Jesuits' historiographic canon in the works of A. Wijuk-Koialowicz in the age of the historical revolution (1580-1661) = Jėzuitų istoriografinis kanonas A. Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus darbuose istorijos revoliucijos laikotarpiu (1580-1661) : doctoral dissertation 9984143392

182 2 1MB

English Pages 181 Year 2011

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Jesuits' historiographic canon in the works of A. Wijuk-Koialowicz in the age of the historical revolution (1580-1661) = Jėzuitų istoriografinis kanonas A. Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus darbuose istorijos revoliucijos laikotarpiu (1580-1661) : doctoral dissertation
 9984143392

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
INTRODUCTION
I. EUROPEAN JESUITS' HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON
I.1. FOUR PARAMETERS FOR THE DEFINITION OF A JESUITS’ HISTORIOGRAPHY
I.1.1 Eduard Fueter’s Criteria
I.1.2. Humanist Historiography as the “Origin” of the Modern One.
I.1.3. Re-Definition of the First Parameter: Permanence of the Scholasticism in the Neo-Platonism
I.1.4. Re-Definition of the Second and Third Parameters: the Non-Opposition to the Pagan Values Tradition
I.1.5. Re-Definition of the Fourth Parameter: Rhetoric as a Method
I.2.1. Making history For the Major Glory of God (and Roman Church)
I.2.2. Making History to Preserve Values: Jesuits and the New Political Doctrines
I.2.3. The Cartesian Opposition to Memory
I.3. JESUITS HISTORIOGRAPHY IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE
I.3.1. General Traits of Jesuits’ Historiography
I.3.2. Jesuit Historiographers
I.3.3. Piotr Skarga and Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza – The Two Phases of Jesuits’ Historiography
I.3.4. Definition of History in the Ratio Atque Insitutio Studiorum
I.4. ANTONIO POSSEVINO: THE DEFINITION OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON
I.4.1. Possevino's Moscovia
I.4.2. The Bibliotheca Selecta: a Project of Historiographic Canon
II. KOIALOWICZ AS A JESUIT HISTORIAN
II.1. FOUR UNIONIST WORKS: SKARGA'S SERMONS TO THE DIET, POSSEVINO’S MOSCOVIA AND KOIALOWICZ’S FIRST BOOK OF HISTORIAE LITUANAE AND MISCELLANEA RERUM
II.1.1. The “Polemical” Method of Skarga
II.1.2 Unionism in Possevino and Koialowicz: Historiae Lituanae as Implementation of the Moscovia’s Theories.
II.1.3. Unitarism in Koialowicz’s Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium
II.2. KOIALOWICZ'S HISTORIAE LITUANAE IN THE FRAME OF THE JESUITS HISTORIOGRAPHY
II.2.1. The Portrait of Mindaugas in Koialowicz: Between the structure of Stryjkowski and the Philosophy of Mariana
II.2.2. Historiae Lituanae and Historiae de rebus Hispaniae: Outlines for a Comparative Study
II.3. ADAM TANNER, MARTIN BECAN AND ALBERT WIJUK-KOIALOWICZ: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHES FROM BOHEMIA TO LITHUANIA
II.3.1. Rhetoric as Means of Education
II.3.2. The Historical Context: a Force that Shapes Consciences
II.3.3. The Second Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Religious and Political
II.3.4. The Third Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Moral and Gnoseologic
CONCLUSIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
SOURCES
LITERATURE
PUBLICATIONS ON THE DISSERTATION THEME

Citation preview

VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY THE LITHUANIAN INSTITUTE OF HISTORY

Moreno BONDA

JESUITS' HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON IN THE WORKS OF A. WIJUK-KOIALOWICZ IN THE AGE OF THE HISTORICAL REVOLUTION (1580-1661)

Doctoral Dissertation

HUMANITIES, HISTORY (05 H)

Kaunas, 2011

The doctoral dissertation was prepared at Vytautas Magnus University in 2006–2011. The doctoral study license is granted to Vytautas Magnus University together with the Lithuanian Institute of History by resolution No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the 15th of July, 2003.

Scientific supervisor: Prof. habil. dr. Egidijus Aleksandravičius (Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History 05 H)

2

CONTENTS FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 6 I. EUROPEAN JESUITS' HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON ..................................................................... 32 I.1. FOUR PARAMETERS FOR THE DEFINITION OF A JESUITS’ HISTORIOGRAPHY ..................... 33 I.1.1 Eduard Fueter’s Criteria .................................................................................................................... 33 I.1.2. Humanist Historiography as the “Origin” of the Modern One. ........................................... 36 I.1.3. Re-Definition of the First Parameter: Permanence of the Scholasticism in the NeoPlatonism .......................................................................................................................................................... 39 I.1.4. Re-Definition of the Second and Third Parameters: the Non-Opposition to the Pagan Values Tradition............................................................................................................................................. 44 I.1.5. Re-Definition of the Fourth Parameter: Rhetoric as a Method........................................... 48 I.2. THE PLACE OF HISTORY IN 17TH CENTURY “ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCES” .......................... 52 I.2.1. Making history For the Major Glory of God (and Roman Church) ..................................... 52 I.2.2. Making History to Preserve Values: Jesuits and the New Political Doctrines ............... 54 I.2.3. The Cartesian Opposition to Memory .......................................................................................... 63 I.3. JESUITS HISTORIOGRAPHY IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE ............................................................. 70 I.3.1. General Traits of Jesuits’ Historiography ................................................................................... 71 I.3.2. Jesuit Historiographers .................................................................................................................... 77 I.3.3. Piotr Skarga and Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza – The Two Phases of Jesuits’ Historiography................................................................................................................................................ 85 I.3.4. Definition of History in the Ratio Atque Insitutio Studiorum............................................... 89 I.4. ANTONIO POSSEVINO: THE DEFINITION OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON ...................... 93 I.4.1. Possevino's Moscovia ......................................................................................................................... 93 I.4.2. The Bibliotheca Selecta: a Project of Historiographic Canon ............................................ 102

II. KOIALOWICZ AS A JESUIT HISTORIAN .....................................................................................108 II.1. FOUR UNIONIST WORKS: SKARGA'S SERMONS TO THE DIET, POSSEVINO’S MOSCOVIA AND KOIALOWICZ’S FIRST BOOK OF HISTORIAE LITUANAE AND MISCELLANEA RERUM ....... 109 II.1.1. The “Polemical” Method of Skarga ........................................................................................... 113 II.1.2 Unionism in Possevino and Koialowicz: Historiae Lituanae as Implementation of the Moscovia’s Theories. .................................................................................................................................. 114 II.1.3. Unitarism in Koialowicz’s Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium .............................................................................................................. 122 II.2. KOIALOWICZ'S HISTORIAE LITUANAE IN THE FRAME OF THE JESUITS HISTORIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 127 II.2.1. The Portrait of Mindaugas in Koialowicz: Between the structure of Stryjkowski and the Philosophy of Mariana....................................................................................................................... 128 II.2.2. Historiae Lituanae and Historiae de rebus Hispaniae: Outlines for a Comparative Study ................................................................................................................................................................ 134 II.3. ADAM TANNER, MARTIN BECAN AND ALBERT WIJUK-KOIALOWICZ: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHES FROM BOHEMIA TO LITHUANIA ....................................................... 140 II.3.1. Rhetoric as Means of Education ................................................................................................ 145 II.3.2. The Historical Context: a Force that Shapes Consciences ................................................ 148

3

II.3.3. The Second Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Religious and Political153 II.3.4. The Third Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Moral and Gnoseologic . 158

CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................165 ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................................................168 SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................168 LITERATURE ...........................................................................................................................................171 PUBLICATIONS ON THE DISSERTATION THEME ........................................................................181

4

FOREWORD

This Doctoral work might appear too similar to a historiography handbook than to a monographic research because of its approach to the object studied. Some will claim there is too much theory in it and not enough work in the archives. However, the main aim of a Doctoral research is to plug gaps being original and „useful.“ For this reason, and since all previous works on the subject are very vast in terms of archive research and philological analysis but very poor in terms of philosophical contextualization of the problem, we decide to adopt this second, peculiar, approach even if it is unusual for a doctoral research.

5

INTRODUCTION

The Field of Research. 'Sometimes, the modern thought even seams to dissolve in the history. […] The History not only has acquired its own autonomy but the historical knowledge is now knowledge of the truth'. 1 With these two short sentences, Federico Chabod pointed out, in his Lessons of Historical Method, the relevance, in the coeval thought, of the history as an instrument of knowledge in its widest sense. According to this scholar, not only the modern identities, but also the whole modern thought is impregnated with historical reflection. However, the phenomenon is not exclusively contemporary. Particularly during the Antiquity and Middle Ages, the philosophic reflection was imbued with history even if the latter was subordinated to ethic and theology: the dawn of humanity delimited the beginning of a process due to conclude with the accomplishment of the biblical prophecy. 2 By the end of the 13th century, even the heritage of the Roman history had been incorporated in the frame of a history guided by the divine providence where the unification of the known world was due to prepare the descent of Christ among the men (see §I.2.1.). Nevertheless, it is only with the sunset of the medieval forma mentis, which subordinated every aspect of life to the religion, that history begins to be partially freed from the subjection to morals and the theology. This acquired autonomy stimulated the historical debate and, in turn, the elaboration of a historical method that finally evolved in a philosophy of history. It is only with the Humanism that history becomes an autonomous discipline, independent from the high purposes of the ethic and the theology. Yet, even after the 16th century, while the autonomy of history had been fully achieved by Humanists, some Christian historians continued to understand the study of the past, and particularly its narrative, as an instrument more than a process. According to these Christian scholars of the 15th, 16th and early 17th centuries, the great efforts exerted by Christians since the fall of the Roman Empire to make history the vox Dei, could not be wasted during the ideological conflicts of the modern ages: while it is true that, on one hand, the modern thought sometimes seems to dissolve in history, on the other hand, the challenges put out by the new religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield (§ I.2.2. and § I.2.3.). Such an ideological and philosophical confrontation in the arena of history became particularly intricate during the first half of the 17th century. In the context of the doctrinal debate, the Protestants developed a historiography characterized by the marked influence of the biblical

1

Chabod Federico, Lezioni di metodo storico, Bari, Laterza, 1969, p. 9. To confirm this statement it is sufficient to consider the importance of history in the German Idealism of Hegel or in the Italian one of Croce. 2 Ivi. p.10.

6

precepts and thus oriented toward the purity and simplicity of the origins. On the contrary, the Catholic historians were leaned towards a historiographic approach meant to depict, by the means of its narrative, the accomplishment of the Christian message through time. Therefore, while the formers used historical narrative to demonstrate the well of the origins, the latter anticipated the achievement of the end of history. It is obvious that the two different forms of history-making were directly influenced by the different religious doctrines (§II.3.3. and §I.2.3.). 3 Similarly, history was tightly connected with the practical philosophy and particularly the political one. The forming of the national states, and the importance acquired by the civil and political dimensions during the Renaissance 4 induced the philosophers to reflect about the nature of the power and the aim of the state. They were often looking for technical norms in the examples of the past. This approach, while apparently coherent with the Scholastic doctrine, evolved in a direction immediately perceived by the Church as dangerous and insidious: it was the doctrine that could be labeled as political realism. 5 As a matter of fact, the concept of virtue, 6 the human capability to control the effects of fate thanks to the knowledge of the (cyclic) events of history, tended to substitute the fundamental role of the providence taught by the Christian conception of history. 7 The moral and doctrinal implications of this new understanding of the paste were obviously perceived as a danger by the Catholic Church especially for their political ramification (for a more detailed discussion of this subject, see §I.1.4, §I.2.2 and §II.3.3.). 8 3

For an extensive debate about this subject see Ambroise Jobert (ed.), De Luther à Mohila: la Pologne dans la crise de la chrétienté, 1517-1648, Paris, Institut d'études slaves, 1974. While this collection of studies focuses on the Polish situation, most of the theoretical premises apply tho the whole area of influence of the Protestant Reformation. This is especially true with regards to the nexus between the doctrinal debate and the use of history for this purpose. 4 A valuable study on such processes as well as a representative research about a specific case is offered in Kuolys Darius, Res Lituana. Kunigaikštystės Bendrija, vol. I, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2009. Very useful to understand the new debate about the formation of the national states in that period are the bibliographic sources mentioned in this work. 5 About this subject see Jacobelli Jader, Machiavelli e Guicciardini: alle radici del realismo politico, Milano, Mursia, 1998. 6 Of course, we are principally referring to Machiavelli and the conception of history defined in The Prince. According to Machiavelli, history should be the source of examples for every action of a politician. History provides the objective data on which the decisions have to be based that is, the models to be imitated. This idea is funded on the postulate of the cyclic nature of history. However, it is the notion of virtue, as the ability to balance the influence of the fortune, to drift him away from a deterministic ideology creating a contrast with the Christian doctrine that used to see in the fate the inscrutable will of God. See Jacobelli Jader, Op. cit., p.13. 7 It is worth to mention in this context the emblematic commixture between historical thinking and the elaboration of a sort of realism in Jean Bodin. His defense of the superiority of the politic over every other aspect of the life of a nation (including religion) represents a serious challenge to the values elaborated by the Church basing on a philosophy (the Scholastic) that perfectly harmonized the historical reflection with the Christian dogma. See in particular the eight chapter of Jean Bodin, “Sei libri sullo stato”, in Cambiano Giuseppe and Mori Massimo (eds.), Storia e antologia della filosofia, vol. 2, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2002, p. 758 - 761. 8 The political realism was perceived as a particular dangerous doctrine especially for the analogies with a similar realism spread among Protestant. Considerations of religious nature induced Luther himself to elaborate a sort of realism that attributes to the civil authority the only function of crime repression. This kind of realism, even if elaborated on a different background from that of Machiavelli, constituted a radical deviation from the Catholic ideology. An illustrative passage in which this form of realism emerges might be found in Luther’s writing about the secular authority: ‘and if in the whole world there would be only true Christians than kings and princes would not be necessary anymore [...] because everybody would have the Holy Spirit in his hart.” “However”, continues Luther, “the

7

The picture became even more intricate when the Cartesian opposition between reason and memory insinuated in the historical debate. 9 While such debate had to be framed in the process of scientific reformation of the 17th century, the ultimate cause of the dispute on history had to be seen in the European diffusion of the Cartesian thought within areas of the knowledge where the analytical method was not supposed to be employed. There was, in fact, a tight connection between the method elaborated by René Descartes and his “encyclopedia of the sciences”. The certitude, aim of the Cartesian method, can be reached only analyzing ‘simple natures’, 10 that is, objects known by the means of an immediate intuition of the mind. Therefore, the certitude of the knowledge is guaranteed by the rigor of the method and the simplicity of the objects it is applied to. 11 By consequence, this conformation excluded from the catalogue of sciences (defined as subjects susceptible of knowledge) all the disciplines which might have been defined as complex, that is, not based on elementary objects likewise geometry and algebra. Moreover, and this is the most relevant aspect for the purpose of this research, this theoretical approach defined as nonsciences all the subjects related to memory which, for its nature itself, cannot come to a rigorous certitude. From this postulate originates, in Descartes, the dichotomy between reason and memory. This opposition influenced the historiographic debate. It became in the 17th century the base of every consideration about the possibility to know the historical facts and the level of certitude reachable. The educated people of the Christian society immediately perceived the danger of the spread of the Cartesian method. It was in 1619 that Descartes discovered ‘the fundamentals of an admirable science’, 12 and when the Discours de la méthode was finally published (1637), Descartes had already picked up the reputation of innovator as well as that of merciless critic of the Scholastic philosophy. He was part of the koiné of intellectuals with whom corresponded, discussed, and which had formulated expectations about him. Already in 1628 he was asked to write the Histoire de son esprit. 13 For that reason, it is clear that not only he himself was conscious

Holy Spirit in not operating in the secular matters: here are the behaviors of the men to decide the events’. See Cambiano Giuseppe and Mori Massimo, Op. cit., p. 752 - 754. 9 About the influence of the Cartesian method on the philosophy of history of the 17th century and its evolution toward a sort of new pyrrhonism, the essential reference is Borghero Carlo, La certezza e la storia. Cartesianesimo, pirronismo e conoscenza storica, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1983. See also Borghero Carlo, Conoscenza e metodo della storia da Cartesio a Voltaire, Torino, Loescher, 1990. While the first research focuses mainly on the theoretical debate about history, the second tries to define the influence of the modern scientific thought on the development of the historical method. 10 Descartes René, Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la verité dans les sciences, Leyde, Ian Maire, 1637. The edition we refer to is Lucia Urbani Ulivi (ed), Cartesio. Discorso sul metodo, Milano, Bompiani, 2002. See p. 20 of this edition for an introduction to the idea of “simple natures”. 11 Ivi., p. 129 - 147. 12 Ibid., p. 10. 13 Ibid., p. 12.

8

of the revolutionary significance of his thought and its opposition to the Scholastics: the European intellectuals were aware of it too. At that time, it was the Scholastics that represented the dominating and undisputed culture, not only in universities, but in the ecclesiastical hierarchy too. In fact, Scholastics had provided the Christianity with the philosophical skeleton subsequently perfectly harmonized with the Catholic dogma. By consequence, the Cartesian opposition to the Scholastic threatened to undermine the cultural language of the Church. The ecclesiastic historiography could not avoid, during the first half of the 17th century, the confrontation with this philosophical doctrine (see § I.2.3.) and its roots – the Renaissance scepticism. Summing up, it is clear that the historical debate during the last two decades of the 16th and the first half of the 17th centuries was associated with political thought, doctrinal disputes, scientific ideologies and morals (see § II.3.). The fate of the “science of history” would have determined the destiny of the rules of the morals, the preservation of the Scholastic as the cultural language of the Church and thus the historical role of the Church itself. It is with history as the ideological battlefield described above that this study deals. This is the ideological frame in which the analysis of Jesuit’s historiography is carried out in this research.

Chronological limits of the research. Even if it is with the spread of the Cartesian thought in scientific spheres not supposed to be dependent on the “Method” that the climax of the crisis of history was reached, 14 the so-called “revolution of historical though” had already begun almost a century before during the last two decades of the 16th century. It was Smith F. Fussner who defined the period 1580-1640 as the age of the English historical revolution, 15 but a deeper analysis of the European debate on the subject authorizes to adopt these dates as a valid chronological framework for the whole continent with reference to the historical writings. 16 14

Actually, it is possible to individuate two phases of propagation and proliferation of the Cartesian method in the field of history: the first one, approximately 1619 - 1637, coincides with the philosophical production of Descartes himself. The second period can be represented by the evolution and concrete application of the Cartesian method in the historical research and its theorization (it is a period that lasts at least until the first half of the 18th century). See Borghero Carlo, Conoscenza e metodo..., Op. cit. p.12-21. Particularly representative of this second period is Nicolas Malebranche. In his Recherche de la vérité (1674) he provides the most clear implementation of the Cartesian logic asserting that the true sciences cannot rely on pseudo-sciences like philology or the study of ancient languages or even history. The whole book is a manifesto of the new scientific thought: the uncompromising assumption of the opposition between memory and reason. From the words of Malebranche it unfolds the wide spread revival of Augustine condemnation of the interest for the vain and inquisitive sciences among the European philosophers. See Malebranche Nicolas, De la recherche de la vérité. Où l'on traite de la Nature de l'Esprit de l'homme, & de l'usage qù l en doit faire pour éviter l'erreur dans les Sciences, Paris, Christophe David, 1674. We refer to the edition Garin Maria (ed.), Nicolas Malebranche. La ricerca della verità, Roma, Laterza, 2007. 15 Fussner F. Smith, The Historical Revolution: English historical writing and thought, 1580 -1640, Wesport, Greenwood Press, 1967 (first edition: London, Routledge and Paul, 1962). 16 See chapter §I.2. for a more detailed definition of the European dimension of the debate. To anticipate the demonstration of the amplitude of the querelle, it should be enough to mention the observations of Pier Gassendi (France) about the historical or experimental science; the canonization of the historical pyrrhonism in François La

9

The phenomenon of the historical revolution had been partially delineated and understood from the anthropological perspective by Henri Lefebvre who labeled it as "end of history". 17 Even if the research perspective of the French scholar is slightly different from that of Fussner, it is significant that the chronological limits of the two studies tend to coincide. It is clear that many scholars have perceived in that period a significant revision of the philosophy of history. A slightly wider chronological framework has been adopted by Carlo Borgero to analyze the same debate from the philosophical point of view: 18 he decided to extend his study to the period of the Enlightenment in order to show the diachronic development of the debate. In the same way, Robert J.W. Evans approached the topic, as part of a study in intellectual history, with a comparative method, but unlike the Italian scholar he drew parallels between different geographical realities in Europe. 19 By doing this, Evans aimed to show the breadth of the intellectual mobility and the spread of philosophical debates in a much-interconnected Europe than the medieval or ancient one. The fact that Europe was deeply interconnected before and during the period of the religious struggles is undisputed. 20 As a matter of fact, not only the nobles used to travel from a court to another, but, with many others people, also diplomats, merchants, intellectuals, and missionaries were crossing the continent for disparate reasons. 21 Descartes too planned a journey across Europe but eventually went no further than Germany and Sweden. Nonetheless, his philosophy reached the borders of the Christianity. It is interesting that the spread of Descartes’ theory about memory (and, thus, about history) founded its specular version in the definition of the aim and function of history in the works of the Jesuit Antonio Possevino (see § I.4.2). After his missions in North Italy and France, the papal legate was sent to Muscovy in order to carry out a diplomatic duty: set the basis for a truce in the Livonian war. However, hidden under the intermediation duty there was a religious task: to prepare

Mothe Le Vayer (France); Cornelis Jansen (the Netherlands) attempt to restore the historical authority of the Christian doctrine with the theories expounded in his Augustinus; The efforts of John Craig (Scotland) to apply the theory of statistical probability to the historical research to re-establish history among sciences; Johann Eisenhart (Germany) research for a Scientia Fidei Historicae; Antonio Possevino (Italy) definition of history as ordinating criterion of the human knowledge; the definition of a correspondence between the moral certitude and the historical one in Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza (Spain). 17 Lefebvre Henri, La fin de l'histoire, Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1970. We used the Italian translation La fine della storia: epilegomeni, Sugar, Milano 1970. 18 Borghero Carlo, Conoscenza e metodo... Op. cit., p. 5. 19 Evans Robert J.W., Rudolf 2nd and His World: A Study in Intellectual History: 1576-1612, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973. 20 Ivi., p. 18-19. 21 See the illustrative example of Vilnius in the study of Briedis Laimonas, Vilnius City of Strangers, Vilnius, Baltos Lankos, 2008. In this book a city that most scholars would have considered to be at the border of Europe is depicted as an active crossroads connected with the whole Europe.

10

the field for the union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (see § II.1.2). 22 Both the political and the religious missions failed, but Possevino had exerted a much remarkable and durable influence on the philosophical debate about history, religion, politic and morals. It is during this journey (and throughout the following decade) that Possevino elaborated and divulged his theories about history as a mean to organize the human knowledge and educate the new generations of politicians in the respect of the Christian dogma and morals (§I.4.2.). It was a program of education in evident opposition to the new science of power derived from the commixture of Protestant Reformation, Cartesian philosophy and the Renaissance political ideas. The ideas of Possevino were the product of decades of philosophical reflection upon history in the Society of Jesus and his canonization of these thinking had been so pervasive that thirty years after the publishing of his theoretical manual Bibliotheca Selecta, 23 the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz

24

gave to

print the concrete implementation of Possevino precepts and Jesuits’ main current of thought about history: the first book of Historiae Lituanae, a symbol of Jesuits’ understanding of the meaning and function of history. It is meaningful that the journey of Possevino begun in 1580 and the printing of the book of A. W. Koialowicz is dated 1650. This is an eloquent correspondence between the chronological limits of this study and the period Fussner defined as revolutionary for the philosophy of history. A further demonstration of the relevance of the period 1580 - 1650 for the evolution of the philosophy of history in Europe is provided by the research of Francesco Gui about the Bohemian insurrection. 25 In the attempt to better define the cultural and intellectual implications that lead and fomented the insurrection of 1618, Gui defines chronological limits close to those selected in the above-mentioned studies. His decision to frame the insurrection in a similar but slightly wider context, both chronological and geographical, is due to the fact that most of the political and intellectual debates of the period originated from the spread of the 16th century political and scientific philosophy and were the products of a European rather than a local debate. The Object of the Research. Particularly relevant in the work of F. Gui, is the perspective chosen to analyze the Bohemian insurrection: Jesuits’ historical works describing and commenting the

The religious aspects of Possevino mission have been thoroughly investigate by Polčin Stanislas, La mission religieuse du pere Antoine Possevin S.J. en Moscovie (1581-152), Roma, Tipografia Universitaria Gregoriana, 1957. 23 Possevino Antonio, Bibliotheca selecta qua agitur de ratione studiorum in historia, in disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda, cum diplomate Clementis VIII Pont. Max., Romae, ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, 1593. The edition we will refer has been published in Coloniae Agrippae, apud Joannem Gymnicum sub Monocente, 1607. However, most of the quotation about this work are taken from the research of Biondi Albano, “La Bibliotheca Selecta di Antonio Possevino. Un progetto di egemonia culturale,” Brizzi Gian Paolo (ed.), La ‘Ratio Studiorum’. Modelli culturali e pratiche educative dei Gesuiti in Italia tra Cinque e Seicento, Roma, Bulzoni, 1981 24 For the transcription of the name we will use the one defined by Vincas Gidžiūnas as one of the many acceptable variants. See Gidžiūnas Viktoras, “Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius. Lietuvos istorikas 1609-1677”, in Rėklaitienė K. Janina (ed.), Lituanistikos instituto 1977 metų suvažiavimo darbai, Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1978, p.84. 25 Gui Francesco, I gesuiti e la rivoluzione boema, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989. 22

11

event. 26 This approach is not surprising. It is obvious to individuate in the Catholic reaction to the Protestant Reformation one of the most interesting fields of research in the period defined above. Jesuits, in particular, occupied an essential role in the tensions that animated this century having equipped themselves to resist and fight back the new tendencies. They counter-attacked both the religious and the scientific reformations. The Society of Jesus operated on the two fundamental levels of the new European structure: the educative one (vital ganglion in the re-production of knowledge and powers) and the political-institutional one (that is, the level of the social control). 27 The Society of Jesus created an interconnected educative structure in every part of Europe to organize and coordinate these two levels of action. In every country and region, the process of political, religious and cultural education was carried out with identical instruments and in accordance with consistent patterns. Jesuits dealt with every new challenge as a single body and this is valid for the reaction to the Protestant Reformation as well as for the response to the spread of the new science of power but also for the confrontation with the coeval debate about the “catalogue” of sciences. It is exactly because of this consistence in the method of action that the point of view of the Jesuits reaction is a privileged perspective to study the “historical revolution” too. As expected, the danger of the application of the Cartesian method to disciplines connected to memory (like history itself) was undermining the pillar of the Scholastic philosophy and, in turn, was threatening the cultural language of the Church. Catholics could not have ignored these events. Particularly, they could not have been disregarded by the Jesuits - an Order who made the restoration of the Catholicism its main existing reason. Despite the clear advantages it offers, this prospective of research has not been sufficiently exploited until now. Gaps in the previous studies about the historical thought during the period 1580-1650 can be individuated in both the geographic amplitude of the “Europe” taken in to exam and in the definition of the individuals actively involved in the debate. First of all, while most scholars in their premises agree in describing the Europe of that time as “a united and interconnected body,” 28 they often limit the research to the Central and, partially, Western Europe missing important pieces of information that could contribute to delineate a more defined picture of the querelle. 29 A second

26

Ivi., p. 12. The doctrinal level is not mentioned here because it is not defined as a level of action (seen as a manner of managing an activity) of the Society of Jesus. On the contrary, it might be understood as the fundamental aim of the Jesuits, a goal pursued by the mean of pedagogic and intellectual activities. This position is made clear by Gian Paolo Brizzi in his study about the educative practices of Jesuits during the early 17th century: Brizzi Gian Paolo (ed.), La “Ratio Studiorum”. Modelli culturali e pratiche educative dei Gesuiti in Italia tra Cinque e Seicento, Roma, Bulzoni, 1981, p. 11-19. The same idea unfolds in Ulčinaitė Eugenija, “Jėzuitiškoji Tarnavimo Dievui Doktrina Alberto VijūkoKojalavičiaus Raštuose”, in Narbutas Sigitas, Narbutienė Daiva (eds.), Albertas Vijūkas-Kojalavičius iš 400 metų perspektyvos, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2009, p. 43 - 56. 28 Fussner F. Smith, Op. cit., p.18. The same concept emerges in the research of Gui Francesco, Op. cit., p. 7. 29 Witschi-Bernz Astrid, “Main Trends in Historical-Method Literature: Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries”, History and Theory, XII, 1972, 51-90. See also Dufays Jean-Michel, “Théories et pratiques de l’historiographie à l’époque 27

12

gap in the research on the historiographic debate of the 17th century can be individuated in the questionable exclusion of some individuals or institutions from the possible sources of analysis. As an example, this is the case of the monumental work of Eduard Fueter who limits the contextualization of the Jesuits historiography to the comparison with that of the humanists withholding it a role in a wider ideological debate. 30 Similarly, C. Borghero even emphasizing the influence of the theories (about the certitude in the historical research) of the Spanish Jesuit Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza 31 on the philosophy of history of Johann Eisenhart, 32 paid no attention to the position of that philosophy among other scholars of Society of Jesus and their role in the general dispute. 33 In other words, previous studies neglected to evaluate the possibility that the Society of Jesus might have defined a historiographic canon despite the evident examples of a concrete cogitation about the role and function of history. Aiming to fill the above mentioned gaps, the definition of the Jesuits’ historiographic “canon” and the study of a symbolic and representative case of Jesuits method of history making have been defined as the objects of this thesis. This illustrative example has been selected, first of all, in order demonstrate that the Jesuits had actually elaborated an historiographic canon in response to the spread of the new scientific method, to the commixture of Reformation and the new form of political thought and to the lack of union in the Christian world; secondly, it has been chosen in order to prove that this “canon” was consistently implemented beyond the geographic limits usually attributed to the European intellectual debate. To achieve these two goals, the emblematic case studied in this work is the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. In particular, the two books of his Historiae Lituanae and his Miscellanea Rerun ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu Pertinentium are investigated in the frame of the European historical debate in the period 1580 - 1650. 34 moderne: état de la question”, in Grell Chantal, Dufays Jean-Michel (eds.), Pratiques et concepts de l’histoire en Europe, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles, Paris, Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1990, 9 - 41. 30 Fueter limits his pretty extensive study of the Jesuits’ historiography to the comparison of their (supposed) method with those of the Humanists and the Ecclesiastics. Their works are not contextualized in the coeval philosophical debate. See Fueter Eduard, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie, Munchen - Berlin, Oldenbourg, 1911. We refer to the Italian translation Storia della Storiografia Moderna, Napoli, Ricciardi, 1970, p. 358-373. 31 These theories have been expounded in Hurtado de Mendoza Pedro, Disputationes de universa philosophia cum indicibus necessariis nouiter in meliorem formam redactis, tam disputationum et sectionum, quam materiarum, Ludguni, ex typographia Claudij Cayne, 1617. See Borghero Carlo, La certezza e la storia, Op. cit., p 227-228. 32 Eisenhart Johann, De Fide Historica Commentarius accessit Oratio De conjungendis Jurisprudentiæ & Historiarum studiis, Helmstadii, Sustermann, 1702. The first edition of the texts is dated 1679. See Borghero Carlo, La certezza e la storia, Op. cit., p 227-228. 33 Ivi., p. 256-273. To understand the significance of this lack of attention to the Jesuits’ philosophy, it should be enough to mention that even Pierre Bayle had been influenced by Mendoza’s reflection on certitude. Moreover, the Spanish Scholastic had a deep impact on the German academic world during the 17th century. See on this topic Eschweiler Karl, “Die Philosophie der spanischen Spätscholastik auf den deutschen Universitäten des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts”, in Spanische Forschungen der Görres-Gesellschaft I, Münster, Aschendorff, 1928, p. 251-325. 34 Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, Historie Lituanae pars prior; de rebus Lituanorum ante susceptam Christianam Religionem, conjuntionemque Magni Lituaniae Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae, libri novem, Dantisci, Georgi Forster, 1650. Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, Historiae Lithuanae pars altera a conjunctione cum Regno Poloniae ad unionem

13

Introduction and review of previous researches. Much has been written about the works of Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz and the Jesuit himself as a Lithuanian historian. Historiae Lituanae, Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu Pertinentium, 35 De Rebus Anno 1648 et 1649 Contra Zaporovios Cosacos Gestis 36 and other minor theological, historical, biographical and apologetical works have been extensively studied in recent years both in monographic researches and collective volumes. Since the contributions for the 250th anniversary of the death of Koialowicz, as those of Jonas Totoraitis 37 and Petras Būčys, 38 the researches on Koialowicz's works increased in numbers and evolved qualitatively. 39 The nature of these studies passed from the strictly biographic, of the above-mentioned authors, to those of Vladas Žulys 40 and Mečislovas Jučas 41 characterized by a deeper historiographic analysis, passing through the commixture of biographic and patriotic interests of J. Matusas-Sedauskas 42 and Viktoras Gidžiūnas. 43 More recently, attempts have been made to better set the works of Koialowicz in their cultural background. This is clearly the aim of researches like those of Darius Kuolys 44 and Giovanna Brogi Bercoff. 45 This growing interest in literary production of 17th century, and particularly the focus on Koialowicz, consolidates the conviction that this historical figure has to be regarded as representative of a certain historical thought and thus as a privileged point of observation to better define the relations between the process of history-making and the historiographic debate in that period.

corum Dominiorum libri octo, Antverpiae, Iacobum Meursium, 1669. Wiiuk-Koialowicz Albert, Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu Pertinentium, Vilnius, Academy Printing House, 1650. Now in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. 2, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, p. 8 - 276. 35 Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, Miscellanea Rerum... Op. cit. 36 Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, De Rebus Anno 1648 et 1649 Contra Zaporovios Cosacos Gestis, Vilnius, Academic printing house, 1651. Now in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. 1, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2003, p. 8 - 217. 37 Totoraitis Jonas, “Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius”, Tiesos Kelias, 1, section B, 1928, 15 -18. 38 Būčys Petras, “Alberto Vijuko Kojelavičaus paminėjimas”, Tiesos Kelias, 1, section B, 1928, 19 - 28. 39 Due to the purposes of the present research we will not deal with the biographic and bibliographic works of the first part of the 20th century that aimed to better define the disputed biography of the Jesuit and his literary production. A complete list of the studies about Koialowicz has been published by Pakalniškienė Loreta, “Albertas KojalavičiusVijukas”, Tarp knygų, 2009, n.9, p. 25-29. 40 Žulys Vladas, “A. Vijūkas-Kojelavičius ir jo ‘Lietuvos istorija’”, Pergalė, 11, 1959, 149 - 161. 41 Jučas Mečislovas, “A. Kojelavičiaus istoriografiniai interesai”, Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, vol. 2 (91), A serja, 1985, 77 - 87. The article is now in Jučas Mečislovas, Lietuvos Metraščiai ir Kronikos, Vilnius, Aidai, 2002. 42 Matusas-Sedauskas J., “Ar Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius buvo garsus Lietuvos istorininkas ir patriotas?”, in Tiesos Kelias, 1929, I, 252-255. See also Matusas-Sedauskas J., “Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius kaip Lietuvos istorininkas”, Praeitis, 1930, I, 323 - 328. 43 Gidžiūnas Viktoras, “Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius. Lietuvos istorikas 1609-1677”, in Lituanistikos instituto 1977 metų suvažiavimo darbai, Janina K. Rėklaitienė (ed.), Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1979. 44 Kuolys, Darius, "Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus istorinis pasakojimas: Respublikos kūrimas", in Darius Kuolys (ed), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 368 - 410. 45 Brogi Bercoff, Giovanna, "Rytų slavų įvaizdis ir funkcija Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus SJ raštuose", in Darius Kuolys (ed), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 334 347.

14

Some basic information about Koialowicz has been provided by Jonas Totoraitis and Petras Būčys for the anniversary of the 250 years of the death of Koialowicz. The two priests offered an elementary biography and a short bibliography. Even the list of historical works 46 is quite inaccurate compared to that of Darius Antanavičius. 47 A slightly wider approach to the works of Koialowicz is that of Juozas Jurginis in the introduction to the Lithuanian edition of Historiae Lituanae. 48 On one hand, as for most of the studies about Koialowicz, numerous pages deal with the biography of the Jesuit. On the other hand, the remaining of the essay is more interesting for the evaluation of the development of the modern Lithuanian historiography and the different interpretations of Historiae Lituanae. Lietuvos Metraščiai ir Konikos by Mečislovas Jučas offers some more cues for discussion. The plan to investigate the structures, the subjects and the relations between Samogitian, Polish, Russian chronicles and the records of Bychowiec makes M. Jučas’ books a useful background for the comparative study of Koialowicz’ historical production. However, as all the other studies in this field, this research is affected by the decision to narrow the comparison to the sector of sources rather than include the parallels between the cultural backgrounds that “produced” the consciences of the authors. The object of the study necessarily induced the author to restrict the geographic limits to nowadays Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Russia. Nevertheless, the decision to investigate Maciej Stryjkowski’s Kronika exclusively in relation to the passages that relate to Lithuania seems instrumental. 49 Viktoras Gidžiūnas, as mentioned above, wrote an assay about Koialowicz as an Historian. 50 The study does not tackle with the ideology of the Lithuanian Jesuits, nor try to set his work in a wider contest. The discussion of the aims of Koialowicz is not supported by strong clues or examples. The research is limited to a useful catalogue of the historical works of the Jesuit Father. There is no particularly new information in the short biography of Koialowicz or in the list of his historical works. However, the essay reveals to be useful for the detailed review of the structure and content of two works: A Short History of the Lithuanian Church 51 and The History of Lithuania.52 These two sections have no annotation about Koialowicz philosophy of history, his 46

It is a list taken from Estreicher Karol, Estreicher Stanislaw (eds.), Bibliografija Polska, vol. XIX, Krakow, 1870, 399 - 405. 47 Antanavičius Darius, “Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaous spausdintų knygų bibliografija: mitai ir tikrovė”, in Darius Kuolys (ed), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 277 291. 48 Jurginis Juozas, “A. Kojelavičiaus ‘Lietuvos Istorija’ ir jos reikšmė” in Jonas Lankutis (ed.), Albertas VijūkasKojelavičius, Lietuvos Istorija, Vilnius, Vaga, 1989. 49 Stryjkowski Maciej, Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmόdzka y wszystkiey Rusi, Krolewcu, Gerzego Osterbergera, 1582. We refer to the edition of 1846 printed in Warsaw: Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego, Warszawa, Gustawa Leona Glücksberga, 1846. 50 Gidžiūnas Viktoras, Op. cit. 51 Ivi., p. 70-71. 52 Ibid., p. 72-75.

15

method, his sources and his aims. Nevertheless, Gidžiūnas’ research is an illuminating contribution to understand the process of transformation of the Lithuanian historiography. In fact, the last ten pages of his study deal with the different interpretations of the meaning and function of Historiae Lituanae from 17th to 20th centuries in Lithuania. A small integration to the interpretation of Historiae Lituanae during the 17th century has been provided by Zenonas Ivinskis in the entry “Kojalavičius Vijukas Albertas” of the Lithuanian Encyclopedia. 53 Here, commenting on a few mistakes Koialowicz made in dating some events, Ivinskis touches on the comparison between the method of the Lithuanian Jesuit and that of the coeval Bollandists. This useful approach, unfortunately, has just been mentioned without the support of a deeper analysis. The first, evident, result of this incomplete approach is the lack of answers and hypothesis about Koialowicz decision to portray Mindaugas as a bloody tyrant while his source treated the king without any particular accent. 54 Similarly, Gidžiūnas noticed the difference between Koialowicz and Stryjkowski in the description of king Mindaugas but failed to provide a convincing hypothesis to explain it. 55 Clearly, both scholars (but they are just two representative examples of a widespread tendency) failed to contextualize the works of the Lithuanian Jesuit in the frame of the European debate on history and compare the ideas of Koialowicz with the theoretical orientation of the Order (for a more detailed discussion of this topic see §II.2.1.). Some more information and amendments on Koialowicz biography have been provided by Vladas Žulys in the first part of his essay about Historiae Lituanae. 56 The two books of History of Lithuania are analyzed in the frame of the Lithuanian educational and political context. The comparison with other Jesuits’ historiography is absent in this work as in those mentioned above, but the author refers to the influence of the new theories of natural sciences on the literary production of Koialowicz. Even if these impacts are not examined in depth, this is a step forward toward the comparative study demanded in this thesis. However, in Žulys the comparison is still very pitiful and restricted to the parallel between the styles of Koialowicz and Livy (with a questionable result (see §II.2.2. for a questioning of the definition of the stile of Koialowicz as based on the model of Livy). 57 Even recognizing that ‘the works of Koialowicz are interesting only as a monument of the 17th century historiography’, 58 that historiography is not used as a point of reference to evaluate Historiae Lituanae. The comparison is limited once more to the Kronica of Ivinskis Zenonas, “Kojalavičius. Vijukas Albertas”, in Pranas Čepenas (ed.), Lietuvių Enciklopedja, South Boston, Lietuvių Enciklopedijos leidikla, IX, 1937, 194-197. 54 Ivi., p. 196. 55 Gidžiūnas Viktoras, Op. cit., p. 79. 56 Žulys Vladas, Op. cit., p. 149-151. 57 Ivi., p. 153. 58 Ibid., p. 154. 53

16

Maciej Stryjkowski and the result is an erroneous evaluation of the method of the Lithuanian: ‘the science of history did not have a method yet to understand the facts and group then’. 59 And he even comments, ‘the histories of Koialowicz and Stryjkowski were not scientific’: he is adopting a contemporary criterion to evaluate a 17th century work. 60 A deeper analysis of the philosophy of history that lies beneath the historical writings of Koialowicz is provided by Mečislovas Jučas in his essay about the historiographic interests of the Jesuit.61 Despite the “standard” opening with several pages of biography and lists of works, the research innovates the line of enquiry dealing with the sources used by Koialowicz to integrate the information provided by Maciej Stryjkowski - his main source. Trying to demonstrate the recourse to extra sources like the chronicles of Peter of Dusburg and Jonas Dlugosh, the author indirectly contributes to the definition of Koialowicz method. Moreover, Jučas goes even further whit the innovation in the approach to the problem addressing the political conception of the Lithuanian Jesuit. Despite the lack of examples supporting his (quite obvious) thesis - that Koialowicz was an upholder of the nobiliary democracy interested in the triumph of the Roman Church rather than in the humanistic value of his works - Jučas outlines a relevant connection between the religious mission of the Father, its inextricable bond with the political thought and their reverberation on his historical production. It is only with the book by Darius Kuolys Asmuo, tauta, valstybė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės istorinėje literatūroje that the History of Lithuania by Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz becomes the object of a cultural history. 62 The research seems to be oriented more toward the definition (and opposition) of Renaissance and Baroque as epochs and applies these concepts to Koialowicz and Stryjkowski in what seems to be an attempt to depict them as individuals “representative” of their époques. Even if this approach might seem questionable, it produces some noteworthy results like the idea to relate the two historians with the so-called Christian humanism of scholars like Augustinus Rotundus. The main deficiency of the study remains the limited use of comparison that, as an example, induces to adopt Stryjkowski’s work as an icon of the Renaissance thought. In the same way, he neglected to consider the international context. That is, the Protestant Reformation and the European scientific debate as a frame of reference. Despite these critics, Kuolys’ research remains an irreplaceable point of reference for all the studies that aims to investigate Koialowicz philosophy of history in a wider contest. Admittedly, Kuolys set the path towards a new study perspective putting the two historians in relation with European humanists

59

Ibidem. Ivi., p. 155. 61 Jučas Mečislovas, Op. cit. 62 Kuolys Darius, Asmuo, Tauta, Valstybė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės istorinėje literatūroje, Vilnius, Mokslo ir Enciklopedijų Leidykla, 1992. 60

17

like Joannes Visliciensis, Nicolaus Hussovianus and Augustinus Rotundus with references to Erasmus himself. A final remark has to be made about Kuolys’ attitude toward the works of Stryjkowski and Koialowicz: sometimes the distance between the object of the research (the Chronicle and the History) and the researcher (Kuolys himself) seems to disappear. ‘[…] The clarity disappears from time to time and it seems that Kuolys agrees to these ideas [the cultural unity of the Balts] as he fails to set himself apart from the reasoning that Vytautas had marched to Kiev to unite the Baltic lands. This should not come as a surprise. Romantic Baltophilia is very alive nowadays and Kuolys makes his obeisance to it’. 63 Summing up, while Asmuo, Tauta Valstybė shows the path for the correct approach to a study on European historiography during the “Baroque” epoch, it is still a draft because makes, almost exclusively, use of Russian and Polish authors and Polish and Lithuanian examples offering a distorted perspective of a pan-European debate on history. A final mention deserves the research published by Eugenija Ulčinaitė about the Jesuit Doctrine of Service to the Lord in the works by Koialowicz. 64 In this study finally emerges the comparative attitude hoped for. The works of Koialowicz are analyzed in the frame of the Jesuits mission (and, thus, ideology) offering a new and more realistic description of the author of the History of Lithuania first of all as a member of the Society of Jesus and hence an instrument (perinde ac cadaver) of the Order fighting for the Grater Glory of God.

Gaps in previously developed line of inquiry. Beyond the monographic studies on Koialowicz cited above, for the purpose of this study, two stems for the typical approach. I'm referring to the research of Giovanna Brogi Bercoff on the image and the function of Eastern Slaves in the writings of Koialovicz 65 and Darius Kuolys' study about the founding of the republic. 66 Both these studies aim not only to better investigate Historiae Lituanae, but also to provide a new understanding of its author historical method. However, the two scholars use two different approaches and while Brogi Bercoff analyses eastern slaves image through a series of examples included in Koialowicz’ text, Kuolys adopts a "political-narrative" method focusing on passages that seem to provide national and political basis for the self-consciousness of the Lithuanian society. Obviously, the different approaches lead to partially different conclusions about Koialowicz aims and historical thought. Nevertheless, both studies share the same limit: the historical background is somehow limited to a local reality (even if this statement applies to Brogi Bercoff's research in a lesser degree). By the expression background we do not refer only to a political or historical situation, but to the whole 63

Bumblauskas Alfredas, “About the Lithuanian Baroque in a Baroque Manner”, Lituanus, vol. 41, n.3, 1995. Ulčinaitė Eugenija, Op. cit., p. 43 - 55. 65 Brogi Bercoff Giovanna, Op. cit. 66 Kuolys, Darius, Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus istorinis pasakojimas..., Op. cit. 64

18

sphere of knowledge and with limit we allude to the lack of a comparative dimension in the frame of the European culture. It is possible to state that Kuolys' article is a research on beginnings because it is a study about the genesis of a modern concept: the “political self-consciousness of a nation”. Moreover, it is a study on origins since it aims to define a base for the development of the process of conceptualization of a nation. Kuolys recognizes in Koialovicz's book one of the first historical conceptualization of the Lithuanian Republic. It is a representation that, according to the Lithuanian scholar, had an impact on historical and literary works of the 18th and 19th centuries. In our opinion, this assumption is based on a reverse process that retroactively applies a 19th century concept to the age of Koialowicz. In other words, a modern interpretation of the work of Koialowicz is transferred to the work itself in order to describe it as an origin. Moreover, Kuolys seems to forget the critic distance that separates him from the author of Historiae Lituanae when he states that ‘such a doctrine […] was created as an antithesis both to the tyranny of Moscow, and to the myth of the Slavic Sarmatian empire, led by the Polish.’ 67 This antithesis is, in fact, a much more recent concept: it is the result of a diachronic process. Even more important, the idea of a Jesuit of the 17th century creating the basis for an historical-political antithesis between entities on the border of a besieged Christian Europe is more than unlikely: it is anachronistic. The authority of Robert John Weston Evans, an expert on cultural history of Central and Eastern Europe, can support this statement. In his book Rudolf II and his World - A Study in Intellectual History the British historian, referring to the Bohemian insurrection of 1620, states that in this period ‘was prevalent a unitary cultural conception, in fact the 17th century has been the last period of cultural unity known by Europe’. He even states that ‘it was a period of great cosmopolitism, in fact it was a cosmopolitism by far greater than that known in every period of the next century’. 68 This cosmopolitism became, in the texts and actions of a large group of religious scholars, an ecumenical conception of Europe. 69 A number of Christian scholars used history and literary production to promote a sort of "political unity" as a base for the religious one and Koialowicz was doubtless an exponent of this thought. It is unquestionable that, as stated by Kuolys, ‘the historical narrative by Kojalavičius […] made certain impact on the historical and

67

Ivi., p. 411. Evans Robert J.W., Op cit., p. 18-19. 69 Several studies demonstrated that while the Reformation was creating a fracture in the religious unity of Europe a significant number of scholars was committed to the reach the union of the Churches. See Ruth Rouse and Stephen Neill C. (eds.), Storia del movimento ecumenico dal 1517 al 1948, Vol. 1, Bologna, il Mulino, 1973. 68

19

literary works of the 17th-18th century Grand Duchy of Lithuania’ and that ‘the Romantic Lithuanian historiography of the 19th century also drew on the narrative by the Jesuit historian’. 70 Nevertheless, the reasons of this influence have to be found in the variety of possible different evaluations of Koialowicz’s book, not on his supposed ‘ardent defence of the idea of Lithuanian Republic’ or because of the promotion of ‘an antithesis both to the tyranny of Moscow, and to the myth of the Slavic Sarmatian empire, led by the Polish’. In other words, an historical contextualization makes it more realistic that Koialowicz did not meant to create such an antithesis, but his work was fit for this interpretation valid to support the new conceptions arisen in during 18th to 20th centuries. The study carried out by Kuolys is affected, to use Marc Bloch’s words, by “the idol of origins”. ‘Naturally esteemed, by peoples that do of the past their main subject of research, the explication of the present by the past has dominated our [of historians] studies to the hypnosis. In its most characteristic form, this idol of the historians’ tribe has a name: it’s the myth of the origins’. The problem, according to Bloch, is if the term has to be intended only as beginning or, at the opposite, as a cause. However, ‘for the majority of the historical realities, the notion of this initial point itself is extremely elusive: a matter of definition without any doubt. It is a definition that, regrettably, for too long we forget to give’. Moreover, the two meanings are quite often attributed together at the same time causing a contamination: ‘in the current vocabulary, the origins are an explicative beginning. Even worse: a beginning that is enough to explain. There is the ambiguity. Here the danger’. 71 Following the French historian, it would be interesting to understand this obsession so marked in all the exegetes’ researches. This obsession is understandable regarding the study of Christianity (and some other faiths) as it is par excellence a historic religion. ‘Now, due to an undoubtedly inevitable contagion, these preoccupation that, in a certain form of religious analysis could have had its reasons, it is transposed to other fields of the research in which its legitimacy is definitely more contestable’. 72 Focusing a study on the research of the origins is illegitimate not only methodologically but also theoretically, as it can lead to a double kind of fault. First, a necessary knowledge of the past, and of the evolution of the past, should not lead automatically to the individuation of the origin; second, studying a phenomenon, the awareness of its beginnings should not be enough to explain it. These mistakes implicitly conduce to a more deprecatory fault because a history centred on the origins can be easily used to make remarks about values, as it has often be done. Besides, the

Kuolys Darius, Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus istorinis pasakojimas..., Op. cit., p. 412. Bloch Marc, Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien, Armand Colin, Paris, 1949, p. 6-9. 72 Ivi., p. 9. 70 71

20

counterpart of this adoration of “the demon of the origins” is often ‘the other satanic enemy of the historic truth: the mania of judgement’. 73 Summing up, it is possible to state that the first gap in this study about Historiae Lituanae has to be recognised in the theoretical background as it is based on a postulate that is affected from the need to find an origin to explain and justify a modern conception (or at least a 19th century conception). Second, if anyhow accepted, this postulate is not enough to allow a comprehension of all the phases that brought to its definition. In other words, every study about Koialowicz should be based on the awareness that his conscience, and thus its literary expressions, is historically determined and hence the product of a diachronic process. In fact, ‘never, in a word, is a historic phenomenon explicable with the synchronic study of it. It [the condition of the moment] is the results of all the steps of it evolution’. 74 That is, even if Koialowicz really meant to promote the idea of a Republic, the synchronic and non-comparative study of his production and ideology can lead to the definition of Historiae Lituanae as a beginning and not as the result of a diachronic and dialectic historical process. While the research of Kuolys lacks of chronological depth, that of Brogi Bercoff is not supported by a strong comparative approach. Such an approach seems to be the only one possible when, in the beginning of her assay, she states that ‘Kojalavičius uses exemplum from medieval history […] mainly in order to raise the idea of the union of all the Christian peoples in their joined struggle against Muslims, which was a very important idea for the Europe of that time’. 75 The “Europe of that time” is the environment where the historically determined conscience of Koialowicz formed. This setting should be the dialectic counterpart of a relation with the book, but in this study it dissolves as a faded background. By consequence, the well-realised internal analysis of the passages is not balanced by a comparative section that could better demonstrate the main thesis: ‘the Jesuit historian is an ardent supporter of the union between Christian Eastern Slaves and Rome’. 76 Summing up, studying the function of the examples in Koialowicz's work, Giovanna Brogi Bercoff provides an evaluation of it that is quite different from that of Kuolys. Historiae Lituanae is now represented like the expression of an ecumenical wills rather then a national one. Even if quite appropriate, the analysis provided by the Italian scholar does not develop to provide

73

Ibid., p. 9. Ibid., p. 10. 75 Brogi Bercoff, Op. cit., p. 346. 76 Ibidem. 74

21

‘a conception of the world, a human conscience historically determined’. It remains the very good analysis of the particular or, to use Auerbach words, ‘the interpretation of a fragment’. 77 Finally, it should be pointed out that most of the previous researches use the term Jesuit as a simple title even if it means much more. It should remember that the man carrying that title is perinde ac cadaver – well disciplined like a corpse. Therefore, while his conscience is historically determined, his work is the expression of the obedience and absolute self-abnegation to the Pope and the superiors. This simple remark should be enough to induce to adopt a new study perspective. It is a prospective that aims to provide a balance for researches like the one of Matusas Sedauskas, Albertas Vijukas-Kojelavičius as a Lithuanian Historian that completely forgets the public status of the author. 78 As we mentioned above, 79 Eugenija Ulčinaitė’s works are not effected by these deficiencies but the comparative approached she delineated can be implemented on a broader scale.

Method. The method employed in this research is a philosophical and literary one: it is that of the contextual-comparative analysis. We will proceed determining the signifies of the concepts by the means of negations and distinctions with regards to other related, connected or opposing concepts. In one word, we will adopt the cognitive method elaborated by Benedetto Croce (especially in his research about the Aesthetics as a Science of Expression and General Linguistic). 80 As a matter of fact, the above mentioned observations should lead to the conclusion that every research about Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz and his historical production can not avoid the adoption of a comparative and diachronic method. Every portrait of this Jesuit would be incomplete (if not distorted) if the social, political, religious and philosophical background that shaped Koialowicz thought is ignored. To understand the aims and thought of the Lithuanian Jesuit, the historians must be aware of the religious, moral and historical debate in Europe; they must be conscious of how other Jesuits across the continent were dealing with it; and, above all, they should be cognizant that a conscience is always the product of a process and not an extemporary expression. Thus the diachronic and comparative approach delineated above has been employed in this study. Nevertheless, the methodological approach will be utterly original: while in most previous studies the comparison had been carried out between historical texts, chronicles and annals and 77

Auerbach Erich, Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der Abendländischen Literatur, Bern and Munich, A. Francke, 1946. We will refer to the English translation by Willard Trask, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2003. 78 Matusas-Sedauskas J., Op. cit. 79 Ulčinaitė Eugenija, Op. cit., p. 17. 80 Croce Benedetto, “Estetica come scienza dell’espressione e linguistica generale” in Teoria e Storia, 4th revised edition, Bari, Laterza, 1912.

22

intended to individuate all the sources of each writing (that is, they aimed to define the sources of a work and partially the method of selection of these sources themselves), we are adopting a double level of comparison. In the first and more general level, I will compare 16th and 17th centuries “philosophy of history” with the Jesuits conception of history in order to depict a dialogic European debate and possibly define a “Jesuits’ historiographic canon”. Than, at a second level, this study will confront the most representative works of the Jesuits between them and with the precepts expounded in the theoretical treatises of the member of the Society of Jesus themselves in order to highlight the spread of the canon among Jesuits in every part of Europe, its uniform and coherent implementation and its strict relation (and dependence) with the mission of the Society of Jesus. The advantages offered by this method result from the possibility to refer to the Jesuits as a cohesive and strictly centralised organisation. In turn, the implementation of this method allows a better understanding of the position of the Society of Jesus in the general scientific debate. In other words, a philosophical analysis, carried out by the mean of a comparative method, is applied to historical and literary works intended as intellectual products of consciences formed in a diachronic and relational context. As an example, the philologically excellent study of Darius Antanavičius about the “discovery” of a new source used by Koialowicz for his History of Lithuania, neither appreciably contribute to the understanding of the Jesuit’s work as a whole, nor permits a better contextualization of the opera in the coeval values. 81 Antanavičius extracts a passage from the whole Historiae than deconstruct it to literally juxtapose each sentence to the supposed source. Such an approach contributes exclusively to the philological reconstruction of those passages: ‘1) establishing the nature of the source, 2) determining how, when, and where Kojalavičius acquired it, and 3) explaining how he used it’. 82 Such a de-constructive method does not contribute to the contextualization of Historiae Lituanae in the Jesuits’ literary and historiographic production and it does not permit to understand the position of Koialowicz himself in correlation to the coeval intellectual milieu. The method we use for this research considers the texts as a unitary and coherent expression of the consciences of their authors. Therefore, this method will analyse processes and theoretical influences and only in a lesser degree will deal with structures. This example illustrates the connotation of the term process. During the period 1570-1580 the Jesuit Piotr Skarga had been very active in promoting the union of the Churches (see the text about the union of the Churches under one only pastor) in Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia and the Antanavičius Darius, “Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos pasiuntinybių į Maskvą šaltinis Alberto VijūkoKojalavičiaus Lietuvos istorijoje” in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. 2, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, 292 - 333. 82 Ivi., p 331. 81

23

reformation of the noblemen’s morals (§II.1.1.). From 1580 to 1583 the Jesuit Antonio Possevino was sent to the Baltic and in Moscovia in order to find a possible path toward the union of the Churches and during his stay elaborated a detailed handbook about how to realise the project (the Moscovia. See §I.4.1. and §II.1.2.). From Vilnius, he wrote letters to request more unionist books in the region and more titles able to educate the patrician to the Catholic values and morals. Then, several years later (between 1590 and 1615), when the Renaissance scepticism had already undermined the values of history as a science, Possevino wrote a second educational manual in which expounded his theory of the necessity to educate by the mean of history (the Bibliotheca Selecta. See §I.4.2.). Contemporarily, the theories of Descartes about memory were spreading across Europe. In the same period, the new philosophy of Francisco Soàrez bruited about Lithuanian Jesuits. 83 In 1617 the “Soarezian” Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza wrote a popular handbook about certitude and evidence that is a methodology of historical research. In 1619 the Spanish Jesuit Juan de Mariana writes his Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae according to the method of Hurtado de Mendoza and a copy of this book reached the library of the Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Leo Sapieha. In 1650 the first part of the book Historiae Lituanae was published with evident references to the “new Jesuits’ historical method,” to Mariana’s Theory of Tyrannicide and with conspicuous analogies with the structure of the Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae. It is not possible to avoid the contextualization of Koialowicz’s book in this process because of the evident links between events and theories. The same reasoning applies to the concept of theoretical influences. In conclusion, some of the most relevant comparison will be carried out between theoretical treatise and historical writings. In particular, previous studies, like the above-mentioned investigation of D. Antanavičius, will be used to evaluate whether Koialowicz selection of sources might be connected to criteria expounded elsewhere (in Possevino or Hurtado de Mendoza for example) considering the History of Lithuania entirety and many-sided intellectual expression. Alongside with the diachronic comparison, some parallels are individuated with the coeval historical production of other European Jesuits. In this sense are carried out the investigations of Adam Tanner and Martin Becan’s writings of the second decade of the 17th century. 84 83

‘The philosophy of the Jesuits in Lithuania constituted a specific philosophical current. It came from Jesuit centers, esp. from the Iberian Peninsula and from Italy (Rome). [...] Suarezianism (rather than Thomism) was a dominating current in Jesuit philosophy in Lithuania.’ This short passage from the presentation of Roman Darowski at the 400 years of the Jesuits presence in Lithuania support our claim. We refer to the speech delivered at the international conference Jėzuitai Lietuvoje (1608 - 2008): Gyvenimas, Veikla, Paveldas held in Vilnius the 9th and 10th of October 2008, See AA.VV., Jėzuitai Lietuvoje (1608 - 2008): Gyvenimas, Veikla, Paveldas. Pranešimų tezės, Vilnius, Lietuvos Nacionalinis Muziejus, 2008. 84 We are referring to: Becanus Martinus, Manuale Controversiarum huius temporis de fide ac religione, Wuerzburg, 1623. Becanus Martinus, Opera Omnia, Mainz, I649. Tanner Adam, Amuletum Castrense, sive antidotum adversus pernitiosos calumniarum afflatus, tristesque bellorum motus, ex Boemico tumultu enatos, Ingolstadt, Angermaier ElisabethEder, 1620.

24

Thesis. The adoption of the method described above aims to demonstrate the validity of a twofold thesis: first, that the Jesuits had actually developed what in a wider sense might be recognised has a “historiographic canon”: a model that the members of the society had to respect when writing history. We will demonstrate that this model, and the aims of Jesuits historiography, evolved and that two main phases can be individuated in it even if it has always been first of all a model created to make history the instrument to promote the major glory of God that is moral virtues, the unity of the Church and the primacy of Rome. Second, we will demonstrate that Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz was aware of the evolution of these aims and methods. He had been influence by the “Jesuits” historiographic canon and particularly by Suarezianism, 85 Antonio Possiveno’s thesis, Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza method and Juan de Mariana concrete example of history making. Consequently, it is appropriate to state that Koialowicz produced his historical works in accordance with the historiographic canon consistently implemented by the Jesuits at a European level and might, therefore, be designated as a representative model of that standard. The numerous cases of discrepancies with his main sources, when not dependent on the availability of a better source, have to be attribute to the necessity to adhere to this historiographic canon. As stated above, utility and aims of history in the Jesuits conception were manifold. This thesis demonstrates that the Society of Jesus, during the period 1580-1650, used historical works to promote the idea of a united Europe but, they pursued a more articulated objective: restore the morality among what they defined the degraded Protestant upper classes and, at the same time, restore the role of the Roman Church creating a new “scientific doctrine” as an alternative to the Cartesian and sceptical ones that were dangerously spreading among the educated elite together with the Protestantism. They advocated a union that had to be both political and with regards to faith in order to defeat the external enemy: the Turks. Nonetheless, that external enemy became a simple pretext for the claim for an internal unity against the Protestant Reformation and the spread of the new philosophy of science that, removing history from the “true” sciences, undermined the cultural language of the church: the Scholastic doctrine (see §I.2.1.). This threat was perceived and understood by the Jesuits that, consequently, actively participated in the coeval scientific debate. As a matter of fact, the new philosophy tried to remove history from the “encyclopaedia of sciences” undermining the theoretical basis of the Catholic philosophy. The Jesuits reacted restoring the scientific value of history. To restore the cultural language of the Church meant, in fact, to restore the role of the authorities and mainly of the historical ones canceling the dichotomy 85

See footnote 83.

25

between reason and memory. History itself had to be restored in its primitive function, that of moral guide, source of exempla as well as organizational criterion: a principle to structure the knowledge. In Jesuits thought, the dichotomy between reason and memory was resolved, in opposition do Descartes, in favor of the latter. Particularly, the idea of history as a governing principle for the knowledge is clearly stated in the works of the Jesuit Antonio Possevino (see §I.4.2.). Moreover, the theoretical approach defined by Possevino spread in the whole Europe becoming a sort of canon. As a concrete example, Koialowicz can be seen as a representative illustration of this attitude. Indeed, he was actively engaged in the struggle against the insidious heresies (both religious and philosophical). Therefore, the examples that compose Historiae Lituanae have to be read in three levels: there is the historical-narrative level that describes the event of the past like, as an example, the wars against Tartars; There is a religious level, that tries to raise the idea of the union of the Christian Churches in the struggle against Muslims evoking the danger of the lack of unity among Christians (in Accordance with Possevino’s precepts); There is, finally, a more complex level in which moral, religion and politic merge in the internal fight against the gnoseological relativism and the moral laxism arisen from the heresy of Reformation and the new scientific thought (see §II.3.).

Main findings. With regards to the methodology of Jesuits’ historical research, on one hand, while it is true that the historians of the Society of Jesus adopted some features typical of Humanists’ style, it is necessary to recognise that this was just a formal influence, not ideological or philosophical. On the other hand, it is extremely important to identify the peculiarities of the historical method of the Jesuits. This method was based in fact on precise philosophical postulates those of the Thomism according to the interpretation of Francisco Suàrez. His philosophy concretised in a historiographic method in the Disputatione de Universa Philosophia of Hurtado de Mendoza and the subject of evidence and certitude together with the traditional distinction between moral, physical and metaphysical evidence had a fundamental role in the methodology of Koialowicz and other Jesuit historians. For this reason, the typical comparison between Jesuit and humanists method is groundless. The first part of this research is, therefore, devoted, to the deconstruction of this approach born with the History of the Modern Historiography of E. Fueter and than submissively adopted by almost all other scholars - in order to demonstrate a third but fundamental aspect of this thesis: methodologically it is not possible to draw a parallel between Humanist and Jesuit historians resolved in the opposition between Aristotelianism and Platonism; belief and scepticism; pagan classicism and modern devotion; rhetoric as empty form and “scientific” research. More precisely, 26

the comparative method adopted in this research allows to achieve a three-fold goal: first, a more appropriate definition of the historiographic canon of the Jesuits in the early Modern Age; second, to depict, in contrast with previous studies on the subject, the historical production of Koialowicz as a concrete expression of this European canon; finally, contributes to a more fitting contextualization of the Society of Jesus in the scientific debate of 1580 - 1650. Specifically, the main findings of the present study are:

a.

Refusing the method and definitions of E. Fueter, we defined a non-formalized “Jesuits

historiographic canon.” It was a consistently implemented theoretical and methodological model for writing history. It was wide spread among members of the Society of Jesus in the whole Europe (geographically much wider than the one depicted by Fueter). b.

Two different phases (models) can be individuated in the evolution of this canon: a first

one produced texts characterized by the emphasis on the human virtue in order to oppose the Renaissance new system of values and offer an alternative moral model to the reformed one; the second phase corresponds to the spread of the Renaissance scepticism and Cartesianism in the field of history. They represented a danger for the legitimacy of the worldly existence of the Christian Church thus the restoration of history, as the base of this legitimacy, became the second aim of Jesuits’ historiography. c.

All historical works of A. W. Koialowicz have to be considered as representative

examples of the adherence to the historiographic canon described above: they put into practice the “research” method elaborated by other European Jesuits (particularly, P.H. de Mendoza), abide by the Jesuits “philosophy of history” (specifically to the definition of A. Possevino) and mirror the model of historical research carried out by other coeval Jesuits (particularly, J. de Mariana). d.

The analysis of the concrete case of A. W. Koialowicz historical production permits a

better definition of the Jesuits historiographic canon in the studied period allowing a suitable contextualization in the scientific debate arose between 1580 and 1660 about the historical knowledge. More concretely, this research demonstrates that the frequent unionist claims (for a religious and political European unity) which customarily characterize Jesuits’ historical works are not exclusively an aim themselves: hidden under the “historiography of the unionism” lies the attempt to create a new scientific and philosophical foundation for the education of the upper classes to oppose the one generated by the reciprocal influence of Protestantism and Renaissance scepticism (particularly that of Descartes). This mixture, 27

reforming the morals and refusing the traditional role of history, was perceived as a threat by the Christian Church. By consequence, the Jesuits tried to make history to restore the moral and “scientific” role of history itself thus consolidating the historical role of the Roma Church. In a word, their attempt to “save” history was a fulfilment of the duty the Order assumed with Ignatius of Loyola.

Main Sources. Since this research is mainly a research on philosophy of history we had a less significant recourse to archive sources. Our whole research focuses on Koialowicz historical production. In particular we analyzed these Koialowicz’s works: Historiae Lituanae pars prior; de rebus Lituanorum ante susceptam Christianam Religionem, conjuntionemque Magni Lituaniae Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae, libri novem, Dantisci, Georgi Forster, 1650 (we used the copy preserved at the Institute of History of Vilnius and the Lithuanian translation of Valkūnas Leonas: Albertas Vijūkas-Kojelavičius, Lietuvos Istorija. Prima ir antra dalis, 2nd Edition, Vilnius, Vaga, 1989); Historiae Lithuanae pars altera a conjunctione cum Regno Poloniae ad unionem corum Dominiorum libri octo, Antverpiae, Iacobum Meursium, 1669 (we refer to the above-mentioned lithuanian translation); Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu Pertinentium, Vilnius, Academy Printing House, 1650 (now in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. 2, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, p. 8 – 276); De Rebus Anno 1648 et 1649 Contra Zaporovios Cosacos Gestis, Vilnius, Academic printing house, 1651 (now in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. 1, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2003, p. 8 – 217). Since we adopted a comparative method, we used Possevino’s works as main term of comparison. In particular we had recourse to: Aduersus Dauidis Chytraei haeretici imposturas, quas in oratione quadam inseruit, quam de statu ecclesiarum, hoc tempore in Graecia, Asia ... inscriptam edidit, & per Sueciam, ac Daniam disseminari curauit, Ingolstadt, officina typographica Volfgangi Ederi, 1583 (we used the copy preserved at the Library of the Seminary of Padova); Bibliotheca selecta qua agitur de ratione studiorum in historia, in disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda, cum diplomate Clementis VIII Pont. Max., Romae, ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, 1593 (We used the edition published in Venice in 1609 and preserved at the National Library of Turin); Missio Moscovitica, 1581 (The text of this previously unpublished relation is preserved in Pierling Paulo (ed.), Antonii Possevini Missio Moscovitica, Paris, apud Ernestum Leroux, 1882); Moscovia, Vilnius, apud Ioannem Velicensem, 1586 (we used the English translation of Graham F. Hugh, The Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, S.J., Pittsburg, Pittsburg University Press, 1977). Both relations from the Muscovy were collected in the Annue litterae of 28

the Society of Jesus. The first relation was sent to Rome in the form of a letter in the October 1581, the second relation is a letter dated February 1584 published in Vilnius in 1586. Moreover, we compared Koialowicz’ History of Lithuania with the History of Spain of Juan de Mariana. The text we refer to is: Historiae de rebus Hispaniae libri XXV, Toledo, Petri Roderici, 1592 (we used the edition: Mariana Juan de, “Historia de Espana” in Historia de Espana; Tratado contra los juegos publicos; Del rey y de la institucion real, traducido nuevamente; De la alteracion de la moneda; y De las enfermedades de la compania, Madrid, Atlas, 1950). Several other Jesuits’ historical and hagiographic works have been used. The most relevant are: Piotr Skarga’s Lives of the Saints (Żywoty świętych), 1579 and Sermons to the Diet (Kazania sejmowe), 1597; Martin Becan’s Manuale Controversiarum huius temporis de fide ac religione, Wuerzburg (1623) and Opera Omnia (1649); Adam Tanner’s Amuletum Castrense (1620). The most representative treatises about history during the first half of the 17th century have been analyzed as well. In particular we used: Antoine Arnauld and Nicole Pierre, La logique ou L'art de penser contenant outre les regles communes, plusieurs observations nouvelles, propres à former le jugement (1683); Verdadera razón de estado. Discurso Politico of Fernando Alvia de Castro (1606); Matin Becan’s Manuale Controversiarum huius temporis de fide ac religion (1623) and Opera Omnia (1649); the Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Iesu (1599); JaquesBénigne-Bossuet’s Discours sur l'histoire universelle (1681); René Descartes’ Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la verité dans les sciences (1637) and Regulae ad directionem ingenii; Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza’s Disputationes de universa philosophia cum indicibus necessariis nouiter in meliorem formam redactis, tam disputationum et sectionum, quam materiarum (1617); Nicolas Malebranche’s De la recherche de la vérité. Où l'on traite de la Nature de l'Esprit de l'homme, & de l'usage qù l en doit faire pour éviter l'erreur dans les Sciences (1674). Finally, we used some letters of the Jesuit General Claudio Acquaviva. These letters are reproduced in Petrauskienė Irena (ed.), Vilniaus akademijos spaustuvės šaltiniai XVI-XIX a., Vilnius, Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 1992. Initially we intended to use as a source some Jesuits‘ theater works. However, this option had to be abandoned because of the lack of material to permit a study focused on the meaning and function of history in them. This was the case despite the exaustive research in this field of Eugenija Ulčinaitė. Similarly the biographies written by Koialowicz were only partially taken into account because already extensively studied by Mintautas Čiurinskas.

29

The structure of the research. To achieve the aim of this study - the definition of Koialowicz’ Historiae Lituanae as a representative product of the Jesuits’ historiography during the European Historical Revolution - the text will be divided into two main sections. In the first section (I. “European Jesuits’ Historiographic canon”), the European Jesuits’ historiographic canon is better defined. This means that the presentation made by E. Fueter will be clarified and framed in the context of the European debate about history. The erroneous theoretical postulates on which previous studies were based are discussed in the first chapter (§I.1.) outlining, first of all, several methodological mistakes in the approach to the study of philosophical problems like historiography (§I.1.1.). Than we will oppose the idea that it is necessary to compare Jesuit’s historiography to the Humanistic one in order to understand and evaluate the former. That is, we will confute the theories and method of E. Fueter and his followers (§I.1.2.). The reasons for our refute are explained in the remaining of the chapter: in the 16th century, it is not possible to completely oppose Platonism and Aristotelian logic (§I.1.3.); the formal chronological divisions of the history are useless if the studied subject is the persistence of the values (§I.1.4.); Rhetoric too often has been evaluated with modern criteria while during Renaissance was intended as a logical and “scientific” method (§I.1.5.). In the second chapter of this first section we will discuss the “position” of history in the coeval scientific debate. First of all we will explain why the role of history was so important for the religious orders and for the whole Christian Church (§ I.2.1.); than we will see how the idea of history might influence that of values and morality (§ I.2.2.); finally we will understand that while the existence of history as a reliable and true means of knowledge was vital for the survival of the historical role of the Church, the renaissance values undermined it and the spread of the Cartesianism in Europe constitute a serious challenge to the surviving of history as means of knowledge (§ I.2.3.). Only once the philosophical debate is defined (as the fundamental background of this research), the outline of the Jesuits’ historiographic canon is approached. The third chapter of this section deals with the European Jesuit historians. Here, the most representative writers of the Orders are presented, described and contextualized (§ I.3.1.). They will be divided into two categories basing on the means and function of their “history making”. In order to better understand the aims and function of the historical production of the Jesuits, their educational method is investigated (§ I.3.2.). In fact, the decision to study the historical debate of the period 1850-1650 from the point of view of the Society of Jesus offers the great advantage to have several written norms about how to use history, what should be its function and how to deal with the scientific reform. We are referring, first of all, to the Ratio Studiorum (§ I.3.2.). However, an even more useful (from the point of view of the scholars who want to understand the dynamics of the 30

Jesuits historiography) manual of education is the Bibliotheca Selecta of the Jesuit Antonio Possevino. This huge encyclopaedia of the human knowledge is based on history as organisational criterion. Therefore, this is the first official definition of the historiographic canon of the Jesuits. This text will be presented and studied in the context of the literary production of the Italian Jesuit (§I.4.2.). It is Possevino himself who serves as a connection between the now-defined historiographic canon of the Jesuits and the concrete example of Historiae Lituanae. In fact, the journey of Possevino in the Baltic region and Moscovia offered him the opportunity to put in practice his theories writing the report known as Moscovia (§I.4.1). During his permanence in Vilnius and Dorpart, Possevino acted in order to stimulate a reform of the Jesuit’s educational system basing on the principles elaborated in the Bibliotheca and in the Moscovia asking for more books production, more translators, a more intense missionary activity in Ruthenia and more texts about the unity of the Christian Europe. This activity is extremely important as a connection between the Baltic reality and the European debate about education, history, unionism and science. This religious mission and its results are studied in depth in the section §II.1. This long introduction permits to present the historical works of Albert Koialowicz as a perfect illustration of the Jesuits answer to the scientific debate of the period. Such a definition of Historiae Lituanae as a representative illustration of the Jesuits historiographic canon is made possible by a comparative approach that involves not only other Lithuanian scholars like Piotr Skarga (§II.1.1. and §II.1.2.) but also Possevino himself and other Koialowicz’s texts (§ II.1.3.). By the mean of comparison with major other works of Jesuits and scholars of the Europe of that time - like, Stryjkowski (§II.2.1.), Skarga, Juan de Mariana (§II.2.1.), Adam Tanner and Martin Becan (§II.3.) - it is demonstrated that the Jesuits historical production was uniform in Europe with regards to the method, the purposes and in the way of dealing with the spread of the new scientific thought.

31

I. EUROPEAN JESUITS' HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON

32

I.1. FOUR PARAMETERS FOR THE DEFINITION OF A JESUITS’ HISTORIOGRAPHY

I.1.1 Eduard Fueter’s Criteria

This research, as anticipated in the introduction, aims to better define Jesuits’ philosophy of history by the means of a concrete example: the study of the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz. However, the assumption that the Jesuits developed something like a common historiographic canon, during the period from the foundation of the order (1540) to the end of the Thirty Years War (1648), is neither beyond question nor incontrovertibly agreed by scholars. Therefore, in the first section of this study, we will set up the basis to demonstrate that the Society of Jesus had actually developed its own philosophy of history (§I.1., §I.2., §I.3., §I.4.). Successively, in the sections §II.2. and §II.3, we will prove that Koialowicz was a representative exponent of this “canon”. More concretely, in this chapter, the frame of reference for the debate on the concept and function of history and the processes of history-making in the studied period will be defined. In other words, the historiographic querelle will be contextualised within its philosophical definition. The Jesuits’ historiography will not be contextualised by the mean of a chronological frame that draw an opposition between medieval, humanist, ecclesiastic, Protestant and Enlightenment historiographies. On the contrary, the nature of the frame in which the Jesuits’ philosophy of history will be set is ideological and methodological. All the definitions of “Jesuits’ historiography” are, at various degrees, based on the illustration gave by Eduard Fueter in his History of Modern Historiography. 86 However, this interpretation is invalidated by a disputable method of study: he decided to use humanists’ historiography as yardstick to evaluate all “other historiographies.”

87

Moreover, The parameters

adopted to define the peculiarities of Jesuits’ historiography are invalidated by several conventions involved in their definition. As a matter of fact, E. Fueter bases his definition on four oppositions in which the first term represents a connotation of the Jesuits’ historiography and the second that of the humanists. These are: the opposition between Aristotelianism and Platonism; faith and skepticism; modern devotion and pagan classicism; rhetoric as empty form and erudite method. A re-definition of these parameters (and, thus, the legitimacy to employ them) is mandatory to provide a better definition of Jesuits’ historiography.

86

Fueter Eduard, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie, Munchen - Berlin, Oldenbourg, 1911. We refer to the Italian translation Storia della Storiografia Moderna, Napoli, Ricciardi, 1970, p. 358-373 87 Ivi., p. x and p. 1.

33

The peculiar methodological approach expounded above is necessary because of two kinds of theoretical reasons. First of all, the labeling of a “philosophy” (in its wider sense) - like the presumed Platonism of the humanists - is an arbitrary operation dictated by the practical need to organize the knowledge. However, rarely the categories used correspond to the facts they describe. More precisely, while classifications like medieval historiography, humanistic historiography, Protestant historiography etc., are widely used and accepted by scholars and the periods they refer to are defined, the real historical thinking refuses to adapt to this narrow categorization. As an example, on one hand the historical works written during the period from the 6th to the 14th centuries and structured according to a supposed Christian canon, are defined medieval. On the other hand, in some works of Protestant historians of the 18th century it is still possible to find a subdivision of the ages of the world according to the biblical scheme of the succession of the four kingdoms! For this reason it might be somehow misleading to attempt the comparison between formal categories rather than between real intellectual products. This is a common and basic precept but it is extremely important to adhere to it in the concrete historic research too: ‘It is maybe attracting, but utterly artificial (and contrary to the concept of true progress) to configure the history of philosophy and historiography as a series of ideal phases each one passed through only once and thus transform the philosophers in categories and the categories in philosophers [...]’. 88 A second theoretical reason that induced us to prefer the comparison in an ideological rather than chronological frame is the postulate that each historiography not only develops from the interaction of various historiographies but it is, at various degree, formed in opposition to them. Having this precept in mind allows a more proficient comparison that permits to underline influences, oppositions, persistences and even “deceptive persistences”. Only this approach to the study of a philosophy of history or to the evaluation of a historiographic canon does not reduce the history itself to a “Dynastengeschichte” - the evolution of history-thinking to the “line of buckets theory.” As an example, most histories of historiography tend to describe the passage from the classical historiography to the Christian and medieval ones as a break: according to this widespread conception, the humanity fell back into a miraculous world identical to the one that the ancient historians seemed to have dissipated. In the opinion of these scholars, 89 the ancient 88

Croce Benedetto, Teoria e Storia della Storiografia, Bari, Laterza, 1973, p.223. We are referring to a great number of scholars that might be well represented by the Italian Adolfo Bartoli (1833 1894), the Swiss Eduard Fueter (1876 - 1928) - despite the correspondence on this matter with Benedetto Croce (see Besomi Ottavio, “Il Carteggio Croce-Fueter”, in AST, 75, 1978, p. 219 - 276), the Scottish Robert Flint (1838 - 1910) and the French Gustave Lanson (1857 - 1934). The attitude of Bartoli toward the history of the ideas is well represented in his History of Italian Literature - a work filled with anathema against the fall of human thought during the Middle Ages: an époque in which the concept of history does not exist anymore and the credulity and the ignorance dominate. In the medieval historical thought, according to the Italian scholar, nothing is left of the previous civilization. Fueter himself, electing to open his History of Modern Historiography with a non-historian like Francesco 89

34

philosophy of history that had replaced the pre-Hellenic believes, perished with the fall of the Roman Empire to resurrected only with the humanism. The centuries in between are characterized, in their opinion, by the substitution of theology to history and of the divine to the human. Therefore, the humanist historiography has not been understood as the result of a process that evolved from antiquity through the centuries re-defining the previous conceptions without opposing them. Rather it has been described as a new creation with no links to the previous ten centuries of historical thinking. Indeed, they continue, the new historiography was not only independent and unrelated with the medieval one but also openly opposed to it. This postulate is not only groundless but even misleading. And most scholars studying the Jesuit’s philosophy of history have been mislead indeed. 90 Summing up the theoretical premise to this section, the necessary base to carry out a research on Jesuit’s historiography is its contextualization within the ideological frame of the period and in comparison with the previous conceptions of history. Moreover, it is also essential to be aware of the fact that even if a “new historiography” claims its opposition to a previous one or, on the contrary, professes its intention to recover an ancient one, ‘never […] is a historic phenomenon explicable with the synchronic study of it [because] it is the results of all the steps of its evolution’. 91 By consequence, the first step in the process of definition of a Jesuits’ historiographic canon is the understanding of its roots despite what it claims to oppose or descend from and, most important, despite what the roots claims to oppose or descend from. More concretely, this first part of the research is consecrated to the understanding of the evolution of the historical though from the late 16th to early the 17th centuries: that is, the definition of the relations and influences between classical, medieval, ecclesiastic and humanistic historiographies. This kind of approach is obviously necessary if we have in mind that the Society of Jesus had been funded and operated in this many-sided context. Too many historians neglected to adopt such a diachronic approach taking for granted that the historiography of a Christian Catholic order of the 16th and 17th centuries has naturally to be

Petrarca, is clearly supporting the idea of a break in the “evolution of the historical thought”: the Medieval one has been abandoned while a “new” one is being create ex novo. While it is true that such an interpretation of history is typical of the period from the Reinassance to the first two decades of the 20th century, it is possible to recognize the idea of a philosophy of history as a succession of “schools of thought” in contemporary authors like the Lithuanian Mintautas Čiurinskas (for example, he opposes the Jesuits’ biographic style to the secular one as they were two distinct, separate and “non-connected” entities. See his XVI-XVII Amžiaus Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės Biografistika, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2006, p. 131 - 135) and in the theoretical introduction of Hobsbawm Eric J. to his Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991, London, Michael Joseph, 1994. 90 It is for example the case of Mintautas Čiurinskas who take for granted this definition without verifying it. See Mintautas Čiurinskas, Op. cit., p. 131. 91 Bloch Marc, Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien, Paris, Librairie Armand Colin, 1949, p. 9.

35

framed in the modern ecclesiastic one and, therefore, it should be understood as a direct evolution of the medieval. Sometimes, this position is slightly mitigated by the concession of the adoption of a more modern form of expression by the Jesuits: the rhetoric of the humanists. In other words, it is a common opinion that the Jesuits’ historiography preserved, almost unaltered, the values (moral, ideological purposes, philosophy of man and nature etc.) of the medieval one. Similarly, is commonly believed that the adhesion of the Jesuits to the humanist historiographic and literary canon was just exterior (formal). Specifically (and this is in particular the stance of E. Fueter), rhetoric has too often been intended as a simple embellishment of the text to captivate the readers even if during late Middle Ages and Renaissance it represented much more than an attribute of style. 92 We will demonstrate that while it is true that the Jesuits carried out a values replacement, they neither recuperate the old ecclesiastic-medieval nor tried to proclaim the “rebirth” of the medieval Aristotelianism in opposition to the Platonism of the humanists. Rather, basing on both Aristotelianism and Platonism, they elaborated a new system of values with characteristics peculiar to the Renaissance. Analogously, the education to this new system of values was made possible by the adoption of a method able to meet the coeval scientific criteria in order to get credibility and, thus, be able to spread among the acculturate classes. In this respect, rhetoric has to be seen not only (or not mainly) as the exterior form used to represent in a modern form the old values, but rather like a “scientific method” itself carrying its own values. In a word, rhetoric was among humanists and Jesuits not just a formality “to tickle the hears” but, strictly speaking, the scientific method of the Renaissance historiography. This has been often underestimated by scholars who studied Jesuits’ historiography basing on the postulate that its values were the ecclesiasticalmedieval and its rhetoric the formal, superficial and exterior adhesion to the Renaissance literary canon.

I.1.2. Humanist Historiography as the “Origin” of the Modern One.

Obviously, when writing about modern historiography, the authority of Eduard Fueter cannot be ignored. Despite the critics to his method and some of his statements, 93 his History of Modern Historiography is still a point of reference nowadays. Therefore, on his analysis will be based our definition of the 15th and 16th centuries context.

92

Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 360. Croce Benedetto, “Geschichte der neuren Historiographie, dritte um einen Nachtrag vermehrte Auflage, besorgt von Dietrich Gerhard und Paul Sattler”, La Critica. Rivista di Letteratura, Storia e Filosofia diretta da B. Croce, 35, 1937, p. 379 - 381.

93

36

Even if Fueter’s decision to describe the Jesuits’ historiography in the third book of his History of Historiography (the one devoted to the ecclesiastic historiography), 94 seems correct due to the status of religious institution of the Society of Jesus, this choice appears immediately disputable. In fact, not only it is functional to the debatable postulate on which the whole study is based - that the European modern historiography originated from the humanist one in opposition to the medieval - but it is not even coherent with the structure of the volume. The practical difficulties to adhere to the theoretical postulate are revealed by Fueter himself when he openly states that Jesuits’ historiography should be treated as a unity because of its peculiarities (the adoption of a humanistic rhetoric, the preservation under this “mask” of the medieval values and the enslavement of the humanist method to Church’s needs), but than places almost half of the Jesuit historiographers in sections different from that devoted to the historians of the Society because their works can not unquestionably be listed as expressions of the peculiarities mentioned above. By consequence, the Jesuit historian Gabriel Daniel (1649 - 1728) is studied in the second book of Fueter’s work among the exponents of the humanist historiography in Europe. Obviously, it was impossible for the Swiss historian to register the author of a book like the Observations critiques sur l’Histoire de France de Mézeray among those that ‘enslaved the humanist historiography to the Church’s needs’ or like an ‘expression of an only formal adhesion to the modern critic method’. 95 In fact, while it is true that Daniel tried to break with the humanist historiography, he developed a method closer to that of the philosophers of the Enlightenment rather that leant toward the restoration of the medieval one. 96 Likewise, the Spanish Jesuit Juan de Mariana (1545 - 1624) is not listed among the Jesuit historian, but among the European humanists. 97 In fact, despite the claim that Jesuits’ historiography ‘has to be regarded as a unity’,98 the definition of the common traits of this historiography does not allow to include an exponent of the Spanish humanism as Mariana. His theory of the legitimacy of the tyrannicide and the critical approach to the study of the Spanish history do not suit at all with the definition of the Jesuit historiography as an original fusion of the external influences subjugated to the necessity of the Society and disguised by the mean of the adoption of formal criteria of the humanism - the rhetoric. The examples of this lack of correspondence between the theoretical-methodological premises and the concrete structure of the section reserved to the Jesuits’ historiography multiplies: 94

Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 361. Ibidem. 96 See also Thierry Augustin, Lettres sur l'histoire de France, Paris, Garnier Freres, 1840, p. 49-51 (first edition Paris, Sautelet et Mesnier, 1829). Augustin Thierry was a French historian better known for his rigorous historical method. He learned from Claude Charles Fauriel to have recourse to primary sources for his researches and to organize their results in texts characterized by a precise and picturesque style. Thierry, in his Letters about the French history, praised Daniel for his rigorous historical method that at that time meant a close adhesion to the School of Biondo. 97 Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 289 - 291. 98 Ivi., p. 358. 95

37

the Jesuit Jaques Bénigne-Bossuet (1637 - 1704) is listed as a representative of the ecclesiastical attitude toward history but not in the Jesuits chapter. 99 His approach to the study of the Reformation was absolutely innovative: there were neither traces of the classical polemical procedure nor the morality of the Protestant is denigrated. His Histoire des variations des Églises Protestantes (published in 1688) is the first example of history of the Reformation not based on the polemical method and able to relate the religious events with their political and social repercussions. 100 His critical method and the selection of the sources for all his historical works, and particularly for the Discours sur l'Histoire universelle 101 (published in 1611) revealed problematic for Fueter and did not allow him to list Bossuet among the Jesuits historians. This is one more fact that exhibits the fallacy of his thesis. Nonetheless, we have to recognize that Bossuet resumed the medieval and Christian ideal of the linearity of time understood as a succession of divine ages. 102 Even more critics attracts E. Fueter’s description of the Bollandists’ historiography. 103 The Acta Sanctorum are described in the book about the independent humanist historiography and more specifically in the chapter regarding the foundation of the erudite historiography. There is no doubt that this place fits for such a methodologically innovative work. However, it demonstrates once more the inadequacy of Fueter’s organizational criterion. He had to openly recognize the peculiarity of Bollandists’ method and its radical estrangement from the ecclesiastical practices. 104 The list of the exceptions in the definition of the Jesuits’ historiography in the Geschichte der Neueren Historiographie includes many other historians like Sforza Pallavicino described as an exponent of the ecclesiastical (non Jesuitical) historiography 105 and Daniel Paperbroch who has been listed among the erudite of the school of Flavio Biondo. 106 Moreover, to the already long list of “exceptions” it is necessary to add the deliberate excision of several relevant Jesuit historians. In fact, the intentionality of Fueter cannot be denied referring to Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and Jean Hardouin. The Spanish P. H. de Mendoza was, as a matter of fact, almost “Cartesian” in his method and would have invalidated all the theoretical premises placed by Fueter as introduction to the Jesuits historiography. For similar reasons the French Jesuit has been ignored. His pyrrhonism

99

Ivi., p. 340 - 342. The full text is now available in the electronic library of the Institut National de la Langue Française (INaLF): http://pedagogie.ac-toulouse.fr/philosophie/textesdephilosophes.htm#bossuet, 08-4-2009. 101 We will refer to Bossuet Jaques Bénigne, Discours sur l'histoire universelle, Paris, Flammarion, 1926. 102 See also Croce Benedetto, La storia come pensiero e come azione, Bari, Lateza, 1938, p. 97 - 98. 103 Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 417 - 419. 104 Strict judgemts to Fueters definition of the Jesuits and particularly Bollandists’ historiography have been expressed by Mannhardt Francis, “Bollandus”, in Churc Historians. Papers of the American Catholic Historical Association, vol. 1, 1926, p.190 - 226. 105 Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 353 - 355. 106 Ivi., p. 423 100

38

was, as a matter of fact, so marked that would better fit to an Enlightenment philosopher as Voltaire. Summing up the argument, Fueter analysis of the Jesuits historiography aims to demonstrate the validity of his decision to elect the humanist historiography as criterion and yardstick for the evaluation of the modern one. Moreover, this criterion is based on a postulate - the independence and opposition of the humanists to the medieval ecclesiastical system of values and historical method - that is neither obvious nor commonly accepted. On the contrary, several scholars, especially in recent years, demonstrated the similarities and continuity between the Middle Ages and the humanism with regards to the system of values, believes and scientific method. 107 By consequence, the definition of the Jesuits’ historiography as formally humanists (because of the importance of the rhetoric in their educational system), medieval with regards to the system of values and only apparently erudite in relation to the method seems to be based on theories that are, at least debatable. However, due to the influence of Fueter work on the modern historiographic conceptions and the undeniable connection between the humanist culture and that of the Society of Jesus, it is from his history of historiography that the present study will stem from. More precisely, we will start from the same approach o Fueter accepting Humanism a the referring point but only to better define the two parameters that according to the Swiss historian influenced the Jesuits’ historiography: the system of values (§I.1.4.) and its formal expression - the rhetoric (§I.1.5.). Analyzing these two parameters we aim to demonstrate that the system of values of the humanists is related to that of the ecclesiastical society during the Middle Ages and, much closer to that of the Jesuits of the modern ages. Moreover, we will demonstrate that the rhetoric from the 15th to the 17th century was not simply the formal capacity of some kinds of values: it was a system of values itself. It was, in fact, the “rationalism” of the Humanism and Renaissance ages. These two parameters will now be considered separately.

I.1.3. Re-Definition of the First Parameter: Permanence of the Scholasticism in the NeoPlatonism

The main mistake in defining the evolution of the system of values from the Middle Ages to the humanism has to be individuated in the supposed transition from the Scholasticism to the neoPlatonism. Most studies about the ecclesiastical and the Jesuits’ historiographies are based on the postulate that these two groups adopted Scholasticism in opposition to the neo-Platonism of the 107

See particularly Copleston Frederick, A History of Philosophy: Volume 3 Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy. Part II The Revival of Platonism to Suarez, New York, Image Books, 1963.

39

humanists with evident consequences on the approach to the study of history. We will demonstrate that the neo-Platonism was in the 16th century much more connected with the Scholasticism and certainly not opposed to it. Consequently, Jesuits and humanists shared a partially common view about the approach to the philosophy of sciences. Even if the subject we are going to tackle with is very generic and our position is not meant to be innovative, the fact that these theoretical basis have been often forgot in previous histories of historiography makes it worthy to briefly trace them. While it is widely recognized that the Italian Renaissance was neither confined to the recovery and dissemination of texts nor to the new ideal of education represented by teachers like Vittorino da Feltre (1378-1446) and Guarino da Verona (1370-1460), a few scholars stressed the point that even if ancient literature was regarded as the chief means of education, the ideal of liberal education had never been regarded as (in any way) incompatible with the acceptance and the practices of Christianity. 108 Moreover, too often the most prominent figures of the humanism had been labeled as “skeptic” without taking in to account that many of them were at the same time both humanists and devoted Christians. And we are not referring to the so-called “Christian humanism” but to persons like Vittorino da Feltre himself that never showed any doubt about the possibility to coordinate Christian fate and cult of the classics. However, while the Italian Renaissance was in large part an individualistic movement, in the sense that the ideal of social and moral reform was not conspicuous, in northern Europe the literary Renaissance was allied with efforts to achieve moral and social reformation and hence emphasized popular education. For that reason, it tended to merge with the “Reformation” in its broader sense. The most representative exponents of this tendency were Rudolf Agricola (14431485), Jacob Wimpfeling (1450-1528) and, of course, Erasmus (1467-1536). This peculiar blending was immediately perceived by the Roman Church as a danger. In point of fact, the preaching of John Calvin (1509-1564) and Philip Melanchton (1497-15760) made of the educational activity their foundation. For this reason, the Counter-Reformation of the Jesuits had a consistent recourse to the “tools” of the Italian humanistic philosophy of education. As a matter of fact this philosophy seemed to be able to conciliate the precepts of the classicism with those of the Catholic dogma. The Ratio Atque Institutio Studiorum is the most representative example of this line of action (§I.3.2.). The Jesuits meant, as expected, to offer a valuable alternative to the Protestant education that merged classicism and moral reform (often intended as religious reform). They were opposing

108

To prove this statement, it should be enough to remember that the book De Liberorum Educatione published in 1450 by Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II, was taken in large part from Quintilian’s De Oratore, which had been discovered in 1416 and from an educational work attributed to Plutarch. The book harmonizes the classical precept expounded in recently-discovered manuals with the moral education of the Christian doctrine in such a natural way that the author do not even feel the necessity to explain how such a commixture is possible.

40

neither the revival of classicism nor the recovery of the ancient philosophy. They were opposing the outcome of their religious implications. The ancient philosophy was, as a matter of fact, much more compatible with the Christian doctrine than many scholars assumed. In truth, because of the interest and enthusiasm that aroused from the literature of Greece and Rome, the humanistic phase of the Renaissance not unnaturally inspired a revival of ancient philosophies. Of these revived philosophies, the most influential was Platonism that assumed the form of a neo-Platonism. The most remarkable centre of platonic studies was in the 16th century the Platonic Academy of Florence founded by Cosimo de’ Medici under the influence of George Gemistus Plethon. Plethon was an enthusiastic adherent of the Platonic tradition and composed in Greek a work on the difference between Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies. 109 Together with Plethon, John Bessarion (1395-1472) was sent from Byzantium to take part in the Council of Florence (1438-1445) to achieve the reunion of the Eastern Church with Rome. Bessarion, who became a cardinal, composed among other works an Adversus calumniatorem Platonis in which he defended Plethon and Platonism from the accuses of the Aristotelian George of Trebizond, who had written a Comparatio Aristotelis et Platonis in answer to Plethon. 110 Nevertheless, it must not be thought that these Platonists were all determined haters of Scholasticism. John Argyropoulos translated in to Greek St. Thomas Aquinas’ De ente et essentia, and Bessarion too had a great respect for the “Angelic Doctor”. For these Platonists it was not so much a question of setting one philosopher against another: Plato against Aristotle, rather it was an attempt to renew the Platonic interpretation of reality which would unite in it the valuable elements of pagan antiquity and yet be Christian. It was the religious side of neo-Platonism as well as its philosophy of beauty and harmony that particularly appealed to the Platonists and what they particularly disliked in Aristotelianism was the tendency to naturalism that they detected therein. Plethon looked to the renewal of the Platonic tradition for a regeneration of life and a reform in Church and State; and if his enthusiasm for Platonism led him into an attack on Aristotle which even Bessarion considered to be somewhat immoderate, it was what he regarded as the spirit of Platonism and its potentialities for spiritual, moral and cultural renewal which inspired him. It was not a purely academic interest in, for example, the Platonic affirmation and the Aristotelian denial of the “Theory of Ideas”. The Platonists considered that the world of the humanistic Renaissance would greatly benefit in practice by absorbing such a doctrine as that of man as the microcosm and that of the ontological bond between the spiritual and the material. This attempt of harmonization was at the base of the neo-Platonism.

109

The book has been first translated in to Latin with the title De Platonicae atque Aristotelicae philosophiae differentia. See Gemisto Pletone Giorgio, Delle differenze fra Platone ed Aristotele, Rimini, Raffaelli, 2001. 110 See Copleston Frederick, Op. cit., p 15.

41

One of the most eminent scholars of the Neo-Platonic movement was Marsilius Ficinus (1433-1499). As a young man he composed two works, the De Laudibus philosophiae and the Institutiones platonicae and these were followed in 1457 by the De amore divino and the Liber de voluptate. In 1469, appeared the first edition of his commentary on Plato’s Symposium and commentaries on the Philebus, the Parmenides and the Timeus. In 1474 he published his De religione christiana and his most important philosophical work, the Theologia platonica. 111 Marsilius Ficinus became a priest when he was forty years old, and he dreamed of drawing atheists and skeptics to Christ by means of Platonic philosophy. In his commentary on the Phaedrus he declares that the love spoken by Plato and that spoken by St. Paul are one and the same, namely the love of the absolute beauty, which is God. God is both absolute beauty and absolute good; and on this theme Plato and Dionysius the Aeropagite are in accord. Similarly, when Plato insisted that we are reminded of eternal objects, the ideas, he was saying the same as St. Paul when he declares that the invisible things of God are understood by the means of creatures. In the Theologia Platonica the universe is depicted according to the Neo-Platonic spirit as a harmonious and beautiful system, consisting of degrees of being which extend from corporeal things to God, the absolute Unity or One. The place of man as the bond between the spiritual and the material is emphasized; thus Marsilius thought of Aristotelianism as springing from the same philosophical tradition and inspiration of Platonism. He insisted, both as Christian and as Platonist, on the immortality and divine vocation of the human soul. He naturally adopted leading ideas from St. Augustine, developing the Platonic theory of Ideas in an Augustinian sense and insisting on illumination: we learn nothing save operating outside the perception of God, who is the light of the soul. A strongly marked syncretistic element appears in Marsilius’ philosophy, as in that of other Platonists as Plethon. It is not only Plato, Plotinus, Iamblichus and Proclus whose thought is synthesized with that of St. John, St. Paul and St. Augustine, but also Hermes Trismegistus and other pagan figures make their appearance as bearers of the spiritual movement which sprang from an original primitive revelation of the beauty and harmoniously ordered and graded system of reality. Marsilius Ficinus, like other Platonists was not only personally captivated by Platonism, but also thought that those minds that had become alienated from Christianity could be brought back to it by being led to view Platonism as a stage in divine revelation. In other words, there was no need to choose between the beauty of classical thought on one side and Christianity on the other. The best-known member of the circle that was influenced by Marsilius Ficinus was probably John Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494). John possessed knowledge of both Greek and 111

See Kristeller Paul Oskar, Marsilio Ficino and his work after five hundred years, Firenze, Olschki, 1987; and Garin Eugenio, “Ritratto di Marsilio Ficino”, Belfagor, 3, 1951, 289 - 301.

42

Hebrew, and he wrote 900 theses to show how Hellenism and Judaism can be synthesized in a Platonic-Christian system. John’s tendency to syncretism showed itself also in the composition of a (unfinished) work: De concordia Platonis et Aristotelis. This is a work on the agreement of Plato and Aristotele and in the proemium to the De ente et uno he asserts his belief in this agreement. In the fourth chapter of this work he remarks, for instance, that those who think that Aristotle did not realize, as Plato did, that the being is subordinate to the One and does not include God ‘have not read Aristotle’, who expressed this truth ‘much more clearly than Plato’. 112 Whether Pico della Mirandola interpreted Aristotle correctly, is, of course, another question; but he was certainly no fanatical anti-Aristotelian. As to the Scholastics, he cites them and he speaks of St. Thomas as ‘the splendor of our theology’. 113 It is clear that the revived Platonism of Italy might better be called neo-Platonism due to its innovative revision of that ancient philosophy. But the inspiration of this Platonism was not primarily an interest in scholarship, in distinguishing, for example, the doctrines of Plato from those of Plotinus and in critically reconstituting and interpreting their ideas. The Platonic tradition stimulated and provided a framework for the expression of the Renaissance Platonists’ belief in the fullest possible development of man’s higher potentialities and in their belief in nature as the expression of the divine. They had a strong belief in the value and possibilities of the human personality as such they did not separate man either from God or from his fellow men. To use Copleston’s words ‘their humanism involved neither irreligion nor exaggerated individualism. And though they had a strong feeling for nature and for beauty, they did not deify nature or identify it with God. They were not pantheists. Nor do we find [...] an individualism which discards the ideas of Christian revelation and of the Church’. 114 Summing up, it is possible to claim that if there was an opposition between the ecclesiastical and the humanist system of values it was not in the philosophical frames adopted by the two entities. We believe that it was not a philosophical opposition. We do not claim that the Platonism of the laity was similar to the Aristotelianism of the Church. Rather, we believe there was not a philosophical opposition: the neo-Platonism of the humanists was intended less in a strictly doctrinal sense and more as a syncretistic interpretation of nature. Most of the studies about the Jesuits’ historiography took for granted this supposed and debatable opposition creating categories and “currents of thought” that in reality were not so distinct and certainly not antithetical.

112

Di Napoli Giovanni, “L'essere e l'uno in Pico della Mirandola”, Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica, XLVI, 1954, p. 356-389. See p. 372. 113 See Copleston Frederick, Op. cit., p. 19. 114 Ivi., p.21.

43

The real danger was perceived by Jesuits in the merging of the humanist doctrine and the Reformation. The “northern humanism” seemed to be even more dangerous because its implications were not limited to the opposition of philosophical systems (that could have been easily reformed); rather, it was perceived as a challenge because its reference to changes in “values”. A definition of the historiographic canon of the Jesuit should, therefore, take into account the relation of the Order with coeval philosophical theories and with the system of values. E. Fueter and many other scholars did not proceed according to this line. Hence, they erroneously drew on an inconceivable opposition between the Platonic humanism and the Scholasticism of the Society of Jesus.

I.1.4. Re-Definition of the Second and Third Parameters: the Non-Opposition to the Pagan Values Tradition

In order to better approach an attempt of definition of the Jesuits’ philosophy of history, another preconceived idea have to be refuted: the whole classical tradition and literature were not discarded in toto by the Christian education and values. Never were they understood as just relicts of a pagan past. This cogitation is demonstrated by two kinds of considerations: first of all because the medieval and modern-ecclesiastic philosophy believed the reality to be a manifestation of the truth in opposition to the contemporary way of thinking (that hold the truth an attribute and “hyperbole” of the reality); Secondarily, the consciousness of the relation and connection with the ancient world was much more rooted in everyone’s mentality than nowadays. However, often the perspective of study of the Renaissance and humanist period is distorted by the attribution of the contemporary ideology to the subjects studied. We will briefly go through these two significant points in order to set a solid basis for what will be the concrete study of the Jesuits’ philosophy of history. Following the reasoning of Benedetto Croce (but many other historians agree abut this position), most histories of historiography are misled by a commonplace: the intellectuals of the middle ages and early modern period perceived the break with the classical tradition. Some even affirm the decadence of the historical thought in the passage from the antiquity to the middle ages. 115 In truth, it is only in the second half of the 17th century that this transition was perceived as a break - it is only with the elaboration of the concept of Middle Ages. The reality is that some changes were not perceived by the coeval - which kept thinking themselves as “Latin” - and some other cultural aspects that did not change were perceived as innovation.

115

44

Croce Benedetto, Teoria e Storia..., Op. cit., p. 224

More concretely, some historians transpose the modern (17th and 18th centuries) understanding to scholars of the early Renaissance: Adolfo Bartoli, as an example, stressed the desire of the humanists to save the historical thought from the abyss in which it fell during the previous four centuries. 116 ‘With the chronicles of Gregory of Tour’, says Bartoli trying to represent the thought of the Humanists, ‘we are in a world where the thought is decayed so low to stir to pity. [...] The history has become a humble maidservant of the theology that is an aberration of the spirit. [...] And after Gregory of Tour they [the humanists] felt an even bigger fall with Fredegar in which the credulity, the confusion, the ignorance exceeded every limit. They felt in him nothing was left of the previous civilization’. 117 Bartoli is attributing his (and his coeval) perception of historical ages to the humanists of the end of the 14th and early 15th centuries causing a deplorable distortion of perspective. His invective continues for several pages mixing his personal point of view with that of the humanists and sometimes of the ecclesiastical historians of the Renaissance: ‘After Fredegar - it would seem impossible - one more step down is made, a step toward nothingness, with the monastic chronicles, where they [the humanists] could have almost perceived the image of the bony monk who, every five or eleven years, fishes out his scared head from the tight window of his cell to make sure that someone is still alive and than lock himself in his prison where he waits for nothing more than death’. 118 This kind of reasoning is simply anachronistic and forgets to consider that the continuity with the antiquity was strongly perceived until the end of the 15th century and sometimes even further. According to Croce, perception of continuity and impression of renewal coexisted:

119

while it is true that during the Middle Ages the mythology, the miraculous and the transcendence re-appeared in the human thought but they did not represent a fall back to the pre-Hellenic barbarism. On the contrary, these forms of organization of the reality are manifestations of the desire to perfect the classical knowledge - even in authors like Gregory of Tour, Fredegar and in the monastic chronicles. The divine, during the Middle Ages, interfere, anthropomorphically, with the human affairs but this is not a breaking-off with the classical and pagan tradition: the gods are now the Saints. And often even the religious tradition attributes to the intervention of St. Andrew or St. Mark the outcome of a battle. Consequently, in the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of an act of devotion lie the reason of the winning or loosing of a battle. It is exactly like the “pagan” ages when the proper cult of a deity was believed to be the reason for the good outcome of the event connected with him. The

116

Bartoli Adolfo, Storia della letteratura italiana, vol. 1: Introduzione - caratteri fondamentali della letteratura medievale, Firenze, Sansoni, 1878-1884, p. 11 - 341. 117 Ivi., p. 287. 118 Ibid., p. 288. 119 Croce Benedetto, Teoria e Storia..., Op. cit., p. 225.

45

change between the classical and pagan civilization and the medieval and catholic one is just formal. Analogously, the ancient thought left the “Fortune” on the border of its humanism but the divinity and the inscrutable took its place and emerged even in the sternest historians. The late antiquity is, as a matter of fact, rich in fables where the supernatural interfere with the human events in a manner that seems sometimes contrasting with the coeval conception of humanity. The catholic age, in this respect, produced something that might be understood as an improvement. In the Christian system, the fables and the miracles spiritualized and ceased to be “superstitions”, that is something extraneous and contrasting from the general humanistic conception. They became a harmonic part of the new supernatural and transcendent conception of the creation. Another fundamental historical concept that from the antiquity passed in to the Renaissance persisting even during the Middle Ages was that of virtue. The Roman civil virtue became the virtue of the spiritual man in the Christian conception and expanded to the concept of human virtue with the humanism. However, this process is not made of a series of new and distinct definition of virtue. It is, instead a progressive enlargement of that notion: the virtue was a civil value in the pagan antiquity and still it was in the Christian thought in a more universal interpretation because the states and the governs were expression of the God’s will as they were of the pagan gods for the Romans. And the virtue of the humanists is nothing more than a peculiar expression of the Christian virtue: not aiming to oppose the religion but only its “technical limitations”, the intellectuals of the early modern period defined the virtue as a trait peculiar to the man, nevertheless they kept considering the man as an expression of the universal. These considerations should be enough to remind us that, preparing to investigate the Jesuits’ conception of history, it is necessary to keep in mind that the opposition between ecclesiastical, humanism and the classical system of values is much less pronounced than many modern historians tend to think. It was, in fact, much more like a slight evolution of values and certainly not a rift between inconceivable realities. By consequence, we can agree with Fueter when he underlines the continuity between humanist and Jesuits’ historiography in terms of formal expression, but we still have to stress that a sort of continuity as to be recognized in the system of values too. In other words, if the Jesuits’ historiography grew in opposition to something (as a mean of reform of the historical thought - as it did indeed), it was neither opposing the humanists’ historiography nor the ancient one. While it should now be clear the reason why the supposed opposition between the philosophical structures of medieval-ecclesiastic scholars and the one of the humanists is not a real opposition, some more explanation are necessary to clarify the inadequacy of the theory that the

46

ecclesiastic historiography, and particularly that of the Society of Jesus, grew in opposition to the ancient and pagan one. First of all, it is widely recognized that the peculiarity of the medieval conception of creation defines the ‘reality as the expression of the truth’. 120 This means that every object, event or intellectual product is the expression of the truth that is the expression of God. The fact that some events seem to the human intellect to have been outside the law of God is simply a mistake due to the human imperfection. St. Thomas defined and canonized this imperfect perception of the creation generating, at the same time, the conditions to understand the whole human history, including the pagan ages, as history of the salvation, that is, history of the Christianity. Alessandro Gisalberti explained St. Thomas’ definition clarifying at the same time the process that causes the man to not be able to recognize the expressions of Gods in certain manifestations. 121 According to the interpretation of Gisalberti, St. Thomas defined as object of the human knowledge the essence of the corporeal things. This essence was known immaterially as spiritual. St. Thomas claims also that the first object, or essence, the man his able to know is the reality in its totality. This is the consequence of the natural tendency of the human intellect to get catch the most general notions and then their properties and concrete expressions. To reach this ultimate knowledge, the man has to make a series of assessments and to be able to express judgments. The capability to carry out these cognitive actions permits to reach knowledge more and more determined that allows perceiving the universal in the concrete. 122 In a word, the reality, according to this theory, in every form and in every stage of the human history, is always a manifestation of the truth. Recapitulating, there were no needs for the ecclesiastical system of values, in particular with regard to the philosophy of history, to refuse the pagan past and its intellectual expressions because they were manifestations of the universal (of God) and not being able to recognize them as such is a fault of the cognitive process of the (imperfect) human being. The arbitrary action to attribute to the Christian philosophy the ambition to break with the pagan tradition and to exclude it from the “history of the Christianity” is a transposition of a modern conception of truth and reality. As an example, the Christian tradition never had problems in recognizing Virgil a significant place in the path of humanity toward redemption. Never his “paganism” was understood 120

Morse Ruth, Truth and convention in the Middle Ages: rhetoric, representation, and reality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1991, p. 196. 121 Ghisalberti Alessandro, Filosofia medievale: da Sant'Agostino a San Tommaso, Firenze - Milano, Giunti, 2006, p. 185 - 192. 122 A similar position can be individuated in the Jesuit Francisco Suàrez when he tries to demonstrate that it is possible to defend the same truth both with the science and with the faith: the only true unity and real in the world of existences is the individual, to assert that the universal exists separately ex-pane reduce individuals to mere accidents of one form indivisible. Suàrez argues that although the humanity of Socrates does not differ from that of Plato, they are not the realization of the same humanity. See Recaséns Siches Luis, La Filosofía del Derecho de Francisco Suárez, con un estudio previo sobre sus antecedentes en la patrística y en la escolástica, Madrid, Jus, 1927.

47

as an obstacle to his definition of forerunner of the Christian message. In fact Dante, in his Comedy, attributes him the role of guide in the afterworld. In Dante, Virgil is the allegory of the reason that shall be associated to the theology in the attempt to reach the soul salvation.

I.1.5. Re-Definition of the Fourth Parameter: Rhetoric as a Method

To conclude this section dedicated to the philosophical premises to a study in philosophy of history in the early modern Europe, a final word must be spent about the role of the rhetoric. We would like to stress the importance to contextualize the terms in their coeval ideology. Therefore, the scholars who aim to approach a study on Jesuits’ historiography basing on the postulate that it was sometimes exclusively a form of exhibition of style, should be aware of the semantic transition of the term “rhetoric”. While rhetoric is now understood as an attribute of the style of writing, that is a technical aspect of the writing process, during the Renaissance and the Baroque period it carried a more complex shade of meanings and it represented mainly the method of the rational approach to the study of human nature and as an organizing tools. It is widely recognized that Jesuits made rhetoric one of their main persuasion instrument and the focus of their educational program. Moreover, rhetoric was consistently used in every kind of literary production and particularly, due to the nature of the subject, in historiography. The rhetorical aspect of the texts seemed sometimes to have the upper hand over the contents and concepts treated in the texts themselves. While this is undeniable, the abuse of rhetoric has been stigmatized for the Jesuits’ historiographic production and education as the formal veil that under the appearance of the adhesion to the humanist literary canon conceals the profession of adherence to the most rigid tradition. While the formal function of the rhetoric in the textual production cannot be denied, we have to remember that from the 14th to the whole 17th centuries it was mainly the form by means of which the rationality and coherence of a thought was displayed in the written form. In other words, it was not only an embellishment of the speech but also the expression of the rational method that permitted to draw irrefutable conclusions. Most scholars seem to forget the distance between our time and the period object of our studies. Particularly, they forget to distinguish the shade of meanings attributed to words and concepts. By consequence, we can read in the pages of the History of Education of Eugenio Garin that, among Jesuits, the ‘humanistic education’ evolved ‘in a second direction turning in to the formal aspect, rhetoric, of the ancient culture and focused on the extrinsic values: linguistics and

48

oratorical’. 123 This is a widely spread opinion and it is often supported by the assumption that the Jesuits had recourse to this formal instrument to provide the soldier of Christ with a useful repertoire of topoi and argumentative formula: both means of the most elaborated art of persuasion. 124 Notwithstanding certain intentions to prepare the missionaries and the polemists with a store of knowledge fit to counter the pretension (both religious and philosophical) of infidels and Protestants and the Jesuits had recourse to rhetoric mainly for their capability to articulate the thought in a rational way and only secondarily to embellish the speech and attract the acculturate and refined readers. As an example, the position of Brunetto Latini (about 1220 - 1294) towards rhetoric should be considered because representative of the coeval attitude regarding the rationality of thought. While in France, he wrote two encyclopedic works: the Tesoretto and, in French, the Livre dou Trésor. He also translated into Italian the Rettorica and three Orations by Cicero. Particularly successful was the Livre dou Trésor in which the author aimed to form and mould the “political man” by the means of the learning of the ars dicendi - the “rettorica”. 125 This kind of education of the politician was typically humanistic, however, even Dante, who can be defined a precursor of the Christian humanism, refers to Latini as “master” referring to his importance in his intellectual education. 126 The art of rhetoric, was, in fact, the science of the “rectors” the new bourgeois governing class well intentioned to substitute the practice of the abuse of power with the exercise of persuasion. And the persuasion would have been possible, according to Latini, only by the means of a perfect argumentation resulting from the capability to faultlessly organize the philosophical reflection. 127 The definition of rhetoric as means of education of the intellect more than formal and extrinsic embellishment of the texts spread among European scholars and almost half a century after Brunetto Latini, Giovanni Villani (1280 - 1348) asserted the importance of the rhetorical education to refine mind and the mental faculties: the ability to deliver an exact speech implies the capacity to master and structure the thought which subtend it. 128 Particularly relevant, for the 123

Garin Eugenio, L’educazione in Europa. 1400-1600, Bari, Laterza, 1976, p. 202. Ivi., p. 203. 125 About the importance of the rhetoric as fundamental educative instrument see Maggini Francesco, La rettorica italiana di Brunetto Latini, Firenze, Galletti e Cocci, 1912, p. 4 - 80. Similarly, the awareness that Latini considered the rhetoric an agent of intellectual education, that is the education to the cohesion, coerence and rationality of the thought, emerges in the collective study edited by Maffia Scariati Irene, A scuola con ser Brunetto: indagini sulla ricezione di Brunetto Latini dal Medioevo al Rinascimento: atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, universita di Basilea, 8-10 giugno 2006, Firenze, Edizioni del Galluzzo per la Fondazione Ezio Franceschini, 2008. 126 Inferno, XV, 82 - 87. 127 Sermonti Vittorio, L' Inferno di Dante, Milano, CDE, 1989. 128 To better understand Villani’s intepretation of rhetoric see Santagostino Giulia, Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e vita religiosa nella prima meta del Trecento dalla Nuova Cronica di Giovanni Villani, unpublished thesis, Univeristà degli Studi di Milano, Faculty of Literature and Philosophy, Matr. 363434. 124

49

purpose of this section, is the fact that Villani was writing about the education of the ecclesiastics. He thought rhetoric could help them in refine both their spirit and their mind. It should be clear that a definition of rhetoric as the expression of the focus on the extrinsic values is at least misleading referring to the early modern period.

Conclusions. It is possible to claim that most studies about Jesuits’ philosophy, and particularly about their philosophy of history, are based on debatable assumptions. Particularly, scholars attributed the Jesuits the same manner of relating with other current of thought assimilating the values of the Society of Jesus to those of the so-called Christian humanism. Previous studies correctly recognize the roots of the Jesuits philosophy of history in the mixture of humanism and Christianity. However, they misattribute the latter a desire to oppose certain traditions and system of values. Some conceptions and commonplaces have to be re-defined in order to carry out correctly a study on philosophical systems. In particular: 1.

While it is true that formally the Jesuits and the Christian humanist draw their style

from that of the humanists, it is incorrect to affirm that the relation between the two parts was purely formal because the religious devotion always opposed the paganism shown by humanists. It is more accurate to state that values and believes passed from antiquity to the modernity without great changes in form. Simply, the Christians harmonized those believes in a more cohesive system. Moreover, the pagan past was understood by the Christian philosophy as a manifestation of God’s will. The arbitrary action to attribute to the Christian philosophy the ambition to break with the pagan tradition and to exclude it from the “history of the Christianity” is a transposition of a modern conception of truth and reality. By consequence it is groundless to discard in toto the Jesuits’ literary production as formally humanist but Christian with regards to the contents. 2.

Similarly, it is erroneous to draw an opposition between an Aristotelian Christianity

and a Platonic Humanism: some of the most representative Platonic Humanists (John Pico della Mirandola and Marsilius Ficinus) demonstrated the interest to co-opt the Platonism onto the Christian Aristotelianism in order to contribute to the universal harmony of the Christian philosophy. In the same way, religious scholars (Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini) tried to harmonize the two philosophies to heal the break that was being created between science of letters and Christian philosophy. Therefore, studying a Jesuits’ texts it is inappropriate to adopt the preconception that it is Aristotelian and it opposes every form of Platonism. In synthesis, it is misleading to take for granted the complete Orthodoxy (in its most narrow sense) of the content of

50

the texts of Christian humanists and particularly of those that based their whole educative system on humanism: the Jesuits. 3.

Finally, previous analysis of the Jesuits historiography (and particularly the most

representative one: that of E. Fueter) aimed to represent the Humanist historiography as the origin of the modern one. These researches were based on a postulate - the independence and opposition of the humanists to the medieval ecclesiastical system of values and historical method - that is neither obvious nor commonly accepted. On the contrary, several scholars, especially in recent years, demonstrated the similarities and continuity between the Middle Ages and the humanism with regards to the system of values, believes and scientific method. By consequence, the definition of the Jesuits’ historiography as formally humanists (because of the importance of the rhetoric in their educational system), Medieval with regards to the system of values, and only apparently erudite in relation with the method seems to be based on theories that are at least debatable. What we demonstrated in this section is that it is undoubted that the Jesuits historiographers, like other Christian humanists, created their literary instruments mixing humanism, religion and ancient pagan forms. It is also true that the new historiography they developed aimed to oppose other forms of literary expression. However, it is in no way possible to restrict this opposition to the pagan tradition and to the Platonism of the humanists. The analysis of the evolution of the educative activities of the Society of Jesus (§ I.3.1. and § I.3.2.) will confirm that almost all their activities were first of all oriented toward an opposition to the spread of new system of moral values different from the Catholics ones and generated by the mingling of “Nordic Humanism” and Reformation ideas. This is the reason why, while the Italian Humanists were not opposed, the exponents of the Nordic Humanists were challenged: because of the mixture between ancient pagan values and forms of expression and a reform of values. This is the main reason for the refutation of Erasmus. The Jesuits meant, in other words, to offer a valuable alternative to the Protestant education that merged classicism and moral reform. This was not due to the values of the Classicism easily includable in the Christian dogma. Rather it was because of its religious and moral implications. However, this claim is not enough to explain the role of historical production in this sort of moral education arm-wrestle. It seems, in fact, that the combined influence of Jesuits’ colleges, production of catechisms and preaching would have been enough to oppose the Reformation. Then, Why to invest in a fight in the field of historical production? The answer lies in the evolution of moral, scientific and political thought from the late humanism to the baroque. This evolution will be the object of analysis of the next chapters.

51

I.2. THE PLACE OF HISTORY IN 17TH CENTURY “ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCES” Agreed that the hypothetic reform of historiography carried out by Jesuits and Christian humanists did not aim to oppose the humanistic system of values, but rather the mixture between those values and the moral reform promoted by the precursors of the Reformation (§I.1.), it is necessary to understand why the debate shifted from doctrinal and moral to involve such a distant field like that of historical writings. 129 In order to better understand this peculiar commixture it is, first of all, necessary to grasp the fundamental importance of the concept of history (and its peculiar definition) for the Christianity. However, the Catholics were not the only group that was-re-thinking history during the 16th and 17th centuries. An analysis of the philosophy of history in this period can not avoid the confrontation with the new position of history in the doctrine of the Political Realism, the Protestants‘ conception of the past and the opposition between reason and memory in Descartes‘ philosophy. These four fields and their intersections are the object of study of this chapter.

I.2.1. Making history For the Major Glory of God (and Roman Church)

Karl Löwith’s book Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History provides the perfect synthesis of the Christian “theory” of history. 130 Despite the aim of his research was not to define the Christian philosophy of history (but rather to demonstrate both, that the modern philosophy of history is the evolution of the biblical tradition, and to investigate the paradox of the impossibility to reach a laic conception of history) such a definition is the foundation on which the whole reflection is based. The most precise and concise definition of Christian philosophy of history is given in chapter eleven: The Biblical View of History. 131 Consequently, this section deserves to be better traced. Löwith reminds that while the Greeks described history as an endless repetition of events already happened, the Christian man perceive in the flow of time the prophetic element: the future as it is offered to the humanity by God. Thus, for the Christianity, history is no more a stare toward a repeating past - “permanent origin”, rather it is a “significant training” turned toward the future. 129

It is undoubted that such a change in the means of the debate and on the field of the challenge happened: in one hand, it should be enough to remember the importance in defining doctrinal position of the Jesuits in historical works as the Moscovia of Antonio Possevino (§II.1.2) or the centrality of the discussion about morals in Adam Tanner’s description of the Bohemian insurrection (§II.3.3). On the other hand, Protestant too used the historical debate to tackle directly with theological and doctrinal matters: as an example, Antoine Arnauld in his La logique ou L'art de penser offered an original conception which opposed both the Cartesian “renounce” to history and the Jesuits’ morality. 130 Löwith Karl, Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1949. 131 Ivi., p. 182 - 190.

52

Accordingly, history is a “prophetic creation” which deals with an object - the historical reflection that does not aim to understand the past. On the contrary it works toward an unknown future already set by the faith in redemption. However, as Löwith himself points out, this conception is radically different from the original Christian message. The same conclusion emerges in the reflection of Jacob Burckhardt about the history of humanity. 132 Precisely, both scholars point out the profound difference between the optimistic a liberal nineteenth century Christianity and the one of the origins. The latter, as a matter of fact, was in absolute contrast with the worldly values. It was independent and unconnected with the saeculum. The Christian faith was the announcement of redemption: it was an eschatological message in total discontinuity with the world. While for the Christianity of the origins the divinity is transcendent and not involved in the human vicissitudes, since the 5th century, theologians like Paulus Orosius (c. 375 - 418) and St. Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) started seeing in the incarnation of God in the Christ the irruption of the transcendent in the immanent. 133 In their view, Christ created a fracture in the human history: the divine interfered with the secular giving humanity a message of redemption. History then becomes a defined object with a beginning (the creation) and an end (the Last Judgment). By consequence, history that once was an independent object became an integral part of the Christian message. This transition radically changed the role of the Church too. While the Church of the origins aimed to the detachment from the laic world to set its sights to the pure transcendence, the medieval one arrogated a much important role in the world basing on the new conception of history. In fact, if history has to be seen as a process with a beginning and, most importantly, an end, the Church has the duty to guide the humanity, for the rest of his path, towards the certitude of the redemption. In a word, the church had become the connection between the transcendence of God and the immanence of God’s will in the progress of humanity; it was the “rationality” of the human progress toward redemption. Basing on these assumptions, the Church built its temporal power and its spiritual role. Nevertheless, when this role brought the Roman Church to the apex of its power, three events, both internal to the institution and external, undermined its position and the right itself for the Church to exist. Internally, a ruinous and destabilizing event has to be seen in the Protestant Reformation. Externally, an equally harmful event for the ideological basis on which the rights of the Church were based was the spread of the new political science that involved a reformation of the moral values. We are obviously referring not only to the so-called Machiavellianism intended 132 133

Burckhardt Jacob, Considerations sur l'histoire du monde, Paris, F. Alcan, 1938. Santi Giorgio, Agostino d'Ippona filosofo, Roma, Lateran university press, 2003.

53

in its wider sense, but to the Renaissance skepticism too. Finally, since the second half of the 16th century an even more insidious doctrine spread in Europe. It was the historical pyrrhonism: it was the result of the rising scientific rationalism then canonized by René Descartes. While the first two ideologies contested some attributes of the Church - the religious dogma and the morality - the third, was undermining the existence itself of the institution. Yet, the most dreadful danger was in the mingling of these three doctrines: in the northern and eastern Europe, and particularly among upper-classes, the Catholic Reformation was often accompanied with a moral and political reform and a new scientific approach to the letters that brought to a repudiation of history as object not subject of knowledge. By consequence, the historical role of the church was endangered. It should be clear now why an order like that of the Jesuit, devoted to the preservation of the power of the Roman Church and the Pope’s mantle, could not ignore the importance of the protection of the role of history. Jesuits, in their fight, had to deal with all of these three philosophical aspects and they responded acting on different levels: religious, moral, political and scientific. Most important for the aim of this research is the fact that the field in which this challenge better concretized has been that of historiography especially because for centuries it had been the domain of morals and political education. While the contrast with the Reformation is obvious, a deeper analysis is required to better understand the opposition between Catholic doctrines, the new political principles and the 17th century revised position of history in the “encyclopedia of sciences”.

I.2.2. Making History to Preserve Values: Jesuits and the New Political Doctrines

The first ten “Provincial Letters” of Blaise Pascal appear to be written by an anonymous Parisian, who, in order to defend his associates of Port Royal, addresses a friend in the province to explain to him the doctrinal debate that was going on in the French capital. In other letters this fiction is abandoned: they are addressed directly to Jesuits, who were distinguished by having accused the Augustinus 134 of Jansenism. Writing these letters, Pascal intended to mobilize public opinion against Jesuits. In his condemnation, Pascal inveighed against the moral sluggishness of Jesuits. In letters eleven through sixteen, he directly addresses the ‘reverend fathers of the Society of Jesus’. By attacking the flimsy morality of Jesuits, he introduced political concerns into the argument. Specifically, the thirteenth and fourteenth letters condemned, without distinction, Jesuits’ moral

134

The Duch bishop Cornelis Otto Jansen, better known as Jansenius, (born in 1585 and died in 1638) expounded in his main work, the Augustinus (published posthumous in 1640), a peculiar conception of the relation between Divine Grace and human freedom. See about this work the essay of Vismara Paola, Il cattolicesimo dalla riforma cattolica all'assolutismo, in Filoramo Giovanni and Menozzi Daniele (eds.), Storia del cristianesimo. L'età moderna, RomaBari, Laterza, 1997, p. 242-243.

54

and political actions. In Pascal’s vivacious style, morality and politics merge with the doctrinal issue: the French philosopher did not distinguish between the different spheres of the intellectual activity of the members of the Society of Jesus. 135 With regard to Jesuit activity, the inextricability of doctrine, theology, politics, and intellectual expression was clear from the initial creation of the Society. Even if with polemical intention, Carl G. Huber underlines the same interrelation:

A Phalanx dominated by an absolute thought, held under iron discipline, inflamed by the enthusiasm for the cause of the Roman Church, and ready to any sacrifice in order to achieve the triumph, equipped with the spiritual and material forces necessary for the accomplishment of its mission […], such was the Society of Jesus. […] Mighty and difficult was its mission: it dealt with the conquest of the European Society and its subjugation to the papacy; it dealt with the spread of the Christian doctrine among the infidels; it dealt, finally, with the reform of the morals and the culture of the Catholic clergy in order to wake up the dead religious life of lay society.

136

Huber indirectly acknowledges the mixture of “spiritual and worldly forces” in the Society of Jesus. This mixture mirrors the Society’s aims: in the world, the submission to the Catholic Church; spiritually, the reform of morals of both the clergy and laic society. This profound interconnection is widely recognized by most scholars. In his study on the Bohemian insurrection of 1618, Francesco Gui points out that everyone who wants to undertake research into Jesuit political history must be aware of ‘the strong connection between the religious and the political spheres that characterize Jesuitical militancy’. 137 For this reason, it is possible to study the moral, theological, and doctrinal implications of Jesuits’ worldly activities, but hardly possible to research the “Jesuit political thought.” The study of the Jesuit political thought is a research into intersections: connections between the issues internal to the Society of Jesus and general political matters; conflicts caused by “double loyalty,” that is, loyalty to the local sovereigns and to the General in Rome; conflicts between the role of court confessors and their involuntary influence on political decisions; conflicts with secular institutions. All these issues have a common thread: their shared aim was to guide Jesuits’ worldly actions in the fight against gnoseological relativism and moral apathy, which they understood to be the main obstacles to the potential influence of the Church over secular society.

135

Pascal Blaise, The provincial letters; Pensees; Scientific treatises, Chicago, Encyclopaedia britannica, 1952. Huber G. Carl, I gesuiti: storia, dottrine, organizzazione, pratiche, azione politica e religiosa della Compagnia di Gesu, Roma, Casa editrice artistica, 1909, p. 93. 137 Gui Francesco, I gesuiti e la rivoluzione boema: alle origini della Guerra dei Trent'Anni, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989, p.15. 136

55

The internal debate of the Society regarding the best model of the organization of the Order was itself strictly connected with a more general thought of some Jesuits on the topic of sovereignty. From this point of view, Juan de Mariana (1536 – 1624) perhaps most successfully summarized these two imperatives, connecting the debate on the structure of the state to the necessity of reforming the Society, which process, in his opinion, could not be postponed. In De Rege et Regis Institutione, written in 1599 to the future Philip III, Mariana pointed out that the best form of government is the monarchy, but stressed the necessity to limit its power by representatives of the middle classes (he was referring to the Spanish Cortes). 138 For Mariana, the sovereign is not above the laws and, due to the revocability of the sovereignty pact, in some cases could even be deposed or sentenced to death. Such a theory led to the condemnation of Mariana’s first book by the Sorbonne. The book was burned in Paris after the murder of Henry IV (1608). Mariana’s theories on the lawfulness of the regicide were shared by other Jesuits, for instance, Emanuele Sà and Francisco Suàrez, and had a remarkable influence on the debate Intorno ai Grandi Errori che Sono nella Forma del Governo dei Gesuiti [on the big mistakes of the form of the Jesuit government], as the libel written by Mariana in 1602 is titled. In that pamphlet, he censured the excessive power of the general and he wished the provincial congregations had the chance to rise to the position of real intermediaries between the central power and individual Jesuits of each province. The general political discourse of Jesuits often intersected with reflections on the Society’s internal government as confirmed by the literary works of the Jesuit Pedro Ribadeneira (1526 1611) author, among other oeuvre, of Tratado en el qual se da Razon del Instituto de la Religion de la Compañia de Jesus (1605) [Treatise in which the institution of religion in the Society of Jesus is explained]. This opus is connected with a more general political discussion, soon published in Tratado de la Religion y Virtudes que Debe Tenere el Principe Christiano para Governar y Conservar sus Estados [Treatise on the religion and virtues that a Christian regent should have in order to govern and preserve his state] (1595), written expressly to confute the theories of Machiavelli. 139 It is clear that the political thought was related not only to discussions on the internal organization of the Society of Jesus, but with moral issues, as well. What Ribadeneira was concerned with was not the best form of government, but the moral virtues that a sovereign should 138

About Mariana’s political ideology see Ferraro Domenico, Tradizione e Ragione in Juan de Mariana, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989. Particularly intereting is the section titled “Between Machiavelism and moralism” p. 207 - 230. Here it is investigated the Jesuits’ peculiar migling of political realism and morality and it is stressed the nonOrthodoxy of their thought in this matter. This means that often Jesuits, especially in political matters, did not share the Roman Church position and while the general trend was that of an opposition to the principles of Machiavelli, in a relevant number of cases the members of the Society of Jesus tried to reform some aspects of the florentine’s political doctrine insted of opposing it in toto. 139 Ivi., p. 208 about the education of the regents and p. 184 -188 about Ribadeneira’s reaction to the machiavellism.

56

have. Politics, in his thought, was a matter of morals. This view was shared by most Jesuits and particularly by those residing in the Spanish province as the above-mentioned Francisco Suàrez. 140 This observation is particularly relevant because, according to most Polish and Lithuanian scholars this regions Jesuits’ philosophy of history, their moral philosophy and other doctrine peculiar of the Society of Jesus were strongly, and mainly, influenced by the Spanish philosophers of the order. In particular, the doctrines of Suàrez constituted the basis on which the Western Europe Jesuits ideology developed. Despite General Claudio Acquaviva attempts to stress the extraneousness of the Society to the political scheming – including writing the instruction De confessariis principum 141 (1602) with the intent to regulate the action of those Jesuits who were operating in courts – his generalship was pestered by the political events that interfered more or less directly with the life of the Society. 142 The France of Henry IV is a clear example of Jesuits compromising in political life. The nomination of Father Pierre Coton as a Real confessor (1608) sealed the alliance between the Provincials of the Society and the sovereign. The alliance was not regarded favorably by Rome. Hard was the life of the French Fathers, compelled to compromise between the loyalty to the Roman directives and the Gallican principles advocated by Henry IV. 143 During the generalship of Acquaviva, the problem of the “double loyalty” was not peculiar to the French province exclusively and the interdict of Venice (1606) was another event that manifested how the decisions issued from the centre were not immediately accepted in the provinces. 144 Generally speaking, while the provincials complained about poor internal discipline (the non respect for the Roman directives, mainly in the political sphere) that led to the secularization of the religious, individual provinces reflected specific issues peculiar to the local contexts. In Poland, for instance, Jesuits were blamed for their compromising with the political power. At the beginning of the seventeenth century the situation was stigmatized in the Monita Privata Societatis Jesu 140

Maravall José Antonio, “Maquiavelo y Maquiavelismo en España”, Boletin de la real academia de la historia, 165 (1969), 183 -218. 141 Martin Nicholas, Schiller: national poet, poet of nations, Amsterdam-New York, Rodopi, 2006, p. 185. 142 Ivi., p. 185: ‘as for meddling in politics, some Jesuits did, some didn’t. The official view of the Society in the seventeenth century was that they should stay out of politics. In 1602, its General Aquaviva, published an Instruction for Confessors of Princes intended to preserve the advantages of gaining princes’ support but to avoid harming the Society’s reputation by interfering in politics: the confessor was not to become involved in political matters or court factions, not to exercise any political power, and to require the prince to hear him out if he criticised abuses in the prince’s government. [...] Father [Whilhelm] Lamormain seems seldom to have resisted. He was an international figure, born in Luxemburg and Educated in Prague [...]’. In 1630 Eggenberg, the imperial first minister, complained to Vitelleschi, the General of the Jesuits that Lamormain interfered too much in politics: ‘[...] His influence was such that even the Emperor’s brother, when seeking a favour, wrote to Lamormian asking him to put his request to the Emperor’. 143 Mousnier Roland, L’Assasinat d’Henri IV: le problème du tyrannicide et l’affermissement de la monarchie absolue, Paris, Gallimard, 1964, p. 173. 144 See Broggio Paolo (ed.), I gesuiti ai tempi di Claudio Acquaviva : strategie politiche, religiose e culturali tra Cinque e Seicento, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2007.

57

(1614) 145, a well known pamphlet against Jesuits, written by a former member of the Society, Hieronim Zahorowski. 146 There is no need to analyze in depth the local realities in order to understand that it is not possible to attribute each single and peculiar action to a common “Jesuits’ political thought.” Asserting that the Society of Jesus as a whole defined its own political position would mean entering the trend of polemical writing. Nevertheless, it is possible to single out a “common factor,” that is, to individuate the principle that governed their activity in the world: the morals. This assertion can be well exemplified by an analysis of the Bohemian insurrection of 1618 but for a deeper investigation of this event see section §II.2.4. However, it is useful to point out already a strong connection between the religious and the political spheres that have characterized the Jesuitical militancy since the second half of the 16th century and especially during the first phases of the Thirty Years War. At the same time, it is necessary to stress the non-linearity of their political actions too: Jesuits had a conflicting relationship with both the local sovereigns and the ecclesiastic hierarchy. It is by no means possible to reduce their political activity to the defense of the Roman Church or to the fight against the evangelic heresy. As pointed out above, many criteria come in to play, and morals, theology, and politics merged in an indistinct whole. This is expressly confirmed by the theologian Martin Becan who claims that the peace of the republic cannot be preserved without the unity of faith. In his thought, the heretics are greatly perturbing the peace of the Christianity with their homicides, violence and adulteries. Therefore, concludes the controversialist, it is clear that the Christian peace is twofold: on one hand it is the consequence of the unity of faith and sacraments; on the other hand, the peace is the result of a correct politic that consists in justice and respect. 147 It is clear that the religious pluralism in Jesuits’ thought is incompatible with the tranquility of the community. The words of Adam Tanner support this theory: the Austrian Jesuit and mathematician claims that the main cause for the spread of the (Thirty Years) war had to be seen in the corruption of the politicians’ morality. 148 The assertion of the Jesuit makes clear that while on the external front there were the heretics standing, on the internal one an even more insidious enemy is acting: the politiques, the libertines, whose indifference has essentially supplanted the 145

Catalano Alessandro, “Il Pamphlet come arma politica: l’Arcangelo di Boemia” (1635), eSamizdat, 2004 (II), 3, p. 207 - 210. ‘Since the beginning of the 17th century, the action of the Society had been object of innumerable polemics and when, in 1614, the Polish ex-Jesuit Hieronim Zahorowski published anonymously in Cracow the Monita Privata Societatis Jesu, the famed secret instructions of the Society, it has also been individuated the text on which all the successive accusations would have been based’. 146 To the production and distribution of this texts has been dedicated an important study: Pavone Sabina, Le astuzie dei gesuiti. Le false istruzioni segrete della Compagnia di Gesù e la polemica antigesuita nei secoli XVII e XVIII, Roma, Salerno, 2000. 147 Becanus Martinus, Manuale controversiarum huius temporis de fide ac religione, Wuerzburg, 1623. See, Lecler Joseph, Storia della tolleranza nel secolo della Riforma, vol. I, Brescia, Morcelliana, 1967, p. 341–345. 148 Tanner Adam. Amultetum Castrense. Ingolstadt, 1620. p. 167 – 168, see Gui Francesco, Op cit., p. 18.

58

religious values. ‘The central point on which the supremacy of the Church on the other aspects of the worldly sphere resides is the scission between religion and politics, between the traditional moral and Machiavellism, which pervades the common mentality.’ 149 A “new science” of power, stimulated by the recent scientific discoveries, was spreading among all levels of the society. At the top it was producing the “phantoms” of the state reason, whose consequences the Jesuits perceived in terms of the abuse of power and systematic violence and among the acculturated classes, those of “pseudo-politicians,” it was disseminating prejudicial hostility and diffidence toward the authorities, both secular and spiritual. An explicit accusation against the “scientific approach” to politics and its connection with scientific discoveries appeared during the Bohemian insurrection. It was a letter, intercepted by the Vallonian soldiers during the Bohemia campaign and published by the Catholic authorities as an example in 1620 under the title of Epistola Wenceslai Meroschwa Bohemi ad Ioannem Traut Norimbergensem. The letter provides a comparison between Galileo Galilei’s discovery of the lens and instruments of the new politician praised by Wenceslas Meroschwa. According to its author, the new consciousness allowed a better appreciation of the techniques of power and for their adoption to defend from the machinations of the sovereigns. 150 It is now more clear that during the first years since the foundation of the Society of Jesus, the Fathers and Ignatius of Loyola himself were not interested in the educative activities; the priority was individuated in the religious and doctrinal battle. However, during the last two decades of the 16th century, the spread of the Machiavellism (in its wider sense) among the politicians forced the Jesuits to adopt a new strategy in order to face the new challenge: the moral decadence of the regents. Their literary works reflected this change in the challenges (see for the specific aspect of the Jesuits’ historiography §I.2.2.) and while during the first decades of their existence the written production focused on the apology of the members of the Society and their moral virtues, the new challenge of the recently developed science of power deviated their cultural works toward the education of the regents. It was a straightforward opposition to the principles of Machiavelli and Machiavellists. The Spanish Jesuit Juan de Mariana is possibly the most representative exponent of this trend. Juan de Mariana, as mentioned above, was born in 1536 near Toledo (died in 1624) and entered the Society of Jesus in 1553. In 1599, he published the controversial book De Rege et Regis Institutione in patent opposition to the new science of power. This text deserves a deeper analysis. 151 It is necessary to remember that Mariana wrote his book in a period when the royal

149

Gui Francesco. Op cit., p. 20. Ibidem. 151 We will refer mainly to the research of Ferraro Domenico, Tradizione e ragione in Juan de Mariana, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989. Particularly relevant for the understanding of the political position of the Jesuits are the pages 181 - 216. 150

59

power was expanding on the national territory creating an opposition between the sovereign and the community. This theme was very popular in the works of numerous scholars who recognized in this approach to the government the strength of the ideal monarch depicted by Machiavelli. These men of letters used to approach this topic as a rhetorical exercise, but contributed to the reinforcement of the system creating cultural and theoretical basis for the abuses of power. Even the Cortes, and particularly the Castilian ones, lost their traditional prerogatives like the faculty to present their own bills in matter of economy, the right to be consulted before the imposition of secondary taxes and the right to oppose the revocation of laws approved by themselves. 152 It is noteworthy the fact that even the Cortes and the King’s Court begun to recognize the “right” of the sovereign to abuse its position in order to achieve the wellness of the state. By consequence, even the illicit violations of the laws were understood as an attempt of the king to keep the nation united and to fight the corruption spread among nobles. The duty of the kings, claimed these scholars, was to produce the concrete realization of the ideal state, no matter what the price is. This conception of the power drastically diminished the importance of the morality of the king - a factor that since the conversion of the Spain’s Regents had been considered fundamental. Mariana, writing his book, meant to restore the ancient role of morality in the sovereigns’ education and to convince the noblemen of the importance of this change in the approach to the politic. As a matter of fact, the Spanish Jesuit was not addressing the King himself nor his education and actions: he was writing to the nobility because Nothing is more contemptible of the slothful nobility: they representative, as a matter of fact, covered with the glory of their fathers, squander in wickedness and superficiality the inherited wealth; Dazzled by their fathers light, they grow lazy pleasing themselves of idleness and inertia, aiming to reach the prizes due to the virtuous persons by the means of vices, violence and indolence. 153

Even if Mariana recognized the value of the results achieved by the sovereign, and particularly his ability to control the aristocracy depriving them of every power and gathering them at his court in order to control their activities, he complains about the lack of morality in his education and methods and lashes out at the nobles because they accept this system becoming (the most dissolute) part of it. Mariana individuated in the bourgeoisie the class with the potential to oppose the moral decadence of the sovereigns: the middle classes had in the course of history the role of opposing and balancing the activities of the sovereign and to protest against his immoral actions. 154

152

About the Spanish political situation at the time of Mariana see: Francisco Martinez Marina, Teoria de las Cortes o grandes juntas nacionales de los Reinos de Leon y Castilla, Madrid, Fermin Villalpando, 1813. Perez Prendes J. Manuel, Cortes de Castilla, Barcelona, Remedios Morán Martín, 1974. 153 From Mariana Juan de, De Rege..., Op. cit. p. 293. Quoted from Ferraro Domenico, Op. cit., p.184 - 185. 154 Ivi., p. 185.

60

However, at the time of Mariana, to use a successful expression of Fernand Braudel, it had to be registered the ‘betrayal of the bourgeoisie’ 155 that renounced to his role of moral control in order to hoard wealth. Since the 16th century the main aim of the middle classes was to reach the status of nobleman: their historical role had been lost. 156 For this reason Mariana reaches the conclusion that every citizen has the right to oppose the sovereign in every way if his acts are immoral. Even the regicide is admitted in case of wicked conduct of the king. Particularly, in the history Mariana saw the shift of the role of moral controllers from the middle classes to the clergy. While the senate had the function of balancing the consuls in the Ancient Roman political life, in the 16th century both the nobility and the middle classes seemed to have lost their capability to guarantee the nation against the abuses of the sovereign. 157 Therefore Mariana addresses the clergy, and the bishops in particular to spur them on assembling the most qualified expressions of nobility and middle classes to succeed the Cortes in representing the needs of the nation. Nonetheless, Mariana, like most of his contemporaneous, was aware of the difficulties in keeping the Spanish domain united with respect to politics, religion and economy. 158 Despite the frequent reference to the morals they all accepted the lesson of Machiavelli trying to harmonize it with a proposal able to save both the necessities of the government and the execution of the basic political man duties without violating, at least formally, the divine precepts and the evangelical lessons. In that historical context characterized by extreme incertitude, especially for the domains of regional dimension, the catholic theorists tried to recover Machiavelli fundamental demands contextualizing them in the catholic tradition by the means of the faint concept or ‘Real State Reason’. 159 According to this view, the religion, once aim of the society, is now presented (at least formally) as a ‘means itself to be used in order to establish, preserve and expand the domains’. 160 Several scholars supported this theory in Spain even if the most relevant theorization of the Catholic State Reason was produced by Giovanni Botero. In the domains of the Habsburg, Fernando Alvia de Castro wrote the Verdadera razón de estado. Discurso Politico in which the Tacitism is clearly exemplified. The Tacitism was a movement sprung up during the Spanish Renaissance and was characterized by the admiration and constant reference to Tacitus. 161 The 155

Braudel Fernand, La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II, Paris, Armand Colin, 1949. We refer to the 2nd revised edition of 1966. 156 Similar concerns had been expressed by the Jesuit Piotr Skarga in his Sermons to the Diet. See Janusz Tazbir, Mirosław Korolko (ed.) Skarga Piotr, Kazania sejmowe, Wrocław, Ossolineum, 1984. See also, Korolko Mirosław, O prozie "Kazań sejmowych" Piotra Skargi, Warszawa, Pax, 1971. 157 Piotr Skarga expresses the same opinions in his Sermons to the Diet claiming that the political decadence of Oland and Lithuania originated from the moral decadence of the members of the Council. See §II.1. 158 See the same approach in Albert Wijuk-Koialovicz especially in Historiae Lituanae where in numerous occasions he seems to approve the Polish-Lithuanian union as expression of a moral union more than a politicalo ne. See §II.2.2. 159 Alvia de Castro Fernando, Verdadera razón de estado. Discurso Politico, Lisboa, 1606. 160 Botero Giovanni, Della ragion di stato, Venezia, 1617. Now in Continisio Chiara (ed.), Roma, Donzelli, 1997. 161 Antón Martínez Beatriz, El tacitismo en el siglo XVII en España: el proceso de receptio, Valladolid, Caja Salamanca y Soria, 1991.

61

roman historian was admired particularly for his ability to harmonize political and moral education in his historical narration. The exponents of the Tacitism and particularly Alavia de Castro entered a dialogical debate with the Machiavellism. They refer to Tacitus with regards to the Machiavellism because they see in the Senator the best instrument to introduce the morality in the political discourse of the Florentine. Tacitus, in fact, had been able to demonstrate that ‘the real state reason is necessarily based on the natural reason’. 162 The spread of the Reform increased the difficulties for the Catholics authors who had to face both the danger of an uninhibited approach to the religion and that of a laceration of the past religious unity. The effort to jointly oppose both these tendencies is attested by a significant page of the Principe Cristiano of the Spanish Jesuit Pedro de Ribadeneira.

163

This page might be taken

as an example of the most radical Christian position about the role of history and religion in the political education.

The difference between the “politician” and us is that they ask the prices to take in to account the religion of their subjects, whatever it is, false or true, while we desire that they recognize that the Catholic religion is the only true and that they favor this one exclusively. [...] Moreover, we demand that more than any other thing, they consider God and his holy religion because it is the only instrument to preserve states and kingdoms and keep them obedient, peaceful and calm. [...] However, all of this shall be done with sincerity and pure and transparent hearth loving the religion for itself and not using it as false and hypocritical means to govern the state as the “politician” teaches. 164

However, the position of Juan de Marian is closer to that of the “politician” than to the ideology conceived by his illustrious brother. As a matter of fact, Mariana tends to underline the political usefulness of the religion. From the strictly political point of view, the Jesuit understood religion as an indispensable element to integrate the controlling activities of the state apparatus. This theory, instead of opposing Machiavelli’s doctrine and the new, widespread, political ideology, offered a valuable integration to it introducing religion and morals as integral part of the

162

Maravall José Antonio, Op. cit., p. 186. The Tacitism was particularly flourishing in Spain and has been theorized by several scholars and particular historians: Juan Márquez, of the Order of Saint Augustine, wrote in 1612 in Salamanca El gobernador christiano deducido de las vidas de Moysen y Josue, principes del pueblo de Dios in which proposed a christian and moral alternative to the Prince of Machiavelli to educate the young regents. Similarly, Luis Valle de la Cerda wrote in 1599 in Madrid Avisos en materia de estado y guerra, para oprimir rebeliones y hacer paces con enemigo armado o tratar con subditos rebeldes where he agrees with most Machiavelli’s precepts and particularly the necessity for the prince to be astute, authoritarian and to not always reveal the truth especially to his subjects who might often not be able to understand the state reason. However, Valle de la Cerda see in the moral education of the prince - by the means of the study of historical models of astuteness and morality - the only way to educate a sovereign able to unite and govern a state. 163 Ribadeneira De Pedro, Tratado de la religión y virtudes que debe tener el príncipe cristiano para governar y conservar sus Estados. Contra lo que Nicolás Machiavelo y los políticos de este tiempo enseñan, Madrid, 1595. We will refer to the analysis of Ferraro Domenico, Op. cit., p.187. 164 Ivi., p.188.

62

structure. By consequence, history had to be seen as a repertoire of examples of the power of the religion as a governing tools. The fall of states and kingdoms become the proof of the danger of the decadence of the morality. Finally, the education of the prices had to be based on the study of the past not only to learn the political astuteness and the governing tricks but mainly to form that moral person able to use religion as a cohesive tool. This form of Tacitism recognized in the long lasting monarchies of the past the result of the morally correct behavior of the sovereigns that acting according to the God’s precepts produced concrete realizations of the divine providence. These states and their sovereign were the models of morality that the new princes had to imitate. This idea was shared, as an example, by the Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino who expounded it in the Tractatus de Potestate Summi Pontificis in rebus temporalibus adversus G. Barclaium (1611). Similarly, Francisco Suàrez recognize the worldly authority only when it operates in conformity with the principles of the natural reason. The ancient concept of state is therefore reformed and integrated in a general religious and moral vision. 165 As a consequence of this postulate, the Rege of Mariana assumes the form of a revised handbook for the education of the Prince but while the model of Machiavelli is still the structure of the works, the focus of the educative process become the absolute morality of behaviors, an adequate decorum and the religious devotion. These are the fundamental requirements to correctly employ all the other political stratagems learnt from the experience and the past. Only these prerequisites permits to make a correct use of astuteness, strength and even falsehood without incur in heresy and abuse of power. History is, like in Machiavelli, the repertoire of governing examples but the morality is the critical instrument necessary to understand and evaluate these examples.

I.2.3. The Cartesian Opposition to Memory The correspondence of Jacques Bénigne Bossuet 166 is particularly useful to understand and define the debate on philosophy of history in Europe during the 17th century. On May 21st 1687, Bossuet wrote to a Nicolas Malebranche’s student to caution him about the dangerous heresy of his master. 167 In fact, in 1680 Malebranche wrote his Traité de la nature et de la grâce in which he 165

Ivi., p. 193. Jacques Bénigne Bossuet was a French Jesuite born in Digion in 1627 and died in Paris in 1704. His most famous work is the Catéchisme de Meaux [the cathechism of Meaux] in 1687. Particularly important for the subject of this study are the studies in favour of the tradition, Défense de la Tradition et des saints Pères (1693), and the apology of history: Discours sur l'Histoire universelle (1681). A very useful series of studies about the “humanism” of Bossuet and his attitude toward history is that of Goyet Therese. We refer in particular to Goyet Therese and Collinet JeanPierre (eds.), La predication au 17. siecle: journees Bossuet: actes du colloque tenu a Dijon les 2, 3 et 4 decembre 1977 pour le trois cent cinquantieme anniversaire de lanaissance de Bossuet, Paris, Nizet, 1980. See also, Goyet Therese, Autour du Discours sur l'histoire universelle: etudes critiques: textes inedits et documents photographiques, Paris, Le Belles Lettres, 1956. 167 Borghero Carlo, Conoscenza e metodo della storia da Cartesio a Voltaire, Torino, Loescher, 1990, p. 10. 166

63

tried to trace back to the action of natural phenomena some portents described in the sacred history. Reading the letters wrote by Bossuet is, possibly, the best way to reconstruct the discussion about the historical critic during the so-called age of “the crisis of the European conscience”. 168 From these letters it unfolds the reasons of the opposition to the testamentary exegesis, both Protestant and catholic, that he tracked back to the impious Spinozian origin. In the critics of the little plausible traditions he clearly saw the danger of a pulverization of all the traditions in the name of a freedom of judgment against which he felt committed first of all as a bishop: he spent all his life to oppose the spread and printing of the works of Richard Simon - the most dangerous exponent of the new critics. It is a curious destiny that of Nicolas Malebranche to be united to his brother of the Oratory as a supporter of the interference of the philosophy in subjects likes history and religion from which the Cartesian philosopher theorized the necessity to keep away. The renowned pages of the Recherche de la verité (1674) against the erudition, the philology, the history, the study of dead languages made him the most intransigent voice of Descartes opposition between reason and memory. 169 The reference to the Augustinian condemn of the devotion to the sciences that are merely curious and useless makes Malebranche ideology more similar to that of the bishop of Meaux than to the critical-philologic investigations of Simon. However, this curious destiny is only a particular expression of a much wider debate: the spread of Cartesianism in unpredictable fields because clearly outside the small selection of the disciplines defined as sciences by Descartes. 170 That is, the branches of knowledge in which it was legitimate to employ the analytical method. 171 There is, in fact, a close connection between the Cartesian method and the definition of sciences - the so-called “encyclopedia of sciences”. The evidence that the methods aims to reach requires “simple natures” that is, objects that can be known by the means of an immediate intuition of the mind or, alternatively, by the means of a deductive process intended as a succession of intuitive passages. 172 The certitude of the knowledge is therefore guaranteed by both the rigor of the method and by the simplicity of the objects to which the method itself is applied. Even when

168

Ivi., p. 11. We will refer to the Italian edition: Malebranche Nicolas, La ricerca della verità, Eugenio Garin (ed.), Bari, Laterza, 1983. See, in particular, p. 39-40, 201-205 and 206-207 for the specific topic of the relation between philosophy and historical knowledge. 170 The most comprehensive analysis of Descartes’ categorization of sciences, with particular reference to history as a “non-science” is in Borghero Carlo, La certezza e la storia. Cartesianesimo, pirronismo e conoscenza storica, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1983. See also Borghero Carlo, Conoscenza e metodo della storia..., Op. cit., p. 9-37. 171 For the study of Descartes’ research method we will refer to his Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la verité dans les sciences, Leyde, Ian Maire, 1637. The edition we refer to is Urbani Ulivi Lucia (ed), Cartesio. Discorso sul metodo, Milano, Bompiani, 2002. 172 Descartes René, “Regulae ad directionem ingenii”, in Adam Charles and Tannery Paul (eds.), Oeuvres de Descartes, Paris, 1897-1913, vol. X, p. 359-469. 169

64

Descartes allays the direct reference to the ancient geometry and to the modern algebra in order to extend the application of the method to the metaphysical knowledge and to the first principles of the physics, this structuring will be confirmed. It excluded from the encyclopedia of sciences all the disciplines that could either be defined as based on knowledge of the memory or that could not reach a rigorous certitude because of their object of study. These specialties were abandoned to the vast category of the appearance or of contingency where it is possible to provide only probable or plausible reasons. From here, the philosophy of Descartes generated the opposition between reason and memory and, consequently, the critic of the Renaissance identification of science and erudition. Descartes also tried to distinguish between the subjects to which it is necessary to apply the philosophical research from those in which the principle of authority counts. Despite this attempt to conciliate the new method and the religious dogma, the danger of a distorted use of the Cartesian criterion of evidence by the libertine environment was immediately perceived. This fear clearly unfolds in Antoine Arnauld’s Quarte Obiezioni against the Meditationes de prima philosophia (1641): it is evident, according to the French, that the methodical doubt might translate in the repudiation of all what is not clear and distinct, that is the rejection of contingent subjects and particularly of disciplines dealing with faith. 173 Bossuet and Arnauld were not the only two scholars to perceive the danger of the dissemination of the Cartesian method in branches of the knowledge far from the mathematical and algebraic ones. Even before the canonization of his philosophy in the Discourse about the Method (1620), the theories of Descartes were already perceived as insidious by most European scholars particularly when connected with the discussion about the possibility to know the historical facts. And exactly the way scholars referred to Cartesianism defined the historiographic orientations of the 17th and 18th centuries. 174 Basing on this postulate, it is possible to define three different historiographic approaches. 175 The first one has been labeled as “strong Cartesianism” and it advocates the full implementation of Cartesian method trying, by consequence, to geometrize the morals. It means that the scholars who recognized this approach attempted to deal with subjects of fact and contingent idealizing them as representations of the geometrical rigor. With regards to the specific problem of the historical knowledge, or better the possibility to know history, and the techniques to 173

Borghero Carlo, Conoscenza e metodo..., Op. cit., p 15. See also, Arnauld Antoine and Pierre Nicole, La logique ou L'art de penser contenant outre les regles communes, plusieurs observations nouvelles, propres à former le jugement, Paris, G. Desprez, 1683. This text is now available online on the web site of the Bibliothèque nationale de France: http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-57444, 2010 – 06 – 21. 174 See Descartes’ letter to Marin Marsenne written in March 1636, in Adam Charles and Tannery Paul (eds.), Oeuvres..., Op. cit., vol I, p. 339. 175 Borghero Carlo, La certezza e la storia..., Op. cit., p. 12-21.

65

ascertain the truth of the historical facts, this orientation is typical of authors who tackle with the problem of the reliability of historical evidences and traditions by the means of mathematical instruments and the theory of probability. This is the approach of John Craig (1663-1731) and Jakob Bernoulli (1654-1705). The project to extend the mathematical methods to all the spheres of the human knowledge and to moral subjects together with the historical and juridical ones celebrates the predominance of a mathematical knowledge. The second historiographic approaches to the study of humanities generated by the spread of Cartesianism in ambit of the knowledge, different from the mathematical ones described above, can be defined as an attempt to complete the Cartesianism itself. The peculiarity of this attitude lies in the admission of the autonomy of the moral certitude and its irreducibility to the mathematical evidence. To this array belong the scholars who revised internally the Cartesian logic: the German Johann Clauberg, the Dutch Jean Raei and, above all, the French Nicolas Joseph Poisson, Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole. These philosophers, mostly famous for the opposition to the “Jesuits’ system” wrote texts in which it is patent the effort to traduce the novelty of the Cartesianism in to the terms of the traditional Scholastic philosophy. In this way it would have been possible to apply the Cartesian philosophy to subjects already defined by the Aristotelian philosophy. The consequence of this approach in the field of the historical research can be seen in the works of Jean le Clerc who adopts a less strict Cartesian method to the knowledge of the historical facts. It is important to note that often at the basis of such an approach there was the necessity to defend the religion. As an example, this is the case of Arnauld who, in his Logique ou l’Art de penser (1662), radically influenced the historical debate of the 17th century. A third and different historiographic answers to the problem of the relation between the new philosophy and the historical critics set up in the form of an alternative to the Cartesianism. This orientation, like the second mentioned above, insisted about the value of the moral certitude produced by the historical knowledge refusing, at the same time, to reduce everything to the mathematical approach. However, in opposition to the second current of thought, this one considered impossible to elaborate a doctrine able to correct the “imperfection” of the Cartesian philosophy in this field. In this perspective, the Cartesianism is reduced to a mere cultural background that inform the educated person that it is necessary to give the intelligence rules in order to exercise the critical activity in the subjects of fact. Incidentally, it is necessary to point out that it is exactly this last approach the one adopted by Jesuits historian. As we will demonstrate in the course of the next chapters, the main trend among Jesuits with regards to the relation with the Cartesian philosophy in disciplines like history, politics and moral anticipate that of philosophers like Vico and Leibniz. They all criticized the Cartesian logic supporting the recovering of the Aristotelian topic. However, this opposition must 66

not be understood as a radical dissent from the claim of Descartes to give the intelligence strict rules to exercise the critics. More correctly, this critical approach introduced the logic of the likelihood and probability as an integration of the precept to give the reasoning a rigorous form. This short analysis of the historical debate from a philosophical point of view during the th

17 century aimed to demonstrate the importance of history not only for historians themselves but particularly for all the scholars engaged in the doctrinal, religious, moral and scientific debate. History was becoming the field in which all these aspects intersect. Moreover, as reminded above, history was an extremely sensible sphere of the knowledge due to his role of cornerstone on which the function of the Church in the world was based. The ideological fight became particularly intense after the third decade of the 17th century and the different positions radicalized: the simple fact to accept in any form the doctrine of Descartes in subjects extraneous to the sphere of exact sciences was understood as a sign of pyrrhonism. Therefore, as an example, despite explicitly distancing himself from pyrrhonism and his sincere religious devotion, Le Clerc was attached as a Cartesian historian in its most scornful tone. 176 The same fate was reserved to those who practiced the testamentary critic: they got immediately classified as Spinozian, deists or atheists. In fact, it was very difficult for many scholars to distinguish the critic from the historical pyrrhonism and not without having a point because the border was often faint. The term pyrrhonism was often used as an insult and commonly together with the label of libertine. The joint use of the two expressions is significant because it permits to better understand in which sector of the society this new philosophy of history (or better philosophy of the renounce to history) took root: it was among the middle acculturated classes, the classes of the bourgeois and the new politicians. They were, as a matter of fact, better prepared to receive and assimilate the Cartesian doctrine of exclusion of history from the encyclopedia of sciences and to renounce to the research of a truth in the historical events. These classes had in fact been educated in a cultural milieu imbued of Machiavellism and of the erudite skepticism of the Renaissance. These two ideologies found in the Cartesian theories their natural evolution. What the Christian, and Jesuits in particular, perceived as a danger for the Church and the whole society, was the destruction of the morals by the mean of the renunciation of history as founding model of education and justification of the human path toward salvation. The opposition of the Christian became more radical and reached its apex during the first half of the 18th century. It is revealing that in 1735 Adam Heinrich Lackmann, professor at the university of Kiel, considered pyrrhonist anybody who do not believe the biblical account about the creation of hearth in six days! 177 176 177

Ivi., p. 18. Ibid., p. 21.

67

The fact was that the challenges generated by the progress of the historical research had become a pretext to redefine not only the problem of the certitude in history but mainly the wider debate about the possibility to apply the critic to the subjects of fact in order to reach an irrefutable truth. In turn, this meant that the traditional conceptual apparatus borrowed from Aristotle and the Scholastic was seriously challenged: it was necessary to demonstrate its effectiveness in the procedures suited to prove the facts, to evaluate evidences and judge the conjectural reasons. In a word, it was necessary to testify the aptness of the “old” Scholastic philosophy to reach the same results in terms of certitude and critics that the “new” Cartesian philosophy set as aim of every research. This demonstration would have been necessary not only, and not mainly, to save the philosophy of Aristotle and St. Thomas but principally to restore what it represented: the philosophy of the historical justification of the existence of the Church. The whole Christianity, divided at the doctrinal level, was united in the struggle against this “philosophical heresy”. This fact, instead of being perceived as a factor of strength by the Catholics, was regarded as an insidious challenge. While on the external front, the laic one, there were Machiavellists, pyrrhonists and libertines, on the internal one the heretics, Protestants and Jansenists, were undermining the Catholics principles binding together religious reformations, renovation of the morals (see §I.1.4.) and a new form of critic (especially that of the sacred texts) that presented itself as a valuable alternative to the Cartesianism. It was an alternative able to attract just those erudite bourgeois and politicians mentioned above. As an example, Arnalud tried to find a compromise between the new and the old philosophies in his treatise Art de Penser. The Jansenist master was aware of the opportunity to elaborate a new logic of the verisimilitude and the contingent capable of guarantee a valid historical knowledge. In his construction of a theory of probability converged several different doctrines: the traditional Aristotelian opposition between science and opinion; 178 the scholasticism reflection about probability and verisimilitude; 179 Augustine’s doctrine of belief; Pascal theory of the rational decision and his cogitations about the theory of probability. Basing on these premises, Arnauld developed his own doctrine of belief intended as form of knowledge different from that of the reason but equally justifiable and independent from it and, most important, able to integrate the Cartesian epistemology. This method was able to discard the recourse to the traditional system of “commonplaces” deduced from the verisimilitude and possibility of the fact. By consequence, this method countered the historical pyrrhonism that used to center its accuses on that recourse. Moreover, it allowed supporting the idea of the necessity of rational practice of the historical critic.

178

It is the theory that generated the distinction between “high” and “low” sciences on which the Renaissance skepticism based most of his theory of science. 179 And particularly the Scholastic theories of the Spanish Jesuits. First of all, the theories of Francisco Suàrez.

68

In Arnauld’s treatise, the Cartesian method had been highly weakened but it was exactly for this reason that it became a viable practice in contingent sciences too: history and critic regained their places, together with other moral disciplines, in the encyclopedia of sciences. However, while historical reflection, critical method and religion seemed to be reunited in the name of the new science, the Roman Church perceived the danger of such a development. The Art de penser could have been used as a handbook to allow the readers to orientate themselves in the discussions about the sacral traditions, about saints’ miracles and, most important, even about the legends created about the history of the Church itself. There is no need to further outline the development of the debate (that, anyway, had been very intense until the second half of the 18th century. It should be clear that it assumed a fundamental importance for the theoretical basis on which the temporal power of the Church was based and, consequently, for the justification of its role in the “progress” of the historical events. It is also necessary to note that while the philosophical debate described above reached its apex during the second half of the 17th century, the dispute was already well defined in the Renaissance. In fact, while that culmination might coincide with the publishing of Jean-François Marmontel’s article about Critique on the Encyclopédie of Diderot and D'Alembert in 1754, the debate had begun, according to many scholars and particularly to Borghero, more than a century before as result of the first diffusion of the Cartesian philosophy. At that time, some philosophers set the problem of restoring the historical knowledge from the encyclopedia of sciences from which Descartes expunged it. However, it is necessary to point out that a kind of Cartesianism ante litteram had been already formalized by the Renaissance skepticism. 180 The anti-traditionalistic nature of the Cartesian reason operated, as a matter of fact, in the direction of an accentuation of the dissolution of the unitary frame of the antiquity that was already compromised by the Renaissance skepticism. The latter contested the primacy of the classical world and collocated the history of the antiquity - and particularly the Roman one, which had been the pedagogical and moral model for centuries - on the same level of the modern one. Deprived the historical knowledge of every theoretical dignity, the content of the tradition get pulverized and the confidence in a providential order was substituted by a conception of history as a number of chaotic and purely human vicissitudes. In turn, this new definition of the past invalidated the model of morals and behaviors on which the medieval education was based. It was, in a word, a passage from a close and ordinate world - based on the transcendence of the values and the divine will as factor of the historical progress toward an accomplishment - to the kingdom of chaos in which it was impossible to recognize whatever meaning. This debate generated with the end of the period of humanism and evolved till the disputes of the Enlightenment passing through the dawn of the libertinage of the first half of the 16th century. 180

See Borghero Carlo, La certezza..., Op. cit., p. 2-22.

69

I.3. JESUITS HISTORIOGRAPHY IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE

In the two previous chapters we demonstrated that neither the historical production of the Jesuits tended to oppose the classical system of values (and consequently its historiographic method) nor intended to take a stand against the humanistic one. Nonetheless, some relevant differences with their predecessors have to be noted in the aims of the Jesuits’ historiography and only partially in the method of history making. As mentioned before (§I.1.5. - Conclusions) almost all their activities were first of all oriented toward an opposition to the spread of new system of moral values different from the Catholics ones and generated by the mingling of “Nordic humanism” and Reformation ideas. From the first decade of the 17th century the new scientific doctrines intervened in the debate destabilizing the role of history and, by consequence, the historical role of the Church. Mirroring these two phases of the debate, Jesuits’ Historiography shows two periods characterized by different conceptions of history. The first period of the Jesuit Historiography is characterized by the attempt to attest the validity of the Christian moral values in opposition to those of the new political tendencies. It is also typical of this first period the defense of the members of the Society of Jesus against the accuses of the Protestant. Finally, peculiarity of the Jesuits’ Historiography of this period is the attempt to present history itself as the result of the active presence of the divine providence in a path toward the salvation. From this point of view, it is evident the opposition to the concept of personal virtue elaborated by Machiavelli and, obviously, to his cyclic conception of history. Methodologically, it is emblematic of this first period the attempt to rationalize legends and myths, represent miracles as educative anecdotes and a lack of attention to the variety and quality of the sources. The main reasons for this rationalization was the attempt to not attract the accuses of the Protestant who saw in the Ecclesiastic historiography models of the Medieval thought. In the second phase, when the Renaissance skepticism and, successively, the Cartesian thought endangered the value of history (§I.2.3.), defined it a non-science, objected the possibility to know it and, thus, undermined the historical role of the Church (because the equation no history equal no historical role for the Roman Church was clearly perceived by everyone. See §I.2.1.), the aim of history making became for most Jesuits the preservation of history itself as a science. At the same time, Jesuits tried to produce historical accounts able to satisfy the requirements of scientific nature of the period in order to present them as valuable alternatives to the Protestant and Cartesian’s works. The means to reach these goals were the use of a rational method (based on the concept of moral ceritude and the logic of the verisimilitude), the application of the logic where the

70

mathematic was not helpful and the elucidation of the results of this “scientific research” by a medium that was a symbol of scientific knowledge itself: the rhetoric (§I.1.5.). We are providing below an introduction to Jesuits’ historiography and an analysis of the most representative Jesuit historians. However, we will not divide them to fit the two categories mentioned above. Even if at a macro-level it is possible to state that two separate and distinct “philosophies of history” characterized Jesuits’ historiography, it is impossible indeed to see in one historian only a single tendency or a single method or define him as exponent of a specific historiographic current. Nevertheless, the trait outlined above will be clearly delineated in each profile. I.3.1. General Traits of Jesuits’ Historiography Even if scholars have been writing about the past since the antiquity, reflections upon history, as an independent branch of learning, are typical modern intellectual products. Only with the sunset of the medieval forma mentis, which used to consider any aspect of the knowledge as subordinate to the theology, scholars started thinking history. Since the end of 15th to the whole 16th centuries, the debate on the concept, function and place of history in the encyclopedia of sciences has been vivid. The humanists, within this quarrel, gave birth to the modern historiography mainly by imitating and re-thinking classical models. For the first time from the decline of classical thought, an extensive series of treaties on history appeared. Starting from Actius of Giovanni Pontano (published in 1507), it continues, to mention only the most representative works, with Della Istoria of Francesco Patrizi (1560), De Institutione Historiae Universae et Eius cum Iurisprudentia Coniunctione of the French François Baudouin (1561) to culminate with the renowned work of Jean Bodin Methodus ad Facilem Historiarum Cognitionem (1560). Moreover, it is particularly meaningful to discover great interest about history in non-specific treaties: it needs only to remember Francesco Robotello’s In Librum Aristotelis de Arte Poetica Explicationes (1548) and the keen observation of the Spanish Dominican Melchior Cano in the 9th book of his De Locis Theologicis (1563). 181 History, by the middle 16th century, seemed to have been freed from moral and religion claiming his place among the independent branches of learning. While the humanistic reflections freed history from religion, their concerns about stylistic aspects subdued it to poetry. The research of formal perfection leaded to the imitation of the models of the Classical Antiquity. Livy, icon of the roman rhetorical historiography, became the reference for all historians of the 16th century. Furthermore, together with the formal perfection, Livy’s conception of history became part of the humanists’ culture. By consequence, history 181

For a more extensive analysis of the first modern treaties on history see Chabod Federico, Lezioni di Metodo Storico, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1969, p. 16 – 42.

71

became munus oratoris and opus oratorium maxime. 182 Historians were competing against poets. Nevertheless, in the attempt to meet contemporary criteria of rationality, humanist developed an innovative critical attitude too. All historiographers soon adopted these attitudes - the formal and the critical one. The Church State itself could not avoid joining the cultural trend. Both, the ecclesiastical history and the history of the Church had to suit humanists’ taste. However, the ecclesiastical historiography differed from the secular one in a basilar aspect: even if it was formally permeated by the spirit of the Renaissance, its contents and ambitions were typically medieval. By consequence, outside the restricted circles of secular erudite, humanistic historiography became an empty style that did not have correspondence with the content anymore. At least, this is what many historians affirm without differentiating the various branch of the ecclesiastic historiography. Many Scholars assert that this kind of historiography, formally humanistic but apparently medieval in the content could be well exemplified by Jesuitis’ historical works. All of their works, historical included, were carried out ad maiorem Dei gloriam – to bring major glory to God. Nevertheless, their ambition and ability suggested them to have recourse to the humanistic style in order to better satisfy readers’ taste mainly to become more influent being more attractive. However, it is not possible to consider Jesuits’ historiography either as humanistic or ecclesiastical. As a matter of fact, the Order’s ability to recast different influences in an original manner, made their historical productions original and independent. This peculiar branch of the modern historiography will be the object of this section. Jesuits’ historiography has already been understood as an independent one and, as such, it has been studied. Among the first reflections about it, illuminating are those of Antonio Possevino, one of the first members of the Society of Jesus. 183 This scholar, investigating the aims and means of education, found himself reflecting on history. He, reproaching David Chytraeus for having believed the false Beroso, stresses the importance of a critical approach to historical sources. 184 The Jesuit states that making history is one of the ways to bring major glory to God, but this can be achieved only refusing unsustainable legends whether they are secular or religious. It is necessary, he proceeds, to keep expositions free from stories of unbelievable miracles and, more generally, to

182

Cicero, De Oratore, II, 62 and De Legibus, I, 5. See also Ioannis Iouiani Pontani, De sermone libri sex De aspiratione libri duo Belli, quod Ferdinandus senior Neapolitanus rex cum Ioanne Andeganiensium duce gessit libri sex, in Ioannis Iouiani Pontani Opera omnia soluta oratione composita in sex partes diuisa, Florence, Haeredes Philippi Iuntae, 1520. In this text, both the statements of Cicero are quoted to explain what history should be. 183 Possevino was born in Mantova, Italy in 1533 and died in Ferrara in 1611. 184 The so-called false Beroso Chaldean is an apocryphal text that deals with the history of the world from its origin to the Deluge.

72

cling to a sober, (humanistic we would say) interpretation of biblical scriptures. 185 It seems to read the first Jesuitical “guidelines” for making history. In more recent times, Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile paid attention, in passing, to the historical method of Jesuits.186 Both understood Jesuits’ historiography as an empty style, a medieval thought modeled after humanistic rhetoric. The researches carried out by Eugenio Garin show the same negative and critic opinion. 187 Studying the education in Europe between 1400 and 1600, Garin did not even pay attention to Jesuits’ historiography, but simply classified their whole literary production as “the empty rhetoric of humanists’ thought”. 188 Similar statements appear in the whole chapter: he claims that nothing of Erasmus’ thought survives in the literature of the Society; the recourse to Latin and rhetoric are only means to be more persuasive. He, finally, asserts that the humanistic education, in the hands of Jesuits, turned into the formal aspect of the antiquity’s culture. 189 The historian Eduard Fueter seems to better articulate his analysis. 190 In his History of Modern Historiography, the Swiss takes into account different facets of Jesuits’ historiography and not only their preliminary declarations. By consequence, while he agrees in pointing out the use of humanistic rhetoric in order to be more persuasive, he also recognizes the value of some texts that are real expressions of the spirit of renaissance. ‘The skills of Jesuits’, write Fueter, ‘allowed them to get closer to the modern critical historiography than the Protestants did’. 191 It is our opinion that the above-mentioned studies are deficient in some aspects. Croce and Gentile, focusing exclusively on the method of research announced in Jesuits’ theoretical treaties, concluded that this way to make history was nothing more than a “Jesuit trap”, an expedient to make their works more attractive for a public educated by the humanistic critic. Focusing on a different aspect, that of the purposes of education, Garin reached the same conclusions but he has been even more severe: ‘the education of Jesuits’, he states, ‘do not preserve anything more than a faint phantom of the 15th century education’. He even states that to ‘look through a book of some Jesuits could give the reader the impression to read a volume of two centuries before’. 192 In our opinion, if Croce and Gentile would have paid more attention to the results brought by the 185

Possevino Antonio, Bibliotheca selecta de ratione studiorum in Historia, In disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda, Venice, Domenico Basa, 1593. See also Possevino Antonio, Aduersus Dauidis Chytraei haeretici imposturas, quas in oratione quadam inseruit, quam de statu ecclesiarum, hoc tempore in Graecia, Asia ... inscriptam edidit, & per Sueciam, ac Daniam disseminari curauit, Ingolstadt, officina typographica Volfgangi Ederi, 1583. 186 Croce Benedetto, Teoria e Storia della Storiografia, Bari, Laterza, 1941; Gentile Giovanni, Storia della filosofia italiana fino a Lorenzo Valla, Florence, Sansoni, 1962. 187 Garin Eugenio, L’Educazione in Europa. 1400 - 1600, Bari, Laterza & Figli, 1976, p. 200 – 207 188 Ivi., p. 207. 189 Ibid., p. 203. 190 Fueter Eduard, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie, Munich, 1936. We will refer to the Italian translation of Altiero Spinelli, Storia della storiografia moderna, Milan, Ricciardi, 1970. 191 Ivi., p. 362. 192 Garin Eugenio, Op. cit., p. 207.

73

employment of what they called a “Jesuit trap”, they would have recognized an historical production generally closer to the modern one than, for example, that of the Protestants. In the same way, if Garin would have paid attention not only to the declared aspirations, but also to their means of education, he would have noticed a closer relation with that of humanists as both had recourse to classical antiquity’s models. Even more, he would have perceived how their education was pervaded with Renaissance classicism. Consequently, it is necessary to understand if such an education, aimed to provide Jesuits with the instruments of humanists, that had recourse to classical antiquity texts as model of rhetoric and that was capable to form writers able to produce studies attractive for humanists themselves, could not have caused a share of thought, knowledge or moral models between Jesuits and humanists. Can the similar critical approach to the sources, the share of the same rhetorical models and the study of the same ancient texts have created scholars with still a typical medieval mentality? We assume that Jesuits shared with humanists much more than the attention to rhetorical aspects. From the Antiquity they received much more than the formal models. Therefore, it is necessary to keep researching in the direction set by Fueter. A deeper analysis of historical productions could demonstrate the persistence of a humanistic method and of classical concepts. This should be done in order to understand that Jesuits’ historiography was different from the ecclesiastical one and more modern compared to other historiographies such as that of Protestants. This section is, therefore, intended to investigate Jesuits’ historiography from the point of view of the concrete production, trying to individuate general features not only on the ideas they are based on but mainly on the concrete history making. Evaluations as those given in the past are maimed: while verdicts on the aims, and partially on method, are correct, wrong are those on the results. We will show that Jesuits’ historiographic works resulted to be closer to the modern critical investigation than many of the worldly ones. The fact that they adopted the modern critic only to be more influent on the cultured upper classes do not change the evaluation of their works. Consequently, my paper will focus mainly on Jesuits’ writings more than on their theoretical premises. Jesuits’ historical works have to be investigated as an independent branch of historiography. Nevertheless, Jesuits’ historiography is connected, in many ways, to various historiographic schools. First of all it is linked to that of humanists, to the ecclesiastical one and, for some aspects, to the new ethnographic tendency (at least in the early modern age). However, Jesuitical historians recast the external impulses, and subdued them to Society’s tendencies, in such an original way that it is possible to describe their whole production as that of an independent “school”.

74

The ecclesiastical orders, until the second half of the 15th century, had a negative relation with the Humanism. By consequence, they neither foster nor cultivated the humanistic historiography. The Jesuits, on the contrary, willing to fight using the same “weapons” of the modern culture, scoured new streets. They subdued the humanistic historiography to their aims. In the political history, they entered in a competition against humanists themselves. Even more meaningful is their decision to compile the history of the Society of Jesus itself (and that of the saints of the Society) in the typical humanistic style. The Protestant theological historians used to accept some exterior trait of humanism. However, the Jesuits did no limited to this. Their works, in their thought, had to be expurgated of all medieval scum. Their historical expositions had to be at the same level, at least formally, of the most famous works of Italian humanists. They wanted to attract not only the semi-educated middle classes, but also the refined readers of the upper classes. They actually had the ability to achieve this. Many Society’s members were, as Latin stylist, without any doubt skilled as the most respected humanists. Numerous Jesuits’ historical works were ‘in matter of purity of language, diction elegance and speech harmony, better than the productions of Bembo and Giovio. This mainly because they cultivated less than humanists the empty archaistic rhetoric’. 193 The Jesuits adapted, to a certain extent, even their historical method to that of humanists. They had recourse to the critic (we refer to the selection of sources according to a chronological criterion and to a linguistic study of the material along with the recourse to the logic). As a rule, they forsake unsustainable legends. They tried, at least in the first century of existence of the Society of Jesus, to keep their expositions free from stories of miracles. They took in to account the fact that such narrations did not get good acceptance among humanists. Moreover, they were perspicacious enough to recognize the pseudo-ancient falsification. An example of this ability can be found, as mentioned above, in the critic that the famous Jesuit writer Antonio Possevino moved to David Chytraeus for having believed the “false Beroso” (a text that, pretending to be a work of the Caldean priest, narrated the history of the world since its creation). 194 Chytraeus recommended Beroso for the history of the first world monarchy. Possevino, with good reason, pointed out that, referring to such a falsification, the authority of the Bible was not strengthened, but made even weaker. In passing, it is common knowledge that the Jesuits, unlike Protestants, clung to a "humanistically" sober evaluation of the biblical writings. Their interpretation of the apocalypse is closer to the modern critical investigation than to the tendentious interpretation of Protestants.

193 194

Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 361. See above, note 5.

75

Nevertheless, all this closeness to the humanistic historiography was, to use Garin’s words, nothing more than “a Jesuitical trap”. 195 The forms of the humanistic historiography were precisely reproduced; the spirit was, however, deeply different. The new password was ad maiorem Dei gloriam: the humanistic style, that in the beginning was more than a form of speech and that was expressing a non-ecclesiastical tendency of the culture, had been subdued to the Church. This became clear mainly in the historical critic. Miracles and saints, if necessary, were declared not authentic; however, if an unprejudiced exam of the evidences would have been able to harm the cult of a famous saint, the Jesuit historians preferred to keep silent. Said so, it is not possible to limit the verdict on Jesuits’ historiography to what said above. The works of Jesuits did not have only negative aspects. While they accepted and deformed the humanistic style, they did not limit to expel the values of the new culture substituting them with medieval ideas. They replaced what had been eliminated with something new: they introduced in the historiography the psychological analysis of the religion. Even when they were writing about history, it is possible to see that they have been doing the Exercitia spiritualia. Not vainly had they been obliged by their first Master to observe and train their minds; not in vain were they supposed to study the complexes cases of religious speculation in which the medieval thinkers failed to came to a solution. Jesuits, in this way, learned to sharply observe and exactly describe the “movements” of religious sentiments. This revealed useful for they historiography too. ‘The expert and realistic analysis of the religious life made his apparition in the historiography thanks to the Jesuits in the same way as the realistic analysis of political calculations did with Guicciardini and Machiavelli’. 196 This is true mainly for those texts in which Jesuits investigated the religious status of the period they better knew: that of the Counter-Reformation. The unquiet conscious belief of the modern upper classes, in contrast with the ingenuously simple faith of Middle Ages, and the ecclesial swinging between society scepsis and the forced devotion in the renaissance society have been grasped with extraordinary acuteness in Jesuits’ historical works even if judged tendentiously. First of all, a positive aspect of Jesuits’ historiography can be individuated in the absence of prescriptions and schematic approaches. In matters of history, as in all the other aspects of life, they stuck to the precept that every man couches his best if employed in activities that conform to his nature and allow him to fully develop his skills. By consequence, Jesuits’ historiography, even if realized on behalf, and under control, of superiors, did not suffer from the signs of an impersonal work as it happen in most of the unofficial productions. Second, it is necessary to point out that, concerning the form and the content, Jesuits’ productions were able to satisfy any taste. In Jesuits’ 195 196

76

Garin Eugenio, Op. cit., p. 206. Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 361.

historical works the classicist could find expositions written in a language that was able to please the most refined linguists. In the same way, lovers of pragmatic narrations were provided with works that skillfully imitate the manner of Guicciardini. Finally, those who wanted to receive more information about exotic countries and populations and about their customs and traditions, could not find anything better than the descriptions of the missionary of the Society. In every kind of historical production, whether it was religious or secular, never was the exposition only edifying: the educative purposes often let space to distracting anecdotes able to attract the less educated readers too. The Society of Jesus had the chance to let its writers (relatively) free. This statement is particularly true for the first centuries when there were no needs to hide or embellish its aims. The Jesuit that was making history could be more frank with his object than court historiographers could. Why should Jesuits be ashamed to confess that their main aspiration was the struggle against heresy and its destruction? In addition, why a man convinced to pursue a noble purpose should have hidden his means to achieve it even if unfair? Naturally, Jesuits, as all the other unofficial historians, omitted to cite data and fact that could place the Society in an unfavorable light. They, usually, avoided discussing concept or situations that could lead to unorthodox thought. Nevertheless, their historical works were more honest than many others produced in the same period and conditions.

I.3.2. Jesuit Historiographers

Igniatius de Loyola (Loyola, 1942 – Rome 1556) dictated, in the last years of his life (since 1553), his memories until 1538 to his disciple Luis Gonzales (Latinized in Consalvus). Consalvus wrote down these memories partially in Spanish and partially in Italian. This autobiography, in the beginning, was only accessible to the Society’s members. It was printed for the first time in the Latin translation of du Cudrays as Acta Antiquissima, in the Acta Sanctorum in 1731. 197 It was no less than the first General himself to give the Society a model for the historiography too. In his autobiography, Loyola created a new model of psychological description characterized by an intuitive and realistic approach. The narration is clearly the product of years of self-analysis and observation. Most important, the exposition never became rhetorically edifying or contaminated by stories of miracles. Loyola never forgets that he was referring to men that have to be guided only by the naturalness, the virile energy and the firmness of the faith. He seams to be

197

Du Cudrays, Acta Antiquissima in Acta Sanctorum, July, Paris, 1731, VII, p. 634 – 721. The original was printed only in 1904 in Monumenta Societatis Jesu, ser IV, vol 1. See also Susta Josef, Loyolas Selbstbiographie, Mitteil des Inst. f. Osterrich. Geschichsforsch, 1905, n. 26, p. 45 - 67.

77

wary of the outward expressions of saintliness. In the same way, he reports with sober scepsis descriptions of phenomena like visions. Furthermore, he does not attach any importance to the manifestation of contemplative life. As Fueter says, he can do this with serenity because he never doubted of supernatural phenomena themselves. 198 Finally his style and rhetoric deserve some attention. The first general, describing his life, uses the third person. He wanted to provide his disciples with an example of a man completely disappeared beyond the cause. The young members of the Society of Jesus had, in Loyola thought, to learn to be enthusiast for the simplicity and firmness of the faith. By consequence, the style of his biography had to mirror this ideal by being simple and sober. Loyola was writing about ten years after the death of Machiavelli when the “new” theories on the value of history and virtue were spread among intellectuals. It is not without reason that we could suppose that the first General of the Jesuits was writing for the same educated peoples in order to provide them with a different definition of human virtue. The virtue is for him, in opposition to Machiavelli’s definition, the capacity to abide providence authority that is the force organizing the events of the past and present. The virtue for him is not the ability to overcome the obstacle put by casual events. His self-biography aims to offer a model of virtue. Similarly, his simple rhetoric and the uninvolved language seem to oppose the rich style of Erasmus. Loyola’s biography was soon well known all around the world, but not in its original version. This was considered to have huge literary imperfections, too big to allow it to be printed. Moreover, it was too frank and Jesuits could not afford to let it being at opponent mercy. The first edition of Loyola’s biography was that of Pedro Ribadeneira. 199 He reported quite literally the original text but embellished and stylistically revised some passages. At the same time, he removed those pieces that, due to their simplicity of thought and exposition, could have diminished Loyola saintliness. His revision of the original Spanish – Italian text resulted in the classical form of the Latin humanistic biography. Ribadeneira wrote, on behalf of the General Francisco Borija, the Vitae Ignatii Loiolae. 200 A second revision, rather modified, of the Latin relation, appeared for the first time in Madrid in 1586. 201 Even more revised and enriched of miracles was the second Spanish redaction printed for the first time in 1605 in Madrid. 202 He wrote also biographies of the Generals Diego Laynez, Borija and others. Finally, he dedicated his attention to the evolution of the English church: in 1588 he wrote Lo Cisma de Inglaterra, an accurate description of the English schism. 198

Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 363. He was born in 1526 in Toledo, when still a child met Loyola and became his favorite disciple. Since 1540 member of the Society of Jesus, died in 1611 in Madrid. 200 First edition Naples 1572. Translate in to Spanish by the author himself and published in 1583 in Madrid. 201 Acta sanctorum, July, VII, p. 655. 202 Susta Josef, Op. cit., p. 362. 199

78

Ribadeneira, concerning the form of his biography, chose to cling to the model of the humanists because he did not want his work to look like the medieval hagiography. His Latin was “classically pure, naturally elegant and harmonious as in the work of humanists.” 203 He arranged the contents according to the model of Suetonius. 204 Nevertheless, he has been able to connect these contents according to the a-systematic subdivision in chapters of the traditional saints’ lives. However he did not limit to reproduce his model, he introduced the psychological analysis of religion and peoples. In this respect, the humanism did not produce something similar. As humanists barrenly clung to the model of Suetonius, their biographies resulted to be the simple reproduction of the classical style’s formal aspects. On the contrary, Ribadeneira’s work, even if maintaining a classical form, emphasized the content too. His style was not an end in itself. The individual peculiarity of his hero was too elevated to be sacrificed to the conventional phraseology of the eulogies that wanted to reproduce the archaic style. He acutely characterized the personality of Loyola and clearly understood the historical position of the founder of the Society. However, he reduced the world history to the fight between Orthodoxy and heresy. In the same way, he reduced the biography of Loyola to the ecclesiastical history. Finally, concerning the modernity of Ribadeneira’s work, it is necessary to point out that, behaving almost as a real humanist, he kept Loyola’s biography free from the ingenuous miracles of the medieval hagiography. Nevertheless, he was not afraid to declare that Loyola was a saint even if he did not work any miracle. His biography was a fully humanistic masterpiece. It was so humanistic that soon the new baroque generation was not able to understand it anymore forcing, by consequence, Ribadeneira to rewrite it adding the necessary good deal of miracles. 205 While Ribadeneira’s work is not an exception among Jesuits, it is neither the rule. Inferior to that of the Spanish scholar was the coeval biography of Loyola written by Gianpietro Maffei. 206 He was a purist coming from Bembo’s School. He did not accept and adopt the humanistic method and style, but was a real classicist as those of many Italian academies. His pupil Guido Bentivoglio

203

Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 364. Suetonius has been for the humanistic biography what Livy was for the chronicling. He was a clever erudite, a diligent antiquary but he has never been an historian. He did not even take in consideration historical problems. He simply created a rigid scheme to organize his material. The historical analysis was superior of his forces. Humanists, in fact, borrowed from him only the scheme to organize the contents. 205 Completed in 1609 but published posthumous in 1612 in Madrid. 206 Gianpietro Maffei was born in 1553 in Bergamo, Italy. Described by Fueter as a humanist, from 1563 he was professor of eloquence and state secretary of the Republic of Genoa. In 1565 entered in the Society of Jesus in Rome as a Master in eloquence at the Roman College. After his translation of the Commentarius Emmanuelis Acostae de rebus indicis ad annum usque 1568 (published in 1570) was called into Lisbon. In 1581, after the Spanish occupation, he came back to Rome where he died in 1603. He wrote, on behalf of the general Eberhard Merkurian, De vita et moribus divi Ignatii Lojolae Libri III, first published in Rome in 1585. We will refer to the reproduction in Opera Omnia Latine Scripta, Bergamo, 1747. 204

79

has analyzed his method and style. 207 He noticed, in his master’s works, portraits that do not say nothing, superficial motivations and a ciceronian sonority that substituted the succinct and positive descriptions of Ribadeneira. 208 Maffei’s writing give a clear impression of a life entirely devoted to religion and the Society of Jesus. Moreover, it was obvious that the Italian dedicated most of his time to literary occupations more than to the concrete experience of politic, diplomacy and popular devotion. Few years after Ribadeneira, Maffei wrote a biography of Loyola too. However, the different approach is patent when he tries to omit many details that, in his opinion, could have diminished Loyola’s saintliness. In order to do this, he revised many trifling particulars of Ribadeneira’s exposition.

209

He even dedicated a whole section to Loyola’s miracles.

210

Nevertheless, telling about Loyola’s miracles, he did not forget he was writing for cultured people and added a dicitur (it is said) to his narration. Quite similar to the biography of Loyola is Maffei’s history of Portuguese conquests. 211 It focuses only on religious aspects. Bentivoglio noticed this tendency and pointed out the lack of military and political points of view. The same “ciceronian prosody” (so described by Bentivoglio) and the same absence of consideration different from the religious one have been noticed by Fueter too in other Maffei’s works. He wrote the Annali di Gregorio XIII (The Annals of Gregory the XIII) and about the pontificate of Sistus the V in his incomplete Historiarum ab excessu Gregorii XIII libri III. Jesuits dedicated attention to the history of the Society as well. They did it equally having recourse to humanistic models. Moreover, as the first history of the Society of Jesus appeared in the middle of the Counter-Reformation, it is understandable why it was an extremely modern works. Jesuits were the first ecclesiastical order to adopt the structure of the humanistic chronicling for a non-secular purpose. It was a revolutionary decision because, by doing it, they decided to put the history of the Society at the same level of the territorial history for whose, exclusively, the humanistic model was used. The Society first nominated Juan Polanco, a baptized Hebrew that occupied the position of State Secretary, for the job of writing the history of the Society. However, he demonstrated to be a typical representative of the medieval thought both linguistically and stylistically. The Jesuits were conscious that his history of the Society would have been a too easy object of derision for the

207

Ranke F. Leopold, Die romischen Papste, ihre Kirche und ihr Staat im 16. und 17. Jh., Berlin, 1834-1836, p. 91. Bentivoglio’s memories were first published in Amsterdam in 1648. 208 Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 364. 209 See Book III, chap 15th of the biography. He did not want to admit that, after being wounded, Loyola was limping because contrary to the stereotype of the saint. 210 Ivi., Chap 14 th. 211 Maffei Gianpietro, Historiarum Indicarum Libri XVI, Rome, 1588.

80

educated society and mainly for the Protestants. By consequence, Polanco’s Chronicon Societatis Jesu was published only between 1894 and 1898. 212 The next, and more fortunate choice, fell upon the Florentine artist and intellectual Niccolò Orlandini. 213 He was, under every aspect, a humanist. His writings reproduced the Latin style of the late humanism. At the same time, his role imposed him to not simply have recourse to the empty rhetoric of the humanists but to treat his object with a deeper psychological and rational analysis. In 1599 he was invited in Rome and received the assignment of Society’s historiographer. Here, he wrote the Historia Societatis Jesu, which has been printed for the first time in Rome in 1615. 214 Writing this history, Orlandini reproduced without alteration all the data in his sources. However, his work did not become a simple antiquarian compilation. He was not, as Polanco, a learned compiler. He animated his exposition with the enthusiasm for the Jesuits achievements. The narration is seeped in religious zeal. Nevertheless, he did not fall in to the ingenuous credulity of the Middle Ages. He adapted his history to the cultured skeptic contemporary public. In his history of the Society, miracles play a marginal role. They are not stylized in the baroque manner yet. In this respect, he clung to the founder precepts: miracles have to be observed with sober and wary eye. On the contrary, the narration focuses on the fight against the heresy and the triumphs of Jesuits Missions. His detailed descriptions of the campaigns in pagan and heretic lands aimed to attract the attention of the admirers of the humanism that were not sensible anymore to the edifying legends. Orlandini is, of course, a partisan. He takes always for granted that every action taken by the Society does not even need an explanation of its reasons. Society’s aspirations are, in his view, always correct and its way of acting is rightful in any circumstance. Moreover, he does not try to hide or to mitigate the aims and means of the Jesuits. He openly states and celebrates the Society of Jesus, its achievements and aims. Never tries he to appear objective in his exposition. His convictions and zeal prevailed and they were always proudly stated. If this attitude made his history a partisan one on one hand, on the other it makes it by far more honest than most of the religious writings and official political histories. The conviction to fight for a holy cause allows him to be extremely sincere and straightforward. Orlandini’s history, as an official one, did not mean to serve the truth. It was written when the battlefield of the religious Orthodoxy was still contended. By consequence, this text is a militant one and aims to give Society’s members one more reason to be proud of their status.

212

Polanco Juan, Chronicon Societatis Jesu, in Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu, Madrid, 1894. Orlandini was born in Florence in 1572, entered in the Society in Rome and died in Naples in 1606. 214 See Ranke Leopold, Analekten zur Geschichte der romischen papste, in Ueber einige Geschichtschreiber des Jesuiterordens, 83. 213

81

The condition of official historiographer was not a reason of embarrassment for Orlandini. More problematic, as pointed out by Fueter, was his rhetorical competence. 215 According to the German scholar, Orlandini took from the humanistic historiography only the language, the annalistic structure and the passion for the descriptions of details. He was not able to give a proper rhetorical form to the narrated events. He did not has recourse to direct speeches, did not give the relations a theatrical tone and the narration itself was more complex than it was used to be in humanists’ works. Finally, concerning his method, it is necessary to point out the unilateral selection of sources. He was compelled, by his commission, to celebrate every member or action of the Society. By consequence, the description focused almost only on Jesuits forgetting to take in to account the position of the “enemy”. Whether he was telling about heretics or Catholics that opposed the Jesuits, he used only the sources coming from Jesuits themselves. Therefore, the reader can be only partially informed on the other parts and with tendentious data. ‘The triumphal portrait of Society’s victories lacks, therefore, of the necessary historical evidence’. 216 The works that obtained the major success in the field of political historiography has been Famiano Strada’s Decades. 217 Strada wrote on behalf of the duke Alessandro of Parma a history of the secession of The Netherlands from 1555 to 1590 entitled De Bello Belgico Decades II. 218 The work of Strada could be taken as model for representing the Jesuits’ historiography in its more general aspects. In particular, it is a model to understand the Jesuits as political historiographers. Strada attempted to hide, in his history, the nature of a confessional writing. Even in the polemical passages, he seems to let only his sources to speak. The edifying tendency in his work, as generally in the works of Jesuits, is not prominent. It sometimes let space to a more skeptic attitude and to a deep knowledge of the human nature, the ecclesiastical as well as the secular. Moreover, his narrative perspective is not one sided but, along with the confessional point of view, the political, military and social one receive the same attention. To understand Strada’s linguistic skills, once again can be useful the comment of Fueter. In his opinion, the Latin of Strada was vivacious and avoided the monotony of imitators of Livy. Some aspects of his manner fit the taste of the new baroque generation. He, principally, refers to

215

Fueter Eduard, Op cit., p. 368. Ibidem. 217 Famiano Strada was born in Rome in 1572; in 1591 he entered in the Society as professor of eloquence in the Roman College; died in 1649. 218 Strada Famiano, De bello Belgico decas prima ab excessu Caroli 5. imp. usque ad initio praefecturae Alexandri Farnesii Parmae ac Placentiae ducis 3. Additis hominum illustrium ad historiam praecipuae spectantium imaginibus ad vivum expressis, Rome, officina Iacobi Marci, 1643. 216

82

Strada’s detailed portraits, insurmountable obstacle for most of the classicists, which make the narration intuitive and satisfied the need of the readers.

219

We have seen above how different from the ecclesiastical history we would have expected was, in most cases, that of the Jesuits. An even more surprising writer, for his attitude toward history, was the French court historiographer and member of the Society of Jesus Gabriel Daniel. Daniel born in 1649 in Rouen, France; was nominated court historiographer by Luis the 14th; died in 1728. He wrote a history of France until 1610, published under the title Histoire de France in 1713. 220 This works was completed few years later with the Histoire de la Milice Française. 221 In all probability, he is also the author of the Observations Critiques sur l’Histoire de France de Mézeray that appeared anonymous in Paris in 1700. Daniel was, without any doubt, a representative of the school of Flavio Biondo as well as the first to systematically apply the critical erudite method to the history of France. 222 His history of France was written with the intention to substitute Francois Eudes Mézeray’s work. 223 This text was considered contrary to the court attitude and to the demureness of the readers due, mainly, to its plebeian language and style. Daniel eliminated the last permanence of the annalistic style and the rhetoric proper of this literary genre (such as the frequent recourse to the dialog and the direct speech); he cited all his sources accurately; he recurred to a wide variety of sources such as documents, previous books and minutes of councils. His history follows a short introduction in which Daniel explains his methodology and critic of the historiography of the humanists. In this preface, it is easy to individuate some of the germs of the critical principles than adopted by Voltaire himself. 224 The works of Daniel, in fact, set the transition to the approach of the Enlightenment to the historical studies. An example of this new critical attitude toward history could be found in the beginning of his work. For the first time, with Daniel, a history of France began with Clovis referring, by consequence, to Gregory of Tours and Fredegary quite skeptically. 225 He, actually, cites the legendary story of Childeric (taken from Gregory of Tours) but warning that it is only the “abstract from a romance”. 226

219

Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 369. Daniel Gabriel, Histoire de France, depuis l'etablissement de la monarchie francoise dans les Gaules dediee au Roy, par le P. G. Daniel, de la Compagnie de Jesus, Paris, Image saint Paul, 1713. 221 Daniel Gabriel, Histoire de la Milice Française, Paris, Image saint Paul, 1721. 222 Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 186. 223 Mezeray Francois Eudes, Histoire de France. Par le sieur De Mezeray, historiographe de France, Lyon, Jean-Bapt. de Ville, 1687. 224 Voltaire demonstrate to know very well this author even if referred to him only in a negative way 225 In the previous histories of France, these two mythological ancestors were, without any doubt, included in the national history. 226 Preface, Art 2. See Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 187. 220

83

Finally, many recognized in Daniel’s works the same limits of Biondo. To the effort to collect, analyze and report his sources does not correspond the ability to define causal and logical connections. The result is, therefore, a discontinue narration without style. Moreover, as a Jesuit, he skillfully avoided to mention scabrous subjects and attenuated the events that could have put the Society under a bad light. Among the Jesuits that had to deal with the ecclesiastical history, also the French Louis Maimbourg deserves some attention. He was born in Nancy in 1610 and here he died in 1686. Maimbourg wrote, in 1680, a history of Lutheranism published in Paris as Histoire du Luthéranisme. 227 The first edition was in two duodecimo volumes. The smart format was itself a sign of the author’s desire to seize the attention of the courtly society. The ecclesiastical history acquired, in his hands, not only a worldly tone but a bawdy character too. Moreover, he was able to produce a succinct speech that made the narration “light” and direct, quite easy for readers that, were looking for an entertaining reading more then a polemic one. The polemical aspects, in fact, occupy a secondary, or even marginal, position. Not surprisingly, this work had great success and was reprinted in several editions. This short analysis should have let the readers form an idea about the distance subsisting between the ecclesiastical historiography and that of the Jesuits. The former was, in the seventeenth century, still typical medieval, both formally and methodologically, whereas the latter was closer to that of the humanists in its critical approach to the sources; it was more “modern” in the understanding of religious phenomena; finally, it was closer to the Erudite Historiographic School in its selection and organization of sources. However, a group of Jesuits distinguished for its groundbreaking historiographic thought. These were the Bollandists. 228 Their works deserve to be treated as an independent branch of Jesuits’ historiography mainly because of the ability to further develop the achievements of the Erudite Historiographic School. This School had the merit to base the historical research on the critical recourse to a range of sources as wide as possible. The Bollandists did not limit to collect sources critically but attempted to logically connect and understand them as a unity. ‘The honor to found the first great undertaking of sources critics is up to Jesuits’ said Fueter introducing the historiography of the Bollandists. 229 They, compiling the most exhaustive selection of Saints histories, even if pursuing an apologetic purpose, adopted a methodic critic of sources (mainly a chronological one).

227

Maimbourg Louis, Histoire du Lutheranisme. Par le P. Louis Maimbourg, de la compagnie de Jesus, Paris, 1680. Bollandists are a group of Belgian Jesuits, named for their early leader, Jean Bolland, a Flemish Jesuit of the 17th century. They were charged by the Holy See with compiling an authoritative edition of the lives of the saints, the monumental Acta sanctorum, which is still in progress. 229 Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p 417. 228

84

The Acta Sanctorum, 230 as said, had an apologetic purpose: they attempted to save the cult of saints from the attack of Protestants and humanists. To achieve this, they even sacrificed most of the legends that more easily could land to the derision of the opponent. They had recourse to the historical critic (both internal and external with mainly recourse to chronological criteria). The absurd histories of saints that gave humanists a motive of mockery were, rightly, traced back to a second phase of enlargement of the original legend. These were declared not trust worthy and substituted, according to a chrono-logical analysis, with the oldest, and more modest, reports. By consequence, in the prolegomena to the saints’ lives it is possible to individuate the first example of methodical critic of the sources. Moreover, the Bollandists made the first ever attempt to arrange systematically the sources according to their age and credibility. 231

I.3.3. Piotr Skarga and Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza – The Two Phases of Jesuits’ Historiography In conclusion, we would like to present two representative cases in order to better illustrate our thesis – that the Jesuit historiography evolved and could be divided into two phases: the first devoted to the restoration of the values in opposition to those of the new political theories; the second, and more complex, committed to the restoration of both values and history as a science. The first representative case is that of the Jesuit Piotr Skarga and particularly of his book about the lives of the saints. 232 The second example is that of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and his theories about the historical method of research. 233 The doctoral dissertation of Andrea Ceccherelli, Da Surio a Skarga. Uno studio comparato dei Żywoty świętych, 234 is very interesting for the purposes of this thesis as it offers a new evaluation of the hagiography collection of Skarga. Despite the editorial success of the book of the “herald of the Counter-Reformation” (more than twenty editions), most scholars defined it (adhering to the traditional definition of Jesuit historiography) as a mechanical transcription of the work of Laurentius Surius 235 and Luigi Lippomano. 236 However, the Italian slavist, investigating 230

Began in 1643 in Antwerp by the Jesuit Jean Bolland, interrupted in 1794 and took up again in Buxelles in 1837. See also Abbé Pitra, Etudes sur la collection des Actes des Saints, Paris, 1850. 232 Piotr Skarga, Żywoty świętych, Vilnius, 1579. See also Porębski Mieczysław, Jan Matejko. Die Predigt des Skarga, Warsaw, Auriga, 1965. 233 We refer to the works Disputationes ad universam philosophiam (1617) and Commentarii in universam philosophiam (1621). See Caruso Ester, Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza e la rinascita del nominalismo nella scolastica del Seicento, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1979. 234 Now in Ceccherelli Andrea, Od Suriusa do Skargi. Studium porównawcze o "Żywotach świętych", Świat Literacki, Izabelin, 2003. 235 Hagiologist, born in Lübeck, 1522; died in Cologne, 23 May, 1578. His most important and still valuable work is his collection of the lives of the saints De probatis Sanctorum historiis ab Al. Lipomano olim conscriptis nunc primum a Laur. Surio emendatis et auctis, the first edition of which appeared in six volumes at Cologne in 1570-1577. 231

85

the sources of the Lives of the Saints and discovering several textual variations of the author himself, demonstrates that Skarga had elaborated strategies for the selection and transformation of the sources. The Żywoty swiętych is now represented as an original interpretation of the European hagiographic tradition rather than a simple translation. 237 While it is true that Skarga wrote in order to suit the taste of the Polish readers with particular attention to the heterodox and Protestant challenges, it is also true that adapting his sources he demonstrated a critical sense similar to that of Jean Bolland and his successors. In the fifth chapter of Ceccherelli’s book it is noted that the Italian Jesuit Antonio Possevino, commenting on the “innocent and prudent censures” implemented by Skarga, indirectly confirmed the aim of the selection and rewriting of the sources: the Żywoty swiętych are particular careful in matter of customs and morality. It is clear that the Polish Jesuit wanted to offer a portrait of the Christian Saints comparable to the strict morality of the Protestant in terms of virtues both political and religious. Once more, we would like to stress that the censure of Skarga was not against the pagan tradition that was the background of the lives of the Saints. The censure was, as mentioned in §I.1.4., against the mixture of pagan models and Reformation ideologies. As an example, Skarga, likewise Jan Dymitr Solikowski uses examples from the Roman period of virgins who killed themselves to not loose their virginity in opposition to some pagan matrons like Lucrezia. These anecdotes are used in the text not to criticize the pagan costumes but simply because of the functional of the rhetorical structure of the contrast. It is an example used to prize the morality of the Christians rather than criticize that of the pagan. The second example we want to mention is that of the Spanish Jesuit Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza. This Jesuit of Salamanca expounded in a very clear form what up to now we have described as a “Jesuits’ critical method”. Being one of the principal followers of Thomas Aquinas of the 17th century in Spain, he elaborated a theory about the historical certitude. In his Disputationes ad universam philosophiam (1617) and Commentarii in universam philosophiam (1621) he elaborated the theory of the “evidence of the common sense” (successively adopted by other Jesuits and by Pierre Bayle) to restore the faith in history as a mean of knowledge. Defining the historical theories of Bayle, Carlo Borghero confirms our theory: the Spanish Scholastic intervened in the debate about the fides historica with anti-Cartesian aims. In a word the Spanish Jesuit supported the idea of the certitude of the historical knowledge opposing the reduction of knowledge to just mathematical objects. It is the notion of “moral evidence” that in 236

Lippomano Luigi, Sanctorum priscorum patrum vitae, Venezia - Louvain, 1551 – 1564. This judgemt is very similar to that given in recent years about the History of Lithuania of Albert WijukKoialowicz. His work, as demonstrated by Darius Antanavičius, was not a simple translation of a main source: it was an elaborate re-writing of that source. See Antanavičius Darius, “Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos pasiuntinybių į Maskvą šaltinis Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus Lietuvos istorijoje” in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. 2, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, 292 – 333 237

86

Bayle substitutes the same concept formulated by Arnauld in his Art de penser in order to make it more close to the definition given by Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza and thus more compatible with the Scholastic doctrine. This theory affirms the reliability of a moral demonstration that has a high probability to be true. The certitude is therefore something not mathematically certain; rather it is something highly probable in terms of moral certitude. This simple statement causes an opposition between the physical certitude and a moral certitude opposing both the Cartesian definition and the one offered by Arnauld. However, the moral certitude is not something metaphysical: it is the conclusion of a syllogism based on premises that are necessarily true or highly probable. The most revealing definition of the teories of the Jesuit of Salamanca is offered by Pierre Bayle himself in the context of the debate against the Cartesian methodology and the interpretation of Arnauld: the historical knowledge is reduced in Bayle and P. H. de Mendoza to the evidence of the common sense. Bayle and de Mendoza use the term “demonstration” referring to this form of knowledge: this term is not intended as a metaphor, but it is used in its proper sense as explained in a long article of the Dictionnaire. Bayle os openly referring to the Spanish Scolastic that in the same period was debating about the fides historica with anti-Cartesian intents in order to guarantee, against the mathematical reductionism, the certitude of the historical knowledge. Taking cue from a dispute among Protestants about the provability of the divine inspiration on the Holy Writings, Bayle analizes the nature of the moral demonstration, adopting Arnauld’s formulation of moral evidence in his Art de Penser, but reformulates it in the terms of the Aristotelism of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza:

A moral demonstration does not consist like the geometrical demonstrations in an indivisible point: it is supsceptible of the plus and the minus and shifts from a great probability to a higly elevate probability. These are its borders and therefore these is a long path to cover from when our clues can be called a moral demonstration to when they can be called a physical, metaphysical or geometric demonstration. 238

Even Johann Eisenart, trying to restore the faith in the historical knowledge had recourse to the theories of Hurtado de Mendoza. According to him, the historical events could be demonstrated and not only supposed and therefore the history had to be recognized as a science in its full sense. At the origin of the historical certitude there is the moral certitude that is not an act of faith but a scientific act based on human evidences. In turn, the human moral evidence is based on the probability that large numbers of peoples have lied. By consequence, history can be known but the certitude is a probability based on the moral reliability of the sources.

238

Borghero Carlo, La certezza…, Op. cit., p. 227.

87

Conclusions. We started this chapter expressing our disagreement with many scholars who assert that the kind of historiography, formally humanistic but apparently medieval in the content could be well exemplified by Jesuitis’ historical works. They stated that all of Jesuits’ works, historical included, were carried out to bring major glory to God. Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile understood Jesuits’ historiography as an empty style, a medieval thought modeled after humanistic rhetoric. Garin did not even pay attention to Jesuits’ historiography, but simply classified their literary production as ‘the empty rhetoric of humanist thought’. In our opinion, the above-mentioned studies are deficient in some aspects because focused exclusively on the method of research announced in Jesuits’ theoretical treaties or on their education. If they would have paid more attention to the results brought by the employment of what has been defined a “Jesuit trap”, they would have recognized an historical production generally closer to the modern one than, for example, that of the Protestants. Even more, they would have perceived that their education was pervaded with Renaissance classicism. We assumed that Jesuits shared with humanists much more than the attention to rhetorical aspects. They received much more than the formal models from the classical Antiquity. An analysis of their historical productions, more than their theoretical postulates, demonstrates the persistence of a humanistic method and of Classical Antiquity’s concepts. Therefore, our study was intended to investigate Jesuits’ historiography from the point of view of the concrete production, trying to individuate general features mainly on concrete history making. We proved that Jesuits’ historiographic works resulted to be closer to the modern critical investigation than many of the worldly ones. The fact that they adopted the modern critic only to be more influent on the cultured upper classes does not change the evaluation of their works. In conclusion, it is possible to state that first of all the ecclesiastical Orders neither foster nor cultivated the humanistic historiography. Jesuits, on the contrary, imitated the humanistic historiography and subdued it to their aims. The Acta Sanctorum had an apologetic purpose, they attempted to save the cult of saints from the attack of Protestants and humanists. To achieve this, Bollandists sacrificed most of the legends that more easily could land to the derision of the opponent and had recourse to the historical critic. Second, Jesuits, in order to be more influent on the educated upper classes, paid attention to rhetorical and stylistic elements in their works. The first edition of Loyola’s biography was that of Pedro Ribadeneira and not the original one of Loyola. The decision was due to stylistic and literary reasons. The first history of the Society was not that of Joan Polanco but Orlandini’s version. His writings reproduced the Latin style of the late humanism. Orlandini took from the humanistic historiography the language, the annalistic structure and the passion for the descriptions of details.

88

Third, to attract the most erudite scholars, not sensible anymore to the edifying legends, Jesuits kept their works free from the ingenuous miracles of the medieval hagiography. It is clear in Loyola’s biography of Ribadeneira. In Famiano Strada’s production, the edifying tendency is not prominent. It sometimes let space to a more skeptic attitude and to a deep knowledge of the human nature. Moreover, Jesuits adopted a rudimental but innovative form of critic. The Bollandists did not limit to collect sources critically but attempted to logically connect and understand them as a unity. It is significant that Fueter states ‘the honor to found the first great undertaking of sources critics is up to Jesuits’ introducing the historiography of the Bollandists. Finally, Jesuits education was aimed to provide them with the rhetorical skills needed to be more influent on the upper classes. This kind of education, based on Classical Antiquity model, influenced also their general understanding and cultural background. The doctrine of tyrannicide, widespread among Jesuits, is one of the most typical classical concepts that survived from the antiquity to the French revolution. Only scholars permeated with the spirit of classical renaissance could have accepted and promoted such a doctrine.

I.3.4. Definition of History in the Ratio Atque Insitutio Studiorum The consideration about the ability of Jesuits’ historiographers to satisfy the taste of the most acculturate humanist, as well as that of the refined readers of the upper classes, because of the purity of language, diction elegance, speech harmony and adapting their historical method to that of humanists (having recourse to the critic), leads to the question about what kind of education they received. Most would say, together with Garin, that the education of each member of the Society of Jesus could be reduced to the Exercitia Spiritualia that Loyola taught to his disciples. In my opinion, their education cannot, in any case, be reduced to the religious one. It is clear that the simple ecclesiastical education could not have been able to instruct writers and historiographers able to reproduce, with such accuracy, the manner of the humanists. To achieve it, in order to fight in the non-ecclesiastic world with the same weapons of humanists, the Jesuits had to be educated in the Renaissance classicism culture. According to Garin, Jesuits saw in the humanistic education a precious instrument, not for the ideals that carried but simply for his formal and rhetorical aspect. Jesuits perceived the Latin as a linguistic instrument and distinguished in the Classics useful repertoires of manners to infer and persuasive expressions. Their education did not aim to create good men but good soldiers of the

89

Church. ‘So the eloquence and all the sciences [...] are finally brought to the citadel of God as maidservants, they are shields erected against the enemy of the church’. Garin was right saying that the apparently humanistic education of the Jesuits was, in fact, only an instrument to serve the church. He was right stating that Jesuits wanted to know the humanistic culture only to better fight it. Finally, he was right affirming that ‘nothing of the Erasmian humanism left in the humanistic school of the Jesuits but the external form: the classical rhetoric’. However, a deeper analysis of Jesuits’ education would, by some means, readjust this judgment. This task is particularly easy to achieve studying the Jesuits compared to other groups as their educational system was standardized and codified in 1586 (and ratified in 1599) in the Ratio Atque Institutio Studiorum. The study syllabus consisted of three basic courses: grammar, philosophy and theology. I will briefly go through the material Jesuits recurred to for the grammar course (and rhetoric as part of it) because particularly illustrative of the relation with classicism I referred above. The course of grammar was divided into two sections Metodica and Historica. The former had recourse to Virgil (that had to be known by hart) for the prosody and to Cicero for the elegance of style; for the Greek they usually recurred to the manual of a humanist: the Erotemata of Crisolora. The historical session focused on the mythological tales of Virgil, the Tebaide of Statius, the Metamorphosis of Ovid. Less used but anyway indicated in the courses’ programs were Seneca (only tragic) and Terence as master of elegance. The rhetorical course was dedicated to the interpretation. The authors to analyze were Hesiod, Virgil, Homer, Quintilian and Statius. This is a short but significant list. It seems to read the schedule of the courses of a humanistic school. The Ratio is also extremely precise about the time to dedicate to each part of the lesson. Therefore, it is easy to establish that at least three antemeridian and one postmeridian hour were dedicated to such studies. Even if it is true that these studies aimed to provide information about the humanistic culture to better contrast it, it seems impossible that their ideology, philosophical conceptions or general understanding did not influence a student reading these classical texts for at least four hours a day, for more than five years. In other words, studying the Classics to learn their style implied to get acquainted with their ideology. It would have been impossible for Jesuits to produce writings that, not only rhetorically but also for their content and methodological planning, fully satisfied the taste of humanists and attracted the acculturate reader of the upper classes without being a bit of humanists themselves. If the historical production analyzed above could still leave some doubts about the validity of this statement, in one case there are no doubt about the persistence and the proliferation of classical and humanistic ideology in the writings of Jesuits: the repeated and diffuse apology of the tyrannicide. This classical doctrine survived through centuries, in the secular thought, until its 90

apotheosis in the French revolution. Knowledge of Jesuits pedagogical system has a great importance in the understanding of their philosophy of history during 16th to 17th centuries. The analysis of the role of history in their educative practices can provide an original perspective on the study of their historical understanding and, therefore, it will be the subject of this research. This viewpoint is capable of balancing the lack of theoretical intelligences that the historical texts themselves provide on the topic. This shortage of information is mainly due to the fact that history, in the period considered, was not a matter of discussion as an independent branch of learning. Therefore, it is necessary to point out two basic premises concerning the position of history in the teaching system during the age of Reform and Counter-Reformation: first of all, history was not included in the encyclopedia of sciences because it was not hold to be an independent subject. Second, in the pedagogical manuals complied by the Society of Jesus, particularly in the Ratio Atque Institutio Studiuorum, history was not regarded as a discipline to be taught. By consequence, previous researches on the field of education during 16th to 17th centuries have failed to consider history. They concentrated either on the educative system in general, giving credit to the coeval structuring of sciences, or, with regards to the specific Jesuit activities, have been limited to the analysis of the subject listed as official fields of study. Among the studies that preferred a general approach to the history of education, focusing also on the peculiar orientation of Jesuits, the most complete and representative is the World History of Education edited by Gaston Mialaret and Jean Vial. 239 With regards to the period this paper is analyzing, the authors stress the strong connection between the need for education and the necessity to prepare more competent priests and, generally, Catholics. Quite interesting is also the section dedicated to the education in the Slavic countries. 240 In the chapter Education and Pedagogy in the Slavic World, a comparative analysis between the popular pedagogic system of Comenius 241 and that of the catholic academies is provided. Useful analyses of intersections between Orthodox and Jesuit educational ideas are stressed too and we will refer to them later in this study. Another attempt to draw a history of education in Europe is that of Eugenio Garin. 242 The Education in Europe focuses on the shift from the humanistic concept of education to that of the Europe of the Counter-Reformation. Such a formulation clearly concentrates on the Jesuits that represented the turning point of the process. However, his approach seems quite superficial and aimed to a destructive critic. His analysis is based mainly on commonplaces and a structural study 239

Mialaret Gaston, Vial Jean (eds), Histoire Mondiale de l'Education, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1981, 4 volumes. Particularly interesting for the pourposes of the present paper is Volume 2 - Form 1515 to 1815. 240 Ivi., vol 2, p. 61. 241 Johan Amos Komensk or Comenius (Nivnice 1592 – Amsterdam 1670) was a Czech theologian and pedagogue. The most extensive analysis of his pedagogical ideas is provided by Heyberger Anna, Jean Amos Comenius (Komensky). Sa vie et son oeuvre d'éducateur, Paris, Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1928. 242 Garin Eduard, L'educazione in Europa: 1400-1600, Bari, Laterza, 1966.

91

of the teaching institution. Less polemic, even if still critic, is the undertake of Alfredo Saloni. 243 In the second volume of his History of Pedagogy, A. Saloni provides a comparative investigation between the various "teaching orders" that developed after the Council of Trent. While useful for the comparison that tries to draw a parallel between the Jesuit's Ratio Atque Institutio Studiuorum and the rules of education adopted by Barnabites and Piarists, this work is affected by the same desire of judgment that invalidates the research of E. Garin. Much more articulated is the study of Roberto Sani about the scholastic institutions in Modern Italy. 244 Despite the geographical limitation announced in the title, the research of R. Sani is much more European than many other. A deep investigation of the influence of Reform and Counter Reformation on the educational system is followed by the reviews of the pedagogical works of the most representative religious. Jacopo Sadoleto, 245 Alessandro Piccolomini 246 and Antonio Possevino 247 are introduced and studied mainly in their role of pedagogues. The international relevance of these scholars, and particularly of the Jesuit Possevino, becomes clear when reading their correspondence from the various European institutes. The reference to Possevino journey and activity in Vilnius is one of the most interesting parts of Paulius Rabikauskas book about the Academy of Vilnius and the Jesuits of Lithuania. 248 The arrival of Possevino in Vilnius in 1581 had not only a political relevance, but also an impact on the educative system of the Jesuits' academy. As reported by Rabikauskas, the correspondence between Possevino and Rome 249 during the short stay in the Baltic region is a precious source to know about the status and means of education. 250 Possevino is complaining about the lack of necessary books for teaching and good manuals. His statement has to be connected with the distribution in all Jesuits' colleges of the "Manual of Pedagogy" Ratio Atque Insitutio Studiorum few years before is arrival in Vilnius. A manual that prescribed in details what books to use, when and how in the academies without taking into account the real availability of the books in the different countries.

243

Saloni Alfredo, Storia della Pedagogia, Bologna, Leonardi, 1969-1978, 5 volumes. Sani Roberto (ed), Educazione e istituzioni scolastiche nell'Italia moderna, (secoli XV-XIX). Testi e documenti, Milan, I.S.U., 1999. 245 Ivi., p. 37. 246 Ibid., p. 51. 247 Ibid., p. 109. 248 Rabikauskas Paulius, Vilnius Akademija ir Lietuvos Jėzuitai, Vilnius, Aidai, 2002. 249 ARSI, Opp. NN 325. 250 On the mission of Possevino in Scandinavia, Moscovia and Baltic region see also Polcin Stanislav, La mission religieuse du Pere Antoine Possevin S. J. en Moscovie (1581-1582): une tentative d'Union au 16. Siecle, Roma, Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum, 1957. 244

92

I.4. ANTONIO POSSEVINO: THE DEFINITION OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON

The definition of the aims and method of history-making during the so-called “first period of the Jesuits’ Historiography has been clearly provided in the chapter §I.3. It was a definition relatively simple to achieve due to the primitive Jesuits’ philosophy of history in that period. Much more complex it is the definition of the function, aims and methods of the historiography of the “second period”. In order to present a Jesuits’ historiographic canon as a coherent and uniform model for history-writing, two aspects have to be individuated: the research and selection method adopted and the aims of the process of writing history. While the method that characterized the “second period” has already been explained, the definition of the aims is much more complex because of the complexity of the historical, political, religious and scientific debate during the first half of the 17th century. In this chapter we will attempt such a definition.

I.4.1. Possevino's Moscovia

Many of the profound changes that were taking place in Europe during the sixteenth century were caused by the rise and spread of Protestantism and the corrosive effect it was exercising upon traditional institutions and loyalties. The Holy See had initially been slow to react to Luther’s challenge and had underestimated the danger to the Church’s position posed by the explosive forces that Protestantism was releasing into society. The Church’s response assumed a variety of forms: the Counciliar movement, regeneration, reform of clerical morals and restructuring the educational apparatus at all levels. Another danger to Papal hegemony came from the militant presence of the Ottoman Empire in the Balkan Peninsula and Hungary. To combat it the Popes strove sedulously to create an alliance involving all or most of the European rulers, but their plans were continually frustrated by the increasing atomization of the European community. A growing awareness of the extent of these two dangers aroused Papal curiosity concerning Muscovy, in which the Popes had maintained a sporadic and unproductive interest for a number of years. Pope Gregory came to believe that one way the Papacy might recoup some of the losses it had recently sustained through defections to the Protestants cause was to extend its religious dominion to regions that had been given fresh impetus by the gains the jesuits had scored in America. The Pope further calculated that the adhesion of Muscovy, about the extent of whose power and resources he had formed inflated and inaccurate

93

views, to the alliance against the Turks would appreciably increase the prospects for the expulsion of the latter from Europe. Antonio Possevino was a excellent example of the zeal and devotion the Society of Jesus could inspire in its members and his activities in all the above mentioned fields stems for the Catholic Reformation ideology. In view of his prominence during the early years of the Order, it is surprising that no recent biography of him has appeared. 251 His mission to Muscovy has fared somewhat better (see § II.1.1.). Possevino was born in modest circumstances at Mantua in 1533 or 1534. Early manifesting his scholarly capacities and his religious calling, in 1550 he was sent to Rome, where he attracted the attention of Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, who made him his secretary and tutor to his nephews. Entering the Jesuit Order in 1559, he rose rapidly. He embarked upon further studies in Rome, but his skill as a diplomat had become known, and such talents were precisely what the Church needed as it sought to intensify the Counterreformation. In 1560 Possevino was sent to Piedmont and Savoy, where he vigorously upheld the cause of the Church as he refined and sharpened his abilities as a debater in contests with Protestant leaders. Ordained priest in the Order in 1561, he was immediately sent to France, a major theater of religious controversy, where he worked for the Church loyally and devotedly in a variety of capacities for the next 12 years. In 1573 he was recalled to Rome to serve as the General Secretary of the Order, a post he held until 1577, when a situation developed calling for his delicacy as a negotiator. The Church had become convinced that King John III could be influenced by his Catholic wife to bring Sweden back to the fold. Possevino was sent to Sweden, and his sojourn at the Swedish court constituted his initiation into the complex politics of the Baltic area. He made two journeys to Sweden, in 1577 and 1579, and though he acquitted himself ably, he proved impossible to restore Catholicism there. The next year Possevino was selected to undertake the challenging and responsible assignment of mediating between Poland and Muscovy. The proximate cause of his mission was the Livonian war. His real mission was to set the basis for a possible union of the Churches. His only achievement was that of the Peace of Jam Zapolski (1582) and with regards to his unionist attempt he reached no concrete achievements. Much better results he obtained in is attempt of reunion with the Ruthens pushing for the propagation of Catholic texts, founding a Russian-Ruthenian seminary, contributing to the development of the Jesuits’ press of Vilnius and founding a school for interpreters in Dorpart.

251

To this day the only full-scale biography of Possevino remains the uncritical paean of prise composed by Dorigny Jean, La Vie du Père Antoine Possevin de la Compagnie de Jésus, Paris, 1712. A succint factual outline of Possevino’s carrer can be found in the entry by Ledit J. in the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique vol,12-2, Paris, 1933.

94

Deprived of his title of pontifical legate due to matters of jurisdiction and the subsequent conflict with the Polish Nuncios Bolognetti, Possevino devoted the rest of his life to the missionary activity in the Baltic, Bohemia and Hungary found Papal seminars in Erlam, Mähren and Siebenburg. A second mission to Bathory was entrusted him by the new pope Sixtus V but it failed because of the death of the Polish king. Possevino taught at the same time theology in Padova (1587-1591) were he completed his editorial activity publishing his most renowned books. 252 Despite his post in Padova, the main interest of Possevino was directed toward the unity of the Churches and the education of the new generation of Catholic European regents. Fulcrum of these two, deeply interrelated projects was the books production and the spread of these books in the Baltic, Ruthenia and Hungary. The intensity of this activity is demonstrated by the tight correspondence from and to Vilnius and Livonia. Following the order in which they are presented in the Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu (p. 1061 - 1082), the most representative texts are:

1.

Responsiones ad Viri cuiusdam pij Septentrionalis interrogationes; Qui de salutis aeternae

comparandae ratione, ac de vera Ecclesia cupiebat institui, Vilnius, 1581. These responsiones are included in the Apparatus sacer of Possevino (see below): vol I, book 6, chapter 31st and in the Moscovia published Koln, 1587. 2.

Interrogationes et Responsiones De Processione Spiritus Sancti A Patre et Filio [...] quae

in S. Et oecumenica florentina Synodo continentur, Vilnius, 1581 and than revised and published in Ingolstadt in 1583. 3.

The letter to the king of Poland adversus quemdam Volanum Haereticum Lituanum [...],

Ingolstadt, 1583 and than included in the Moscovia of 1587. 4.

The letter of Possevino to the duchess of Mantova sopra le cose pertinenti alla religione

cattolica, le quali desidera intendere, di Livonia, di Svezia, e di Transilvania [about the things of the religion, of which have been requested, about Livonia, Sweden and Transilvania], dated Dorpart 9th of August 1585 but printed in Vilnius in the same year. 5. Capita Quibus Graeci Et Rutheni a Latinis in Rebus Fidei Dissenserunt [...] used by Possevino to prepare the talks with Ivan IV of Russia. Printed in Poznan, 1585.

252

For a more detailed biography we should refer to his unedited selfbiography witten in third person upon request of Cardinal Baronio as commissioned by Paul V. Now ARSI n. 336. Equally useful is the Italian translation of the biography written by Luis Dorigny: Ghezzi Nicola, Vita del padre Antonio Possevino, traduzione dell’opera del Dorigny con note, molte lettere inedite e parecchi monumenti aggiunti alla fine, Venezia, 1759.

95

6. Antonii Possevini Societatis Jesu. Moscovia. Vilnae. In Lituania apud Ioannem Velicensem, Anno Domini 1586 (see § II.1.1). 253 7. The commentary about Livonia written as a letter from Riga in 1582 and known as Antonii Possevini Livoniae Commentarius, Gregorio XIII P. M. Scriptus [...].

This is a short but significant list of texts written both to let the Order and the Roman Church know about the Baltic and Muscovy situation and influence the countries involved in the political and religious debate of that area. 254 A more detailed description of the correspondence between Possevino and the Holy See about Baltic and Muscovy has been offered by Sebastiano Ciampi in his Critical Bibliography of the Reciprocal Correspondence [...] of Italy with Russia, Poland and other Northern Regions. 255 This list includes more than 70 items mentioning both published books and private letters. The activity of Possevino in Muscovy and Baltic was very intense for more than nine years. Among the most interesting and representative letters we can mention:

1. The Epistola ad Stephanum Bathoreum Poloniae regem adversus Andream Volanum Lithuanum hereticum dated Inglostadii, 1583. 256 2. The Epistola de Rebus Svecicis, Livonicis, et Moscoviticis etc. ad Eleonoram Austriacam Ducissam dated Mantuae, 1580. 257 3. The letter to the Grand Duke of Tuscany about the “False Dimitry”: Lettera al Granduca di Toscana nella quale fa la storia del così detto falso Demetrio, e come dai Gesuiti fosse istruito nella religione Cattolica. Dated Venezia, 1605. 258 This list includes many other letters addressed mainly to Ivan IV and Bàthory. The author of the list himself claims to be the author of a booklet about the educative system ideated by Possevino and outlined in most of his works. 259 Ciampi demonstrates to be aware of the close connection 253

The author of the list published in the MHSI his not sure himself about the title of the book (y a til des exemplaires avec ces deux titres! Je ne sais...). This is because Possevino wrote several commentairs about the Muscovy. A detailed analysis of these texts is discussed below § II.1.1. However it is necessary to poin out that a first commentary was sent to Rome from Vilnius in 1581 it is the Commentarius Primus ad Gregorium XIII Pont. Max., de statu rerum Moscovitarum; a second detailed description of the religious affairs of the Muscovy was sent by Possevino from Cracow in 1584 and published (for internal use of the Jesuits) in Rome the same year as Annuae Litterae Societatis Jesu anni 1582 ad Patres et Frates ejusdem Societatis. The first book is commonly referred to as “Missio Moscovitica” while the second is called “Moscovia” and was finally published at Koln in 1587. 254 For the full list of Possevino’s writings see the Monumenta Historica Societatis Jesu, vol VIII, p. 1061 - 1092. 255 Ciampi Sebastiano, Bibliografia Critica delle Antiche Reciproche Corrispondenze Politiche, Ecclesiastiche, Scientifiche, Letterarie, Artistiche, dell’Italia colla Russia, colla Polonia ed altre Parti Settentrionali il tutto raccolto ed illustrato con brevi cenni biografici delli autori meno conosciuti da Sebastiano Ciampi, vol II, Firenze, 1834, p. 291. 256 Ivi., p. 290. 257 Ibid., p. 297. 258 Ibid., p. 298-299. 259 According to the author of the bibliography, the texts is: Ciampi Sebastiano, Ragionamento del Padre Possevino della Compagnia di Gesú tenuto alla Signoria della Repubblica di Lucca ai sei di Marzo 1589, Modena, 1829.

96

individuated by Possevino between the political activity of the Church in the Baltic, the religious implications of it and the necessity to reform the educational system. In fact, Antonio Possevino became famous not because of his activities in Muscovy and Baltic region but mainly for his literary production. More precisely, the most relevant texts he wrote were the consequence of the experience acquired during his numerous contacts with Lithuania, Muscovites, Ruthenian and Livonian realities. We already mentioned the reports known as Missio Moscovitica (1581) and Moscovia (1584) that granted him the title of “discoverer of the Muscovy” and that will be analyzed in depth in § II.1.1. but his most representative work, at least in terms of number of reprints, is the Bibliotheca Selecta. This texts is particularly relevant for the present research for two reasons: first of all, it is clear that most of the ideas it contains were elaborated during his permanence in Vilnius, Dorpart and to Ivan IV as it unfolds from his correspondence; second, this book was one of the most influential treaties on education from the last decades of sixteenth century to the first half of the seventeenth. 260 It spread in the whole Catholic Europe and was closely related to what Possevino had the chance to understand during his mission in 1580-1589. With no doubt there is a close relation between the experiences and troubles outlined in the “Moscovia” and the educative project outlined in the Bibliotheca Selecta. Moreover, as we will demonstrate in § II.2.2, these two texts clearly influenced Koialowicz’s Historiae Lithuanae. We will analyze each of these books in (chrono)logic order to underline the reciprocal influences. Muscovy was known to posses a large Christian population communicant with the Greek rite. Lacking concrete information, the Pope and his advisors confidently assumed that its rulers had accepted the mandates of the Council of Florence, which in 1438, in ordaining the reunion of the Greek and Latin churches, had compelled the former to recognize and acknowledge the Pope as the leader of all the Christendom. The Muscovites, however, had decisively rejected the Florentine Union; Possevino’s Moscovia is filled with instances of the difficulties Possevino encountered because he was laboring under the erroneous assumption that they subscribed to it. The prospect of bringing millions of Muscovites formally into the Catholic fold was tantalizing. Poland, now a bastion of the Counterreformation, had since 1578 been waging a highly successful war against Muscovy, yet Ivan’s overture to the Pope, which ignored the Polish king, a firm supporter of the Jesuits, met with a quick and positive response. No assertion that the Pope and his advisors were fully aware of the political motives that underlay the Tsar’s action can obscure the fact that they were prepared to sacrifice the gains of the Catholic cause made by Polish king to dream of

260

While Possevino was still alive the book was reprinted three times: in Rome in 1593; Venice in 1603, Cologne in 1607. See Brizzi Gian Paolo (ed.), La “Ratio Studiorum”. Modelli culturali e pratiche educative dei Gesuiti in Italia tra Cinque e Seicento, Roma, Bulzoni, 1981, p.45.

97

converting the Muscovites. The Pope’s interpretation of what constituted the Church’s true interests illuminated a further and more fundamental problem. Simply stated, Grand Prince Ivan and the other rulers of the sixteenth century, as they felt their way toward the new concept of a sovereign independent nation-state functioning as the basic unit in the organization of Europe, were more in tune with contemporary developments than the Papacy, which continued to be indissolubly wedded to the medieval principle of ecumenism. Possevino fully shared the Pope’s view; perhaps that was among the reasons why he was chosen as his emissary. As we mentioned above, in 1580 Possevino was chosen to mediate between Poland and Muscovy involved in the so-called Livonian War. Muscovy’s quest for security and a maritime outlet permitting sustained and greater contact with the rest of Europe had drawn the attention of its Grand Princes to Livonia, a territory that roughly comprised that of modern Latvia and Estonia. Ivan invaded Livonia in 1558. The invasion was initially successful and Muscovy acquired control of much of the countryside, but Ivan failed to take control of the chief towns and the attack soon aroused the other Baltic powers against him. The struggle continued in a desultory fashion until 1577. However, in 1572 the death of the king Sigismund Augustus brought about an interregnum, while various forces vied for the Polish throne. By 1576 Stefan Bathory, Prince of Transylvania, had prevailed over all his rivals. In his person Poland acquired a ruler of energy, resourcefulness, daring and proven military capacities. Bathory’s policy was to drive Muscovy from Livonia and carry the war into the enemy’s territory. He lost no time putting his plans into operation and invaded Muscovy on a broad front in 1578. Ivan was unable to resist Bathory’s onslaught, which portended final disaster for Muscovy. His situation was desperate, but Ivan showed himself equal to the challenge when he appealed for Papal mediation. Ivan knew that the Pope could not resist the possibility of obtaining Muscovite participation in a crusade against the Turks and he thought that Pope Gregory might be even more willing than his predecessors to respond because of his alarm at the inroads Protestantism had made among the ranks of the faithful. He dispatched is envoy Istoma Shevrigin to Rome bearing a carefully-worded message. He made no promises, but he knew that the mere appearance of a Muscovite in Italy would arouse old enthusiasm. The alacrity of the Pope’s response proved that the Tsar had calculated correctly. The first task that Possevino was obliged to perform once he had started on his mission was to mollify ruffled feelings in Poland, where some took the view that the Pope had betrayed them. The diplomat proved more than equal to the occasion, for in a series of conversations he succeeded in making a very favorable impression on Bathory and winning the King’s support for his undertaking. Possevino’s position at the Polish court might have been more awkward if the people 98

of Pskov had not rendered him unexpected assistance. In August 1581, following up hi series of successful campaigns, Bathory decided to take Pskov, the gateway to the rest of Muscovy. He ordered Chancellor Zamojski, the commander in chief of the Polish armies, to invest the city, confident that it would quickly surrender. Matters turned out otherwise, for the fortifications were very strong and the besieged put up a determined resistance. Ivan was sufficiently encouraged by this check to the enemy’s ambition to quibble over the Polish demands that Possevino brought with him to the muscovite command post at Staritsa, a fortress on the upper Volga, which he reached in late August. Returning to the Polish camp in early October after lengthy discussions with the Tsar, Possevino informed the King and the Chancellor of the stance their opponent had adopted. They indicated their intention to continue the siege of Pskov throughout the winter if necessary, although, as Possevino himself discerned, the difficulties of conducting it were steadily mounting. Possevino was told to inform Ivan of their determination in his request for further negotiations. Ivan decided to send delegates to a neutral place, and thus the way was prepared for Possevino to undertake the mediation that was the ostensible purpose of his journey. The Moscovia is Possevino’s version of the activities he engaged in while on his mission to Muscovy. He understandably tried to stress the importance of the role played by the Pope in making peace and to emphasize his own contributions to the negotiations. He glossed over or omitted incidents that would present him in a bad light, for beneath the calm and controlled exterior that many years of diplomatic experience had taught him to display lay and proud, hottempered and passionate nature. Unlike many other visitors Possevino was not content with merely reporting a mass of undigested facts; he was a trained and discriminating observer, possessed of a curious and inquiring mind, who subjected the data he accumulated to scrutiny and analysis and drew conclusions from them. His natural abilities were favored by the position he occupied; he enjoyed access to leading men in Muscovy, including the Grand Prince, and thus his account constitutes an important source of sixteenth century history. Possevino’s lack of command of the Russian language caused him great troubles however his narrative provides valuable insights into the character of Ivan. To illustrate these points it will be appropriate to comment on some salient features of the Moscovia. Chapter one of the Moscovia contains Possevino’s observations on the extent of the devastation and depopulation that had taken place in the parts of Muscovy through which he traveled. It is compelling testimony of the country’s lack of recuperative powers, one reason why Ivan had to bring the Livonian War to an end. Possevino saw how the Tsar’s authority ran unchecked and unchallenged throughout Muscovy. He believed that the principal ingredient Ivan had employed to achieve his uncontrolled dominion was fear, an emotion he found ubiquitous, produced by the application of terrorism directed against individuals and entire families alike. 99

Moreover, the Jesuit furnished information on the new system of land tenure instituted during Ivan’s reign. Further observation of analogous nature draw Possevino to the conclusion that the Grand Prince continued to be the chief merchant and trader in the country. Finally Possevino could not refrain from quoting in full the grandiloquent speech he made to the Tsar on the achievements of the Jesuit Order. Unfortunately, he had also to mention that the regent ignored the speech. Chapter two is addressed directly to the problem of disseminating Catholicism in Muscovy. Possevino made a careful assessment of the difficulties involved, which he recognized were very substantial. His description of the Muscovite Church was sober and factual. His strictures on the lack of educational institutions in Muscovy were no more than a reflection of the prevailing reality. Some scholars have seen in this chapter a manifestation of an ambivalent attitude towards the Greeks, the confusing implications of which he did not seem to be aware. 261 As Hugh F. Graham states ‘at one moment he would harshly attack them; once he went so far as to exult that such traducers of the Truth had fallen into Turkish servitude, but immediately afterwards he would call upon Ivan to maintain the proper Greek form of worship in the Muscovite Church.’ 262 After observing the Tsar on numerous state occasions Possevino came to the conclusion that Ivan was consciously striving to create the image of a potentate who combined in his own person the attributes of both king and high priest. Possevino chose to interpret the cordial reception the Tsar gave him as a sign that God had inclined Ivan toward a more favorable view of Catholicism, although he knew perfectly well that political considerations had occasioned it. He drew attention to the difficulties of language and communication and commented upon the ramification of this problem. The incessant difficulty Possevino had with interpreters, which he vividly described, undoubtedly was one of the reasons why he observed somewhat testily that Seminary curricula should include study of living languages. The foregoing considerations led Possevino to devote his concluding remarks in chapter two to the effectiveness of education as a mean for disseminating Catholicism in Muscovy. Chapter three is Possevino’s version of the disputations he held with the Tsar in Moscow, after the conclusion of the Truce of Jam Zapolskii, on the subject of religion. It was the moment he had long been waiting for; he regarded his other activities as preliminary or contributory to it. On one hand Possevino had made elaborate preparations for the confrontation and he hoped that the role he had played in bringing about the peace settlement would dispose the Tsar favorably to the substance of what he intended to say; on the other hand, Ivan would just as soon have avoided the discussion. However necessary he had considered it to accept the Truce of Jam Zapolskii, he could

261

This is clearly the position of Hugh F. Graham in the introduction of his book the Moscovia of Antonio Possevino, S.J., Pittsburgh, 1977. 262 Ivi., p. xviii.

100

not regard the loss of Livonia with equanimity, since he had devoted so large and expenditure of time and resources to acquiring it, nor could he view Possevino’s mediation as a triumph for his cause. He had not the intention of taking anything Possevino might say on the subject of religion seriously, but he felt obliged to accord the Pope’s envoy a hearing on the topic. Chapter four consists of the treatise which Possevino states he conveyed to the Tsar at the latter’s request. It was written in Latin and is entitled “The chief Points on which the Greeks and the Muscovites differ from the Latin in Faith.” Possevino hoped that he would have pleased the Tsar with his willingness to be accommodating on items of liturgical practice, to compensate for the rigidity he was obliged to display on matters of dogma. The second part of this chapter consists of a catalog of “Errors” in belief of which Possevino judged the Greek and the Muscovites to be guilty. Possevino handed Ivan a second treatise, Chapter five, which he had prepared after he arrived in Moscow and learned that the English merchants in residence there had given the Tsar a book that purported the Pope as the Antichrist. It contained his refutation of this charge. Chapter six tells a great deal about the negotiating techniques utilized by the Poles and Muscovites, and compares and contrasts their methods. Possevino narrated this chapter in the more remote third-person style that befitted this formal subject. Upon his final departure from Moscow in March 1582, Possevino escorted Iakov Malvianinov, Ivan’s representative to the Holy See, to the Pope. The Muscovite envoy accomplished nothing at the Vatican because Ivan did not intend that he should; after the Truce of Jam Zapolskii the Tsar had no further need of the Pope. Bathory believed that in Possevino he had found a man better able to represent his interests in Rome and to assist him with his other projects than the representatives of the Catholic establishment in Poland. Possevino reciprocated the king’s sentiments and assumed a position not unlike that of Bathory’s chief councilor and advisor. The two men cooperated in a number of undertakings, such as their attempt to make Livonia Catholic again and the establishment of a network of Jesuit Seminaries in the territories under Polish control. Possevino’s activity after the conclusion of his mission to Muscovy should be briefly considered. His experiences there convinced him that church union as he and others envisaged it, was unattainable, and he modified his attitude accordingly. He began to lay greater stress upon the role of Lithuania and Ruthenia as a bridge between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Typically, he emphasized education as a proselytizing force, advocated maximum utilization of existing Seminaries and called for the founding of new ones in which Muscovites might somewhat be enrolled.

101

Early in 1585 the General of the Jesuit, Claudio Acquaviva, instructed Possevino to leave the Polish court and take up residence in the Order’s Seminary at Braunsberg in Prussia where he was henceforth to confine his activity exclusively to religious work. Possevino unhesitatingly obeyed the command of his superior but he remained in contact with the king and continued to advise him in formulation of his project to invade Muscovy. The project died out with the death of the king Bathory in December 1586. Possevino returned to Italy where he devoted his powerful intellect and inexhaustible energy to spiritual and literary pursuits.

I.4.2. The Bibliotheca Selecta: a Project of Historiographic Canon

The most relevant product of the literary pursuits mentioned above is without doubts the Bibliotheca Selecta. This Possevino’s work can be defined as a selected bibliography, critically organized according to a strict method and annotated. This text aims to collect all is believed to be essential to form a young Catholic aristocracy. In reality this piece is a polemical work as almost all the literary products produced by Jesuits in that period. And it could not be otherwise especially if we consider that its author was Antonio Possevino, the zealous Counter Reformist depicted in the previous pages. And as all the zealous Jesuits, Possevino too believed in a strict connection between all the spheres of the human products in order to impose the supremacy of Rome. Therefore, it comes with no surprise the close connection between politics, religion and culture in this text that presents itself as a bibliographic catalog. 263 To demonstrate the truth of this claim, it should be enough to mention the statement taken from a earlier work of Possevino, Il Soldato Cristiano, in which the Jesuit expresses is hope for “the creation of an alliance of young princes so that in matters of few years all your Royal Highnesses with a single hart and a single value will be united in a tight and powerful league against the enemies of the Christianity”. 264 The Catholic aristocratic is therefore become a book examiner and a judge but for a book to be listed in the Bibliotheca Selecta along with the philological criterion two other criteria are operating: those of the moral and dogmatic compatibility with the educative Catholic project. For this reason, the Bibliotheca Selecta represents itself as a mirror of the Index Librorum prohibitorum: in the latter are registered the banned books, in the former only the most suitable literary works necessary to create the personal library of each Catholic regent and consequently necessary to educate him.

263

For a theoretical debate about the connection between politics, religion and education in Possevino see Cozzi Giovanni, Gesuiti e politica sul finire del ‘500 in “Rivista Storica Italiana”, LXX, 1963, vol. 3, p. 477 - 537. 264 Possevino Antonio, Il soldato Christiano con nuove aggiunte et la forma di un vero Principe et Principessa, Venezia, 1604, p. 3v.

102

The Bibliotheca Selecta had a great editorial fortune since its first publication (Rome, 1593) 265 despite being essentially a noted catalogue. Thanks to this work, Possevino became one of the most influential Jesuit in the field of education not only in Italy but also in the whole Europe. And it was one of the most innovative reformer of education not only for his concrete activity of Seminars and Colleges founder but also for the theoretical reflection about the strategy for the transmission of the Jesuits’ cultural project. 266 He tackles with the problem of the foundation of a “Culture of the intelligences” 267 to be used as a model for the elite of a Catholic and reformed Europe. It aims to provide the instrument to create a culture able to join erudition and piety in the figures of the young European regents so that from them it could progressively permeate and educate the lower classes. The Bibliotheca Selecta is divided in two volumes, the first one is dedicated to Pope Clemente VIII, the second to Sigismund III of Poland. The two volumes correspond to the two conceptual parts in which the work is divided: the first aims to fund the Catholic religious culture, the second aims to present the “humanistic” subjects basing on a method that joins doctrine and piety. The first five books of the first volume set the fundament for a Christian education based on the Holy Scriptures and on the writings the more efficiently have harmonized culture and morals. This part is clearly devoted to the education of those lucky regents who are to be educated in a Christian environment. The second part of the first volume, the books VI-XI, are devoted to the explanation of the educative method to employ in the lands that either are not Christian yet or where the Christianity is facing the challenge of the heresy. Particularly, most of the books of this section deal with the education of the Byzantine Christianity in order to make this religion closer to the Latin one. Special attention is reserved to ‘Graeci, Mosci, Ruteni’. 268 It is clear that in this section the author is using sources and materials collected during the many years he spent in his missions in France, Sweden, Baltic and Muscovy. The second volume deals with “De ratione studiorum in Facultatibus” and is devoted to the description and analysis of the “secular subjects”. Each of these subjects is presented and commented in order to highlight its dependence from the theology. The author clearly opposes the claims of autonomy made by scholars who defend the idea of disciplines like independent 265

While Possevino was still alive, the book has been reprinted three times always with the title Bibliotheca selecta qua agitur de ratione studiorum in historia, in disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda, cum diplomate Clementis VIII Pont. Max. The first editon was printed in Rome in 1593; the second in Venice in 1603; the third, in Cologne in 1607. 266 See as an example the judgment of Lukàcs Laslò Die nordischen papstlichen Seminarien und P. Possevino 1577 1587, in ARSI, XXIV (1955), vol. 47, p. 33 - 94. 267 This in fact is the title of the first book of the Bibliotheca Selecta published as an independent work in Vicenza in 1598. 268 Possevino Antonio, Bibliotheca selecta qua agitur de ratione studiorum in historia, in disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda, cum diplomate Clementis VIII Pont. Max., Roma, 1593, p.266-315.

103

philosophies. Possevino, on the contrary, see no possibilities to define philosophy any other subject than theology:

Dicunt se esse Philosophos: veritatemphilosophicam se defendere, non licere sacra miscere profanis; Philosophis cum Theologis non esse disputandum. O ignobile, et miserabile philosophiae studium, si eo erudiantur ad impias sententias defendendas homines, si dicunt Theologiam, verissimarum sententiarum matrem, et veram recte intelligendi et beate vivendi magistram contemnere! 269

By consequence each of the following books is devoted to the instructions to correctly study each subject. Attention is reserved to the study of philosophy, jurisprudence, medicine, mathematics, music, astrology, architecture, cosmography, natural geography, painting, poetry and history. Particularly interesting is the book XVI, the longest in every edition, in which the correct method for the study of history is presented. This books clearly aims to oppose the Methodus of Jean Bodin. It is a noted bibliography of history. It is natural to try to individuate in such an enormous cultural project the method adopted to define its structure and to make it coherent and cohesive. That is, to individuate the organizational criterion of the work. It is significant that Possevino decided to see in the historia the principle to use as a framing concept and support for the organization of all the materials contained in the Bibliotheca. The history as the general ordering category is explicitly assumed as referring scheme. In order to demonstrate this claim we can provide examples from the introduction to the first edition (1593) and particularly the chapter “Causae et idea operis” (the reason and the conceptualization of the work)

Quod nescio, an ab ullo hactenus factum sit, ut Historiae ad solidam cum pietate notitiam legendam, aliosque tractandi selectiores libros, certam et unicuique propriam rationem, tum qui sese dant disciplinis interioribus tum Christiani principes, ac milites, vel alii quique sine ullo salutis periculo, et vero brevius atque facilius assequerentur, id, Deo aspirante, aggredior pene coactus.

270

As we can see, here it appears a relevant indication of the necessity of a solid historical culture. By consequence, the section of the introduction called Cur item haec Bibliotheca non minus de historia, quam de Disciplinis dicta sit: ubi quid, et quotuplex Historia: unde et libri materia quaenam et quanta, 271 is the logical premise to the announcement of a book in which the contents

269

Ivi., vol II, p. 61. Ibid., vol I, book I, p. 6. 271 Ibid., vol I, book I, p. 7-8. 270

104

are organized basing on the historiographic culture. Moreover history is the central subject of the books XIII-XXVI in which humanities are evaluated, commented and ordered basing on history. 272 It is clear that Possevino thought of a Bibliotheca of history as a narration of the human vicissitudes guided by the divine providence to be used by regents and noblemen. It included the “origin” of things in its preliminary project and was forced to add the debate on “sciences” and to deal with the classification and coordination of “subjects”. Despite the huge and unhomogeneous volume of topics, the Jesuit was convinced that everything could be traced back to a more general conception of history authorized by the tradition: ‘historiam enim non tam quod labentium rerum fluxum quodammodo sistat, ut inquit Plato, quam quod res nobis conspiciendas, quin etiam speculandas, obiiciat Graeci appellarunt’. 273 The history has become with Possevino the mirror of the manifold aspects of reality. The whole reality can be organized within the four categories of history: Historia Divina (‘quae Vetere, ac Novo Testamento continetur’); Ecclesiastica (‘quae de religione potissimmum agit, de que Ecclesiae administratione’); Naturalis (as a mirror of the ‘universae naturae’ or of its concrete specifications: ‘totius orbis [...] coeli [...] terrae et maris [...] hominis [...] animalium [...] plantarum [...] gemmarum mineralium’); Humana that includes not only the human vicissitudes (that his history in modern conception) but also the organization of humanity that is law, governments and society. Possevino, as mentioned before, commented not only on the aims of history making but also on the method. He, reproaching David Chytraeus for having believed the false Beroso, stressed the importance of a critical approach to historical sources. The Jesuit stated that making history is one of the ways to bring major glory to God, but this can be achieved only refusing unsustainable legends whether they are secular or religious. According to him, it is necessary to keep expositions free from stories of unbelievable miracles and, more generally, to cling to a sober, interpretation of biblical scriptures. Possevino did not elaborate a specific “methodology of the historical research” nor his works permit to individuate one even if in some texts emerges the request for a critical method able to restore the “scientificity” of history. Such a methodology would have been formalized in a decades by the Spanish Jesuit Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza. However, Possevino stated very clearly the aims and function of history. First of all, he defined history as organizing criterion for the whole human knowledge. Second, he defined history as the logic of the knowledge restoring the scientific dimension of history and, consequently, the historical role of the Church. Third, he defines history as a twofold mean of education: a. moral education of the nobles and regents (see the analogies with A. W. Koialowicz and P. Skarga); b. unionist education – teaching nobles the 272 273

In these books it is once more stressed the utility of history to judge the other subjects. Possevino Antonio, Bibliotheca selecta…, Op. cit., vol I, p.7.

105

power of the providence and the greateness of a Europe politically and religiously united (see the similar precepts in A. W. Koialowicz, A. Tanner, M. Becan and J. de Mariana). Fouth, focusing on the spread of Catholic books (in which history is the many-faced logical instrument described above), he stresses the importance to produce texts able to educate nobles and regents in Christian principles providing them, at the same time, with valuable alternatives to the skeptic and Protestants works. We have finally found a complete and exhaustive definition of the aim and function of history among Jesuits. And it is not inappropriate to extend Possevino’s definition to the Order’s definition of history. As a matter of fact, the Bibliotheca Selecta not only integrates the Ratio Studiorum (the handbook for the organization of the Jesuit Colleges and the definition of the education in these structures) but it is linked to it in a reciprocal relation: while Possevino takes care of clearly stating the conformity of the Bibliotheca to the precepts of the Ratio, 274 the final drafting of the Ratio Studiorum, published in 1599 and reprinted in the first half of seventeenth century in every Jesuits’ print shop, was obviously influenced by Possevino’s ideology. And this come with no surprise given the fact that the actions of the Jesuits in the frame of the Counterreformation, despite the small peculiarity of each actor, were homogeneous and strictly coordinated from the center of the Order. To use Asor Rosa’s words referring to the historiographic and political reflection of the Jesuits during the last decade of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th the rule is that of “preserving” the State, that is the strategy of control: the political project of transformation elaborated by Machiavelli has been substituted by a new system of rules to regulate every sphere of human activity. 275 By consequence, it is possible to claim that Possevino definition of function and aims of history was not only representative of that of the Order in this period but influenced the “Jesuits’ historiographic thinking” at least until the first half of the seventeenth century. Summing up the argument, the Bibliotheca Selecta contains ideas that were elaborated during Possevino permanence in Vilnius, Dorpart and to Ivan IV as it unfolds from his correspondence and in the two books about the mission in Muscovy. This book was one of the most influential treaties on education from the last decades of sixteenth century to the first half of the seventeenth. It spread in the whole Catholic Europe and was closely related to what Possevino had the chance to understand during his mission in 1580-1589. With no doubt there is a close 274

‘id sancte affirmare possem, eo me consilio ad opus illud accessisse, ut ratione studiorum, quae diligentissime in nostra societate adhibentur sine ipsius societatis nomine, sensim absque invidia Nostrorum derivarem in usum aliorum’. This text had been written by Possevino in a letter to the Belgian Jesuit Thomas Sailly where he explains the reasons of it literary production. Possevino wants to underline the conformity of his book to the precepts of the Ratio Studiorum particularly because the Bibliotheca had been published in 1593, when the Ratio was at the center of the attention of the Order. Its final drafting dates 1599. About the letter to Sally we mentioned above see Brizzi Gian Paolo (ed.), Op. cit., p. 46. 275 Asor Rosa, La cultura della Controriforma, Bari, Laterza, 1974.

106

relation between the experiences and troubles outlined in the “Moscovia” and the educative project outlined in the Bibliotheca Selecta. The logical nexus between the mission in Moscovia, the decision to adopt history as the fundamental organizing criterion for the rules of education and the historical contexts in which Possevino operated could be structured like this: 1. The mission to Muscovy convinced Possevino that Church union (as he and others envisaged it) was unattainable. He modified his attitude accordingly. He began to lay greater stress upon the role of Lithuania and Ruthenia as a bridge between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Typically, he emphasized education as a proselytizing force, advocated maximum utilization of existing Seminaries and called for the founding of new ones in which Muscovites might somewhat be enrolled. 2. In 1585 the General of the Jesuit, Claudio Acquaviva, instructed Possevino to leave the Polish court. Possevino obeyed but remained in contact with the king and continued to advise him in formulation of his project to invade Muscovy. The project died out with the death of the king Bathory in December 1586. Possevino returned to Italy where he continued to work on the project of union of the Churches according to the new attitude mentioned above. Here he further defined the new unionist method based on the abandon of the polemical approach (that of Skarga as an example), on the attempt to present Catholics as models of virtue and on the use of books as the “technical support” to spread these concepts. 3. Having decided that education is the only viable possibility to achieve the unity of the Church, having individuated in Lithuania and Ruthenia the bridge between Catholics and Orthodox and having contributed to the development of Seminars in these regions, Possevino concluded his activity offering the theoretical treatise about education as a means to achieve unity: the Bibliotheca Selecta and it is revealing that it was dedicated to the king of Poland. 4. Possevino was not only a zealous exponent of the Counter Reformation, he was an intellectual and an acute observer of the coeval society. Moreover, he was certainly aware of the scientific and philosophical debate that spread from the Renaissance skepticism and Machiavellism. That is, he was aware of the attempt to deprive the historical knowledge of every theoretical dignity and the consequent undermining of the foundations of the Christianism (see §I.1.2). This is the reason why Possevino decided to adopt history as the principle, framing concept and support for the organization of all the materials contained in the Bibliotheca. The history as the general ordering category is explicitly assumed as referring scheme for the whole human knowledge and thus restored in his ancient dominant position.

107

II. KOIALOWICZ AS A JESUIT HISTORIAN

108

II.1. FOUR UNIONIST WORKS: SKARGA'S SERMONS TO THE DIET, POSSEVINO’S MOSCOVIA AND KOIALOWICZ’S FIRST BOOK OF HISTORIAE LITUANAE AND MISCELLANEA RERUM

About Possevino’s mission in Muscovy there are already a number of studies: the remarkable ones of Paulus Pierling, 276 those of Liisi Karttunen, 277 the analysis of Oskar Halecki, 278 and many others. Nevertheless, all these scholars studied the journey of Possevino in Muscovy exclusively, or mainly, from the diplomatic point of view. However much more significant was the religious activity of the Jesuit in this sensible region at the borders of Latin Christianity. The Religious mission of Possevino integrates in the relevant debate on the Unity of the Church that was so important in the Poland of 16th and 17th centuries. The aim of this section is therefore to better analyze the religious mission of Antonio Possevino in Poland, Lithuania, Ruthenia and Livonia to see how it integrated in the debate about the Unity of Church, how he modified it and to determine his influence on the development of the debate itself. The chronologic frame in which this analysis will operate is therefore strictly defined by the activity of the two most representative author of the period: Piotr Skarga (1536-1612) and Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz (1609-1677). As a matter of fact, it is not a coincidence that we individuated (§I.2.2.) a sharp boundary in Jesuits historiography at the end of the 16th century and that Possevino influenced the conception of history with the books he prepared and published during his journey in Muscovy or immediately after. While Skarga chronologically belongs to the “old school”, the polemical one (see §I.3.4.), Koialowicz is clearly a representative of the new approach to matters related to Unionism and Possevino represents the boundary between the two generations of “polemists”. The fact that Possevino and Skarga met in Vilnius during the Italian’s stays in the city (he arrived here for the first time the 13th of June, 1581 but visited the city repeatedly until 1586) 279 and the chronologic continuity between the unionists texts of the three jesuits are significant as well. To give a

276

Pierling Paulus is the most representative scholar who studied Possevino; among the most relevant studies he published it is necessary to mention the critical edition of the Moscovia - Antonii Possevini missio moscovita ex annuis litteris societatis Jesu / excerpta et adnotationibus illustrata curante Paulo Pierling accedit cardinalis comensis memorandum de missionibus exteris, Paris, 1882; The study about the relation between Muscovy and the Holy See La Russie et le Saint-Siège, Paris, 1901 -1912, 3 voll. To know in details the aim and methods of the political mission of Possevino in Poland and Muscovy the essential study is: Bathory et Possevino: documents inédits sur les rapports du Saint-Siège avec les Slaves, Paris, 1887 and Un arbitrage Pontifical au XVIe entre Pologne et la Russie. Mission diplomatique du P. Possevino S. J. 1581-1582, Bruxelles, w.d. 277 Karttunen Liisi, Antonio Possevino: Un diplomate pontifical au XVIe siècle, Lausanne, 1908 278 Halecki Oskar, “Possevino’s Last Stateman on Polish-Russian Relations”, A History of Poland, New York, 1955. 279 Polčin Stanislas, La mission religieuse du pere Antoine Possevin S.J. en Moscovie (1581-152), Roma, Tipografia Univeritaria Gregoriana, 1957, p.10. See also Rabikasuskas Paulius, Vilniaus Akademia ir Lietuvos Jėzuitai, Vilnius, 2002, p. 191-207.

109

preliminary outline of this certain relation between the works of the three polemists it should be enough to mention the printing dates of their unionist works: a. Skarga, O jedności Kościoła Bożego [On the Unity of God’s Church], Vilnius, 1577; b. Possevino, Adversus Davidis Chytraei haeretici imposturas, Ingolstadt, 1583; 280 c. Possevino, Moscovia, Vilnius, 1586; 281 d. Possevino, Bibliotheca selecta qua agitur de ratione studiorum in historia, in disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda, cum diplomate Clementis VIII Pont. Max., Rome, 1593; 282 e. Skarga, Synod brzeski [The Synod of Brześć], Cracow, 1597; f. Skarga, Kazania sejmowe [Diet Sermons], Cracow, 1597; g. Skarga, Żołnierskie nabożeństwo [Soldiers’ service], Cracow, 1606; 283 h. Koialowicz, Historiae Lituanae pars prior; de rebus Lituanorum ante susceptam Christianam Religionem, conjuntionemque Magni Lituaniae Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae, libri novem, Danzig, 1650; 280

Despite being a strictly historical text, the refusal of the theory of David Chytraeus is also interesting for the debate about the “mistakes” which are at the foundation of the erroneous dinstinction between the Latin and the Greek Churches. In order to understand this twofold aspects of Possevino’s theory compare the dissertation thesis of Daniel Benga that studying David Chytraeus (1530-1600) uses the comment of Possevino to describe the historical method of the two and Pierlig’s study about the religious mission of Possevino in Muscovy where David Chytraeus confutation is used exclusively to better define the unionist method of the Italian. See Daniel Benga, David Chytraeus (1530-1600) als Erforscher und Wiederentdecker der Ostkirchen. Seine Beziehungen zu Orthodoxen Theologen, seine Erforschungen der Ostkirchen und seine ostkirchlichen Kenntnisse, Erlangen, 2001. Graduation thesis at FriedrichAlexander University of Nurnberg-Erlangen, Faculty of Theology. 281 Under this title we include all the texts produced during his journey in Muscovy with relevant interest for the definition of Possevino’s unitarist method. In detail these works are: 1. Commentarius primus de Rebus Moscoviticis, ad Religionem spectantibus. 2. De Rebus Moscoviticis, Commentarius alter, ad Greg. XIII. Pont. Max. 3. Primum publicum Colloquium, de Religione Catholica, habitum die XXI Februarii 1582. Cum Joanne Basilii, magno Moscovie Duce, in eius Regia, Senatoribus eius, ac centum aliis Proceribus praesentibus 4. Alterum Die XXIII. Februarii Colloquium Antonii Possevini cum Magno duce, ac cum Senatoribus eius. 5. Tertium de Religione Colloquium Magni Moscovie Ducis cum Antonio Possevino [...] Ductus est Jesus in desertum, ut tentaretur Diabolo. 6. Capita, quibus Graeci et Rutheni a Latinis in rebus fidei dissenserunt, postquam ab Ecclesia Catholica Graeci descivere, tradita in magno consessu Procerum, Joanni Basilii, magno Moscovie Duci, 3 Martii 1582. In Civitate Moscua: quibus brevis, dilucida, et solida errorum Graecorum, et Ruthenorum refutatio continetur. 7. Scriptum Magno Moscoviae Duci traditum, cum Angli mercatores eidem obtulissent librum, quo haereticus quidam ostendere conabatur, Pontificem Maximum esse Antichristum. 8. Interrogationes et responsiones de Processione Spiritus Sancti a Pater et Filio, desumptae ac breviore et dilucidiore ordine digestae, ex libro Gennadii Scholarii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani: in gratiam et utilitatem Ruthenorum. 9. Instructio ad Patrem Stephanum Drenocium, dum Possevinus Magni Moscoviae Ducis nomine, ex oppido Starica rediret ad Poloniae Regem, Plescoviam civitatemoppugnantem, ut ageret jussu Pontificis Maximi Gregorii Papae XIII, de mutua inter eos Principes pace, pater vero Stephanus in Moscovia relinquerentur. Stariciae ad Volgam fluvium, die XIV Septembris 1581. 10. Livoniae Commentarius Gregorio XIII P. M. ab Antonio Possevino S. J. scriptus. Bartuae in Hungariae finibus, tertio Kalendas Aprilis 1583. 282 Particularly relevant to understand Possevino’s unionists idea is the sixth book: Liber sextus Qui est de Ratione agendi cum Graecis, et Ruthenis, p. 240 -247 of the 3rd edition of the Bilbiotheca (Cologne, 1607). 283 See Berga A., Un Prédicateur de la cour de Pologne sous Sigismond III. Pierre Skarga (1536-1612), étude sur la Pologne du XVIe siècle et le Protestantisme polonais, Paris, 1916; Likowski Edward, Unia brzeska, 2nd edition (revised), Warszawa, 1907.

110

i. Koialowicz, Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium, Vilnius, 1650. 284 j. Koialowicz, Historiae Lithuanae pars altera a conjunctione cum Regno Poloniae ad unionem corum Dominiorum libri octo, Antwerp, 1669.

From this short list it is possible to understand how the unionist reflection evolved chronologically among Jesuits on the boundary of Catholic Europe. An objection could be made against the above statements: while it is pacific that Skarga was a zealous sustainer of the unity of churches, definitely less clear are the unitary ideas of Possevino. Finally, most scholars would object that Koialowicz’s texts mentioned above are unionist at all. However, this chapter will demonstrate that, first of all, Possevino’s mission in Muscovy had prevalently a religious aim: set the union of the churches; second, that Possevino elaborated in Lithuania a unionist method based on education and history in clear opposition with the polemical method of Skarga; and finally that Koialowicz’s works reflected the new method theorized by Possevino and more generally reflected the new Jesuit approach to historiography and religious and political struggle. Therefore we are suggesting a new study perspective for the analysis of Koialowicz‘s literary production, and in particular of his Historiae Lituanae, to show how it could help to better represent Koialowicz as an exponent of European Jesuit thought rather than limiting his role to that of a Lithuanian historian. Many different interpretations of the aims and functions of Historiae Lituanae in Koialowicz thought have been given. 285 They are, on one hand, the result of the complexity of the text itself that can be read at different levels: historical, political, pedagogical or doctrinal. On the other hand, the inhomogeneous definitions of the aim and function of the book is due, in our opinion, to the lack of attention to the fact that Koialowicz's conscience, to use Marc Bloch words, is historically determined and thus can be viewed as the product of a diachronic process. 286 A

284

Koialowicz W. Albert, Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium, Vilniae, Typis Academicis, 1650. Now in Kuolys Darius (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, Vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 8 - 276. 285 See as an example the works of Totoraitis Jonas, “Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius”, Tiesos Kelias, 1, section B, 1928, 15 -18; Būčys Petras, “Alberto Vijuko Kojelavičaus paminėjimas”, Tiesos Kelias, 1, section B, 1928, 19 - 28; Žulys Vladas, “A. Vijūkas-Kojelavičius ir jo ‘Lietuvos istorija’”, Pergalė, 11, 1959, 149 - 161; Jučas Mečislovas, “A. Kojelavičiaus istoriografiniai interesai”, Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, vol. 2 (91), A serja, 1985, 77 - 87. The article is now in Jučas Mečislovas, Lietuvos Metraščiai ir Kronikos, Vilnius, Aidai, 2002; Matusas-Sedauskas J., “Ar Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius buvo garsus Lietuvos istorininkas ir patriotas?”, in Tiesos Kelias, 1929, I, 252-255. See also Matusas-Sedauskas J., “Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius kaip Lietuvos istorininkas”, Praeitis, 1930, I, 323 328; Gidžiūnas Viktoras, “Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius. Lietuvos istorikas 1609-1677”, in Lituanistikos instituto 1977 metų suvažiavimo darbai, Janina K. Rėklaitienė (ed.), Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1979. 286 See the introduction of this work, p. 14. Bloch Marc, Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien, Paris, 1949, p. 6-9.

111

diachronic process that can in no way be geographically limited - particularly referring to the 17th century because it ‘was prevalent a unitary cultural conception, in fact the 17th century has been the last period of cultural unity known by Europe’. Therefore, my claim is that while a synchronic study of the book might be the right approach to understand and define the text itself, its structure and sources, a study that aims to perceive, let's say, the philosophy of history and the "conscience" of the author should be supported by a strong comparative approach at a European level - and Europe is not limited to Poland, Lithuania, Ruthenia and Moscovia. The "Europe of that time" is the environment where the historically determined conscience of Koialowicz formed. This setting should be the dialectic counterpart of a relation with the book, but in most studies it dissolves as a faded background. Finally, it should be pointed out that quite often the term Jesuit is used as a simple title even if it means much more. It should be remembered that the man carrying that title is perinde ac cadaver – well disciplined like a corpse. Therefore, while a Jesuit conscience is historically determined, his work is the expression of the obedience and absolute self-abnegation to the Pope and superiors. These two simple remarks should be enough to induce to adopt a new study perspective. Therefore it is fundamental to understand what kind of Europe determined the conscience of Koialowicz and what was the position of the jesuits in it. We already mentioned what was happening in Eastern and Baltic Europe before the printing of this book (§I.4.1.). On February 24th 1581 Istoma Scevrigin, envoy of the Tzar, arrives in Rome. Ivan the 4th was asking the Pope Gregory XIII to step in and stop the bellicose king of Poland. Ivan accuses Bathory of an alliance with the Turks and the Crimean Kahn against Russia. To convince the Pope, Ivan concludes his letter expressing his will to join an anti-Turks league if a peace will be reached whit Poland-Lithuania. 287 Ivan is of course referring to the so called Livonian War with which the newly elected king of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Bathory tried, with positive results, to re-conquest the land previously subjugated to Russian, but once part of Lithuania. 288 Gregory XIII was famous for his desire and activities to create a religious unity in Europe, a Christian peace as a base for the final war against the Turks. Being well aware of the political and religious situation in the Baltic and Russia, the Pope decided to intervene in the conflict with a precise aim: try to reach a union between Latin and Orthodox churches. Actually, the idea to use

287

As a matter of fact this statement is quite debatable. The statement of Ivan, in fact only mention Chrisitan unity against the Turks but makes no promises at all. See Graham Hugh F., Op. cit., p. xii. Pretty different is the opinion of Polčin Stanislas, La mission religieuse... Op. cit., p. 1. 288 Adamson Andres, “Prelude to the Birth of the Kingdom of Livonia” in Acta Historica Tallinnensia, 2009, 14, p.31 61.

112

Ivan's request as a lever to push for a union of the churches had already been suggested by Caligari, the papal nuncio in Poland, in a letter to the king Bathory. 289 The mission to create the basis for the union of the Churches, with a journey in Moscovia to report about the war, was entrusted to the plenipotentiary pontifical messenger Antonio Possevino, member of the Society of Jesus, who had already been pontifical legate in France and Sweden. As the correspondence between Possevino and the Pope make clear, the primary mission of Possevino was to reach a deal for the union. 290

II.1.1. The “Polemical” Method of Skarga On June 13th, the Italian Jesuit arrived in Vilnius where he met with Bathory and another famous Jesuit - Piotr Skarga - before living to Smolensk. Even more interesting than the meeting with the king is the encounter with Skarga. The Italian was traveling across Europe to pursue a unionist project, the Polish was already well know for his great treatise The Unity of God's Church under One Only Pastor (1576) where the ideological basis and the program of a church union were outlined. While, at the time of the meeting there were no clues about the "unionist strategy" Possevino planned to adopt, Skarga's one was pretty clear. We will not dwell with Skarga's unionist method because it was pretty linear and clear: by the recourse to Holy Writings and Church Fathers' texts he was defending the Catholic position and the Pope's primate pointing out, at the same time, the doctrinal mistakes and the non-Orthodoxy of other churches rites. 291 However, a peculiarity of his unionist method clearly unfolds in his Sermons to the Diet (1597). As an example, in the Eighth Sermon, 292 Skarga condenses various fragments of Isaiah's prophecies in order to warn the diet about the danger of the division of the faith that, in turn, will bring to the division of the republic. Particularly dangerous, in the words of the authors, are the growth of immoral literature and the spread of reformed printing houses. 293 The entire pamphlet is filled with references to the Holy Writings and has an almost prophetic structure. It is clear that, in Skarga's thought, the project of religious unity is strictly correlated to the necessity of a moral reformation of the republic and with political union. The correlation between the church unity and the moral reform is in Skarga's polemic a pretext to complain with the moral laxity created by the reformed doctrine of predestination.

Polčin Stanislas, La mission religieuse..., Op. cit. p. 2. See also HRM vol. I, p. 282-283. Istruzione segreta data al Padre Antonio Possevino destinato in Moscovia, Roma, 27.III.1581. Manuscr. Codex Vatic. Barberini Latinus 5744, fol. 108-116. HRM vol. I, p. 299-305. 291 Janusz Tazbir, Mirosław Korolko (eds.) Skarga Piotr, Kazania sejmowe, Wrocław, 1984 292 Ivi., p. 188-198. 293 Skarga alludes to the printing houses: for example the Arian press in Kracow, propagating Reformation ideas. 289 290

113

It is particularly interesting to note that, a couple of decades later, such an approach had been adopted by the Dutch-German Jesuit Matin Becan during the Bohemian insurrection of 1618. 294 Bacan, was involved in the political-theological debate sprang from the insurrection. In this context he claims, ‘The peace of the Republic cannot be preserved without the union of faith’. This statement is reiterated at the end of this passage taken from his Summa of Scholastic Theology: ‘it has been widely demonstrated that the Christian peace is twofold: one ecclesiastic that consists in the unity of faith and sacraments; the other is political and consists of justice and morality’. It is important to underline that Becan appeals for the unity of the church to better face the infidels using the term infidels to refer to Turks and Calvinists indistinctly. And Becanus is even more dramatic than Skarga in his description of the moral decadence of the nobles who have been transformed in the Libertine pseudo-politician by what he define the “desperate predestination” of Calvin. The opposition to the religious pluralism seems to be strictly correlated to the necessity of a moral reform of the politicians in the thought of Adam Tanner too. The Austrian Jesuit wrote in his Amuletum Castrense (1620), 295 that hidden under the faith and the confessional tolerance there are the seep of relativism and moral laxity that are waivers of the truth and ‘good’ that the Church can not accept. Neither can it be accepted by the political authority that cannot reduce its function to that of the guarantor of public order but should rather be a moral model itself. In his thought, the union of the Christianity to face the external enemy, the Turks, should pass through an inner moral reform that is the abandon of the Protestant doctrine by the regents (§ II.2.4.).

II.1.2 Unionism in Possevino and Koialowicz: Historiae Lituanae as Implementation of the Moscovia’s Theories.

This position toward unionism was pretty common among Jesuits and it is therefore licit to try to compare it with that of Possevino. In the secret letter that the Cardinal of Como gave Possevino before his departure it was clearly defined how to approach the subject of faith in the meetings with the Tsar. After having gained the trust of the Tsar, father Possevino will have to tackle with the matters of religion and faith. It is necessary to let Ivan understand the importance of a league against the Turks and that it would never been solid if it will not be funded on the union of the spirits within the Catholic religion. And to promote this religion it is necessary to recognize the 294

Martinus Becanus, Manuale Controversiarum huius temporis de fide ac religione, Wuerzburg, 1623. See Gui Francesco, I gesuiti e la rivoluzione boema: alle origini della Guerra dei Trent'Anni. Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989, p. 349. 295 Adam Tanner, Amuletum Castrense, sive antidotum adversus pernitiosos calumniarum afflatus, tristesque bellorum motus, ex Boemico tumultu enatos, Auctore Adamo Tannero e Soc. Jesu theologo, Ingolstadt, ex Typographeo Ederiano, 1620.

114

pope as the guide and supreme authority of the Church funded by Christ. Possevino will have to explain that the Pope has been chosen by Christ and that the Holy See is in Rome because God wanted it to be there. Finally, Possevino will have to remind the Tsar that the councils have recognized the authority of Rome and particularly the Council of Florence has stated that the Church of Christ cannot be than one and united and that the act of the Council of Florence had been approved by the Greek emperor itself.

296

The letters of the Cardinal advise Possevino about

the sure and strong opposition of the Muscovite clergy to his missions and his talks. This opposition will be caused first of all because the evil disposition of this clergy toward the Latin Church and, second, because they will feel that they might loose their authority if the Unity will actually be reached. Possevino will have to put a lot of efforts to gain their liking. Finally, during the talks with Ivan, Possevino will have to stress the similarity of the Latin and Greek rites rather than getting involved in doctrinal debate. With these suggestions in mind, Possevino left Vilnius and, the 20th of August 1581, the talks with Ivan begun in Smolensk. However, the Jesuit’s mission revealed less easy and linear than expected. First of all, Possevino did know neither Russian nor any other Slavic language and had to constantly refer to translators that more than once demonstrated to have problems themselves to deal with the two languages. 297 The second problem he had to face was the absolute ignorance of the religious, social and political situation in Lithuania, Ruthenia and Muscovy. Despite having carefully prepared his trip studying every book available in Rome about the Northern and Eastern European Countries, 298 Possevino soon understood that the situation was radically different from that depicted in his sources. The most important fact was the erroneous belief (wide spread in Rome) that the Muscovite regent had accepted the acts of the Council of Florence like the Greek Emperor. This conviction revealed to be groundless as neither the Tsar, nor the clergy had never though to accept or recognize it as legitimate. 299 Even before meeting with Possevino, Ivan had already consulted with the Metropolite of Moscow about how to deal with the Papal legate in religious and doctrinal matters. Dionisius, Metropolite of Moscow suggest the Tsar to forbid Possevino to have talks with the Muscovite clergy about religion, to not permit him to enter Orthodox churches and remind him that Jonas, Metropolite of Moscow and opposer of the Polčin Stanislas, Op. cit., p. 5-7. See, as an example, the diplomatic incident caused by the erroneous translation of “obedňa” (Mass) that Possevino’s interpeter understood as “obed” (dinner). Due to the misunderstanding, Possevino accepted the Polock Bishop’s invite believing to have been invited for dinner. When Possevino showed at the meeting and understood that is was an Orthodox Mass, decided to refuse to enter the Church and do not kiss the Bishop’s ring as it was necessary according to the rite. By acting like this, Possevino wanted to show that the Latin Church do not recognize the authority of the Greek Church. See Polčin Stanislas, Op. cit., p. 13. 298 It is preserved a manuscript of Possevino himself in which are listed all the texts he consulted before leaving: HRM, Suppl. p. 20-22. 299 The decree of Union written at the Council of Florence had been signed by Isidore, Metropolite of Kiev. He promulgated it in Ruthenia, Ukrain and Muscovy but neither the clergy nor the Tsar recognized it. 296 297

115

Metropolite of Kiev who signed the decree of the Council of Florence, had declared that the Emperor, the Pope and all the Latin who obey them are no more part of the Universal Apostolic Church. 300 Finally, Possevino had to experiment the actual impossibility to talk about religion once arrived in Polock: Ivan wrote to the Pristave of the city before the arrival of the Pontifical legate imposing the formal prohibition to discuss religious matters. The Pristave Zalešenin Volochov, if interpelled in religious matter had to respond Possevino that he was neither able to write nor to read and therefore was not able to discuss such matters. 301 This kind of obstacles became even more drastic since the first meeting with Ivan. Possevino stressed, as soon as the political problems were discussed and a truce signed (§I.2.2), the need for a union between Churches to face the Turks and stop the internal conflicts. He carefully decided to not tackle with doctrinal and rite problems directly, but rather to exploit the political condition. Despite the indirect approach to the issue of the union, Ivan seemed clearly not interested in this aspect of the meeting and kept an absolute silence in this matter. After a couple of days of useless talks, Possevino discovered secret instructions with which the Tsar imposed his interpreters to not even translate the parts of Possevino's speech inherent doctrine and religion. 302 On September 14th, Possevino left for the Baltic providing his fellow traveler Drenocky who was supposed to remain in Muscovy as a guarantee of the return of Possevino, with detailed instructions about the method to employ to prepare a later direct attempt of union. 303 The same instructions are repeated several times in the correspondence with the Pope, in Possevino's travel report and unionist treatise itself (published in 1586 in Vilnius With the title "Moscovia") and in a small report for the Cardinal of Como. 304 By consequence, due to the coherence and uniformity of all these texts, it is possible to summarize Possevino’s method to reach the unity of Church like this: First, in Muscovy, direct debates about religion, doctrine and rite should be avoided to not hurt the tsar and to not stress the disagreements between the two churches. For the same reason, nobody should read or suggest reading catholic books. If questioned about the differences between the rites, Catholics should assert that these are not relevant and each church should be free to choose their own rites. 305 Second, it is fundamental to change the perception Orthodox have about Catholics. In fact, they often assimilate the whole Latin Christians to the dangerous and bellicose Polish. Therefore, it Polčin Stanislas, Op. cit., p. 13. PSD, vol. X, col. 43. 302 Polčin Stanislas, Op. cit., p. 15. 303 This secret instruction has been published in the HRM, Suppl., p.9-20. 304 Paulo Pierlig (ed.), Antonii Possevini Missio Moscovitica, Paris, 1882, p.vii-viii. 305 S. Dachnovič, author “provoslave” said that the attitude of Possevino toward the differences of rite and costumes was right and conciliatory (veren i primiritelen). He believed that if all the missionary working for the Unity of the Churches would have been moderated like Possevino in every point of their polemics with the “Orthodox”, the work of the union would have been without any doubt in a better situation than that of the present time. 300 301

116

is important to present Polish and other Russia neighbors as models of virtue; their regents as humble and spiritual men; their citizens as charitable and upright. In other words, it is necessary to represent all Catholics and particularly the Catholics nobles as models of moral virtues. 306 Third, the Lithuanian Ruthenian should serve as a getaway to Russia. In fact, Ruthenian in Russia were somehow perceived as a moral and religious model. Moreover, the apostolate in Ruthenia was made much easier by the political condition. The Apostolate in Russia should definitely pass through Lithuania and Ruthenia. 307 Basing on these theoretical postulates, Possevino implemented a concrete strategy of action contributing to the foundation of a seminary for interpreters in Dorpart 308 and individuating in books the most effective unionist instrument.309 In fact, while apostles are not allowed in Russia, books can circulate quite freely. By consequence, every effort should be put toward the production and translation of books. Possevino immediately asked for a reform of the Vilnius printing house and the increment of its production. Moreover, it is revealing that Possevino begun the elaboration of his Bibliotheca Selecta (1593), the catalogue of recommended books for every Christian's library, while still in Vilnius and dedicated its second part to Sigismund III of Poland. The Bibliotheca Selecta deserves a deeper analysis because it is not merely a list of books; rather it is a proposal for a new educational system. It is divided in two parts: the first is devoted to the construction of the catholic religious culture, the second presents the human disciplines according to a method that joins doctrine and piety. The subjects analyzed range from the pure doctrine to scholastic and theology; from philosophy to medicine and architecture. Possevino organized this huge amount of information using history as the concept-structure. History becomes the general governing category. The reason why Possevino decided to use history as the structure for the education of the Christian noblemen is made clear by the author himself in the introduction of his work. A new science of power, writes the Jesuit, stimulated by the recent scientific 306

Possevino wrote Stefan Drenocky: ‘the thing the most necessary to the Muscovites is to elevate their spirits from the external things and concentrate on the interiour ones that is, to understand the spirit of the ceremonies. Therefore, it is more important to told them about the virtues of goodness, of faith, of charity. To set the basis for the Unity of Church it is advisable to first dispose the minds toward a better acceptance of “Latins” and not to takle directly with doctrinal matters. In other words, it is necessary to present the Latins in order to make them similar, from the point of view of the vitue to the Ruthenian. These are as a matter of fact regarded as models by the Muscovites due to the way they represent themselves outwardly’. Polčin Stanislas, Op. cit., p. 18. See also the comment of the Polish ambassador Dzierzek who, trying to anticipate how the Muscovites are to the father Campani (who was travelling together with Possevino): ‘[…] quei Ruteni stanno tutto nello esteriore.’ [those Ruthenian are just outwadness]. In Pierling Paul, Bathory et Possevino, Op. cit., p. 109. 307 See Graham Hugh F., Op. cit., p. xii-xiii. 308 Rabikauskas Paulius, Op.cit., p. 193. 309 This opininon is clearly stated and demonstrated by Paulius Rabikauskas, Op. cit., p. 193-197. ‘Possevino highly regarded the second modern means of faith spreading - the printed word. This is the reson why he intensively took care of the printing house of the University of Vilnius. It is possible to say that there are not Possevino letters written in 1585 where it is not reminded the importance of books and of books printing’. p. 196. However, Possevino had to admit in a letter dated 1585 to the Polish provincial ‘unfortunately our printing house is dying but it would be easier to restore it to the perfect state and funcionality’ ARSI. Opp. NN. 325, fol. 58r. In Other letters Possevino stresses the need for more books to be printed in local languages and Latin. See Rabikauskas p. 197.

117

discoveries and new historiographic doctrines, is spreading among the society and it is undermining the values on which the Christina Church is based: tradition, respect for the authority and moral value. The faith in the tradition has to be rebuilt and with it the image of the authority, both religious and political, as a model of morality. If the spiritual authority of the church is undermined the by the means of a new historiographic doctrine, than the church has to create a new generation of regents educated to Catholics values by the mean of history. It is finally clear that Possevino's unionist and educational programs are connected and are both doctrinal and political. He wants to prepare a direct attempt of union between Catholics and Orthodox mainly by the means of books, but with books he also aims to educate the new generations of regents who will be the model of moral virtue and Christians values that will be admired by the Orthodox and respected by Catholics. While Possevino's unionist method is radically different from that of Skarga, there are important theoretical similarities too. Most important, is the persistence of the concept that the religious unity is deeply related with a moral reform and particularly with the necessity to base the union of the churches on a process that begins with the correct education of the nobles exposed, now more than ever, to insidious doctrines and books. Thirty years after the first publication of the Bibliotheca Selecta, the unionist problem was still very alive and, in fact, from 1624 to 1670 the archive of propaganda in Rome collects relations, articles e memories that represent Possevino's mission and unionists efforts as a model to employ in the contemporary contest. 310 During the first half of the seventeenth century, the need for a wider union of the churches was still very important for the Catholics especially because a new ecumenical movement was growing within the Protestant church that was looking for a union with Orthodox itself and the Turks were sieging a divided Christianity. 311 At the same time, the field of education had become even more critical due to the spread of valuable Protestant works. Finally, what we defined before as a new and dangerous philosophy of sciences had been sanctioned by Descartes particularly in his Discourse on the Method (§ I.2.). 312 The Discourse not only directly substituted the Christian moral with a provisional morality but undermined the foundation of the Christian philosophy. His approach, in fact, defined as non-sciences all the subjects related to memory that, for its nature, cannot come to a rigorous certitude. From this postulate originates the dichotomy between reason and memory in a strong opposition to the Scholastics that until that time had provided the Christianity with the philosophical skeleton then Polčin Stanislas, Op. cit., p. 45. Rouse Ruth and Stephen C. Neill (eds.), Storia del movimento ecumenico dal 1517 al 1948, Vol. 1, Bologna, EDB, 1973. 312 René Descartes, Discours de la méthode Pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences, Leiden, 1637. 310 311

118

perfectly harmonized with Catholics dogma. The opposition to the Scholastic meant to undermine the cultural language of the Church. By putting Historiae Lituanae in this cultural frame and his author conscience within the diachronic process previously described, the function of the book becomes clearer. While it is not possible to trace a direct influence of Possevino's unionist method on the work of Koialowicz, some remarkable analogies between the theorization of the papal nuncios and the concrete work of the Lithuanian historian allows claiming the continuity of intent and method. More concretely, Koialowicz, as his predecessors, supports the theory of a twofold Christian peace, ecclesiastic and political. He directly support this idea when, referring to Tatars invasions, points out the failure of the Christian defense due to the lack of coordination between the besieged nations. 313 Indirectly, the concept is reiterated with the attempt to present the unity of the peoples of the two republics not as a strict political union but more like a moral alliance. Examples of moral conduct and virtues are scattered across the two volumes of Historiae Lituanae so that the whole work assumes the form of a handbook written for moral education of nobles. But, in my opinion, the pedagogic aim of the book is not, as some claimed, mainly to make the contemporaries serve the Lithuanian Republic in a proper way. As it was the case for his predecessors, the reference to the external enemy became a simple pretext for the claim for an internal unity against the inner enemy: the new philosophy of science that revealed to be even more insidious than the Turks because did not present itself as a dangerous enemy, but as an innovative force able to change the society from the inside. Exactly like Skarga, Possevino, Tanner and Becan, Koialowicz promotes the idea that the union of the Christianity in order face the external enemy, the Turks, should pass through an inner moral reform. As Possevino suggested, the faith in the tradition has to be rebuilt and with it the image of the authority, both religious and political, as a model of morality. If the spiritual authority of the church is undermined the by the means of a new historiographic doctrine, than the church has to create a new generation of regents educated to Catholics values by the mean of history. This is exactly what Koialowicz did. Jesuits scholars were all actively engaged in the struggle against the insidious heresy and used the threat of the external enemies to claim for the struggle against the internal one, but while Skarga and Becan preferred the polemical attitude typical of their time, Possevino, Tanner and Koialowicz were forced to re-invent the field of the confrontation. If the values of memory and history had been undermined, if the moral values had been supplanted by the state reason, than the reconstruction had to begin from the re-attribution of value to the tradition that is to give new

Brogi Bercoff Giovanna, "Rytų slavų įvaizdis ir funkcija Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus SJ raštuose", in Darius Kuolys (ed), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, p. 334 347. 313

119

symbolic value to history. This is exactly what Koialowicz did presenting, at the same times, ancestors as peoples of religious and moral virtue thus creating the instrument Possevino was asking for: one of that books that could freely circulate among Russians, Rhutenians, Polish and Lithuanians to prepare the future union of the churches without tackling directly with doctrinal and ritual differences, but rather presenting the union as a natural alliance between civil peoples against the infidels. In conclusion, while it is not possible to state that Koialowicz produced his historical work for the direct influence of Possevino, this comparative approach leaves no doubts that the Lithuanian Jesuit was absolutely conscious of the evolution of the strategies of the Society of Jesus to reach the union of the Churches and consciously implemented them. In the same way, there are no doubts about his knowledge of the danger of the new philosophy of science for the scholastic theology and the decision to adopt history as structure for his unionist and moral work has to be seen as a conscious answer to this threat. The examples of Koialowicz’ unionist claims despite the religion of the groups he refers to are scattered across the two books of the History of Lithuania. Even the Cuman people (Polovtsi) are called in to question. Koialowicz supports the idea of the necessity of a broader union of ‘all people’ to protect the Cuman against the barbarian Tatars. 314 To stress the necessity of a union with the Muscovites, Koialowicz even fears the possibility of a Tatars invasion of the Russian lands if the gate to the Christian Europe – that is the Bohemia and specifically the region where the Cuman resided – had been invaded. The defeat against the invaders, in the interpretation of Koialowicz, 315 depended on the lack of union between Polish Lithuanians Cuman and Muscovites. It seems that it is not a problem for the Jesuit the fact that only Polish were Christians while Lithuanian and Cuman were pagan and the Muscovites Orthodox: the political alliance is the base for the religious unity. Referring to this event, the position of Stryjkowski is very different (he blames the lack of ability of the Muscovites) thus Koialowicz interpretation is even more representative of a “Jesuitical” interpretation. The examples of the concrete implementation Possevino’s precepts are even more evident when Koialowicz refers to the relation between Poland, Lithuania and Muscovy. While Possevino asserted the necessity to represent Polish and Lithuanians as sustainers of the Christian of Russia and even as essential political and military partner, Koialowicz uses examples from the past to demonstrate how detrimental had been the lack of union between the three countries. An explicit mention of the damage caused by the political opposition of the parts. Even being a Lithuanian he

314

Koialowicz W. Albert, Historiae Lituanae…, Op. cit., I, 43 (we will adopt this system of reference to refer to the two books of History of Lithuania – I or II – and the specific page). 315 Ivi., I, 54.

120

criticizes the Grand Duchy when its rulers attempted to exploit Russians problems with the Tatars. 316 He clearly states that the Lithuanian acted incorrectly attaching and in fact Tatars prevailed, plundered the lands and destroyed cities. Moreover, Koialowicz criticizes the aims of the military mission of the Lithuanians: the Lithuanian sovereigns Mantvila and Živinbudas acted immorally having decided to combat only to pillage and plunder and their mission ended unsuccessfully. 317 On the contrary, the sovereign Erdvilas behaving morally and proposing the Russians a respectful truce obtained the success. 318 Here emerges another relevant aspect of Koialowicz conception of the political authority: a legal regent is the one who respects his subordinates and their will. 319 This peculiar, and emblematic, conception will be analysed in §II.2.1. Possevino asked for books able to present Polish and Lithuanias as model of virtue, civilized countries ruled by moral and fair sovereigns. Koialowicz clearly satisfies this request trying to present early Lithuanian regents as fair and correct partners of the Muscovites both in pace and in war. ‘It is clear that Koialowicz aims to create an image of a civilized Lithuania that behaves – in peace and in times of war – according to the requirements of the international laws and the theory of the right govern’. 320 However, Koialowic goes as far as claiming that nobody is more interested in the freedom of Russians than the Lithuanian regents. 321 Once more, the Lithuanian Jesuit takes the chance to affirm the reciprocal utility that both Polish-Lithuania and Muscovy can obtain from a political and military alliance (obviously hoping for a religious one). It is clear that in Koialowic interpretation of the Lithuanian past, every success against the barbarian invaders was the result of a moral alliance between the Christian countries. Consequently, describing the victory against the Tatars in 1227, he attributes the result to both the union of Muscovites and Lithuanians and to the morality of their aims: the preservation of peace and freedom. 322 Less clear is the position of Koialowicz toward Ruthenians and their religion. On one hand, Possevino suggested to exibit respect for the Ruthenians, to accept the ritual divergences, to prize their morality and to present them as strictly related to the Catholic countries. On the other hand, Koialowicz, at least in one significant episode, represents the Ruthenians as cause of discord between Lithuanian and Muscovites and source of immorality. We are referring to Gediminas siege

316

Ibid., I, 57. Ibid., I, 59. 318 Ibid., I, 60 -62. 319 Ibidem. 320 Brogi Bercoff Giovanna, Op. cit., p. 337. 321 Koialowicz W. Albert, Historiae Lituanae…, Op. cit., I, 63 322 Ivi., I, 78 – 80. 317

121

of Kiev in 1320. 323 Koialowicz, commenting the violence of the war indirectly confirms that he believed the Ruthenia to be legally part of the territories of the Lithuania. Consequently he describes the war as an internal and deplorable war. The damages and the losses however are not attributed to the Lithuanian regent rather to the wrong advices of the Orthodoxes. While in this example Koialowicz seems to contradict Possevino’s teaching (when he recommended to stress the morality of the Ruthenian and their connection with the Catholics) another Jesuits’ principle is involved: the peace of the republic cannot be preserved without the union of faith. This concept has been crearly expressed by both Adam Tanner and Martin Becan and his deeply analised in §II.3. This exemplum is complementary to those mentioned above. While the first examples aimed to show that the peace of the Christianity can not be achieved without the political union, the specific example of the war in Ruthenia aims to demonstrate that the peace of the state cannot be achieved without the union of faith. The specific examples provided above meant to demonstrate the coherence of Koialowicz thought with the Jesuits’ doctrines and specifically with the unionist ideology in the peculiar theorization of Possevino. Many other passages of Historiae Lituanae clearly demonstrate the unionist attitude of the Lithuanian Jesuit however they are representative of a more general conception of unionism. This conception was wide-spread among Catholics especially during the second and third decade of the 17th century. A deeper analysis of the expression of this form of unionism has been provided by Giovanna Brogi Bercoff in her essay Rytų slavų įvaizdis ir funkcija Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus SJ raštuose. 324 II.1.3. Unitarism in Koialowicz’s Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium

Echoes of the above mentioned theories could be seen in the third part of the “short history of the Lithuanian Church.”

325

Here, narrating the origins of Catholics, Provoslaves, Uniates and

Protestants he stresses the moral virtue of the regents who brought Lithuania to the Catholicism and particularly of Jogaila (later Władysław II Jagiełło) stressing the relation between moral values of the noblemen and the strength of the catholic religion. 326 As expected, great stress is placed on the description of the Union of Brest of 1596. 327 As well with no surprise comes the quotation of 323

Ibid., I, 259. Brogi Bercoff Giovanna, Op. cit. 325 Koialowicz W. Albert, Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium, Vilniae, Typis Academicis, 1650, p. 37-72. 326 Ivi., p. 37-40. 327 It refers to the 1595-1596 decision of the (Ruthenian) Church of Rus', the "Metropolia of Kiev-Halych and all Rus'", to break relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople and place themselves under the Pope of Rome, in order to avoid 324

122

Marcin Kromer at the beginning of the section devoted to the Christian religion. The quotation of Kromer (together with Guagnini) clearly stresses the fact that a history of Latin Church in this region is a history of the struggle of this faith against the spread of the reformed one and the persistence of the Greek. 328 Moreover, citing the work of Kromer, Koialowicz aims to refer to the polish scholar’s idea of

“rebirth” of the individual and of the whole society through the

reformation of the most important social institution and regents. 329 This idea is reflected in the eighth sermon to the Diet of Skarga mentioned above and is a persistent theme in the polemic literature of the jesuits of the first half of the 16th century. Koialowicz makes no exception and want to make clear this position from the first page of his Miscellanea Rerum. 330 Soon after, the connection between unity of faith and political unity is stressed describing the development of the reign of Jogaila after 1386: ‘And after 1386 he [Jogaila] united all his domain of the Great Duchy of Lithuania not only with the Kingdom of Poland, but with the Church of Christ’. 331 Even writing about the Orthodox Church, Koialowicz takes every chance to mention the Unitarist effort of the ancient Lithuanian regents. Therefore, great relevance is given to the year 1415. 332 In that year the Bulgarian Grigorije Camblak (about 1362 - about 1420) became Metropolite of Kiev. In the year 1418 he participated in the Conceal of Constance where he gave a speech about the union of the church. 333 After his election as Kiev Metropolite, Camblak went to Rome to the Pope and than to the Conceal of Constance as envoy of the Duke Vytautas. As Koialowicz writes, ‘he was sent there by Vytautas for several other reason but mainly to take care of the union between the Greek and the Roman Churches’. 334 It is revealing that Koialowicz want to stress two thing: first of all that it was the regent to send him to the council; second that his main mission was that of take care of the union of the churches. No mention of the other tasks he was requested to do are made. The center of the passage is about his religious mission and the effects it the domination of the newly established Patriarch of Moscow. At the time, this church included most Ukrainians and Belarusians who lived in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Ibid., p. 40-52. 328 See Kromer Marcin, Polonia sive de situ, populis, moribus, magistratibus et Republica regni Polonici libri duo, Cologne, 1577 and Kromer Marcin, O wierze i nauce luterskiej [About the Lutheran faith], 1551. See Czeslaw Milosz, Storia della letteratura polacca, Bologna, il Mulino, 1983. 329 See, AA.VV., Humanizm Lacinski w Polsce, Kracow, Collegium Maius, 2003. We refer to the Italian translation L’umanesimo latino in Polonia, Treviso, Fondazione Cassamarca, 2006, p.50. 330 See, as a confiration of this statement, the analogous conclusion drawn by Vladas Žulys: ‘not only this position [in favour of the union of the Churches] is clear in his History of Lithuania, its work about a Short History of Christian Church in Lithuania is full of references to this concept. The reported information are tendencious and aim to highlight the successes of the Counterreformation, underline the meaning of the Union of the Churces and shows a cosmopolitan historical view about the cultural facts of Lithuania.’ Žulys Vladas, „A. Vijūkas-Kojelavičius ir jo Lietuvos istorija“, in Pergalė, 1959, 11, p.153. 331 Koialowicz W. Albert, Miscellanea Rerum... Op. cit. p. 38. 332 Ivi., p. 43-44. 333 Ibid., p. 43. See also Thompson J. Francis, Gregory Tsamblak. The Man and the Myths, Slavica Gamdensiana 25/2, 1998, 64-66, 85, p.11. 334 Ibidem.

123

had on his country. Once more, the strong connection between religious and political matter is stressed. Immediately after, Koialowicz changes his apologetical tone to a more severe one with reference to the decision of Duke Alexander to give some Vilnius citizen a privilege that consisted in a partial tax reduction. 335 The Lithuania Jesuit criticizes this action of the regent because the privilege was given only to Roman Christians living in the city and, in his opinion, this discriminatory act had certainly weakened the Unitarian effort. As a matter of fact, this measure induced many Orthodox to renounce formally to their faith while keeping the Greek creed as their private faith. This act, in fact would have stressed the difference between Orthodox and Latin basing mainly on the exteriority of the rites in open opposition to what the sustainer of the union, and particularly Jesuits, were suggesting. As mentioned above writing about Possevino, the new unionist method required to avoid stressing the ritual differences and rather promote the acceptance of the Pope as a leader of the Church. If a further confirm of Koialowicz’s intention to stress the unionist attempts made by Orthodox is needed, nothing might be more representative that a voluntary and conscious manipulation of the historical facts. While up to this point, Koialowicz respected the facts mentioned in his (openly quoted sources - Marcin Kromer and Alessandro Guagnini), he betrayed them when describing the events related to Harasim Voluin-Vladimir. 336 Despite Harasim had been elected Metropolite in Constantinople thanks to the support of the Duke and because of his rigid Orthodoxy, Koialowicz affirms that Harasim was a supporter of the Union of the Churches! 337 The sources used by Koialowicz to make this claim are unknown. However, it is more realistic to believe he deliberately manipulated the historical truth in order to not compromise the image of Lithuanian regents he was trying to give the readers. The involvement of the Duke in the election of a Metropolite of Constantinople was as a matter of fact contrary to the idea of continuous effort of the regents to reach the union. By presenting the Metropolite as a unionist himself, Koialowicz was not only preserving the image of the regents he created but once more stressed the fact that the Orthodox themselves were favorable to the union of the Churches. Several lines below, Koialowicz makes another relevant mistake of the same nature of the above. He confuses Joseph II Sultan with Joseph I Bulgarium. 338 It worth to quote the whole passage: ‘the successor of Macarius was Joseph Sultan descendant of a reverend Lithuanian family; 335

Ibid., p. 44. Ibidem. 337 Koialowicz W. Albert, Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium, Vilniae, Typis Academicis, 1650. Now in Kuolys Darius (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, Vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 111 note 161. 338 Koialowicz W. Albert, Miscellanea Rerum... Op. cit., p. 47. See note 180 in Kuolys Darius (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, Vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 119 336

124

that he was an Unitarist is demonstrated by his letters about union and the Council of Florence wrote in 1497 to the patriarch of Constantinople Niphon. This is clear from the annals of the embassies to Moscow’. 339 Even if integrated by the quotation of the source, the information provided by Koialowicz is clearly erroneous. However, for the second time, what seems to be a distraction or confusion, aims to present an Orthodox certainly not favorable to the union of the Churches as a fervent unionist. Koialowicz attributes Joseph II Sultan the unionist spirit of Joseph I Bulgarium. The latter, as a matter of fact, was clearly in favor of the union of the churches as demonstrated by his letter to Pope Alexander VI written the 20th of August 1500. 340 The quotations of other Orthodox patriarchs and representative personalities are scattered across the whole section devoted to the Orthodox of Lithuania. Koialowicz even mentions the patriarch of Jerusalem Paisius (1645 - 1676) as a fervent sustainer of the union of the Churches. 341 It is clear now that the whole section is devoted to the presentation of the attempt of union made by Orthodox clergy and noblemen. By consequence, it becomes clear that Koialowicz was much more interested in presenting the Orthodox as unionist than the roman church representatives. This is proved by the great difference of reference to attempt of union in the two section: only three in the section of the book devoted to Catholics while the union of the churches is mentioned more than twenty times in the section devoted to the Orthodox. While this can be partially explicate with the fact that Orthodox and Uniates are discussed together, it is not enough to justify this disproportion. The mistakes/omissions made by Koialowicz are an even more indicative sign of his real intention: to promote the idea of a union of the churches with the support of the regents and particularly the Dukes of Lithuania and Polish Kings. The close relation between the political union of the region and the religious union of the churches is always at the center of the text and force him to manipulate his sources when these contradict this “theory”. In several cases, Koialowicz is even falling in to anachronistic definitions aiming to support the idea of a political and moral union of the countries as a base for the religious union. This is the case of the mention of the regents of the Polish-Lithuanian state as a “single family” even if at that time the regents were still distinct. The similarities with the unionist method of Possevino extend in Koialowi to involve the polemical approach. While it is true that both tried to stress the mutual benefits of a union and the common origins of Orthodox and Catholics, their nature of polemists emerges in the respective historical accounts. As an example, Possevino narrates his decision to refuse to take part in an Orthodox mass to express his disapproval for the schism. Similarly, Koialowicz did not recognized

339

Ibidem. Theiner Augustin, Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, Rome, 1861, vol 2, n. 296, p. 267-268. 341 Koialowicz W. Albert, Miscellanea Rerum... Op. cit., p. 60. 340

125

the right of the Muscovites to unify the Russian lands in the name of the Orthodoxy. 342 He frequently express is faith in the precepts of the union according to the principles of Florence and Brest. Several times he depicts the Ruthenian as united to the Pope in Rome ab antiquo more and tries to expand this conception to the whole Orthodoxes. 343 Moreover, Koialowicz uses examples from the past in order to point up that the religious union is a necessary for the existence of the state and for its internal peace. Without cultural and religious integration it was not possible to keep the under the control of the sovereign the region of Ruthenia and its inhabitants: peoples from other religious groups are more prone to surrend to invasors and other countries needs. 344

342

Koialowicz W. Albert, Historiae Lituanae... Op. cit., II, 278. Ivi., II, 279. 344 Ibid., II, 277. 343

126

II.2. KOIALOWICZ'S HISTORIAE LITUANAE IN THE FRAME OF THE JESUITS HISTORIOGRAPHY

As mentioned in the introduction, the main aim of this research is to contextualize the literary production of Koialowicz in the historiographic canon of the Jesuits of the 16th and 17th centuries. Once defined this canon (§I.3. and §I.4.) and individuated a connection between the definition of the canon and the environment in which the Lithuanian Jesuit was operating (§II.1.), our task is to evaluate how peculiar is the position of Koialowicz in comparison with this “historiographic canon” or, otherwise how coherent was Koialowicz with it. In other words, we want to accept Vladas Žulys invitation to see in the historical works of Koialowicz a significan expression of the historiography of the 17th century. 345 And if it is an expression of a wider “movement” the study of this peculiar spcification will contribute to better define the general trend. Therefore we will better define the draft of historiographic canon outlined above by the mean of the analysis of its concrete expression in Koialowicz. Finally, we will attempt to answer the question Žulys asked the reader analyzing the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit: why Koialowicz decided to use the work of Stryjkowski as his main source and model and rather than translating it in Latin decided to re-work it? 346 And more generally, why a professor of theology decided to tackle with historical matters when neither in his university nor in his country there was an historical writings tradition? 347 A preliminary answer to these questions could be the role of Koialowicz. He was first of all a Jesuit and he had to carry out a mission: to porsue the unity of the church together with the political unity of his country and, at the same time, defend the central role of the Roman Church. This, in the 17th century, ment first of all to tackle with Descartes‘ (and Renaissaince skeptics’) definition of sciences and its influence on the historical role of the Church. To accomplish this mission, Stryjkowski’s chronicle was good as a technical support – a skeleton to be used to sustain the mighty theoretical construction created by the scholars of the Society of Jesus.

Žulys Vladas, “A. Vijūkas-Kojelavičius ir jo Lietuvos istorija”, in Pergalė, 1959, 11, p.153. Koialowicz W. Albert, Historie Lituanae…, Op. cit., I, 2-3. 347 Žulys Vladas, “A. Vijūkas-Kojelavičius…, Op. cit, p.153. 345 346

127

II.2.1. The Portrait of Mindaugas in Koialowicz: Between the structure of Stryjkowski and the Philosophy of Mariana Among the sources about the printing house of the academy of Vilnius 348 it is registered an interesting letter of the Jesuits’ General Claudio Acquaviva dated 1614.VIII.2. 349 The title of the letter is significant: Libri praesertim de potestate summi Pontificis et de tyrannicidio non edendi. The text of the letter reads like this:

Non unis ante hac literis particulariter ad quosdam de Societate variis locis constitutos datis, tum vero a 1610 januario mense communiter ad omnes Trasalpinas provincias ordinavimus ne tractatus seu scripta nostrorum, quae de materii hoc tempore controverti solitis, nominatim de potestate Pontificis supra alios principes agant, in lucem prodeant, priusquam Romae recognita, licentiaque eorundem excusionis a nobis facta fuerit. Et quoniam id plurimum nobis cordi hactenus fuit, tum quia ex mente S. D. Nostri esse, tum etiam, quod ad Societatis tranquillitatem nomenque bonum non parum conferre intelligimus et e contra ex defectu observationis huius nostrae ordinationis plurima eaque gravissima incommoda oriri posse animadvertimus, si non re ipsa experimur. Hinc necessarium esse duximus, hisce nostris R. V. etiam in virtute s. Oboedientiae commendare, ne in sua provincia quippiam, quacunque occasione et lingua evulgari patiatur a nostri conscriptum, in quo de potestate Pontificis supra reges principisque aut etiam de tyrannicidio agatur.

350

For the pourposes of this research, it is interesting to note the strict prohibition to print books or any other text about the theory of the tyrannicide. Curiously enough this letter was sent to all the provinces where the Jesuits were active. The reason of this ban has to be seen in the spread among the members of the Society of Jesus of an unorthodox doctrine: precisely the one that asserts the right to not obey the regents if they behave immorally and, in extreme cases, the right for the subjects to revolt and to kill them. 351 In the theological debate between the catholic orders, the Jesuits encountered the strong opposition of the ancient theological schools, mainly that of the Sorbonne. The main reason for the opposition has to be found in the tradition of anti-Jesuitism and Gallicanism that in the Sorbonne was representing the desire of independence of the French church. This contrast increased with the appearance of writings supporting an unorthodox theory: the so-called “doctrine of the tyrannicide”. This doctrine, first illustrated by a member of the Society of Jesus known as father Mariana, soon achieved widespread success among the theologians of the order.

These

theologians, as some of the Calvinists and expert of civil law, in the extreme cases of illegitimate

Petrauskienė Irena, Vilniaus akademijos spaustuvė 1575-1773, Vilnius, Mokslas, 1976. Ivi., p. 38-39, item 17. 350 Ibid., p. 39. 351 Ballesteros Gaibrois Manuel (ed.), Juan de Mariana, pensador y politico, Madrid, Ediciones Fe, 1939. 348 349

128

and tyrannical govern, advocated the right for an active resistance and, in some cases, for the murder of the “tyrants”. Juan de Mariana wrote on a wide variety of subjects. Anyway, Mariana's great work was the Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae, first appeared in twenty books at Toledo in 1592. 352 Mariana's Historiae, though in many parts uncritical, are justly esteemed for its research, accuracy, prudence and style. However, for the purposes of this section, his other treatise De Rege et Regis Institutione is more interesting. 353 In the sixth chapter of De Rege, the question whether it is lawful to overthrow a tyrant is freely discussed and answered in the affirmative, a circumstance that brought much odium upon the Jesuits, especially after the assassination of Henry IV of France, in 1610. One volume, entitled Tractatus VII. Theologici et Historici, was put upon the Index Expurgatorius, and led to the confinement of its author by the Inquisition. De rege et regis institutione deserves a deeper analysis. In this book, as mentioned above, Mariana held that people ought to bear with a tyrant as long as possible, and to take action only when his oppression surpassed all bounds. They ought to come together and give him a warning; this being of no avail they ought to declare him a public enemy and put him to death. If no public judgment could be given, and if the people were unanimous, any subject might, if possible, kill him by open, but not by secret means. The book was dedicated to Philip III of Spain and was written at the request of his tutor Garcias de Loaysa, who afterwards became Bishop of Toledo. It was published at Toledo in the printing office of Pedro Rodrigo, printer of the king, with the permission of Stephen Hojeda, visitor of the Society of Jesus in the Province of Toledo. The Jesuit Order has been blamed for the teaching of Mariana. Even if Mariana stated that his teaching on tyrannicide was his personal opinion, it is meaningful to know that the Jesuit General Acquaviva not only ordered to “correct” the book, but in July 6th 1610 forbade any member of the order to teach publicly or privately that it is lawful to attempt the life of a tyrant. It is a clear, even if involuntary, confirm of the diffusion of this doctrine among Jesuits. It might be interesting to note that, as a possible consequence of this first letter, in the editions of the Kazania Sejmowe – the Sermons to the Diet of the Jesuit Piotr Skarga – published after 1610, the 6th sermon “O monarchieji i krolestwie, abo o czwartej chorobie Rzeczypospolitej, ktora jest z oslabienia krolewskiej dostojnosci i wladzej” [About the monarchy and the kingdom, that is the forth disease of the Republic] has been removed.

352 353

Mariana Juan de, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae libri XXV, Toledo, 1592. Mariana Juan de, De Rege et regis institutione, Toledo, 1599.

129

Similarly, Francisco Suàrez De Defensione Fidei was burnt in London by the Royal Command and its publication was prohibited in France from 1614 because of the doctrines opposing the royal power. 354 Spaniards paid little attention to Juan's thesis, but it caused a great stir in France partly because of the assassination of Henry IV. A century later Mariana’s name occasioned the nowfamiliar image of Mary found on many French stamps (Mariane). This was meant to be a play on Juan Mariana's name, and was used as one of the symbols of the French Revolution. The French revolutionaries used John Mariana's thesis as well to justify the excesses of the French Revolution. It is true that Mariana was not the first ecclesiastic to approve the tyrannicide but his interpretation puts his thought in relation with the Classics and the revolutionary that were looking for models in the classics more than with these religious. Catholics distinguished between tyrannus in titula, tyrants by usurpation, who unjustly displace or attempt to displace the legitimate supreme ruler and tyrannus in regimine, tyrant by oppression, a supreme ruler who uses his power arbitrarily and oppressively. In the first case the tyrannicide was legitimate by Catholics. St. Thomas, Francisco Suàrez and the majority of theologians say that private individuals have a tacit mandate from legitimate authority to kill the usurper when no other means of ridding the community of the tyrant are available. However, Catholic doctrine condemns tyrannicide in any other case as opposed to the natural law. Mariana, on the contrary, did not distinguish between the two types of tyrannicide; his doctrine is closer to that of Aristotle and Cicero. The Spanish scholar seems to refer to the classical doctrine of the tyrannicide as expounded in Cicero (when he states that every man that kill a tyrant is not soiled with homicide but perform a glorious act). The models of Hipparchus, Brutus and Longinus are elevated, in Mariana’s work, to icons of freedom. It is a sign of continuity between Classical antiquity, humanism and the revolutionary thought of the 18th century. The French revolutionaries used Juan de Mariana's thesis to justify their acts in front of the believers as well as the Classical doctrine of Cicero and the model of Brutus in front of the republicans. Juan de Mariana however was a Jesuit and despite his revolutionary theories in matters of politics, he was devoted to the principles of the Society of Jesus. This is the reason why in his definition, the tyrant is a tyrant not only and not mainly because of the violent usurpation of the power or the illegality of his position of regent: it is a tyrant a prince or a king who betrayed the religious precepts or, even more reproachable, has betrayed the moral law of the virtue (§II.1.)

354

It is interesting to note that the Jesuit Pedro de Ribadeneira had produced several decades befor a specular text in which he defined the values of a legal prince. Ribadeneira De Pedro, Tratado de la religión y virtudes que debe tener el príncipe cristiano para governar y conservar sus Estados. Contra lo que Nicolás Machiavelo y los políticos de este tiempo enseñan, Madrid, 1595. We will refer to the analysis of Ferraro Domenico, Op. cit., p.187.

130

As mentioned above referring to Skarga, for the Jesuits the religious problems are strictly correlated to the necessity of a moral reformation of princes, kings and other institutions. Even if Skarga did not use the word tyrant, the concept of illegal statesman is similar to that of Mariana or that of Matin Becan (see above §II.1.1.): the legitimacy of a prince lies in his respect of the religion, in the unity of faith and sacraments, and in justice and morality. Adam Tanner too deprecates first of all the morality of the regents: the political authority cannot reduce its function to that of the guarantor of public order rather it should be a moral model itself. It is therefore clear that Mariana’s definition of tyrant is just a hyperbole of a conception common to most scholars of the Society of Jesus and this is the reason why it received such a reception among Jesuits. However, the fact that the press house of Vilnius listed the letter of Acquaviva about the ban for printing books containing the theory of tyrannicide is not significant for itself nor it can be a clue of the diffusion of this theory in Lithuania. Nonetheless, the situation becomes more interesting when we note in the work of Koialowicz a portrait of a “tyrant” where his main source, that is Maciej Stryjkowski’s Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka i wszystkiej Rusi, 355 depicts the subject without a particular criticism. We are referring to the Portrait of Mindaugas in Koialowicz’s History of Lithuania. 356 As we just mentioned, Stryjkowski did not represent Mindaugas in a particular way, nor he defined the Lithuanian king as a tyrant or depicted him like an unstable or particularly bloody regents. By consequence, it is even more interesting to note that Koialowicz give a pretty different portrait of the king since from the first line of his description. 357 Usually, Koialowicz abandon his main source either to use some more precise source (or some documents not known to Stryjkowski) 358 or to substitute some non-realistic narration of facts with a more rational version according to a practice widespread among Jesuits. 359 However, in this specific case none of this reason is operating: Koialowicz deliberately modified the description of his source not having in mind to use a more reliable one nor to make the description more realistic - or to be more precise, more logical. 360

Stryjkowski Maciej, Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmudzka i wszystkiej Rusi, Königsberg, 1582. We refer to Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego, Warszawa, Gustaw Leon Glücksberg, 1846. 356 Koialowicz W. Albert, Historie Lituanae pars prior; de rebus Lituanorum ante susceptam Christianam Religionem, conjuntionemque Magni Lituaniae Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae, libri novem, Dantisci, Georgi Forster, 1650. In particular I, 95 – 97 and II, 173. 357 Ivi., I, 97. 358 see, as an example, Antanavičius Darius, “Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos pasiuntinybių į Maskvą šaltinis Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus Lietuvos istorijoje” in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. 2, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, 292 - 333. 359 Godding Robert, Joassart Bernard (eds.), De Rosweyde aux Acta Sanctorum. La recherche hagiographique des Bollandistes à travers quatre siècles, Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 2009. 360 See Ivinskis Zenonas, Kojalavičius..., Op. cit., p. 196: ‘the regent himself [Mindaugas] was for Koialowicz a horrible tyrant’. 355

131

Another criterion is operating in this case: the coherence with the general plan of the opera. Many scholars have already pointed out the apparently inexplicable divergence between the Polish and the Jesuit historian in this passage. This is the case, as an example, of Viktoras Gidžiūnas.361 The historian attributes this attitude to a more general disdain of Koialowicz for the pagans. However this reasoning appears to be quite weak when confronting the description of Mindaugas with that of the other pagans referred as noble ancestors of the Lithuanian. Zenonas Ivinskis too noticed the peculiar description of Mindaugas as a horrible tyrant in Koialowicz while such connotation was absent in Stryjkowski. 362 Once more, the fact is not analyzed in depth and Ivinskis comments only on the supposed uncertainty of the dates in Stryjkowski. Koialowicz himself doubted of the dates reported by his Polish predecessor but repeated his mistakes. It is somehow clarifying the explanation of the political attitude of the Lithuanian Jesuit offered by Mečislovas Jučas. 363 First of all, it confirms the impression that Koialowicz is not disregarding his pagan ancestors and, as a matter of fact, he is even proud of the opposition to the Teutonic Order because he saw in this resistance a struggle for freedom. 364 He even takes a negative attitude against the Order (that is actually representing the Christianity against the pagans) when noticing that the war conducted by the Germans was just a predatory expedition. 365 Moreover, in many different cases Koialowicz demonstrate a great respect for some pagan Lithuanian. Gediminas, as an example, gets a very positive evaluation especially because of his moral behaviours end because with the conquest of Kiev he made the monarchy a right inheritance of Lithuania creating the bases for a political union that could have evolved in a religious union.366 Gediminas acted with high moral intentions and ‘he did not pillage the land, but united the territory and many lords’. 367 For specular reasons he condams Kasimir son of Jogaila: his conquests were not sustained by the necessity to spread Christianity and thus became immoral campaigns. 368 The reasons of the critics are here clearer: it is not a matter of being Christians or pagans as thought by Gidžiūnas. It is definitely more decisive the morality of the subjects despite their faith. A further confirmation is provided by another passage of Historiae Lituanae where the Teutons are blamed for attacking Lithuania despite the fact that the country is now officially Christian: ‘non

Gidžiūnas Viktoras, “Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius. Lietuvos istorikas 1609-1677”, in Lituanistikos instituto 1977 metų suvažiavimo darbai, Janina K. Rėklaitienė (ed.), Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1979, p. 79. 362 Ivinskis Zenonas, “Kojalavičius. Vijukas Albertas”, in Pranas Čepenas (ed.), Lietuvių Enciklopedja, South Boston, Lietuvių Enciklopedijos leidikla, IX, 1937, p. 196. 363 Jučas Mečislovas, “A. Kojelavičiaus istoriografiniai interesai”, Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, vol. 2 (91), A serja, 1985, p. 82. 364 Koialowicz W. Albert, Historie Lituanae... Op. cit., I, 75-76 and I, 128. 365 Ivi., I, 265-266 (‘universa solo aequata [..] praedatorum more’). 366 Ibid., I, 259-272. 367 Ibid., II, 255. 368 Ibid., II, 237. 361

132

jam religioni, sed suae per Lituaniam ditioni stabiliendae abutebantur’. 369 The sin of the Knights of the Order is the worst damage to the Christianity. They as a matter of fact are disrupting the unification of Europe from both the political and religious point of view and by doing this are behaving immorally. To use Adam Tanner and Martin Becan’ words the Order was not respecting the rule of the twofold peace of the Christianity: political and religious. Precisely, only a political union among Christians can be the base for the unity of faith and both should be based on the morality of the monarchs. While, on one hand, Koialowicz criticizes the Teutonic for its immoral behavior, on the other hand, he does not miss a chance to complain against the Lithuanian Catholic sovereigns because of their inactivity and irresoluteness in the Russian lands. 370 These critics however can be better understood comparing it with several other passages in which Koialowicz complain about the Muscovites in matters of religions. As confirmed by Jučas, 371 Koialowicz did not recognize the rights of the Duchy of Muscovy to be independent particularly from the religious point of view. 372 ‘He firmly believed in the unity [of the Church] defined in the Council of Florence. This hope had been renewed together with the aspirations of the Counterreformation by the Union of Brest (1596). He was a fervent supporter of the union between the Greek and the Latin Churches and expressed this support for the extension of the union to the whole region’. 373 ‘Without cultural and religious unity there were no hopes to maintain the country united’. 374 Paraphrasing Koialowicz, Jučas has, unconsciously, almost quoted Becan offering the reader a revealing parallelism: while Koialowicz condemns sovereigns for not actively pursuing the political unity in Lithuania, Ruthenia and Muscovy as a base for the religious unity, Becan denounces the Bohemian upper classes for harming the unity of the state favoring the dissolution of the faith. They both share the vision of a country guided toward the twofold unity of politics and faith by sovereigns models of virtue. The worst sin for a sovereign is lacking of this virtue and being an immoral sovereign makes him a tyrant whether he is Christian or not. This is Mariana definition of tyranny and this vision was shared by most Jesuits across Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. The portrait of Mindaugas in Koialowicz’s History of Lithuania is perfectly integrated in this frame: Mindaugas with his immoral behavior frustrated the ambition of unity of his country. First of all he refused the religious peace and than, as a consequence of this first refusal, he neglected his subjects the right of the political peace. By consequence, to respect the jesuits’

369

Ibid., II, 19. Ibid., II,24; II 251-254. 371 Jučas Mečislovas, A. Kojelavičiaus istoriografiniai... Op. cit. p. 83. 372 Koialowicz W. Albert, Historie Lituanae... Op. cit., II 278. 373 Ivi., II 279. 374 Jučas Mečislovas, Op. cit., p. 83. 370

133

“canon” of the tyrant, Koialowicz had to represent the ancient Lithuanian king as immoral - a tyrant that fitted Mariana’s definition of hated tyrant.

II.2.2. Historiae Lituanae and Historiae de rebus Hispaniae: Outlines for a Comparative Study

Before tackling with the controversial subject of tyrannicide as defined in De Rege et Regis Institutione of Juan the Mariana, we mentioned another important work of the Spanish Jesuit: Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae. This work might be a useful term of comparison in the analysis of Koialowicz’s Historiae Lituanae from the most external point of view, that of the structure of the opera. Such a comparison is not only licit but even recommendable if it happens to know that a copy of the Spanish book was preserved in the personal library of the Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Voivode of Vilnius, and Grand Hetman Leo Sapieha (1557-1633) and of his three sons: Joannes Stanislaus (1585-1635), Christophorus Nicolaus (1607-1631) and the dedicatee of the first book of Koialowicz’s Lithuanian History Kazimir Leon. In a sentence, we are asserting that the book Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae was part of the Bibliotheca Sapiehana 375 and that it is very realistic to hypothesize that Koialowicz read it. 376 It is also worth to note that the treatise of Mariana De Rege et Regis Institutione is listed in the same cathalog. The relation between the two texts cannot be proved, but they presents a number of relevant similarities that might testify the existence of a “Jesuits’ historiographic canon” in the Europe of the first half of the 17th century. Both texts have been written by Jesuits; both scholar have chosen the Latin language; both deal with the story of their countries; both have been published in the first half of the 17th century, 377 etc. It is worth to deeper analyze this edition of 1619 of the History of Spain of Mariana to find more relevant analogies with the work of the Lithuanian Jesuit. Once again Fueter has reviewed this work in his history of modern historiography. 378 Juan de Mariana was born in 1545 in Talaverna, became Jesuit in 1554, taught theology in Rome, in Sicily, in Paris and since 1574 in Spain in Toledo. Died in Madrid 1624. He wrote, as mentioned above the Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae libri XXX a history of Spain and Portugal from the ancient times until the death of Ferdinand the Catholic (1516). The first twenty books appeared Rinkūnaitė Aušra, Bibliotheca Sapiehana. Vilniaus universiteto bibliotekos rinkinys katalogas, Vilnius, 2010, p. xxv. 376 Ivi., p. 400. 377 The copy possessed by the library of the University of Vilnius is the second edition revised and extended by the author himself: Ioannis Marianae, Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae libri XXX editio noua, ab auctore recensita, et aucta summario rerum quae superiore saeculo gesta sunt, perducta ad hanc aetatem historia, Mainz, 1619. 378 Fueter Eduard, Storia della Storiografia Moderna, Napoli, Ricciardi, 1970, p. 288-291. 375

134

for the first time in Toledo in 1592, the full work in Mainz in 1605. The edition possessed by the library of Sapieha is a more recent version that narrates the events until 1621 even if the added section is extremely synthetic. 379 As Fueter says, the history of Mariana can be compared to that of Buchanan: both satisfied the requirements of their countries respecting the parameters of the Humanistic historiography. Mariana demonstrated to be able of applying a good critical method that can be compared to that of the Bollandists and more generally to the method we defined as peculiar for the second generation of Jesuit historians (§I.3.2.). However, like most historian of that period the critic he employs does not allow him to draw general conclusions or depict a more complex portrait of the époque. 380 The fabulous narration were not eliminated but rather rationalized exactly like many other Jesuits historians did. He refused the authenticity of documents only when it was more than obvious that they were counterfeit. He is particularly careful when dealing with the Saints’ legends. Due to the fact that he did not write his history upon an official request, his work is pretty honest and do not belong to the series of apologetical histories dedicated to noble families. Nevertheless, he demonstrates to be an ardent nationalist even if his vision was somehow “ecumenical” supporting the union between all the Hiberic kingdoms. The structure of his book his not particularly innovative even if offers a peculiar mix between the annalistic chronicle and the division in chapters. The former was a heritage of his main source - Morales; the latter was what it seems to be an attempt to organize the contents logically or thematically. The style of Mariana greatly improved that adopted by his sources. The period is more complex and rich. The style is adequate to the baroque taste of that time. The model is now Livy but Tacitus is still the reference for the contents. The language reproduces the classical style and is sometimes archaizing. To most scholars who read Koialowicz, this short description has probably been very stimulating. We can now implement the list of analogies we begun in the second paragraph and create a sort of list:

a. First of all the two books have been published in between the end of the second and the forth decades of the 17th century: Mariana’s Historiae de Rebus Hispaniae in 1619, Koialowicz’s Historiae Lituanae in 1650. b. Second, both the scholars were professors of theology and both decided to tackle with history.

379 380

Ferraro Domenico, Tradizione e ragione in Juan de Mariana, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989 Fueter Eduard, Op. cit., p. 290.

135

c. Third, the procedure for the creation of their respective works were very similar: Mariana referred to a main source - Ambrosio de Morales’ Viage de Ambrosio de Morales por orden del Rey D. Phelippe II a los Reynos de León, y Galicia y Principado de Asturias (1572) and the Coronica general de Espana (1574) - and integrated it with a minimum of other sources; Koialowicz used a main source – Maciej Stryjkowski’s Cronicle 381 - and integrated it with a minimum of other sources. d. Moreover, both Jesuits rationalized the fabulous narrations rather than eliminate them. Mariana believed Hercules to be an historical personality; Koialowicz rationalized the history of Palemonas. 382 e. Like most historians of that period the critic they employ does not allow them to draw general conclusions or depict a more complex portrait of the époque. 383 “Social and economical problems were out of sight for Koialowicz” said Žulys. 384 f. Both combined the ecumenical approach to a political unionism: Mariana supported the union between Aragona, Leon, Castile, and Galicia; Koialowicz that between Poland and Lithuania (§ II.1.). g. They both abandon the annalistic style to adopt a mix of division by years and chapters probably in the attempt to make the narration more coherent. 385 h. The style of the two Jesuits greatly improved that adopted by their sources. The period is more complex and rich. The style is adequate to the baroque taste of that time. The model is literary that of Livy, but Tacitus still influences the “metahistoric” structure. The language reproduces the classical style and is sometimes archaizing. 386

In addition to the patent similitudes listed above and with reference to the narrative style it is possible to individuate in both Jesuits a form of Tacitism even if it is less pronounced in Koialowicz. This list, contextualized within the definition of the Jesuits’ historiographical canon we gave above, should be enough to make licit to state that Jesuits shared a common theory of historiography both with regards to the technical means to realize it and to the aim of the historical works. This is particularly true for the first half of the 17th century. A more detailed comparative analysis demonstrates this claim. Žulys Vladas, A. Vijūkas-Kojelavičius…, Op. cit., p.154. Ivi., p. 156. 383 Gidžiūnas Viktoras, “Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius. Lietuvos istorikas 1609-1677”, in Lituanistikos instituto 1977 metų suvažiavimo darbai, Janina K. Rėklaitienė (ed.), Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1979, p. 79. 384 Žulys Vladas, Op. cit., p.156. 385 Ivi., p. 158. This is another radical differentiation from Stryjkowski’s structure. 386 Ibid., p. 157. 381 382

136

With reference to point a. of the list, we noticed that both historical works have been prepared and published during the first half of the 17th century when the Renaissance scepticism was reaching it apex and the new scientific conceptions (stimulated for example by the discoveries of Galilei) were influencing the cultural and even religious debate. Moreover, it is quite interesting the fact that both histories have been published straight after similar works describing the same historical facts. Castile and Aragon had the brilliant historical reports of Morales, Lithuania and Poland had the recent works of Stryjkowski. However another analogy emerges here: both Jesuits decided to adopt the Latin language to re-elaborate the historical accounts of their forefathers who, on the contrary adopted local languages (Spanish and Polish). The reason why the Jesuits decided to adopt the Latin language has been explained pretty clearly by Gidžiūnas: the lack of reading books in Latin to be used in the centres of education. It was a pedagogical reason. 387 The same reason applies to Mariana. This explanation agrees with the function of history defined by Possevino and other Jesuits. In fact, with regards to the contents of the books we are referring to it is even more clear the pedagogical intention of their authors: first of all, the education of the upper classes to the moral virtues by the example of their ancestors; second the education to the aspiration to the political union of their regions as base for the religious unity. The two Jesuits necessity to provide “new versions” of the histories wrote by their main sources appears more clear if we note that the political unity promoted by the two fathers was by far less marked in their counterparts and the religious unity was not even taken into account. Ambriosio de Morales’ Viage and Relationes greatly stressed the local differences due to the “ethnographic” interest of the author. In these works sometimes it even unfolds a sort of “disrespect” for the central power and generally for a supranational authority. This is made clear by the use the Spanish historian Jerónimo Zurita made of the sources collected by Morales: his Anales de la Corona de Aragón (1580) were almost “separatist” and were repeatedly criticized by the supporters of the political union of the region. The education to the political and religious union and to the morality of the regents was a duty that Mariana take on his own using Latin as the international (“supranational”) language. Similarly, Koialowicz had to promote the same Jesuit understanding of history offering a valuable work able to compete with that of Stryjkowski that was affected by the same faults as that of Morales. Typical exponent of the Renaissance, Stryjkowski presented an anthropocentric history in which the presence of the divine providence is absolutely absent from the succession of the human events: “According to him [Stryjkowski], history teaches to learn about ancestors’ customs, laws, art of war, human virtues and humanity in general”. 388 That of the Polish historian is a 387 388

Gidžiūnas Viktoras, Op. cit., p.68. Jučas Mečislovas, Lietuvos metraščiai..., Op. cit., p. 156.

137

conception of the past antithetical to the pure Christian one. It is closer to the Italian humanists position. On the contrary, Jesuits wanted to portrait the past as a source of examples of the presence of God in the human events and illustrate the customs of the ancestors as models of morality that is different from the almost Machiavellic “human virtue”. Moreover, Stryjkowski was promoting a sort of political and cultural unionism very different from that of the Jesuits. As clearly and repeatedly confirmed by Darius Kuolys, the Polish was a supporter of a union of all the Slaves. 389 Such a restrictive unionist approach was certainly not fitting the interpretation of the Society of Jesus. Explained the reasons that induced the two Jesuits to rework the historical accounts of their forefathers it is only partially clear the reason why they adopted the Latin Language. As mentioned above, both Gidžiūnas and Jučas suggested that the Latin was preferred as a mean of education. We fully agree with this interpretation but we do not believe Koialowicz wanted exclusively produce a reading book to teach Latin language. The education he was to issue was of a different kind. Basing on the pioneering interpretation of Dalia Dylitė, 390 we believe that the adoption of the Latin language allowed the Jesuit to implement a sort of “red tacitism”. Before dealing with the tacitism in Koialowicz, we believe it is necessary to better define the concept. The term “Tacitism” has been minted by Giuseppe Toffanin 391 and it refers to the recourse of the style of Tacitus during the period of the Counter-Reformation to educate in values contrary to the Machiavellism. More precisely, the political opinions of Cornelius Tacitus are not easy to discern. ‘His ironic manner reveals a contempt for flattery and other forms of servility and also a certain impatience with theory, but leaves ambiguous his attitude to the Roman monarchy’. 392 Although he obviously disliked what went with it, Tacitus may well have regarded the institution as the lesser evil. As the result of this ambiguity he could be claimed as an ally by both the opponents and the supporters of monarchy in early modern Europe – respectively the “red” and the “black” Tacitists as Toffanin defined them. Clearly, Jesuits were “red” tacitists. We referred to Tacitism illustrating Fernando Alvia de Castro’ Verdadera razón de estado. Discurso. The Tacitism was a movement sprung up during the Spanish Renaissance and was characterized by the admiration and constant reference to Tacitus. 393 The roman historian was admired particularly for his ability to harmonize political and moral education in his historical 389

We are referring to Kuolys Darius, Asmuo, tauta, valst…, Op. cit. Dalytė Dalia, “Alberto Vijūkas-Kojalavičiaus Lietuvos istorijos kalbos”, in Narbutas Sigitas (ed.), Albertas VijūkasKojalavičius iš 400 metų perspektyvos, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2009, p. 77 – 136. 391 Toffanin Giuseppe, Machiavelli e il "Tacitismo": la "politica storica" al tempo della controriforma, Padova, Angelo Draghi, 1921. 392 Burns James H. (ed.), The Cambridge history of political thought : 1450-1700, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 1991, p. 484. 393 Antón Martínez Beatriz, El tacitismo en el siglo XVII en España: el proceso de receptio, Valladolid, Caja Salamanca y Soria, 1991. 390

138

narration. The exponents of the Tacitism and particularly Alavia de Castro entered a dialogical debate with the Machiavellism. They referred to Tacitus with regards to the Machiavellism because they saw in the Senator the best instrument to introduce the morality in the political discourse of the Florentine. Tacitus, in fact, had been able to demonstrate that the real state reason is necessarily based on the natural reason. Likewise, Juan Márquez, of the Order of Saint Augustine, wrote in 1612 in Salamanca El gobernador christiano deducido de las vidas de Moysen y Josue, principes del pueblo de Dios in which proposed a Christian and moral alternative to the Prince of Machiavelli to educate the young regents. Similarly, Luis Valle de la Cerda wrote in 1599 in Madrid Avisos en materia de estado y guerra, para oprimir rebeliones y hacer paces con enemigo armado o tratar con subditos rebeldes where he agrees with most Machiavelli’s precepts and particularly the necessity for the prince to be astute, authoritarian and to not always reveal the truth especially to his subjects who might often not be able to understand the state reason. However, Valle de la Cerda see in the moral education of the prince - by the means of the study of historical models of astuteness and morality - the only way to educate a sovereign able to unite and govern a state. To go back to the two Jesuits studied in this chapter, we have already defined the Tacitism of Mariana, but a form of “red” Tacitism can be individuated in Koialowicz too. As demonstrated by D. Dilytė analysing all instances of discourse to group in Historiae Lituanae Koialowicz had frequently recourse to both direct and indirect speeches (333 in total according to this essay). The History of Lithuania ‘contains all three kinds of speeches recognized by the antique rhetoric: juridical, epidedic and deliberatives one, the latter being most abundant. Aristotle would have thought that the prevalence of deliberative oratory indicated the orientation of the text to future time, since advices and persuasions to do or not to do something, given in deliberative speeches, are concerned with the future’. 394 It is exactly the fact that Koialowicz decide to use his past-oriented narrative to educate for the future that makes him a sort of “red” Tacitist. In fact, while Machiavelli was referring to the past to find example to employ in the present to try personal benefits, Koialowicz uses examples from the past to indicate the moral path toward the future of the Christian community (thus in strict accordance with the linear conception of time). As mentioned in §II.1.2., it is clear that in Koialowic interpretation of the Lithuanian past, every success against the barbarian invaders was the result of a moral alliance between the Christian countries. As an example, describing the victory against the Tatars in 1227, he attributes the result to both the union of Muscovites and Lithuanians and to the morality of their aims: the preservation of peace and freedom (Historiae Lituanae I, 78-80). The political astuteness of the sovereigns his prized because of their moral values in strict accordance with the theories of his Spanish Brothers of the Society of Jesus. 394

Dalytė Dalia, Op. cit., p. 135.

139

II.3. ADAM TANNER, MARTIN BECAN AND ALBERT WIJUK-KOIALOWICZ: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHES FROM BOHEMIA TO LITHUANIA Writing this doctoral thesis in 50th anniversary of the death of one of the most influent stile critics and philologist, we cannot avoid underlining a methodological truth: starting from the particular it is possible to reach the universal. Basing on the German Romantics and Gregor Hegel, whose influence was combined with that of Giambattista Vico, Erich Auerbach (1882 - 1957) was certain it is possible to seize the universal in the concrete, the totality in the fragment. He was not just a theorist: all the lectures of Mimesis

395

started with the detailed interpretation of a determined

passage and proceed like a spiral to the ‘comprehension of a moment of the history of stile, a conception of the world, a human conscience historically determined as it is that of the interpreter’. 396 Starting from the particular (something that, in a different way, theorized and applied both Leo Spitzer and Ernst Robert Curtius) the universal will be reached. This is possible because the universal is concrete itself; it is not made of laws and categories. On the contrary, it is (as Auerbach wrote in Literary Language and Its Public in Late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages) ‘the conception of an historical course, something like a drama that do not contains itself a theory but a paradigmatic conception of the human destiny.’ 397 Even if he was referring to the literature, such a methodological position has to be applied to historical research too in order to understand the European historical production as a whole. Auerbach’s method has been employed in this research to study Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz's book Historiae Lituanae in order to set the basis for a deeper investigation of Lithuanian Jesuits' historical thought. The choice to begin with this author is twofold: first of all, his literary and historical production is relatively wide and one of the most significant and articulated among Lithuanian Jesuits. Therefore, it can be easily recognized as reference for the study of Jesuits’ historiography in Lithuania. Second, his production is representative of a very common ambition and way of thinking of 16th to 17th century Europe. It is the ambition to the ecumenical union of the besieged Christianity. In other words, the way Koialowicz makes history might well be the particular (or the fragment, to use Auerbach words) from which to start to try to achieve a ‘comprehension of a moment of the history […] a conception of the world.’ In other words, it is

395

Auerbach Erich, Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der Abendländischen Literatur, Bern and Munich, A. Francke Verlag, 1946, 2 vol., 749 p, (Trans. by Willard Trask, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2003) 396 Anonymous, "Erich Auerbach", Il Manifesto: XXXVII n. 242, October 13th 2007, p. 21. 397 Auerbach Erich, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Spätantike und im Mittelalter, Bern, A. Francke Verlag, 1958, 220 p, (trans. by Ralph Manheim, Literary Language and Its Public in Late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages, Pinceton, Princeton University Press, 2003)

140

possible to redefine Koialowicz’s work as one of the expressions of the Jesuits historical and political understanding during 16th to 17th century. Notwithstanding this section will focus on Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz, the European dimension – the totality would say Auerbach – will never be the imperceptible background on which the study is based. Particular and universal will constantly merge in order to understand Koialowicz's writings as productions of a historically and socially determined human conscience. Understanding this single human conscience will not only facilitate a deeper knowledge of Koialowicz works, of his personality or his historical thought; it will contribute to the comprehension of a moment of the European historiography. In other words, the historical production of Koialowicz and his historical thought will be related to the peculiar situation of Europe in that period and to his status of Jesuit in order to draw an historically determined figure. Numerous monographic studies on Koialowicz works could be cited, but for the purpose of this study two stem for the typical approach. We are referring to the research of Giovanna Brogi Bercoff on the image and function of Eastern Slaves in the writings of Koialowicz 398 and Darius Kuolys' study on the founding of the republic. 399 Both these studies aim not only to better analyze the work Historiae Lituanae, but also to provide a new understanding of its author historical method. However, the two scholar use two different approaches and while Brogi Bercoff analyzes eastern slaves' image through a series of examples included in Koialowicz text, Kuolys adopt a "political-narrative" method focusing on passages that seem to provide national and political basis for self-consciousness of Lithuanian society. Obviously, the different approaches lead to partially different conclusions about Koialowicz aims and historical thought. Nevertheless, both studies share the same limit: the historical background is somehow limited to a local reality (even if this statement applies to Brogi Bercoff's research in a lesser degree). By the expression background we do not refer only to a political or historical situation, but to whole sphere of knowledge and with limit we allude to the lack of a comparative dimension in the frame of the European culture. It is possible to state that Kuolys' article is a research on beginnings because it is a study on the genesis of a modern concept: the “political self-consciousness of a nation”. Moreover, it is a study on origins as it aims to define a base for the development of the process of conceptualization of a nation. Kuolys recognizes in Koialowicz's book one of the first historical conceptualization of the Lithuanian Republic. A representation that, according to the Lithuanian scholar, had an impact on historical and literary works of the 17th and 18th centuries. In our opinion, this assumption is Brogi Bercoff, Giovanna, "Rytų slavų įvaizdis ir funkcija Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus SJ raštuose", in Darius Kuolys (ed), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, p. 334 347. 399 Kuolys Darius, "Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus istorinis pasakojimas: Respublikos kūrimas", in Darius Kuolys (ed), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol. II, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, p. 368 - 410. 398

141

based on a reverse process that retroactively applies the forma mentis of 18th century to the age of Koialowicz. In other words, a modern interpretation of the work of Koialowicz is transferred to the work itself in order to describe it as an origin. Moreover, Kuolys seems to forget the critic distance that separate him from the author of Historiae Lituanae when he states that ‘such a doctrine […] was created as an antithesis both to the tyranny of Moscow, and to the myth of the Slavic Sarmatian empire, led by the Polish’. 400 This antithesis is, in fact, a much recent concept, the result of a diachronic process. Even more important, the idea of a Jesuit of the 16th century creating the basis for a historical-political antithesis between entities on the border of a besieged Christian Europe is more than unlikely, it is anachronistic. The authority of Robert John Weston Evans, an expert on cultural history of Central and Eastern Europe, can support this statement. In his book Rudolf II and his World. A Study in Intellectual History the British historian, referring to the Bohemian insurrection of 1620, states that in this period ‘was prevalent a unitary cultural conception, in fact the 17th century has been the last period of cultural unity known by Europe". He even states that "it was a period of great cosmopolitism, in fact it was a cosmopolitism by far greater than that known in every period of the next century’. 401 This cosmopolitism became, in the texts and actions of a large group of religious scholars, an ecumenical conception of Europe. As this assay will demonstrate, a current of thought spread, in this period, among Christian scholars that used history and literary production to promote a sort of "political ecumenism". The only antithesis in their writings was between a Christian world and the Turks surrounding and threatening it. Even if this was a mainstream tendency, and like all like all mainstream tendencies was surrounded by hundreds of "unorthodox" exponents, we will demonstrate that Koialowicz was actually an exponent of this "ecumenical thought". It is unquestionable that, as stated by Kuolys, ‘the historical narrative by Kojalavičius […] made certain impact on the historical and literary works of the 17th-18th century Grand Duchy of Lithuania’ and that ‘the Romantic Lithuanian historiography of the 19th century also drew on the narrative by the Jesuit historian’. 402 Nevertheless, the reasons of this influence have to be found in the variety of possible different evaluations of Koialowicz’s book, not on his supposed ‘ardent defence of the idea of Lithuanian Republic’ or because of the promotion of ‘an antithesis both to the tyranny of Moscow, and to the myth of the Slavic Sarmatian empire, led by the Polish.’ In other words, an historical contextualization makes it more realistic that Koialowicz did not meant to create such an antithesis, but his work was fit for this interpretation (valid to support the new conceptions arisen in the18th20th century).

400

Ivi., p. 411. Evans Robert, Rudolf II and his World. A Study in Intellectual History, 1576-1612, Oxford, 1973, p. 18 - 19. 402 Kuolys Darius, Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus…, Op. cit., p. 412. 401

142

The study carried out by Kuolys is affected, to use Marc Bloch’s words, by “the idol of origins”. ‘Naturally esteemed, by peoples that do of the past their main subject of research, the explication of the present by the past has dominated our [of historians] studies to the hypnosis. In its most characteristic form, this idol of the historians tribe has a name: it’s the myth of the origins.’ The problem, according to Bloch, is if the term has to be intended only as beginning or, at the opposite, as a cause. However, ‘for the majority of the historical realities, the notion of this initial point itself is extremely elusive: a matter of definition without any doubt. It is a definition that, regrettably, for too long we forget to give.’ Moreover, the two meanings are quite often attributed together at the same time realizing a contamination: ‘in the current vocabulary, the origins are an explicative beginning. Even worse: a beginning that is enough to explain. There is the ambiguity. Here the danger’. 403 Following the French historian, it would be interesting to understand this obsession so marked in all the exegetes’ researches. This obsession is understandable regarding the study of Christianity (and some other faiths) as it is par excellence a historic religion. ‘Now, due to an undoubtedly inevitable contagion, these preoccupations that, in a certain form of religious analysis, could have had their reasons are transposed to other fields of the research in which their legitimacy is definitely more contestable’. Focusing a study on the research of the origins is illegitimate not only methodologically but also theoretically, as it can lead to a double kind of fault. First, a necessary knowledge of the past, and of the evolution of the past, should not lead automatically to the individuation of the origin; second, studying a phenomenon, the awareness of its beginnings should not be enough to explain it. These mistakes implicitly conduce to a more deprecatory fault because a history centred on the origins can be easily used to make remarks about values, as it has often be done. 404 Besides, the counterpart of this adoration of “the demon of the origins” is often "the other satanic enemy of the historic truth: the mania of judgement". Summing up, it is possible to state that a first gap in this study about Historiae Lituanae has to be recognized in the theoretical background as it is based on a postulate – that the doctrine of Koialowicz about the Lithuanian Republic ‘was created as an antithesis both to the tyranny of Moscow, and to the myth of the Slavic Sarmatian empire, led by the Polish’ – that is affected from the need to find an origin to explain and justify a modern conception (or at least an 18th century conception). Second, if anyhow accepted, this postulate is not enough to allow a comprehension of the 'Founding of the Republic' in all its phases. Nor it is enough to explain Koialowicz conscience because this conscience is historically determined thus the product of a diachronic process. In fact, 403

Bloch Marc, Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien, Paris, Armand Colin, 1949, p. 6. In this respect, can be illustrative the example provided by Bloch himself: ‘[…] this is another example of a historical research focused on the beginnings to be used to recognize values. Studying the ‘origins’ of the France, what was Taine doing if not trying to condemn a political issue, to condemn what he believed to be a false human philosophy? […] the past has often been actively used to explain the present in order to justify or condemn it’. Ivi., p. 7.

404

143

‘Never, in a word, is a historic phenomenon explicable with the synchronic study of it. It [the condition of the moment] is the results of all the steps of it evolution’. 405 That is, even if Koialowicz really meant to promote the idea of a Republic, the synchronic and non-comparative study of his production and ideology can lead to the definition of Historiae Lituanae as a beginning and not as the result of a diachronic and dialectic historical process. While the research of Kuolys lacks of chronological depth, that of Brogi Bercoff is not supported by a strong comparative approach. Such an approach, in fact, seems to be the only one possible when, in the beginning of her assay she states, that ‘Kojalavičius uses exemplum from medieval history […] mainly in order to rise the idea of the union of all the Christian peoples in their joined struggle against Muslims, which was a very important idea for the Europe of that time’. 406 The "Europe of that time" is the environment where the historically determined conscience of Koialowicz formed. This setting should be the dialectic counterpart of a relation with the book, but in this study it dissolves as a faded background. By consequence, the well realized internal analysis of the passages is not balanced by a comparative section that could better demonstrate the main thesis: ‘the Jesuit historian is an ardent supporter of the union between Christian Eastern Slaves and Rome’. 407 Summing up, studying the function of the examples in Koialowicz's work, Giovanna Brogi Bercoff provides an evaluation of it that is quite different from that of Kuolys. Historiae Lituanae is now represented like the expression of an ecumenical will rather then a national one. Even if quite appropriate, the analysis provided by the Italian scholar does not develop to provide "a conception of the world, a human conscience historically determined". It remains the very good analysis of the particular or, to use Auerbach words, "the interpretation of a fragment". Finally, it should be pointed out that most of the previous researches use the term Jesuit as a simple title even if it means much more. It should remember that the man carrying that title is perinde ac cadaver – well disciplined like a corpse. Therefore, while his conscience is historically determined, his work is the expression of the obedience and absolute self-abnegation to the Pope and superiors. This simple remark should be enough to induce to adopt a new study perspective. In other words, this assay aims to provide a balance for researches like the one of Matusas J. Sedauskas, Albertas Vijukas-Kojelavičius kaip Lietuvos Historininkas [Albert Vijuk-Koialowicz as Lithuanian Historian] that completely forgets the public status of the author. 408 To the Lithuanian 405

Ivi., p. 9. Brogi Bercoff, Giovanna, Op. cit., p. 346. 407 Ibidem. 408 Sedauskas, Matusas, “Albertas Vijukas-Kojelavičius kaip Lietuvos Historininkas”, Praeitis, 1, 1930, 318-329. See also from the same author “Ar Albertas Vijukas-Kojelavičius buvo garsus Lietuvos istorininkas ir Patriotas?”, Tiesos Kelias, 1, 1929, 252-255. The position of these articles should be connected with the time they were written as they are affected from what Alfredas Bumblauskas defined “baltophilia” (referring to Kuolys’ book Man, Nation and State in 406

144

historian we will try to oppose a Jesuit historian whose conscience is the product of his time and status. Despite the critics to previous studies of Historiae Lituanae, it is from them that we will start. Both Kuolys and Brogi Bercoff agreed on two points: first, both individuated the presence of a recurring rhetoric structure in the text: the example. Second, they agreed claiming that these examples had a didactic function. By consequence, “fragments” to start with have already been individuated in the single examples. To summarize, in the beginning we will briefly individuate the examples in the text in order to analyze their structure and function. To do this we will mainly base on the research of Giovanna Brogi Bercoff mentioned above. Second, we will try to justify the presence of such examples in Historiae Lituanae by drawing the historical frame that should have determined Koialowicz attitude toward society, politic, religion and history. We will try to delineate the political and historical situation of the period paying particular attention to the regions of Bohemia, Transylvania and Poland-Lithuania, that is, the condition of the border between Christian and Turkish Europe. Finally, it will be necessary to see how the Society of Jesus thought the unity of Christianity. To achieve this aim we will provide the reader with a meaningful example: to grant the request of Brogi Bercoff, that concludes her assay asking for a comparative study with the Bohemian situation, we will analyze the position of the Jesuits during the conflicts that characterized that region in the first half of the 17th century. In this section we will mainly focus on the polemical work of two Jesuits involved in the conflict: Adam Tanner and Martin Becan. We will, in fact, outline the strong similarities that the Apologia of the authoritative Jesuit Adam Tanner shares with Historiae Lituanae. This process will not only try to better define the work of Koialowicz, but will also define the more general ideological position of Jesuits toward ecumenism, political condition of 17th century Europe and the spontaneous confessional activism that characterized that period.

II.3.1. Rhetoric as Means of Education

It is widely recognized that Koialowicz had an important educational role. He was not only a scholar, but mainly a Jesuit, a member of a group that made of education one of its main weapons in shaping the society (and mainly the upper classes). Certainly, the Jesuit has been a pedagogue in all his works, not last that of director of the academy of Vilnius. It is also undoubted that this educative attitude influenced the writing of Historiae Lituanae too. This position is clear especially in the first part of the book (the one published in Gdansk in 1650) because of the analogies that the the Historic Literature of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). See Bumblauskas Alfredas, “About the Lithuanian Baroque in a Baroque Manner”, Lituanus, vol. 41 n. 3, 1995.

145

described period allowed to draw with the coeval situation. Analogies, metaphors and examples were mostly used by Jesuit in theater and literature in order to allow a double-level reading (or understanding) that remained as a more vivid remind in the memory of the spectator or reader. We can transpose the comment of Giovanna Zanlonghi about the function of the theatre in the Jesuits educative system to the function of the literature in the same system. The Italian scholar states that ‘the inseparability of word and image in the Jesuits theatrical experience was based on a rhetorical project create to serve the man. […] The recourse to the theatricalism in the didactic of the Jesuit colleges has to be understood as the creation of a psychological and cognitive space in which the fantastic reinvention, activating memory, imagination, affections and intelligence, educated to watch to the reality in an ordered, conscious and orientated manner’. 409 In the attempt to steer the consciences, even the historical narration could be understood as “fantastic reinvention” that can often activate both memory and imagination. Acting directly on these two spheres is certainly much more effective than the simple didactic: ‘in the dialectic tension between the didactic simplicity of the scholastic manual end the complex logic of the commentary neo-scholastic the interpretative space carves itself a space that conquers the sphere of the sensible, of the corporal and of the pre-conceptual, that is the imaginative power as inner place in which reason and affectivity settle’. 410 This approach is exactly the one the Jesuit Cyprian Soarez pointed out as best rhetorical instrument in education. De arte rhetorica of Soarez represents the archetype of the Jesuits’ rhetoric and its message can be summarized in the sentence ‘the figured speech is a reverberation of the truth shining through what can be perceived’. 411 The manual of Soarez, written in 1569, has been re-printed hundreds of times and was still very popular in the 18th century. Therefore, it is quite realistic that a Jesuit, expert in the field of education, and ready to write a history of his country directed to peoples in needs for education, knew this handbook. In literature, the obvious result of the above consideration is that an attempt to orientate the consciences acting on memory, sensibility and imagination should realize through the “reinvention” of historical events that can easily evocate pre-logic sensations. In turn, this can be obtained by both the use of terms that evocate sensations and describing dramatic events wrapped in myth. This was the way the ecclesiastical polemist adopted to support their own thesis. They had recourse to the mystic tone rich of expression that evocate fears, majesty or supernatural. Those criteria are met by a series of examples in the first book of Historiae Lituanae, all of them connected with the narration of the wars against the Tatars. First of all, these examples refer 409

Zanlonghi Giovanna, “La psicologia e il teatro nella riflessione gesuitica europea del Cinque-Seicento,” Memorandum, 2003, 4, p. 61. 410 Ibidem. 411 Quoted from Zanlonghi Giovanna, Op cit., p. 61.

146

to events quite far in the past, but still able to evocate a mighty threat, a holy war and the horrors connected. Second, all these examples are characterized by the recourse to terms like ferocia, feroce (ferocity), desperātio (desperation), violentus (violent) and periculo (danger) that aim not only to describe but to evocate sensations. At the same time, terms like summa (supreme) and moltitudine (multitude) contribute to provide an idea of magnitude typical of the apocalyptic tone. This tone became even more evocative when animal attribute are used to refer to human: the threat comes like an infestation (infestationis) and is brought by people on the border of humanity, a barbarum exercitus (barbarian army) that is not aggressive or dangerous, but ferocem (ferocious) like animals. Such a narration of an historical event is likely to aim to go beyond the didactic simplicity of the scholastic manual and conquer the ‘spear of the sensible, of the corporal and of the preconceptual that is the imaginative power’. This is the case of the excursus on the Tatars invasion of 1211. It deserves to be quoted in toto as one of the most representative examples of the concept discussed above.

An. 1211 Scytharum in Russiam eruptio prima Aliquot posthac annis, Scythae gens barbara ab Hyrcano mari Caucaseisque montibus egressa, ex Oriente Occidentem versus, fedes ac arma transferebat. Primi erant Poloucii, in quorum agros trajecto Volga ea proluvies exundavit. Egerunt illi diu pro aris e focis fortiter, neque infeliciter. Sed ejusmodi bellum erat, in quo victoria absolvi aliter non poterat, nisi internecione alterutrius populi: Scythis pro occupandis fedibus, Polouciis pro retinenda patria, summa vi pertinacique ferocia connitentibus. Verebantur tamen hi, ne (quo evenit) sub moltitudine hostium virtus sua tandem concideret. Missa itaque legatione, auxilia apud Russos quaesiverunt. Admissus ad Kijoviensium Ducem legatus Polouciorum: Hostes esse qui auxilia peterent, non dissimulabat. Sed nunc demum in potestate Russorum esse, Ajebat, ne amplius hostes forent: si novo beneficio aeternas amicitias inchoare vellent. Meminissent Russi: quoties vel ad domesticam Tyrannorum potentiam frangendam, vel ad Polonam vim sustinendam, Polouciorum opera usi essent. Suis equidem non adeo rem domi desperatam esse, ut ferendo diutius hosti non fit: finitimorum tamen arma implorare; quod recte intelligerent, non cum suo magis, quam illorum hostem bellum agi: atque ideo, communibus studiis opibusque, propulsandum. Advertere vellent Russi, Scythas fedibus suis egressos, non Polouciorum praedis invitatos; ubi ex militari gestate, aut potius parsimonia, nihil invitandae cupiditati haberetur. Esse aliquid amplius, quo illi, animo ac desiderio, tenderent: Russiae, proviaciae opulentae, illos inhiare:ejus jugulum, per Polouciorum latus, peti. Occurrerent igitur mature periculo: jungerent vires cum Polouciis: ne his sublatis, totum belli onus in solam Russiam decumbat. Barbarum exercitus multitudine ferocem, ad ipsa belli initia, duplicibus copiis facilius reprimi posse, quam postea, rerum successu violentiu provectum; & velut rupto aggere summo impetu ruentem.

147

This tone continues in the next session:

Bellum Russi contra Scythas decernunt & infeliciter pugnant* AEquissima petere visus. Magno itaque apparatu suppetias Russi occupant. Mecislaus Romanides Kijoviae, Mecislaus Mecislaides Haliciae Duces, aliique plures, Russia cum exercitu egressi ad Protolcos Polouciis junguntur. Inde duodecimis castris in cospectum hostium pervenerunt. Scythae, ut prima adventantium signa comparuerunt, militem omnem instructa acie in campum educunt; neque spatium ex itinere respirandi datum: fessos integri magno impetu adorti, pugnare prius, quam consisterent, cogunt: atque primo prope icursu vincunt, caedunt. Russorum quidem ea tempestate, tota strages, intra exercitus & aliquot Ducum caedem, vel captivitatem stetit: at Polouciorum populus, multum ea clade attritus, vim deinde sustinere non putuit: sed subsefutis praeliis internecione deletus est. Tum fere magnam Europae partem quam nunc incolunt Scythae, occuparunt. Inde Postea Bateii & Caydani ductu, annorum aliquot continuis infestationibus, ita attrita est Russia; ut amissis praecipuis regulis, in potestatem Scytharum venerit: & imperatum in annos tributum, diu penderit. Alienis malis, in suarum rerum incrementa, Litvani per ocium usi, sensim fines in Russiam Proferebant.

This example open the series proposed by Giovanna Brogi Bercoff in the above-mentioned assay and refers to the defeat suffered by Lithuania and Russia from Tatars. Koialowicz believes that the crush was due to the lack of cooperation between Russia and Lithuania. It accuses the lack of unity of the countries on the border of Christianity that allowed the infidel barbarian to triumph. Only the union of all the nations against the common enemy will permit to save the freedom of the motherland. It should be a union that do not take in to account the different religions as its aim is to save what in a word could be described as “civilization”. It is clear that Koialowicz had in mind two aims: first, to create an association between Tatar of the past and coeval Turks; second to support the idea of a union of Christians were they catholic or Orthodox. In the example, in fact, Koialowicz describes the pagans of the 13th century as if they were the 16th century Christians. As the Brogi Bercoff states ‘Koialowicz uses exemplum from the medieval history […] mainly in order to rise the idea of the union of all the Christianity in their joined struggle against the Muslims’. The religious unity is, in the works of the Lithuanian Jesuit, strictly connected with that of the political union. The respect for the Lithuanian-Polish union is regarded as a necessary protection against external enemies.

II.3.2. The Historical Context: a Force that Shapes Consciences

Now that we have individuated the examples and agreed with Brogi Bercoff about their second level of meaning, it is necessary to understand why Koialowicz felt the need to draw such parallel

148

between Tatars and Turks. If the ideology of a man is the result of the pressure of the environment, than the understanding of Koialowicz attitude pass through the analysis of the historical context. The traditional division between a medieval age and the modern times is mainly conventional. Nevertheless, this periodization can be useful while looking to long term processes and at the events that characterized 16th and the first half of the 17th century. The fall of Constantinople in the hands of the Turks, in 1453, caused a semi-permanent military threat on Europe, contributing to the growth of the idea of a third Rome in Moscow, isolating the Balkans from the rest of the European continent and stimulating the western intellectual progress. No need to mention the fact that the fall of Constantinople had a direct impact on Hungary and Poland. Consequences even more drastic after the battle of Mohács. Europe was changing and the perception of Europe was changing too. The new idea of Europe, consequence of the events listed above, lasted for one and a half century, at least until the mid 17th century. The political situation influenced the cultural development. The tendency to the territorial consolidation naturally proceeded in the Eastern Europe where the family of Jagiellonian lost the domain on Bohemia and Hungary in favour of the Augsburg. The European countries under the Turks domination began to be politically perceived as non-European entities and by consequence their cultural development diverged from the European one. Divergences that became clear when the Hungarian defeat in Mohács (1526) brought to the division of the state in three parts. In all the countries on the border of Turkish Empire, the culture seems to develop on the shadow of the sultan as demonstrated by the production of the Hungarian national writer and lyric poet Bálint Balassi or the great Croatian dramaturge Marin Drzic. Both lived in the shadow of the Turks and, in fact, the anti-Turks theme is dominant in the works of most Croatians and Hungarians writers of 16th-17th century. In their works it is possible to individuate development of a new idea of united Europe, the one opposed to the Turks. The other important national system in Easter Europe was that of the of Jagiellonian based mainly on the cooperation between the members of the dynasty: due to the stronger position of Poland and its regents, the Jagiellonian dynasty tried to influence the Hungarian politic to give Ladislaw a stronger position in Bohemia – through the nomination of a Jagellon prince in Slesia. Because of the Ausgburg aspirations to the crowns of St. Venceslaw and St. Stephan, an opposition between Augsburg and Jagiellonian arose. In the attempt to put some pressure on Poland and Lithuania, the Augsburg supported the Teutonic Knights and the Moscovite Russia. However the conflict was settled when in Vienna, in 1514, was held a congress that aimed to drive Augsburg out from the coalition adverse to Jagiellonian and finally reached a solution with a marriage settlement that guaranteed the succession of the dynasty survived in Hungary and Bohemia. Luis Jagiellon married Mary of Augsburg while Ferdinand of Augsburg married the sister of Luis, Ann (a typical 149

example of the famous politic of the Augsburg that some verse of the period celebrated as follow: Bella gerunt alii, tu felix Austria, nubes). The settlement of the conflict, according to some Czech and Hungarian historians, was reached also because the Jagiellonian handed over Prague and Buda in exchange of the benevolence and neutrality of the Augsburg. This thesis is questionable, but it is true that the Hungary should have appeared them, sometimes, as a heavy burden because of the internal disorder and corruption. As an example, an attempt of crusade against the ottoman caused the farmers insurrection guided by Dósza against the lords. Hungary was divided between a proAugsburg faction, consisting mainly of magnates, and the national party based on the small nobility that refused to accept foreign sovereigns. Hardly would the young Luis II have been able to restore the power of the monarchy, or ensure its defence. The frontier garrisons, without founds and lacking of effectives, fought a useless struggle against the ottoman: in 1521 Belgrade, that actually was Hungary’s southern door, fell in the hands of the Turks. Sigismund the Old of Poland, uncle of Luis, vainly tried to reinforce the position of Buda. Sigismund, mindful that the anti-Turks Polish intervention in Moldavia brought to the breakdown with the suspicious Hungary, moved carefully to not fall out with the ottoman empire. The two entities signed, in fact, in 1533 a perpetual peace. However, an event occurred in 1526 and changed the course of the East-European history: Luis II of Hungary died clearing the way for the Augsburg succession. In fact, Luis II died in 1526 during the battle of Mohács, when the army assembled in great hurry with big contingents of Czech, German and Polish mercenaries together with the high Hungarian nobility, was destroyed by the Turks. The Poet Mihály Vörösmarty defined Mohács as ‘the immense cemetery of the national ambitions’ and it is true that this event started a chain reaction that changed the course of the European history. The immediate consequence was the double election as kings of Hungary of both Ferdinand of Augsburg and Zápolya. The latter, anyway, was soon defeated by the Augsburg. In the next years, Zápolya cooperated with Poland (he was brother-in-law of Sigismund) and together with Turks, unprofitably besieged Vienna in 1529. Once the negotiation to reunite the lands of Augsburg and that of Zápolya, Ferdinand tried to conquer the whole country, but the Turks intervened and, just before the mid of the century, occupied Buda and the Central Hungary. Notwithstanding the repeated diplomatic efforts, especially those of the cardinal Martinuzzi (Utišinović) ‘the only authentic statesman of the century’ 412 a triple division of the country became irreversible: it was created a royal Hungary in the west, that included part of Slovakia and Croatia,

412

Wandycz Piotr, Il prezzo della libertà, Bologna, il Mulino, 2001, p. 96.

150

ruled by the Augsburg; a Turkish Hungary, turned into a province of the empire; and the principality of Transylvania, tributary of the empire, but relatively free. 413 The bishop Martinuzzi, as guardian and regent, was able to retain Transylvania as an independent principality in 1542 under Turkish suzerainty. Fighting off the intrigues of Izabella, the mother of János Zsigmond, Bishop Martinuzzi returned to the original plan of unification of Hungary under the Austrian Habsburg dynasty in order to resist Turkish expansion. After convincing Queen Izabella, and her son, János Zsigmond, to resign and to leave Transylvania, he finally concluded an agreement with King Ferdinand in 1551, by which he continued to be governor of Transylvania and was rewarded with promotion to the Metropolitan See of Esztergom and a cardinal's hat. In 1551, when the Turks took Csanad and other places, Cardinal Martinuzzi and the imperial generals Giovanni Castaldo and Sforza Pallavicini united their forces against the common enemy. The cardinal's letter to Rome concerning the danger of the Turks was read in the consistory of November 16, 1551. In order to delay an attack by the Turks, he secretly resumed paying a tribute to the sultan in December 1551! These secret contacts provoked the suspicion of General Castaldo, who accused him before King Ferdinand of treason and asked permission to eliminate him if necessary; the king acquiesced. The cardinal's secretary, Marco Aurelio Ferrari, was hired, and he stabbed his master from behind at the castle of Alvinczy while he was reading a letter; the cardinal, although he was sixty-nine years old, fought for his life, and was only killed with the aid of Pallavicini and a group of his soldiers. The other big territory on the European border, the Transylvania, became an important political actor especially under Stephan Bathory that in 1576 became also king of Poland. His eleven years of reign brought a period of relative inner tranquillity and some successes in foreign policy mainly for the wise contribute of Jan Zamoyski. This foreign policy was, somehow, connected to the plans for a crusade against the Turks and reunification of the Hungary. Zamoyski, for his part, preserved the Poland from the clash with Turks mainly by the means of buffer states that entered in the sphere of polish influence but maintained, at the same time, good relations with the sultan. The Seventeenth century began in the same way the previous century ended: the writings of Central and Eastern Europe are full of allusions to the dangerous situation and to the impending 413

Martinuzzi (1482-1551) was born in Kamicac, Croatia. Son of Gregory Utje-šenovic, a Croatian gentleman who died combatting the Turks; He usually signed himself Frater Georgius. Prior of the monastery of Czestochowa, Poland; and later, of the monastery of Sajolad, near Erlau, Northern Hungary. Elected bishop of Csanád in 1538 concluded the Treaty of Nagyvárad with King Ferdinand; the treaty invested János with the royal title and most of the Hungarian territory; and King Ferdinand as successor to the Hungarian crown. Transferred to the see of Nagyvárad, May 30, 1539. King János I died on July 21, 1540 and on his deathbed, he repudiated the treaty and left the crown to his young son, János Zsigmond, born only nine days before his father's death. The late king in his will had appointed Bishop Martinuzzi and Peter Petrovich as guardians of the child and they proclaimed him king and the Sultan Süleyman promised to recognize him but later, in 1541, occupied Buda, the capital of Hungary.

151

threat on the region. Politicians, preachers and writers felt desperate talking about wars, social diseases and economical problems. In Poland, it seemed that the optimism of sixteenth century disappeared; the moralists saw a sign of the divine anger in the Cossack insurrection of 1648 and used to interpreter the royal initials ICR (Ioannes Casimirus Rex) as Initium Calamitate Regni. As stated by Piotr Wandycz, ‘the famous thinker and pedagogues Jan Amos Komenský (Comenius) used the same terms to describe the catastrophe of the Thirty Years War: his renowned work, The Labyrinth of the World, describes a pilgrim looking for order and harmony in a world full of frightful contradictions and probably symbolizes the diffuse concerns about the conflict and desegregation of the culture of that age’. 414 The crisis of the seventeenth century came to a conclusion in the Eastern Europe thanks to the dynastic continuity in the Augsburg family and the action of the counter-reformation. In 1627 in Bohemia and in 1687 in Hungary it was imposed the hereditary domain of the family that brought to the control (sometimes indirect) of the entire eastern border of the Christian Europe. However, the Hapsburg absolutism was peculiar and characterized by a tendency to “unify with tolerance”. Tolerance has to be intended as both political and as respect for the local characters of the multi-ethnic empire. ‘Without any doubt’, wrote Piotr Wandycz, ‘it was the counterreformation […] to have the strongest impact on the form of absolutism of the Augsburg especially in Bohemia and Hungary’. 415 In Croatia the counter-reformation produced the important literary and political figure of Jurai Križanić that strongly defended the cause of the reconciliation of the Churches, the Latin and the Orthodox as a mean to re-unify all the Slavs. The same ambition has been expressed in the works of two coeval writers: the Hungarian Cardinal Pázmány and the Bohemian Bohuslav Balbín (even if the latter always defended the local traditions and the Czech language). Both Pázmány and Balbín were Jesuits, and the Jesuits constituted undeniably the avantgarde of the Catholic offensive in all the Europe, but mainly in the lands of the Augsburg where the number of priests was inadequate. The successes of the Jesuits were due to their organization and their activities mainly in the fields of the education. The net of Jesuits’ universities, colleges and houses constituted a basic structure for a connected Europe (at least in the field of education) and influenced, by the means of the education, the gentry perception of this Europe. The Catholic Church itself was very active in promoting the unifying role of the Augsburg reaching even the lands were the German family did not have a political role. Where unifying role of the state seemed to be in crisis, like In Poland, important ecclesiastics tried to act as did the bishop Szyszkowski criticizing the anarchic tendencies of the Szlachta and attaching the 414 415

Piotr S. Wandycz, Op. cit., p. 374. Ibidem.

152

liberty ‘hat became the huge oppression exercised by few’. 416 The Church was asking for a stronger unity of the country based on the Christian faith. Political and religious unities were, in fact, strongly interconnected in ecclesiastics thought. It is representative of this conception the example Koialowicz takes from the ancient wars against the Teutonic Order. While it is understandable the critic to the war the Order was conducing against the Christian Lithuania 417 less clear is the negative comment on the war between the Teutonics and the pagan Lithuanians in more remote times. 418 However, in the light of the above considerations on the Jesuits’ conception of unity these comments becomes more intelligible: the Order was behaving immorally before the christianization of Lithuania because they carried out a war without noble intents; when Lithuania was already a Christian the “crime” of the Order was the disruption of the political union between Christians. Not only the ecclesiastics saw such a connection between faith and politic: Miklós Zríny, the Hungarian governor of Croatia consecrated his life to the freeing of the Hungary, defending, at the same time, the religious tolerance as an instrument for the alliance of the Protestant gentry and the Catholic nobility. The achievement of such a unity allowed the Augsburg to win against the Turks in 1664 during the battle of Szentgotthárd.

II.3.3. The Second Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Religious and Political

This brief historical excursus pointed out some elements of interest with regards to the possibility to read the examples of Koialowicz as a parallel between Tatars and Turks. Moreover, it demonstrated the lawfulness of the thesis that hold the Lithuanian Jesuit to be a supporter of the idea of a religious union to back up the political one with regards to the Christian Europe. First of all, the supposed aim of Historiae Lituanae to create an antithesis between European entities has become manifestly weak from an historical point of view: if it would have been realistic in the middle of the 16th century, when Eastern Europe was disputed between Augsburg, Jagellionian and their allies, the Europe of the 16th century is mainly under the control of the Augsburg and most of the political conflicts had been settled. The second point of interest is that clearly the conflict between Christianity and the Turkish Empire strongly influenced the literature of 16th and 17th centuries: in the works of Mihály Vörösmarty, Bálint Balassi and Marin Drzic the continuous reference to the Turks is obvious.

Even writers further from the border with the Turks

Cfr. W. Czapliński, O Polsce siedemnastowiecznej; problemy i spraw-y, Warsaw, 1966, p. 83 Koialowicz Wijuk Albert, Historiae Lituanae…, Op. cit., II, 19 and II, 76 – 87. 418 Ivi., I, 265 -266. 416 417

153

demonstrated this attitude as did Adam Tanner and Martin Becan, both German Jesuits. The events of Mohács stroke the European imagination, as did the fall of Constantinople. Among these works, particularly interesting is the Amuletum Castrense written by the already mentioned Adam Tanner mainly due to the strong similarities with Koialowicz’ Historiae Lituanae with regard to the indirect reference to the Turks. It deserves to be better analyzed in order to understand the functions of the image of the Turks in the examples of both books. The Amuletum Castrense of the Jesuit Adam Tanner has to be collocated among the apologetic works produced during the Bohemian insurrection of 1618, but its function was not that to define the Christian position on the juridical and doctrinal field: conversely, it was written in order to exalt, once the war begun, the values and the element that could give cohesion to his group and to guide it to the victory. No titles, in fact, could better express the aspiration to exorcize the danger of the death, being it corporal or spiritual, of the ‘miles christianus’ described as

Intrepidus animus, etiam inter pericula quae nunquam absunt in bello. […] Aliquando robur hostium terret, alias moltitudo obruit. […] In his omnibus casibus valet imperterrita animi fortitudo et masculum robur, non ab humanis viribus sed a divino praesidio accitum. […] Nec timendum est militi Christiano, exigente necessitate etiam mori pro iustitia, pro patria, pro religione. Haec militis professio est.

419

The work of the theologian, written in Igolstadt in 1620, the decisive year for the destiny of the Catholicism in Germany, introduces itself as a militant work with the very aggressive attitude typical of the spirit of the Thirty Years War. The text strictly prescribe how to conduce the war, how to maintain the discipline, how to pay soldiers and, at the same time casts anthems against the financial speculations on the armies. These were speculations that caused the lack of results.

[…] Inauditum scelsum eorum qui per avaritiam communes belli sumptus, ex pauperum sudore ac sanguine extractos, intervertunt ac in proprios usus vertunt: quo fit, ut aout milites ad bellum necessary non conducantur, auc conductis stipendia debita non solvantur.

420

Not to mention, preceded Tanner, the tradition to send back home the veterans and conscript new, and inexperienced, soldiers only to have the opportunity to save money with smaller salaries. That

419

Adam Tanner, Amuletum Castrense, sive antidotum adversus pernitiosos calumniarum afflatus, tristesque bellorum motus, ex Boemico tumultu enatos, Auctore Adamo Tannero e Soc. Jesu theologo, Ingolstadt, ex Typographeo Ederiano, 1620. 420 Ivi., p. 188.

154

is the reason why the victory does not come, the princess loose their honour and the cities are destroyed. These accuses are too precise to not remind the terrible experience suffered by the Church in the period of the bloody and unlucky campaigns conduced against the Turks in Hungary. The forces and resources of the Pope and of many leaders and soldiers, mainly sent from Italy, was swallowed up by the speculations and the avidity of the generals. It was the troops sent by the Church to suffer the cruellest consequences in terms of human lives and pains. 421 More generally, the work of Adam Tanner is ‘deeply pervaded by the conviction, not only of the author, but of the whole Church, that the war against the heresy in Germany could be compared to a bellum Christianum against the infidels’. 422 If not for other reasons, at least because the religious conflict in the Eastern Europe was perceived by the Christianity as a direct help to the threatening power of the Ottoman Empire. The heresy is a cancer that is spreading quickly, sustained Tanner, and that brings with him quarrels, discords and wars as the tumults and devastations caused in Germany by the Lutheran renovatio demonstrated. As Tanner concluded: ‘Et quod inde consequens est, idipsum etiam, contra Turcas omnesque Imperii hostes, inoppugnabile propugnaculum’. 423 The heretics, on the contrary, always took advantage of the Turk threat to ask for concessions, as in 1532, when, under the fear of the invasion of the Austria, it was extort the tolerance for the Confession of Augusta. 424 Luther himself, continued the theologian, expressed contradictory ideas on this point, but, to say the truth, his followers understood finally that the Ottoman threat was a real one. On the contrary, the Calvinists continued to use the Turk pressure as a weapon of blackmail. The same applies to the Utraquists (the adherent to the “Husso-PiccardLutheran-Calvinist religion” as ironically described by Tanner) that did not hesitate to sing a Te Deum when Bethlen Gabor, vassal of the Turks and Calvinist, devastated the provinces of the Christian and Catholic king. 425 The Jesuit theologian continued stating that, while Catholics and Lutheran fight against the Turks (it is necessary to underline that the Elector of Saxony – even if Lutheran - was allied to the Emperor and therefore treated with respect by Tanner), the Calvinists are ready to contribute to the wars of the Infidel in order to see the papacy fall. ‘Has someone seen a Calvinist fight in battles like that of Lepanto?’ asked the Jesuit. On the contrary, they drove the Mari to invade the Spain (allusions to the Dutchmen). ‘The Pope remains the biggest presidium 421

See, as an example, von Pastor Ludwig, Storia dei Papi, vol. XI, p. 225. Gui Francesco, Op. cit., p. 349. 423 Adam Tanner, Op. cit., p. 69. 424 Ivi., p. 74. In that year it was decided to tolerate the Confessio, with the clause to not divulgate it until the Council. It seems that the Augustan Confession was approved according to the same scheme that brought to the tolerance of the Confessio Bohemica in 1575, event rendered official only in 1609. 425 Ibid, p. 1-2. 422

155

against the Turks’ repeated once again Tanner. This argument should have been quite convincing also to those who did not know yet about the extreme step taken by the Bohemians: now ready to risk everything on a single throw, during the last days of 1620 they decided the envoi of a big legation to Constantinople to ask for the support of the Turks. 426 In conclusion, the work of Tanner drew an equation between war against the Calvinism and war against the Turks, absolving the Christian from all the possible doubts about the legitimacy of a military action against the bohemians. To the sensible and doubtful readers that examine one’s conscience about the licit instruments for a good Catholic to reach a conclusion for all these calamities (but also to those thinkers who referred to the pacifist pre-Christian literature about the tolerance), the theologian replied, as Becan did:

[…] Si forte Turcarum aliorumve pacis et Religionis hostium iniquitas et violentia cogat, bella Domini, hoc est in causa Domini, ex voluntate Domini, ad honorem Domini, non quidem iuxta normam artis bellicae, cuius professionem olim in Philosopho reprehensam scio, sed ex praescriptolegis divinae, ac iuxta praecepta et documenta ipsius scripturae sacrae pie feliciterque gerat (miles Christianus).

427

With a sensible inversion respect to the tradition that claimed the Christianity to be more sensible to the values of peace compared to the pagan culture, Tanner re-legitimated, by the light of the Holy Writ, the good of the war, as long as it was fought for the faith and the religion. Therefore, if the war against the Calvinist rebels was like a war against the infidel, than, deduced Tanner, the victory was assured for the Christian army. How God could not help those who where fighting for his glory?

His igitur in bello aeque contra Turcas, ac quoslibet fidei ac publicae pacis hostes suscepto observatis, minime dubiam victoriam sperare debemus. Primo, quia tale bellu iustissimum est; bello autem iusto favet Deus.Secundo, quia bellum contra hostes Dei suscipitur; quisquis enim verae Religionis aut publicae tranquillitatis hostis et oppugnator est, Dei hostis est, quem Deus non patietur inultum. Tertio, quia hoc modo non propria et privata, sed communis Dei causa agitur, cuius honos et vera Religio defenditur: quomodo autem Deus causam suam deserat?

428

Incitements like these mach the events of the day of the White Mountain, when catholic preachers got among the soldiers exactly like it happened during the bellum Turcicum to incite to the battle ‘pro Deo et Religione’.

426

Gindely Anton, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, Parague, 1857, p. 183. Adam Tanner, Op. cit., p. 178. 428 Ivi., p. 197. 427

156

The appeal of Tanner to the unity of the Christianity against the infidels, whether were they the Turks or the Calvinists, is not the only request for a certain kind of concord: the abovementioned Martin Becan claimed for the political unity of the Christian Europe. Bacanus, Jesuit, theologian and confessor to Emperor Ferdinand II from 1620, was, like Tanner, involved in the political-theological debate sprang from the Bohemian insurrection. 429 ‘Pax Republicae sine unitate fidei conservari non potest’ stated Becan in the second part of Theologia Scolastica concluding the passage with a meaningful ‘Maior probata est, quia pax Christiana est duplex: una Ecclesiastica, quae consistit in unitate fidei et Sacramentorum; Altera politica, quae consistit in externa iustitia et tranquillitate’. 430 The nuclear concept this essay is supporting is perfectly summed up in these few words. The religious pluralism is incompatible, in the Jesuits’ thought, with the tranquillity of the state. After all, the men of the Society, determined to achieve the true religious-political peace, paradoxically preferred the hypothesis of a war against the enemy – indistinctly Calvinist or Turk – instead of a peace obtained with the tolerance. Bacanus echoes the words of Gaspar Schopp that asked for a brutal and decisive military intervention. ‘In fact, the idea of a final war against the heretics enemy of the faith, assimilated – in a significant way – to the infidel Turks, was by long time in the air, by far before the Bohemian events provided further justifications for a repressive action. Already in 1616, Gaspar Schopp, the German polemist, informed the Holy See about the conclusion of his Classicum belli sacri written in order to exhort the emperor to the war against the heretic and sacrilegious princes’. 431 The sacrilegious princes were, in fact, a problem even greater than that of heretics: as Francesco Gui states, Becan himself individuated in the “desperate predestination” of Calvin the origin of the “homines politici”

Qui hoc modo ratiocinantur: De aeternitate nihil ad nos; Deus iam pridem statuit de uno quoque nostrum […] Totum ergo stadium nostrum sit in temporali administratione Reipublicae, de fide et Christo sit silentium. Ex hac Calvini doctrina orti Libertini et politici, qui et libertatem religionis probant et omnium sectarum mores ac personas induunt.

432

429

Martin Becan is presented by the Catholic Encyclopedia as a controversialist, born at Hilvarenbeck, Brabant, Holland, 6th of January, 1563; died in Vienna the 24th January, 1624. He entered the Society of Jesus the 22nd of March, 1583, taught theology for twenty-two years at Wuerzburg, Mainz, and Vienna, and was confessor to Emperor Ferdinand II from 1620 until the time of his death. His writings were directed principally against Calvin, Luther, and the Anabaptists; of these, his "Manuale Controversarium," Mainz, 1623, treating of predestination, free will, the Eucharist, and the infallibility of the Church, passed through several editions. His chief theological work, "Summa Theologiae Scholasticae” is in great part a compendium of Francisco Suárez's Commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas. 430 Martinus Becanus, Manuale Controversiarum huius temporis de fide ac religione, Wuerzburg, 1623. See Lecler Joseph S.J., Storia della Tolleranza nel secolo della Riforma, Brescia,1967, p. 341-345. 431 See d’Addio Mario, Il Pensiero Politico di Gaspare Scioppio e il machiavellismo del Seicento, Milano, 1962, p. 765. 432 Martinus Becanus, Opera Omnia…, Op. cit., Vol. II, p.829. See, Gui Francesco, Op. cit., p. 21 – 22.

157

It is Gui that openly draws a similitude between Calvinists and Turks in the Jesuits’ imagination: “the patres – like the monks that, in the Hungarian campaign, advanced against the Turks hoisting the image of the Madonna – lived the experience of the war against the Calvinists as a bellum sacrum, rich of presages and miraculous events.” 433

II.3.4. The Third Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Moral and Gnoseologic

The holy war seems now an inner problem more connected with a political issue. A political issue that is, in turn, strictly interconnected with religious and moral problems. It was Blaise Pascal one of the first to point out this kind of interconnection in Jesuits thought. The first ten "Provincial Letters" of Blaise Pascal appear to be written by an anonymous Parisian who, in order to defend his associates of Port Royal, addresses a friend in the province to explain to him the doctrinal debate that was going on in the French Capital. In the others letters this fiction is abandoned and the letters are addressed directly to the Jesuits that accused the Augustinus of Jansenism. In writing these letters Pascal intention was to strike the public opinion, and mobilize it against the Jesuits. Condemned, Pascal set a trial against the moral sluggishness of Jesuits. In the letters from 11th to 16th, he directly addresses the ‘reverend fathers of the Society of Jesus’. By attacking the flimsy morality of the Jesuits he introduced political concerns into the quarrel. Specifically, the thirteenth and fourteenth letters condemned, without distinction, the moral and the political action of the Jesuits. In Pascal’s vivacious style morality and politics merge with the doctrinal issue, which, on the whole, does not distinguish between the different spheres of the intellectual activity of the members of the Society of Jesus. 434 With regard to Jesuit activity, the inextricability of doctrine, theology, politics and intellectual expressions was clear from the initial creation of the Society. If even with polemical intention, G. Huber underlines the same necessary interrelations:

Close ranks Phalanx, dominated by an absolute thought, held under an iron discipline, inflamed of enthusiasm for the cause of the Roman Church and ready to all sacrifices to achieve the triumph, fitted with all the spiritual and material forces necessary to the accomplishment of its mission […], such was the Society of Jesus. […] Mighty and difficult was its mission: it dealt with the conquest of the European society and to subdue it to the papacy; it dealt with the spread of the Christian doctrine among the infidels; it dealt, finally, with the reform of the morals and culture of the Catholic clergy, to wake up the dead religion of the laic society. 435 433

Gui Francesco, Op. cit, p. 22. Pascal Blaise, Pensées. The provincial letters, New York, 1941. 435 Huber G. Carl, I Gesuiti: Storia, dottrine, organizzazione, pratiche, azione politica e religiosa della Compagnia di Gesù, Roma, Artistica, 1909, p. 93. 434

158

Huber, indirectly, acknowledges the mixture of “spiritual and worldly forces” in the Society of Jesus. Mixture that mirrors that of its aims: in the world the submission of the society to the Catholic Church and spiritually the reform of morals of both clergy and laic society. This deep interconnection is widely recognized by scholars. Francesco Gui, studying the Bohemian insurrection of 1618, pointed out that everyone who wants to undertake a research on Jesuit political history must be aware of ‘the strong connection between religious and political spheres that characterizes the Jesuitical militancy’. 436 This is the reason why it is not possible to research a Jesuit political Thought, but only to study the moral, theological and doctrinal implications of their activity in the world. The study of Jesuits’ political thought is a research about intersections. Intersections and connections between the internal issue of the organization of the Society itself and the general political matters; intersections and conflicts caused by the ‘double loyalty’ – the loyalty to the local sovereign and to the General in Rome; conflicts between the role of court confessors and the involuntary influence on political decisions. All these issues have a common thread. It is the aim that guided Jesuits’ actions in the world: the fight against gnoseological relativism and moral laxism, the main obstacles to the domain of the Church on the laic society. There is no need to analyze in depth all the local realities to understand that it is not possible to reduce all the single and peculiar actions to a ‘Jesuit’s political thought’. Asserting that the Society of Jesus as a whole had a political thought would signify enter in the trend of the polemical writings. Nevertheless, it is possible to individuate a ‘common factor’, a common point that oriented their activity in the world: the morals. This can be well exemplified by the analysis of the Bohemian insurrection of 1618. The insurrection developed from 1618 to 1620 and it is considered part of the so-called ‘revolutions of the seventeenth century’. It was, at the same time, the spark that caused the Thirty Years War to break out. The choice to study it through the history of the Jesuits in those countries allows to better understand the moral implications in their political activity not only in Bohemia but also in the whole Europe. The members of the Society of Jesus were, in fact, in the medulla of that vast Catholic front extended from Spain, Italy, Austria, Bavaria Poland and the other Augsburg possessions. The Jesuits were, therefore, directly involved in the conflict and were able to produce a huge amount of documents about it. Before the insurrection, they imposed themselves on the Bohemian scene and became the strongest opponents to the evangelic states in the kingdom of St. Wenceslaw. Analyzing the insurrection, it became possible to understand why the first act of the revolutionary government, 436

Gui Francesco, Op. cit., p. 15.

159

soon after the defenestration, ordained the expulsion of the Societas from the kingdom. Even during the nineteenth century, the Society of Jesus had to defend itself from the terrible accuse of being the main force that caused and uphold that war. 437 It is necessary to point out since now the strong connection between religious and political spheres that characterizes the Jesuitical militancy. It is necessary to stress the non-linearity of their political actions too: Jesuit had a conflictual relationship with both the local sovereigns and the ecclesiastic hierarchy. It is in no way possible to reduce their political activity to the defence of the Roman Church or to the fight against the evangelic heresy. As pointed out above, many criteria come in to play and morals, theology and politic merge in an indistinct whole as confirmed by the theologians Martin Becan:

Pax Republicae sine unitate fidei conservari non potest […]. Haeretici magis perturbant pacem Christianam, quam homicide, fures, adultery: at si hi juste puniuntur poena capitis: Ergo, multo magis illi. Maior probata est, quia pax Christiana est duplex: una Ecclesiastica, quae consistit in unitate fidei et Sacramentorum; Altera politica, quae consistit in externa iustitia et tranquillitate.

438

The religious pluralism is therefore incompatible, in Jesuits’ thought, with the tranquillity of the polis. The realtion between the peace of the state and the religious union has been clearly stated by Koialowicz too. Gediminas, as an example, gets a very positive evaluation especially because of his moral behaviours end because with the conquest of Kiev he made the monarchy a right inheritance of Lithuania creating the bases for a political union that could have evolved in a religious union. 439 Gediminas acted with high moral intentions and ‘he did not pillage the land, but united the territory and many lords’. 440 For specular reasons Koialowicz condams Kasimir son of Jogaila: his conquests were not sustained by the necessity to spread Christianity and thus became immoral campaigns. 441 The idea of the strong bonds between morality, peace of the republic and religious unity are even more evident when Koialowicz refers to the relation between Poland, Lithuania and Muscovy. While Possevino asserted the necessity to represent Polish and Lithuanians as sustainers of the Christian of Russia and even as essential political and military partner, Koialowicz uses examples from the past to demonstrate how detrimental had been the lack of union between the 437

See the polemical works collation in Duhr Bernhard, Geschichte der Jesuiten in den Laedern deutscher Zunge, Freiburg,1913, vol. 2, p. 378. 438 Martinus Becanus, Manuale Controversiarum huius temporis de fide ac religione, Wuerzburg, 1623. See Joseph Lecler S.J., Storia della Tolleranza nel secolo della Riforma, Brescia,1967, p. 341-345. 439 Koialowicz W. Albert, Historiae Lituanae…, Op. cit., I, 259-272. 440 Ivi., II, 255. 441 Ibid., II, 237.

160

three countries. An explicit mention of the damage caused by the political opposition of the parts. Even being a Lithuanian he criticizes the Grand Duchy when its rulers attempted to exploit Russians problems with the Tatars. 442 He clearly states that the Lithuanian acted incorrectly attaching and in fact Tatars prevailed, plundered the lands and destroyed cities. Moreover, Koialowicz criticizes the aims of the military mission of the Lithuanians: the Lithuanian sovereigns Mantvila and Živinbudas acted immorally having decided to combat only to pillage and plunder and their mission ended unsuccessfully. 443 On the contrary, the sovereign Erdvilas behaving morally and proposing the Russians a respectful truce obtained the success. 444 Here emerges another relevant aspect of Koialowicz conception of the political authority: a legal regent is the one who respects his subordinates and their will. 445 It is not a matter of being Christians or pagans as thought by Gidžiūnas. It is definitely more decisive the morality of the subjects despite their faith. A further confirmation is provided by another passage of Historiae Lituanae where the Teutons are blamed for attacking Lithuania despite the fact that the country is now officially Christian: ‘non jam religioni, sed suae per Lituaniam ditioni stabiliendae abutebantur’. 446 The sin of the Knights of the Order is the worst damage to the Christianity. They as a matter of fact are disrupting the unification of Europe from both the political and religious point of view and by doing this are behaving immorally. To use Adam Tanner and Martin Becan’ words the Order was not respecting the rule of the twofold peace of the Christianity: political and religious. Precisely, only a political union among Christians can be the base for the unity of faith and both should be based on the morality of the monarchs. Koialowicz, at least in one significant episode, represents the lack of religious unity as cause of political instability claiming that Ruthenians wer cause of discord between Lithuanian and. We are referring to Gediminas siege of Kiev in 1320. 447 Koialowicz, commenting the violence of the war indirectly confirms that he believed the Ruthenia to be legally part of the territories of the Lithuania. Consequently he describes the war as an internal and deplorable war. The damages and the losses however are not attributed to the Lithuanian regent rather to the wrong advices of the Orthodoxes. While in this example Koialowicz seems to contradict Possevino’s teaching (when he recommended to stress the morality of the Ruthenian and their connection with the Catholics) another Jesuits’ principle is involved: the peace of the republic cannot be preserved without the union of faith. This exemplum is complementary to those mentioned above. While the first examples aimed to show that the peace of the Christianity can not be achieved without the political 442

Ibid., I, 57. Ibid., I, 59. 444 Ibid., I, 60 -62. 445 Ibidem. 446 Ibid., II, 19. 447 Ibid., I, 259. 443

161

union, the specific example of the war in Ruthenia aims to demonstrate that the peace of the state cannot be achieved without the union of faith. Referring to the Bohemian insurrection, the opposition to the religious pluralism originated from a series of complex reasons and exceeded the limit of a seventeenth-century event. Hidden under the faith and the confessional tolerance and in the pretext of peace, the patres perceived the seep of gnoseological relativism and moral laxism that are waivers of the truth and “good” that the Church cannot accept. The political authority can accept neither – claim the Jesuits – that cannot reduce its function to that of the guarantor of public order. The words of the Jesuit Adam Tanner support this statement:

Invenias qui pacem usque adeo exoptent, ut iustitiam omnem, religionemque ei posthabendam censeat […] quod si causam inquiras reperies pacem ab eis non alio fine tantopere exopatri, quam ut ventri, et illicitibus voluptatibus liberius indulgeat: bellum eos non aliam ob causam exhorrescere, nisi quia vel invitos a consueta vitae licentia arcet, atque ad aliquam modestiam et moderationem voluptatumque abstinentiam cogit.

448

The picture becomes more complex. While on the external front stand the heretics, in the internal one is acting an even more insidious enemy: the politiques, the libertines who, with their indifference, supplanted the religious values from the basis. However, it would be ingenuous to believe that the invective of Tanner rose simply from his phobia for the sins of the flesh. ‘The central point on which the supremacy of the Church on the other aspects of the worldly sphere resides in the scission between religion and politic, between the traditional moral and a Machiavellism widely spread in the common mentality’. 449 A “new science” of power, stimulated by the recent scientific discoveries, is spreading among the society at all levels. At the top it is producing the ‘phantoms’ of the State Reason, of which the patres perceived the consequences in terms of abuse of power and systematic violence; among the reformed nobility it generated the taciturnitas cospiratoria, but among the acculturate classes, those of the “pseudo-politicians” it disseminated prejudicial hostility and diffidence toward the authorities both secular and spiritual. A clear accuse to the “scientific approach” to the politic and its connection with the scientific discoveries appeared during the Bohemian insurrection. It is the letter intercepted by the Vallonian soldiers during the campaign of Bohemia and published by the Catholic authorities, as

448 449

Adam Tanner, Amuletum Castrense…, Op. cit., 167-168. Gui Francesco, Op. cit., p. 20.

162

an example, in 1620 with the title Epistola Wenceslai Meroschwa Bohemi ad Ioannem Traut Norimbergensem (in Biblioteca Vaticana Chigi IV.22214). 450 In other words, the men of the Society, resolute to achieve the “true” political-religious peace, seemed to prefer the hypothesis of a bellum sacrum rather than promote the dangerous consolidation of a “false peace” characterized by confessional spontaneity and political indifference. It would be wrong to state that they were promoting the war directly to give the control of that region to the Roman Church. Many internal conflicts with the local clergy, the central authorities in Rome and the Catholic sovereigns characterized the political life of the Society of Jesus during the Bohemian insurrection. What in the beginning appeared to be a surprising fact – the opposition of Jesuits to the peace when it seemed to be possible to achieve it under the control of the empire, the paladin of the Catholic Orthodoxy – is now the clear expression of their thought: politic and morals are indissolubly bond. The reasons for the opposition to the possible peace have to be found in its price: the religious tolerance. Hidden under the faith and confessional tolerance and in the pretext of peace, in fact, the patres perceived the seep of gnoseological relativism and of moral laxism. These, in turn, were the main dangers as well as the biggest obstacles against the achievement of Jesuits’ supreme aim: the preservation of an order whose legitimacy resided in the Orthodoxy and in the hierarchical subordination to Rome. Conclusions. Summing up the argument, the Jesuits in the 16th century seemed trying to promote the idea of a united Europe, united both politically and with regards to faith in order to defeat the external enemy: the Turks. Nonetheless, that external enemy became a simple pretext for the claim for an internal unity. It was an internal unity that appeared to be in crisis as it had never been before. It was a crisis due mainly to the Reformation that revealed to be even more insidious than the Turks. The reformation, in fact, did not present itself as a dangerous enemy, but as an innovative force able to change the society from the inside. Particularly dangerous seemed to be the spread of the Calvinist “heresy”. A heresy that created, together with the new philosophy of 450

See Villari Rosario, Elogio della Dissimulazione, Roma-Bari, 1987, p. 20-21. Here appears the comparison between the discovery of the lens by Galileo and the ‘specularia’ of the ‘politicus novus’ prised by Meroschwa (taken from Klopp Onno, Der dreissigjaehrige krieg bis zum Tode Gustav Adolfs, Paderborn, 1891, p. 512): Nunc quemadmodum novi Mathematici per tubos suos novas in firmamento stellas, novas in Sole maculas repererunt; Ita quoque politicismus novus sua habet specularia, opticenque, in qua alia membra divisionis addita priscis relucent. The new consciousness allowed to better appreciate the techniques of power and to adopt them to defend from the machination of the sovereigns: Totus mundus fuco utitur, cum Vulpibus vulpinandum est. Nec infame est violasse iurisiurandi religionem. Fecerunt hoc nostri Principes; nos cariores habebunt, si non modo pro eis patiamur et belligeremu sed etiam peieremus.

163

science, the politiques, the libertines who, with their moral laxism and a new political philosophy, supplanted the religious values from the basis. It was Becan to individuate in the “desperate predestination” of Calvin the origin of the homines politici. These pseudo-politicians are disseminating prejudicial hostility and diffidence toward the authorities both secular and spiritual. The whole system is in danger. If it is true that the peace of the Republic cannot be preserved without the unity of the Faith (Pax Republicae sine unitate fidei conservari non potest, stated Bacanus), it is even more true that the peace of the Christianity is twofold: one Ecclesiastic, the unity of faith, the other political (pax Christiana est duplex: una Ecclesiastica, quae consistit in unitate fidei et Sacramentorum; Altera politica, quae consistit in externa iustitia et tranquillitate). The most dangerous enemy was the Calvinist heresy because it was acting on both the ecclesiastical sphere and in the political one. Adam Tanner, Martin Becan and Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz were all actively engaged in the struggle against the insidious heresy, but while the two Germans preferred the polemical attitude, Koialowicz adopted one more congenial to his nature: the pedagogic one. Educator in all his works, Koialowicz took part in the battle against the heresy in a more subtle way “creating a psychological and cognitive space in which the fantastic reinvention, activating memory, imagination, affections and intelligence, educated to watch to the reality in an ordered, conscious and orientated manner”. A manner orientated, of course, toward the preservation of an order whose legitimacy resided in the religious, political and moral Orthodoxy. The Examples that compose Historiae Lituanae have to be read in three levels: there is the historical-narrative level that describes the event of the past like the wars against Tartars; There is a religious level, that tries to raise the idea of the union of the Christian Churches in the struggle against Muslims evocating the danger of the lack of unity among Christians; There is, finally, a more complex level in which moral, religion and politic merge in the internal fight against the gnoseological relativism and the moral laxism arisen from the Calvinist heresy and the new scientific thought.

164

CONCLUSIONS

Summing up the results, this research demonstrated that the Jesuits had actually elaborated a historiographical canon – a coherent and structured philosophy of history that evolved from the foundation of the Order until the first half of the 17th century. Moreover, we defined this historiographical canon revising the perfunctory interpretation of Eduard Fueter. Finally, we proved that the precepts of this “standard” were consistently implemented across Europe from Spain to Bohemia, Poland and Lithuania. In this respect the historical production of the Lithuanian Jesuit Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz has been portrayed as a representative illustration of the concrete implementation of Jesuits’ philosophy of history. More precisely, in the first part of this research we focused on the definition of a sort of formalized guideline adopted by Jesuits to tackle with historical works. We found out that the most influent definition of this standard, that of Eduard Fueter, clearly demonstrated fallacious and ultimately unacceptable. Therefore, we proceeded individuating in the criteria used to describe Jesuits’ historiography the main fault of E. Fueter’s definition. Consequently, we redefined the concepts used to give an interpretation of Jesuits’s understanding of history and history-making. All the notions Fueter employed to define the canon have been historically contextualized and accordingly reformulated. Particularly, we demonstrated that the rhetoric was intended as the concrete expression of a “critical method” based on the logic of the verisimilitude. Similarly, we confuted the idea that the Jesuits opposed the pagan values demonstrating, at the same time, that rather than paganism they feared the commixture of classical values with precepts of the “Nordic Humanism” and the Reformation ideas. Finally, we demonstrated that it is not possible to define a Jesuits’ philosophy of history basing on the opposition between the supposed Neo-Platonism of the humanists and the Aristotelianism of the Jesuits. Equipped with more sound criteria, we decided to analyse the political, religious and scientific contest that certainly influenced the definition of a historiographical practice among Jesuits. Particularly, three “forces” interfered with Jesuits conception of history: the Protestant Reformation, the Machiavellian re-interpretation of the past as a cyclic series of accidents and René Descartes’ definition of the opposition between reason and memory. However, the Fathers of the Society of Jesus perceived in the mingling of these three elements the most destabilizing danger. As a matter of fact, the spread of the new scientific method in conjunction with the dissemination of new moral and political values endangered the historical role of the Church

165

(denying the existence of a history as possible object of knowledge, substituting a cyclic conception of the time to the linear one and replacing the role of the divine providence with fate). Analysing the concrete expressions of Jesuits’ historiography we individuated two phases in the evolution of their philosophy of history. Each of these phases represents a peculiar reaction to the cultural and scientific context outlined above. Hence, the first period of Jesuit’s Historiography is characterized by the attempt to attest the validity of the Christian moral values in opposition to those of the new political tendencies, presenting history as the result of the active presence of the divine providence in a path toward the salvation. Methodologically, the historiography of this period attempts to rationalize legends and myths applying a logical and critical approach. In the second phase, when the Renaissance scepticism endangered the value of history and undermined the historical role of the Church, the aim of history-making became for most Jesuits the preservation of history itself as a science. At the same time, Jesuits tried to produce historical accounts able to satisfy the requirements of scientific nature of the period in order to present them as valuable alternatives to the Protestant and Cartesian’s works. The means to reach these goals were the use of a rational method (based on Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza’s concept of moral certitude), the application of the logic where the mathematic was not helpful and the elucidation of the results of this “scientific research” by a medium that was a symbol of scientific knowledge itself: the rhetoric. Typical of this second period are the theorizations about history. Consequently, we have been able to individuate in the cogitations of Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza the first definition of a Jesuits’ “Historical Method”. Similarly, Antonio Possevino defined the aims and functions of history. According to the Papal Nuncio, aims of the Jesuits historians are the preservation of history as the “logic of the knowledge” and its employment for the moral education of the nobles. Referring specifically to Poland, Lithuania and Ruthenia, Possevino indicated in the historical books the technical means to set the path toward the union of the Churches. Finally, we demonstrated that these precepts were consistently implemented by Jesuits at a European level. Particularly representative are the cases of the Jesuits Piotr Skarga (PolandLithuania), Juan de Mariana (Spain), Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz (Lithuania) and Martin Becan (Flanders, Austria and Bohemia). In their historical and hagiographic works the Jesuits’ historiographical canon is perfectly illustrated. Particularly, we demonstrated the implementation of the Jesuits’ canon in Skarga’s Sermons to the Diet (specifically in the eight sermon) where the relation between moral education of the nobles is strictly connected to the political and religious peace of the republic. A similar concept has been expressed by the Spanish Jesuit Juan de Mariana (theorizing the legitimacy of the tyrannicide), by Adam Tanner and Martin Becan (referring to the new “philosophers” that are 166

perverting morals and traditional respect toward the authority in Bohemia). A comparable relation between the peace of the republic and the religious unity is expressed in A. W. Koialowicz referring to the war in Ruthenia (and several other passages) in his History of Lithuania. Analogously, the Jesuits interpretation of Unionism has been coherently implemented by various Fathers of the Society across Europe: while Mariana stressed the importance of the political union of the Iberian peninsula as a necessary step toward the union of the Church and the peace of the republic, Koialowicz emphasized the importance of the political alliance of Polish, Lithuanian, Muscovites and Ruthenians in both Historiae Lituanae and his Short History About the State of the Church in the Geat Duchy. Studying Koialowicz’s Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium it appears immediately clear its coherence with the new conception of history and the unitarist method of Possevino. The comparative approach leaves no doubts that the Lithuanian Jesuit was absolutely conscious of the evolution of the strategies of the Society of Jesus to reach the union of the Churches and consciously implemented them. More generally, it is possible to claim that Koialowicz produced his historical works in full respect of the Jesuits historiographic canon and this is the reason of most, previously unclear, differences between the Jesuit’ History of Lithuania and his main source (Stryjkowski). Precisely, Koialowicz clearly shares the ideologies of his conscript in the Society of Jesus as it unfolds in the analysis of the portrait of the king Mindaugas. The image of the tyrant had been developed by Jesuits and formulated in an extreme form by Juan de Mariana. Mariana’s idea of tyrant unfolds in the works of several Jesuits including Francisco Suàrez and Piotr Skarga and Koialowicz himself. A further demonstration of the coherence of Koialowicz with the supposed historiographic canon of the Jesuits is provided by the comparison between Historiae Lituanae and Historiae de rebus Hispaniae a possible model for the Lithuanian’s work. It is significant that, referring to textual and “metahistoric” structures, every time Koialowicz’s history does not reflect that of Stryjkowski, in passages where the Jesuit cannot have recourse to better sources, a strong similitude can be individuated with the work of Mariana. This is, as an example the case of the writing style – influenced by a sort of “Jesuits’ Tacitism”. This clearly demonstrates the existence of a Jesuit historiographic canon and the adhesion of Koialowicz to it. In conclusion, we can affirm that Koialowicz was a representative exponent of Jesuits’s historical thought. More generally, his literary and historical works are emblematic of the European scientific, moral and religious debate of the first half of the 17th century and specifically illustrative of the position of the Jesuits in it.

167

ABBREVIATIONS AHSI: Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu AST Archivio Storico Ticinese IHSI: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu MHSI: Monumenta Istorica Societatis Iesu

SOURCES Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Iesu, w.a., Napoli, Tarquinio Longi, 1599. We will refer to Bianchi Angelo (ed.), Ratio atque institutio studiorum Societatis Iesu, Milano, Rizzoli, 2002. Acquviva Claudio, “Libri praesertim de potestate summi pontificis et de tyrannicidio non edendi”, Letter, 2 augusti, Romae, 1614. Now in Petrauskienė Irena, Vilniaus akademijos spaustuvė, 15751773, Vilnius, Mokslas, 1976, p. 38 – 39. Alvia de Castro Fernando, Verdadera razón de estado. Discurso Politico, Lisboa, Pedro Craesbeeck, 1606. Arnauld Antoine and Pierre Nicole, La logique ou L'art de penser contenant outre les regles communes, plusieurs observations nouvelles, propres à former le jugement, Paris, Desprez, 1683. Becanus Martinus, Compendium manualis controversiarum huius temporis, de fide, ac religione, Wuerzburg, 1623. We refer to the edition Becanus Martinus, Compendium manualis controversiarum huius temporis, de fide, ac religione, Lugdunum, Fievet et Danel, 1711. Becanus Martinus, Martini Becani Opera omnia aucta revisa et in duos tomos distributa, I. G. Schönwetteri, Moguntiae, 1649. Bossuet Jaques Bénigne, Discours sur l'histoire universelle, Paris, Flammarion, 1681. Botero Giovanni, Della ragion di stato libri dieci, Venetia, I. Gioliti, 1589. Descartes René, Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la verité dans les sciences, Leyde, Ian Maire, 1637. We used the edition Lucia Urbani Ulivi (ed), Cartesio. Discorso sul metodo, Milano, Bompiani, 2002. Descartes René, Regulae ad directionem ingenii, 1628. We refer to Descartes René “Regulae ad directionem ingenii”, in Adam Charles and Tannery Paul (eds.), Oeuvres de Descartes, Paris, 1897-1913, vol X, p. 359-469. Eisenhart Johann, De Fide Historica Commentarius accessit Oratio De conjungendis Jurisprudentiæ & Historiarum studiis, Helmstadii, Sustermann, 1679. Ghezzi Nicola, Vita del padre Antonio Possevino, traduzione dell’opera del Dorigny con note, molte lettere inedite e parecchi monumenti aggiunti alla fine, Venezia, w.n., 1759. 168

Hurtado de Mendoza Pedro, Disputationes de universa philosophia cum indicibus necessariis nouiter in meliorem formam redactis, tam disputationum et sectionum, quam materiarum, Ludguni, ex typographia Claudij Cayne, 1617. We refer to the editon Disputationes de universa philosophia authore Petro Hurtado de Mendoza, Zug, IDC, 1987. Skarga Piotr, Kazania sejmowe, Kraków, 1597. We refer to Janusz Tazbir and Mirosław Korolko (eds.), Skarga Piotr, Kazania sejmowe, Wrocław, Ossolineum, 1984. Mariana Juan de, De rege et regis institutione, Toledo, Petri Roderici, 1599. We refer to De rege et regis institutione libri III, Aalen, Scientia Verlag, 1969. Mariana Juan de, Historiae de rebus Hispaniae libri XX V, Toledo, Petri Roderici, 1592. We used the edition Mariana Juan de, “Historia de Espana” in Historia de Espana; Tratado contra los juegos publicos; Del rey y de la institucion real, traducido nuevamente; De la alteracion de la moneda; y De las enfermedades de la compania, Madrid, Atlas, 1950. Malebranche Nicolas, De la recherche de la vérité. Où l'on traite de la Nature de l'Esprit de l'homme, & de l'usage qù l en doit faire pour éviter l'erreur dans les Sciences, Paris, Christophe David, 1674. Now in Eugenio Garin (ed.), De la recherche de la vérité, Bari, Laterza, 1983. Pascal Blaise, Lettres écrites par Louis de Montalte à un Provincial de ses amis et aux R.R. Pères Jésuites, Cologne, Pierre de la Vallee, 1657. We refer to Charles Louandre (ed.), Les provinciales ou Lettres écrites par Louis de Montalte à un provincial de ses amis et aux RR. PP. Jésuites sur le sujet de la morale et de la politique de ces pères, Paris, Charpentier, 1862. Possevino Antonio, Aduersus Dauidis Chytraei haeretici imposturas, quas in oratione quadam inseruit, quam de statu ecclesiarum, hoc tempore in Graecia, Asia ... inscriptam edidit, & per Sueciam, ac Daniam disseminari curauit, Ingolstadii, officina typographica Vvolfgangi Ederi, 1583. Possevino Antonio, Bibliotheca selecta qua agitur de ratione studiorum in historia, in disciplinis, in salute omnium procuranda, cum diplomate Clementis VIII Pont. Max., Romae, ex Typographia Apostolica Vaticana, 1593. Possevino Antonio, Missio Moscovitica, w.p., 1584. We refer to Pierling Paulo (ed.), Antonii Possevini Missio Moscovitica, Paris, Ernestum Leroux, 1882. Possevino Antonio, Moscovia, Vilnius, 1581. We used the English translation of Graham F. Hugh, The Moscovia of Antonio Possevino S.J., Pittsburg, Pittsburg University Press, 1977. Ribadeneira De Pedro, Tratado de la religión y virtudes que debe tener el príncipe cristiano para governar y conservar sus Estados. Contra lo que Nicolás Machiavelo y los políticos de este tiempo enseñan, Madrid, 1595. We refer to Trattato della religione, e virtuti, che tener deue il principe christiano, per gouernare, e conseruare i suoi stati. Contra quel, che Nicolo Macchiauelli, dannato auttore, & i politici [...] di questo tempo empiamente insegnano. Scritto per il P. Pietro Ribadeneyra della Compagnia di Giesu. [...] E dalla lingua spagnuola nella italiana tradotto per Scipione Metelli da Castelnuouo di Lunigiana, Genoua, Gioseffo Pauoni, 1598. Stryjkowski Maciej, Kronika Polska, Litewska, Żmόdzka y wszystkiey Rusi, Krolewcu , Gerzego Osterbergera, 1582. We refer to Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiéj Rusi Macieja Stryjkowskiego, Warszawa, Gustaw Leon Glücksberg, 1846. 169

Tanner Adam, Amuletum Castrense, sive antidotum adversus pernitiosos calumniarum afflatus, tristesque bellorum motus, ex Boemico tumultu enatos, Ingolstadt, 1620. Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, Historie Lituanae pars prior; de rebus Lituanorum ante susceptam Christianam Religionem, conjuntionemque Magni Lituaniae Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae, libri novem, Dantisci, Georgi Forster, 1650. Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, Historiae Lithuanae pars altera a conjunctione cum Regno Poloniae ad unionem corum Dominiorum libri octo, Antverpiae, Iacobum Meursium, 1669. Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno Lituaniae Ducatu Pertinentium, Vilnius, Typis Academicis, 1650. Now in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol II, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, p. 8 – 276 Wijuk-Koialowicz Albert, De Rebus Anno 1648 et 1649 Contra Zaporovios Cosacos Gestis, Vilnius, Typis Academicis, 1651. Now in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol I, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2003, p. 8 – 217.

170

LITERATURE AA.VV., Motiejus Kazimieras Sarbievijus Lietuvos, Lenkijos, Europos kultūroje, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998. AA.VV., Jėzuitai Lietuvoje (1608 - 2008): Gyvenimas, Veikla, Paveldas. Pranešimų tezės, Vilnius, Lietuvos Nacionalinis Muziejus, 2008.

AA.VV., Alma Mater Vilnensis: Vilniaus universiteto istorijos bruožai, Vilnius, Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2009.

Abbé Pitra, Etudes sur la collection des Actes des Saints, Paris, J. Lecoffre, 1850. Addio d’ Mario, Il Pensiero Politico di Gaspare Scioppio e il machiavellismo del Seicento, Milano, Giuffre, 1962. Ambroise Jobert (ed.), De Luther à Mohila: la Pologne dans la crise de la chrétienté, 1517-1648, Paris, Institut d'études slaves, 1974. Andres Adamson, “Prelude to the Birth of the Kingdom of Livonia” in Acta Historica Tallinnensia, 2009, 14, p. 31 – 61. Antanavičius Darius, “Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaous spausdintų knygų bibliografija: mitai ir tikrovė”, in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 277 – 291. Antanavičius Darius, “Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos pasiuntinybių į Maskvą šaltinis Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus Lietuvos istorijoje” in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol II, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2004, p. 292 – 333. Antanavičius Darius, Lietuvio bajoro "Dešimtmetis Livonijos karas" (1610 m.) ir jo autorius, Vilnius, Žara, 2006. Antón Martínez Beatriz, El tacitismo en el siglo XVII en España: el proceso de receptio, Valladolid, Caja Salamanca y Soria, 1991. Asor Rosa, La cultura della Controriforma, Bari, Laterza, 1974. Auerbach Erich, Literatursprache und Publikum in der lateinischen Spätantike und im Mittelalter, Bern, A. Francke Verlag, 1958 (trans. by Ralph Manheim, Literary Language and Its Public in Late Antiquity and in the Middle Ages, Pinceton, Princeton University Press, 2003). Auerbach Erich, Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der Abendländischen Literatur, Bern and Munich, A. Francke, 1946. I will refer to the English translation by Willard Trask, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Princeton, 2003.

171

Ballesteros Gaibrois Manuel (ed.), Juan de Mariana, pensador y politico, Madrid, Ediciones Fe, 1944. Barnes Elmer, A History of Historical Writing, New York, Dover Publications, 1963. Bartoli Adolfo, Storia della letteratura italiana, vol I: Introduzione - caratteri fondamentali della letteratura medievale, Firenze, Sansoni, 1878-1884. Besomi Ottavio, “Il Carteggio Croce-Fueter”, in AST, 75, 1978, p. 219 – 276. Biržiška Vaclovas, Aleksandrynas: senųjų lietuvių rašytojų, rašiusių prieš 1865 m., biografijos, bibliografijos ir biobibliografijos, vol I, Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1960. Bloch Marc, Apologie pour l’histoire ou métier d’historien, Paris, Armand Colin, 1949. Borghero Carlo, Conoscenza e metodo della storia da Cartesio a Voltaire, Torino, Loescher, 1990. Borghero Carlo, La certezza e la storia. Cartesianesimo, pirronismo e conoscenza storica, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1983. Braudel Fernand, La Méditerranée et le monde méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II, Paris, Armand Colin, 1949. Briedis Laimonas, Vilnius City of Strangers, Vilnius, Baltos Lankos, 2008. Brizzi Gian Paolo (ed.), La “Ratio Studiorum”. Modelli culturali e pratiche educative dei Gesuiti in Italia tra Cinque e Seicento, Roma, Bulzoni, 1981. Broggio Paolo (ed.), I gesuiti ai tempi di Claudio Acquaviva: strategie politiche, religiose e culturali tra Cinque e Seicento, Brescia, Morcelliana, 2007. Brogi Bercoff, Giovanna, "Rytų slavų įvaizdis ir funkcija Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus SJ raštuose", in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 334 – 347. Būčys Petras, “Alberto Vijuko Kojelavičaus paminėjimas”, Tiesos Kelias, 1, section B, 1928, 19 – 28. Bumblauskas Alfredas, “About the Lithuanian Baroque in a Baroque Manner”, Lituanus, 41, n.3, 1995. Burckhardt Jacob, Considerations sur l'histoire du monde, Paris, F. Alcan, 1938. Burns James H. (ed.), The Cambridge history of political thought: 1450-1700, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, 1991. Caruso Ester, Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza e la rinascita del nominalismo nella scolastica del Seicento, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1979. Catalano Alessandro, “Il Pamphlet come arma politica: l’Arcangelo di Boemia”, eSamizdat, 2004 (II), 3, p. 207 – 210. 172

Ceccherelli Andrea, Od Suriusa do Skargi. Studium porównawcze o “Żywotach Świętych”, Świat Literacki, Izabelin, 2003. Čepėnas Petras, Naujųjų laikų Lietuvos istorija, vol II, Vilnius, Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1992. Chabod Federico, Lezioni di metodo storico, Bari, Laterza, 1969. Ciampi Sebastiano, Bibliografia Critica delle Antiche Reciproche Corrispondenze Politiche, Ecclesiastiche, Scientifiche, Letterarie, Artistiche, dell’Italia colla Russia, colla Polonia ed altre Parti Settentrionali il tutto raccolto ed illustrato con brevi cenni biografici delli autori meno conosciuti da Sebastiano Ciampi, vol II, Firenze, Allegrini, 1834, p. 291. Ciampi Sebastiano, Ragionamento del Padre Possevino della Compagnia di Gesú tenuto alla Signoria della Repubblica di Lucca ai sei di Marzo 1589, Modena, 1829. Čiurinskas Mintautas, XVI-XVII amžiaus Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės biografistika, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2006. Copleston Frederick, A History of Philosophy: vol III Late Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy. Part II The Revival of Platonism to Suarez, New York, Image Books, 1963. Cozzi Giovanni, “Gesuiti e politica sul finire del ‘500”, Rivista Storica Italiana, LXX, 1963, vol III, p. 477 – 537. Croce Benedetto, “Geschichte der neuren Historiographie, dritte um einen Nachtrag vermehrte Auflage, besorgt von Dietrich Gerhard und Paul Sattler”, La Critica. Rivista di Letteratura, Storia e Filosofia diretta da B. Croce, 35, 1937, p. 379 – 381. Croce Benedetto, La storia come pensiero e come azione, Bari, Lateza, 1938. Croce Benedetto, “Estetica come scienza dell’espressione e linguistica generale” in Teoria e Storia, 4th revised edition, Bari, Laterza, 1912. Croce Benedetto, Teoria e Storia della Storiografia, Bari, Laterza, 1973. Di Napoli Giovanni, “L'essere e l'uno in Pico della Mirandola”, Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica, XLVI, 1954, p. 356 – 389. Dufays Jean-Michel, “Théories et pratiques de l’historiographie à l’époque moderne: état de la question”, in Chantal Grell, Jean-Michel Dufays (eds.), Pratiques et concepts de l’histoire en Europe, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles, Paris, Presses de l’Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 1990, 9 – 41. Eschweiler Karl, “Die Philosophie der spanischen Spätscholastik auf den deutschen Universitäten des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts”, in Spanische Forschungen der Görres-Gesellschaft I, Münster, Aschendorff, 1928, p. 251 – 325. Estreicher Karol, (ed.), Bibliografia Polska, vol 8, Krakow, 1882, vol 16, Krakow, 1898. Evans Robert J.W., Rudolf 2nd and His World: A Study in Intellectual History: 1576-1612, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1973. 173

Feigelmanas Nojus et al. (eds.), Vilniaus universiteto bibliotekos paleotipai katalogas, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2003. Ferraro Domenico, Tradizione e Ragione in Juan de Mariana, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989. Filoramo Giovanni, Menozzi Daniele (eds.), Storia del cristianesimo. L'età moderna, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1997. Fueter Eduard, Geschichte der neueren Historiographie, Munchen - Berlin, Oldenbourg, 1911. We refer to the Italian translation Storia della Storiografia Moderna, Napoli, Ricciardi, 1970. Fussner F. Smith, The Historical Revolution: English historical writing and thought, 1580 -1640, Wesport, Greenwood Press, 1967. Garin Eugenio, L’educazione in Europa. 1400-1600, Bari, Laterza, 1976. Garin Eugenio, “Ritratto di Marsilio Ficino”, Belfagor, 3, 1951, 289 – 301. Garin Maria (ed.), Nicolas Malebranche. La ricerca della verità, Roma, Laterza, 2007. Gemisto Pletone Giorgio, Delle differenze fra Platone ed Aristotele, Rimini, Raffaelli, 2001. Gentile Giovanni, Storia della filosofia italiana fino a Lorenzo Valla, Firenze, Sansoni, 1962. Gindely Anton, Geschichte der Böhmischen Brüder, Parague, 1857. Ghisalberti Alessandro, Filosofia medievale: da Sant'Agostino a San Tommaso, Firenze - Milano, Giunti, 2006. Gidžiūnas Viktoras, “Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius. Lietuvos istorikas 1609-1677”, in Janina K. Rėklaitienė (ed.), Lituanistikos instituto 1977 metų suvažiavimo darbai, Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1978, p. 65 – 92. Godding Robert, Joassart Bernard (eds.), De Rosweyde aux Acta Sanctorum. La recherche hagiographique des Bollandistes à travers quatre siècles, Bruxelles, Société des Bollandistes, 2009. Goyet Therese, Autour du Discours sur l'histoire universelle: etudes critiques: textes inedits et documents photographiques, Paris, Le Belles Lettres, 1956. Goyet Therese, Collinet Jean-Pierre (eds.), La predication au 17. siecle : journees Bossuet : actes du colloque tenu a Dijon les 2, 3 et 4 decembre 1977 pour le trois cent cinquantieme anniversaire de lanaissance de Bossuet, Paris, Nizet, 1980. Gui Francesco. I gesuiti e la rivoluzione boema: alle origini della Guerra dei Trent'Anni. Milano, Franco Angeli, 1989. Hayden White, Metaistorija. Istorinė vaizduotė XIX amžiaus Europoje, Vilnius, Baltos lankos, 2003. Hayden White, “Naratyvumo vertė vaizduojant tikrovę”, Baltos Lankos, 1995, n. 5, p. 33 – 64. 174

Heyberge Anna, Jean Amos Comenius (Komensky). Sa vie et son oeuvre d'éducateur, Paris, Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1928. Hobsbawm Eric J., Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991, London, Michael Joseph, 1994. Halecki Oskar, “Possevino’s Last Stateman on Polish-Russian Relations”, in A History of Poland, New York, Roy Publishers, 1955. Huber G. Carl, I gesuiti: storia, dottrine, organizzazione, pratiche, azione politica e religiosa della Compagnia di Gesu, Roma, Casa editrice artistica, 1909. Hugh F. Graham, The Moscovia of Antonio Possevino S.J., Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh University Press, 1977. Ivinskis Zenonas, “Kojalavičius. Vijukas Albertas”, in Pranas Čepenas (ed.), Lietuvių Enciklopedja, South Boston, Lietuvių Enciklopedijos leidikla, vol IX, 1937, p. 194 – 197. Jacobelli Jader, Machiavelli e Guicciardini: alle radici del realismo politico, Milano, Mursia, 1998. Jakštas Adomas, “Lotiniškas periojodas lietuviškoje literatūroje”, Žinyčia, 1901, n. 3, p. 12 – 18. Janeczek Stanisław (ed.), Oblicza filozofii XVII Wieku, Lublin, Wydawnictwo Kul, 2008. Jean Bodin, “Sei libri sullo stato”, in Cambiano Giuseppe and Mori Massimo (eds.), Storia e antologia della filosofia, vol. 2, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2002. Jučas Mečislovas, “A. Kojelavičiaus istoriografiniai interesai”, Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai, vol 2 (91), A serja, 1985, p. 77 – 87. Jučas Mečislovas, Lietuvos Metraščiai ir Kronikos, Vilnius, Aidai, 2002. Jurginis Juozas, “A. Kojelavičiaus ‘Lietuvos Istorija’ ir jos reikšmė” in Jonas Lankutis (ed.), Albertas Vijūkas-Kojelavičius, Lietuvos Istorija, Vilnius, Vaga, 1989. Jurginis Juozas et al. (eds.), Lietuvos kultūros istorijos bruožai: feodalizmo epocha, iki aštuonioliktojo amžiaus, Vilnius, Mokslas, 1981. Karttunen Liisi, Antonio Possevino: Un diplomate pontifical au XVIe siècle, Lausanne, PacheVaridel & Bron, 1908. Kiaupa Zigmantas, Lietuvos istorija iki 1795 metų, Vilnius, Vilspa, 2000. Korolko Mirosław, O prozie "Kazań sejmowych" Piotra Skargi, Warszawa, Pax, 1971. Kot Stanisław, La réforme dans le Grand-Duché de Lithuanie: facteur d'occidentalisation culturelle, Bruxelles, s.n., 1953. Kristeller Paul Oskar, Marsilio Ficino and his work after five hundred years, Firenze, Olschki, 1987. 175

Kuolys, Darius, "Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus istorinis pasakojimas: Respublikos kūrimas", in Darius Kuolys (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004, p. 368 – 410. Kuolys Darius, Asmuo, Tauta, Valstybė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės istorinėje literatūroje, Vilnius, Mokslo ir Enciklopedijų Leidykla, 1992. Kuolys, Darius (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol I, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2003. Kuolys, Darius (ed.), Lietuvos Istorijos Įvairenybės, vol II, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004. Kuolys Darius, Res Lituana. Kunigaikštystės Bendrija, vol I, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2009. Lecler Joseph, Storia della tolleranza nel secolo della Riforma, vol 1, Brescia, Morcelliana, 1967. Lefebvre Henri, La fin de l'histoire, Paris, Editions de Minuit, 1970. Löwith Karl, Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1949. Lukàcs Laslò, “Die nordischen papstlichen Seminarien und P. Possevino 1577 – 1587”, in ARSI, XXIV (1955), vol 47, p. 33 – 94. Lukšaitė Ingė (ed.), Lietuvos publicistai valstiečių klausimu XVI a. pabaigoje-XVII a. pirmoje pusėje, Vilnius, Lietuvos TSR mokslų akademijos istorijos institutas, 1976. Lukšaitė Ingė (ed.), Lietuvos pedagoginės minties raida XVI-XVIIa. kultūros veikėjų raštuose, Kaunas, Šviesa, 1991. Lukšaitė Ingė, Reformacija Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje ir Mažojoje Lietuvoje: XVI a. trečias dešimtmetis - XVII a. pirmas dešimtmetis, Vilnius, Baltos lankos, 1999. Lūžys Sigitas et al. (eds.), XV-XVI amžių knygos Kauno bibliotekose, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2006. Maffia Scariati Irene, A scuola con ser Brunetto: indagini sulla ricezione di Brunetto Latini dal Medioevo al Rinascimento: atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, universita di Basilea, 8-10 giugno 2006, Firenze, Edizioni del Galluzzo per la Fondazione Ezio Franceschini, 2008. Maggini Francesco, La rettorica italiana di Brunetto Latini, Firenze, Galletti e Cocci, 1912. Mannhardt Francis, “Bollandus”, in Churc Historians. Papers of the American Catholic Historical Association, vol I, 1926, p. 190 – 226. Maravall José Antonio, “Maquiavelo y Maquiavelismo en España”, Boletin de la real academia de la historia, 165 (1969), p. 183 – 218. Martin Nicholas, Schiller: national poet, poet of nations, Amsterdam-New York, Rodopi, 2006. 176

Martinez Marina, Teoria de las Cortes o grandes juntas nacionales de los Reinos de Leon y Castilla, Madrid, Fermin Villalpando, 1813. Matusas-Sedauskas Jonas, “Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius kaip Lietuvos istorininkas”, Praeitis, 1930, I, p. 323 – 328. Matusas-Sedauskas Jonas, “Ar Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius buvo garsus Lietuvos istorininkas ir patriotas?”, in Tiesos Kelias, 1929, I, p. 252 – 255. Mialaret Gaston, Vial Jean (ed.), Histoire Mondiale de l'Education, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1981. Milosz Czeslaw, Storia della letteratura polacca, Bologna, CSEO, 1983. Morse Ruth, Truth and convention in the Middle Ages: rhetoric, representation, and reality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991. Mousnier Roland, L’Assasinat d’Henri IV: le problème du tyrannicide et l’affermissement de la monarchie absolue, Paris, Gallimard, 1964. Narbutas Sigitas (ed.), Albertas Vijūkas-Kojalavičius iš 400 metų perspektyvos, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2009. Narbutas Sigitas et al. (eds.), XV-XVI a. Lietuvos lotyniškų knygų sąrašas, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2002. Narbutas Sigitas et al. (eds.), XVII a. Lietuvos lotyniškų knygų sąrašas, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998. Narbutienė Daiva, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos lotiniškoji knyga XV-XVII a., Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004. Narbutienė Daiva et al. (eds.), XVI-XVII a. lituanika Lietuvos mokslų akademijos bibliotekoje, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2007. Norkus Zenonas, Istorika: Istorinis Ivadas, Vilnius, Taura, 1996. Pakalniškienė Loreta, “Albertas Kojalavičius-Vijukas”, Tarp knygų, 2009, n.9, p. 25 – 29. Patiejūnienė Eglė, Brevitas ornata: Mažosios lireteratūros formos XVI-XVII amžiaus Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės spaidiniuose, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998. Pavone Sabina, Le astuzie dei gesuiti. Le false istruzioni segrete della Compagnia di Gesù e la polemica antigesuita nei secoli XVII e XVIII, Roma, Salerno, 2000. Perez Prendes J. M., Cortes de Castilla, Barcelona, Ariel, 1974. Petrauskienė Irena, Vilniaus akademijos spaustuvė, 1575-1773, Vilnius, Mokslas, 1976 Piechnik Ludwik (ed.), Dzieje Akademii Wileńskiej, vol I: Początki Akademii Wileńskiej 15701599, Rzym, Institutum Historicum S. I., 1984. 177

Pierling Paulus, Antonii Possevini missio moscovita ex annuis litteris societatis Jesu / excerpta et adnotationibus illustrata curante Paulo Pierling accedit cardinalis comensis memorandum de missionibus exteris, Paris, Ernestum Leroux, 1882. Pierling Paulus, Bathory et Possevino: documents inédits sur les rapports du Saint-Siège avec les Slaves, Paris, Ernestum Leroux, 1887. Pierling Paulus, La Russie et le Saint-Siège, Paris, Plon-Nourrit, 1901 – 1912. Pierling Paulus, Un arbitrage Pontifical au XVIe entre Pologne et la Russie. Mission diplomatique du P. Possevino S. J. 1581-1582, Bruxelles, w.n., 1890. Plečkaitis Romanas, Lietuvos filosofijos istorija, vol I, Vilnius, Kultūros, filosofijos ir meno institutas, 2004. Počiūtė Dainora, Maištininkų Katedros. Ankstyvoji Reformacija ir Lietuvių-Italų Evangelikų Ryšiai, Vilnius, Versus Aureus, 2008. Polčin Stanislas, La mission religieuse du pere Antoine Possevin S.J. en Moscovie (1581-152), Roma, Tipografia Univeritaria Gregoriana, 1957. Porębski Mieczysław, Jan Matejko. Die Predigt des Skarga, Warsaw, Auriga, 1965. Rabikauskas Paulius, Vilnius Akademija ir Lietuvos Jėzuitai, Vilnius, Aidai, 2002. Recaséns Siches Luis, La Filosofía del Derecho de Francisco Suárez, con un estudio previo sobre sus antecedentes en la patrística y en la escolástica, Madrid, Jus, 1927. Reklaitis Povilas, “Maciej Stryjkowski ein polnischer Dichter und Historiker Litauens”, in Zeitschrift für Ostforschung, 1986, 35, p. 406 – 413. Reklaitis Povilas, “Maciej Stryjkowski als Historiker Litauens”, in Litauisches Jahrestagung, 1986, p. 1 – 18. Rinkūnaitė Aušra, Bibliotheca Sapiehana. Vilniaus universiteto bibliotekos rinkinys katalogas, Vilnius, 2010. Rouse Ruth and Neill Stephen C. (eds.), Storia del movimento ecumenico dal 1517 al 1948, vol I, Bologna, il Mulino, 1973. Rostowski Stanisław, Lituanicarum Societatis Jesu historiarum libri decem, Parisiis – Bruxellis, 1877. Saloni Alfredo, Storia della Pedagogia, Bologna, Leonardi, 1969 – 1978. Sani Roberto (ed.), Educazione e istituzioni scolastiche nell'Italia moderna, (secoli XV-XIX). testi e documenti, Milan, I.S.U., 1999. Santi Giorgio, Agostino d'Ippona filosofo, Roma, Lateran university press, 2003. Sermonti Vittorio, L' Inferno di Dante, Milano, CDE, 1989.

178

Sommervogel Carlos, Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jézus, vol I-X, Bruxelles – Paris, 1890 – 1909. Susta Josef, “Loyolas Selbstbiographie”, Mitteil des Inst. f. Osterrich. Geschichsforsch, 1905, n. 26, p. 45 – 67. Tereškinas Artūras, Imperfect Communities, Vilnius, Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2005. Theiner Augustin, Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae, Rome, Typis Vaticanis, 1861. Thierry Augustin, Lettres sur l'histoire de France, Paris, Garnier Freres, 1840. Thompson Francis J., “Gregory Tsamblak. The Man and the Myths”, Slavica Gandensiana, 25/2, 1998, p. 11 – 85. Toffanin Giuseppe, Machiavelli e il "Tacitismo": la "politica storica" al tempo della controriforma, Padova, Angelo Draghi, 1921. Tondis A., Jėzuitai, Vilnius, Valstybinė Politinės ir Mokslinės Literatūros Lidykla, Vilnius, 1961. Totoraitis Jonas, “Albertas Vijukas Kojalavičius”, Tiesos Kelias, 1, section B, 1928, p. 15 – 18. Truskauskaitė Vitalija, “Skrydžio rekonstrukcija. Jėzuitų baroko teatras,” in Darbai ir Dienos, n. 37, 2004, p. 205 – 213. Ulčinaitė Eugenija, “Jėzuitiškoji Tarnavimo Dievui Doktrina Alberto Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus Raštuose”, in Narbutas Sigitas, Narbutienė Daiva (eds.), Albertas Vijūkas-Kojalavičius iš 400 metų perspektyvos, Vilnius, Lietuvių Literatūros ir Tautosakos Institutas, 2009, p. 43 – 56. Ulčinaitė Eugenija, Lietuvos jėzuitų teatras: XVI-XVIII amžiaus. Dramų rinktinė, Vilnius, Lietuvių Litertūros ir Tautosakos institutas, 2008. Ulčinaitė Eugenija, Lietuvos Renesanso ir Baroko literatūra, VU sp., 2001. Ulčinaitė Eugenija and Jovaišas Albinas (eds.), Lietuvių Literatūros istorija: XIII-XVIII amžiaus, Vilnius, Lietuvių Litertūros ir Tautosakos institutas, 2003. Ulčinaitė Eugenija, “Mokyklinis jėzuitų teatras – politinio Lietuvos Didžosios Kunigaikštystės teatro dalis”, Litertūra, 2004, n. 46 (3), p. 80 – 85. Vaišvilaitė Irena, Baroko pradžia Lietuvoje, Vilnius, Vilniaus akademijos leidykla, 1995. Goštautas Stasys, “Hispanų humanistas Petras Roizijus Vilniuje (1551-1571)”, in Vaškelis Bronius (ed), Lituanistikos instituto 1979 metų suvažiavimo darbai : Vilniaus Universitetas, 15791979, Chicago, Lituanistikos institutas, 1981, p. 45 – 59. Villari Rosario, Elogio della Dissimulazione, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 1987. Wandycz Piotr, Il prezzo della libertà, Bologna, il Mulino, 2001.

179

Witschi-Bernz Astrid, “Main Trends in Historical-Method Literature: Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries”, History and Theory, XII, 1972, p. 51 – 90. Zanlonghi Giovanna, “La psicologia e il teatro nella riflessione gesuitica europea del CinqueSeicento”, Memorandum, 2003, 4, p. 61 – 85. Zaborskaitė Vanda, “Renesanso Kultūros apraiškos M. Stryjkovskio Kronikoje,” in Lietuvos TSR Mokslų akademijos darbai, ser. A, 2 (12), 1965, p. 73 – 89. Žulys Vladas, “A. Vijūkas-Kojelavičius ir jo ‘Lietuvos istorija’”, Pergalė, 11, 1959, p. 149 – 161.

180

PUBLICATIONS ON THE DISSERTATION THEME Article in a journal refereed in international databases:

Bonda Moreno. Albert Wijuk-Koialowicz as a Jesuit Historian. – Darbai ir dienos, 2008 (49), p. 45–68. ISSN 1392-0588 (CEOL, Central & Eastern European Academic Source, TOC Premier).

Articles in other reviewed scientific journals:

Bonda Moreno. The Karaites of Lithuania: Essay on the Methodology of Historical Research Applied to the Study of Ethnic Identity. – Vēsture X. Vēsture: AVOTI un CILVĒKI. Proceedings of the 16th International Scientific readings of the Faculty of Humanities. History X. Daugalvils: Saule, 2007, p. 32–40. ISBN – 9984–14–339–2. Bonda Moreno. Jesuit’s Historiography in Early Modern Europe. – Kultūras Krustpunkti: Latvijas Kultūras akadēmijas zinātnisko rakstu krājums, 4. Laidiens, Riga, 2008, p. 32–41. ISSN 1691– 3019.

181