclesiastical appointments, but also of those who
helped them to get these appointments.[385] But these protests and the
new constitutional provisions seemed to remain without effect, for in
1533 the szlachta of Great Poland presented the king with a memorial,
protesting again against appointments of foreigners and plebeians to
cathedral churches. The king in order to pacify the szlachta, issued
a new decree, reemphasizing the fact that foreigners and plebeians
were excluded from all higher ecclesiastical benefices under penalty
of banishment and confiscation of property.[386] However, it seems
that the king himself did not conform to law; for in 1534 the szlachta
presented a petition to him, requesting him to have regard for his
own subjects, their laws and customs, to treat them with greater
consideration than foreigners and plebeians, and not to appoint the
latter to any high ecclesiastical offices or as his secretaries.[387]
The continued disregard and violations of these constitutional
restrictions angered the szlachta, and stirred it up to a growing and
more determined opposition not only to the clergy, but also to Rome and
the Roman Church at large, driving it more and more into the enemy’s
camp, the Reformation. To add fuel to the fire, the king, pressed by
the Roman clergy,[388] issued February 4, 1535, a severe edict against
heretical doctrines and books, the attendance of the Polish youth at
Wittenberg or any other place infected with heresy, and ordered any
such students to return home under penalty of deprivation of all honors
and of perpetual exile.[389] The result was that at the following
Diet, held the same year, the szlachta directed a strong attack upon
the class privileges of the clergy, and actually succeeded in having
the Diet pass three measures relative to the problem of “the execution
of laws,” which threatened the very foundation of the church’s
rights and privileges. These measures called upon all churches and
monastic institutions to present at the next Diet their charters for
examination, the purpose being to annul all such rights and privileges
of the church as were contrary to the principles of public law and
welfare.[390] The sessions of the Diet were very stormy, and the
property of the clergy, together with their privileges, was the object
of contention. In 1533, Bishop Chojeński wrote to Archbishop Krzycki,
primate of Poland, as follows:

     I exceedingly regret the way the Diet dissolved, especially
     when I reflect and see where it all tends and to what
     consequences such beginnings are apt to lead. Would that it
     might not result in destruction of our clerical estate! For
     we see now the most arrogant and audacious people, to whose
     insatiable passions there is nothing sacred or inviolable,
     who draw inspiration and power from their wilfulness and
     impunity, lie in wait for the church’s property. It is the
     duty of your Reverence, who are the head and primate of our
     clerical estate in these parts of ours, to watch diligently
     that their impious purposes may not be realized in our
     times at least.[391]

When it became evident that the king did not intend to carry out the
wishes of the Diet of 1535, the szlachta of Great Poland instructed its
deputies to the Diet of 1536-1537 to insist on “the execution of laws,”
which included the matter of the church’s privileges. At this Diet the
Chamber of Deputies raised, therefore, most violent protests against
the abuses described, and vigorously demanded conformity to law and
restoration of all illegally acquired benefices and church property.
At the same time the Chamber demanded that henceforth the king appoint
to abbacies and other lucrative church benefices only native Poles of
noble birth, or plebeians of Polish nationality in the event that there
are not enough candidates of noble birth to fill vacancies. The leaders
in this movement were Raphael Leszczyński, Stanislaus Myszkowski,
Nicholas Krzycki, and John Sierakowski, who later on became well-known
champions of the Reformation movement.[392] Moreover, in 1538 the Diet
passed a law, according to which anyone receiving anything contrary
to statutory enactments by courting the favor of the Vatican was
thereby ipso facto proscribed and his possessions were confiscated. By
the same law all church dignitaries residing in Rome away from their
appointments were recalled, and if they failed to return to the country
within a specified time, they were to be deprived of their offices and
banished, and were not to be permitted to enter the country.[393]

But high ecclesiastical offices richly endowed were after all limited
in number. If the Polish nobility was to find larger access to the
landed property of the church, it had to get to it in other ways,
which it did. If the secular nobles were keen in buying up village
mayorships, so were the Polish clergy. In fact, they were in possession
of more mayorships than the secular nobles.[394] Then, too, their
landed estates were further augmented by bequests of pious persons.
These things were a thorn in the flesh to the Polish nobility. It
sought ways and means of preventing this constant increase of church
property. As early as 1510 testamentary bequests of real estate
property to the church were prohibited by statutory enactment.[395] In
1534 the szlachta at its provincial diets unanimously demanded that the
General Diet restrain the clergy from buying up village mayorships,
with the result that in the end a law was enacted prohibiting all
transfers of estates with nobility rights and privileges to the
clergy whether by gift, sale, or any other method.[396] The stormy
Diet of 1536-1537 went still further, demanding the secularization
of all ecclesiastical estates and the sale to the szlachta of all
the newly acquired lands of the clergy.[397] Nor did the nobles stop
at mere demands and legislative enactments; occasionally they took
matters directly into their hands. For instance, whenever and wherever
there was an opportunity to seize the land of a parish priest or a
prebendary, the nobles were quite ready to take advantage of it. In
the sixteenth century, influenced and encouraged by the Reformation
movement, the Polish nobles did not hesitate to resort to that method
of dealing with ecclesiastical property, and of thus enlarging their
own demesne estates.[398]

Moreover, the revival of agriculture created a demand not only for
more land, but also for more labor, and cheap labor. We have already
noted that farming by tenant peasants was not any more profitable to
the landlords in the sixteenth century, and that there was a strong
tendency to annex the peasant leaseholds to the demesne estates. But
as the demesne estates increased in size the labor problem grew more
acute every day. To solve it, the noble landlords began to change
the status of the peasants by legislation. Thus former free peasants
became gradually, as a result of a series of legislative enactments,
glebae adscripti. They were not any longer free to leave their masters
at will; and if they did, their masters had the right to demand their
return, or to pursue them and bring them back.[399] Of a family of
peasant children, only one might leave the estate on which he was born,
and go to the city into service, or for the purpose of study or of
learning a trade.[400] An only child was forbidden to leave the land;
he had to pass into the serfdom of his parents.[401] And if a peasant
youth escaped, he was to be restored to his master under penalty of
forty marks.[402] Not only were the Polish peasants bound to the soil
in the sixteenth century, they were now also compelled to do forced
labor on their masters’ estates. In 1477 the provincial diet of “Ziemia
chełmska” established one day a week of forced peasant labor on the
estate of the lord. In 1520 the General Diets of Thorn and Bydgoszcz
extended this local provision to the peasants on all the manors in
the country.[403] Thus what had hitherto been a matter of private
arrangement was now made a statutory and universal obligation. And
gradually as time went on the number of forced labor was increased
to two days a week and more.[404] Worst of all, under the influence
of Roman law, which recognized only masters and slaves, the Polish
peasants lost also their standing before the law, and were subjected
wholly to the jurisdiction of their lords.[405] This removed the last
vestige of the peasants’ personal rights, and made them practically the
property of the aristocratic landlords.

Besides monopolizing agricultural production, the Polish nobles
obtained exemption from export and import duties on all products raised
on their own estates for export and on all goods imported for their
own use and not for trade.[406] By this stroke they secured a monopoly
advantage in trade also, and became the chief beneficiaries of all its
benefits to the detriment and destruction of the Polish town population.

The changes in Poland’s commerce and agriculture in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries had a very important bearing on the country’s
problems of defense and finance. They disqualified the Polish nobility
for warfare, and they undermined the revenues of the state. The
szlachta, settled on the land, grew more attached to the soil and to
the life of country gentlemen than to the camp and the discomforts
of military service. Stimulated by the new commercial opportunities
and the prospect for gain and enrichment, it naturally became more
interested in agriculture and in exports of its agricultural products
than in warfare and military expeditions. The rewards of agriculture
and of commerce were greater, more certain, less hazardous, and
consequently more alluring than those of war. Moreover, the changes
in warfare, resulting from the invention of gunpowder, demanded the
employment of new methods in the conduct of war, called for more
costly equipment, which the warriors had to provide themselves at
their own expense, and were fraught with greater perils to life.
Naturally, therefore, the nobility grew reluctant to leave the soil,
and to engage in war; and when actually called out in emergency in
“pospolite ruszenie” it was far more interested in political than in
military maneuvers, in extracting new privileges from the king than in
vanquishing the enemy. Whether as a defensive or as an offensive force
the “pospolite ruszenie” became now both physically inadequate and
temperamentally unfit for war. Yet the country’s wars with the Teutonic
Knights, Russia, Moldavia, Courland, and the city of Danzig, and its
constant menace of Tartar invasion called for a strong and ever-ready
military force to repel aggression, subdue rebellion, and to protect
the borders in order to guard the country’s safety and to maintain its
integrity and prestige.

These conditions created the necessity of hiring mercenaries. But
mercenaries had to be paid. This called for more state funds, which,
however, were very hard to raise. The old revenues, which even under
ordinary conditions would have been inadequate for the new needs, were
rendered all the more inadequate by the fact that their sources instead
of being increased were actually diminished. This was due to a number
of causes. The lavish generosity of the Polish kings, particularly
the Jagiellos, greatly reduced the royal domain and the royal income
therefrom. Exemption of the nobility by the Pact of Koszyce (1374) from
all taxation except two grosze per łan kmiecy and by the Constitution
of 1496 from all export and import duties, and of the clergy from all
public burdens and responsibilities, contributed to the depletion of
the royal treasury and to the weakening of the country’s defense.
This evil was still further accentuated by the processes of annexing
“vacant” peasant leaseholds to the demesne estates and of buying up
of village mayorships by the clergy. The first withdrew the annexed
peasant lands from taxation;[407] the second rendered the mayorships
free from participation in the country’s defense. Out of a total number
of 14,000 village mayorships, which had in the past participated in the
“pospolite ruszenie,” only 2,000 still answered the call to arms by
1539, according to a complaint of the deputies at the Diet of Cracow of
that year.[408] These things combined to impoverish the royal treasury,
to put the king in constant financial straits, and to jeopardize the
peace and security of the country.

To eliminate these difficulties and to provide adequate defense for
the country, special contributions or taxes had to be voted from time
to time. The demand for these special contributions grew greater and
more frequent as time went on. With every year the nobility felt the
burden of defense more keenly. It looked around for help and for new
sources of revenue. These were by no means hard to find. The wealth
and resources of the clergy presented an excellent source of defensive
strength. The szlachta began, therefore, to demand the participation
of the clergy in the responsibilities and burdens of public life and
of the country’s defense. This resulted in a sharp conflict between
the clergy and the Polish nobility, a conflict which lasted for two
centuries and which found expression in the fifteenth century in the
Hussite movement and in the sixteenth in the Reformation.

The Polish clergy’s privileged character respecting their participation
in public responsibilities and burdens constituted the most sensitive
point of difference between the Polish szlachta and the Polish
Roman Catholic clergy.[409] According to Casimir’s Code the duty of
participation in the country’s defense rested upon all hereditary
estates of the Polish knighthood, regardless of the fact as to
whether any of their owners happened to belong at a particular time
to the ranks of the clergy or not.[410] Moreover, it was very early
established that lands newly acquired by the church were subject to
military service. A statute of 1437 provided that all church lands
acquired by purchase within the last forty years and those that might
be thus acquired in the future were required to render military
service.[411] But throughout the fifteenth century the owners of these
lands were clever and successful enough in evading these provisions
and in maintaining the principle of their freedom from participation
in the country’s defense. In 1506 at the Diet of Lublin they even
succeeded in securing royal sanction of their freedom from rendering
military service due from these lands. Gradually, contrary to the law
of Casimir the Great, they extended this principle of their exemption
from military service even to their hereditary lands and to village
mayorships purchased by them.[412]

Naturally, the Polish szlachta rose in arms. It demanded that the
mayors of ecclesiastical villages render military service as did the
mayors of secular villages; that if the clergy objected, they should
produce their privileges exempting the mayors of their villages from
that public duty; that the Diet should prohibit the clergy from buying
village mayorships; that all newly acquired ecclesiastical lands
should be sold to the nobility, which was bearing the burden of public
defense; that the clergy be placed on the same footing with the secular
nobility in respect of participation in public defense; that their
lands be secularized and the income from them be used for purposes of
public defense; and that the clergy assume their fair share of special
taxes levied by the diets. To be sure, all these demands were not made
at once; but they were all made with varying insistence in the course
of the first three-quarters of the sixteenth century.

According to a statute of Casimir the Great of the year 1347 the mayors
of ecclesiastical villages as well as the mayors of secular villages
were required to participate in military expeditions.[413] This
obligation was reaffirmed by the Constitution of 1538,[414] and again
in 1550.[415] But, as we have already noted, the clergy succeeded in
evading these statutory provisions not only throughout the fifteenth,
but also in the sixteenth century. It is not strange, therefore,
to find that as the burden of defense was increasing in weight the
Polish nobility repeatedly demanded that the mayors of ecclesiastical
villages take part in the country’s defense in compliance with the
law. The first demand of this nature in the sixteenth century was made
as early as 1510; then we find it repeated at the Diet of 1536-1537;
and again in 1563. In 1510 the king referred the question at issue
to the provincial synod for review, and the synod was to report on
it at a subsequent general diet.[416] But the matter was evidently
laid aside and remained so as long as it was possible to keep it from
coming to the front again; for when it was brought up at the Diet
of 1536-1537, it was again treated in a similar manner. The bishops
agreed to comply with the law, provided it was proved to them that
the mayors of their villages were subject to military service. Their
special privileges, which they claimed to possess, were to be examined
at the following synod, and then the matter was to be reported on at
the general diet.[417] Presumably the matter stopped there as before;
for at the Diet of 1558-1559 the Chamber of Deputies raised the old
question again, and demanded of the bishops the presentation of their
special privileges exempting the mayors of ecclesiastical villages
from military service. But even then the clergy did not produce this
documentary evidence until at the Diet of 1563; and when actually
produced, it was found wanting, owing to its indefiniteness.[418]

The stubborn opposition of the Polish hierarchy to share in the burden
of defense in this mild form caused the Polish nobility to stiffen
its demands. Since the Polish bishops so strenuously objected to the
participation of the mayors of ecclesiastical villages in the pospolite
ruszenie, the szlachta came forward at the Diet of Thorn in 1520 with
the demand that the clergy as a class be put on the same level as the
secular nobility in regard to military service.[419] All the clergy
in possession of landed estates were to participate in the pospolite
ruszenie along with the szlachta. This demand was renewed and firmly
insisted upon at a local diet of the nobility of Great Poland at
Kolo in 1533, at the General Diet of 1535,[420] and even as late as
1562 at the Diet of Piotrków.[421] This summary demand on the part
of the Polish nobility that the clergy as a landowning class share
equally with the szlachta the burden of defense startled the clergy,
and finally induced them to present their documentary privileges, on
which they based their claim of exemption from the burden of defense
at the subsequent Diet of Piotrków, which met in the fall of 1563. On
examination these documents were found to be anything but explicit and
clear; yet the nobility had relented by this time, and ceased pressing
this particular demand any further.[422]

Owing to this stubborn opposition on the part of the clergy to their
personal participation in military service and to that of the bailiffs
of ecclesiastical villages as well, the Polish nobility turned its
attack now directly upon the landed property and the incomes of the
clergy. In 1534 and in 1535 it vehemently protested against the
purchases of village bailiwicks by the clergy. In 1536-1537, at
the Diet of Piotrków, it went still further, and urgently demanded
the secularization of all ecclesiastical property. As a result of
this determined stand, a plan was actually agreed upon between
the Chamber of Deputies and the secular members of the Senate for
partial secularization of church lands. According to this plan all
ecclesiastical lands acquired by the clergy whether by gift or by
purchase since Louis the Great, 1370-1382, were to be sold to the
nobility.[423] The demand for the secularization of ecclesiastical
estates was first made in the first half of the fifteenth century, then
in 1524, with increasing vigor and insistence at the Diet of Piotrków
in 1536-1537, and again in 1576.[424] How determined the Polish
nobility was to get hold of the property of the clergy may be seen from
the fact that in 1539, when the old king, Sigismund I, was critically
ill, a conspiracy was actually formed, the purpose of which was not
to recognize Sigismund Augustus in the event of his father’s death
until he agreed to and sanctioned the confiscation of one-third of the
church lands for purposes of national defense.[425] The leaders in this
conspiracy, as well as in the rebellion of 1537, were Martin and Peter
Zborowski, ardent advocates of the Reformation after 1550.

Nor were the incomes of the clergy to escape the Polish nobility’s
attack. Whenever the country was in financial straits, the nobility
in a general diet assembled voted special taxes to meet special
emergencies. The clergy, however, were not liable to these special
taxes voted by the diets. They claimed exemption from them. Yet they
did come forward in each emergency with a voluntary contribution, known
as “subsidium charitativum.” This was based on a general estimate of
the clergy’s general income. As this estimate usually constituted
only one-third and frequently one-eighth of the real income of the
clergy, their voluntary contributions based on such estimates were
obviously far below their ability to pay. Manifestly this was unfair
and unjust to the nobility. It, therefore, demanded that the clergy
pay a contribution based on an evaluation of their specific sources
of revenue, such as their estates, their tithes, and other sources of
income.[426]

To this demand of the nobility the clergy were most decidedly opposed.
At the same time they were not a little apprehensive that it might
result in consequences unfavorable to them. To safeguard themselves,
they voted a liberal contribution of 40,000 florins in 1511 for the
purpose of redemption of certain royal lands in Red Russia; and in
exchange for this contribution they exacted from the king a solemn
pledge that henceforth they would be free from military obligations and
from all other burdens, with the exception of the customary subsidium
charitativum, based on an evaluation of their general income, in cases
of a pospolite ruszenie. A written document confirming the pledge of
1511 was issued to the clergy by the king, December 10, 1515.[427] This
furnished the clergy a certain legal basis for their opposition to the
nobility’s demands. When, therefore, the Diets of 1525 and 1527 imposed
a tax on the specific sources of the clergy’s income, the clergy at
their Synod of Łęczyce in 1527, owing to a threatening Tartar invasion,
again voted a voluntary contribution to the country’s needs, but flatly
refused to be taxed by the diets.[428]

But if the clergy were stubborn in their resistence to taxation by
the diets, so were the diets in their insistence on such taxation of
clerical property. At the Diet of 1525 a revaluation of ecclesiastical
property was proposed. The bishops opposed this course resolutely,
fearing that a precedent might be established for the diet to tax their
tithes. Their fear was not groundless. In 1529 at the Diet of Warsaw
the deputies refused to take up the business of the diet until the
bishops declared what percentage of their tithes they would give as a
contribution to the defense of the country. The bishops strenuously
objected on the ground that the nobles did not tax their own incomes
but insisted on taxing those of the clergy. The conflict reached a
deadlock, and finally the whole question was referred to the king. When
at the subsequent diet, called for November 11, 1530, at Piotrków, the
Chamber of Deputies moved to impose a tax on the tithes of the clergy,
its attempt encountered a determined opposition, not only on the part
of the clergy, but also on the part of the king. In consequence of this
combined clerical and royal opposition the Chamber developed an equally
solid front against the immunities of the church, and demanded the
passage of a law taxing the clergy in proportion to the real value of
all their property. In case the clergy refused to comply, the deputies
threatened to suspend all payments of tithes, and to put the proposed
law through and in force at the very next pospolite ruszenie of the
szlachta.[429]

Nor was this an empty threat. For more than a century and a half, ever
since the reign of Casimir the Great (1333-1370), the Polish nobility
had chafed under the burden of church tithes. In its relation to the
king it was free from all special compulsory taxes for the benefit of
the royal treasury, save a nominal tax of two grosze per łan kmiecy,
paid in reality by the tenant peasants rather than by the landlords
themselves. But in its relation to the church it was not as free. The
burden of church tithes rested upon it. Originally voluntary, it became
compulsory in the first half of the fifteenth century; and it was a
burden that could not be shifted. It was, also, a burden which the
clergy never failed to exact.

Conflicts over the payment of tithes were, therefore, frequent.
They occurred as early as the reign of Casimir the Great,[430] and
as time went on they grew more bitter and more frequent. Owing to
the growth of the church in wealth and of the clergy in arrogance
as a result of Wladislaus Jagiello’s great liberality and even
subserviency, the nobility was forced to consider measures at the
Convocations of Piotrków in 1406 and 1407 for protection against this
exploitation.[431] By the Privilege of Czerwieńsk forced from the king
in 1422 it further secured itself against the relentless exaction of
tithes.[432] A decade later the special privileges concerning tithes
given the clergy by Wladislaus Jagiello in 1433,[433] and the king’s
assurance that he would assist in the collection of this tax, are
evidence of the difficulties encountered. To force the clergy to desist
from their pretensions, the nobility, under the leadership of Andrew
Zbonsz, Spytek of Melsztyn, and John Strasz, decided at the Convocation
of Piotrków, August 15, 1435, to withhold the payment of tithes
altogether.[434] A similar resolution was adopted by the Confederation
of 1439.[435] These decisions, however, were never fully carried out
in practice. In the second half of the fifteenth century, influenced
by the economic changes that were taking place and encouraged by such
radical humanistic ideas as those of John Ostrorog, embodied in his
“Monumentum pro reipublicae ordinatione congestum,” the Polish nobility
moved still more resolutely toward the abolition of the tithes.[436]

In the sixteenth century this conflict became even more determined. If
the nobility objected to the tithes in the preceding century, it did so
now all the more. The wealth of the church had increased as a result
of the economic changes in progress, the incomes of the clergy were
princely, the needs of the country greater and more exacting; and yet
the clergy shirked all public burdens and responsibilities. Naturally,
therefore, the nobility began to withhold the payments of tithes. The
situation was so serious that the clergy became very much concerned. At
several of the provincial synods, notably those of 1544 and 1551, they
gave a good deal of time to discussions of ways and means by which to
force the nobility to pay tithes.[437] But the situation seemed to be
beyond repair. Incensed at the immunities, pretensions, and exactions
of the clergy, the nobility was turning away in great numbers from
the established church to the Reformation after 1550, and thereby was
cutting down ecclesiastical revenues.

This touched the clergy in the most tender spot, and aroused them to
action. To save its revenues, the church began to resort to the use
of its ecclesiastical jurisdiction; it summoned the rebellious nobles
before its episcopal courts, and if they did not relent and penitently
submit, they were placed under the ban of the church. This procedure
put the nobility, their persons, their honor, their property, and their
very lives at the mercy of the clergy. Their very existence, individual
and collective, was in jeopardy as long as they were subject to the
jurisdiction of episcopal courts. That such a situation could not last
long soon became perfectly evident. The indignation of the nobility
rose to a high pitch. The relation between the two estates became more
tense and hostile than ever, and inevitably precipitated a bitter
struggle over the fundamental question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of the clergy now became an intolerable burden to
the Polish nobility. Its scope had gradually expanded until, in the
fifteenth century, in spite of protests and attempts to fix limits,
it came to cover not only questions of religion, but also all sorts
of civil matters. In fact, it so happened that there was scarcely a
question that the ecclesiastical courts regarded as foreign to their
jurisdiction. Their authority, moreover, was greatly strengthened
when the government, by the Edict of Wieluń (1424) and by a statute
of 1458 confirming it, committed the execution of their verdicts to
the starostas, thus lending the clergy the executive arm of civil
authority.[438]

The administration of justice by ecclesiastical courts in Poland in
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was very harsh, arbitrary,
and light-minded. The most severe penalty, namely, that of
excommunication, which carried the confiscation of property,
deprivation of honor, exile and death, was frequently inflicted
upon offenders for most trivial offenses. A noble was in danger of
excommunication for getting into a fight and beating a precentor, an
organist, or a grave-digger, not to speak of more serious offenses,
such as seizing or withholding the tithes.[439] Sometimes a landlord
was excommunicated for offenses committed by his peasants on the ground
that he should have used his authority to bring the peasants to terms
and into submission to the church. So terrible in its consequences was
the church’s excommunication in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries
that everyone dreaded it.

Naturally, then, attempts were made very early to define and limit the
scope and authority of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. At the Convocation
of 1420, in answer to the synodical statutes of Nicholas Tromba,
archbishop of Gniezno, the nobility forbade its members to appeal to
ecclesiastical courts.[440] According to a document of 1433, issued
to Bishop Bodzanta of Cracow, laymen were not to be cited before
ecclesiastical courts.[441] In 1447 the nobility sought to confine
episcopal jurisdiction to matters strictly ecclesiastical, such as
questions of faith, heresy, marriage, and religious indifference in
cases of those that had not confessed once a year at least.[442]
Disputes over tithes, seized or withheld, according to this foregoing
agreement between the nobility and the clergy, were to be settled in
episcopal courts, but they were to be adjudicated according to law. If
the accused failed to answer the first summons, a second one was to be
issued to him at his expense; and he could not be excommunicated until
he was duly tried.[443] In matters belonging to civil courts the clergy
were forbidden by the Statute of 1496 to summon persons before their
courts.[444] By the Constitution of 1505 civil matters were withdrawn
from episcopal courts altogether, and henceforth ecclesiastical
judges were forbidden to adjudicate them.[445] Furthermore, to avoid
complications in the administration of justice and to minimize
difficulties in the execution of verdicts, the Diet of 1532 called upon
the clergy in synod assembled to determine what cases they regarded
as belonging to their jurisdiction, and instructed the commission
appointed to revise existing laws to define the exact scope of the
jurisdiction of the spiritual and secular courts.[446] Unfortunately,
the commission allowed the episcopal courts too wide a scope, and
consequently its report was rejected. The Statute of 1543 again
undertook to define the jurisdiction of the two classes of courts,
but it was in force for one year only.[447] And once more, a statute
of 1550, confirming existing laws, provided that no person should be
summoned before any court unless his case fell within the jurisdiction
of that court,[448] and a clergyman was forbidden to hold the office of
clerk in a secular provincial court.[449]

By 1550 the question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction became one of the
burning questions of the day. It was precipitated by Orzechowski’s
defiance of ecclesiastical authority. Stanislaus Orzechowski was a
nobleman priest in the diocese of Przemyśl. He publicly announced that
he would enter the state of matrimony. Bishop Dziaduski of Przemyśl
in turn announced publicly that if Orzechowski should carry out his
intention he would excommunicate him at once, depriving him of honor,
confiscating his hereditary property, and exiling him from the country.
The bishop’s threat was a sweeping violation of the most fundamental
rights of the nobility by the clergy. It endangered the nobility as a
class. The Polish nobles were not slow to see that Orzechowski’s case
was not merely a question of church discipline, and that if the Bishop
of Przemyśl was allowed to carry out his threat, their property and
their lives would not be safe. They took up Orzechowski’s case as their
own, and rose to his defense. They viewed the episcopal threat as an
attack upon them and their liberties, and therefore resolved to stand
by Orzechowski. The matter came before the Diet of 1550. Orzechowski
found supporters in some of the most influential magnates of Poland,
like James Górka, Martin Zborowski, Raphael Leszczyński, Nicholas
Radziwill, and Nicholas Oleśnicki, all of them adherents and champions
of the Reformation. Through the intervention of John Tarnowski, grand
hetman of Poland, and Peter Kmita, starosta of Przemyśl, a compromise
was effected, the terms of which were that Orzechowski was to apply to
the Pope for sanction of his intention and was not to be married until
he received the Pope’s permission.[450]

The compromise was absurd. It did not settle anything; it only delayed
the settlement of the question raised. Górka and Zborowski, therefore,
spurred on Orzechowski to break the compromise agreement and to carry
out his plan in defiance of episcopal authority.[451] The magnate
Nicholas Oleśnicki of Pińczów decided to make a test case of the whole
issue. On the advice of the Italian reformer Franciscus Stankar, he
broke openly with Roman Catholicism, accepting the Reformed faith and
taking away from the monks at Pińczów their church and monastery.
Immediately the Polish bishops brought charges against him. He was
tried, not according to the canon law of the church, but according
to the law of the country, before the king and the senate. He was
acquitted on condition that he dismiss Stankar and restore the seized
monastery to the monks, neither of which orders Oleśnicki actually
carried out.[452]

Thus spurred on by his friends, Orzechowski took courage, renounced his
clerical vows, and entered the state of matrimony. Bishop Dziaduski,
struck with consternation, did not at first know what to do, but in the
end resolved to carry out his threat, On April 8, 1551, he issued his
verdict against Orzechowski, annulling his marriage and excommunicating
him. On presentation of the case by the primate to the king, Sigismund
Augustus confirmed the episcopal verdict in accordance with his pledge
given the Polish bishops in December, 1550,[453] and instructed Peter
Kmita, starosta of Przemyśl, to execute it. At the same time the
king issued an order to all the starostas to execute the verdicts of
episcopal courts in all cases of condemned and excommunicated heretics.
Excommunicated by the church, Orzechowski was deprived of honor and
property, exiled from the country, and in danger of being put to death,
if caught.[454]

The news of Orzechowski’s excommunication by Bishop Dziaduski and of
the royal confirmation of the episcopal verdict without a trial came
like a lightning stroke from the clear sky. Orzechowski’s case was the
first instance in the history of the Polish Commonwealth of a noble
deprived of honor and of his hereditary possessions and condemned to
exile and death as a result of episcopal excommunication, without due
trial, according to law, guaranteed the Polish nobility by the Charter
of Jedlnia (1483). Immediately the nobles, not only of Orzechowski’s
province, but of the whole of Poland, rose as one man against this
high-handed attack on their liberties both by the clergy and by the
king. Orzechowski’s neighbors were ready to defend him in case the
starosta tried to execute the verdict; but Peter Kmita neither dared,
nor wanted to execute it. He preferred to wait and see what the Diet of
1552 was going to do about the whole matter.[455]

The local diets of 1551, at which the szlachta elected the deputies to
the General Diet of 1552, fairly seethed with the indignation of the
Polish nobility. The clergy, on the other hand, greatly elated over
their apparent victory and pleased with the king’s stand regarding the
Orzechowski affair, called a synod at Piotrków, at which they decided
to bind the king still closer to their cause by offering him the
estates of all condemned heretics; and to frighten the nobility into
submission they excommunicated at this synod Stadnicki and Lasocki, two
very influential and popular heretics in their respective palatinates.
The excommunicated magnates went from one local diet to another,
informed the szlachta of the ecclesiastical verdicts, reported the
resolutions of the synod, and read the king’s pledge given the bishops
secretly in 1550 in exchange for their consent to Queen Barbara’s
coronation, and which had been secured and made public by Nicholas
Lutomirski, castellan of Zawichow. They called upon the szlachta to
defend their lives and property.[456]

The indignation and anger of the nobility of Little Poland rose so
high that it almost reached the point of massacring the clergy and of
bringing in Protestant ministers from abroad to take their places. As
deputies to the Diet of 1552 they chose the most decided opponents
of the clergy, and instructed them to take up no measures until the
king defined episcopal authority and invalidated the above mentioned
verdicts of episcopal courts.[457]

The Diet of 1552 convened at Piotrków. The secular nobility, both
the senators and the deputies, were in a most hostile frame of mind
toward the clergy. Even as faithful a Catholic as Hetman Jan Tarnowski
refused to shake hands with Bishop Dziaduski of Przemyśl, turning
away from him, when the latter came to the hetman’s house to greet
him.[458] Raphael Leszczyński, president of the Chamber of Deputies,
stood with his head covered during the celebration of the opening mass.
When the diet had been duly opened, the Chamber, under the leadership
of Leszczyński, unequivocally demanded the abolition of episcopal
jurisdiction, stating that no other measure would be considered until
that demand was complied with. The secular portion of the Senate,
under the leadership of Jan Tarnowski, did not go quite so far, but it
seconded the Chamber’s demand to this extent, that it, too, called for
bringing ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the limits of law.[459]
The Polish nobility stood firm by their demand for the abolition of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The bishops, on the other hand, were
equally determined not to surrender it. The decision rested finally
with the king. After a bitter struggle of two months, due partly to the
royal vacillation, the king at last handed a decision that in all cases
of heresy the bishops have jurisdiction. The verdict created no small
consternation among the secular senators as well as among the deputies.
But, though apparently fully victorious, the bishops, sensing the
feeling against them and taking counsel of wisdom in time, consented to
suspension of their jurisdiction for one year until at the next diet or
at a national synod the country’s laws and the church’s canons could
be harmonized, provided the nobles agreed to continue the payment of
tithes.[460]

This concession on the part of the Polish episcopate, did not,
however, conciliate the Polish nobility. The nobles felt that their
rights and liberties had been outraged and were in danger of being
completely violated. The turn of events in 1552 made them only all
the more determined to fight. In great numbers they came out now for
the Reformation. Inside of one year nearly all the Polish nobility,
according to Dr. Kubala, left the Roman Catholic Church and embraced
the faith of the Reformation. The speed with which the Polish nobles
tried to change their form of worship had no parallel. They invited
reformers from abroad; they converted their manor houses into places
of worship; they built hospitals, schools, and homes of refuge for
persecuted dissidents; and the new doctrines were preached through
the whole length and breadth of the country.[461] Great Poland,
where the influence of Hussitism still survived, accepted, under the
leadership of James Ostrorog, the tenets of faith and form of worship
of the Bohemian Brethren. By 1557 there were thirty Bohemian Brethren
churches in Great Poland, and all the leading aristocratic families,
the Ostrorogs, the Leszczyńskis, the Tomickis, the Krotowskis, and
the Opalińskis, turned Protestant.[462] Little Poland, under the
leadership of the Zborowskis, Nicholas Oleśnicki, and Stanislaus
Stadnicki, became Calvinistic. In “terra Sandeceniensis,” the home
province of Orzechowski, all the nobility became Protestant by 1554;
and by 1560, according to a letter of Bishop Przyrębski to Bishop
Kamerini, one hundred and sixty churches in Little Poland broke away
from the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome.[463] In Lithuania, under
the leadership of Nicholas Radziwill, the foremost aristocratic
families accepted Calvinism. They were the Radziwills, the Kiszkas,
the Chlebowiczes, the Sapiehas, the Słuźkis, the Zawiszes, the
Wiśniowieckis, the Wojnas, the Paces, the Abramowiczes, the Wołowiczes,
the Ogińskis, the Zienowiczes, the Pruńskis, the Naruszewiczes,
the Talwoczes, the Drohostajskis, the Puzynas, the Szemiotas, the
Gruźewskis, the Góreckis, and others. By 1559 the Catholics in
Lithuania constituted only one-thousandth part of the population.[464]
So strong was the sentiment now against the Church of Rome that men
well known for their antagonism to Rome, like James Uchański and Andrew
Frycz Modrzewski, were selected and sent as Poland’s delegates to the
Council of Trent.[465] In 1535 at the Diet at Piotrków the calling of a
National Synod to adjust the existing differences and difficulties was
agreed upon, and a delegation was dispatched to Rome by the king with a
request for the Pope’s sanction of that plan as well as of a number of
practical reforms. Needless to say, the desired papal sanction was not
granted. On the contrary, the Pope immediately sent a legate to Poland
in the person of Alois Lippomano, bishop of Verona, to stave off any
such possibilities. In his first interview with the king Lippomano
advised the Polish monarch, for the sake of an example and a warning,
to execute twenty leading dissidents. Owing to his harshness and lack
of tact, this papal nuncio became so unpopular in Poland, that when
in 1556 he entered the Diet Chamber, the deputies shouted: “Salve,
progenies viperarum!”[466] At the Diet of 1557 security and freedom
were guaranteed all foreign Reformed ministers.[467]

As to episcopal jurisdiction, this became a lost cause after 1552. The
bishops, having once agreed to its suspension, though only temporary,
were unable to recover it again, in spite of desperate attempts.[468]
By a statute of the Diet of 1562-1563, all excommunicated persons
were admitted to provincial and fortress courts (do sądow ziemskich
i grodzkich) with their grievances and complaints, and the starostas
were instructed to respect the constitutionally guaranteed privileges
of the szlachta.[469] The result was that no one wanted now either to
appeal to or to appear in any episcopal court. This took the teeth out
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Moreover, by the Constitution of 1565
the clergy were forbidden to summon before their courts starostas who
in compliance with the statutory law of 1562-1563 refused to execute
the verdicts of episcopal courts.[470] Deprived of the executive
arm of civil authority, ecclesiastical courts became powerless and
their verdicts of no effect. This was a great victory for the Polish
nobility. At last their lives and their property were safe from
further attacks of the clergy through arbitrary exercise of their
ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

All the grievances of the Polish nobility in the sixteenth century
were summed up and the remedies for these grievances were contained
in the demand for “the execution of laws.” It was a demand of the
Polish nobility for a return to the fundamental constitutional laws of
the land, for conformity in private and public life to these laws,
and for elimination of abuses. Many of the social and political ills
and problems of the times were due either to disregard or to open
violation of existing constitutional and statutory laws. For instance,
after 1454 and particularly so after 1504, it became illegal for the
king either to pledge or to grant any part of his royal lands to any
private individual or to any institution without the sanction of the
diet.[471] The extravagant liberality of the Polish rulers had made it
necessary to make these restrictions; they were intended to safeguard
the royal domain from undue diminution, the royal treasury from
embarassing impoverishment, and the country from inadequate defense.
Also, it became illegal after 1454, and especially after 1505, for the
king to make any new laws or to issue edicts having the force of new
laws without the common consent of the two chambers of the diet.[472]
It was illegal, also, for the clergy to enlarge their landed estates
either by purchase or by gift, while they evaded the responsibility
of participation in the country’s defense.[473] Likewise, it was
illegal for the king to confer upon them special privileges, exempting
them from various public burdens.[474] Moreover, it was a flagrant
violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the szlachta
for the clergy to sit as their judges in matters of life, liberty,
and property.[475] Yet all these violations and abuses had become
so common that they almost had the force of perfectly lawful acts
and practices. For a time they were tolerated. But when they began
seriously to interfere with the liberties and economic interests of
the Polish nobility, the nobles rose against them resolutely, and with
determination demanded a general reformation of conditions.

Their demand for “the execution of laws” was directed particularly
against the special privileges and immunities, real or pretended, of
the clergy.[476] Beginning with the Diet of 1511,[477] both the secular
and the regular clergy were repeatedly called upon by the diets of the
sixteenth century to justify their specially privileged status and
their evasion of public responsibilities and burdens by presenting
their charters for examination, until at last they were forced to
comply with this demand in part at least.[478] The continued insistence
on the part of the nobility on the clergy’s participation in public
burdens resulted finally in the imposition by the Diet of 1563 of a
regular tax on episcopal property and tithes.[479] In the struggle
regarding ecclesiastical jurisdiction the nobility appealed to its
privileges of 1422, 1433, 1454, and the Constitution of 1505, demanding
the annulment of all royal edicts against heresy as unconstitutional,
together with ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters involving the
nobility’s constitutional rights to life and property. As a result of
this appeal and demand the king issued instructions to the starostas
in 1563 to respect the constitutional rights of the nobility. By this
act the royal edicts against heresy and episcopal jurisdiction, whether
in cases of heresy or of refusal to pay tithes, became invalidated and
rendered of no effect.[480]

Thus, we see that the conflict between the Polish nobility and the
ecclesiastical authorities in the sixteenth century, resulting in the
former’s extensive revolt from the established church, was due mainly
to the wealth of the Polish clergy, their immunities from public
burdens, and their abuse of episcopal jurisdiction; for these not
only increased the burdens of the Polish nobility, but also seriously
menaced its social and economic status. Whatever particular form this
conflict assumed, its underlying motives were essentially economic and
social rather than religious or even purely political.

     [355] Guaranteeing to compensate the szlachta for their
           participation in foreign expeditions and for
           injuries sustained in them, Louis of Hungary simply
           confirmed and further enlarged a right which had
           been previously granted by Casimir the Great by the
           Statute of Wiślice of 1347, where we read: “Sed extra
           Regni metas nobis servire non sunt obligati, nisi
           ipsis satis competens satisfactio per nos impendatur,
           vel per nos specialiter fuerint petiti et rogati ad
           hoc” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 44).

     [356] Ibid., fol. 57.

     [357] Sokołowski, vol. i, p. 295.

     [358] “… item, ut gratia uberiori consolentur a nobis,
           etiam nos fide et servitiis amplioribus prosequantur,
           promittimus, quod exnunc et de caetero nunquam
           alicujus subditi Regni nostri, cujuscunque
           dignitatis, eminentiae, status aut gradus fuerit,
           bona haereditaria recipiemus, confiscabimus,
           recipi vel confiscari faciemus, nec se de eis per
           nos vel officiales nostros vel alios quoscunque
           homines intromittemus vel intromitti faciemus pro
           quibuscunque excessibus aut culpis, nisi prius
           super hoc preccedat judicium nostrorum, quos ad hoc
           deputaverimus, cum nostris praelatis, baronibus,
           matura cogitio et sententia sequatur” (Vol. leg.,
           vol. i, fol. 83).

     [359] See Appendix, No. 1.

     [360] “Caeterum promittimus et spondemus, quod nullum
           terrigenam possessionatum pro aliquo excessu
           seu culpa capiemus seu capi mandabimus, nec
           aliquam vindictam in ipso faciemus, nisi judicio
           rationabiliter fuerit convictus, et manus nostras vel
           nostrorum Capitaneorum per judices ejusdem terrae,
           in qua idem terrigena residet, praesentatus; illo
           tamen homine, qui in furto et publico maleficio (ut
           pote incendio, homicidio voluntario, raptu virginum
           et mulierum, villarum depopulationibus aut spoliis)
           deprehenderetur; similiter illis, qui de se nollent
           debitam facere cautionem vel dare juxta quantitatem
           excessus vel delicti, duntaxat exceptis. Nulli
           autem bona seu possessiones recipiemus, nisi fuerit
           judicialiter per judices competentes vel Barones
           nostros nobis condemnatus” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol.
           93).

     [361] Ibid., fol. 250.

     [362] Ibid., vol. i, folios 299-300. “De non faciendis
           constitutionibus sine consensu conciliariorum et
           Nuntiorum Terrestrium.”

     [363] Henry C. Vedder, The Reformation in Germany, New
           York, 1914, p. 33; Adam Szelągowski, Money and the
           Overturning of Prices in the 16th and 17th Century in
           Poland (Pieniądz i przewrót cen w XVI i XVII ieku w
           Polsce), Lwów, 1902, pp. 60-63.

     [364] Szelągowski, p. 65.

     [365] Ibid., pp. 66-67.

     [366] Ibid., pp. 67-68.

     [367] Ibid., pp. 71-72.

     [368] Ibid., pp. 67-68.

     [369] Ibid., p. 73.

     [370] Cf. Ibid., pp. 73, 82.

     [371] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 151-152; also fol. 153, par.
           “De his qui telonea absque concessione Regum exigunt.”

     [372] Ibid., fol. 257-258, art. “De liberis navigationibus
           et fluminibus ex nomine liberis.”

     [373] Ibid., fol. 255-259, par. “De fluviis ad navigandum
           aperiendis praesertim circa Thorunium” and “De
           Thorunen, impedimento et navigatione.”

     [374] Ibid., fol. 517, par. “De teloneis pontalibus,
           aggeralibus.…”

     [375] Kazimierz Rakowski, A History of the Economic
           Development of the Polish State (Dzieje rozwoju
           ekonomicznego państwa polskiego), Warsaw, 1909, p.
           134.

     [376] Ibid., p. 130.

     [377] Ibid., p. 131.

     [378] Ibid., p. 132.

     [379] Ibid., pp. 135-136.

     [380] Ibid., p. 135.

     [381] Ibid., p. 141.

     [382] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 271, par. “De civibus et
           plebeis oppida, et bona alia in iure Terrestri non
           possessuris.”

     [383] Ibid., folios 262-265, par. “De plebeis ad majores
           ecclesias non recipiendis” and “De numero plebeorum
           ad ecclesias recipiendorum.”

     [384] Ibid., folios 302-303, par. “De numero plebeorum ad
           ecclesias cathedrales suscipiendorum” and “Statuta
           ecclesiarum.…”

     [385] Cf. ibid., folios 511-512; Reformation in Poland,
           vol. ii, No. 7, p. 182.

     [386] Acta Tom., vol. xiii, No. 2, cited by Dr. Pociecha in
           Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 182.

     [387] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 183.

     [388] “Adscripsi ego in legatione nostra, omnibus
           approbantibus, ut Mtas Regia serio mandaret
           capitaneis omnibus statuta et decreta vetera adversus
           excomunicatos et haereticos exequi, quorum latens
           venenum in locis insignioribus et libellis famosis et
           aliis indiciis sese prodit,” wrote Primate Krzycki to
           Bishop Tomicki from Piotrków, Dec. 19, 1534 (cited
           by Dr. Wladislaus Pociecha in Reformation in Poland,
           vol. ii, No. 7, p. 166).

     [389] “Sacra tamen Mtas Regia Serenissimus Dominus noster
           his diebus ad omnes dignitarios et capitaneos edictum
           misit severum dogmata et libros prohibendo et jubet
           punire severo tali haeresi contaminatos atque a
           studiis haereticorum revocat adolescentes sub poena
           perpetui exilii,” wrote M. Drzewicki to Jan Dantyszek
           from Gniezno, March 11, 1535 (cited by Dr. Pociecha
           in ibid., n. 3).

     [390] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, pp. 166-167.

     [391] Ibid., p. 167.

     [392] Ibid., pp. 167, 183.

     [393] Vol. leg., vol. i, folios 526-627, par. “De plebeiis
           et cortesanis.”

     [394] Kutrzeba, p. 93; Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No.
           7, p. 174.

     [395] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 369, par. “De testamentis
           condendis”; see also fol. 374.

     [396] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, pp. 174, 176.

     [397] Ibid., pp. 173-175, 176.

     [398] Rakowski, p. 145.

     [399] See Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 259, par. “De fugitivis
           kmethonibus”; fol. 367, par. “De colonis fugitivis
           restituendis”; fol. 503, par. “Consulentes
           commoditati rei communis domesticae Regni nostri.…”;
           fol. 524, par. “De profugis kmethonibus.”

     [400] “Statuimus quod tantummodo unus filius de villa a
           patre recedere possit ad servitia, et praesertim ad
           studia, aut literarum, aut artificiorum, reliqui
           maneant in haereditate cum patribus” (ibid., fol.
           260).

     [401] “Et si unicus fuerit, ille in haereditate maneat
           et laboret in domo cum parentibus, vel in eadem
           haereditate quam parentes incolunt, aut domicilium,
           aut servitium, aut victum acquirat” (ibid., fol. 260).

     [402] “Quod si aliquis adolescens villanus, praeter
           istud decretum, fugiens repertus fuerit, sive in
           civitatibus et oppidis sive alibi ubicunque, ille
           domino loci illius a quo fugit, sine juris strepitu
           restituatur, sub poena quatuordecim marcarum, et
           nihilominus illi qui eum retinuerint, poena toties
           quoties secus fecerint soluta, ad restitutionem sint
           astricti” (ibid., fol. 260).

     [403] Ibid., fol. 394, par. “De laboribus kmethonum”; and
           fol. 396, par. “kmethones unum diem, plus minusve,
           septimantim laborent.”

     [404] Kutrzeba, p. 96; Rakowski, pp. 148-149; Źr. dz. vol.
           viii, p. 395.

     [405] Vol. leg., vol. i, Constitutions of 1523 and 1532.

     [406] Ibid., folios 261-262, par. “De libertate nobilium
           in theloneis”; fol. 298, par. “De teloneis in terra
           et aqua solvendis et non solvendis”; see also folios
           375, 517, 594.

     [407] Ibid., fol. 375, par. “Ut de agris, hortis, et
           Scultetiis desertis, publicae contributiones non
           exigantur.”

     [408] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.

     [409] Ibid., p. 173.

     [410] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 6, par. “De clericis bona
           haereditaria habentibus ad bellum ituris.”

     [411] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.

     [412] Ibid.

     [413] “Quia onus praesertim quod omnes tangit inter plures
           divisum facilius deportatur. Quapropter statuimus,
           quod indifferenter omnes sculteti tam spiritualium
           quam etiam saecularium personarum juxta ipsorum
           facultates ad quamlibet expeditionem nobiscum
           transire teneantur” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 5).

     [414] See ibid., fol. 532, par. “De Scultetis spiritualium.”

     [415] See Zakrzewski, pp. 117, 118.

     [416] Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, vol. iii, No. 51, par.
           17; Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.

     [417] “Visum est, ut si probatum fuerit Scultetos
           spiritualium teneri ad expeditionem bellicam,
           Sculteti eorum sint obligati deinceps Nobiscum in
           bellum proficisci: praeter eos qui privilegiis essent
           ab expeditione exempti et liberati; quae privilegia,
           domini spirituales, in Synodo proximo, postquam
           praeterita, propter mortem Domini Archiepiscopi
           effectum sortita non est, se recensere promiserunt,
           et illa post modum in Conventu Generali Regni,
           proxime post Synodum futuro exhibebunt; ut ex
           illis fiat cognitio de immunitate Scultetorum seu
           Advocatorum; vel obligatione ad praestandam et
           sustinendam bellicam expeditionem” (Vol. leg. vol. i,
           fol. 532).

     [418] See above, p. 60, cf. Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 623,
           par. 56.

     [419] Acta Tom., vol. v, p. 128, cited by Dr. Pociecha in
           Reformation of Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.

     [420] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.

     [421] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 623, par. 55.

     [422] See ibid.; above, p. 60.

     [423] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 176.

     [424] See above, p. 98; Reformation in Poland, pp. 174-175.

     [425] Zakrzewski, pp. 237-238.

     [426] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, pp. 176-177.

     [427] Balzar, Corpus juris, vol. iii, No. 181; see also
           Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 177.

     [428] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 177.

     [429] Ibid., p. 179; Acta Tom., vol. xii, p. 402, as cited
           by Dr. Pociecha.

     [430] See Kutrzeba, p. 83.

     [431] Smoleński, p. 76; Caro, vol. iv, pp. 85-89.

     [432] Sokołowski, vol. i, p. 295.

     [433] Vol. leg. vol. i, fols. 95-104; Caro, vol. iv, p. 40.

     [434] See Caro, vol. iv, pp. 115, 116.

     [435] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 52.

     [436] Caro, vol. iv, p. 115; Smoleński, p. 81.

     [437] Kakrzewski, pp. 64, 243.

     [438] Vol. leg., vol. i, folios 85-86; folios 194-195; “Ex
           quo etiam,” etc.

     [439] Kubala, p. 22.

     [440] Smoleński, p. 76.

     [441] “Praeterea volumus quod laici deinceps pro debitis
           et in aliis causis civilibus per clericos, ad forum
           ecclesiasticum non trahantur, nisi forte sit causa
           spiritualis, vel spirituali annexa, aut debitum
           fuerit decimale” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 102).

     [442] Caro, vol. iv, pp. 310-311.

     [443] Ibid., p 311.

     [444] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 277, “De inhibitionibus
           ecclesiasticis ad judicia.”

     [445] “… quapropter decernimus et statuimus, quod judices
           spirituales saecularia judicia non exerceant neque
           judicent in futurum” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 304).

     [446] Ibid., vol. i, fol. 506, “Prospicientes,” etc.

     [447] Ibid., vol. i, folios 578-581, “Differentias
           judiciorum,” etc.

     [448] Ibid., vol. ii, fol. 598, par. 41.

     [449] Ibid., vol. ii, fol. 597, par. 37.

     [450] Kubala, pp. 26-27.

     [451] Ibid., p. 27.

     [452] Ibid., p. 55.

     [453] “… Pollicemur, nos hereticos expugnaturos, ex regno
           nostro propulsaturos, ecclesiasticas item personas
           eorumque jura defensuros et conservaturos” (cited
           from Wegierski, by ibid., p. 100n.)

     [454] Ibid., pp. 28, 30, 55.

     [455] Ibid., p. 30.

     [456] Ibid., p. 30.

     [457] Ibid., p. 30.

     [458] Ibid., p. 31.

     [459] Ibid., p. 31.

     [460] Ibid., pp. 35-37, 55-56.

     [461] Ibid., p. 56.

     [462] Ibid., pp. 58, 101, n. 42.

     [463] Ibid., pp. 58, 101, n. 43.

     [464] Ibid., pp. 58, 101, n. 46.

     [465] Ibid., p. 56.

     [466] Ibid., p. 67.

     [467] Ibid., p. 58.

     [468] See above, pp. 59-60.

     [469] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 625, par. 68; cf. fol. 692,
           par. 74.

     [470] Ibid., vol. ii, fol. 692, par. 74.

     [471] Ibid., vol. i, folios 184, 298-299, “De mode bonorum
           Regalium inscribendorum.”

     [472] Ibid., vol. i, fol. 299-300, “De non faciendis
           constitutionibus sine consensu Consiliariorum et
           Nuntiorum Terrestrium” et “De constitutionibus novis
           per proclamationes publicandis.”

     [473] Cf. Caro, vol. iv, p. 311; Ref. in Poland, vol. ii,
           No. 7, p. 174.

     [474] Compare, for instance, this special privilege given
           by Sigismund Augustus to Martin Cromer, canon of
           Cracow and the king’s secretary. “Sigismundus
           Augustus etc. Planum, testamentumque facimus
           universis, quorum interest, quia contributionem,
           in proxima Piothrocoviensi synodo decretam et
           laudatam, ven. Martino Cromero, canonico Cracoviensi,
           secretario nostro, ex omnibus sacerdotiis in diocesi
           Cracoviensi remisimus, remittimusque praesentibus
           litteris, ac de ea ipsum quietamus ac liberamus,
           volentes omnio, ut contributionis eius nomine nihil
           ab eo per collectores illius exigatur. In cuius rei
           fidem manu nostra praesentibus subscripsimus et
           sigillum nostrum imprimi fecimus. Datum Gostinii,
           20 mai anno Dni 1552.” T. Wierzbowski, Materials
           for a History of Polish Writings (Materyały do
           Piśmiennictwa Polskiego), Warsaw, 1904, vol. ii,
           p. 7, No. 15. This is a sample of many similar
           exemptions given the clergy.

     [475] Note Charters of 1422, 1433, 1454, and 1505.

     [476] Balzar, Corpus juris polonici, vol. iii, No. 261,
           pars. 7, 8, 10.

     [477] Ibid., No. 69, pars. 16, 19.

     [478] See above, p. 60.

     [479] See above, pp. 60-61.

     [480] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 625, pars. 68, 74, 692; cf.
           above, pp. 60, 134.




                                APPENDIX


1. Edict of Wieluń of 1424.--Contra Haereticos et Fautores Eorum
Vladislaus Jagiello in Vieluń Constituit. Significamus tenore
praesentium quibus expedit; universis praesentibus et futuris harum
notitiam habituris, quod cum sub dissimulatione praeterire non
debemus imo arcemur Divinae legis perpetuis institutis, pestiferos
haereticorum errores, quos in Dei contemptum et in Christianae fidei
detrimentum et enervationem politiaeque jacturam, iniqua perversorum
corda conflaverunt, etiamsi quaecunque oporteret nos subire pericula,
a finibus nostris propulsare, et in gladio dejicere, ut qui censura
ecclesiae non terrentur, humana severitate mulctentur, maturo consilio
Praelatorum, Principum et Baronum nostrorum habito et consensu, et
etiam de certa ipsorum et nostra scientia praesentibus decernimus, et
pro firmo constanti atque irrefragabili edicto teneri praecipimus.
Ut quicunque in Regno Nostro Poloniae et Terris Nobis subjectis
haereticus, aut haeresi infectus vel suspectus de eadem, fautor eorum
vel director repertus fuerit, … velut Regiae Majestatis offensor
capiatur, et juxta exigentiam excessus sui puniatur, et quicunque
venerint de Bohemia et intrant Regnum nostrum, ordinariorum suorum
examini aut magistrorum haereticae pravitatis ad hoc a Sede Apostolica
deputatorum vel deputandorum subdentur comprehensi. Si quis autem
incolarum Regni nostri cujuscunque status, dignitatis, gradus aut
conditionis fuerit, hinc ad Festum Ascensionis Domini proximum redire
de Bohemia neglexerit, noluerit, vel contempserit, pro convicto
haeretico censeatur et poenis subjaceat, quae haereticis infligi
consveverunt, nec amplius ad Regnum nostrum revertatur moraturus. Et
nihilominus omnia bona ipsorum mobilia et immobilia in quibuscunque
rebus consistentia publicentur thesauro nostro confiscanda, prolesque
eorum tam masculina, quam feminea omni careat successione perpetuo
et honore, nec unquam ad aliquas assumatur dignitates vel honores,
sed cum patribus et progenitoribus suis semper maneat infamis; nec de
caetero gaudeat aliquo privilegio nobilitatis vel decore. Inhibemus
etiam sub eisdem poenis, omnibus mercatoribus et alijs hominibus
cujuscunque conditionis fuerint, ut amodo et in posterum nullas res
venales, praesertim plumbum, arma, esculenta et poculenta ad Bohemiam
ducere praesumant vel portare.

                                           --Volumina legum, I, fol. 85.


2. Contra eos, qui excommunicationis sententias ultra annum
sustinent.-- … statuimusque et ordinamus per praesentes, ut dum
aliquis indigena Regni nostri, cujuscunque status et conditionis
existat, propter raptum decimarum vel aliarum rerum ecclesiasticarum
occupationem, aut ratione excessum quorumcunque sive etiam in
contumatiam de non parendo juri et mandatis S. ecclesiae, sententia
excommunicationis juste fuerit innodatus, ipsamque ultra annum legalem
pertinaciter sustinuerit nec curaverit ad gemium S. Matris ecclesiae
redire, et pro excessu debitam emendam exhibere, extunc anno hujusmodi
elapso omnia bona ejusdem excommunicati mobilia et immobilia quae tunc
possederit, debent recipi per locorum Capitaneos quibus subjacent et
apprehendi tenenda et possidenda tam diu per Capitaneos hujusmodi,
quousque per eosdem excommunicatos vel Capitaneos memoratos, de
hujusmodi bonis damna vel valor rei ipsis laesis vel injuriam passis
plenarie exolvantur. Quibus solutis bona praelibata, praefatis
excommunicatis nonnisi absolutis, decernimus viceversa restituenda
per Capitaneos praenotatos. Mandamus igitur omnibus et singulis Regni
nostri Capitaneis et Vicesgerentibus eorundem, quatenus ad compescendam
talium excommunicatorum pertinatiam duritiam et temeritatem, praemissa
nostra saluberrima decreta executioni debite debeant demandari perpetue
et in aevum, toties quoties, per Praelatos, aliasque personas tam
ecclesiasticas quam saeculares super hoc fuerint requsiti et moniti.…
Actum Cracoviae … Anno Domini 1433.

                                               --Vol. leg., I, fol. 195.


3. Confederation against the Heretics of 1438 in Korczyn.--Nos
Principes spirituales et saeculares, Barones, Comites, totaque
communitas Regni Poloniae.… Significamus tenore praesentium … quod
consideratis nonnullis disordinationibus, quae in ipso Regno Poloniae
suboriri inceperant, visis literis praedecessorum nostrorum Posnaniae,
Petricoviae, et in Jedlnia factis, circa easdem literas et earum
articulos … remanere volumus, et usquequaque spondemus, et praecipue
circa hunc articulum. Quod quicunque exstans indigena Regni Poloniae
habens in ipso Regno Poloniae bona, vellet aliquas inobedientias,
contra jus Terrestre commune, aut etiam gverras nobis et eidem Regno
Poloniae damnosas alicui movere sine licentia Domini nostri Regis
gratiosissimi, et consilij sui, et in jure Terrestri communi nollet
contentari, aut etiam haereticales errores facere vel promovere vellet,
contra talem seu tales cujuscunque status, gradus, conditionis, et
praeeminentiae fuerint sive spirituales, sive saeculares, et in eorum
destructionem consurgere volumus et promittimus, sub fide et honore
nostris, absque dolo et fraude, nec ipsis auxilis consilio vel favore
patrocinari volumus sub fide et honore nostris, etiam si sangvine,
affinitate et quaecunque propinquitate forent nobis aut alicui nostrum
cunjuncti, nec pro eis loqui volumus aliquod verbum, sed eos et eorum
talem quemlibet punire volumus et promittimus.

                                               --Vol. leg., I, fol. 140.


4. The Edict of Thorn, 1520.--Edictum de libellis Lutheranis in regnum
non importandis nec a quopiam adhibendis aut vendendis. Datum Thorunii,
3 Mai a. 1520.--Sigismundus Dei gratia rex Poloniae.… Manifestum
facimus, quia intelligentes ad regnum et dominia nostra inferri
nonnullos libellos cuisdam fratris Martini Luter, ordinis Eremitarum,
in quibus multa continentur tam contra Sedem apostolicam, quam etiam
in perturbationem communis ordinis et status rei ecclesiasticae et
religionis, ne in regno nostro ex huiusmodi scriptis errores aliqui
pullurarent, offici nostri, ut Christiani principis et fidelis filii
sanctae matris ecclesiae, esse duximus auctoritate et potestate nostra
regia huic coepto noxio obsistere. Mandamus igitur vobis omnibus
subditis nostris et cuilibet vestrum seorsum, quod nemo deinceps audeat
talia opera, ut praemissum est, in regnum et dominia nostra inferre,
vendere, emere aut illis uti sub poena confiscationis bonorum omnium
atque exilii, quam unusquisque, mandatum hoc nostrum transgrediens,
sine ulla excusatione tam ignorantiae, quam alterius causae, subibit.
Et pro gratia nostra aliter non facturi.

                      --Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, III, pp. 579-584.

There are two copies of this edict, one dated May 3rd and the other
July 24th, 1520. The second copy has “Augustiniani” after Luther.


5. Decree of Janusz, Duke of Mazovia, 1525.--Ut nullus in toto
Ducatu Mazoviae, tam in civitatibus, oppidis, quam eorum in villis,
cujuscunque conditionis et status existat, praesertim in civitate
Varsaviensi libros et falsam doctrinam Lutheri in quocunque sermone,
sive Latino, sive Alemanico, aut quovis alio, tenere apud se, et
in domibus suis habere, legere, ac ipsum falsum dogma Lutheranorum
profiteri, sectam portare, tueri, et aliis eandem persvadere praesumat.
Ita tamen, ut quicunque de hac secta legitime convictus et probatus
fuerit, talis vita privari debeat, et bona eius omnia quaecunque habet,
mobilia et immobilia, confiscari et ad thesaurum Ducalem recipi debeant.

Quod decretum Dominus Dux mandavit, in omnibus Districtibus et
Capitaneatibus publicari, et diligenter per omnes Officiales exequi.

                                       --Vol. leg., I, fol. 448, p. 223.


6. Edict of Dec. 28, 1524.--Mandatum ad co-ercendos et puniendos
Lutheranos in Capitaneatu Costensi--Sigismundus etc. Manifestum
facimus tenore praesentium universis. Quia intelligentes sectam
Lutheranam, quae cum ab ecclesia Catholica aliisque christianis
regibus et principibus, tum et a nobis, ut noxia et pestifera sanctae
religioni et reipublicae tranquilitati, iam dudum damnata est et
prohibita, in civitate nostra Costensi et in illa vicinia pullulare,
esseque aliquos homines ita temerarios ac insolentes, ut neque Dei
timore, neque edictis nostris ab hoc errore contineri queant, sed
contra illa ausu temerario nitantur; volents ejusmodi insolentias
et seditiosos conatus illorum ita, ut debemus, compescere, ne per
nostram dissimulationem hos malum acrius invalescat: mittimus illuc
Generosum Nicolaum Thomyczki, tribunum Lancic., Costensem, Pisdrensem
et Coninensem capitaneum ac praefectum stabuli nostri, cui commissimus
et tenore praesentium committimus, de his transgressoribus mandati
nostri in ipsa re Luterana diligenter inquirere, et in compertos poena
in edictis nostris contenta irremissibiliter animadvertere. Quapropter
vobis proconsuli et consulibus totique communitati ipsius Civitatis
nostrae Costensis, aliisque officialibus, nobilibus et subditis nostris
quibuscunque districte mandamus et praecipimus, ut cum per ipsum Gsum.
Nicolaum Thomyczki Capitaneum et quotiescunque fuertis requisiti, illi
ad perficiendum hoc mandatum et commissionem nostram omnem favorem
et auxilium praebeatis. Pro fide vestra et nostra gratia aliter non
facturi. Harum, quibus sigillum nostrum est impressum, testimonio
literarum. Datum in Conventione generali Piotrcoviensi, feria festi
Sorum. Innocentium (December 28.) A.D. 1524, Regni nostri A. 18-o.

               --Metryka Kor., Bk. 39, DD. fol. 91. given by Zakrzewski,
                 pp. 231-232.


7. Edict of Grodno, Feb. 15, 1522.--Literae ad Magfcum. Palatinum
Cracov. et Consules Cracov., ut ponant in executionem edictum R. Mtis.
contra Lutherum et ejus sequaces. Sigismundus etc. Magfco. Christophero
de Schidlowyecz, Palatino et Capitaneo Cracov. et Regni nostri
Cancellario.… Nos itaque dudum intelligentes, spargi in Regno nostro
Lutheri cujusdam dogmata contra mores et instituta patrum et sanctae
matris ecclesiae ac in perturbationem communis status et unitatis
populi christiani, pro debito nostro et exemplo aliorum priorum Regum
et principum christianorum,--non enim haec nova sunt, nec raro accidunt
in ecclesia,--publico edicto mandaveramus, ut ad Regnum nostrum
nulla opera ipsius Lutheri aut alterius cujuspiam sequacis ipsius
inferrentur, sub exilio et privatione bonorum omnium. Contra quod
edictum nostrum comperimus, istic in Civitate nostra Cracoviensi esse
nonnullos ita curiosos in his, quae muneris eorum non sunt, atque ita
contumaces adversus edictum nostrum, ut non cessent opuscula ejusdem
Lutheri et alia id genus invehere, et propalam jam tueri dogmata ipsa
letifera, in offendiculum bonarum mentium hominumque perturbationem,
ac contemptum auctoritatis et mandati nostri Regii. Quod, ut merito
debemus, indignissimo animo ferentes, committimus S. tuae, idque omnino
habere volumus, ut tales, qui in vulgus spargunt ipsa dogmata Lutherana
vel ejus opera invehunt palam vel occulte in Regnum et Dominia nostra,
et praesertim istuc in Civitate Cracoviensi, aut ea vendunt, diligenter
disquirat, et, ut idem Consules curent, nomine nostro illis mandet, ac
in eos, qui comperti fuerint, multam edicti nostri irremissibiliter
exequatur; sed et quicquid ultra in ea re curanda et animadvertenda
fecerit, id nos non ratum solum, sed etiam gratiosissimum habituros
non dibitet. Pro fide et virtute sua tua S. factura. Datum in Grodno,
sabbato proximo ante Dominicam Septuagesimae A. D. 1522, Regni nostri
A. 16-o.

                      --Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, III, pp. 649-650.


8. Edict of Cracow, March 7, 1523.--Sigismundus etc.… Et quia decet
Majestatem Regiam, ut in subjectis sibi populis unitas et tranquillitas
conservertur, quod uno fieri solet, si instituta divina et humana,
longo usu et communi comprobatione recepta, tueantur et manuteneantur,
hominesque seditiosi et plus sapere volentes quam oportet, coerceantur:
ideo praesenti publico edicto nostro statuimus, ut nullus aliqua opera
praedicti Luteri aut ejus sequacium ad hoc Regnum nostrum et dominia
nobis subjecta invehere, vendere et emere palam vel occulte audeat,
nec invecta habeat, legat aut illud pestiferum dogma praedicet,
approbat et tueatur, sub poena hujusmodi libellorum et operum Luteri
ejusque sequacium et illius, qui praemissa ausus fuerit, incendii
et concremationis, bonorumque confiscationis et amissionis. Datum
Cracoviae in conventu generali regni, 7 Martii a. 1523.

                              --Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, IV, p. 3.


9. Edictum de libellis Lutheranis, 5 Sept. 1523.--Sigismundus …
manifestum facimus … ut in primis, quandocunque opportunum videretur
reverendo domino episcopo Cracoviensi, fieret per inquisitores eius
cum decurionibus, quos consulatus in tota civitate ad huius negotii
aliorumque excessuum tollendorum custodiam delegit, per omnes et
singulos domos, testudines ac cistas diligens scrutatio, et ubi
aliqui libri haeretici invenirentur, illiuc poena edicti exigeretur;
deinde ut impressores librorum nihil prorsus imprimere et bibliopolae
vel alii quicunque exponere ac vendere deinceps audeant ex libris
undecunque adductis, nisi illos rector universitatis prior viderit et
tam imprimi quam vendi permiserit, sub poenis praedictis. Ut autem
et reliquae civitates nostrae hoc exemplo insistant, ac unusquisque
tempori praemoneretur, ne ipsa mandata nostra regia transgrediatur et
ignorantiam praetendere possit, nos hanc ipsorum consiliariorum simulac
consultatus Cracoviensis ordinationem per has litteras nostras omnibus
testatam esse volumus, mandates omnibus aliis civitatibus regni et
dominiorum nostrorum, ut ad eum modum edicta nostra exequendi faciant
cum loci ordinariis aut eorum delegatis ordinationes opportunas easque
diligentissime exequantur. Datum Cracoviae, 5 Sept., 1523.

                         --Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, IV, pp. 29-30.


10. Literae de haeresi ad Capitaneos.--Sigismundus etc.… Complures anni
jam intercesserunt, cum, gliscente peste Luterana, dederamus ad F. tuam
mandatum, ut passim omnibus ediceret, ne profisci Wittembergam aut ad
ea loca, in quibus esset aliqua haereseos suspitio, liberosve suos eo
mittere auderent. Id per F. tuam pro eo, ut officium illius postulat,
diligenter esse curatum non dubitamus. Verum perfertur ad nos, esse
nonnullos, qui, spreto et contempto edicto nostro Regio, quibus locis
eis per nos interdictum est, in his commorantur, et pravis opinionibus
mentem suam imbuunt, ac redeuntes inde, virus, quos hauserunt, afflare
aliis conantur. Quae res minime nobis ferenda esse videtur. Quare
mandamus F. tuae, ut sub poena capitis, proscriptionis et privationis
omnium bonorum edici omnibus denuo per praeconem faciat, ne vel liberos
suos aut Wittembergam, aut Lipsiam, aut Goldbergam aut quaecunque
tandem ad loca de haeresi suspecta, quae hic pro expressis haberi
volumus, mittere, aut, si qui juris sui sunt, ipsi eo proficisci,
audeant. Si qui vero liberos suos jam miserunt, ut eos intra semestre
spatium domum revocent; alioqui non solum de liberis, se de ipsis etiam
parentibus poenas sumus sumpturi, si constiterit, de consensu eorum in
vetitis locis eos commorari. In eos quoque, qui proprio ausu propriaque
temeritate profecti eo fuerint, aut ibi post edicti hujus nostri
promulgationem fuerint commorati, graviter sumus animadversuri. Pari
diligentia provideri a F. tua volumus, ne qui libelli in nostrum Regnum
importantur Luterana labe infecti, quos multos ex illis partibus mitti
in Regnum nostrum accepimus. Quisquis ejus generis libellos importare
vel eis privatim vel publice uti ausus fuerit, id eisdem capitis,
proscriptionis et privationis bonorum omnium poenis tenebitur. Datum
Cracoviae, feria V. post Dominicam Palmarum, A. D. 1540.

                                                   --Zakrzewski, p. 236.


11. Literae ad episcopos de haeresi.--Sigismundus etc. Revde. in Chro.
pater, sincere nobis dilecte. Ita ut fuit de consensu omnium Regni
senatorum constitutum in proximis comitiis, misimus mandata nostra
ad omnes arcium et bonorum nostrorum praefectos, atque eis ediximus,
ut providerent, ne quis ad loca de haeresi suspecta proficisceretur,
aut si quis profectus esset, ut intra semestre spatium reverteretur
sub poena capitis, proscriptionis et privationis bonorum. Nunc P.
vestra pro officio suo pastorali inquiret diligenter, qui sunt ad ea
loca profecti, ut nos parentibus corum aut iis, in quorum potestate
sunt, mandemus, quo intra semestre tempus eos revocandos curent;
si secus fecerint, non ipsi minus quam liberi eorum poena capitis,
proscriptionis et privationis bonorum omnium afficiendi. De libris
quoque Luteranis scripsimus ad illos et mandavimus, ut prohiberent eos
importari aut legi a quopiam, locique ordinario eorum nomina deferrent,
qui contra edictum hoc nostrum fecissent, ut is meritas de eis poenas
sumendas curaret. Proinde hac quoque in re advigilabit P. vestra et
diligenter inquiret, si qui sunt libri hujusmodi, curabitque, ut
edictum hoc nostrum executioni mandetur.… Datum Oracoviae feria VI-a
ante Dominicam Conductus Paschae (April 2nd) A. D. 1540.

                                                   --Zakrzewski, p. 237.


12. Concerning foreign travels of our subjects this is what we have
resolved upon with our Council and with the Provincial Representatives,
namely, that every subject of ours be free to leave the territory of
the Polish Crown for whatever country he wishes to see, to enter into
service, and to train himself in good manners; provided, however, that
no one leaves accompanied, except by his own servants, by an armed
force equipped for war, or having left, engages abroad in forming a
warlike expedition of men who either had preceded or followed him,
unless he has our and our Council’s consent, for such procedure might
turn out unfavorable to us and to the Crown; but goes only by himself
or with his servants for the purpose of training himself in learning
permitted by the Church. But whoever, returning from abroad, purposes
to import, use, and spread any new teachings or books, shall be
punished according to existing laws and constitutional provisions of
the Crown.… Datum Cracoviae in Comitiis praefatis 12 Aprilis A. D. 1543.

            --See Polish text in Zakrzewski, p. 240, and compare it
              with text in Vol. leg., I, fol. 566 ff., noting omissions.


13. De non inferendis Samuelis Apostatae libris mandatum.--Sigismundus
etc.… Perfertur ad nos, Samuelem Apostatam iterum virus suum in Regno
nostro spargere, ac venetatos quosdam libellos vernacula Regni nostri
lingua conscriptos in vulgus edere, quibus a Christiania religione
mentes rudium et simplicium hominum abducantur et in haereseos baratrum
praecipitentur. Quoniam vero nostri est officii providere, ne quid
horum impiets, qui Christianam religionem evertere conantur, Regno
nostro detrimenti adferat, mandamus S. tuae, ut sub capitis poena
prohibeat omnibus, quo minus aut inferre sive vendere, aut emere sive
in aedibus suis habere et legere ejusmodi libellos audeant. Quisquis
deprehensus fuerit libellos ejusmodi habens, eum in carcerem coniici
mandet, ac usque informationem nostram in eo detineri. Quodsi S. tua in
mandato ejusmodi nostro exequendo non ea, qua oportet, diligentia usa
fuerit, ac versari nihilominus in manibus hominum venenatos ejusmodi
libellos cognovimus, nequaquam id ita abire sinemus, gravemque nostram
erga se indignationem experietur. Quam ut vitare possit, mandamus,
ut ita se gerat in edicto hoc nostro exequendo, ut neque Christiani
hominis, neque fidelis Capitanei nostri officium in se requiri
patiatur, neque nos ad gravius aliquid in se consulendum adigat.… Datum
in Brzesczie Lithuaniae, 10 Julii A. D. 1544.

                                                   --Zakrzewski, p. 242.


14. Vol. leg. I, fol. 83: Item, ut gratia uberiori consolentur a nobis,
etiam nos fide et servitiis amplioribus prosequantur, promittimus, quod
exnunc et de caetero nunquam alicujus subditi Regni nostri, cujuscunque
dignitatis, eminentiae, status aut gradus fuerit, bona haereditaria
recipiemus, confiscabimus, recipi vel confiscari faciemus, nec se
de eis per nos vel officiales nostros vel alios quoscunque homines
intromittemus vel intromitti faciemus pro quibuscunque excessibus aut
culpis, nisi prius super hoc praecedat judicium nostrorum, quos ad hoc
deputaverimus, cum nostris praelatis, baronibus, matura cognitio et
sententia sequatur. Czerwieńsk, 1422.

Vol. leg., I, fol. 93: Caeterum promittimus et spondemus, quod nullum
terrigenam possessionatum pro aliquo excessu seu culpa capiemus seu
capi mandabimus, nec aliquam vindictam in ipso faciemus, nisi judicio
rationabiliter fuerit convictus, et ad manus nostras vel nostrorum
Capitaneorum per judices ejusdem terrae, in qua idem terrigena
residet, praesentatus; illo tamen homine, qui in furto vel in publico
maleficio, (utpote incendio, homicidio voluntario, raptu virginum
et mulierum, villarum depopulationibus et spoliis) deprehenderetur;
similiter illis, qui dese nollent debitam facere cautionem vel dare
juxta quantitatem excessus vel delicti, duntaxat exceptis. Nulli autem
bona seu possessiones recipiemus, nisi fuerit judicialiter per judices
competentes vel Barones nostros nobis condemnatus. Jedlnia 1430.




                              BIBLIOGRAPHY


Some of the more important sources consulted in the preparation of this
study and referred to in the footnotes are as follows:

Źródła dziejowe (Historical Sources), Warsaw, 1883-1909, 22 vols. This
is an invaluable collection of state papers, official correspondence,
and particularly of statistical material regarding sixteenth century
Poland. It is a mine of information to the student interested in Polish
life of the sixteenth century.

Volumina legum, Petersburg (Leningrod), 1859, 5 or 6 vols. This is a
collection of Polish laws, covering a period of nearly five hundred
years, from Casimir the Great (1333-1370) to the Partitions.

Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, an excellent supplementary collection of
Polish laws, 4 vols.

Wierzbowski, T., Materyały do Dziejów Piśmiennictwa Polskiego
(Materials for a History of Polish Writings), Warsaw, 1904, 2 vols. A
valuable collection of documentary material of a varied nature, chiefly
correspondence, official and private.

Theiner, Augustus, Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, gentiumque
finitimarum historiam illustrantia, maximam partem nondum edita
ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta, collecta ac serie chronologica
disposita, Romae: typis Vaticanis, 1860-1864. 4 large folio vols. This
collection contains much epistolary and reportorial material of great
historical value emanating from papal nuncios and church dignitaries.

Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia.
Cracoviae: sumptibus Academiae literarum Cracoviensis, 1874----, in 15
vols. Indispensable to the student of the sixteenth century.


Much information of first class importance has been obtained from the
following works:

Zakrzewski, Wincenty, Powstanie i wzrost Reformacji w Polsce (The Rise
and Development of the Reformation in Poland), Leipzig, 1870.

Krasiński, Walerjan, Dzieje Reformacji w Polsce (A History of the
Reformation in Poland), Warsaw, 1903. This work was published
originally in English, in London, under the title of A Historical
Sketch of the Reformation in Poland.

Merczyng, Henryk, Zbory i Senatorowie protestanccy w Dawnej Polsce
(Protestant Congregations and Senators in Old Poland), Warsaw.

---- Polscy Deiści i wolnomyśliciele za Jagiellonów (Polish Deists and
Free Thinkers in the Time of the Jagiellos), Warsaw, 1911.

Lorkiewicz, Antoni, Bunt Gdański w Roku 1525 (The Danzig Revolt of the
Year 1525), Lwów, 1881.

Warmiński, I., Andrzej Samuel i Jan Seklucyan (Andrew Samuel and John
Seklucyan), Poznań, 1906.

Łukaszewiez, Józef, Dzieje Kościołów wyznania helweckiego w Dawnej
Polsce (A History of Calvinistic Churches in Old Poland), Poznań, 1853.

Brückner, Alexander, Różnowiercy Polscy (Polish Dissidents), Warsaw,
1905.

Kubala, Ludwig, Stanisław Orzechowski (Stanislaus Orzechowski), Warsaw.

Kot, Stanisław, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski (Andrew Frycz Modrzewski),
Cracow, 1919.

Chmielowski, Piotr, Historya Literatury Polskiej (A History of Polish
Literature), Lwów-Warszawa.

Brückner, Alexander, Dzieje literatury polskiej (A History of Polish
Literature), Warsaw, 1908.

Pilat, Roman, Historya literatury polskiej (A History of Polish
Literature), Warsaw, 1909, vol. II, part 1.

Grabowski, T., Literatura Luterska w Polsce Wieku XVI (Lutheran
Literature in XVIth Century Poland), Poznań, 1920.

---- Literatura Aryańska w Polsce (Arian Literature in Poland), Cracow,
1908.

Rakowski, Kazimierz, Dzieje Rozwoju Ekonomicznego Dawnego Państwa
Polskiego (A History of the Economic Development of Old Poland),
Warsaw, 1909.

Szelągowski, Adam, Pieniądz i Przewrót Cen w XVI i XVII Wieku w Polsce
(Money and the Overturning of Prices in XVIth and XVIIth Century
Poland), Lwów, 1902.

---- Walka o Bałtyk, 1544-1621 (A Struggle for the Baltic), Lwów, 1904.

---- O Ujście Wisły (A Struggle for the Mouth of the Vistula), Warsaw,
1905.

Baranowski, Ignacy, Przemysł Polski w XVI Wieku (Polish Commerce in the
XVIth Century), Warsaw, 1919.

Tymieniecki, Kazimierz, Procesy twórcze formowania się społeczeństwa
polskiego w wiekach średnich (Creative Processes in the Formation of
Polish Society in the Middle Ages), Warsaw, 1921.

Starczewski, Eugeniusz, Możnowładztwo Polskie (The Polish Aristocracy),
Warsaw, 1914.

Kwartalnik Historyczny (Historical Quarterly), Lwów.

Przegląd Historyczny (Historical Review), Warsaw.

Reformacja w Polsce (The Reformation in Poland), Warsaw, a Quarterly of
the Polish Reformation Historical Society.




                                 INDEX


  Adjustment of religious differences, proposed project of 1555, 49-50.

  Agriculture, revival of, 108-116.


  Background of Polish Reformation,
    independent attitude
      of Polish princes, 9-11,
      of clergy, 11-13,
      of people, 13;
    influence of humanism, 13-14;
    character of Polish clergy, 14-15.

  Batory, Stephen, religious tolerance of, 79-80.

  Bible, Polish, different translations and editions of, 72.

  Bohemian Brethren,
    in Poland, 27-28, 41-42;
    union with Calvinists of Little Poland, 48;
    joint synod of the two in 1557 and proposed union with Lutherans,
        56.

  Budny, Simon, Arian reformer and writer, 72, 73.


  Calvinism in Poland, 33-34, 39, 42;
    need of better church organization of, 43;
    growth of, 53.

  Casimir the Great, attitude toward church, 10.

  Causes of Polish Reformation,
    political, constitutional liberties of Polish nobility, 101-105,
      ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 126-134,
      problem of “execution of laws,” 134-137;
    social, Renaissance, 64-66,
      art of printing, 66-73,
      education, influence of foreign universities, 73-78,
      religious tolerance, 78-82,
      aristocratic character of Polish, Reformation, 82-83;
    ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 126-134;
    economic, wealth of Polish church, 83-100, 121-124,
      revival of commerce and agriculture after Peace of Thorn (1466),
        105-116,
      problem of national defense, 116-124,
      payment of tithes, 124-126.

  Church, opposition of nobility to, political, 101-105;
    economic, 105-116.

  Clergy, Polish, moral character of, 14-15;
    right to participate in royal elections questioned, 57-58;
    taxation of, 60-61;
    materialistic character of, 97-99.

  Commerce, Polish, change in, and its significance, 105-108.

  Confederation, of Korczyn (1438), 18;
    of Warsaw (1573), 62, 80-81.

  Conflict between Polish nobility and clergy, basis, constitutional
        liberties of Polish nobility, 101-105;
    causes,
      revival of Polish commerce and agriculture, 105-116,
      problem of defense, 116-124,
      quarrels over payment of tithes, 124-126,
      opposition to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 126-134,
      demand for execution of laws, 134-137.

  Consensus Sandomiriensis, 62-63.

  Council of Constance, 16.

  Court clergy, affected by the Reformation, 39-40.

  Court, royal, affected by the Reformation, 30, 36.

  Czechowic, Martin, Arian reformer and writer, 73.


  Defense, problem of, 57, 60;
    more acute after agricultural revival, 116 ff.;
    insistence on the clergy’s participation in public, 118-121;
    confiscation of ecclesiastical property for public, proposed, 122.

  Demesne estates, enlargement of, by extension of cultivation, 108;
    by expropriation of village mayorships, 108-109;
    by incorporation of vacant peasant leaseholds, 109-110.


  Ecclesiastical estates,
    location and productivity, 92-93;
    proximity to royal lands and its significance, 93-94.

  Ecclesiastical jurisdiction,
    protest against and demand for abolition of, 45;
    suspended for a year, 45, 46;
    suspension of, continued, 50, 57;
    demand for abolition of, in all matters, 58-59;
    abolished, 60-61, 126-132, 134.

  Economic basis of ecclesiastical revolt of Polish nobility,
    commercial changes, 105-107;
    industrial changes, 107 ff.

  Economic causes of Polish Reformation. See Causes.

  Edicts,
    of Wieluń (1424), 17,
    of 1433, 18;
    of Thorn (1520), 24;
    of Duke Janusz of Mazovia (1525), 26-27;
    of Cracow (1523), 28,
    of 1554, 32,
    of 1544, 37;
    due to growth of Reformation, 29;
    protest against their issuance, 59-60.

  Execution of Laws, 54, 56, 57, 113, 134-137.


  Farming by tenant peasants, not profitable in the 16th century,
        114-115.


  Glebae adscripti, Polish peasants become, 115.

  Goniądz, Peter, reformer and writer, 73.


  Humanism, 13-14, 64-66.

  Hussitism, 16-19.


  Independence,
    of Polish princes, 9-11;
    of clergy, 11-13;
    of people, 13.

  Investiture, right of, 10-11.


  James of Paradyż, scholar and advocate of religious reform, 19, 20.


  Krowicki, Martin, Arian reformer and writer, 48, 47, 73.

  Krzyżak, Felix, Calvinistic reformer,
    accepted the Reformation, 39;
    fled to Great Poland, 46;
    returned to Little Poland, 46;
    appointed as superintendent of Calvinistic churches, 43;
    invited Bohemian Brethren to unite with Calvinists of Little
        Poland, 48.


  Landownership,
    regarded as a special privilege of the Polish nobility, 110;
    townspeople excluded from, and from high church offices, 110-113;
    enlarged by purchases, 114.

  Łaski, John, most distinguished Polish reformer, 38, 53, 56, 64, 65.

  Legacies, of Polish ecclesiastical princes, 91-92.

  Liberties, constitutional, of Polish nobility, 101-105.

  Lismanini, Francis, a leader in Polish religious reform, 30, 39, 40,
        41, 42, 53, 81.

  Lutheranism,
    in Danzig, 21-24;
    in other West Prussian cities, 24-25;
    in East Prussia, 25-26;
    in Great Poland, 27-28;
    in Little Poland, 28-30.


  Mandate of Sigismund I on the starostas, 37, 38.

  Matthew of Cracow, scholar and advocate of religious reform, 19-20.

  Mayors of ecclesiastical villages, 56, 57, 60, 116 ff. See also
        Defense.

  Meetings, secret, in Cracow, 39-40.

  Modrzewski, Andrew Frycz, distinguished humanist and advocate of
        reform, 64, 65-66.


  National Synod, 13, 50-51, 56-57.

  Nobility, opposition to church,
    political, 101-105;
    economic, 105-116.


  Ochino, Bernard, taking refuge in Poland, 81.

  Oleśnicki, Cardinal Zbigniew, 17, 18.

  Order to the starostas of 1546, 38.

  Orzechowski, Stanislaus, 43, 44-45.

  Ostrorog, John, 14, 64-65.


  Political causes of Polish Reformation. See Causes.

  Pope Pius IV, reforms which he was asked to sanction, 50-51.

  Prażmowski, Andrew, his preaching of Calvinistic doctrines in Posen,
        42.

  Pre-Reformation reform movements, influence,
    of Waldensians, 15-16;
    of Wyclif’s teaching, 16;
    of Hussitism, 16-19;
    of loyal sons of the church at home, 19-21.

  Printers, Cracow, 66-70.

  Printing, as a cause of Polish Reformation, 66-73.

  Privileges, clerical, presented “ad judicum,” 60.

  Protestantism, strength of, by 1569, 61-63.


  Racovian Catechism, 73.

  Radziwill, Nicholas, the Black,
    an intimate of Sigismund Augustus, 41;
    Lippomano tried to influence, 51-52;
    founded a press at Brześć Litewski from which issued the Radziwill
        Bible, 71.

  Renaissance. See Humanism.

  Reformation, spread of, in Poland,
    early beginnings and struggles, 21-33;
    growing aggressiveness, 33-40;
    triumph and dominance, 40-68;
    in Danzig, 21-24;
    in West Prussia, 24-26;
    in East Prussia, 26;
    in Mazovia, 26-27;
    in Great Poland, 27-28;
    in Little Poland, 28 ff.;
    topic of general discussion, 34;
    a class movement, 82-83, 132-134.

  Rey, Nicholas, father of Polish literature, 37.

  Roman clergy, affected by the Reformation, 38-39, 42, 43.


  Samuel, Andrew, 37, 38-39, 40.

  Seklucjan, John, 27, 37, 39, 40, 72.

  Sigismund I, 11, 23, 27, 37, 40;
    his tolerance, 38, 78-79.

  Sigismund II, Augustus, 12;
    Calvin’s Commentary on the Mass dedicated to, 34;
    religious attitude of, 40-41;
    tolerance of, 79.

  Social causes of Polish Reformation. See Causes.

  Social classes, affected by Reformation, 82-83; 101.

  Stankar, Francis, his defection from Rome, 43-44;
    his flight to Great Poland and return, 46.

  Status of peasants, changed by legislation, 115-116.

  Sozzino, Lelio, 81;
    Faustus, 81.

  Synodical decrees, 30-32, 34;
    futility of, 32, 35-36.


  Taxation of clerical property,
    by Casimir the Great, 10;
    insisted upon by nobility for purposes of defense, 123-124.

  Tithes and tithing, opposition to, 59, 61, 97-98, 124-126.

  Tolerance, religious, as cause of Polish Reformation, 78-82.

  Treaty of Thorn (1466), its effect on Polish commerce and
        agriculture, 106 ff.


  Uchański, James, 12, 39, 55, 56-57, 59.

  Universities, foreign, influence of, 73-78.


  Vatican, concerned about Poland, 51.

  Vernacular, appeal to the masses through literature in, 36-37.


  Waldensians, influence of, on Poland, 15-16.

  Wealth of Polish church, landed,
    in Great Poland, 84;
    in Little Poland, 84-85;
    in Mazovia, 85;
    in Podlasie, 85-86;
    in Volhynia, 86;
    in Red Russia, 86-87;
    in Ukraina, 87;
    compared with that of the crown and of the nobility, 87-91;
    minimum total estimates of, 94-96;
    other sources of income, 96-97;
    its influence on Polish nobility, 97-100;
    proposed confiscation of, 100.

  Wyclif, influence of his teaching in Poland, 16.


  Zalaszowska, Catherine, execution of, 33.





                    Johns Hopkins University Studies
                  in Historical and Political Science


The University Studies will continue to publish, as heretofore, the
results of recent investigations in History, Political Economy, and
Political Science.

The titles given below are now announced; other numbers will follow
from time to time.


  =Contemporary French Opinion on the American Civil War.= By W. REED
       WEST. $1.50.

  =Frederick Law Olmsted: a Critic of the Old South.= By BROADUS
       MITCHELL. $1.50.

  =Constitutional Doctrines of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.= By
       DORSEY RICHARDSON. $1.00.

  =The Reformation in Poland: Some Social and Economic Aspects.= By
       PAUL FOX.

  =The Agrarian Movement in North Dakota.= By PAUL R. FOSSUM.

  =The Ordinance Making Powers of the President.= By JAMES HART.

  =The Virginia Frontier, 1754-1763.= By LOUIS K. KOONTZ.

  =Sumptuary Legislation and Personal Regulation in England.= By
       ELIZABETH BALDWIN.


The cost of subscription for the regular annual series, comprising
about 600 pages, is $5.00. Single numbers, or special monographs, at
special prices. Complete contents of previous volumes are given on
pages viii-xii.




              Studies in History, Economics and Public Law

                               EDITED BY

                    THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
                          COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY


             VOLUME CV. 1923. 509 pp. Price, cloth, $6.00.
  1. [237] The Regime of the International Rivers: Danube
               and Rhine. By J. P. Chamberlain, Ph. D. Price, $3.50.

  2. [238] Imperial Control of the Administration of
               Justice in the Thirteen American Colonies. 1684-1776.
               By George Adrian Washburne, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.


            VOLUME CVI. 1923. 425 pp. Price, cloth, $5.00.
  1. [239] Labor and Empire. By T. F. Tsiang, Ph. D. Price,
               $2.25.

  2. [240] Legislative History of America’s Economic Policy
               toward the Philippines. By Jose S. Reyes, Ph. D.
               Price, $2.25.


            VOLUME CVII. 1923. 584 pp. Price, cloth, $7.00.
  1. [241] Two Portuguese Communities in New England. By
               Donald R. Taft, Ph. D. Price, $4.00.

  2. [242] The Penitentials. By Thomas P. Oakley, Ph. D.
               Price, $2.50.


           VOLUME CVIII. 1923. 416 pp. Price, cloth, $5.00.
  1. [243] The Pre-War Business Cycle. By William C.
               Schluter, Ph. D. Price, $2.00.

  2. [244] Foreign Credit Facilities in the United Kingdom.
               By Leland Rex Robinson, Ph. D. Price, $2.50.


            VOLUME CIX. 1923. 450 pp. Price, cloth, $5.00.
     [245] Reconstruction in Arkansas. By Thomas S. Staples, Ph. D.
               Price, $4.50.


           VOLUME CX. 1923-24. 329 pp. Price, cloth, $4.00.
  1. [246] *The United Mine Workers of America and the
               Non-Union Coal Fields. By A. Ford Hinrichs, Ph. D.
               Price, $2.00.

  2. [247] Business Fluctuations and the American Labor
               Movement. 1915-1922. By V. W. Lanfear, Ph. D. Price,
               $1.50.


           VOLUME CXI. 1923-24. 528 pp. Price, cloth, $6.00.
  1. [248] *The Democratic Machine, 1850-1854. By Roy
               Franklin Nichols, Ph. D. Price, $2.50.

  2. [249] Labor Disputes and the President of the U. S. By
               Edward Berman, Ph. D. Price, $3.00.


                          VOLUME CXII. 1923.
  1. [250] *Catholicism and the Second French Republic.
               1848-1852. By R. W. Collins, Ph. D. Price, $4.00.

  2. [251] *The Pan-German League, 1890-1914. By Mildred S.
               Wertheimer, Ph. D. Price, $2.75.


           VOLUME CXIII. 1924. 551 pp. Price, cloth, $6.50.
  1. [252] The Humane Movement in the United States,
               1910-1922. By William J. Shultz, Ph. D. Price, $3.50.

  2. [253] Farmers and Workers in American Politics. By
               Stuart A. Rice, Ph. D. Price, $2.50.


           VOLUME CXIV. 1924. 607 pp. Price, cloth, $6.50.
  1. [254] *The Bank of North Dakota: an Experiment in
               Agrarian Banking. By Alvin S. Tostlebe, Ph. D. Price,
               $2.25.

  2. [255] *A New American Commercial Policy. By Wallace
               McClure, Ph. D. Price, $4.00.


                          VOLUME CXV. 1924.
  1. [256] *Frances Wright. By William Randall Waterman,
               Ph. D. Price, $2.75.

  2. [257] Tory Democracy. By William J. Wilkinson. (In
               press)


                          VOLUME CXVI. 1924.
  1. [258] The Labor Policy of the United States Steel
               Corporation. By Charles A. Gulick, Jr., Ph. D. (In
               press)


_The price for each separate monograph is for paper-covered copies;
separate monographs marked with an asterisk, *, can be supplied bound
in cloth, for 75c. additional._

                         _All prices are net._


The set of 114 volumes, covering monographs 1-255, is offered, bound,
for $450; except that Volumes II, III, IV, VII, LXVI, and LXXII can
be supplied only in part, Volume I, Nos. 1 and 2, Volume III, No. 2,
Volume IV, Nos. 2 and 3, Volume VII, No. 2, Volume XLVI, No. 1, Volume
LIV, No. 1, Volume LXVI, No. 2, and Volume LXXII, No. 3 being out of
print. Volumes II, III, and IV, as described in the last sentence, and
Volumes XXV and XXXIII can now be supplied only in connection with
complete sets, but the separate monographs of each of these volumes are
available unless marked “_not sold separately_.”


For further information, apply to

           LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., 55 Fifth Avenue, New York.
      P. S. KING & SON, Ltd., Orchard House, Westminster, London.




                         _Latest Harvard Books_


STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF MEDIAEVAL SCIENCE, by Charles Homer Haskins

Based upon years of research in European manuscript collections, this
work discusses the science of the Arabs and its transmission to western
Europe; the Greek phase of the mediaeval scientific renaissance; the
Sicilian court of Frederick II on its scientific side as the meeting
point of these Arabic and Greek currents; and, in a final section, the
introduction of the abacus into the English exchequer, Syrian astronomy
and western falconry, and a list of text-books in use at the close of
the twelfth century. $6.00.


ORIGINS OF THE WAR OF 1870, by Robert H. Lord

Professor Lord has recently had the opportunity of using and
transcribing in full the seven volumes of documents in the archives of
the German Foreign Office which contain the German official record of
the diplomatic crisis leading up to the outbreak of the War of 1870.
Save for rare exceptions, these documents have never hitherto been
printed but they are now published _in extenso_. As an introduction
Professor Lord has retraced the history of the crisis in the light of
the mass of new sources. $3.50.


HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES POST OFFICE TO THE YEAR 1829,
by Wesley E. Rich

Scarcely an activity of the Federal government so intimately affects
the life of the ordinary citizen as the service of the Post Office
Department, the early history of which is here recounted with a
fullness that ensures an instructive and entertaining book. The quaint
regulations the author cites from time to time, the numerous quotations
he brings forth from old manuscript letters and reports, even his
discussions of financial operations and of politics, are full of the
homely detail that makes the past vividly alive again. $2.00.


EARLY ECONOMIC THOUGHT, edited by Arthur E. Monroe

“Professor Monroe is to be congratulated upon providing for the use
of students of the history of economics a very useful compilation.…
The volume will serve a useful purpose and is warmly to be welcomed,
especially because the translations are well done.”--_Political Science
Quarterly._

“The selections are well chosen, always extensive enough to give an
adequate idea of the author’s style and thought, and several of them
are especially welcome because they have hitherto been inaccessible to
most of us.”--_American Economic Review._ $3.50.

                        HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS

                   44 RANDALL HALL, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.




                        ALBERT SHAW LECTURES ON
                           DIPLOMATIC HISTORY


  1899. JOHN H. LATANÉ. The Diplomatic Relations of the United States
        and Spanish America. 1900. (Out of print.)

  1900. JAMES MORTON CALLAHAN. The Diplomatic History of the Southern
        Confederacy. 1901. (Out of print.)

  1906. JESSE SIDDALL REEVES. American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk.
        1907. $1.75.

  1907. ELPERT JAY BENTON. International Law and Diplomacy of the
        Spanish-American War. 1908. $1.75.

  1909. EPHRAIM DOUGLAS ADAMS. British Interests and Activities in
        Texas, 1838-1846. 1910. $1.75.

  1911. CHARLES OSCAR PAULLIN. Diplomatic Negotiations of American
        Naval Officers, 1778-1883, 1912. $2.25.

  1912. ISAAC J. COX. The West Florida Controversy, 1798-1813.
        1918. $3.00.

  1913. WILLIAM R. MANNING. Early Diplomatic Relations between the
        United States and Mexico. 1916. $2.50.

  1914. FRANK A. UPDIKE. The Diplomacy of the War of 1812. 1915. $2.75.

  1917. PAYSON J. TREAT. Early Diplomatic Relations between the United
        States and Japan, 1853-1865. 1917. $2.75.


                        THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS

                          Baltimore, Maryland




                              A REPRINT OF
                            ECONOMIC TRACTS


The Johns Hopkins Press invites subscriptions to a reprint of four
important economic essays of the seventeenth century, to be issued
consecutively under the editorial direction of Professor Hollander:--

  =A Treatise of the Canker of England’s Common Wealth.= By GERRARD
       DE MALYNES. London, 1601.

  =A Discourse of Trade from England unto the East Indies=:
       Answering to diverse Objections which are usually made against
       the same. By THOMAS MUN. London, 1621.

  =The Treasure of Traffike. Or a Discourse of Forraigne Trade.= By
       LEWES ROBERTS. London, 1641.

  =Brief Observations concerning Trade, and Interest of Money.= By
       JOSIAH CHILD. London, 1668.

Of the tracts heretofore printed, a limited number can yet be obtained
as follows. As the editions approach exhaustion, the prices indicated
are likely to be increased without notice:--

  =Asgill=, “Several Assertions Proved” (London, 1696), Price, 50
       cents.

  =Barbon=, “A Discourse of Trade” (London, 1690), Price, 50 cents.

  =Berkeley=, “The Querist”: Parts I, II, III (Dublin, 1735-37),
       Price, $1.00.

  =Fauquier=, “An Essay on Ways and Means” (London, 1756), Price, 50
       cents.

  =Fortrey=, “England’s Interest Considered” (Cambridge, 1663),
       Price, 50 cts.

  =Longe=, “A Refutation of the Wage-Fund Theory” (London, 1866).
       (Out of print).

  =Malthus=, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent”
       (London, 1815). (Out of print).

  =Massie=, “The Natural Rate of Interest” (London, 1750), Price, 50
       cents.

  =North=, “Discourses upon Trade” (London, 1691), Price, 50 cents.

  =Ricardo=, “Three Letters on ‘The Price of Gold’” (London, 1809).
       (Out of print).

  =Vanderlint=, “Money Answers All Things” (London, 1734), Price,
       $1.00.

  =West=, “Essay on the Application of Capital to Land” (London,
       1815). (Out of print).

                        THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS

                          Baltimore, Maryland




                          PUBLICATIONS OF THE

                   INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT RESEARCH

                           WASHINGTON, D. C.


The Institute for Government Research is an association of citizens
for co-operating with public officials in the scientific study of
government with a view to promoting efficiency and economy in its
operations and advancing the science of administration. It aims to
bring into existence such information and materials as will aid in the
formation of public opinion and will assist officials particularly
those of the National Government, in their efforts to put the public
administration upon a more efficient basis.

To this end it seeks, by the thoroughgoing study and examination of
the best administrative practices, public and private, American and
foreign, to formulate those principles which lie at the basis of all
sound administration, and to determine their proper adaptation to the
specific needs of our public administration.


STUDIES IN ADMINISTRATION.

     =The System of Financial Administration of Great Britain.= By W.
          F. Willoughby, W. W. Willoughby, and S. M. Lindsay. 378 pp.
          $3.

     =The Budget.= By René Stourm. T. Plazinski, Translator; W. F.
          McCaleb, Editor. 648 pp. $4.

     =The Canadian Budgetry System.= By H. C. Villard and W. W.
          Willoughby. 390 pp. $3.

     =The Problem of a National Budget.= By W. F. Willoughby. 234 pp.
          $3.

     =The Movement for Budgetry Reform in the States.= By W. F.
          Willoughby. 266 pp. $3.

     =Teachers’ Pension Systems in the United States.= By Paul
          Studensky. 474 pp. $3.

     =Organized Efforts for the Improvement of Methods of
          Administration in the United States.= By Gustavus A. Weber.
          408 pp. $3.

     =The Federal Service: A Study of the System of Personnel
          Administration of the United States Government.= By Lewis
          Mayers. 624 pp. $5.

     =The Reorganization of the Administrative Branch of the National
          Government.= By W. F. Willoughby. 314 pp. $3.

     =The Development of National Administrative Organization in the
          United States.= By L. M. Short. 532 pp. $5.


PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION.

     =Principles Governing the Retirement of Public Employees.= By
          Lewis Meriam. 508 pp. $3.

     =Principles of Government Purchasing.= By Arthur G. Thomas. 290
          pp. $3.

     =Principles of Government Accounting and Reporting.= By Francis
          Oakey, C. P. A. 582 pp. $5.

     =Principles of Personnel Administration.= By Arthur W. Proctor.
          256 pp. $3.


  SERVICE MONOGRAPHS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, giving in
       detail the history, activities, publications, etc., of the
       several Administrative Federal Services.

                    * Sold only with complete sets.

  =*1. The Geological Survey.= 174 pp.
  =*2. The Reclamation Service.= 190 pp.
   =3. The Bureau of Mines.= 174 pp. $1.
   =4. The Alaskan Engineering Commission.= 134 pp. $1.
   =5. The Tariff Commission.= 84 pp. $1.
   =6. The Federal Board for Vocational Education.= 86 pp. $1.
   =7. The Federal Trade Commission.= 92 pp. $1.
   =8. The Steamboat-Inspection Service.= 142 pp. $1.
   =9. The Weather Bureau.= 100 pp. $1.
  =10. The Public Health Service.= 312 pp. $2.
  =11. The National Parks Service.= 184 pp. $1.
  =12. The Employees’ Compensation Commission.= 98 pp. $1.
  =13. The General Land Office.= 236 pp. $1.50.
  =14. The Bureau of Education.= 172 pp. $1.
  =15. The Bureau of Navigation.= 136 pp. $1.
  =16. The Coast and Geodetic Survey.= 120 pp. $1.
  =17. The Federal Power Commission.= 138 pp. $1.
  =18. The Interstate Commerce Commission.= 182 pp. $1.
  =19. The Railroad Labor Board.= 94 pp. $1.
  =20. The Division of Conciliation.= 50 pp. $1.
  =21. The Children’s Bureau.= (In Press.)
  =22. The Women’s Bureau.= 44 pp. $1.
  =23. The Office of the Supervising Architect.= 150 pp. $1.
  =24. The Bureau of Pensions.= 150 pp. $1.
  =25. The Bureau of Internal Revenue.= 284 pp. $1.50.
  =26. The Bureau of Public Roads.= 136 pp. $1.
  =27. The Office of the Chief of Engineers.= 178 pp. $1.
  =28. The U.S. Employment Service.= 142 pp. $1.
  =29. The Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce.= 192 pp. $1.
  =30. The Bureau of Immigration.= 260 pp. $1.50.
  =31. The Patent Office.= 140 pp. $1.
  =32. The Office of Experiment Stations.= 190 pp. $1.
  =33. The Customs Service.= 204 pp. $1.50.

Orders should be addressed to

                        THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS,
                          Baltimore, Maryland.




                    JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES

                                   IN

                    HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE


                         *Not sold separately.


                          FIRST SERIES.--1883.

                 (Volume sold only with complete set.)

  I. An Introduction to American Institutional History. By E. A.
      FREEMAN. 25 cents.
  II. The Germanic Origin of New England Towns. By H. B. ADAMS.
      50 cents.
  III. Local Government in Illinois. By ALBERT SHAW.--Local Government
      in Pennsylvania. By E. R. L. GOULD. 30 cents.
  IV. Saxon Tithingmen in America. By H. B. ADAMS. 50 cents.
  V. Local Government in Michigan and the Northwest. By E. W. BEMIS.
      25 cents.
  VI. Parish Institutions of Maryland. By EDWARD INGLE. 40 cents.
  *VII. Old Maryland Manors. By JOHN HEMSLEY JOHNSON.
  VIII. Norman Constables in America. By H. B. ADAMS. 50 cents.
  IX-X. Village Communities of Cape Ann and Salem. By H. B. ADAMS.
      50 cents.
  XI. The Genesis of a New England State. By A. JOHNSTON. 30 cents.
  *XII. Local Government and Schools in South Carolina. By B. J. RAMAGE.


                         SECOND SERIES.--1884.

                 (Volume sold only with complete set.)

  *I-II. Methods of Historical Study. By H. B. ADAMS.
  III. The Past and Present of Political Economy. By R. T. ELY. 35 cents.
  IV. Samuel Adams, the Man of the Town Meeting. By JAMES K. HOSMER.
      35 cents.
  V-VI. Taxation in the United States. By HENRY CARTER ADAMS. 50 cents.
  VII. Institutional Beginnings in a Western State, By JESSE MACY.
      25 cents.
  VIII-IX. Indian Money in New England, etc. By WILLIAM B. WEEDEN.
      50 cents.
  *X. Town and County Government in the Colonies. By E. CHANNING.
  *XI. Rudimentary Society among Boys. By J. HEMSLEY JOHNSON.
  XII. Land Laws of Mining Districts. By C. H. SHINN. 50 cents.


                      THIRD SERIES.--1885.--$4.00.

  I. Maryland’s Influence upon Land Cessions to the U. S. By H. B. ADAMS.
      75 cents.
  II-III. Virginia Local Institutions. By E. INGLE. 75 cents.
  IV. Recent American Socialism. By RICHARD T. ELY. 50 cents.
  V-VI-VII. Maryland Local Institutions. By LEWIS W. WILHELM. $1.00.
  VIII. Influence of the Proprietors in Founding New Jersey. By A. SCOTT.
      25 cents.
  IX-X. American Constitutions. By HORACE DAVIS. 50 cents.
  XI-XII. The City of Washington. By J. A. PORTER. 50 cents.


                     FOURTH SERIES.--1886.--$4.00.

  *I. Dutch Village Communities on the Hudson River. By I. ELTING.
  II-III. Town Government in Rhode Island. By W. E. FOSTER.--The
      Narragansett Planters. By EDWARD CHANNING. 50 cents.
  IV. Pennsylvania Boroughs. By WILLIAM P. HOLCOMB. 50 cents.
  V. Introduction to Constitutional History of the States. By J. F.
      JAMESON. 50 cents.
  VI. The Puritan Colony at Annapolis, Maryland. By D. R. RANDALL.
      50 cents.
  VII-VIII-IX. The Land Question in the United States. By S. SATO.
      $1.00.
  X. Town and City Government of New Haven. By C. H. LEVERMORE. 50 cents.
  XI-XII. Land System of the New England Colonies. By M. EGLESTON.
      50 cents.


                      FIFTH SERIES.--1887.--$4.00.

  I-II. City Government of Philadelphia. By E. P. ALLINSON and B.
      PENROSE. 50 cents.
  III. City Government of Boston. By JAMES M. BUGBER. 25 cents.
  *IV. City Government of St. Louis. By MARSHALL S. SNOW.
  V-VI. Local Government in Canada. By JOHN GEORGE BOURINOT. 50 cents.
  VII. Effect of the War of 1812 upon the American Union. By N. M. BUTLER.
      25 cents.
  VIII. Notes on the Literature of Charities. By HERBERT B. ADAMS.
      25 cents.
  IX. Predictions of Hamilton and De Toqueville. By JAMES BRYCE.
      25 cents.
  X. The Study of History in England and Scotland. By P. FREDERICQ.
      25 cents.
  XI. Seminary Libraries and University Extension. By H. B. ADAMS.
      25 cents.
  *XII. European Schools of History and Politics. By A. D. WHITE.


                      SIXTH SERIES.--1888.--$4.00.

  The History of Co-operation in the United States.


                         SEVENTH SERIES.--1889.

                 (Volume sold only with complete set.)

  I. Arnold Toynbee. By F. C. MONTAGUE. 50 cents.
  II-III. Municipal Government in San Francisco. By BERNARD MOSES.
      50 cents.
  IV. Municipal History of New Orleans. By WM. W. HOWE. 25 cents.
  *V-VI. English Culture in Virginia. By WILLIAM P. TRENT.
  VII-VIII-IX. The River Towns of Connecticut. By CHARLES M. ANDREWS.
      $1.00.
  *X-XI-XII. Federal Government in Canada. By JOHN G. BOURINOT.


                         EIGHTH SERIES.--1890.

                 (Volume sold only with complete set.)

  I-II. The Beginnings of American Nationality. By A. W. SMALL. $1.00.
  III. Local Government in Wisconsin. By D. E. SPENCER. 25 cents.
  *IV. Spanish Colonization in the Southwest. By F. W. BLACKMAR.
  V-VI. The Study of History in Germany and France. By P. FREDERICQ.
      $1.00.
  VII-IX. Progress of the Colored People of Maryland. By J. R. BRACKETT.
      $1.00.
  *X. The Study of History in Belgium and Holland. By P. FREDERICQ.
  XI-XII. Seminary Notes on Historical Literature. By H. B. ADAMS and
      others. 50 cents.


                          NINTH SERIES.--1891.

                 (Volume sold only with complete set.)

  *I-II. Government of the United States. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY and W. F.
      WILLOUGHBY.
  III-IV. University Education in Maryland. By B. C. STEINER.--The
      Johns Hopkins University (1876-1891). By D. C. GILMAN. 50 cents.
  *V-VI. Municipal Unity in the Lombard Communes. By W. K. WILLIAMS.
  VII-VIII. Public Lands of the Roman Republic. By A. STEPHENSON.
      75 cents.
  *IX. Constitutional Development of Japan. By T. IYENAGA.
  *X. A History of Liberia. By J. H. T. MCPHERSON.
  XI-XII. The Indian Trade in Wisconsin. By F. J. TURNER. 50 cents.


                      TENTH SERIES.--1892.--$4.00.

  I. The Bishop Hill Colony. By MICHAEL A. MIKKELSEN. 50 cents.
  II-III. Church and State in New England. By PAUL E. LAUER. 50 cents.
  IV. Church and State in Maryland. By GEORGE PETRIE. 50 cents.
  V-VI. Religious Development of North Carolina. By S. B. WEEKS.
      50 cents.
  VII. Maryland’s Attitude in the Struggle for Canada. By J. W. BLACK.
      50 cents.
  VIII-IX. The Quakers in Pennsylvania. By A. C. APPLEGARTH. 75 cents.
  X-XI. Columbus and his Discovery of America. By H. B. ADAMS and H.
      WOOD. 50 cts.
  XII. Causes of the American Revolution. By J. A. WOODBURN. 50 cents.


                    ELEVENTH SERIES.--1893.--$4.00.

  I. The Social Condition of Labor. By E. R. L. GOULD. 50 cents.
  II. The World’s Representative Assemblies of To-Day. By E. K. ALDEN.
      50 cents.
  III-IV. The Negro in the District of Columbia. By EDWARD INGLE. $1.00.
  V-VI. Church and State in North Carolina. By STEPHEN B. WEEKS.
      50 cents.
  VII-VIII. The Condition of the Western Farmer, etc. By A. F. BENTLEY.
      $1.00.
  IX-X. History of Slavery in Connecticut. By BERNARD C. STEINER.
      75 cents.
  XI-XII. Local Government in the South. By E. W. BEMIS and others.
      $1.00.


                     TWELFTH SERIES.--1894.--$4.00.

  I-II. The Cincinnati Southern Railway. By J. H. HOLLANDER. $1.00.
  III. Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina. By J. S. BASSETT.
      50 cents.
  IV. Struggle of Dissenters for Toleration in Virginia. By H. R.
      MCILWAINE. 50 cents.
  V-VI-VII. The Carolina Pirates and Colonial Commerce. By S. C. HUGHSON.
      $1.00.
  VIII-IX. Representation and Suffrage in Massachusetts. By G. H. HAYNES.
      50 cents.
  X. English Institutions and the American Indian. By J. A. JAMES.
      25 cents.
  XI-XII. International Beginnings of the Congo Free State. By J. S.
      REEVES. 50 cents.


                   THIRTEENTH SERIES.--1895.--$4.00.

  I-II. Government of the Colony of South Carolina. By E. L. WHITNEY.
      75 cents.
  III-IV. Early Relations of Maryland and Virginia. By J. H. LATANÉ.
      50 cents.
  V. The Rise of the Bicameral System in America. By T. F. MORAN.
      50 cents.
  VI-VII. White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia. By J. C. BALLAGH.
      50 cents.
  VIII. The Genesis of California’s First Constitution. By R. D. HUNT.
      50 cents.
  IX. Benjamin Franklin as an Economist. By W. A. WETZEL. 50 cents.
  X. The Provisional Government of Maryland. By J. A. SILVER. 50 cents.
  XI-XII. Government and Religion of the Virginia Indians. By S. R.
      HENDREN. 50 cents.


                   FOURTEENTH SERIES.--1896.--$4.00.

  I. Constitutional History of Hawaii. By HENRY E. CHAMBERS. 25 cents.
  II. City Government of Baltimore. By THADDEUS P. THOMAS. 25 cents.
  III. Colonial Origins of New England Senates. By F. L. RILEY.
      50 cents.
  IV-V. Servitude in the Colony of North Carolina. By J. S. BASSETT.
      50 cents.
  VI-VII. Representation in Virginia. By J. A. C. CHANDLER. 50 cents.
  VIII. History of Taxation in Connecticut (1636-1776). By F. R. JONES.
      50 cents.
  IX-X. A Study of Slavery in New Jersey. By HENRY S. COOLEY. 50 cents.
  XI-XII. Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689. By F. E. SPARKS.
      50 cents.


                    FIFTEENTH SERIES.--1897.--$4.00.

  I-II. The Tobacco Industry in Virginia since 1860. By B. W. ARNOLD.
      50 cents.
  III-V. Street Railway Systems of Philadelphia. By F. W. SPEIRS.
      75 cents.
  VI. Daniel Raymond. By C. P. NEILL. 50 cents.
  VII-VIII. Economic History of B. & O. R. R. By M. REIZENSTEIN.
      50 cents.
  IX. The South American Trade of Baltimore. By F. R. RUTTER. 50 cents.
  X-XI. State Tax Commissions in the United States. By J. W. CHAPMAN.
      50 cents.
  XII. Tendencies in American Economic Thought. By S. SHERWOOD.
      25 cents.


                    SIXTEENTH SERIES.--1898.--$4.00.

  I-IV. The Neutrality of the American Lakes, etc. By J. M. CALLAHAN.
      $1.25. Cloth $1.50.
  V. West Florida. By H. E. CHAMBERS. 25 cents.
  VI. Anti-Slavery Leaders of North Carolina. By J. S. BASSETT. 50 cents.
  VII-IX. Life and Administration of Sir Robert Eden. By B. C. STEINER.
      $1.00.
  X-XI. The Transition of North Carolina from a Colony. By E. W. SIKES.
      50 cents.
  XII. Jared Sparks and Alexis De Tocqueville. By H. B. ADAMS. 25 cents.


                   SEVENTEENTH SERIES.--1899.--$4.00.

  I-II-III. History of State Banking in Maryland. By A. C. BRYAN. $1.00.
  IV-V. The Know-Nothing Party in Maryland. By L. F. SCHMECKEBIER.
      75 cents.
  VI. The Labadist Colony in Maryland. By B. B. JAMES. 50 cents.
  VII-VIII. History of Slavery in North Carolina. By J. S. BASSETT.
      75 cents.
  IX-X-XI. Development of the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. By G. W. WARD.
      75 cents.
  XII. Public Educational Work in Baltimore. By HERBERT B. ADAMS.
      25 cents.


                   EIGHTEENTH SERIES.--1900.--$4.00.

  I-IV. Studies in State Taxation. Edited by J. H. HOLLANDER. Paper
      $1.00; cloth $1.25.
  V-VI. The Colonial Executive Prior to the Restoration. By P. L. KAYE.
      50 cents.
  VII. Constitution and Admission of Iowa into the Union. By J. A. JAMES.
      30 cents.
  VIII-IX. The Church and Popular Education. By H. B. ADAMS. 50 cents.
  X-XII. Religious Freedom in Virginia: The Baptists. By W. T. THOM.
      75 cents.


                   NINETEENTH SERIES.--1901.--$4.00.

  I-III. America in the Pacific and the Far East. By J. M. CALLAHAN.
      75 cents.
  IV-V. State Activities in Relation to Labor. By W. F. WILLOUGHBY.
      50 cents.
  VI-VII. History of Suffrage in Virginia. By J. A. C. CHANDLER.
      50 cents.
  VIII-IX. The Maryland Constitution of 1864. By W. S. MYERS. 50 cents.
  X. Life of Commissary James Blair. By D. E. MOTLEY. 25 cents.
  XI-XII. Gov. Hicks of Maryland and the Civil War. By G. L. RADCLIFFE.
      50 cents.


                    TWENTIETH SERIES.--1902.--$4.00.

  I. Western Maryland in the Revolution. By B. C. STEINER. 30 cents.
  II-III. State Banks since the National Bank Act. By G. E. BARNETT.
      50 cents.
  IV. Early History of Internal Improvement in Alabama. By W. E. MARTIN.
      80 cents.
  *V-VI. Trust Companies in the United States. By GEORGE CATOR.
  VII-VIII. The Maryland Constitution of 1851. By J. W. HARRY. 50 cents.
  IX-X. Political Activities of Philip Freneau. By S. E. FORMAN.
      50 cents.
  XI-XII. Continental Opinion on a Middle European Tariff Union. By
      G. M. FISK. 30 cts.


                  TWENTY-FIRST SERIES.--1903.--$4.00.

  *I-II. The Wabash Trade Route. By E. J. BENTON.
  III-IV. Internal Improvements in North Carolina. By C. C. WEAVER.
      50 cents.
  V. History of Japanese Paper Currency. By M. TAKAKI. 30 cents.
  VI-VII. Economics and Politics in Maryland, 1720-1750, and the Public
      Services of Daniel
  Dulany the Elder. By ST. G. L. SIOUSSAT. 50 cents.
  *VIII-IX-X. Beginnings of Maryland, 1631-1639. By B. C. STEINER.
  XI-XII. The English Statutes in Maryland. By ST. G. L. SIOUSSAT.
      50 cents.


                  TWENTY-SECOND SERIES.--1904.--$4.00.

  I-II. A Trial Bibliography of American Trade-Union Publications.
      50 cents.
  III-IV. White Servitude in Maryland, 1634-1820. By E. I. MCCORMAC.
      50 cents.
  V. Switzerland at the Beginning of the Sixteenth Century. By J. M.
      VINCENT. 30 cents.
  VI-VII-VIII. The History of Reconstruction in Virginia. By H. J.
      ECKENRODE. 50 cents.
  IX-X. The Foreign Commerce of Japan since the Restoration. By Y.
      HATTORI. 50 cts.
  XI-XII. Descriptions of Maryland. By B. C. STEINER. 50 cents.


                  TWENTY-THIRD SERIES.--1905.--$4.00.

  I-II. Reconstruction in South Carolina. By J. P. HOLLIS. 50 cents.
  III-IV. State Government in Maryland, 1777-1781. By B. W. BOND, JR.
      50 cents.
  V-VI. Colonial Administration under Lord Clarendon, 1660-1667. By
      P. L. KAYE. 50 cents.
  VII-VIII. Justice in Colonial Virginia. By O. P. CHITWOOD. 50 cents.
  IX-X. The Napoleonic Exiles in America, 1815-1819. By J. S. REEVES.
      50 cents.
  XI-XII. Municipal Problems in Mediaeval Switzerland. By J. M. VINCENT.
      50 cents.


                  TWENTY-FOURTH SERIES.--1906.--$4.00.

  I-II. Spanish-American Diplomatic Relations before 1898. By H. E.
      FLACK. 50 cents.
  III-IV. The Finances of American Trade Unions. By A. M. SAKOLSKI.
      75 cents.
  V-VI. Diplomatic Negotiations of the United States with Russia. By
      J. C. HILDT. 50 cents.
  VII-VIII. State Rights and Parties in North Carolina, 1776-1831. By
      H. M. WAGSTAFF. 50c.
  IX-X. National Labor Federations in the United States. By WILLIAM KIRK.
      75 cents.
  XI-XII. Maryland During the English Civil Wars, Part I. By B. C.
      STEINER. 50 cents.


                  TWENTY-FIFTH SERIES.--1907.--$4.00.

  I. Internal Taxation in the Philippines. By JOHN S. HORD. 30 cents.
  II-III. The Monroe Mission to France, 1794-1796. By B. W. BOND, JR.
      50 cents.
  IV-V. Maryland During the English Civil Wars, Part II. By BERNARD
      C. STEINER. 50c.
  VI-VII. The State in Constitutional and International Law. By R. T.
      CRANE. 50 cents.
  VIII-IX-X. Financial History of Maryland, 1789-1848. By HUGH S. HANNA.
      75 cents.
  XI-XII. Apprenticeship in American Trade Unions. By J. M. MOTLEY.
      50 cents.


                  TWENTY-SIXTH SERIES.--1908.--$4.00.

  I-III. British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and
      Plantations, 1622-1675. By C. M. ANDREW. 75 cents.
  IV-VI. Neutral Rights and Obligations in the Anglo-Boer War. By R. G.
      CAMPBELL. 75c.
  VII-VIII. The Elizabethan Parish in its Ecclesiastical and Financial
      Aspects. By S. L. WARE. 50 cents.
  IX-X. A Study of the Topography and Municipal History of Praeneste.
      By R. V. D. MAGOFFIN. 50 cents.
  *XI-XII. Beneficiary Features of American Trade Unions. By J. B.
      KENNEDY.


                 TWENTY-SEVENTH SERIES.--1909.--$4.00.

  I-II. The Self-Reconstruction of Maryland, 1864-1867. By W. S. MYERS.
      50 cents.
  III-IV-V. The Development of the English Law of Conspiracy. By J. W.
      BRYAN. 75 cents.
  VI-VII. Legislative and Judicial History of the Fifteenth Amendment.
      By J. M. MATHEWS. 75 cents.
  VIII-XII. England and the French Revolution, 1789-1797. By W. T.
      LAPRADE. $1.00.


                  TWENTY-EIGHTH SERIES.--1910.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. History of Reconstruction in Louisiana (Through 1868). By J. R.
      FICKLEN. $1.00.
  II. The Trade Union Label. By E. R. SPEDDEN. 50 cents.
  III. The Doctrine of Non-Suability of the State in the United States.
      By K. SINGEWALD. 50 cents; cloth 75 cents.
  IV. David Ricardo: A Centenary Estimate. By J. H. HOLLANDER. $1.00.


                  TWENTY-NINTH SERIES.--1911.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in three numbers.)

  I. Maryland Under the Commonwealth: A Chronicle of the years 1649-1658.
      By B. C. STEINER. $1.00; cloth $1.25.
  II. The Dutch Republic and the American Revolution. By FRIEDRICH EDLER.
      $1.50; cloth $1.75.
  *III. The Closed Shop in American Trade Unions. By F. T. STOCKTON.


                    THIRTIETH SERIES.--1912.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in three numbers.)

  I. Recent Administration in Virginia. By F. A. MAGRUDER. $1.25.
  II. The Standard Rate in American Trade Unions. By D. A. MCCABE. $1.25;
      cloth $1.50.
  III. Admission to American Trade Unions. By F. E. WOLFE. $1.00.


                  THIRTY-FIRST SERIES.--1913.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. The Land System in Maryland, 1720-1765. By CLARENCE P. GOULD.
      75 cents; cloth $1.00.
  II. The Government of American Trade Unions. By T. W. GLOCKER. $1.00;
      cloth $1.25.
  III. The Free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865. By J. H. RUSSELL. $1.00;
      cloth $1.25.
  IV. The Quinquennales: An Historical Study. By R. V. D. MAGOFFIN.
      50 cents; cloth 75 cents.


                  THIRTY-SECOND SERIES.--1914.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in three numbers.)

  I. Jurisdiction in American Building-Trades Unions. By N. R. WHITNEY.
      $1.00.
  II. Slavery in Missouri, 1804-1865. By H. A. TREXLER. $1.25.
  III. Colonial Trade of Maryland. By M. S. MORRISS. $1.00; cloth $1.25.


                  THIRTY-THIRD SERIES.--1915.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. Money and Transportation in Maryland, 1720-1765. By CLARENCE P.
      GOULD. 75 cents;
  cloth $1.00.
  II. The Financial Administration of the Colony of Virginia. By PERCY
      SCOTT FLIPPIN. 50 cents; cloth 75 cents.
  III. The Helper and American Trade Unions. By JOHN H. ASHWORTH.
      75 cents.
  IV. The Constitutional Doctrines of Justice Harlan. By FLOYD BAREILIA
      CLARK. $1.00; cloth $1.25.


                  THIRTY-FOURTH SERIES.--1916.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. The Boycott in American Trade Unions. By LEO WOLMAN. $1.00.
  II. The Postal Power of Congress. By LINDSAY ROGERS. $1.00.
  III. The Control of Strikes in American Trade Unions. By G. M. JANES.
      75 cents; cloth $1.00.
  IV. State Administration in Maryland. By JOHN L. DONALDSON. $1.00;
      cloth $1.25.


                  THIRTY-FIFTH SERIES.--1917.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in three numbers.)

  I. The Virginia Committee System and the American Revolution. By
      J. M. LEAKE. $1.00; cloth $1.25.
  II. The Organizability of Labor. By W. O. WEYFORTH. $1.50.
  III. Party Organization and Machinery in Michigan since 1890. By
      A. C. MILLSPAUGH. $1.00; cloth $1.25.


                  THIRTY-SIXTH SERIES.--1918.--$4.00.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. The Standard of Living in Japan. By K. MORIMOTO. $1.25.
  II. Sumptuary Law in Nurnberg. K. R. GREENFIELD. $1.25; cloth $1.50.
  III. The Privileges and Immunities of State Citizenship. By R. HOWELL.
      $1.00; cloth $1.25.
  IV. French Protestantism, 1559-1562. By C. G. KELLY. $1.25;
      cloth $1.50.


                 THIRTY-SEVENTH SERIES.--1919.--$4.25.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. Unemployment and American Trade Unions. By D. P. SMELSER, JR. $1.25.
  II. The Labor Law of Maryland. By M. H. LAUCHHEIMER. $1.25; cloth
      $1.50.
  III. The American Colonization Society, 1817-1840. By E. L. FOX. $2.00;
      cloth $2.25.
  IV. The Obligation of Contracts Clause of the United States
      Constitution. By W. B. HUNTING. $1.00; cloth $1.25.


                  THIRTY-EIGHTH SERIES.--1920.--$4.25.

                      (Complete in three numbers.)

  I. The United States Department of Agriculture. By W. L. WANLASS.
      $1.25; cloth $1.75.
  II. The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers. By
      J. S. ROBINSON. $1.50; cloth $2.00.
  III. The Employment of the Plebiscite in the Determination of
      Sovereignty. By J. MATTERN. $1.50.


                   THIRTY-NINTH SERIES--1921.--$5.75.

                      (Complete in three numbers.)

  I. The Capitalization of Goodwill. By KEMPER SIMPSON. $1.00.
  II. The Rise of the Cotton Mills in the South. By BROADUS MITCHELL.
      $2.50.
  III. The International Molders’ Union of North America. By FRANK T.
      STOCKTON. $1.50.


                    FORTIETH SERIES.--1922.--$5.75.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. The Presidential Campaign of 1832. By SAMUEL R. GAMMON, JR. $1.50.
  II. The Canadian Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. By C. C. TANSILL. $1.00
  III. Recent Problems in Admiralty Jurisdiction. By EDGAR T. FELL.
      $1.25.
  IV. The Creation of the Presidency, 1775-1789: A Study in
      Constitutional History. By CHARLES C. THACH, JR. $1.50.


                   FORTY-FIRST SERIES.--1923.--$5.75.

                      (Complete in four numbers.)

  I. Paper Money in Maryland, 1727-1789. By KATHRYN L. BEHRENS. $1.00.
  II. The Shop Committee in the United States. By CARROL E. FRENCH.
      $1.25.
  III. Bavaria and the Reich: The Conflict over the Law for the
      Protection of the Republic. By J. MATTERN. $1.25.
  IV. James Henry Hammond, 1807-1864. By ELIZABETH MERRITT. $1.50.


The set of forty-one series of Studies is offered, uniformly bound in
cloth, for library use for $170.00 net. The separate volumes may also
be had bound in cloth at the prices stated. Current subscription price
$5.00 in parts as issued.




                        EXTRA VOLUMES OF STUDIES

                                   IN

                    HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE


          Those marked with an asterisk (*) are out of print.

     *I. The Republic of New Haven. By CHARLES H. LEVERMORE, Ph. D.
           342 pages.
     II. Philadelphia, 1681-1887. By EDWARD P. ALLINSON, A. M., and
           BOIES PENROSE, A. B. 444 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00.
   *III. Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861. By GEORGE WILLIAM
           BROWN. 176 pages.
     IV. Local Constitutional History of the United States. By GEORGE
           E. HOWARD, Ph. D.--Volume I--Development of the Township,
           Hundred and Shire. 542 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00.
     VI. The Negro in Maryland. By JEFFERY R. BRACKETT, Ph. D. 270 pages.
           8vo. Cloth. $2.00.
    VII. The Supreme Court of the United States. By W. W. WILLOUGHBY,
           Ph. D. 124 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25.
   VIII. The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan. By INAZO (OTA)
           NITOBE, Ph. D. 198 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25.
    *IX. State and Federal Government in Switzerland. By JOHN MARTIN
           VINCENT, Ph. D. 250 pages.
      X. Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. By FRANK W. BLACKMAR,
           Ph. D. 380 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00.
     XI. An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution. By MORRIS
           M. COHN. 250 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50.
    XII. The Old English Manor. By C. M. ANDREWS, Ph. D. 280 pages.
           8vo. Cloth. $1.50.
  *XIII. America: Its Geographical History, 1492-1892. By WALTER B.
           SCAIFE, Ph. D. 176 pages.
   *XIV. Florentine Life During the Renaissance. By WALTER B. SCAIFE,
           Ph. D.
    *XV. The Southern Quakers and Slavery. By STEPHEN B. WEEKS, Ph. D.
           414 pages.
   *XVI. Contemporary American Opinion of the French Revolution. By C.
           D. HAZEN, Ph. D. 325 pages.
   XVII. Industrial Experiments in the British Colonies of North America.
           By ELEANOR L. LORD. 164 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25.
  XVIII. State Aid to Higher Education: A Series of Addresses at the
           Johns Hopkins University. 100 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.00.
    XIX. Irrigation in Utah. By C. H. BROUGH, Ph. D. 228 pages.
     XX. Financial History of Baltimore. By J. H. HOLLANDER, Ph. D.
           400 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00.
    XXI. Cuba and International Relations. By J. M. CALLAHAN, Ph. D.
           503 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00.
   XXII. The American Workman. By E. LEVASSEUR (translation). 540 pages.
           8vo. Cloth. $3.00.
  XXIII. Herbert B. Adams. A Memorial Volume. 232 pages. 8vo. Cloth.
           $1.00.
   XXIV. A History of Slavery in Virginia. By J. C. BALLAGH, Ph. D.
           160 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.75.
    XXV. The Finances and Administration of Providence, 1636-1901. By
           HOWARD K. STOKES. 474 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.50.
   XXVI. The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. By HORACE E. FLACK,
           Ph. D. 286 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00.


                              NEW SERIES.

     *I. The Revision and Amendment of State Constitutions. By W. F.
           DODD, Ph. D. 368 pages.
     II. The Ordinance Power of the Japanese Emperor. By TAMIO NAKANO,
           Ph. D. 288 pages. 8vo. $2.50.

Orders may be placed with any bookseller or sent direct to the
publishers.

                                      THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS,
                                           BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, U. S. A.




                          The Ordinance Power
                                _of the_
                            Japanese Emperor


                                   By
                          TOMIO NAKANO, Ph. D.

                    288 pages, cloth, octavo, $2.50


The present Japanese Government is today the best example of a monarchy
in which extensive constitutional powers are vested in the Crown.
A critical examination of this Government, from the juristic and
political points of view is, therefore, of especial interest both to
students of public law and to those who desire an understanding of the
public policies and political methods of Japan. Such an examination has
been made by Dr. Nakano in the present volume, for, so wide are the
ordinance powers of the Emperor, a study of them in all their phases
necessitates a general consideration of the more important features of
the entire Japanese constitutional system. Dr. Nakano’s conclusions are
stated without reservation or undue regard for such opinions current in
his country as he believes erroneous. As a result, the reader is given
an insight into Japanese constitutional and political thought which
cannot readily be elsewhere obtained.


                        THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS,
                     Baltimore, Maryland, U. S. A.




Transcriber’s Note:

Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
this_. Those in bold are surrounded by equal signs, =like this=.
Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the end of the
chapter. Inconsistent hyphenation was not changed. Obvious printing
errors, such as backwards, upside down, or partially printed letters
and punctuation, were corrected. Unprinted accents, punctuation, and
final stops were added. Duplicate letters and punctuation were removed.

March 11, 1935 was changed to March 11, 1535, in footnote [389].