The Uniate Church and the Partitions of Poland: Religious Survival in an Age of Enlightened Absolutism Author(S): LARRY WOLFF Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol

The President and Fellows of Harvard College

The Uniate Church and the Partitions of Poland: Religious Survival in an Age of Enlightened Absolutism Author(s): LARRY WOLFF Source: Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1/4, Ukrainian Church History (2002-2003), pp. 153-244 Published by: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41036852 . Accessed: 07/10/2014 11:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and The President and Fellows of Harvard College are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Ukrainian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The UniateChurch and the Partitions of Poland: ReligiousSurvival in an Age of EnlightenedAbsolutism*

LARRY WOLFF

Introduction: Disunion withinthe Union

"We are experiencing disunion within the Union itself," observed Iason SmohozhevsTcyi (Jason Smogorzewski), the Uniate archbishop of Polatsk (Polock), in May 1774. "The body of the Uniates is split into so many completely differentparts, and subject to diverse heads."1 In fact, the aspects of disunion were manifold.Principally, there was the veryrecent shock of the first partitionof Poland in 1772, which transformedthe Union all at once froma religious phenomenonof the Polish-LithuanianCommonwealth to an interna- tional Church in the Russian and Habsburg empires,as well as in the remains of the Commonwealth.The Uniates were now subject to the "crowned heads" of Catherine,Maria Theresa, Joseph,and Stanislaw August. At the same time, the lines of ecclesiastical authoritywithin the Uniate Church were "split," as the demarcations of partitionfragmented the domain of the metropolitanate withoutcorresponding to the diocesan boundaries. SmohozhevsTcyiwas now a subject of CatherineII and already knew he was cut offfrom the authorityof the metropolitanacross the border in Poland. When SmohozhevsTcyihimself became metropolitanin the 1780s and left Russia behind him, he would be similarlysevered fromhis formerdiocese of Polatsk. In 1774, however,there

* This studyis dedicatedto thememory of OmeljanPritsak, my professor when I was an undergraduatestudent at Harvardin the1970s; he was alwaysa sourceof profoundly eruditeguidance and generousencouragement to me as a scholar,and especiallyfor the researchand writingof thisstudy of theUniate Church. I am also gratefulfor the suggestions,advice, encouragement and criticism of John-Paul Himka, David Frick,Barbara Skinner,and VirginiaReinburg.

HarvardUkrainian Studies XXVI (1-4) 2002-2003: 153-244.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 154 WOLFF was also disunion withinthe Uniate hierarchy(as SmohozhevsTcyiwell knew, forhe had vainlyattempted to mediate),and disputedauthority among some of the bishops had reached such a heat thatthey raided each other's ecclesiastical propertieswhile postingfurious accusations and counteraccusationsto theVati- can. Althoughthat divisive struggle was, to a certainextent, the product of highly particularpersonalities and circumstances,there was nothingaccidental about the mountingfundamental tensions between the privileged and prosperousBasilian orderof Uniate monks and the downtroddensecular clergywho attendedto the parish flocks.All these factorsof "disunion withinthe Union" were especially debilitatingat a time when the Uniates faced the most grave externalpressures as well: the nationalizingpressure of enlightenedstates and the proselytizing pressureof rival religions. SmohozhevsTcyicarried himself very carefully in May 1774, and, rightafter notingthe problem of "diverseheads," he recordedthe celebration of Catherine's birthday(2 May) in his own church,followed by a dinnerin his own home. That same firstweek of May ended with the festival of St. Stanislaw, which the archbishopalso celebrateduntil midnight in honorof his patronand former sovereign,the king of Poland. He obtained Russian officialpermission for this party,and, hopingthat no one would be offendedby his markingof theoccasion, he included importantlocal Russians on the guest list. When SmohozhevsTcyi designatedthe splittingof the "body of the Uniates" he was probablyconscious of theimplied analogy betweenthe religious body of his Churchand thepolitical body of partitionedPoland. Throughoutthe last quarterof theeighteenth century theirfates would obviously be analogous and, at the same time, quite subtly interrelated.The Uniate archbishop,who had just theweek beforecelebrated the festivalof a Roman Catholic saintin an Orthodoxstate, could have contemplated - thepolitical implications of theeleventh-century martyrdom of St. Stanislaw his body dismemberedand thenmiraculously recomposed. Yet, if SmohozhevsTcyi meditatedon miracles, he was neverthelessan ecclesiastical statesmanfully attunedto the pragmaticimplications of worldlypolitics for religious affairs. First as archbishopof Polatsk under Russian rule after1772, and then as the Uniate metropolitanin the Commonwealthfrom 1779 untilhis death in 1788, SmohozhevsTcyiconfronted perhaps more directly and comprehensivelythan any otherUniate leader the changingpolitical circumstancesthat followed the first partitionof Poland. His perspectiveon Uniate disunion will serve as the focus forthis analysis of the Uniate Churchin the age of the Polish partitions. The last quarterof theeighteenth century constitutes an historicallycoherent period in the historyof the Uniate Church,albeit a coherence of disunion.This periodizationrests on the chronologicalframework of the Polish partitions,for it was the dramaticinternational and political changes of 1772, 1793, and 1795 thatconditioned the cultural and religiouscrisis of the Uniates. The foundingof

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 155 the Uniate Churchat the Union of Brestof 1596 occurredunder the sovereignty and sponsorshipof the Commonwealth; the period fromPoland's humiliation in 1772 to Poland's eliminationin 1795 witnessed the weaning of the Uniates fromtheir fundamentally Polish political frameworkand, ultimately,the cutting of theirconnection to the Commonwealth.At the same time this was the age of the French Revolution in which the ancien régime of early modernEurope faced the rumblingsof modernity,and the Uniate Church was no exception in its experience of transitionaldevelopment at this historicaljuncture. Recent historicalscholarship on the Uniates has included an importantnew account of theUnion of 1596, Crisis and Reformby Borys Gudziak, publishedin 1998, and a similarlysignificant revisionist study of the Uniates in the nineteenthcentury, Religion and Nationalityin WesternUkraine by John-PaulHimka, published in 1999. Most recently,in 2005, Barbara Skinnerhas published a pathbreaking article,"Borderlands of Faith,"evaluating the religious tensions between Ortho- dox and Uniates in the 1760s.2 The crucial period of transitionfrom the early modernestablishment of the Union in thePolish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to the modernnational development of the Uniates in Ukraine occurredin the late eighteenthcentury, the age of the Polish partitions. The Uniate Churchwas dramaticallyaffected by theunprecedented instability of politicalgeography caused by thepartitions, as territorieschanged sovereignty accordingto the diplomaticnegotiations of the partitioningpowers. The Uniate Churchmeasured its fragmentation in dioceses, and alreadyin 1772 thoseof Lviv and Przemysl(Peremyshl) were of the portionassigned to Austria,whereas the archbishopricof Polatsk lay in thelands of Belarus claimed by CatherineII. The division of the Churchamong threedifferent sovereignties - Austrian,Russian, - and Polish was traumaticenough in view of the fact thatthe whole history of the Uniates to thatpoint was barely conceivable apart fromthe sponsorship of the Commonwealth.In 1793 and 1795, however,when the Commonwealth ceased to exist altogether,the dioceses of Volodymyr,Lutsk, Chelm (Kholm), Kam'ianets, Pinsk,and Brest,as well as themetropolitan diocese of Kyiv,found - themselvesin eitherRussia or Austria withadditional bits gratuitously assigned to Prussia, includingthe importantBasilian monasteryat Suprasl. This unstablegeopolitical base createdin itselfserious problems of ecclesiastical adaptation,but in factthe partitioners' appropriation of dioceses was reallythe moststraightforward aspect of theUniate circumstances.Changing sovereignties broughtwith them radically disruptive eighteenth-century intrusions of stateupon Church,in bothAustria and Russia, while the whole period also was punctuated by intervalsof potentpressure at the parish level to leave the Union altogether. These disturbancesoccurred not only in the newly annexed lands of Orthodox Russia, but also in the Poland of Stanislaw August,where CatherineII retained a dominantinfluence after 1772. At the close of each interval,however, when

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 156 WOLFF pressureto apostatize was lifted,there was a returnto the fold of the Union. In additionto thisperiodic ebb and flow betweenOrthodoxy and Union, therealso were thoseUniates who chose to escape thatalternative by anchoringthemselves somewhatmore stably in theRoman CatholicChurch. The Vaticanitself officially disapprovedof this"transit" from the Union, but Rome's effectivecontrol over ecclesiastical activities in the relevantregions was distinctlylimited. Such a high degree of religious motilityon the parish level, set in the contextof the diocesan rearrangementsdictated by the partitions,made of the Uniate Church in the late eighteenthcentury something virtually kaleidoscopic in its divisions, variations,and permutations. The problems and pressures that the Uniates experienced under Russian sovereigntyafter 1772, and also in Poland as a consequence of Russian influence, guaranteedthat nineteenth-century Church historianswould make their accounts intochronicles of persecution,forced apostasy, and martyrdom,inevi- tablyreminding their readers of thesuffering and survivalof theearly Christians. Edward Likowski,a professorat theRoman Catholic seminaryin Poznan, wrote thus of the death of CatherineII in 1796: "The eternalJudge called her to the justice of His judgmentseat so thatshe mightaccount forthe rivers of blood and tearsthat flowed during her reign from millions of Uniates, solely on account of theirreligious conviction."3Iuliian Pelesh, the rectorof the Uniate seminaryin Vienna and ultimatelya Uniate bishop,attributed the misfortunes of the Uniates to "thehellish arts of a Catherineor a Nicholas."4 The nineteenth-centuryworks of Likowski and Pelesh remain importantfor any twentieth-centuryhistorical studyof theeighteenth-century Uniate Church,but theytake forgranted certain historiographicalperspectives that in factmay be anachronisticallyinappropriate forinterpreting the period in question; The demonological referenceto Catherine's"hellish arts"might be noted as hyperbolic,along withthe riversof blood and tears,but more subtlyproblem- - atic is Likowski's interpretationof the persecutionof the Uniates "solely on accountof theirreligious conviction" - especially takentogether with the casual conflationby Pelesh of the reigns and aims of CatherineII and Nicholas I. It was Tsar Nicholas who finallyand decisively did away withthe Uniate Church in the Russian Empire in 1839, and Likowski and Pelesh in the laternineteenth century,interpreting Catherine II in the lightof her grandson,stressed religious and also nationalistmotivations. The late eighteenthcentury, however, must be taken on its own historiographicalterms, and not investedanachronistically withthe modernspirit of mingledreligion and nationalism.For if CatherineII, withher generallyirreligious inclinations, is interpretedas a Russian Orthodox crusader,then it becomes difficultto appreciatethe characteristicresponses of the enlightenedabsolutist state to the issue of religious diversity. The historianmust refrain from fitting eighteenth-century developments into

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 157 a schema of tragicdestiny that depends on hindsightinstead of history: Nicholas I at the end of every vista, with Stalin lurkingbehind him. The extraordinary resurgence(as the UkrainianGreek Catholic Church) of the Uniate Church in Ukrainein the 1990s may serve as a caution against any unilinealor determinist perspectiveon Uniate history,and a reminderthat political upheaval, as in the 1790s, may have volatile religiousconsequences. Taking theeighteenth century on its own terms yields a distinctive historiographicalagenda with a set of interrelatedarguments. First, the consequences of the Polish partitionsfor the Uniate Churchdid not develop as partof a granddesign, but,quite thecontrary, were the improvisedresponses, withinthe Uniate Church and without,to the unprecedentedshock of the partitions.Second, though Catherine became the "hellish" nemesis of the Uniates, while Maria Theresa and JosephII were hailed as its beneficentpatrons and saviors, in factthe divergentAustrian and Russian approaches to the Uniate Church grew out of startlinglysimilar principles: the characteristicenlightened ("Josephinist") interventionof the state in Church affairs.Third, while hindsightmay reveal Russian Orthodoxyas themortal enemy of the Uniate Church,late eighteenth-centuryUniates, even withinthe Russian Empire,were oftenat least equally apprehensiveabout the possibly aggressive intentionsof Roman Catholicism,especially of the Polish hierarchyand the not quite suppressedJesuit order. Finally,one findsin the Uniate Church of the late eighteenthcentury not so much the utterlycommitted self-certainty of theearly Christianswho embraced theirmartyrdoms, but rather a profoundcrisis of identitythat reflected the "disunion in the Union." There was religious ambivalence in every stratumof the - UniateChurch thebishops, the Basilians, theparish priests, the local laity- and also uncertaintyfrom without, as outsiders- Russian and Polish, Orthodoxand - Roman consulted theirown interestsin seeking to identifya religious com- munityas itwrestled with the dilemma of identifyingitself. Those intervalsduring which hundredsof Uniate parishes leftthe Union and thenreturned again, back and forth,according to the pressuresof the moment,made the issue of identity - all the more urgentto contemporaries and it remainssimilarly challenging to historians.This studyseeks to outlinethe historical problems in theireighteenth- centurydimensions, especially as perceived withinthe Uniate hierarchyand in correspondencewith the Vatican. It also is importantto emphasize the need for furtherresearch on manyof these problems,especially on Catherine'sreligious policy, as reflectedin the Russian archives, and on the social historyof the religious and communitylife of the Uniate populations. "In truth,"observed Smohozhevsicyiin 1774, "all the evils and everydanger now seems to be enveloped in theperplexity ofthat one littleword: Catholics."5 It is true thatthe Russian authoritiesdid not always recognize the Uniates as Catholics, butSmohozhevsicyi also was oftenpreoccupied withthe "perplexity"

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 158 WOLFF of theUniates themselvesin regardto theirown Catholicism.Even a bishop like SmohozhevsTcyimight be theologicallyambivalent about the Uniate religious compromise between Orthodoxyand Catholicism, but those at the top of the hierarchydid not hesitateto attributethe uncertainidentity of the lower clergy and theirflocks to a lamentable"ignorance." The problemof "ignorance"came up constantlythroughout the period, along with a likewise reiteratedconcern about education. In this respect the preoccupationsof the Uniate Church cor- respondedto those of the period in general. The call for education among the Uniates coincided and intersectedwith the reformsof the National Education Commission in Poland, the controversialcontinuation of the Jesuitschools in Russia, and the Josephinistintervention in religious education in Austria.The importanceof education,both secular and religious,was emphasized throughout Europe in the age of the Enlightenment.In the case of the Uniates it was seen as significantfor the consolidation of religious identity.While the firstpart of thisstudy will explore changingreligious circumstances as an issue of relations between Church and state,the second partwill focus on the relevance of ritual and identityfor Uniate religious survival. General ignorance,even among the parish clergy,constituted a less urgent problemfor the Uniate Church in earlymodern Poland, when a reasonablystable hierarchyof dioceses and parishes was held in place by a relativelyfunctional Polish-Lithuanian state. After 1772 the new divisions with theirconsequent pressuresencouraged the Church to putgreater emphasis on raisingthe religious consciousness of its parishclergy and peasant constituents.The attentionsof the hierarchyin theUniate Church to theproverbial wiara chlopskaor "peasantfaith" of its memberswould have theultimate effect of openingup theChurch's social and culturalcircumscription, making possible a broadernational and religious engagementof society in the nineteenthcentury. In Rome in 1773, at the missionarycongregation of the Propaganda Fide, the committeeof cardinals considered the need for "concord" so that"in such dangeroustimes as these the Uniate RuthenianChurch may be spared the scan- dals and divisions thatcan cause it infiniteharm."6 The term"Ruthenian" was employed throughoutthis period to designate the Uniate Church, its rituals and its populations,from Belarus to Ukraine. Though the name was hardlyan expressionof modernnationalism, its usage hopefullyassigned to the Uniates a certaincultural coherence in the face of so many imposed divisions. The hope of bringingconcord out of division at this point, in 1773, seemed almost to reflecta nostalgia forthe early modernpolitical and religious orderin Poland thatcould neveragain be recovered.The particularscandal underdiscussion was the squabbling among the Uniate bishops,but thatwas only one of themanifold contemporaryforms of disunion,menacing "infinite harm" in "dangeroustimes." Concord was perhaps beyond recovery,but in exploringits own divisions and

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 159

addressingitself to the identityof its constituents,the Uniate Church in the late eighteenthcentury also confrontedthe challenges thatappeared at thethreshold of modernEuropean history.

Part I: Church and State

Principlesof Authority In 1782 Tsarina CatherineII gave her Warsaw ambassador a message forPope Pius VI, insistingthat he create a Roman Catholic archbishopricin Russia for herextremely cooperative pet bishop, Stanislaw Siestrzeñcewicz.The pope was to be informed,in no uncertainterms, that if he did not swallow his objections to Siestrzeñcewicz and promptlyprovide the ceremonial regalia for the grand promotion,the tsarinawould not hesitateto withdrawher protectionfrom the Catholic Church in Russia. The consequences, Catherinepointed out, would be particularlygrave forthe Uniates who resided in the Belarusian lands detached fromPoland in 1772:

The Pope himselfcan notbe ignorantof thefact that most of thosewho professthe Roman communion under my government ofWhite Russia were onceof our Orthodox religion, and that they and their ancestors only adopted theRoman communion on accountof thepersecution they experienced in Polandand theartifices of Romanpriests. Under these circumstances, themajority of themawait only the least signal to embraceour Orthodox religion,which they abandoned with regret and of whichthey retain many tracesand vestigesin theirhearts - a religionwhose dogmas are all the moreprecious to humanityinasmuch as theyhave neverbeen foundin contradictionwith the principles of authorityand civilpower, nor with the well-beingand theadministration (la police) of states.7

The tsarina'sreading of Uniatehistory was simplistic,one-sided, and self-serving, but not so wildly offthe mark as to fail to put across her basic point: thatthe balance of power in the region, which had favoredPoland and Catholicism at the time of the Union in 1596, had now shifteddecisively in favor of Russia and Orthodoxy.For Catherinethe past history,current crisis, and futurefate of the Uniates was, above all, a question of power. Her interestin the "traces and vestiges in theirhearts" suggested thatshe was attunedto the political significance of Uniate religious identity.For Orthodoxy,which she claimed to discern vestigiallyin the Union, revealed its preciousness in its relationto "principles of authority"and "the administrationof states." These were, of course, the great political issues of enlightenedabsolutism in eighteenth-centuryEurope, and they were particularlysensitive in empires

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 160 WOLFF confrontinga diversityof culturaland religious communities.Catherine in the 1770s immediatelyaddressed the administrativeproblems raised by her acquisitions fromPoland, and remained attuned to the religious ramificationsof those problemsthroughout her reign. In the 1780s, the Josephinerevolution in the Habsburg relationsbetween Church and state also addressed these issues of authorityand civil power. In the 1790s, at the Four-Year Sejm, the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth reorganized its religious institutionsin the same spiritof state authorityand governmentinvolvement - a spiritnot altogether unrelatedto thatof the simultaneouslycodified Civil Constitutionof the Clergy in revolutionaryFrance. Whateverthe evolving religious climates for the Uniate Church- nourishingin Austria,harassing in Russia, ambivalentin Poland- the fundamentalinstitutional engagement of Churchby statewas structurallysimilar. The termsof thatengagement were definedaccording to the values of enlightened absolutism, by the governmentsin Vienna, St. Petersburg,and Warsaw pursuinganalogous political agendas, howeverdivergent the ultimatereligious consequences.

Pacification CatherineII, fromthe moment she cast her imperialeye on Poland in the 1760s, was inspiredto presentherself as theenlightened patroness of religiousfreedom against the alleged intoleranceof the Commonwealth.Voltaire led the pack of philosophes who acclaimed her imperial policy of power as a crusade of the Enlightenment.From the very start of thereign of King StanislawAugust, whose royalelection Catherine arranged in 1764, she began to interferein Polish affairs witha memorandumto Warsaw favoringthe equality of civil rightsfor Poland's non-Catholics,the Dissidents. This was framedas a demandfor legislative equal- itypresented to the Sejm in 1766, and formalizedin an imposed Russian-Polish treatyas thereligious articlesof 1768. Catherine thus gave satisfactionto her own Russian Orthodox hierarchy inasmuch as she offeredprotection to the Orthodox peasant population in the eastern lands of the Commonwealth. For Orthodoxy,like Protestantism,was "dissident" in Catholic Poland, and Orthodox grievances targeted not just Catholic dominance by law in the Commonwealth,but the ongoing pastoral strugglebetween Orthodoxand Uniates thatdated back to the Union of 1596. The Uniate Church did not springfully formed from the Union of Brest: such dioceses as Lviv and Przemysl remained Orthodox throughthe seventeenth century,and duringthe firsthalf of the eighteenthcentury the Union continued to aggrandizeitself among thecommunities of Ukraineunder the sponsorship of theCommonwealth. In thearticles of 1768 Catherinedetermined to set back this ongoingdisplacement of Orthodoxyby theUnion, and a tribunalwas proposedto

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 16 1 settledisputes withreference to the statusquo of a hundredyears ago. Political explosions forestalledsuch a resolutionat thattime, but Catherinealready had elaboratedthe perspectivethat would lead her laterto denounce the Uniates for "persecution"of the Orthodox. The mountingtensions of the 1760s finallyerupted into warfare in 1768 when Catherine'streaty articles on behalfof theDissidents provoked patriotic Catholic Poles to take up arms in theConfederation of Bar, to fightagainst their own king and his Russian patroness. For Catherinethis quickly turnedinto a two-front war against the OttomanEmpire as well as the Polish Confederation.Therefore Ukraine,the heartland of the Uniate Church,became strategicallycentral terrain between Turkeyand Poland, and was overrunby Russian troops.This Russian militarypresence in the lands of the Commonwealthcreated a domain in which Warsaw could not hope to governor protectits subjects. At the same time there was unleashed an Orthodox missionarycrusade against the Uniate parishes of Ukraine, led by the bishop of Pereiaslav frombeyond the Dnieper River, and also a campaign of insurrectionaryviolence directedagainst Roman Catholics, Uniates, and Jews, led by Haidamak bands. This latterviolence culminatedin the Uman massacre, afterwhich Catherinefelt obliged to dissociate herselfand her state fromsuch irregularatrocities. It was, however,precisely the presence of the Russian armythat made possible these irregularities,and, if she did not actuallyincite and encourage them,they certainly helped to create a convenient politicalvoid and chaos in thosestrategic lands whichshe intendedto occupy for the durationof hostilities.Indeed, one of the Orthodoxincitements to violence was a forgedukaz fromCatherine.8 WithRussian troopscanceling Polish government,and Haidamak bands add- ing an elementof terror,the Orthodoxmissionary effort met withgreat success. Uniate priestswere pressuredto go over to Orthodoxyand bringtheir parishes withthem, while those who resistedwere expelled and replaced. Thus began in 1768 a period of intensepressure on the Uniate Church which did not begin to abate untilafter the partitionof 1772, and did not finallycease untilthe treaty settlementof 1775. During this period more than a thousand Uniate parishes in Ukraine were taken over by Orthodox priests. Missionaries, however, did not achieve these impressiveresults entirely on theirown, forRussian soldiers activelycollaborated in thecrusade. At Bila Tserkva,for instance, the Orthodox priestVasyl' Zrazhevslcyiand the Russian captain Kruglov worked togetherto arrestall the local Uniate priestson ChristmasEve and keep them locked up throughChristmas Day.9 Such local teamworkreflected the presumed collabora- tion at the highestlevel between Hervazii LyntsevsTcyi,the Orthodox bishop of Pereiaslav, and General Rumiantsev,the Russian commander in Ukraine. Catherine formalized the religious role of her army in Ukraine with an ukaz

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 162 WOLFF of 1771 thatauthorized the protectionof Orthodox communitiesfrom Uniate persecution.Thus, she continuedto presentherself as thechampion of religious freedom. Regardless of who was actually the object of persecution(and by 1771 the balance alreadyhad shiftedagainst the Uniates), the point was Catherine'sofficial approval, indeed mandating,of the arbitrationand interferenceof her military officials.In 1768 she had involved herselfin Polish religious affairsby bilat- eral treaty;now she did so by unilateraldecree. In fact,in 1771 it almost was meaninglessto speak of Poland's sovereigntyin Ukraine:the war was ongoing, the partitionunder negotiation.Under these circumstances,for the duration, Catherine could issue decrees against Uniate persecution,her soldiers could arrestUniate priests,and her missionariescould take over Uniate parishes.The Warsaw nuncio,Giuseppe Garampi,was tryingto keep a carefulaccount of the lost parishes,but recognized in 1772 thatit would be impossible to thinkabout restitutionuntil after the "pacification"of Poland.10The religious crisis of the Uniate Church in Ukraine between 1768 and 1772 accompanied the course of Catherine'sPolish policy,from the war against the Confederationof Bar to the diplomacy of the partitionsettlement. While the massacre of Uman became a byword for anti-Catholicterror in Ukraine^it was above all theimprisonment at Berdychivthat came to epitomize theviolent persecution of theUniate Churchby theRussian army.There, in 1772 and 1773, sixty-eightUniate priestswere jailed, and in 1774 the Uniate bishop of Chelm, MaksymiliianRyllo (Maximilian Rylo), who was touringUkraine to visit ecclesiastical prisoners,was himselfimprisoned at Berdychiv.The case of the sixty-eightpriests received considerable attention,with reports reaching Garampi at theWarsaw nunciaturethat the prisoners were chained, starved,and confinedtogether in a suffocatinglyinadequate space; the affairwas publicized in somethingof the mannerof the Black Hole of Calcutta twentyyears before. The nuncio appealed to King Stanislaw August and also to Empress Maria Theresa in Vienna, while sendingthe prisoners copies of St. Cyprian's Exhorta- tion to Martyrdom.The Uniate metropolitansent a Polish translationfor those captive priestswho could not read the Exhortatioin Latin; theywere not,after all, Roman Catholics.11 Martyrdom,however, was not the ultimateoutcome. The priestswere liber- ated in September 1773 at the recommendationof the Russian ambassador in Warsaw,Otto Magnus Stackelberg,and just afterthe ratificationof the treaties of partitionby thePolish Sejm. Clearly,the prisoners were notdestined to follow the exhortationof St. Cyprian; the timingof theirliberation revealed that all - along theyhad been not martyrs,but hostages hostages to Catherine'sPolish policy. Once the partitionshad been ratifiedin Warsaw,Russia could begin to relax its grip on Ukraine.As forthe bishop detained in 1774, he woke up two

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 163 monthslater to discover thathis guards had disappeared,that he was freeto go. In fact,the Russian governmentdenied thathe had ever been detained,dismiss- ing the incidentas "merelya Uniate calumny."12The years since 1768 had been years of lawless bullyingin Ukraine, which remained in a state of suspended irregularitywhile Catherine foughther wars and negotiatedthe partition.By 1774, however,Catherine was ready to reconsiderthe value of orderedstability over irregularviolence. When the captive priestsof Berdychivwere liberatedin 1773, theywere not restoredto theirparishes, which remainedin the hands of the Orthodox.In this sense theliberation, though naturally a joyous occasion, was no greatinstitutional triumphfor the Uniate Church. The thousand lost parishes remained lost, for the moment.Garampi, the nuncio, was well aware of this, and in 1774 he so despaired of being able to influenceUkraine fromWarsaw thathe resortedto a mostextravagantly roundabout approach to theproblem. From Warsaw he urged the Vatican to appeal to Versailles,so thatthe Frenchking mightin turnappeal to the sultan in Constantinopleon behalf of the Uniates of Ukraine. Garampi hoped thatthe restitutionof the Uniate parishes mightbecome one of the concerns of the OttomanEmpire in its war against Russia. This peculiarlyindirect and ratherunlikely appeal was never properlylaunched, forRussia finallywon the war in 1774, and so Turkeywas in no position to realize any desiderata at all.13The scheme clearly indicated,however, Garampi's sense of the urgency of the Uniate situation,and also suggested the apparentfutility of strategiesfor achieving a remedy. When thePartition Sejm in Warsaw finallyconcluded its two-yearsession in 1775 witha general confirmationof the religious articles of 1768 on behalf of the Dissidents, the question of the parishes of Ukraine was referredto a future joint commission of Polish and Russian membership.It was to consider "the grievancesof theGreek non-Uniatesagainst the Greek Uniates and reciprocally of thelatter against the former," and thephrasing reflected Catherine's preferred emphasis on the Uniates as persecutors,only reciprocallyas persecuted. The commission,however, was neverconstituted, for by theend of 1775 theusurped parisheswere suddenlyreturning to the Union. Orthodoxpriests were set aside, while Uniate priestswho had accepted Orthodoxyunder pressure now renounced theirapostasy. Already in 1774 Ryllo, the visitingbishop, had been absolving Uniate priests fromtheir coerced apostasies- but Ryllo had been arrestedat thattime. Now in 1775 the Uniates returnedto the Union withoutobstruction, and what had seemed to promise the eliminationof the Union in Ukraine was revealed as just temporaryharassment. Like thepriests at Berdychiv,their parishes too had been held hostage- pend- ing the "pacification" and the new order in Poland. For the timingagain was unmistakable:just as the liberation of the priests followed immediatelythe

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 164 WOLFF ratificationof the partitiontreaties, so the returnof the parishes began within monthsof the conclusion of the PartitionSejm in Warsaw. Catherinerelaxed hergrip, the army ceased to intervene,and theOrthodox ecclesiastical intruders could no longer hold onto the parishes theyhad acquired. The nonchalance of Catherineas she watched the parishes of Ukraine slip back into the Union suggests thatshe was not, at thattime, dedicated to the destructionof the Uniate Church. For Catherine,the Union in Ukraine served as a convenientpressure pointin the campaign to dominatePoland.

The Mutationof TemporalDominion The person who was most articulatelyaware of the political significance of religionin Ukraineduring these years was theWarsaw nuncio Garampl. When he came to Warsaw fromRome in 1772 it seemed shockingto him thatsuch a successful Orthodox campaign could be mountedin the lands of the Catholic Commonwealth; at firstunable to believe thatWarsaw was really so powerless to resist,he triedto impress upon the king, his ministers,and finallythe representativesat the PartitionSejm the political importanceof the Uniates forPoland. In 1773 he wrote and began to circulate anonymouslya pamphlet entitledExposé of the Conditionof the Churchin Ukraine. In it he appealed on behalfof the persecutedpriests, but he also pursueda carefullyreasoned political analysis of what thatpersecution implied. Because the peasants of Ukraine were "ignorant,"Garampi feared they were "incapable of distinguishingcivil fromreligious obedience." Therefore,he reasoned, "when such a people is won for the Greek Orientalreligion, they will confuse the centerof theirreligious state,which will be St. Petersburg,with that of theirpolitical existence,which is theRepublic of Poland." Garampi,beginning to accept thatPoland was either powerless or indifferent,developed the same argumentin his 1774 suggestions foran appeal to Constantinople,insisting that "beyond religiousconsiderations there are political ones which ought to interestthat court." If the Uniates of Ukrainebecame Orthodox,they would become assets forRussian policy against Turkey."Although Russia does not care at all about leaving to the Republic of Poland dominionand sovereigntyover theterritory of Ukraine,"wrote Garampi, "the inhabitantsnonetheless will be, if necessary,like subjects,even more than subjects,of the Muscovite monarchy."14This whole analysis of "distinguishing civil fromreligious obedience," of relatingsovereignty and subjects, was both sophisticatedand prescient,too much so for the membersof the Sejm. When Garampi was lobbyingfor a formalPolish guaranteeof therights of the Uniates - in Poland, therepresentatives were "dazed and dead tired" too tiredto act on the nuncio's recommendation.15 If theVatican was disappointedat the inactionof thePolish Sejm, the Uniate Church itselfmight have been less surprised.The historyof the Union in the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 165

Commonwealthhad always been markedby thedisconcerting official concession of preeminenceto Roman Catholicism- symbolized, on the highestlevel, by theexclusion of the Uniate bishops fromthe Senate. Given thishistorical imbalance, therewas a certainirony in securingthe fate of the Uniates separatedfrom Poland withguarantees of the statusquo, forCatholicism "of bothrites," in its aspects "both materialand spiritual."Russia and Austriaboth agreed to this in the 1773 treatiesof partitionwith Poland, and both states,in theirrespectively acquired territoriesof Belarus and Galicia, treatedthese guaranteesof the status quo rathercasually. (The territoryannexed by Catherinein 1772, designatedas White Russia or Belarus, actuallycorresponds to just the easternpart of today's Belarus.) "In themanifesto proclaiming the annexation of Belarus, Catherinehad undertakento respectthe religion of its inhabitants,and in thetreaty with Poland of September 1773, she bound herselfto maintainthe statusquo withregard to theCatholic religion,"wrote the historian Isabel de Madariaga. "But theRussian tradition,"Madariaga continued,"by now well established,of dominationover the Church signifiedthat Catherine would interpretthe status quo in her own way, namely the exclusion of any independentexternal (or internal)control of ecclesiastical institutions."16Emperor Joseph II in Habsburg Galicia would be no more respectfulof the religious statusquo thanCatherine II in Belarus. From the point of view of the Vatican, there was all the differencein the world between Poland losing its Uniates to Catholic Austria and to Orthodox Russia, but fromwithin the Uniate Church both changes of sovereigntywere greeted with tactfulexpressions of confidence and optimism. In 1774 Maria Theresa's establishmentof the Uniate "Barbaraeum" seminaryin Vienna was hailed as a magnificentgesture, especially in comparisonto Poland's past indif- ference.In 1773 Smohozhevslcyiin Belarus foundthat the Russian authorities were "no longer complicit in the improprietiesof theirpriests," and that,"on the contrary,frequenting the Catholic churches,they exhort me to the better education of my clergy."He praised Count Zakhar Chernyshev,the provincial governor,for his "optimalprobity" and "special gentility."Smohozhevslcyi even found the Russian generals with whom he dealt to be "courteous,reasonable, impartial,and supremelyprudent." Catherine herself was "the most beautiful example of goodness, clemency,and justice," not to mention"so enlightened, so benign,and completelyimpartial." Was SmohozhevsTcyireally so confident about thebeneficence of Russian sovereignty,or did he imaginethat the Russian authoritiesmight be opening his letters?He addressed his conclusions to Pope ClementXIV himself:"From all thisYour Holiness will deign to gatherthat the Catholic religion,thus succored, can not sufferhere at all fromthe mutationof temporaldominion."17 Smohozhevs'kyi would eventuallyhave cause to revise such optimisticfirst impressions. After 1772, while in Ukraine Russian soldiers still harassed Uniate sub-

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 166 WOLFF jects of the Commonwealth,in Belarus the new Uniate subjects of Catherine remainedunmolested at theparish level, and the"mutation of temporaldominion" affectedthe Church only with regard to issues of high jurisdiction. In 1773, when Smohozhevsicyiwas in St. Petersburg,he learned of the new regulations fromChernyshev:

I wentto visitthe Count Governor in his own carriage,was honorably receivedat thedoor of the company hall, and after the first ceremonies we leftthe other guests and retiredjust thetwo of us to a littlecabinet where theCount confided in me thatHer Imperial Majesty would confirm me in possessionof myarchbishopric; that she wouldnot permit appeal outside thelimits of her empire; that she would not suffer in herestates any bishop who was nother subject; and thatfinally every Roman communication wouldhave to be presentedto thecourt before being published. To such proposalsI repliedwith modesty that, not being an illegitimatepastor, nor havingcommitted any crime, I couldalways with the greatest security rely uponimperial justice.18

Smohozhevsicyiinformed Chernyshev that if the government wanted to regulate relationswith Rome, it oughtto take up the matterwith the pope. Such innovationswere greetedin the Vatican with indignantprotests about theviolated statusquo. In these points,however, Catherine displayed no special malice toward the Uniates (since Roman Catholicism in Russia was similarly regulated),and neitherdid she show any greatoriginality in her religious concerns. It was a commonplace pointof enlightenedpolitical thoughtthat Rome's absolute spiritualauthority over its flock constitutedan infringementupon the secular authorityof the absolute state. Indeed, Joseph waited only for Maria Theresa'sdeath in 1780 to introducein theHabsburg lands an even morethorough- going regulationof relationsbetween his Catholic subjects (again, Roman and Uniate) and the Vatican. Madariaga argues that Catherine's policy involved "treatingthe Uniates precisely as she had treatedthe Roman Catholics," and thather affirmationsof state controlmeant, in fact,that "the same principles whichgoverned the state's relations with the Orthodox Church would governits relationswith Rome." JohnAlexander notes thatCatherine's reign began, in the Petrihetradition, with the arrest of theOrthodox Metropolitan Arsenii Matsievich of the Holy Synod in 1763, and the seizure of Orthodox Church properties: "For Catherine,these events signaled a triumphof stateover Church." In 1775, when SmohozhevsTcyiwas informedthat in accordance with"Russian custom" his Uniate Church communicationswould have to be officiallycountersigned, the archbishopbemoaned "such innovationsby means of which will be gradu- ally eradicated all the customs and rules of the ecclesiastical pastors."19This

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 167 was clearly a conventionaleighteenth-century lament against enlightenedstate intervention,rather than any special cry of religious persecution. Beyond theseissues of Roman appeals and Russian countersignatures,Cathe- rine's othermajor jurisdictional rearrangement was herinsistence on exactlyone bishop foreach of the Catholic riteswithin her empire. Strictas she was about her political sovereignty,she wanted no scraps of her newly acquired territory, freshlysevered fromthe Commonwealth,to retainany religious subordination to bishops in Poland. As Smohozhevslcyihad been told, she "would not suffer in her estates any bishop who was not her subject." This model of one episcopal authorityfor each religious communityalso corresponded to Catherine's enlightenednotions of rationalreligious organization,for it seemed to facilitate theexercise of herown sole secular authorityover subjects spirituallygoverned by one sole bishop. Maria Theresa subscribedto a similarlyunifying conception when in 1774 she made of the Barbaraeum a seminaryfor the Uniate rites of Hungary and Croatia, as well as Galicia. In the Russian Empire, the annexed territoryin Belarus roughlymatched the old diocese of Polatsk; thus,the concept of the single diocese would not become a weapon of destructionuntil after the vast acquisitions of the second and thirdpartitions twenty years later. After 1772 therewas, naturally,grumbling in Rome about the alteredstatus quo, but, interestingly,the two bishops concerned- Smohozhevslcyifor the Uniates and Siestrzeñcewicz for the Roman Catholics- seemed ratherless distressedby a principlethat actually enhanced theirown authority.SmohozhevsTcyi, in fact, urgedRome to finda way to confirmcanonically the new extentof his diocese, as Catherinehad ordered,though he fearedit mightseem "almost as if I desired to dilate the bordersof my pastorate,"that he mightappear to be "a usurperof thesheep of others."20Throughout this whole period of enlightenedintervention in Russia, Austria,and Poland, therewould always be certainelements of the Uniate Churchthat found particular innovations to theiradvantage - even at the cost of the statusquo. 'Today can countas themost terrible (nayokropnieyszy) in our lives," affirmed the Uniate Basilian monksof Polatsk in themonastery journal for 16 September 1772 (Juliancalendar). For themthe implicationsof the partitionappeared, at least at first,to be somethingtruly shocking, like a call to apocalyptic judg- ment:

We monks,having said matins,were all peacefullyin ourcells attending to our monasticdiversions, when around nine o'clock suddenlyan alarm was trumpetedand thecloister bell orderedto be rung,to summonall the monksto gatherin thechurch. Armed troops were paradingin frontof thechurch, and two trumpeterspreceded them, continually sounding the trumpets. . . Whenwe weregathered in thechurch in greatfear and alarm,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 168 WOLFF

a colonelstood in the center of the church with other officers, and the troops wereposted at thechurch doors.21

The frightenedmonks, feelingthat their monastery had become the particular object of Russian militaryconquest, could notfail to feel withtraumatic convic- tionthat they were notin Poland anymore.They were presentedwith the orders of General Mikhail Krechetnikovfor the lands newlyannexed by Russia, requiring an oath of loyaltyfrom all of Catherine'snew subjects. The Uniate Basilians were particularlydistressed to learn they also were now expected to praynot only forCatherine and her heirthe Grand Duke Paul, but also for the Orthodox Synod. SmohozhevsTcyiintervened by writingto Krechetnikov:

Today,only because of the sinister fate of the world, I mustremain alienated in thiscountry from the sovereign government of theKing of Poland,to whomI have alwayshonestly maintained complete fidelity. So, in accor- dancewith my obligation to myChurch and to mysheep, I offerthe oath of loyaltyand obedienceto thenew government, and also prayersto God accordingto theformula given, as honestyand pietyrequire it of me. But since I findin thesame formulathe duty to prayto God forthe Synod, whichis notof myconfession, and can haveno sovereigntyover me, and detractsipso factofrom the obedience I owe to theRoman Pope, and thus deprivesme of my Catholic faith, and with me so manypriests and laymen, I can notmake a professionof thatnature, and thereforeI do notwish to presentmyself at the cathedral, and on thecontrary I will gladly give myself up forarrest.22

Thus he argued for the strictseparation of his political and religious loyalties in the Russian Empire. SmohozhevsTcyipolitely suggested to Krechetnikovthat this formulawas perhaps intendedonly forOrthodox churches and mistakenly prescribedto the Uniates, but in factthis was surelyone of those pitfallsto be found in "the perplexityof thatone littleword": Catholics. Catherine,in this case, seemed notto recognize the Uniates,with their Slavonic rite,as Catholics, and SmohozhevsTcyihad to underlinethe fact thatthe Synod was "not of my confession,"that the formula"deprives me of my Catholic faith." Krechetnikovwent so faras to suggest thatthe most benign solution would be simultaneousprayers for the Synod and the pope, to which Smohozhevslcyi replied thatit would be "obvious foolishness" to recognize "two heads of one Church."After all, the one crucial considerationthat made his "sheep" Catho- lics was the recognitionof the absolute hierarchicalauthority of the pope as theirsupreme pastor. The Russian authoritiesgave way, and Smohozhevslcyi,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 169 enthronedin his cathedral, offeredprayers for the pope, the tsarina,and her heir- but not for the Synod. Catherine's concession suggested that she was not, at this moment,fully committed to the harassmentof her Uniate subjects. Ironically,Smohozhevsicyi's tenacious resistanceto the proposed formula,with its implicitsubordination to the Synod and alienation fromRome, must have owed somethingto the long experience of the Uniate bishops in Poland, where theRoman Catholic bishops had oftenplotted to gain hierarchicalauthority over theirUniate counterparts.Having gained his point, however, SmohozhevsTcyi organized a dinnerfor Krechetnikovand his officerson 20 September 1772 at the Basilian monastery,a firststep towardreconciliation and reassurance after thealarming Russian militarymanifestation on 16 September.By 3 October the Polatsk monasterywas hesitantlyparticipating in the illuminationsthat marked the anniversaryof Catherine's coronation ten years before,and by the end of November,with the arrivalof Catherine's name day, the monks could casually reportthat "all Polatsk" was observingthe occasion, includingthemselves. The Uniates were adapting themselvesto the change of sovereigntyperpetrated in the firstpartition.23 Though Smohozhevs'kyihad to accept certainchanges thattouched on his own episcopal authorityand jurisdiction,the Uniate statusquo in Belarus was left intactat theparish level. The archbishopwas verymuch aware of his own focal role as the giver of oaths, leader of prayers,Catherine's first Uniate subject. He wroteof "thevigilance at theplace in whichI live, thejealousy of thegovernment thatkeeps itseye on me."24Catherine's eye was directlyupon him when he made his journey to St. Petersburgin 1773 to renderhomage in person.There at court Catherinerose fromcards to ask afterhis health,and inquire pointedlyhow he was doing withthe Russian language. He musthave been doing verywell indeed, forhis account of St. Petersburgwas crammedfull of social encounters,and he seems to have devoted himselfwholeheartedly to making the connectionsthat mightbe useful to his Church. He attendedmany dinners,and was impressed thatin the November cold his hosts still managed to serve "the freshestgrapes, thetastiest pears, artichokes, and melons." He also was impressedby Catherine's absolute power,and wroteto Rome afterwardsto ask ifthe pope would consider sendingher "some famous painting,"and anotherfor the Grand Duke Paul, the betterto conciliate forCatholicism theirinvaluable favor.25 While SmohozhevsTcyifelt himself under the eye of an absolute government, he also had to provide an encyclopedic account of his Church forthe purposes of enlightenedadministration. He was "tormented"in 1775 by thegovernment's insistenceon figures:the numberof childrenof priests,the rates of parishtaxa- tion,all "grave and onerous matters."He feltthe pressureof the spotlightagain thatsame year when he celebratedin his cathedrala Te Deum forthe anniversary of Catherine's victoryover the Turks. Members of the provincial government

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 170 WOLFF were presentfor the occasion, but thatwas not enough forSmohozhevsTcyi: he was having the sermon translatedinto Russian and rushed to St. Petersburg. "Everyone theremay see thatthe Uniates know how to respect and honor the throne."26His performanceof the partof the Uniate archiépiscopal subject was a tourde force,and Catherineremained well satisfiedwith him and his Church in the 1770s. At the end of the decade, however,he was promotedto the metropolitanatein Poland, and the vacancy he leftbehind, after such an effective performance,turned into the firsttrue crisis for the Uniates of Belarus in the Russian Empire. In 1780 SmohozhevsTcyibegged Chernyshev,with whom he had gottenalong so well, to remindCatherine of his past service:

Withhow much loyalty I alwaysfulfilled the duties of a trueRussian subject, withhow muchcommitment I procured the education of theclergy, theinstitution of theseminary so desirablein thatregion, with how much expenditureI continued the enterprise of building, of gardens, of hemp, and ofagriculture, all forthe advantage of my archiépiscopal successors and as an ornamentfor the Russian land.27

He had learned perfectlythe discourse appropriateto a subject of enlightened absolutism;here was an archbishopwho measuredhis serviceto thestate in terms of his educational and economic enterprises.In assuming the metropolitanate, however,he ceased to be Catherine'ssubject, and lost his claim upon her favor. The vacancy leftby such a consummateecclesiastical statesmanwas one that Catherinewould not be quick to fill,and thereinlay the crisis.

WhateverPriest the CommunityDesires In 1779 the Uniate metropolitan,Lev Sheptytsicyi(Leon Szeptycki),died, and Smohozhevsicyiwas the chosen candidate of Stanislaw August to succeed to the metropolitandiocese in Ukraine.This promotionto hierarchicalsupremacy withinthe Uniate Church was one that SmohozhevsTcyirelished all the more inasmuch as it would extracthim fromthe Russian Empire and restorehim to the Commonwealth.Carefully, he negotiatedwith St. Petersburgfor a smooth succession to his own see at Polatsk,obtaining Catherine's preliminary approval forBishop Ryllo of Chehn. Ryllo, however,had been harassed and arrestedby Russian soldiers in Ukraine in 1774, and was not eager in 1779 to seize the opportunityto move to Polatsk. It turnedout thathe also had been soliciting fromMaria Theresa an appointmentto the see of Przemysl in Austria,which he now obtained and accepted in preferenceto the Polatsk succession thathad been arrangedfor him in Russia. "A bishop cannot follow his own comfortand pleasure,"wrote the angry Warsaw nuncio, Giovanni Archetti, "without betraying his promisesand obligationsto God himself."28Ryllo, however,could and did.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 17 1

"I was powerfullysurprised," commented SmohozhevsTcyi, "and immediately I began to foresee the worstpossible effectfor my own pastoratehere, in view of such an evident contemptfor the favors of this sovereign."29Catherine had been ready to accept Ryllo, and now her acceptance was spurned;he preferred the invitationof Maria Theresa. SmohozhevsTcyipromptly presented for her consideration an alternativecan- didate to the fickleRyllo, thistime PorfyriiVazhynsTcyi (Porfiriusz Wazyñski), protoarchimandriteof the Uniate Basilian order.Catherine declined to be won over so easily a second time. Then SmohozhevsTcyioffered himself up to the tsarina,proposing to hold the metropolitanateand the see of Polatsk simulta- neously, or at least to remain at Polatsk till a successor could be chosen. He emphasizedthis in thelanguage of courtshipfor Catherine: Without an appointed successor,how could he "abandon his firstspiritual bride, and marryanother."30 He was hopingto make an impressionon Catherinepersonally when she visited Polatskin thespring of 1780, but,unluckily, he foundhimself feverishly ill on the one nighthe was supposed to dine in theimperial presence. He received insteada sickbedvisit from the powerful Grigorii Potemkin, who drankchocolate while the ailing archbishoptried to speak persuasivelyabout thesuccession in thediocese; Potemkinlater sent a bottleof absintheto fightthe fever.The archbishop,sick in bed, was unembarrassedabout appealing to the man in Catherine's bed, her currentfavorite, Aleksander Lanskoi- thoughwithout results. "The fever has lifted,but weakness stillkeeps me in bed," noted SmohozhevsTcyithat summer, "but in the presentcircumstances it is not easy to cure a wounded heart."31His conditionwas medical, of course, but the circumstanceswere political, and the consequences spiritual;his hearthad kept him frommeeting with Catherine at a criticalmoment for the Uniates. It would not have made any difference. As far as she was concerned, SmohozhevsTcyihad ceased to be her subject fromthe momenthe responded favorablyto the offerof Stanislaw August. "Now thathe is a citizen and prelate of a foreignstate," reasoned Catherine about SmohozhevsTcyiin 1780, "how can he serve two lords at the same time?" This had been one of herfundamental principles fromthe beginning in Belarus- "that she would not sufferin her estates any bishop who was not her subject"- and now she announced that he would have to refrainin the futurefrom "mixing himself up in the spiritual affairsof our empire."32Spiritual affairs to one side, therethen emerged a highlyundignified controversy about some furniturethat had been "transported clandestinely"out of the archiépiscopal residence in Polatsk and into Poland along with SmohozhevsTcyi.Was it his personal propertyor did it belong to the diocese? He insisted that the removal had been done by "my subalterns, withoutmy knowledge,"but, concerned about his "reputation,"he arrangedfor the disputeditems to be returnedto Russia.33Catherine was insistingon a most

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 172 WOLFF

strictseparation of the Uniate Church in Russia fromthe metropolitanatein Poland. She was determinedthat the archiépiscopal residence in Polatsk should retainall of its furnishings- thoughshe stilldeclined to allow foran archbishop to live in it. The see remained vacant for four years, until 1783, and throughoutthat period therewas greatsuspense - and no absence of provocativerumors - as to whom she would choose to fill the position. "Warsaw is full of reportsthat the Empress has nominated someone to the Polatsk archbishopric- but whom?" wrote Smohozhevsicyi'scorrespondent in the Polish capital in 1780. "I would ferventlylike to findout!"34 One dreaded possibilitywas thatCatherine would tryto install a Uniate who leaned toward Orthodoxyand would tiltthe whole diocese in thatdirection. The UniateChurch was naturallyon guardagainst such a possibility,since itwas in similarfashion that some Orthodoxdioceses - like Lviv and Przemysl- had been broughtover to theUnion withinthe last century.Alter- natively,it was fearedthat Catherine might subordinate her one Uniate diocese to her one Roman Catholic diocese, makingthe much-favoredSiestrzeñcewicz themaster of both.This, too, was a familiarmenace forthe Union, since Roman Catholic bishops had oftensought the subordinationof theirUniate episcopal colleagues in the Commonwealth. Ultimately,the worst possible outcome to be fearedwas thatCatherine might actually appoint an Orthodoxbishop to the Uniate see, and when Pope Pius VI wroteto her in 1780, begging her to fillthe vacancy,he did not thinkit superfluousto specifythat it be filledwith a Uniate, not an Orthodox,bishop.35 Afterthe partitionof Poland, neitherthe Vatican nor themetropolitanate had been eager to spell out the nominatingpowers of a non-Catholicsovereign ruling over a Catholic diocese. Catherine'sprolonged refusal to fill the vacancy at Polatskconstituted a sortof investitureconflict inasmuch as she thusemphasized her own absolute authorityin her own empire. When the pope wrote to her to plead thatshe fillthe vacancy,the point was made thatthe see was hersto fillor not to fill.In fact,also in 1779, Maria Theresa, forall her Catholic piety,issued a decree to make a similar point about her rightsof nominationin the Uniate dioceses acquired fromPoland. In the controversythat raged withinthe Uniate Church over whetherthe new bishop of Lviv would be a Basilian monk or a secular priest,the Habsburg empress carefullyemphasized her prerogativeof choice and strictlydisallowed any appeals forarbitration or dispensationfrom Rome.36 While Catherinerefused to name an archbishop,the administrationof the diocese forthe duration was leftin thehands of a three-manconsistory of Uniate ecclesiastics. These gentlemenwere in no positionto exercise strongleadership: "We consult witheach otherabout how we are to save so many souls. We find

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 173 no means and even if therewere such to be found,we would only bringdown greatermisfortune upon our necks."37They worriedover whetherto take refuge in theRoman Catholic Churchand give up the Union as lost. In themeantime, in theabsence of an archbishop,Catherine issued an extraordinaryukaz to provide new parishpriests when necessary.

In case a Uniatecommunity should be lackingits priest, or if one shoulddie, thecommunity should be questionedas to whichfaith they want for their priest,so thatthe government can installwhatever priest the community desires.38

Such an experimentin libertyof conscience, such seeming deference to the communityin choosing its own religion, was somethingrather rare in early modernEurope. It was both dramaticallyenlightened and at the same time by no means benevolent,for it was obviously designed to apply religious pressure - to the Uniates the paradoxical pressureof pretendedreligious democracy. For Catherineit was a game: pretendingthat Belarus was theRhode Island of Eastern Europe, while knowingthat her grandgesture could only harmthe institutional Uniate Church- inasmuch as it only could lose communities,but could not possibly gain new ones. In fact,since 1772, the Uniate Church in Belarus had been forbiddenby decree to accept convertsfrom Orthodoxy, a decree farmore consistentwith contemporary notions of religious policy. Catherine, in thus toying with the peasants of Belarus, using them in her littlereligious experiment, was demonstratingagain thatsame somewhatnastily scientificcuriosity about whetherthey were really and truly"Catholic." If she applied theheat of religiousfreedom to the Uniate amalgam of ritualand dogma, would it separate out into its constituentelements, Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy,and what would be the proportions?While thisexperiment could only be viewed as a terriblemenace by the Uniate Church,it also offered an extraordinary,historically precocious, opportunity to have itspeasant believers affirmtheir faith. Those communitiesthat chose to remainin the Uniate Church passed throughthe trial of religious self-determination;they became bound and committedto theirfaith on a whole new, and distinctlymodern, level. The circumstancesof choice were, of course, susceptibleto manipulation,and there were rumoredto be Russian Orthodoxagents who cleverlyintoxicated their Uni- ate preybefore proposing apostasy.39 Smohozhevsicyi, now in Poland, denounced Catherine'sexperiment as a "bloody" one, and believed thatthe Orthodox Synod was harassinghis formerflock, by "fomentingtrouble among therough people, with good and with evil, with prayers, persuasions, and intoxication, with exemptionsand withbastonades."40 Thus, the Uniate Churchfaced institutional

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 174 WOLFF pressurefrom the continuinguncertainty about the vacant archbishopric,while the practiceof Orthodox"persuasions" upon "the rough people" suggestedthe popular implicationsof Catherine'sexperiment with the Uniates. Accordingto one Uniateestimate in 1782, therewere 100,000 souls lost (out of 800,000 Uniates in theRussian Empire); manywere lost to Orthodoxy,and some opted forRoman Catholicism.The greatmajority of Uniates,however, held fast to the Union. Even withthis unprecedented freedom of choice, which prevailed forthe four years thatthe Polatsk see remainedvacant, the great majority of the Uniates turnedout to be "Catholics" afterall. There were, to be sure, the most direpredictions from the presiding consistory: "If a supremepastor is notchosen soon, therewill remainno one over whom he can exercise his pastoraloffice."41 This gloomyforecast in 1780 was based on theuncertainty of thefuture; what no one could know,at thattime, was thatthe crisis was only an interval.In 1783 a new archbishopwould take office,and the Uniate Churchin theRussian Empire would achieve a new stabilityfor the decade to come. In theagony of uncertaintythe consistory sent its appeals across theborder to Poland, and fromthere new appeals were formulatedby Smohozhevsicyiat the metropolitanateand Archettiat the nunciature.Though theydid not thinkof the Ottomansultan this time around, they hoped to influenceCatherine by bringing into play the goodwill of Stanislaw August and Maria Theresa. The Habsburg empress,to theirgreat regret, died rightin the middle of the crisis in 1780, but SmohozhevsTcyi,recognizing her as "the most special protectress"of the Uni- ates, still hoped that"with her supremelygreat merits even in heaven she may defendmy poor Uniates." As forJoseph, now the sole rulerin Vienna, he could easily intercede"with only two littlewords": statusquo.42 Aside fromthe almost comical misapprehensionof Josephas a championof thestatus quo, thestrategy was more fundamentallymisguided, since what lay behind the crisis all along was Catherine'sinterest in her own imperialauthority over Church affairs,and appeals to foreignsovereigns could only aggravateher sensitivity in thisregard. The trueissues and dimensionsof thecrisis finallyemerged in the course of the remarkablecorrespondence that ensued between the tsarinaand the pope. When Pope Pius VI personally wrote to Catherine in 1780 to protestthe vacancy at Polatsk, a grand gesture from the very summit of the Catholic Church,her replyof 1781 brushedaside his concern forthe Uniates and asked the pope to create a Roman Catholic archbishopricat Mahilioü (Mogilev) for Siestrzeñcewicz. This peremptorydemand froma non-Catholic sovereign for an archbishopriccut to suit her fancydemonstrated that she was determinedto establish her own authorityover the Catholic Church in her empire. Since she made her demand for a Roman Catholic archbishopin response to the pope's demandfor a Uniate archbishop,the issues became linked,as she intended;it was to be a matterof quid pro quo, not statusquo. Siestrzeñcewicz,however, was no

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 175 favoritein Rome, especially because he had, as Catherinewished, encouraged the survivalof theJesuits in theRussian Empire in defianceof thepapal suppression of 1773. In a letterof 1781 Pius refusedto create the archbishopricCatherine wantedfor Siestrzeñcewicz, and she repliedin 1782 thatshe had createdit herself by decree; thepope only needed to send thearchiépiscopal pallium fora properly ceremonial investiture.Now she had even more flagrantlytrespassed on papal authority.Her lettermentioned, by the way, thatthe Uniates were "just a little flock,"perhaps too few to requirean archbishopof theirown. The quid pro quo had become a matterof threat,and, as in Ukraine ten years before,the Uniate Churchserved as a pressurepoint for Catherine in obtainingother satisfactions. "Powerful sovereign,"she wrote,mockingly, for the pope was not powerfulat all, "we do not doubt thatour care for the good of the Roman Church in our empirewill be agreeable to you."43 The pope, who had seemed to stressthe importance of theUniates by takingup his pen on theirbehalf, now foundtheir crisis to be less of a prioritywhen it had to be weighed against otherconcessions. Furthermore,at thiscritical moment in the correspondence,Pius suddenlyhad no attentionto spare forRussian affairs, inasmuch as he was fullyoccupied with the Josephinereforms in Austria and his own papal journey to Vienna to protest.When Catherinehad received no replyfrom Rome by theend of 1782, hersense of self-importancewas wounded again, and it was thenthat she menacinglygave out theword thatCatholicism in Russia could be eliminatedaltogether; the Uniates needed "only the least signal to embrace our Orthodoxreligion." In 1783 thepope agreed to all herdemands, sendingArchetti as legate fromWarsaw to St. Petersburgto presenther with the pallium forSiestrzeñcewicz, as specified. Archetti,at the Warsaw nunciature,was far more frightenedby the Uniate crisisthan anyone in Rome. "Everytravail and everypain thatI have experienced in recentyears, when somethingsinister happened to the Church,"he wrotein 1780, "seems like nothingin comparison to the afflictionwhich oppresses me now."44While on the one hand he underestimatedthe steadfastnessof the Uni- ates, on the otherhand he appreciatedthe innovativenessof Catherine'sassault in thecontext of the "sinister"age of theEnlightenment. From Warsaw Archetti attemptedto mediate the correspondencebetween Pius and Catherinein such a way as to avoid confrontation,for he fearedthat the fate of the Uniates in Russia could jeopardize theirposition in Poland as well: "The tsarinadominates here almost as in Russia." As soon as Catherineput forwarddemands of her own, Archetticounseled concession, urgingRome to save the Uniates by accepting Siestrzeñcewicz"as ifthe Jesuit matter were notat all mixed up in this."45Above all, fromWarsaw, he was in a perfectposition to appreciateCatherine's irresistible power: "If she doesn't get her way, we will go on losing the souls of thatmost numerouspopulation (which is not 'a littleflock'), and soon enough theywill

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 176 WOLFF all run to theireternal ruin."46 Thus, when Archettiwas chosen as legate to St. Petersburg,he was determinedto reverseRome's futileresistance and to gratify Catherineat all costs in orderto obtainthe desired Uniate appointmentat Polatsk. Rome had gravedoubts about whether it was appropriatefor a papal legate to kiss thehand of thetsarina; Archetti had none. He stayedin St. Petersburgfor almost a year withoutsaying a word to Catherineabout the controversialcontinuation of the Jesuits,and when he leftin 1784 he had secured his cardinalate,as well as Catherine'sgood opinion ("a thoroughlygood child"- she thoughthe should be pope), not to mentiona splendid sable furcoat.47 He also leftbehind him in Russia a new Uniate archbishopat Polatsk. Catherinehad agreed at last,and Archetti,while he was stillin St. Petersburg in 1783, hastened to arrange for Heraklii Lisovslcyi (Heraclius Lisowski), a memberof the Polatsk consistory,to be installed as the new archbishop.The crisiswas over.Of all itsremarkable aspects, not least was theease of its ending. The affairbegan withRyllo's affrontto Catherine'svanity; it ended withArchetti graciouslykissing her hand. More important,it began when Catherinewanted to make a pointabout herabsolute authorityover Churchaffairs in herempire, and ended when thathad been explicitlyrecognized. She herselfcapped the crisis withan ukaz of 1783 thatformally removed the archbishopof Polatsk fromany shadow of hierarchicalsubordination to the metropolitanin Poland. Still, what remained the most importantmessage of the whole affairwas thatCatherine could apply pressureto the Uniates in pursuitof otherinterests, and release the pressurewhen she was ready.It had happened in Ukraineat the timeof the first partition,and now in Belarus again. The patternwas a menacing one, but the outcome in both cases suggestedthat Catherine was not fullycommitted to the eliminationof the Uniates. Their religious faithexcited her malicious curiosity, while theirChurch remained a pawn in her game of strategicsecular statecraft, accordingto the conventionsof enlightenedabsolutism.

JosephusH In 1780 theUniate Churchlamented the passing of Maria Theresa, "most special protectress,"and could only hope thatJoseph would nothesitate to invoke those "two little words"- status quo - on behalf of the Polatsk diocese in Russia. In 1782 the pope postponed the urgentbusiness of responding to Catherine about Russian affairs,because he was otherwise preoccupied with Joseph's unprecedentedassault on Churchprerogatives in the Habsburg lands. Between 1780, when Josephtook over as sole ruler,and 1782, when he received Pius in Vienna to hear the papal expostulations,an unprecedentedreligious revolution took place in Austria. The approximately1.5 million Uniates assigned to the Habsburgs in 1772 foundtheir status quo farmore drasticallytransformed than did the halfas many Uniates of the Russian Empire who were, duringprecisely

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 177 these years of the early 1780s, feelingthe pressureof the vacancy at Polatsk. In fact,Catherine pursued her religious policy in consultationwith a professorof canon law fromVienna, who came to Moscow to teach and broughtwith him the principlesof Josephinism.48Just as Catherine's fundamentalconcerns were connected to state authorityover Church affairs,the Josephinereforms were even more nakedlydevoted to preciselythat agenda. Maria Theresa, thoughcertainly a devout Catholic, was herselfinterested in definingimperial authority with respect to Rome, and in thelast yearof herreign she did keep theVatican out of theprocess of the Uniate succession to the see of Lviv. She would allow no appeal forRoman dispensationsin thecontroversy over who was eligible forthe Uniate episcopacy, nor in the equally hot controversy over Uniate transitto Roman Catholicism. It has been argued thatin Galicia in - particular- a brand new Habsburg acquisition she cooperated withJoseph in the 1770s to pave the way forthe big religiousreforms of the 1780s.49Certainly the Uniates themselves appreciated the importanceof her centralauthority in Vienna, and the bishop of Lviv went so far as to keep a representativein the capital to lobby at courtin thecontroversy over creatingan ecclesiastical chapter forthe Lviv cathedral.As forthe bishop himself,Lev SheptytsTcyi,she permitted him to assume the metropolitanatein Poland in 1778 while retainingthe Lviv see in Austria; thus she conceded the internationalunity of the Uniate Church which Catherinewould not countenance when SmohozhevsTcyisought an analogous positionafter SheptytsTcyi 's death in 1779. Maria Theresa,however, publisheda formalimperial rescript in 1778 in orderto make perfectlyclear that SheptytsTcyi's joint tenurewas a question of her favor:

Since we havelearned that your devotion has broughtyou to thedignity of themetropolitanate, so do we herebytestify to our most gracious satisfaction at thisadvancement of your devotion, and furthermore confirm with all the morepleasure our mostgracious protection. We mayhave well-founded confidence,based on yourdevout zeal to carryout our commands, that by thesequalities you will bringabout all themore quickly and completely whateverappears necessary to us forthe improvement ofChurch discipline and theworldly well-being of our Greek Catholic subjects.50

Here Maria Theresa made SheptytsTcyi's ecclesiastical career very much the business of the Habsburg state,praising in particularhis "zeal" in obeying her commands, and presentinghis new Polish responsibilitiesas a mere Austrian convenience- inasmuch as he could use the power of the metropolitanateto advance her subjects in Galicia. The balance between bishop and empress was becoming a delicate one, and was never really tested since SheptytsTcyidied the next year,and Maria Theresa passed away the year afterthat. Certainly the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 178 WOLFF empress was not inhibitedabout makingdemands on her Uniate bishops. Even in her legendaryact of beneficence,the creationof the Barbaraeum,the Uniate bishops were taxed for the supportof theirseminarians in Vienna- and they strenuouslyprotested the imposition.51 Josephwould give all his bishops much morereason to protest.Unlike Maria Theresa, he was no pious Catholic. Though he was ten years younger than Catherinethey were of the same generationof enlightenedabsolutism: Joseph joined his motheras co-rulerin 1765, threeyears afterCatherine countenanced herhusband's murderin orderto ascend the Russian throne.Joseph appreciated Catherine'sadherence to the Petrinetradition of stateover Church,but his own reformswere so radical as to give her new ideas. Perhaps the most fundamental differencebetween Catherineand Josephwith regard to the Uniate Churchwas thatthe Habsburg religious reforms were directedagainst all Catholic institutions. Catholicism in Austria was the dominantreligion, and the Uniates of Galicia were blown about almostincidentally in a stormthat overturned the much vaster edifice of Roman Catholicism. Catherine,on the otherhand, when she came to the thronein 1762, foundthe dominant religion, Orthodoxy, already reasonably well regulatedby thestate. The Uniate diocese she acquired fromPoland in 1772 was quite institutionallyindependent by comparison,and so her interventions acted upon the Uniates distinctly,becoming inevitablyacts of discrimination. Joseph's interventionshad the opposite effect:by assaultingthe Uniate Church in complete conjunctionwith his assaults on Catholicism in general,he forced upon the Uniates an irresistibleinclusion. Thus, while it is possible to enumerateindividually Catherine's decrees for the Uniates of Belarus, the Uniates of Galicia were affectedby all those general reformsthat constituted the Josephine revolution. The famousToleration Patent of 1781 gave protectionto theUniates' traditionalrivals, the Orthodox, a minority in Galicia. The secularizationof the monasteriesand dissolutionof the orders, beginningin 1781, sparingonly those thatprovided education and cared forthe sick, took a toll on the Uniate Basilians. From 1782 Josephwas redefiningand reorganizingthe dioceses and all theirconstituent parishes, ultimately aiming to make Austrianecclesiastics intosalaried civil servants.State seminarieswere createdto educate theclergy under government supervision. Strict regulation by decree affectedevery aspect of religious life fromthe very highestmatters of papal pronouncementsand relationswith Rome to the smallestdetails of ritual, devotion,and decorationin each parishchurch. For the Uniates of Galicia the crucial Josephineinstitution was the General Seminary in Lviv. It was one of a set of seminaries the emperor established throughoutthe Habsburg lands in his determinationto controlthe education of the clergy.They were, forthe most part,unpopular and unsuccessful,and after Joseph's death theywere generallyclosed down by his successor and brother,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 179

Leopold II. The one exceptionwas Lviv wherethe seminary met a pressingneed formore and betterclerical training.The price forthe General Seminarywas the Barbaraeum; Maria Theresa's Viennese establishmentwas closed in 1784, right afterJoseph opened his own in Lviv in 1783 by courtdecree. The othercasualty was theTheatine College in Lviv, exactlythe sortof seminaryJoseph was most eager to displace. In 1787 he furtherexpanded educationalopportunities by creating the RuthenianInstitute, which offeredclerical instructionin the vernacular language forthose who could not studyin Latin at the General Seminary. In 1790, when Leopold was already abolishing the Josephineseminaries in Austria,the Uniate bishops of Galicia petitionedfor the preservation of theLviv institutionas an exception- and theemperor, by decree,allowed itto continue.It was notthat the bishops failed to appreciatethe significanceof statecontrol, for theyalso eagerlypetitioned to take over fromthe government the administration and supervisionof the seminary.Leopold, however,would not go thatfar, and, in fact,the bishops thoughtit worthpreserving the Josephine institution even at the cost of continuingstate supervision.For just as Catherine's scruples about foreignbishops in her empire served to extend the authorityof her own Uniate bishop at Polatsk, so Joseph's insistence on brand new Habsburg seminaries also allowed his Uniate bishops in Galicia to make themselvesmore powerful withintheir Uniate Church.Petro Biliansicyi (Piotr Bielañski), bishop of Lviv, had succeeded Sheptytsicyiin 1780, chosen by Maria Theresa withoutreference to the Vatican; at the same time Ryllo came to Przemysl,insulting Catherine by refusingPolatsk, and therebycausing great distressin Rome. These were new bishops for the Josephinedecade, and Joseph,by removing Uniate education fromthe Viennese Barbaraeumand Lviv Theatine College, enabled these rising episcopal powers in Galicia to join withhim in shaping the next generationof Uniate clergy.After twenty-five years the General Seminarywas finallyturned over to complete episcopal control; in 1806 Emperor Francis I put it in the hands of AntinAnhelovych (Anton Anhelowicz), the head of the newly created metropolitanateof Halych.There was, however,one crucialconnection that made thisa difficultshift to interpret:Anhelovych, some twenty-fiveyears before, had been Joseph'sfirst state-appointed rector for the new General Seminary.Thus, it is not easy to say whetherthe Uniate Churchtook over theJosephine Seminary, or whetherthe JosephineSeminary took over the Uniate Church. State interventionthus proved favorable or unfavorablefor different elements withinthe Church. The General Seminary and RuthenianInstitute favored the Josephinebishops and created a new generationof priests,while the Basilian order lost its educational edge. Candidates for the order were put throughthe Seminaryalong witheveryone else, while the Basilians' own schools totteredin the stormof Joseph's aggressive educational interests.The emperor's sweeping assault on the monasterieswas even more damaging, and the issue of supreme

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 180 WOLFF authoritysealed the downfallof the Basilians. In 1780, the firstyear of his sole reign,the order recognized the significance of Habsburgsovereignty by making themonks of Galicia intoone distinctprovincial division. In 1782 Josephforced them one step furtherby disallowing the subordinationof any monasteryin Galicia to theprotoarchimandrite in Poland. He did notformally sever the Uniates in general fromthe Commonwealthmetropolitanate, as Catherinedid in 1783, buthis handlingof theBasilians illustratedthe same principle.The monks,now cut loose fromtheir general, were placed under the authorityof the Josephine bishopsin Galicia, whose powercorrespondingly increased. Furthermore, though thesebishops remained, for the time being, subject to themetropolitan in Poland, theidea foran independentHabsburg metropolitan, finally achieved in 1806, was already seriouslyproposed and considered in 1779 at the death of Sheptysicyi, and thenagain in 1790 at the death of Joseph. In generalthe emperor's assumption of power over theChurch also enhanced thatof the bishops, since, like Catherine,Joseph built up theirauthority even while establishinghis over them.He bestowed upon Bilianslcyiand Ryllo super- visoryconsistories of lay officials,and thepriests of bothcathedrals, along with theconsistory officials, were to bear thedistinctive honorary insignia of a pectoral cross, Greek stylewith equal arms. The men of Lviv had images of the Virgin and St. George on theircrosses, while themen of Przemyslhad Johnthe Baptist on theirs.In bothcathedrals the crosses bore the inscription"Josephus II" - for these were not only the bishop's men, but also the emperor's.52

PatrioticLoyalty and Religious Zeal While Josephin the 1780s was already attemptingto legislate a revolutionary stateChurch - a decade ahead of theFrench Civil Constitutionof theClergy - in Poland theUniate Churchstill approached the monarch in thespirit of theancien régime.In 178 1 theretook place in Warsaw a ceremoniallaying of thefirst stone fora new Uniatechurch. Under that stone the nuncio laid fiveRoman medallions honoringthe pope, while Stanislaw August,present for the occasion, added a silver medallion withhis own effigy.53This undergroundemblematic conjunction of pope and king (in the imbalanced ratio of five to one) was a farcry from labelingthe churchmen of Galicia withthe tag "JosephusII." In Poland theUniate Churchwas still seeking the patronageof the state,whereas in Austriathe state had gone farbeyond patronagein its overwhelmingimpositions. In 1783, two years afterthe firststone, Smohozhevsleyi was alreadyexpect- ing greatthings from the project,which he placed in the contextof the Uniates' tribulationsin Ukraineten years before:

I havedirected all mycares to thatvast province of Ukraine,which forms thegreater portion of themetropolitanate. In that time I have established

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 18 1

myselfin thoseparts, where until now no othermetropolitan has ever made his residence,and I am procuringwith my presence and mylive voice to retainin theHoly Unionthose many populations that, after being seduced by theviolence and fraudof theschismatics in therecent most unhappy turbulenceof Ukraine,have now spontaneouslyreturned in greatnumber to theCatholic faith, and I go on recallingto thebreast of the Church those mostobstinate apostates who stillpersist in schism.The Lord blessing mypastoral cares, the Holy Unionincreases its numbersmore and more in Ukraine,while I seek also to increaseits splendorin everyplace, and particularlyin thecapital of the kingdom where many Uniates permanently reside.Therefore, for their ease, and forthe decorum of our rite I havehad constructedin Warsawa spaciousand elegantchurch, where in thefuture all theholidays shall be celebratedwith the greatest solemnity.54

Here SmohozhevsTcyigave a veryclear idea of his programfor the Uniates in post-partitionPoland. He had assumed themetropoli tanate just threeyears before in 1780, but his predecessors had never been able to thinkprogrammatically. Felitsiian Fylyp Volodkovych (Felicjan Filip Woiodkowicz), who lived until 1778, had had his competence questioned too oftenand too controversiallyto be able to lead his Churchinto a new era after1772. His successor Sheptytsicyi survivedonly a year in the office,and even in thattime retained his ties to Lviv and Maria Theresa. When Catherinerefused to allow Smohozhevsicyito keep one footin Polatsk,she gave whollyto theCommonwealth an extremelyeffective ecclesiastical statesman,one who had just graduatedfrom an arduous political trainingin herown empire.At last in 1780 theUniates of Ukrainewould see their "spontaneous" recovery,which began in 1775, consolidated by thoroughgoing episcopal leadership. The hallmarkof SmohozhevsTcyi'sstatesmanship was his recognitionthat the flockrequired not only his pastoralleadership in Ukraine but,at the same time, his political influencein Warsaw.The man who had traveledto St. Petersburgto wait on Catherineat her card table knew well the importanceof a royal capital in an age of enlightenedabsolutism. He had enjoyed thepatronage of Stanislaw Augustbefore 1772, beforehis diocese was partitionedfrom the Commonwealth, and so in 1780 he returnedto the royal favor of a monarchless treacherousto courtthan Catherine had been. In 1781 StanislawAugust was therefor the laying of the firststone of the Warsaw edifice; its "elegance" and "decorum" would impressupon the royal governmentthe importanceof the Uniate Church.Until his death in 1788, Smohozhevsicyipursued this dual policy of pastoralpresence in Ukraine and political presence in Warsaw. The yearof his deathwas also, coincidentally,the year that his carefulcourting of themonarchy became almostirrelevant, for 1788 was thefirst year of theFour-

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 182 WOLFF

Year Sejm, introducinga period of revolutionaryupheaval in the Churchaffairs of the Commonwealth.At the Sejm the greatbulk of the Uniate Church would finallyfeel the forceofthat state intervention which the Uniates of Belarus had firstfelt in the 1770s and the Uniates of Galicia still more deeply in the 1780s. The mostcelebrated act of theSejm withregard to the Uniate Churchredeemed a promisemade two centuriesbefore at the time of the Union: the metropolitan was admittedinto the Senate of the Commonwealth,and thuspermitted to join the Roman Catholic bishops. The Uniate parishclergy also had reason to praise the beneficenceof the Sejm when it repealed the statuteof 1764 thatmade the sons of Uniate priestsliable to serfdom. These gestureswere intendedto strikedown the discriminatorybarrier that had made the Uniate Churchinto a secondarystepsister of Roman Catholicism throughtwo centuriesof Polish history.Every bit as important,however, were thoselegislative measures that affected both forms of Catholicismand reordered theirrelations to the state.The crux of the matterwas the clergy's inabilityto shelterits property from the revenue needs of thenewly assertive state, especially as theSejm soughtto raise a greatarmy for the future defense of Polish independence. In the springof 1789 the ecclesiastical estate gave in to pressuresfor a doubled tax contribution,but far more importantin principlewas theact of July 1789 wherebythe Sejm approved a formulafor confiscating the property of the bishops and compensatingthem with state pensions. Underthe unassuming title "Funds forthe Army," debated and votedeven as theFrench revolutionaries were stormingthe Bastille, each diocese was scheduled foreconomic liquidation at thedeath of its presentbishop, though that was modifiedin 1790 to allow forthe retentionof some episcopal property.55This legislativeclaim upon thedioceses naturallyencouraged furtherinterventions in theiraffairs, including a program of administrativerationalization and the envisioningof state seminarieson the Josephinemodel. The interestof the Sejm in a new Uniate diocese at Minsk came fromthe need to provide forthose partsof the Polatsk diocese remaining in Poland since 1772. Catherine in 1783 formallyforbade her archbishop of Polatsk any connection to the metropolitanatein Poland, and now the Sejm, reciprocally,sought to sever all relationsbetween Uniate parishesin Poland and the see of Polatsk in Russia. These measures of the Sejm were intendedto bind the Uniates to the Com- monwealthunder the new constitutionof 179 1. Such concernsnaturally emerged at a moment when Poland was declaring its independence fromRussia, and Catherine,after she invaded Poland in 1792, then overturnedevery act of the Sejm. While enlightenedabsolutism in Russia and Austria,as faras the Uniates were concerned,would be judged according to the historicalconsequences for - futuregenerations, in Poland it could only be judged on its own terms for the Commonwealthreally did not have a future.The stillbornreforms of the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 183

Sejm were perfectlyillustrative of the values and concerns thatthe Enlighten- mentbrought to mattersof Church and state.Furthermore, not since Garampi's unheeded Exposé, at the PartitionSejm twentyyears before,was theresuch an advanced discussion of religious affiliationand political loyaltyas therewas at the Four-Year Sejm. While theconstitution of 3 May 1791 leftCatholicism, Roman and Uniate,as thedominant religion of the new regime,and the admission of the metropolitan to the Senate lentcredibility to thatdual dominance, at the same time the Sejm legislated the establishmentof a state-sponsoredOrthodox Church in the Com- monwealth.Just as Catherinehad insistedon a Uniate see at Polatsk fullyinde- pendentof themetropolitanate in Poland, so theSejm now reciprocallymandated an Orthodox hierarchyin Poland with no ties to Moscow, directlysubordinate to the Greek patriarchin Constantinople.This was, however,no mere abstract exercisein assertivesovereignty, but rather a carefullyconsidered response by the Sejm to eruptionsof violence and counterrevolutionaryconspiracies in Ukrainein 1789. This dangerousinstability of thesoutheastern lands of theCommonwealth forcedthe Sejm to pay special attentionto the Uniate and Orthodoxpopulations of those lands, and to considertheir institutional and sentimentalrelations to the Commonwealthstate. The religious unrestin Ukraine in 1768, promotedby Haidamak violence, had facilitatedRussian interventionin the Commonwealth.Now in 1789, with the new unrestin Ukraine, the Sejm immediatelyinstituted an investigative commissionto get to the bottomof thematter. To no one's surprise,they uncov- ered the activityof Russian agents, found stocks of weapons hidden away in Orthodox monasteries, and soon saw reason to arrest the Orthodox bishop, ViktorSadkovsTcyi. The commission, however, also heard reportsthat Uniate priestswere involved in the same conspiracies against Poland. Indeed, Uniate priestsdenounced other Uniate priests for collusion with Russian agents; the whole consistoryof thediocese of Lutsk fell undersuspicion, many others were arrested,and a few were even executed in thehasty justice thatsought to squash incipientdisorder. To be sure, the final reportof 1790 blamed the Orthodox Church. Furthermore,the Lutsk ecclesiastic, Teodosii Brodovych (Theodosius Brodowicz), wrotea scathingindictment of thecommission's readiness to believe the worstabout the Uniates on the weakest evidence; he contemptuouslycited the ignorance of the commissionerswho mistook the Slavonic prayersto the "Tsarytsia,"the VirginQueen, fordevotion to the "Tsarina" in St. Petersburg.56 Brodovych himselfwas fromsuspect Lutsk, and his self-justificationpointed to the problematicpersistence of some Polish suspicion of the Uniates, on the one hand, and some Uniate ambivalence about theirown religious and political affiliations,on the other. The Four-Year Sejm was concernedto ease religious tensionsin the hope of

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 184 WOLFF reconcilingthe peoples of theCommonwealth in a common Polish patriotism.A declarationof theSejm concerningreligion in 1790 denounced"fanaticism" and urgedthe cause of "enlightenment"(oswiecenie). The Sejm called upon "bishops of both ritesto orderthe clergy,in a mannerappropriate to every intelligence, mostoften and mostparticularly to illuminate(pswiecac) thepeople concerning these importanttruths, which are verywell known to elevated knowledge,that, on the strengthof God's religion,loyalty to theirown countryis the most holy obligation."Thus Roman Catholic and Uniate bishops were particularlysingled out and charged withbringing this patrioticmessage to theirflocks. The Sejm offeredan even broadervision of religious reconciliation,based on a policy of officiaitoleration, such thatall thosedifferentiated by religion"should be joined in love of country,loving one another,and living togetherin unity."57Freedom forProtestant and Orthodoxworship would be protected,but Roman Catholic and Uniate populations were clearly regardedas the dual and principaltargets forestablishing patriotism through religious mobilizationand illumination. A special deputationof theSejm reportedon thestate of theUnion in Poland, beginningwith the most elementaryobservations: "The Union in Poland forms partof the dominantreligion. Neither in theirdogma nor in theirsupreme head do the Greek Catholics differfrom the Latin Catholics." This had to be set clearlybefore the Sejm, even two hundredsyears afterthe Union of Brest,as if these points mighthave failed to registeron the governmentof the Common- wealth. "Through the negligence of the governmentthe higherUniate clergy was excluded fromparticipation in the governmentand the lower clergyfrom its protection."This could now be rectified- by bringingthe metropolitaninto the Senate and protectingthe children of parish priests from serfdom- and such attentionswere justified by certaincomplex political considerations."The neglect of the Uniates," the deputationremarked, "can only bind them to the Orthodoxin insidious deceptions,and cause harmto thefatherland."58 This was veryclose to thepolitical appreciationof the Union thatGarampi had attempted to publicize twentyyears before. Now, a revolutionaryconstitutional regime, foundedon the premise of national reformin defiance of foreigndomination, necessarilyweighed withnew seriousnessthe affectionsand disaffectionsof its population.A broaderconception of citizenshipwent hand in hand witha more intense interestin patrioticidentity, marking a milestone in the emergence of modernnationalism. Traditional suspicions of the Uniates lent urgencyto the question of how theywould "bind" themselves,religiously and nationally. The recentlydeceased SmohozhevsTcyiwas hailed in thereport of thedeputa- tionas a Polish nationalhero, demonstrating the perfect combination of "patriotic loyalty and religious zeal."59 He had stood up to Catherine duringthe years when theCommonwealth was prostrate,when thegovernment of Poland had no

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 185 attentionto spare forthe Uniates. No mentionwas made of the factthat he had conciliatedCatherine quite as much as he stood up to her,though the deputation concludedthat Smohozhevsicyi "might have been able to achieve greatersuccess, if he could have participatedin the Senate of the Commonwealth."Therefore, "what he could not be, his successor will become." The deputation actually recommendedthe admission of all theUniate bishops to theSenate, butthe Sejm votedfor the metropolitan alone, Teodosii RostotsTcyi(Theodosius Rostocki),and assigned him, in spite of his archiépiscopal status,a place of lesser precedence behind the Roman Catholic bishops. His admission was explained in the Sejm as a vindicationof past promises,and also a "proofof favorto theclergy of that rite,who have distinguishedthemselves by unshakable loyaltyto the king and the fatherland."60Actually, the encouragementand confirmationof thatloyalty was thereason forRostotsTcyi 's inclusion,but thecontinued exclusion of all the otherUniate bishops made the proof of favor less completely persuasive. By admittingthe metropolitan alone, the Sejm showed itself,in fact,fully attuned to contemporaryenlightened policy towardthe Uniate Church.Catherine, too, had insistedon one archbishopalone to governher Uniate subjects,while in Austria thepossibility of a metropolitanfor Galicia was alreadyunder consideration. The Uniates' ambiguous positionbetween the worlds of Catholicism and Orthodoxy made it seem all the more urgentthat there be one hierarchicalhead to speak for themclearly before the secular state- and relay its requirementsclearly back to them. In establishingpolitical prerogativesover religiousinstitutions, governments valued ecclesiastical structuresthat encouraged rationalintegration and organization. An emphasis on hierarchicalauthority was one aspect of this,while the rationalizationof the dioceses and parishes was another,in Poland after1788 as in Austriaafter 1780. The proposed establishmentof a new see at Minsk was fullyin accord withthese principles.The deputationof the Sejm reported:

The bishopsassigned to foreignlands shouldhave no jurisdictionin our land,and likewise our bishops should have none in neighboring states. They shouldbe able to operateas officials,together with the civil government, and thusbecome witnesses to theintentions of thegovernment.61

The firstpoint of jurisdictionwas almost a conventionalone by thattime, but the second point that followed fromit, envisioning bishops who "operate as officials," representedthe more radical implications of Josephinismand the French Constitutionof the Clergy.This was very much a part of the religious policy of theSejm, withits interest in appropriatingdiocesan propertyand paying salaries to the propertyless bishops. Such invasive policies were considered for

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 186 WOLFF

Catholicism in general, but they were especially interestingin the case of the Uniate Church,since new paths of political reflectionrevealed the urgencyof bindingthe Uniates to the doomed Commonwealth.

A Few Signaturesfrom the Community The issue of Poland's political sovereigntystimulated the Four-Year Sejm to reconsiderrelations between the state and the Uniate Church,and, afterCath- erine's cancellation of the Sejm and violation of Polish sovereignty,she, too, attemptedto transformstate relationswith the Uniates in the Russian Empire. Interventionistsponsorship of theUniates in Poland neverhad timeto takeeffect, since theCommonwealth expired in 1795, while interventionistharassment in the Russian Empire also failed to have its full effect,since Catherinedied in 1796. In fact,the whole intervalfrom 1788, the firstyear of the Sejm, untilCathe- rine's death in 1796 was one of rollercoasterturns in Russian-Polish relations. Justas in the previous period of unsettlementand reorientationfrom 1768 to 1775, now again the Uniate Churchwas buffetedabout in conditionsof political instability,and servedas a convenientpressure point for Catherine as she found herselfonce again reconsideringher Polish policy. The Uniates in 1772 found themselvesdivided among threestates, no longerunited under the protection of the Commonwealth;after 1795 the Commonwealthceased to exist altogether and the Uniates were vulnerable survivorsof the state thathad helped create theirChurch exactly two centuriesearlier. At the same time,a radicalizationof ideas about religious policy throughoutEurope, already evident at the Polish Sejm, encouraged Catherineto tryto handle her Polish crisis in the 1790s by pressuringthe Uniate Church even more aggressivelythan she had at the time of the firstpartition. In 1787, one yearbefore the opening of theSejm, SmohozhevsTcyistill tended theUniates of Poland in thegood gracesof a benignlyaloof government;he could boast of a greatnew churchin Warsaw. In the same year,LisovsTcyi, appointed to fill the Polatsk vacancy four years before, found himself happily favored by his Russian sovereign. It was the year of Catherine's magnificentDnieper regattaprocession to theCrimean peninsula. LisovsTcyi and Siestrzeñcewiczwere also summonedto the Crimea in June 1787, and while the latterwas rewarded there with a new Roman Catholic church- an ancient Greek temple thatthe Muslims had used forbaths - the formerreceived forthe Uniates a mosque to be convertedto Christianworship. In June 1788 the Propaganda Fide in Rome believed thatRussian rule was no imminentmenace to the Uniate Church. On thecontrary, after the bestowal of theCrimean mosque, and withthe outbreak of a new Russian-Ottomanwar, Rome entertained"the most flatteringhopes, with the benedictionof the Lord, forthe furtherpropagation of Catholicism in those regions,should the outcome of the war be favorable to Russia."62 Here was a

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 187 totalreversal of perspectivefrom that of Catherine'sfirst Russian-Ottoman war. In 1774 Rome had been countingon a Turkishvictory so thatthe sultan might protectthe Uniates fromRussia. It was the unsettlingof the political statusquo between Poland and Russia after 1788 thatconsequently unsettled the religious stabilityof the preceding years. When the Russian-Ottomanwar finallydid end in 1791, therewas little cause to persist in the "flatteringhopes" that Rome had once entertained.In 1792 Russian armieswere freeto invade Poland, puttingan end to theFour- Year Sejm, and in 1793 Catherine,together with Frederick William II, imposed upon the Commonwealtha second partition.Thereby she significantlyincreased her populationof Uniate subjects,acquiring a large partof Ukraine,including most of themetropolitan diocese. In thepartition treaty of 1793, Catherineonce again bound herselfto the religious statusquo forCatholics of both rites in her new lands. In thatsame yearCatherine let one of herministers raise fordiscussion the question of how the Uniates could be convertedto Orthodoxy.Ludwig Pastor, in his classic Historyof the Popes, basing his account on thatof Pelesh, noted Catherine's insincerityand flatlyconcluded: "Catherine II, the destructionof Poland accomplished, preparedto deal the death-blowto the Greek Union, this being the second object of her Polish policy and one which she had pursued all along." Madariaga comments that "in common with most contemporary Orthodoxofficials and withsubsequent Orthodox historians, Catherine regarded the Uniate religionas an unhappymarriage of the dogmas of one faithwith the ritualof another,an artificialcreation, specially inventedto seduce theOrthodox populationof Belarus fromtheir allegiance to Moscow."63 Certainly,Catherine was sensitiveto the political implicationsof religious allegiance, and afterthe second partitionshe regardedwith concern the increased numberof her Uniate subjects. In 1794 Russia inaugurateda missionarycampaign directedat thenew Uniate populations.That same yearwitnessed the Kosciuszko insurrectionin Poland, the outbreakof full-scalerevolutionary war against Russia. In fact,the Kosciuszko insurrectionbegan in March, while the missionary campaign opened with a great pastoral appeal in May- accompanied by Russian denunciationsof the Uniates forparticipation in the insurrection.Five years before,the Uniates had been denounced in theCommonwealth for participating in seditiousconspiracies against the Sejm, and now Russia, too, insistedon the significanceof religious affiliationfor political loyalty.In 1794 the violent disorderingof Catherine's Polish policy coincided with the aggressive assault on the Uniates. In 1768 Catherine's militaryresponse to Polish political defiance in the Confederation of Bar had been accompanied by harassmentof the Uniates of Ukraine,and in 1794 she acted similarlyat the momentof the Kosciuszko insurrection.Once again religious pressurewas herresponse to political instability,but the lessons

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 188 WOLFF

of the interveninggeneration, as well as the greaterterritorial rearrangements of the second and thirdpartitions, ensured thatthis time the pressurewould be more radicallyapplied. In 1793 Catherineconsulted the Orthodox Synod concerningthe Uniates, and the Synod in turnconsulted the Greek churchmanEvgenios Voulgaris. He had servedin Russia since the 1770s, and now prepareda memorandum"On theBest Means forReunification of the Uniates withthe OrthodoxChurch." Voulgaris, in many ways a man of the Greek Enlightenment,rejected violence as a means of reunification,and emphasized instead exemplarypastoral appointmentsand a comprehensivesystem of religious education for "correctinstruction in the faith."64Though the ensuing campaign was less pacificthan Voulgaris envisioned, theconsultation of 1793 suggeststhat Catherine herself may notyet have decided upon her means or her ends. At the head of the missionarycampaign in 1794 stood ViktorSadkovsTcyi, who had representedOrthodox interestswithin the Commonwealth since the firstpartition, initially as the chaplain of the Russian embassy in Warsaw,then as archimandriteof themonastery at Slutsk,and finallyas Orthodoxarchbishop of Minsk. SadkovsTcyihad recentlybeen released fromarrest in Poland, under suspicion of sedition since 1789, and now he aggressivelymade the case for Orthodoxvictimization in theCommonwealth. The commitmentof the Russian state to SadkovsTcyiwas expressed in an annual fundof 20,000 rubles for his missionarywork and the promiseof cooperationfrom the Russian army.In the inauguralpastoral appeal of 1794, SadkovsTcyilamented past persecutionof the Orthodoxin Poland, and called upon all those "whose grandparents,fathers, or themselveswere broughtby fraudor by fearfrom Orthodoxy to union withthe Latins,to returnwithout fear to thearms of theOrthodox Church."65 This appeal was read in the Uniate churchesof Catherine's new lands, and the conclusion made explicitthe political concernsof the whole campaign.

Arise,children of theChurch, and findsatisfaction in thefreedom of the Orthodoxconfession that inspired your ancestors and manyof yourselves. The persecutionhas ceased,the storms have subsided. Hurry into the arms of theChurch, your mother, so thatthe peace of consciencemay make youhappy, so thatyou may proceed along the path of truth that leads us to graceand glory.And may each ofyou, according to hiscondition, besides avowingthe truths of theOrthodox religion, also fulfillhis duty of loyalty to thesupreme ruler and thestate.66

Twentyyears before,it had been enough forSmohozhevsTcyi and his clergyto renderpublicly their oath of loyaltyto Catherinein the Polatsk cathedral.Now, a more modern conception of political duties and loyalties required a more

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 189 profoundaffirmation of loyaltyfrom a more complete domain of the population. Religious conversionwas to be both proofand guaranteeof the change in sovereignty. This radicalizationof religiousharassment was revealed in theconduct of the campaign of 1794. At the time of the firstpartition, Uniate priestsin Ukraine had served as focal pointsfor Russian pressure;they were bullied, arrested,and replaced. Now, when a team of Orthodoxpriests and Russian soldiers arrivedin a Uniate village, theyassembled the entirecommunity and applied pressureto everyone.There was missionarypreaching followed by dark threatsand even beatings in church.Above all, therewas an appeal for signatures,and conver- sion to Orthodoxy was confirmedby the signing of individual names. This was persecutionconceived in a modernspirit, initiated in the culminatingyear of the French revolutionaryTerror, and appropriatelyaimed at terrorizingthe Uniate Churchas an aggregationof individuals,not just as a religiouscorporate structure.Furthermore, it was these signaturesthat provided the fig leaf of jus- tificationinvoked by state authority.According to the protestsof Metropolitan RostotsTcyi:

Whereverpriests and people, in spite of threatsand terrors,remained steadfast,then, even whenthey [the persecutors] had obtainedonly a few signaturesfrom the community, they confiscated the church with all its furnishings,took the whole village under their spiritual administration and droveout the Uniate priests.67

Thus, thecollection of signaturespreceded theusurpation of propertyand priest- hood. Churches were appropriatedeither by crude thuggery,with Orthodox missionariesclimbing in the windows, or by more refinedlegal harassmentas foundationpapers were carefullyexamined forevidence of Orthodoxpossession as farback as the Union of 1596. The greatinstitutional blow to the Uniate Churchwas deliveredby Catherine in 1795, just at the timeof thethird, final, and complete partitionof Poland. She dismissed the half-dozen Uniate bishops who now fell under her sovereignty, includingthe metropolitan, and sentthem into retirement on statepensions. Their dioceses, which since the previous year had been locally assaulted, signature by signature,church by church,were now effectivelyabolished by decree from St. Petersburg,and all the Uniates of the Russian Empire were hierarchically subordinatedto the one remainingUniate spiritualauthority, the archbishopof Polatsk. This was Lisovsicyi, who had been chosen by Catherineherself after so much suspense in 1783, and his preservation,indeed his aggrandizement, clearly explained the dismissal of his colleagues. They were all the appoint- ments of Stanislaw August, a king now forced into ignominious abdication

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 190 WOLFF and retirementhimself; they were all subjects of the Commonwealth,a state thatno longerexisted on the map of Europe. Catherine'slong cherishedpolicy of diplomatic dominationin Poland had failed absolutely,and she now faced the more complex challenge of political annexation and administration.The Kosciuszko insurrectionin 1794 gave some idea of how difficultand perilous this challenge mightprove to be in an age of increasinglyemphatic national sentiment.Catherine responded by targetingthe Uniates and applyingthe now practicedtechniques of enlightenedabsolutism - expropriating,consolidating, pensioning,subordinating - the techniques of sovereign authorityin religious affairs.At the same timeshe sponsoreda missionarycampaign, conceived in an aggressivelymodern spirit, to meetthe modern challenge of nationalintegration. The relationshipbetween Church and state would no longer provide the only political key to governmentin theregion; Catherinehad begun to recognize the importanceof the relationshipbetween religion and nationality. She died in 1796, withthe ramifications of the abolitionof Poland stillunre- solved, and withthe missionary campaign againstthe Uniates stillunabating. In nineteenth-centuryCatholic historiography,it was assumed thatCatherine had always intendedto destroythe Uniate Church,and thecampaign of herlast years was interpretedas positive proofof thatintention, the ultimaterevelation of her malevolence. The historianLikowski supposed thatshe would have eradicated the Union altogetherin Russia, anticipatingNicholas by half a century,"if God had extendedher life by several years."68By this interpretation,her death was nothingless thanan instanceof divine intervention.It is truethat the succession of Paul broughta respite for the Uniates, but Catherine's deathbed intentions remain difficultto estimate. Such estimationought to be based on the facts of the campaign of 1794-1796, but also on the whole record of her reign in Uniate affairs.An importantaspect of the last campaign, in thisregard, was the preservationof thearchbishop of Polatsk when all theother bishops were being sentinto forced retirement. At the same time,while missionaryharassment was bothintense and efficaciousin the newly annexed lands of the second and third partitions,the Polatsk diocese remainedrelatively immune. This at least suggests thatCatherine may not have been committedto the complete exterminationof the Union. In fact,her missionary intentions were focused on the newly acquired lands, and especially Ukraine. There the effectswere devastating; the Uniates lost morethan two thousandparishes, and were in manyareas almost institutionally eliminated.The imbalance of the assault, however,the targetingin particular of the Uniates of Ukraine,suggested a governmentpolicy more subtle and specific thansimple crusading.Catherine had unleashed an Orthodoxcampaign in Ukraineonce before,between 1768 and 1775. At thattime the religious pressure

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 191

had ceased as soon as Catherinewas satisfiedwith the outcome of the Polish PartitionSejm. Between 1794 and 1796 she applied the same pressure in the same place at the time of anotherpartition crisis. As forthe pensioning of the Uniate bishops, Catherinealso had applied pressureat the episcopal level once before,between 1779 and 1783 whenthe archbishopric of Polatsklay vacant,and finallyshe had named a new bishop afterclearly establishingher own imperial authorityin religious affairs. Catherine'spersecution of the Uniates in 1794 was the evolutionaryproduct of a thirty-yearreign. Interpretedin the lightof her previous dealings withthe Uniates,especially during the menacing interludes of 1768-1775 and 1779-1783, the final campaign may well have been intended as an expression of political pressureand sovereign authority.In fact,her techniques and principlesof authoritycame not only fromthe contextof her own previous policy,but were also related to Josephinepolicy toward the Uniate Church in Galicia. That her injuriesto the Union were not irreversiblewas demonstratedby thereversal that soon followed underPaul. In December 1796 Rostotslcyialready was saluting Paul in St. Petersburg:

The voice of yourpersecuted and oppressedsubjects, great monarch, has reachedthe throne of yourmajesty and has been heard.You restorefree- dom and happinessto a people who wereoppressed only because they honoredGod accordingto thefaith of theirfathers . . . Kingof kings,you saw our misery,and now you see our happinessbestowed upon us by a good monarch.69

Sadkovsicyiin 1794 proposed to restorethe Uniates to thefold of theirOrthodox ancestors;Rostotslcyi in 1796 looked to themore recent past when he welcomed themback to thefaith of theirUniate fathers.The reversalof policy was already under way as soon as Catherine died and Paul succeeded her. Rostotslcyi,in fact, came very close to openly denouncing Catherine for her oppression of the Uniates, somethinghe could only dare to do when addressingthe son who hated her. In 1797 Lorenzo Litta,the last Warsaw nuncio,went to St. Petersburgas papal legate, and proceeded to negotiatethe reestablishmentof a Uniate hierachyof threedioceses in the Russian Empire. These were no longer the remnantsof old Polish dioceses, but a new hierarchytailored to the new Russian borders.In 1797 Russia, Prussia, and Austriaagreed by secrettreaty "to abolish everything which could revive the memoryof the existence of the Kingdom of Poland."70 When Pope Pius VI ratifiedLitta's diocesan arrangementsin 1798, he accepted at the same timethe sovereigntyof the Russian stateover those formerlands of

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 192 WOLFF the extinctCommonwealth. As political uncertaintieswere resolved, religious pressurewas lifted.The Uniates were freeto returnto the Union in Russia, and theyproceeded to do so. In 1805 RostotsTcyi,"Metropolitan of Kyiv, Halyçh,and Rus'," thelast metropolitanof Stanislaw August,died in retirementin St. Petersburg.The dethroned king also had passed away in St. Petersburg,seven years before in 1798, and the Commonwealthitself was already ten years gone since 1795. In 1806 Tsar Alexander I reactivatedthe metropolitanateby appointingan active successor, but the post itselfwas reallya new one, designatedwith a new titleto erase any shadow of a connectionto the old Commonwealth:"Metropolitan of the Uni- ate Church in Russia." Alexander chose Lisovsicyi, Catherine's archbishopof Polatsk. In thatsame yearthe Habsburg emperor Francis I approvedthe creation of anothernew metropolitanatefor the Uniates of Austria.The post was entitled "Metropolitanof Halych,"thus distinguishing Habsburg Galicia fromthe defunct Commonwealth,and the chosen churchmanwas AntinAnhelovych, who had once been Joseph's rectorat the General Seminaryin Lviv. Thus, in 1806 the Uniates of the Habsburg and Romanov territoriesfaced the nineteenthcentury withtwo distincthierarchies, each witha metropolitanof its own, both cut off fromthe old Commonwealthhierarchy that had constitutedthe Uniate Church fortwo hundredyears. It was no coincidence thatthe new metropolitanateswere assigned to clerics who made theircareers in the 1780s: LisovsTcyi,Catherine's man, and Anhelovych,Joseph's man. Enlightenedabsolutism had transformed theUniate Churchin Austriaand in Russia, and, althoughthe Uniate experience was hardlyidentical in those two states,in bothcases relationsbetween Church and statewere reorderedaccording to enlightenedprinciples of authority.These institutionalparallels leftthe Uniates of both territoriesfar more susceptibleto the power of theirrespective sovereigns. That power would be exercised very differentlyby the Habsburgs and the Romanovs in the nineteenthcentury. The formerwould sponsor a religious and culturalrevival, while the latterwould adopt a policy of persecutionand demolition.These nineteenth-centurydiver- gences, however,should notretrospectively color the historicalappreciation of thecharacteristic structural transformations imposed upon theUniate Churchby enlightenedabsolutism in the eighteenthcentury.

Part II: Ritual and Identity

For Love of theJesuits From November 1772 to January1773, SmohozhevsTcyiwas in St. Petersburg, courtinghis new sovereignand attemptingto attainassurances of the security of his Uniate diocese of Polatsk,now incorporatedinto Catherine'sempire. His conscientiouscourtiership allowed him not only to sample the artichokesand

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 193 melons supplied to the imperialtable, but also to make the acquaintance of the greatladies who attendedthe court of thetsarina. His sociabilitywas sufficiently successfulto attracta bevy of countesses fromthe grandestfamilies - Golitsyn, Razumovskii, Naryshkin- to the liturgiesthat he celebrated in the Catholic churchof St. Petersburg.He reportedwith satisfaction to Rome thatthese ladies "leftconvinced thatthere exists no essential differencebetween my masses and those of Russia." Afterwards,in conversation,he was repeatedlyasked about differentdetails of theceremony - vestments,missals, bells, theEucharist - and he replied,"joking withmodesty," in such a way as to convince the ladies that any variationsdid not"damage theessence" of theGreek rite.After these replies, he reportedto theWarsaw nuncio,all objections "vanished."71This reportmade the demonstrationin St. Petersburginto a double-edged declaration,teaching suspicious and curious Russians thatthe Uniate rite was reassuringlyfamiliar, while at the same time remindingthe Vatican that the Uniates were ritually distinctfrom Roman Catholics. From its creationin 1596, the mixed natureof theUnion - combiningCatholic authorityand theologywith an Orthodoxclergy and ritual- was troublingto aggressivepurists in boththe Catholic and Orthodox camps. In 1772, the partitionof Poland and ascension of Russian power made it all the more importantthat the Uniate Church unequivocally affirmits own mixed construction,as a conditionof independentidentity and survival.If such self-identificationwas firstpracticed in 1772 at thehighest levels of theepiscopal hierarchy- addressedto theVatican or thecourts of St. Petersburg,Warsaw, and Vienna- over the next generationits urgencywould be experienced at every level of the Uniate Church, in all its social contexts,as village communities were invitedto choose theirown priestsand individual peasants were solicited fortheir signatures. Smohozhevslcyiin St. Petersburgwas notalways in femalecompany. He often visitedwith three members - "learnedand humane"- of theOrthodox Synod, to discuss privatelythe points of divisionbetween Orthodoxy and Catholicism,and even the possibilitiesof general reunion.These discussions were friendlyeven in disagreement,allowing for"intimate little disputes" (famigliaridisputar elle). They culminatedin a seven-hourinformal symposium on issues of ritual and theology,with serious debate over the natureof the Eucharist."Heated by such a long conversation,"SmohozhevsTcyi had to take to his bed withfever for four days, "diverting"himself by reading Greek authoritieson Eucharistie forms. Fully recovered and returnedto society at the home of Count Chernyshev,he was provokedin company- by an outspokenRussian theologian- to pronounce publiclyupon thepossible unionof theChurches. His listenersappeared "strongly surprised"to learn that"the pope seeks nothingbut dogmatic Union, and, in the rest,regarding the sacred rites and trulypious and honest customs, as well as ecclesiastical liberty,he is accustomed withoutdifficulty to condescend to the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 194 WOLFF desires of nations (alle brame delle Nazioni)" - as demonstratedin the case of theRuthenian Uniates themselves.72 Again thedeclaration cut two ways,offering the Russian Empire the Uniate Church as a model of ecumenical unity,while informingRome of the precise termsin which the Uniate archbishop would construeand defendthe Catholicism of the Uniates. The message to the Vatican was underlinedby the extraordinaryexclama- tion,addressed to theWarsaw nuncio Garampi,that followed at thispoint in the dispatch.For the"surprise" of thecompany, like thequestions of theladies after mass, confirmedfor SmohozhevsTcyi that in theRussian Empire thereprevailed the most damaging misimpressionsof the Uniate compromise.Yet he did not blame eitherSt. Petersburgor Orthodoxy:

Ah! myReverend Monsignor, now I understandhow muchhas beencon- tributedto the stubbornness (cocciutaggine) of the Orthodox (disuniti), and to thepresent disasters of Poland,by thatselfish (interessato) zeal of the Jesuitfathers, and also of someLatin bishops, exercised most damagingly formore than a hundredyears, to renderdespised (vilipeso), ridiculous, and also abhorredthe sacred rite of theseUniates, in orderto occupythe propertyof their churches, to transfer so manyvillages, so manycities, and so manynoble families of the Greek Catholic rite to theLatin rite, having in thismanner debilitated the Church and the condition of the Uniates, and reinforcedthat of the Orthodox.73

In short,for the suspicion he encounteredin St. Petersburgas a Uniate in 1772, he blameda long historyof Roman Catholiccontempt and despoliationin Poland, especiallyby theJesuits. The UniateChurch, from its founding in 1596, depended upon a negotiatedcompromise between Orthodoxyand Catholicism, and that balance seemed more urgentlythreatened by Latin forces in Poland rightup until 1772. Suspicion of Rome lingeredthrough the next generation,and even acquired additionalforce from the need to demonstratein the Russian Empire, as SmohozhevsTcyidid, thatthe Uniates preservedtheir Greek rites. SmohozhevsTcyiwas a carefullypolitical prelate,and just as he underplayed any anxiety about Russian Orthodoxywhile at the court of Catherine,so he could hardlydenounce Roman Catholicism withoutqualification in a reportto the Warsaw nunciaturefor relay to the Vatican. The blaming of the Jesuitswas the solutionto thispolitical awkwardness,and theycame to serve as a focus for Uniate resentmentagainst the high-handedness of Roman Catholic sponsorship. There was a certain historicalinjustice in this, for it was a sixteenth-century Jesuit,Antonio Possevino, who played a leading role in the creation of the Uniate Church,while seventeenth-centuryJesuits, as in the case of the Chinese rites,had advocated preciselythe sortof open constructionof Catholicism that

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 195

Smohozhevsicyidescribed in St. Petersburgas the key to religious union. The Jesuitsin the eighteenthcentury, however, were naturalscapegoats, denounced across Europe in a spirit of both Jansenism and Enlightenment,and finally abolished as an orderby theVatican itself in July1773, thevery same monththat Smohozhevsicyiwrote his reporton thevisit to St. Petersburg.In 1770 he already complained fromPolatsk thathe could devote more time to the defense of the Uniates, "if I were notdisquieted and persecutedby the Jesuitsof thisCollege." In 1772 he protestedagainst "Jesuiticalusurpations and persecutions,"warning Rome that"for love of theJesuits it is not fittingto keep in ignorancethe secular clergyof the Uniates, nor to leave open thedoor to transitex Rituad Ritum,and now what use can I have frommy poor and ignorantpriests?"74 Thus, theJesuits representedthat privileged part of Roman Catholicism, privileged in property and in education, thatunderlined by contrastthe povertyand ignorance of the Uniate clergy.At the same time,their worldly advantages made themappear as religiouspredators, undermining the Uniate Churchby drawingoff its members in transitto the Roman rite. Afterthe suppression of theJesuits by the Vatican, they continued to existinsub- ordinatelyin Russia withthe encouragementof Catherine,and SmohozhevsTcyi gave emphaticexpression to his resentmentin denunciationsto Rome. The Jesuits had been orderedto divestthemselves of their"habits," the distinctive costumes of theirorder: "but I believe thatchanging habit will notchange thehide - on the contrary,Jesuitism hidden and everywheredispersed will be dangerous,so it will be necessaryto see to itthat no two of theseVenerable Members should ever find themselvestogether in the same place." Such paranoia was consistentwith the most conventionaleighteenth-century anticlerical myths of Jesuitplotting and conspiracy.Indeed, Jesuitinsubordination in the face of the suppressionof the societyhighlighted the crucial and definingissue of Catholicismfor the Uniates: theirown hierarchicalsubordination to the pope, in spite of theirun-Roman rites.SmohozhevsTcyi took satisfactionin reportinghimself "horrified" to hear an angryJesuit theologian "vomiting" his opinion,regarding the suppressionof his order,that "Luther leftthe Roman Church for less reason."75By 1774 the Uniate bishop achieved an even cruderintensity of expression,denouncing the supreme"bestiality" of Jesuitwritings (bestialissime irriflessioni), at whichpoint his outragealmost seemed to partakeof the anticlericalfervor so favoredby the age of Enlightenment.That same year,in the house of a Polish woman froma Jesuitfamily, herself rather crudely characterizedas grandissima Gesuitessa, he encountereda "pseudo-Jesuit" (Gesuitino) and warned him against tryingto celebrate any masses in Uniate churches.The Gesuitino "ran" to complain to his "pseudo-Rector" (Rettorone),and the Uniate archbishopfeared they would attack him at court in Warsaw.76Evidently, his fear was not so great, or he would not have spoken so plainly,but the furyof his commentson the Jesuits

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 196 WOLFF duringthese years of theirmisfortune suggested a spiritualliberation from past intimidations. Such seeminglygratuitous vehemence mustbe takenas an importantsymp- tomaticmanifestation of the Uniate hierarchicalmentality in the 1770s. These odd outburstsreflected more than resentmentabout the Jesuitspreying upon the Uniate Churchor about the symbolicjuxtaposition of privilegedand under- privileged withinthe Catholic world. Anger at the Jesuitsreflected a whole historicalperspective on the purpose and directionof the Uniate Church,from its foundationin 1596 to its new exigencies after1772. The date of the Union of Brest in 1596 lends itself to alternativeinterpretations. Was the Union a triumphof the Counter-Reformation,ten years afterthe failureof the Spanish Armada,a Jesuitconquest in EasternEurope wherebymillions were converted fromOrthodoxy to Catholicism? Or was it a late Renaissance compromise,in the same spiritof religious conciliation that characterizedthe contemporary reigns of Elizabeth I in England and Rudolf II in Prague? Smohozhevsicyiin St. Petersburgin the late eighteenthcentury clearly considered it an important pointof externalpolicy towardstate authority and of religiousidentity within the Church- to insiston a spiritof compromisepresiding over the foundation and developmentof the Union. It was thus thathe himselfheld forthupon the natureof religiousunion, concluding with historical references that revealed his interestin the Renaissance. The pope, he explained at the home of Chernyshev, was "accustomed withoutdifficulty to condescend to thedesires of nations,just as Eugenius IV condescended to the Greek propositionsat the Council of Flor- ence, and Clement VIII to the demands of the Rutheniansof Poland."77Thus, linkingthe reigns of Eugenius IV (1431-1447) and ClementVIII (1592-1605), and comparingthe Council of Florence (1439) withthe Union of Brest (1596), theeighteenth-century archbishop implicitly assigned thecreation of the Uniate Churchto an age of Renaissance union and compromise. The Jesuits,with their Ignatian religious militancy,with their reputation for clevernessand machination,represented for Smohozhevslcyi the alternative and false interpretationof the Union in termsof the Counter-Reformation.If the Union was no sincerecompromise, but a simple victoryfor Catholicism, then the Ruthenianshad fallenfor a Jesuittrick and changed theirreligion solely to serve the purpose of Counter-Reformationself-aggrandizement. In fact,this was the Orthodoxperspective on theUnion, the reason thatSmohozhevsTcyi encountered Russian "surprise"when he explained thetrue nature of his Church;he attributed thisto Jesuitcontempt for the Uniates and Jesuitpreying upon Uniate properties and populations.That contemptand those appropriationswere the signs of an interpretationof the whole Union that SmohozhevsTcyiwould not accept and soughtto refute.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 197

This historicalconcern was all the more relevantin the late eighteenthcentury,because the properwork of the Counter-Reformation remained still to be completed in the age of Enlightenment.Jean Delumeau has argued that the fundamentalachievement of theCounter-Reformation in WesternEurope was the "Christianization"of a clergythat previously showed a ratherweak standardof pietyand dedication,so thatpriests might in turnChristianize a hithertodeeply superstitiousand ignorantpopulation.78 The "ignorance" thatSmohozhevsicyi franklynoted in his own parishclergy called forChristian education, so thatthe likewise ignorantpeasant laitymight also achieve thatlevel of religious identity necessaryto thesurvival of theUniate Church.He did nothesitate to propose that confiscatedproperties of the suppressedJesuits should fundthe education of the Uniate clergy:"Good God, such propertiesfrom their most antique foundations should belong to my clergy,needful of education more than anythingelse, the securityof the Catholic religiondepending upon this."79 His denunciationsof the Jesuits,even his interestin confiscations,allowed the archbishop's religious programto be curiouslyconditioned by eighteenth- centuryenlightened values. Even his concern about ignorance and education, combined as it was with hostilityto the Jesuits,involved the spirit of both Counter-Reformationand Enlightenment.When he leftRussia in 1780 to bring those same values to Poland as the metropolitan,he remindedCatherine of his educational and economic enterprisesas evidence of his good service to her. Above all, it was his unrelenting,attitude toward the Jesuitsthat allowed him to make the idea of religious union into an ideological connection between Renaissance and Enlightenment,effacing or revisingthe values of theproblem- atic Counter-Reformation.His spiritedspeech, on behalf of a union thatwould allow "ecclesiastical liberty"to the "desires of nations," took on some of the rhetoricalcoloring of Lessing or Voltaire.After all, his hyperbolichatred of the Jesuitsin itselfbrought the archbishopof Polatsk into peculiar alignmentwith the philosopher of Ferney. By his rejection of the Jesuitsand his celebration of theirsuppression, SmohozhevsTty i signaled a certainmodernity of purpose, which may be observed at everylevel and location of the Uniate Churchduring thelast decades of theeighteenth century. With the passing of theancien régime, a specificallyUniate identitywas cultivatedin ritualand disseminatedthrough education,to adapt an earlymodern religious experiment to formsand standards of pietyconsistent with the conditionsof modernsociety.

Insolentand Malignant Transit In 1773, at the heightof his outrage against the Jesuits,Smohozhevsicyi also found energyto denounce the activities of certainlocal Carmelites who were convertingUniates withinhis diocese to Roman Catholicism. He declared him-

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 198 WOLFF self "scandalized by these Carmelitefathers, discalced but richenough" - thus sounding the note of resentmentagainst privilege- and lamented that "they weaken the Church of the Uniates, inflamethe Orthodox,and scandalize even the Jews."80The issue of Uniate "transit"to Roman Catholicism was one that came up as well withregard to the Jesuits,not just as a contemporaryproblem of Uniates passing ex Ritu ad Ritum,but also as an historicalreflection upon the seventeenth-centuryPolish assimilation of the Ruthenian nobility- "so many noble families of the Greek Catholic rite"- withJesuit schools exercis- ing a certain cultural magnetism upon Uniate boys. It was strikingthat the Uniate Church in 1773 should have interesteditself so acutely in the scandal of "transit"to Roman Catholicism at preciselythe time thatRussian armies in Ukraine facilitatedwidespread and ongoing "apostasy" to Orthodoxy.In fact, theseissues were perceivedas interlockingparts of thesame problem,inasmuch as Roman Catholic contemptbred Orthodoxcontempt, and any pressurefrom the Roman side was dangerouslyinflammatory in Russia. For SmohozhevsTcyi in St. Petersburg,the key to preservingthe Union withinan Orthodoxstate was to demonstratethe sincerityof its foundingcompromise. Such demonstration was notsimply political in purpose,for compromise was also thekey to internal viabilityand vitality,enabling the Uniate Churchto satisfythe ritual and spiritual concernsof its members. Smohozhevslcyihad studiedin Rome as a youngman from1734 to 1740, and it was therethat he acquired not only his richlyexpressive command of Italian, but also the learned expertiseto pronounce upon the fatefulimportance of the transitissue forthe Uniates:

Duringthe time of mystay in Rome,I digestedall thematerial on transit, and I am absolutelypersuaded that the ruin of theCatholic religion here continuesas theconsequence of such insolent and malignant transit. I have spokenand written enough about this, but the singularly Jesuitical arrogance, bymeans of calumny, has impeded the holy effects of the apostolic prohibi- tionestablished even in theyears 1624, 1636,and 1742. Now is thetime thatthe Holy See shouldshow the world that in factit desires the integrity ofthe Greek Catholic rite, that it censures, abhors, and condemns whoever weakensit, derides it, discourages it, and finally whoever, with a thousand arts,under the pretext of sanctity,seeks to extinguishit.81

Typically,the specific transgressionsof the Carmelites were absorbed into the moregeneral malignancy of Jesuiticalarrogance, as SmohozhevsTcyicalled upon Rome to protectthe Uniates by complementingthe suppressionof the Jesuits witha prohibitionagainst transit.In fact,he managed to obtain at this time the full supportof Rome forthat prohibition, achieving forhis diocese withinthe

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 199

Russian Empirethat affirmation of Uniate distinctnessthat was withheldthrough two centuriesin the Commonwealth. In 1624, rightafter the Orthodox lynchingin 1623 of the Uniate bishop of Polatsk, St. Josaphat,Pope Urban VIII issued a decree against the transitof Uniates to Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholic influencesaround King Sigis- mundIII, however,managed to obstructthe publicationof thedecree in Poland, and attritionamong the Uniate nobilitycontinued apace. There was a renewed interestin this issue in the middle of the eighteenthcentury, in the aftermath of the papal bull of 1742 "Etsi pastoralis," addressed to the Uniate Greeks of Sicily and Calabria. The bull attributedgeneral "precedence" (praestantia) to Roman Catholicism over the Greek rite,provoking concern among Uniates as farafield as Poland. In 1744 Pope Benedict XIV sent a message to the Warsaw nuncio on the subject of transit;the Jesuitsof Poland were to be remindedthat Rome did not approve of encouragingUniates to embrace the Latin rite.82The Roman Catholic and Uniate hierarchieswere polarized throughthe following decade over "Etsi pastoralis" and the transitissue, with the Uniate bishops gatheringat Dubno in 1745, the Latin bishops at Hrodna (Grodno) in 1752, and the Uniates again at Vilnius in 1753. In 1752 Pope Benedict XIV queried the king of Poland, Augustus III, on the issue of transit,but the king preferred not to declare himself,and thereforeeventually declined to involve the state in thisChurch affair.In 1755 the pope himself,in the constitution"Allatae sunt," expressed a commitmentto the preservationof Orientalrites within the Roman Catholic Church,and a concomitantopposition to transit,but thiscould not be enforcedin Poland withoutthe supportof the state and against the opposition of the Latin bishops. The controversyreached such a pitch in the 1750s thatthe Roman Catholic bishop of Przemysl, Wactaw Sierakowski, did not hesitate to turnthe tables in a sensational fashion with a denunciationof Uniate priests who somehow surreptitiouslybaptized Roman Catholic childrento force theminto the Greek rite.83Uniate counterchargeswere sometimesof a similarnature, especially with regardto the influencesexercised upon youngpupils in Jesuitschools. The level of terrorand malice thatemerged when the transit issue became one of protecting childrenfrom abduction and seduction,suggests that the polarization of Roman Catholics against Uniates in early modernPoland could feed upon social tensions more oftenassociated with superstitiousanxiety about Jews or Gypsies. At the same time,the feverpitch of charges and counterchargesbetween these two Catholic rites over "transit"in the 1750s was strikinglyanalogous to the intenselymutual recriminations over "apostasy" betweenUniates and Orthodox in the 1760s. It was thiscontext that explained how Smohozhevsicyicould enter Catherine'sempire in 1772, stillworried that Roman Catholics were plottingto "ruin" and "extinguish"the Union throughtransit. For Uniate survivalover the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 200 WOLFF past generationhad depended upon a two-frontstruggle to define its identity and preserveits numbersagainst the aggressive intentions of bothPolish Roman Catholicism and Russian Orthodoxy. In 1773, the Basilians of Polatsk registeredthe news fromWarsaw of the humiliatingtreaties of partition,which separated Polatsk from Poland and confirmedits new place in the Russian Empire. Under these unprecedented and unsettlingcircumstances the monks examined theirown Uniate identityin recalling the storyof a teenage novice, Adam Miszun, who had to defend his vocation against the objections of his parents:

Themother repeatedly said to her son, "Adalku, Adalku, don't you remember whenyou were little and cried in your cradle, and I wentto you, by day and also by night,and now you have forgottenyour mother, so thatmy tears don'tmove you." The sonreplied: "When I was little,I criedbecause I was stupid,but now you have sense but you cry without reason." And the Father remonstratedwith his son: "Adalku,to whomwill I leave myfortune, my money,et cetera."The son replied:"There is myyounger brother, there is mysister." The motheragain applied herself to otherpersuasions saying, "Adalku,what do you gain by becominga Ruthene(co tobiepotym te zostanieszrusinem) and wearing a russetcloak (siermiçgà) like a peasant." The sonreplied: "That doesn't matter at all,that I willbe a Ruthene,because a Rutheneis just as good as a Roman."84

In 1773, strandedin theRussian Empire,the Uniates needed to affirmtheir iden- tityby rejectingabsolutely the presumptuousclaims of Roman precedence. Smohozhevslcyiin 1773 was reflectingupon the seductive persuasions of transitto Roman Catholicism.It seemed altogetherfitting that Clement XIV, the pope who abolishedthe Jesuits, should also at long last bringabout the full formal publication of the Vatican's prohibitionagainst transit.Thus SmohozhevsTcyi appealed fromPolatsk in October 1773:

I knowfor sure that the Jesuits, unable to increase in Poland except upon the ruinsof the Uniates, therefore made Urban VIII, ofimmortal memory, fear thatthe publication of the prohibition against transit would not be permitted byKing Sigismund III. I knowalso, that in spite of these oppositions extorted byfalse supposition, the Apostolic See inthe year 1636 validly decreed "not to have rescindedthe decree of His Holiness"with which Urban VIII in theyear 1624, under the gravest pains, forbade any transit by theUniates withoutspecial dispensation of theApostolic See. The affairwas decided, andthe death of the great Pope Benedict XIV impededits publication. Divine

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 201

Providencehas leftit to thepresent Supreme Pastor, born and elevatedto overcomethe greatest difficulties, and to unravel the truth from the pretexts, thathis paternalfeelings should move him to act thatthe above decreebe finallynotified to the bishops, the priests, and to the monastic communities in theformer and moderndominion of Poland,with precise orders never againon thispoint to stirup thepoor Ruthenian Uniates, afflicted from all sides,and more attached than anyone else to the Holy Religion, the Apostolic See, and theVicar of Christendom.85

In fact,Clement XIV acceded to the petitionfrom Polatsk, aftermore than a centuryof papal hesitation,partly because the new situationof the diocese in the Russian Empire, afterthe partition,meant thattransit to the Latin rite had now become politicallyproblematic. One year later,in October 1774, SmohozhevsTcyifinally received the long- awaited word fromthe prefect of thePropaganda Fide and repliedwith gratitude: "I have neverin my lifehad a sweetermoment than that in which I received from MonsignorNuncio of Poland themost precious lines withwhich Your Eminence favoredme on 16 Julyand accompanied by the most clementbrief of Our Lord, trulyglorious and eternallyadorable hierarchof theChurch of Christ."86Between theposting in Julyand deliveryin October,however, Clement XIV, thatadorable hierarch,had died on 22 September,amid rumorsthat he was poisoned by the Jesuitsfor his role in theirsuppression. This attentionof the dyingpope to the Uniates of Belarus could hardlyhave loomed large for him as he looked back upon his traumaticreign. In Polatsk, however,it was sweet indeed, as an affirmationtoo long deferredthrough the historyof early modernPoland. It enabled Smohozhevsicyiand his successors to turntheir full attentionto the problems of survival in an Orthodox state, thoughthey were neverable to discountaltogether the possibility of dangerfrom the Latin quarter.The precedentof confirmingthe prohibitionagainst transit was importantin itself,and it would be extended to the Habsburg monarchy in 1777 with the supportof Maria Theresa. In 1778 the Propaganda Fide was still debating whetherthe confirmationof prohibition,issued for the Uniate Churchin theRussian Empire,might be extendedto whatremained of Poland.87 SmohozhevsTcyiin 1774 cherishedthat confirmation, not so much as an obstacle to defectionsas a declarationof identityand clarificationof history.He rejoiced thatnow at last, "everyone, of whateverstate and confession, will have to be fullyconvinced about the calumny,malignantly disseminated since 1596 and obstinately believed, that the Apostolic See, in desiring and promotingthe ecclesiastical Union of the Ruthenians,never had anythingelse in mind but the weakening and then the extinctionof theirrites."88 He made this same point,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 202 WOLFF regardingthe sincerityof the Union, in dealing diplomaticallywith his hosts in St. Petersburgthe year before,and it was also this clarification,beyond its diplomaticsignificance at court,which made the Union into somethingfor the Uniates worthfighting to save. The most likely Latin predatorupon the Uniates of Belarus was none other than Siestrzeñcewicz, Catherine's highly favored Roman Catholic bishop at Mahilioü (Mogilev), who caused such embarrassmentto Rome by protecting the Jesuitsin the Russian Empire. In 1774 he was on his way home fromSt. Petersburgto Mahilioü, and stopped at Polatsk to visit SmohozhevsTcyifor halfan hour.Siestrzeñcewicz ominouslyconfided that in St. Petersburgpeople spoke of forcingthe Uniates intoOrthodoxy after the death of SmohozhevsTcyi, but also insisted, in apparent contradictionto this intention,that he himself had the government'spermission to bring the Uniates over to the Latin rite. SmohozhevsTcyibelieved in the Latin menace more readily than the Orthodox one, and immediatelysuspected some sortof Jesuitmaneuver (qualche politica de' Gesuiti). He was confidentthat the governmentin St. Petersburgwould respect the Uniates as long as the Roman Catholic clergy did not proselytize among them.Above all, he reportedhis concernthat Siestrzeñcewicz was influ- encing thatgovernment against the urgentlyrequested Vatican confirmationof the transitprohibition. "Eh!" exclaimed the Uniate archbishopof Polatsk with outrageagainst the nearby Roman Catholic bishop of Mahilioü, "let himexercise his zeal in the conversionof those who are not Catholic, and leave in peace the Uniates,faithful to Christand to his Vicar,the Roman Pope." When theVatican confirmationfinally came, Siestrzeñcewicz was predictablyobstructive about registering,publicizing, and communicatingit to his clergy,revealing his dedication, according to SmohozhevsTcyiin 1775, to "the ulteriordestruction of the Uniates."89The role of Siestrzeñcewiczas Latin nemesisof theUniates in Russian Poland was paralleled by thatof Sierakowski, Roman Catholic archbishopof Lviv, in AustrianPoland. As the bishop of Chelm in Poland in the 1750s he had made inflammatoryaccusations about the Uniate menace to Roman Catholic children,and in the 1770s, promotedto the archbishopricat Lviv, he used his influencein Vienna and throughoutGalicia against the Uniates. It was in Belarus, however,that Uniate transitto Roman Catholicism actually became a significantsocial reality,not just a symbolic issue of sincerity. During the fouryears from 1779 to 1783, when Catherinedeclined to fill the vacancy at Polatsk leftby SmohozhevsTcyi'spromotion to the metropolitanate, when Uniates were encouragedto choose freely"whatever priest the community desires,"even thecommitment of thePropaganda Fide in Rome was notenough to preventsome passage to the Latin rite as well as to Orthodoxy.One of the threemembers of the governingconsistory, Innokentii MalynovsTcyi (Innocent Malinowski), wondered whetherit would be betterto tryto convertthe whole

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 203 diocese to the Latin rite as a refugefrom Orthodoxy. In fact,Siestrzeñcewicz was conductingan active campaign of Roman Catholic proselytismduring these years, welcoming thousands of Uniates, and the nineteenth-centuryhistorian Likowski vindicated this activity: "However much we may personally wish well to the RuthenianUniate Church,in the case of a Uniate who had only the choice between schism and the Latin rite we would withouthesitation advise him to join the Latin Church."90An eighteenth-centuryUniate churchmanlike Smohozhevsicyi,however, refused to see the alternativesso starkly,and in fact three-quartersof the Uniate population in Belarus remained constantthrough theseyears. From withinthe Uniate hierarchy,the prédations of Siestrzeñcewicz, Roman Catholic bishop of Mahilioü, as much as those of Heorhii KonysTtyi, Orthodoxbishop of Mahilioü, appeared similarlydeleterious. Records fromthe diocese of Chehn suggestthe active natureof Roman Catholic efforts,for when Uniates in transitstated their reasons forchanging rites, most spoke of receiving "advice" fromLatin priests,especially Piaristsand Jesuits.91 SmohozhevsTcyibelieved afterthe partitionthat the prohibitionof transitto Roman Catholicism was the best guarantee against provokingthe aggressive intentionsof Russian Orthodoxy.His reasoningwas dramaticallyconfirmed in 1786 in Poland, where he himselfthen presided as metropolitan.In thatyear, while the Sejm was meeting in Warsaw, an anonymous appeal to the Polish representativeswas published,calling upon themto abolish by law the Uniate Churchand incorporateits membersinto Roman Catholicism.The authorcited pastoralreasons, alleging the ignorance and immoralityof theUniate clergy,and especially economic reasons- for the differentreligious holidays of the Latin and Uniaterites complicated economic lifewherever the populations coincided.92 Such an appeal to standardsof educationand economy appeared to be motivated by social values of the Enlightenment,all the more so in the presumptuously Josephinistsuggestion that the Sejm should have any power at all to legislate, or even propose, such a course. The only consequence of this anonymous piece of provocationwas a mag- nificentpropagandists opportunityfor the Orthodox bishop KonysTcyi,which he exploited in a powerfulopen letterto the Uniate bishops of theCommonwealth. His was preciselythat calumny that SmohozhevsTcyi had foughtto refute- that the Union was a mere trick,and thatthe Roman Catholics of Poland had long intendedto extinguishthe Greek rite of the Uniates. No less interestedin the historyof the Union than Smohozhevsicyihimself, KonysTcyi recounted that at the Sejm of 1717, seventyyears earlier,there also had been advocates for an assault on the Uniate Church. The Silent Sejm of 1717 had consummatedthe triumphof Peter I over the Commonwealth,and then,too, Polish fearof Russia had engenderedsuspicion of the Uniates. Now, in 1786, Konysicyirecalled the Polish inclinationsof 1717: to speak withcontempt of Uniate religiouspractice,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 204 WOLFF to deny the Uniates education and give themuneducated priests and bishops,to subordinateUniate bishops to Latin bishops, to conspire withJews to displace Uniates fromthe towns and reduce themto feudal dependence. KonysTcyithen appealed to the Uniates fromthe perspective of 1786: "Now you say yourselves whethereverything contained in theproject was notcarried out in thefollowing yearsright up to thepresent moment."93 By the same token,the project of 1786 forthe abolition of theUniate Churchcould notbe disregardedas thenastiness of an anonymouscrank, but had to be studiedinstead as seriouslyprogrammatic. With scathingsarcasm KonysTcyi warned the Uniates against any religious union thatwas sponsoredin Rome and consummatedin Poland:

Look at thebeautiful and tempting example for the Greeks, to bringabout unionwith the Roman Church! For Ruthenia a veryappealing union of the UniateRuthenian with the Roman clergy in all libertiesand privileges!A trulyapostolic method and mannerfor spreading the Catholic faith, when by such measuresone transformsthe RuthenianCatholics into Roman Catholics!94

It was to undermineprecisely such charges as these thatSmohozhevsTcyi had sought to demonstratethe sincerityof the Union. Now KonysTcyiappealed to SmohozhevsTcyihimself, "reverend metropolitan," and his bishops, taunting them:"You flatteredyourselves with the conviction that you were thetrue image of theoriginal Greek Catholic Church,through the inseparable bond of faithand Christianlove unitedwith the Roman Catholic Church and amalgamated into one essence- look how yourRoman Catholic brothersthink about dealing with you." KonysTcyiassured the Uniates thatneither the Roman pope, northe Polish king, whatevertheir intentions, were powerful enough to protectthe Uniate Church fromdestruction, and urgedthem to consider instead the protectionof "theinvincible empress of Russia." In KonysTcyi's view,this represented the only real road to religiousunion: "When you have laid aside theimaginary prejudice and antipathyagainst the Orthodox implantedby your annihilators,then you may be an instrumentand fortunatemeans towardthe encouragementof unity and of thatunion which rests upon the love and peace of Christ."95There was a certainconvergence of discourse between KonysTcyiand SmohozhevsTcyi,as theyaddressed the same historicaland theologicalissues witheven a measureof agreementin substance,but yet with that illusively unmeasurable gap in perspectivethat totally inverted each other'smessages. They contestedthe contemporary identityof the Uniate Churchaccording to theirdifferent confessional perspec- tives,by interpretivelyreviewing and revisingthe historyof the Union.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 205

Accordingto the Custom of the Oriental Church KonysTcyi'ssarcastic tributeto the "union of the Uniate Ruthenian with the Roman clergyin all libertiesand privileges"played upon longstandingtensions over a perceived inequalityof rites.Papal rulingsof the early seventeenthcen- turyprotected the Uniate Church by guaranteeingits equality with the Roman CatholicChurch in Poland, culminatingin the 1643 declarationof thePropaganda Fide that"Ruthenian ecclesiastics should enjoy the same canonical privileges, immunities,and libertiesas the Latin ecclesiastics." Yet, already in 1643 and 1644, Roman Catholic synods in Poland were revising the pronouncements of Rome, and whittlingaway at the supposed equality of rites. Latin priests were forbiddento celebrate mass in Uniate churches or to make theirconfes- sions to Uniate priests,while Uniate bishops were spitefullydenied the titleof "Illustrissimus."96Roman Catholic pretensionsin Poland acquired new energy in the eighteenthcentury when in 1742 "Etsi pastoralis" assigned praestantia to the Latin Church in Sicily and Calabria. The Latin bishops in Poland laid claim to hierarchical superiorityover the Uniate episcopate. In 1784, when Smohozhevsicyias metropolitansought a suffraganbishop to assist him in the pastoral care of his vast diocese in Ukraine while he attended to politics in Warsaw, he warned the Vatican thatthe promotionwould have to be handled withthe utmostdiscretion: "so as not to alarm the Latin bishops, al ways jealous {sempregelosi) of whateveradvance in the Ruthenianclergy."97 Not until 1792 at the Four-Year Sejm, withthe Commonwealthon the brinkof extinction,was the Uniate metropolitanRostotsTcyi brought into the Senate as a gesturetoward the long obstructedequality of rites. The Uniates of Poland, aftertwo centuriesof puttingup with second-class status,were targetedby KonysTcyias potentiallymalcontent, but thissame issue of equalityoperated quite differentlyin Russian Poland and AustrianPoland after 1772. In theRussian Empire it was less important,for neither Catholic ritecould enjoy theprivileges of dominancein an Orthodoxstate. In AustrianPoland, on the otherhand, where the Habsburgs had neitherpersonal nor historical commitments to thedisputation of privilegesand riteswithin the early modern Commonwealth, thepartition virtually reestablished the Uniate Churchupon a new foundationof guarantees.In 1774 Maria Theresa officiallyordered the Roman Catholic bishops of Galicia to instillin theirclergies a spiritof "love and friendship"toward the Uniates.98That such love had to be imperiallycommanded was stronglysugges- tiveof itsabsence hitherto.The Roman insinuationsof Sierakowski,who traveled fromLviv to Vienna to urgeupon the empressthe attractionsof praestantia and transit,were counteredby the presence of the Uniate priest Ivan Huts' (Hue), sent by SheptytsTcyifrom Lviv to Vienna to act forten years as a sortof Uniate ambassador to the Habsburg capital.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 206 WOLFF

In 1782 JosephII furtherelaborated upon theprinciples of equalitygoverning therelations of thedifferent Catholic ritesin Galicia. He took up the"love" motif suggestedby his motherin 1774, and developed it into an enlightenedallegory of religiouscoexistence:

Since in Galicia theCatholic religion consists of threerites, namely the Latin,the Greek Uniate, and the Armenian Uniate, it is especiallyimportant to see to it thatthese three daughters of one mothershould live in sisterly love,and among the peoples as wellas amongthe clergies of these confes- sionsall discordis to be avoided.All threerites must be maintainedin the sameregard and no one ritepermitted to take precedence over both others, whichare just as venerable.All religiousdisputes between these three united religionsor contemptfor their customs of worshipand priestsare to be carefullyavoided."

Maria Theresa's eleven children included seven daughters,so Joseph knew somethingof theintricacies of sisterlycoexistence in familylife. The allegoryof therites as threeequal sisterswas even suggestiveof GottholdEphraim Lessing's parable of the threebrothers and theirthree identical rings of religious truthin Nathan the Wise, the enlighteneddrama of 1779. Though many of Joseph's laws and principles were reconsideredafter his death, his brotherLeopold II specificallyconfirmed the equality of Catholic ritesin Galicia in 1790, the year of his succession. When Maria Theresa commandedlove of theUniates in 1774, thesame order also insisted upon certain significantpoints of terminology.The term"Greek Uniate" was to be droppedin favorof "Greek Catholic," so thatthe Latin Church could not disdain the riteas less thanfully Catholic. Also, at the suggestionof SheptytsTcyi,other pejorative designations were forbidden:a Uniate priestwas not to be called pop (the Polish termused foran Orthodoxpriest), and Uniate churcheswere not to be referredto as "synagogues."100These were distinctions intendedto allow theUniates equal dignitywith the Roman Catholics, butat the same timethey were inevitablyalso interpretationsof the Union, affirmingthat the Uniates were actuallyCatholic, thattheir priests were not in factOrthodox. Justthe year before,in 1773, KonysTcyi,on the Orthodox side, had given the opposite interpretation,insisting that the Uniates "preservedthe Greek-Russian faith in theirhearts and very often secretly went to Orthodox churches."101 Catherinealmost quoted him in 1782 when she wroteto the pope thatthe Uni- ates "await only the least signal to embrace our Orthodoxreligion, which they abandoned with regret,and of which they retainmany traces and vestiges in theirhearts." These exercises in identifyingthe Uniates, in designatingthem by theirtrue names or in reading theirhearts, were undertakenin these years by

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 207 the Propaganda Fide and the St. PetersburgSynod, by Catherineand by Maria Theresa. Such interestfrom without, however, made it all the more urgentthat the Uniate Churchcarry on its own self-analysisfrom within, and seek to define the termsof the Union compromise. Early in the eighteenthcentury, at the Uniate Synod of Zamosc (Zamostia) in 1720, an orderingof the Uniate Church according to the concerns and ideals of TridentineCatholicism initiateda significantLatinization of the rite. The most conspicuous reformwas the introductionof thef Moque into the credo, in opposition to the Orthodox theological doctrinethat the Holy Spirit proceeds fromthe fatheralone. There followed in the 1730s a thoroughrevision of the liturgy,rendering it distinctfrom that of the Orthodox.102The constructionof magnificentnew Uniate cathedrals in the episcopal centers, St. George's in Lviv (finishedin 1764) and St. Sophia's in Polatsk (finishedin 1765), followed the architecturalspirit of Roman Baroque, in markedcontrast to the traditional Ruthenianwooden churches.St. George's,designed by BernardMeretyn, actually attemptedto uniteRoman Catholic and Russian Orthodoxarchitectural concep- tions; the basic cruciformplan allowed forfour slightly domed chapels around the greatcentral dome, thus hintingat the five-domedOrthodox model. There was also an extravagantlyBaroque Uniate churchat Berazvechcha (Berezwecz), thatof theBasilians, wherethe facade was constructedof nine convex and eight concave surfaces.103 Resistance to Latinizationwithin the Uniate Churchfound encouragement in thepapal constitutionof 1755, "Allatae sunt,"with its assurancethat Rome never intended"to cause any damage to the venerableOriental rites" of the Uniates in Europe and theMiddle East.104The linkedUniate concerns about Roman Catholic praestantia,Latin transit,and the Romanizationof ritualacquired new urgency in theperiod thatfollowed thepartition of 1772. When Smohozhevslcyiassured theladies of St. Petersburgthat "there exists no essential differencebetween my mass and those of Russia," the asserted identityhad not been generallytrue for thelast fiftyyears, since the Synod of Zamosc. His commitmentto thatposition, in the contextof eighteenth-centurycontroversy over therite, was probablyone reason why afterhis stay in St. Petersburghe foundhimself denounced in some quartersas a "most corruptschismatic."105 In 1778 theUniate bishops of Poland, in a memorialto thepope, notonly called forthe prohibition of transit,but also insistedthat "the Greek ritebe maintained mostexactly, on account of its holiness,and also because of thetemperament of the Greeks,most tenacious about theirinstitutions."106 The insistenceon exact preservationin Poland matched Smohozhevsicyi's commitmentin Russia, and the explanatoryreference to "tenacious temperament"very explicitlyjustified ritual practice by popular custom. The Uniate Church could not tolerate the Latinizationof its ritebecause, withthe decline of theCommonwealth, religious

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 208 WOLFF survival became all the more dependentupon meetingthe spiritualneeds and expectationsof the social base. When Siestrzeñcewicz attemptedto welcome Uniates into Roman Catholicism duringthe Polatsk vacancy of 1779-1783, he discoveredthat they could not accept theabrupt transition from the Greek to the Latin rite,and so he became himselfthe sponsorof a remarkableexperiment in ritual.The Uniateclergy did notknow enough Latin to celebratea Latin mass, and so Siestrzeñcewiczended up in the awkward position of allowing the Slavonic mass withjust a few words of Latin, and calling it the Latin rite.Naturally, he had to allow the Uniate prieststo keep theirwives. The most importantritual concession thathe demanded of his ex-Uniates as the sign of theirtransit was takingcommunion with unleavened bread. In short,he intendedto eliminatethe Greekrite of theUnion and insteadfound himself creating a new unionwithin the Latin rite,basically renegotiatingthe termsof the compromise.He even found himselfpublishing a special missal forthe ritethat he had invented.107 The Uniates could not be simplyroped intothe Latin rite,and thedisorienta- tionof the Uniate at a Roman Catholic mass was stillworth noting two hundred yearslater when Andy Warhol, the American Pop artistof Carpathian-Ruthenian descent,attended mass in Manhattanin 1984. "I always cringe when it gets to the part of 'Peace, peace be with you,' and you have to shake hands with the people next to you," wroteWarhol in his diary."I always leave beforethat. Or I pretendto be praying.I don't know how long they've done it because I went to the Greek Catholic churchwhen I was young." Art criticismhas noted the "Byzantine"quality in Warhol's famoussilk-screen portraits of MarilynMonroe and Elvis Presley.108 The great Uniate liturgicalreform project of the 1780s was undertakenby HerakliiLisovsTcyi, who finallyfilled the vacant archbishopric of Polatskin 1783. His appointment,as thechoice of Catherineand Potemkin,immediately cost the lifeof anotherUniate bishop, Hedeon Horbatsicyi(Gedeon Horbacki),who had to rushacross Belarus in thewinter from Pinsk to Polatsk,to consecrateLisovsTcyi before Catherinechanged her mind about fillingthe vacancy; Horbatsicyifell sick, and died soon afterperforming the consecration.109Lisovslcyi became the most importantUniate in the Russian Empire throughthe next generation,the onlyUniate bishop during the hard years from 1795 to 1798, and thenew "Metro- politanof theUniate Church in Russia" after1806. Duringthe vacancy in Polatsk from 1779 to 1783, one member of the three-manconsistory, MalynovsTcyi, consideredbringing the whole Uniate Churchover to the Latin rite;LisovsTcyi, who also was on thatconsistory, afterwards attempted as archbishopof Polatsk to bringthe Uniates closer to the ritualsof Orthodoxy.In 1787 the Propaganda Fide was presentedwith LisovsTcyi'sproposal for a comprehensivereform of Uniateritual: "He believes it is necessarythat all thoseceremonies which destroy the antique Greek rite should be extirpated,"thus eliminatingthe "censurable

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 209 mix and affectedimitation of Latin ceremonies" introducedafter the Synod of Zamosc.110Just as SmohozhevsTcyihad challenged Rome in the 1770s to demonstratethe sincerityof the Union by prohibitingtransit, now in the 1780s Lisovsicyi demanded anotherdemonstration of sincerityin the preservationof the rite. Lisovsicyi proposed revisions fromthe most invisible details of administer- ing the sacramentsto the most ostentatiousceremonies of public worship. He protestedthat Uniate sacramentsand prayershad come to constitutea "corrupt mishmash" (vizioso miscuglio) of the Greek and Latin rites,but his arguments forreform were not based on purismand historicismalone. He wantedto restore certain introitsto the Uniate mass for the reason that "this ceremony in the Oriental Church is quite antique, and very magnificent,and also well adapted to excite devotion in the heartsof those present." His reformwas intendedto attractthe spiritualcommitment of the Uniate population. Magnificence alone, however,was nota sufficientcriterion for revising the rite, and he rejectedorgan music as a "ridiculousimitation of theLatin rite,"as "extraneous"to theOriental liturgyand "the custom of the nation."111LisovsTcyi's attention to his position withinthe Russian Empire was also evident in his concern lest the Orthodox be "scandalized" by the Uniate "mishmash,"and in his proposal to reduce the number of Uniate holidays to satisfy the economic interestsof the Russian state.His reductionof thereligious festivalswas certainlynot random,since, in choosing the most importantdays to be observed he decided "according to the customof the OrientalChurch." The Propaganda Fide was troubledto see these - did notinclude thefeast of Saints Peterand Paul on June29 while allowing for a holiday on December 6, the feastof Saint Nicholas, patronof Russia.112 The Propaganda Fide in 1787 rejectedLisovsTtyi's reform, ordering him "not to innovateat all, and especially notto permitthe use of theritual that serves the non-Uniates."113The two perspectiveswere poles apart,for LisovsTcyi saw himself as the enemy of innovations,and regardedthe forbidden"ritual that serves the non-Uniates"as none otherthan the Uniates' own Greek rite.Rome denied LisovsTcyi'saffirmation that, according to the termsof the Union compromise, the Uniate rite and the Orthodox riteshould be one and the same. In rejecting his reform,the Roman Congregationdid not hesitate to cast aspersions upon LisovsTcyi's characterand piety,especially forhis sensitivityto the concerns of the Russian stateand the "scandalized" Orthodox:

It is quiteextraordinary that a Catholic,an ecclesiastic,and muchmore a bishop,should bother himself about the criticism of the heterodox regarding ritesthat are in themselvesnot at all reprehensible,and evenif they differ fromantique custom have been authorized by subsequent use. This weakness will givecourage to thenon-Uniates to attackalso thedogmas that do not

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 210 WOLFF

pleasethem, and it is tobe fearedthat he whohas not faced up tosustaining theless importantobservances, may feel that he lacksthe courage to resist in mattersof greaterconsequence.114

LisovsTcyi,even more thanSmohozhevsTcyi in the 1770s, foundhimself suspect in the eyes of Rome forhis interpretationof the Union. He would prove very disappointingto Rome whenit came to defendingthe Uniates against Catherine in thecrisis of the 1790s, butthe mistrust of thePropaganda Fide helped to fulfillits own prophecies.Whereas Rome obviouslyfelt that LisovsTcyi had demonstrated a deficientcommitment to theUnion in 1787, fromhis perspectivehe had every reason to attributethat deficiency to Rome. When LisovsTcyi'sproposals were rejected,the Propaganda Fide suggested insteadthat he await the new missal thatSmohozhevsTcyi had promisedin 1780 when he assumed the metropolitanate.If LisovsTcyiwere to reformhis own liturgyin Belarus, withoutreference to the Uniate Church in Poland, he would be causing undesirable "disorder." SmohozhevsTcyiwas known to be "most committed"to publishinga revised missal, and had blocked the publicationof any otherUniate missals untilhis own was ready,but unfortunatelythe work was not yet complete.115The abortive dialogue on liturgicalreform between LisovsTcyiand the Propaganda Fide is stronglysuggestive of the tensions and obstacles thatSmohozhevsTcyi might have encounteredin tryingto produce his missal; littlewonder thatit was not yet ready afterseven years. However, the factthat LisovsTcyi in the Russian Empire and SmohozhevsTcyiin Poland were bothworking on revisionsof ritualand liturgyin the 1780s was evidence of how importantthe issue had become forthe Uniate Church. While themissal remainedunfinished, SmohozhevsTcyi had presidedover the completionof an importantnew Uniate churchin Warsaw in 1784, and in its architecturalstyle the church illustrated the importance for the Uniates of defin- ing theircultural and religious identity.It was the same churchthe foundation stone of which in 1781 had been honored with the deposit of royal and papal medallions. The Basilians' Church of the Assumptionof the Virginin Warsaw was designed by Domenico Merlini,the moving spiritof Neoclassicism in the capital of Stanislaw August and the architectwho createdthe king's marvelous palace and park at Lazienki. SmohozhevsTcyiboldly builthis Warsaw churchin the modernstyle of the decade, and put behind him the Counter-Reformation Baroque withall its troublinghistorical associations forthe Uniates. "I have had builtin Warsaw an elegant and spacious church,"he wrotein 1783 to Pope Pius VI, himselfa patronof Neoclassicism. This emphasis on "elegance" was almost ecumenical in its worldliness. Indeed, according to the architecturalhistorian Zbigniew Dmochowski,from the outside "only an Eye of Providencesurrounded by golden rays in the pediment indicated that the building was intended for

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 2 11 religious purposes," while "the interior,similarly, was more in the characterof a palace chamber than a church."116The facade of the Church of the Assump- tion,with its Neoclassical pointedpediment atop fourstately pilasters, matched in spiritthe historicalevocation of Renaissance and Enlightenmentby which SmohozhevsTcyiattempted to finessethe implications for the Union of theJesuit Counter-Reformation. Throughoutthis period, historyplayed an importantpart in exploring and definingthe Uniate identity.In 1775 SmohozhevsTcyiwas collaborating with a Basilian monk in collecting documents for a historyof the Uniates. In the upheavals surroundingthe partition he had putthe project aside "forlack of time and quiet," buthe was no less committedto "puttingbefore the eyes of thepublic thefacts and thecircumstances of themost antique Union of theRuthenians." He reflectedthat "if thislittle work should see lightin the presentcircumstances, it would illuminatethe former and confirmthe latter" - thatis, illuminatethe public 117 and confirmthe Uniates. SmohozhevsTcyithus sought to clarifythe religious identityof theUniates in theeighteenth century by documenting,interpreting, and publicizingthe historicalrecord of the Union; he was sufficientlymodern in his approachto imaginethe discourse of Uniate identitytaking place in some sortof public sphere.In 1790, two years afterSmohozhevsTcyi 's death,the Propaganda Fide recommendedto theBasilians thatthey carry on withthe unfinished history project,and "the most intelligentand eruditemonks" were assigned to collect documents for that purpose.118With the shaking of the ancien régime across Europe and the revolutionaryreform of the Commonwealth in the Four-Year Sejm, it became all the more urgentfor the Uniates, on the thresholdof modern European history,to appreciatethe early modernhistory of the Union.

Agitatedby Scruples In 1793, as theUniates faced thedaunting Orthodox campaign thataccompanied the second and thirdpartitions of Poland in the last years of Catherine's reign, thereoccurred an embarrassingincident within the Uniate episcopate. Ioakym HorbatsTcyi(Joachim Horbacki), bishop of Pinsk, requested permission from the pope to abdicate his bishopricand adopt the Latin rite.Papal provisionwas requirednot only forthe abdication but also forHorbatsTcyi 's "transit,"an issue thathad become highlysensitive over theprevious half century. HorbatsTcyi had, in fact,been originallyordained as a Roman Catholic priest,and thenentered the Uniate Basilian orderwith the special understandingthat he mightpreserve his Latin rite.As a Basilian monk he went on observingthat Latin ritefor twenty years,until "without his knowledgeand withoutexploring his will," his superiors obtained permission fromRome to switch him to the Greek rite in 1777, in orderto promotehim to an abbacy and thento a bishopric. He became bishop of Pinsk in 1785, soon afterthe death of his brotherHedeon HorbatsTcyi,the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 212 WOLFF fatallyunlucky traveler who braved the winterweather to consecrateLisovsTcyi in Polatsk.After eight years as a Uniate bishop,Ioakym HorbatsTcyistill claimed to have adopted the Greek rite "out of pure obedience and contraryto will," and admittedto great spiritualuneasiness about his "total ignorance" of the "Ruthenianlanguage." This probablyreflected a dual ignoranceon thepart of the Polish bishop,both of theSlavic vernacularappropriate to thepastoral care of his diocese and of the ChurchSlavonic necessaryfor his liturgicalresponsibilities. In Rome it was registeredas something"monstrous" that a bishop should not know the language of his own rite.119 The investigationof this monstrosityled the Propaganda Fide to hear tes- timonyfrom Bishop VazhynsTcyiof Chelm, who as protoarchimandriteof the Basilians had arranged for HorbatsTcyi'stransit and promotion.VazhynsTcyi had been Rome's candidate to fill the Polatsk vacancy in the early 1780s, until Catherineinsisted on LisovsTcyi;then VazhynsTcyiin 1787 helped Rome find reasons to reject LisovsTcyi's liturgicalreforms. In 1794 VazhynsTcyiwould be the Uniate bishop most involved in the Kosciuszko insurrectionagainst Russia, while LisovsTcyiwas creditedwith an altogethertoo cautious, if not downright halfhearted,resistance to Catherine'scampaign againstthe Uniates. VazhynsTcyi thusrepresented both a Polish political and Latin liturgicalinterpretation of the Union, and, consistentwith that perspective,he sponsored the promotionof thé Latin-leaningHorbatsTcyi to a top position in the Uniate hierarchy.When questionedby the Propaganda Fide in 1793, VazhynsTcyineither apologized for the promotionnor sympathizedwith the abdication. He testifiedthus:

Now then,he complainsthat he doesn'tknow the Ruthenian language, and thathe is agitatedby scruples.I pitymy confrere with all mysoul, but if we considerwell: who is thatbishop who does notfeel the weight of his bishopricand his weakness to bear it? And therefore I believe that the origin ofhis pusillanimity is his being a loverof solitude and a certainhypochondria generatedby scruples.120

VazhynsTcyi'sconfidence in theecclesiastical ancien régime made his colleague's spiritualanxiety incomprehensible,except perhaps as psychological debility. In fact,HorbatsTcyi 's "scruples" were symptomaticinklings of a more modern religiousconsciousness. VazhynsTcyidid not see HorbatsTcyi'slinguistic incapacity as a meaningful motivefor resigning, and neitherwas he shocked by thediscovery of thiscrypto- Latin in the Uniate episcopate. "I know manyin theBasilian order,"he reported to Rome, "who were accepted coming fromthe Latin clergy,both secular and regular,and were thenaccustomed to retainperseveringly until death their Latin rite."This frankadmission was appended withthe followingawkwardly defen-

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 2 13 sive note by the Propaganda Fide: "The custom of receivinginto the Ruthenian Basilian ordermany of the Latin clergy,both regularand secular, who further retainconstantly within that order their Latin rite,cannot be said to be properly approved by the Holy See."121The Propaganda Fide thus had to acknowledge thatthe Basilian order was a bastion of Roman Catholic influencewithin the Uniate Church,and thisrendered the Horbatsicyicase as awkward in Rome as in Pinsk; it cast doubt upon Vatican assurances of Uniate ritual independence just as Catherine was inauguratingher campaign against the Uniates. In fact, while Rome was concerned about the "scandal" of a Uniate bishop who knew nothingof theGreek rite,Vazhynslcyi thought even greaterscandal would come fromallowing Horbatsicyithe desired transit to returnto Roman Catholicism.He recommendedthat Horbatsicyi be retiredto theprivacy of a Basilian monastery, and not be allowed transitunless he decided to resettlein Rome- "where he could pick up again the Latin ritewithout scandal." In the final decree, he was permittedto celebratethe Latin mass, butonly "in Oratorioprivato."122 The story of Horbatsicyiwould have had some propagandavalue in theOrthodox campaign then under way, so the whole affairwas disposed of as discreetlyas possible. It was Catherinewho really spared Rome the embarrassmentof negotiatingan episcopal succession- by abolishing the Pinsk diocese in 1795. The promotionand abdication of HorbatsTcyiclearly suggests the criticial issues of clergy and culturein the internaldevelopment of the Uniate Church at the end of the eighteenthcentury. The competinginfluences of the Latin and Greek riteswere reflectedin theinternal organization of theChurch itself, in the separationand alienation of the privilegedBasilian order,with its crypto-Latin elements, fromthe ritual values of the secular clergy and peasant laity. The compromise that created the Uniate Church- between Roman authorityand Greek ritual- was both supplementedand subtlyundermined by the de facto internalcompromise between monastic privilege and peasant society. After 1772, attentionto the termsof the greatercompromise, from without and from within,put revolutionarypressures upon the lesser compromise,and ultimately reorderedthe balance of power and privilege withinthe Uniate Church. The "scruples" of HorbatsTcyiin 1793 reflectedthose pressures,for it was becoming harderand harderto ignore the disparitiesbetween ecclesiastical privilege and popularpiety in an age of revolution.His self-reproachon accountof "ignorance" was particularlyinteresting, inasmuch as it echoed a common preoccupationof thetime, at all levels of the Uniate Church,combining the concerns of Counter- Reformationand Enlightenment.HorbatsTcyi 's self-proclaimedignorance was at once linguisticand ritual,and thoughhe was an educated churchman,not at all ignorantin the popular sense of the word, his particularignorance disqualified himin his own opinionfrom being a Uniate. Nothingcould indicatemore clearly thatthere was indeedemerging at thistime a clearerconception of Uniate identity,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 214 WOLFF one thatwould challenge bothclergy and laityto accept or deny theiraffiliation accordingto a new religious standard. At the Synod of Zamosc in 1720, at the same time thata degree of liturgical Latinizationwas introducedinto the Uniate Church,the Basilian monksconsoli- dated formallytheir remarkable ecclesiastical power.The crucial point was the synod's decision thatUniate bishops had to come fromthe Basilian order,and thejustification was thatbishops had to be celibate. Withinthe Uniate Church the secular parish clergy were permittedto marry,like the Orthodox clergy, while theBasilian regularclergy took a vow of chastity.Any secular priestwho aspired to the episcopate would firsthave to seek entryinto the Basilian order, and thenwait withinthe orderfor one year and six weeks. Conveningat Dubno in 1743, the Basilians furthermagnified the power assigned to themat Zamosc by organizingthemselves under the authorityof a single protoarchimandrite, and assertingin thatorganization their independence fromthe bishops- who were anyway chosen fromthe Basilian ranks. Such power manifesteditself in theBasilian appropriationof therichest benefices in the Uniate Church,and the mostprestigious educational opportunities, especially in Rome. There were more thana thousandBasilian monksin theCommonwealth in theeighteenth century, possessing wealth,influence, and learningthat dramatically contrasted with the conditionof the parish clergy.John-Paul Himka has remarkedthat "while the Basilians flourished,the Ukrainiansecular clergylanguished."123 The Vatican inevitably felt ambivalent about the Basilian monopoly of power and privilegeamong the Uniates. As demonstratedin thecase of Ioakym Horbatslcyiin 1793, theBasilians representeda distinctlyLatin forcewithin the Uniate Church,and it was no merecoincidence thattheir consolidation of power at Zamosc should have coincided withthe commencement of eighteenth-century Latinization.While theUniates deplored the transit of thelaity to Roman Catholi- cism,ambitious Roman Catholicpriests were entering Uniate monasteries, which offeredexcellent chances forecclesiastical advancement.VazhynsTcyi claimed to know "many"Basilians of Roman Catholic origin,while one estimatesuggested thatthey constituted almost half the monks. Their monopoly on highertheological training- not only at the Greek College in Rome, but even in Jesuitand Piarist institutions- meantthat they also were theonly Uniates who wroteabout theology, naturallywith sympathyfor the Latin perspective.It was VazhynsTcyias protoarchimandritewho counseled the Propaganda Fide to reject LisovsTeyi's reformof Latin liturgicalintrusions in 1787, and the Basilian ordergathered in 1788 to express its collective rejection of LisovsTcyi.This Latin bias did not, however,make the Basilians any more militantlyresistant to Russian Orthodox pressuresduring this period. Instead,their vested economic interestsfavored a cautious conciliationof Catherine.124 In the firsthalf of the eighteenthcentury the Basilians rose to the peak of

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 2 15 theirpower and influence,but in thesecond halfthey found themselves seriously embattledand ultimatelyvanquished. In 1747 the secular clergyin the dioceses of Lviv and Przemysl submitteda memorial to Pope Benedict XIV protesting against the monks' appropriationof all the richestbenefices forthemselves. In 1749 Lev SheptytsTcyibecame archbishopof Lviv, and, thoughhimself a Basil- ian, he refused to accept that his appointmentrequired the permission of the protoarchimandrite;SheptytsTcyi even excluded the monks fromthe procession thatcelebrated his episcopal installation.Furthermore, he proceeded to engage in a long conflictof propertywith the Basilians for possession of rich estates and importantchurches, including the cathedralof St. George in Lviv itself.125 The coincidenttiming of the Latin assertionof praestantia in "Etsi pastoralis" (1742) and the Basilian self-assertionat Dubno (1743) made possible a dual resistance: to Latin predominancefrom outside and to Basilian predominance withinthe Uniate Church.These concerns fed upon each otherquite plausibly, inasmuchas many Basilians were in factLatin-leaning Uniates. In 1771 SheptytsTcyiinaugurated the campaign thatwould continuethrough the decade and for the rest of his life, to break the power of the Basilians by creatinga cathedralchapter of secular priestsin Lviv to assist in the administration of the diocese. His intentionwas to establish an institutionthat would give ecclesiastical power to the secular clergyand end the Basilian monopoly.It was most revealing thatthe champion of the Uniate monks was none otherthan the Roman Catholic archbishopof Lviv, Sierakowski,the same who representedthe causes of transitto theLatin rite and Roman Catholicepiscopal predominance.By enteringthe lists against SheptytsTcyi,Sierakowski matchedhimself against his Uniate counterpartin Lviv and posed the question of predominancein the form of personalcombat. The partitionof Poland in 1772 assigned Lviv to Austria,and so SheptytsTcyi'schallenge to themonks was carriedon underthe more favorable auspices of Maria Theresa. The breakingof Basilian power in this period was unmistakablyrelated to thecollapse of theCommonwealth and theemergence of new politicalcircumstances. For Maria Theresa theprinciple of equal ritesmeant thatthe Uniate bishops were just as entitledto cathedralchapters as the Latin bishops. In 1774 she issued a statementto thateffect: "Regarding the erection of a Greek-Uniatechapter in Lemberg [Lviv], thereception of theUnion can notbe more excellent than when one observes between the Uniate and the Latin rites a perfectequality in externals,and on the otherhand seeks to put aside all that could make the Uniate people believe theyare thoughtworse than the Roman Catholics."126State confirmationof the Lviv chapterwas frustrated,however, by thedeaths of SheptytsTcyiin 1779 and Maria Theresa herselfin 1780. Joseph created not chaptersbut consistories of lay officialswho were marked as the emperor's men, not the bishop's, by theirinscribed pectoral crosses. The Lviv cathedralchapter was not finallyachieved until 1813, afterthe city became the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 216 WOLFF seat of thenew metropolitanatefor Galicia. In fact,resistance to theestablishment of the metropolitanateitself in 1806 was conducted by an alliance of Basilians and Roman Catholic clergy. By that time the Basilians were in serious decline, for the campaign of SheptytsTcyiin the 1770s, thoughit fell shortof actually obtainingthe chapter, was neverthelesseffective in rallyingUniate forcesand sentimentsagainst the monks.In theyear of his death,1779, he decisivelywon his propertydispute with themonks over controlof St. George's in Lviv; in thatsame yearthe Propaganda Fide in Rome censured Basilian presumption,and Maria Theresa affirmedher rightto nominatea bishop who was not a Basilian. This she promptlyproceeded to do when SheptytsTcyidied, for,in spite of the stipulationof the Synod of Zamoéc, Maria Theresa chose as his successor a man of the secular clergy, Petro BiliansTcyi,thus shatteringthe Basilian grip on the Uniate episcopate. Furthermore,the empress, in the last year of her life, refusedto allow even a token concession to the violated Basilian privilege,and forbadeBiliansTcyi to seek any special dispensationfrom the Vatican forhis appointment.Giuseppe Garampi,transferred to the Vienna nunciaturefrom Warsaw, conspired in vain with Maria Theresa's confessor to alter her resolution. In thus affirmingthe sovereigntyof herown selection,the empress attacked the keystoneof Basilian power in the Uniate Church.SheptytsTcyi was not the only Uniate bishop to rise fromthe Basilian ranks and turnagainst his formerbrothers; SmohozhevsTcyi, as metropolitanin Poland, consummatedthe ecclesiastical revolutionby giving episcopal consecrationto BiliansTcyi.127 In 1780 the Basilians convened to tryto adapt themselvesadministratively to the post-partitionpolitical order.They divided into fourprovinces - Poland, Lithuania,Austrian Poland, Russian Poland- all theoreticallyunder one protoarchimandrite,VazhynsTcyi. The illusion of adaptation,however, was shattered in 1782 when JosephII ruled out any subordinationof the Basilians of Galicia to theprotoarchimandrite in Poland; insteadhe placed themunder the authority of the bishops. With Catherine's encouragementLisovsTcyi sought the same subordinationof theBasilians of Russian Poland, and theyopposed his liturgical reformswith all the more fervor.When the orderconvened in 1790, the monks complained to Rome of LisovsTcyi's "despotism." They pleaded desperately with"the greatesturgency" that the Propaganda Fide "apply some brake to the excessive dominionthat Monsignor LisovsTcyi, archbishop of Polatsk,exercises overthe monks and monasteriesofthat part of thekingdom of Poland now subject to the empress of Russia." The monks hoped thatRome would "wish to deign to put some dam to the imminentdestruction of monasticism."128Whether the metaphorwas brakesor dams, it clearlysuggested the ongoing, irreversible drive or flow of power and privilegeaway fromthe Basilians in the second halfof the eighteenthcentury. The struggleitself endowed thebishops and thesecular clergy

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 2 17 withnew levels of energyand commitmentto the Union. Aftersuch assaults the Basilian orderwas particularlyvulnerable to theconfiscations and appropriations carriedout by Josephin the 1780s and by Catherinein the 1790s, butthe crucial challenge had already been posed fromwithin the Uniate Church.

Asini

In September 1772, just as the partitionwas consummated,Smohozhevsicyi in Polatsk requested from the Warsaw nunciature emergency ecclesiastical reinforcementsin the momentof crisis, as Catherinebecame the sovereign of Belarus:

Itis supremelynecessary that Monsignor nuncio should recommend imme- diatelyto thegeneral of theBasilians that he send hereas fastas he can to mycathedral erudite and prudentmonks, obliged to counseland aid the faithful... so thatwithout resistance, atmy disposition and according to my orders,they may visit the parishes, correct the defects that they find there, sustainand confirm the weak in faith,reduce to obedience the suspect, and constraineven rebels with the force of command.Without that how could one avertevil? Beholdthe effects of theUnion depressed. What fruit is to be had fromthe independent Basilians? There are thirtyof themhere, and I can't makeuse of anyof them.The prioris distractedby governingthe convent,the lecturers by theirobligation to teach,the others go to choir, and thosethat remain are just youngstudents. So whatdo theyserve for? It'simpossible to make use ofthe secular priests, because they are occupied withthe care of their parishes, and their families, and forthe most part they areextremely ignorant (ignorantissimi).129

Here in 1772 SmohozhevsTcyidrew clearly the contrastbetween the eruditi and the ignorantissimi,between Basilian monks and parishpriests. At the same timehe posed theproblem of episcopal authority,summoning the monks "at my dispositionand accordingto my orders."He even franklyinvoked a standardof utilityconcerning the monks,asking "what fruitis to be had" of them,how to "make use of any of them,"and "whatdo theyserve for?" Such expressionscalled intoquestion the whole raison d'être of the order,and were evidentlyprovoked by the shock of the partitioncrisis with its menacing political implicationsfor the Uniate Church. Smohozhevsicyi's language was peculiarlyclose to thatof theanticlerical Enlightenment with its mockeryof themonastic orders. The next year in Warsaw therewas published anonymouslyan enlighteneddenunciation of monasticismin general,with a similarrefrain: "Why nourishin the stable an animalthat does nothing?"130In 1773 thesuppression of theJesuits also presented an alarmingprecedent to all the ordersof Europe.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 218 WOLFF

Rightafter Smohozhevslcyi contrasted Basilian eruditionwith parish clerical ignorancein September1772, he wenton to make the same pointedcomparison in October withan interestingvariation of terms."For thelove of theJesuits it is notfitting to keep in ignorancethe secular clergyof theUniates," he wrote,"and now what use can I have frommy poor and ignorantpriests?"131 In thiscase the ignoranceand povertyof theparish clergy was emphasizedby comparisonto the privilegedJesuits, rather than the Basilians, and, consideringSmohozhevsicyi's hatredof the former,one may inferhis considerable ambivalence toward the latter.The castingof theJesuits and Basilians in thissame role revealed a Uniate perspectivein whichLatin forcesappeared to monopolize theprecious resources of wealth and education withoutmaking themavailable to the urgentwork of Uniate adaptation and survival in an age of crisis. The intellectualdisparity betweenregular and secularclergy was addressedas a problemalready at Zamosc in 1720, and the synod mandated thatmonasteries should provide theological schooling forlocal secular priests.The monks, however,did not embrace this mission, and Basilian schools tended to serve the privileged laity; they have been compared to Jesuitcolleges.132 In fact,after the suppressionof the Jesuits in 1773 the Basilians were able to take over some of those colleges and run themsuccessfully. In 1774, halfa centuryafter Zamosc prescribedthe remedy, SmohozhevsTcyi was expressinghis dissatisfactionto the Warsaw nuncio:

I am nowuniquely tormented by uncertainty about the true love and sincere commitmentof themonks, not well disposedto thesecular clergy for the goodeducation of its youth; because to despise,to mistreat,and to educate fraudulentlywould be thesame as to cool in theclergy the will to study, and to encourageignorance for the extermination ofthe Catholic religion. Therefore,to avoid suchenormities and dangers,it wouldbe mostconve- nientif YourExcellency would recommend to themonastic order better affectionfor the secular clergy and thehighest commitment to theirmost efficaciouseducation.133

At the same time thatMaria Theresa was calling upon the Roman Catholics of Galicia to "love" theUniates, in Belarus it was necessaryto solicitthe "affection" of theBasilians fortheir fellow Uniate priests. In the 1770s, of course,the struggle over theLviv chapterwas alreadyunder way, and theBasilians had good reason to feel embattled.SmohozhevsTcyi's distrust of their"sincerity," his suspicion of a "fraudulent"education intended to "cool" intellectualaspirations, suggests an awareness of social strugglein whichthe Basilians could not wholeheartedly teachtheology to theparish clergy without compromising their vested interests of power and wealth.It was theUniate episcopate, seekingto make "use" and have

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 2 19

"fruit"of its clergythat had to insist upon the "dangers" of clerical ignorance and seek itsremedy in "efficaciouseducation." Ignoranceand educationbecame thegreat rallying cries of the Uniate Churchin thetroubled age of thepartitions, and in the meanings thatattached to those concepts one may trace the values and strategiesthat guided the evolution of a modernreligious consciousness in the Uniate clergy. Iosyf ShumliansTcyi(Józef Szumlañski), the bishop of Lviv who broughthis diocese withhim fromOrthodoxy to theUnion in 1700, addressedthe shortcom- ings of his clergy in very differentterms. "The priest,"he instructed,"should always, and especially when he goes to churchfor divine service, wear clean clothes, not dirty,have his hair and beard combed, his hands washed, his nails clipped."134Such a lesson, farfrom stressing religious standardsin the spiritof theCounter-Reformation, emphasized thesocial chasm betweenthe clerical elite and the parish clergy.This chasm was notjust a matterof neat nails and clean clothes, for Uniate secular priestswere, socioeconomically speaking, close to the peasants. The parish income came froma plot of land assigned to the priest and usually farmedby him withhis own hands. Such farmwork was spared the elite Basilian monks,with theirteaching responsibilities and choir attendance, thoughBasilian nunssometimes had to workas servantmaids.135 The parishpriest was not even an absolutely free peasant, since he could sometimes be drafted forcompulsory feudal labor. The persistenceof this element of villeinage was demonstratedby thefact that it had to be formallyforbidden in Galicia by Maria Theresa in 1777. In Poland therewas even a feudal regressionin clerical status in 1764, when the Sejm inauguratedthe reign of Stanislaw August by making the sons of Uniate priestssubject to enserfmentif theydid not learn a trade or follow theirfathers into the clergy.This, too, had to be legally repealed at the Four-Year Sejm in 1792: "When a priestof thisrite comes fromthe peasant order, and afterbeing liberatedby his lord receives ordination,so in consequence of thispassage intothe ecclesiastical ordernot only he, but also his descendantsof both sexes, will be regardedas free."136 It was sometimes difficultfor Roman Catholics to take quite seriously the priestlystatus of men withwives and children,"descendants of both sexes." In fact,the Uniate clergy became a virtuallyhereditary caste in the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies, with sons of priestsconstituting as much as 85 percent of the clergyin some regions. On the one hand, thiscreated a social separation fromthe enserfedpeasantry, but, on the otherhand, the hereditaryexpectation of a beneficeencouraged resignationto ignorance,since therewas only limited motivationfor study. A Uniate commission of 1765 stressedthe importanceof encouragingpriests to undertakethe religious education of theirown children, startingat the age of five, since those childrenwere probablythe priestsof the nextgeneration.137

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 220 WOLFF

By themiddle of theeighteenth century there was alreadya clearlyperceived conjunctionof ecclesiastical ignorance and socioeconomic status. In 1747 the secular clergyprotested the Basilian appropriationof the best benefices,and in 1748 Floriian HrebnytsTcyi(Florian Hrebnicki) assumed the metropolitanate and evaluated clerical conditions. He feared that Uniate priestscould not "in good conscience" be proposed for benefices, "because the candidates for the ecclesiastical orderare in generalso rudes;"138 The Latin termembraced a range of qualities,from wild and ignorantto unculturedand uncivilized.Indeed, taken togetherwith ShumliansTcyi's attention to personalhabits, Hrebnytsicyi's verdict suggeststhat this eighteenth-century discourse on the Uniate clergywas partly stimulatedby theforces of whatNorbert Elias has called "thecivilizing process," which involved increasingcultural attention to issues of mannersbetween the sixteenthand the eighteenthcenturies.139 Yet the ordinationof priestsin significantnumber, however ignorant,was absolutely essential to the pastoral care of the Uniate populations. Ludomir Bienkowski has estimated that in 1772 there were 10,200 parish priests for 9,340 parishes,generally one priestto a parish,with each serving,on average, 800 to 1,000 people.140Considering the questionable quality of the candidates, Hrebnytsicyithought he mightnever ordain anyone, "if it weren't a matterof lettingthe people die withoutbaptism and sacraments."He also appreciatedthe crucial connectionbetween economic and intellectualfactors: "Whoever has a highereducation doesn't choose thisorder, where the beneficesare so poor,but looks aroundfor something more lucrative."In 1782 SmohozhevsTcyimade the same connection,explaining the impossibilityof findingeducated candidates to embrace a life of peasant labors, "persecuted by the Catholic mastersand furthermoreplagued by theJews."141 He mighthave added thatthe Uniate bishops themselvesplayed a role in theeconomic oppressionof theirown parishclergy. They claimed a yearlycontribution from the priests of the diocese, and in some cases collected it with extortionateviolence. The metropolitanVolodkovych, whose fitnessfor the episcopate was challengedin the 1760s and 1770s, asserted his dominionover thediocese by collectingfrom his clergywith the accompani- mentof an armedguard. The bishopof Lutsk,Kypriian StetsTcyi (Cyprian Stecki), was apparentlyeven more shameless, and around 1780 his clergycomplained to Rome thathe was enrichinghimself by a combinationof simony,extortion, and confiscation,having the priestsbeaten and imprisonedwhen theyresisted the impositions of his "pastoral visitations."142Some of his clerical victims apostatized to Orthodoxy,and in fact his methodsof episcopal administration were not so dissimilarfrom the persecutionspracticed by Russian troops and Orthodoxpriests at the time of the firstand the last partitions.These instances of episcopal oppressionwere only the mostflagrant manifestations of the social and culturalpolarization of privilegein the Uniate Church.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATECHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 22 1

The eighteenth-centurymemoirs of Adam Moszczyñski explicitlyrated the Uniate parishclergy as more ignorantthan its Roman Catholic counterpart,and notedthat the Uniate priests"could scarcelyread thepsalter and themissal, knew neithermoral theologynor religious doctrine, and were fullof superstitionsand prejudices."143From his perspectiveas a non-Uniatelayman, Moszczyñski was, ironically,better able to put his fingeron the preciselyreligious significanceof clerical ignorance.The failingsthat he enumeratedwere farfrom unprecedented in thehistory of Catholicism,since, accordingto JeanDelumeau, writingon the Counter-Reformation,the Roman Catholic Church had addressed itselfto the same problemin the seventeenthcentury. St. Vincentde Paul, who died in 1660 and was canonized in 1737, devoted missionary work to remedyingclerical ignorance in the French countryside,and discovered priestswho did not even know the words of absolution.144 SmohozhevsTcyi,in his most quotable commenton the Uniate parishclergy, declared, "I cannotentrust them with the more importantposts because theyare asini."145With casual vulgarityhe called themasses, and the word asini, taken togetherwith rudes fromHrebnytsTcyi (who preceded SmohozhevsTcyiat the archbishopricof Polatsk), again revealed thebroad assumptionof social distance between the clerical elite and the parish clergy.There was even perhaps some significancein the fact thatthese two grandees of the Greek rite should have chosen to express theircondescension in Latin, a language of which theirUniate clerical inferiorswere quite excusably ignorant.SmohozhevsTcyi, upon his return fromSt. Petersburgin 1773, requesteda Basilian monkas his coadjutorassistant, and thejob descriptionshowed thathis time at Catherine's courthad given the archbishopa high standardof ecclesiastical courtliness:

It wouldbe convenienttherefore, and necessityrequires, that I shouldbe providedwithout delay with a monk,well known,capable of thecourtesy of thecentury (della polizia del secolo), notawkward, not bigoted, well educated,versed in theology,accustomed to workingat a desk,of manly 146 age, of uprighthabits, of amiable conversation . . .

It was naturallyunnecessary to mentionthat such a paragon would have neatly combed hairand evenlyclipped fingernails.This ideal ecclesiastic appearedto be some sortof descendantof Baldassare Castiglione's Renaissance courtier;here again the historyof the Uniates intersectedwith the historyof manners. Withthis ideal in mind,however, SmohozhevsTcyi went right on in the same dispatch to address the issue of the uncourtlyparish clergyand the importance of elevating its standard.He began withthe paradox of the size of his diocese, geographically"most vast," and yeteffectively so small, "because it lacks good workers,"effective parish priests:

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 222 WOLFF

While withJesuitical zeal it was despoiledof its own fattestbenefices, and withoutseminaries, it was servedby priestshardly adequate, indeed altogetherignorant. Since the first hours of my pastorate, sympathizing with theunhappy situation of this clergy and this Church, I beganin thename of God to putaside somethingevery year.147

He was saving to build a seminarysome day, to metamorphosethe asini. The urgencyof this intentionwas measured by the conjunction of "the universal ignoranceof the clergy" and the "dangerous neighborhood,"that is, the Rus- sian Empire. To make up forpast Jesuiticaldespoliation, he soughtpossession of confiscated Jesuitproperty for Uniate educational purposes in 1774, and formulatedhis need in termsof competitionwith the Orthodoxclergy. "I seek nothingfor myself,"he began, seeming to fear that some might not believe in his concern forthe secular clergy."I desire only justice, and tryto educate bettermy clergy,for when even the schismaticpriests are beginningto study, why mustmine rot(marcire) in theirantique ignorance?"148In short,it was the partition,assigning his diocese to the Russian Empire,that made his sympathy intopurposeful policy. He petitionedfor educational opportunitiesin Rome and at the Pontifical College in Vilnius, so that the Uniate priests might "advantageously toil in the vineyardof Christ,here uncultivated(incolta) and very much in jeopardy (periclitante)."149The allegoricalreference to toilingin thevineyard was perhaps tactless,considering that these priestsdid literallylabor in the fields, but the conceptof "cultivation"emphasized the problem of ignorance.The word incolta could signifyboth an "uncultivated"vineyard and an "uneducated" soul, and it was thatlack of cultivation,in parishpriests and in theirparishioners, which put thewhole Uniate Churchat riskin theage of thepartitions. SmohozhevsTcyi was in Belarus, but he recognized the significanceof Orthodoxpressure and Uniate apostasy in Ukraine. Indeed, even Belarus was not altogethertranquil: "Fright- ened by thenew government,several parish priests abandoned their churches and broketheir vows, while others,being provoked,threatened, and even persecuted by the contraryclergy, began to vacillate in the Holy Union."150The idea of "vacillation"conveyed even moreclearly the danger of clerical ignorancein the Uniate Church.For the Union, which had been createdin compromisebetween Orthodoxyand Catholicism,was now menaced fromboth sides by pressuresto apostasyand to transit;it could notsurvive in a conditionof ongoingvacillation. Thus, clerical education came to signifysomething quite specific: notjust the general cultivationof the mind,but the inculcationof a Uniate identity.In this sense HorbatsTcyi,a memberof the educated episcopal elite,could characterize himselfas "ignorant"for knowing only the Latin rite.Just as the seventeenth- centuryCounter-Reformation involved teaching the Catholics of Europe to

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 223 reject Protestantism,so eighteenth-centuryUniates, clergyand laity,ceased to be ignorantwhen theyhad learned thatthey were neitherRoman Catholic nor Orthodox. A crucial obstacle to educatingthe secular clergywas thevery limited number of places open for advanced religious study.There were four places for the Uniates in the Greek College of St. Athanasius in Rome, and at the beginning of the eighteenthcentury the Synod of Zamosc arrangedfor another ten places at theTheatine College in Lviv thateducated bothRuthenians and Armenians.A totalof 192 RuthenianUniates studiedat the Lviv school in the eighteenthcentury,though some ultimatelybecame Basilian monks ratherthan parish priests. Because of the limitededucational opportunitiesthere were Uniate priestswho actuallyended up studyingin Orthodoxschools in Kyiv and Pereiaslav, or even in Moldavia and Wallachia- and thiswas hardlylikely to nourisha commitment to theUnion. The VilniusPontifical College had been establishedin 1582, before theUnion, for the missionary purpose of educatingRussians and Ruthenians,but insteadit was Roman Catholic studentswho largelyfilled its rosters;only in the eighteenthcentury was therea concertedUniate effortto claim the seminaryfor themselves,beginning with a memorandumto Rome in 1753. SmohozhevsTcyi, who appreciatedthe perils of clerical ignorance,was still dickeringin 1774 for places at the Vilnius seminary:"So I will not fail to choose two capable youths to send to Rome next autumn,and I will have ready othersfor whenever there occurs some vacancy in the College of Vilnius."151SmohozhevsTcyi must have worriedabout theJesuit tradition at theVilnius seminary,but in 1774 thesociety was already formallysuppressed. Above all, the Uniate Church lacked those Tridentinediocesan seminaries sponsored by the Counter-Reformationfor the Roman Catholic clergyall over Europe. In 1759 Maksymiliian Ryllo managed to open a seminaryfor his diocese of Chehn. In 1763 Sylvester RudnytsTcyi(Sylvester Rudnicki), bishop of Lutsk,established a seminarythere, but afterhis death in 1777 and a major fire in 1779, the fundswere appropriatedby his successor, KypriianStetsTcyi, who was actually hostile to clerical education. In 1773 SmohozhevsTcyiwas saving moneyto build a seminaryof his own at Polatsk. In 1774 he had preparedplans for its construction,and submittedthem to the Russian government.In 1775 he had still not heard fromthe government,blamed the ill will of the Orthodox Synod, and suspended his preparationsfor building,resolving to build across 152 theborder in Poland ifhe couldn't in the Russian Empire. In 1776 a seminary opened in Zhytomyrfor Ukraine,after the Orthodox pressureshad ebbed, and in the 1780s SmohozhevsTcyiworked toward the establishmentof a seminary at his metropolitanresidence in Radomyshl. In 1774 Maria Theresa gave her Uniates theBarbaraeum in Vienna withfourteen places, butthe most spectacular breakthroughin Uniate clerical education came in 1782 in Galicia withJoseph's

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 224 WOLFF programof stateseminaries. Thus, paradoxically,the Counter-Reformation came to theUniate Churchunder the sponsorship of enlightenedabsolutism. The Lviv TheatineCollege and theBarbaraeum were eliminatedin favorof theJosephine General Seminaryin Lviv, which opened in 1783 withfifty-two places, and in 153 1787 thatwas supplementedby the RuthenianInstitute. In Poland the Four-Year Sejm legislated the foundingof Uniate diocesan seminariesin 1790, butthe final partitions made these no morethan good intentions. The enlightenedPolish patriotHugo Koll^taj observed the educational developmentsof the Uniate Churchwith interest, noting that the clergy was still insufficiently"enlightened." He wrotein particularabout the seminaryat Lutsk establishedby RudnytsTcyi("an enlightenedman," in Kott^taj'sjudgment) and regrettedthat there was too muchtheology taught and too littleof othersubjects. Yet even comprehensiveinstruction in theologywas an advance forthe Uniate clergy,and thecommitment to educational improvementwas notable enough so thatKoll^taj could evaluate the Uniates accordingto thecontemporary standard of enlightenment.Sophia Senyk, writingabout Ruthenianreligion in historical perspective,has noted that "the formationof the secular clergy did not vary greatlyfrom the time of theintroduction of Christianityin Rus' in thetenth century untilthe end of the eighteenth."Change did come about, however,in the eighteenthcentury. In the historicaljudgment of Bieñkowski, "the matterof proper education forthe parish clergywas not fullyresolved at the conclusion of the existenceof theCommonwealth, but progress achieved in thisfield in thecourse of the second half of the eighteenthcentury was indubitablysignificant."154 Short of formal seminary education, Uniate bishops in this period were attemptingto achieve a higherstandard of religiousawareness among theirparish priestsby imposingexaminations. It was in thiscontext of stricterregulation that VazhynsTcyi,bishop of Chehn after1790, achieved a certainnotoriety for his low standardin ordainingpriests. HrebnytsTcyi and SmohozhevsTcyiboth felt obliged to explain the ignoranceof the clergyby referenceto the povertyof the posts, but Vazhynsicyiwas said to be untroubledin his easy ordinations.He expected the candidates to know a littleritual, and to pay a fee, but when challenged by anotherbishop regardingtheir general ignorance,Vazhynsicyi is supposed to " have airilyreplied, "Omnis Spirituslaudet dominum (Let everyspirit praise the Lord).155SheptytsTcyi, whose commitmentto the secular clergywas expressed in his campaign for the cathedralchapter at Lviv, established in his diocese a systemof examinationsthat set a new standard,and made VazhynsTcyi'samena- bilityseem irresponsibleby comparison.Sheptytslcyi insisted that his priestsbe examined quarterly,and thatthe demonstrationof theological competencybe 156 the conditionof receivinga benefice. Sheptytslcyialso was interestedin decorationsto rewardthose who met new standardsof piety,and in 1770 obtainedthe permission of Pope ClementXIV to

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 225 bestowan honorarycross on a gold chain.157Joseph II had all thecathedral priests and consistorymembers decorated with pectoral crosses thatbore his own name. The most extraordinaryconception of ecclesiastical honors,however, was that which SmohozhevsTcyiand Stanislaw August put beforePope Pius VI in 1784. The purpose was to "decorate themeritorious Ruthenian secular clergy"and "to serve to excite themever more in the service of religionand in thecommitment to conserveand propagatethe Holy Union." The metamorphosisof theasini was quixoticallyenvisioned in thefoundation of an honoraryorder of Uniate secular priests,the Cavaliers of the Holy Union. A totalof twenty-foursuch decorations were to be divided among the dioceses, with the metropolitanceremonially dispatchingthe crosses and diplomas. The special obligation of the "cavaliers" would be to serve in the parishes and teach Christiandoctrine.158 The survival of the Uniate Church obviously depended upon the competencyand fidelityof its parishpriests, and theywere to be elevated in ecclesiastical standardsby the lure of attainingthe already almost anachronisticemblems of theancien régime. The asses would have to recognize themselvesas cavaliers in orderto appreciate theirown identityas Uniates.

All by Themselves Pelesh in the nineteenthcentury estimated that there were twelve million Uni- ates beforethe partitionsof Poland. Likowski calculated thatthe Union lost to Orthodoxy"at least seven and maybe even eightmillion" betweenthe first partition in 1772 and Catherine'sdeath in 1796. "If God had lengthenedher lifetime by anotherseveral years," wrote Likowski piously, "she would have probably rootedout therest (about two million)." This would suggesta totalof nine or ten million. However, Emanuel Rostworowskiputs the entirepre-partition population of the Polish-LithuanianCommonwealth at twelve million,while Norman Davies' suggestseleven. Witold Kolbuk has plausiblyestimated the total number of Uniates in the Commonwealth in 1772, on the eve of the firstpartition, at 4,600,000. JohannesMadey estimatesthat there were still 1,400,000 Uniates in the Russian Empire in 1804, afterPaul had canceled Catherine'sfinal assault. If one estimatesthat 1,800,000 Uniates were safe fromCatherine in Galicia, then a plausible estimationof the net loss in the Uniate population in the age of the 159 Polish partitionswould be 1,400,000. One may attemptto interpretthe changes of affiliationin thisperiod by bor- rowing SmohozhevsTcyi'sidea of "vacillation," which he used with reference to the clergyin 1773, and thenlater in 1785 to describe the general state of the Union in this period: "the Holy Union itself still vacillating (vacillante)."160 The pressuresapplied by Russian Orthodoxy- from 1768 to 1775 in Ukraine at thetime of the firstpartition, from 1779 to 1783 in Belarus duringthe Polatsk vacancy, and from 1793 to 1796 throughthe final partitions- were all closed

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 226 WOLFF intervalsfollowed by periods of recoveryand returnto theUnion. If losses were significantlybalanced by returns,then the bottom line of statisticalattrition was consistentwith Uniate survival. Indeed, the inflationof numericallosses may have derivedpartly from the same Uniates leaving and rejoiningthe Union more thanonce. Furthermore,real losses may have reflectednot only the success of Orthodoxcampaigning but also the weakness of Uniate identityand commitment. Bieñkowski has concluded that "the Union was often accepted by the parishclergy and theUkrainian population only seemingly, as revealed by events between 1768 and 1773, when a very significantnumber of parishes returned to Orthodoxy(in truth,partly under compulsion)."161Especially since Uniate proselytismcontinued strong through the first half of theeighteenth century, those "lost" in the second half may have been barely Uniate to begin with. In fact,the quantitativeevaluation of gains and losses in thisperiod is probably less importantthan the qualitative changes that occurred in the Uniate millions.One may considerthe relevance of Delumeau's sociological model of Counter-ReformationChristianization and Enlightenmentde-Christianization as "two intersectingcurves" in eighteenth-centuryEurope: "the one expresses a qualitativereligion, the other a quantitativeadherence." Such adherencecould be almostperfunctory, an automaticmatter of defaultin theabsence of otheroptions, butby theeighteenth century this mere "conformism"was beginningto be challenged by thepossibility of choice. In thereligious sociology of Gabriel Le Bras, the whole notion of "de-Christianization"is presentedas a misconceptionfor earlymodern populations - "since to be dechristianizedthey must at some stage have been christianized."By the same token,Uniate "apostasy" to Orthodoxy was an emptylament, if the alleged apostateshad been only minimallyaware of being Uniates.162Yet those who had been pressuredto apostatize to Orthodoxy, or counseled to consider transitto Roman Catholicism,whether they stood fast or whetherthey succumbed and thenreturned, were not the same Uniates they had been before. The religious ebbing and flowing of this period dramatized forthe Uniates an arrayof religious alternatives,and those who ultimatelyhad to decide whetheror not to sign on the line in 1794 were raised to a higherand more modernlevel of religious consciousness. Vacillation became the crucible of affiliationand identity. The Union of Brest in 1596 was the work of the bishops. When they left Orthodoxyfor Catholicism and rejected theirecclesiastical association with Moscow and Constantinopleto submitthemselves to the hierarchicalauthority of the pope in Rome, theytheoretically brought their dioceses along withthem. Because of the natureof the Uniate compromise- its preservationof the Greek riteand Slavonic liturgy- thereorientation ofthose bishops did notdramatically affectthe millions subject to theirpastoral care. Indeed, the Union was all the moreof a coup forthe fact that it convertedthose millionsby a strokeof thepen,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 227 regardlessof theiragreement or even awareness. Perhaps not untilthe Synod of Zamosc in 1720 did certainforms of liturgicalLatinization make the union into somethingmanifestly perceptible in thereligious life of theordinary churchgoer. Supposedly, Uniates of the Commonwealthwho lived near the borderwith the Russian Empire were known to cross over on Sundays to attendthe gorgeous churchesof Kyiv. Konysicyiin 1773 would boast thatmany Uniates remained Orthodox "in theirhearts" and secretlysneaked offto Orthodoxchurches, but it is just as likely thatthey attached little importance to the differencebetween Uniate and Orthodox churches with theirsimilar services.163It became much more obviously importantafter 1768, when those churches began to change handsviolently and thenchanged back again. At thesame timethe Uniate Church became a more meaningfulconcept to the millions who saw it challenged from parishto parish,while those millions attractedthe more attentiveinterest of the Uniate hierarchy,which had to forestallthe seizure of its social base. Attentionto thereligious life of parishpriests and theirparishioners, as sponsoredelsewhere in Europe by theTridentine Counter-Reformation in thesixteenth and seventeenth centuries,now at last became a serious issue in the Uniate Church. The strugglebetween the Basilian orderand theparish priests was more than just intraclericalcombat, because thedivisions of the Uniate clergyreflected the tremendousdistance and virtualnonrelation between the episcopal apex and the peasant masses at the top and bottomof the Uniate Church.The Latin-leaning Basilians, ever since Zamosc, were the elite pool from which bishops were chosen, while the secular priests- workingfarms, fulfilling feudal obligations, and supportingfamilies - were culturallyand socioeconomically close to the peasant laitywho attendedthe parish churches. Those priestswere oftenthe sons of priests,carrying on a vocation across the generationswithout ever risingfar above thelevel of thepeasantry they attended. The separationbetween elite and base was all thestarker for the fact that the Uniate nobilityhad disappearedin the seventeenthcentury, drawn by the elite attractionof Polish Roman Catholicism with or withoutthe incitementof a Jesuiteducation; in the eighteenthcentury theUniate laitywas almostentirely of thepeasant class, farmingat themiserable level of serfdomin the Commonwealth.This social datum was expressed in the pejorativePolish proverb,"ruska wiara, chlopska wiara," equating "Ruthenian faith"with "peasant faith."164Therefore, when the bishops finallyhad to look to theirbase in the late eighteenthcentury, they had to search rightdown to the bottomof society.The only possible mediatingorder was thatof the parish priestswhose much-lamented"ignorance" was notwithout its advantages,for it signaled not only distance fromelite pietybut also proximityto popular culture. Uniate religious mobilizationin thisperiod became a point of departurefor the evolution of modern peasant nationalismin Belarus and Ukraine. The Synod of Zamosc prescribedthe publication of a general catechism and a manual for

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 228 WOLFF the clergyin the vernacularlanguage of the Ruthenians;the latterwas printed at the Basilian monasteryof Suprasl in 1722 as Sobranie pripadkov kratkoei duchovnymosobom potrebnoe.165 Accordingto Delumeau, the lower classes of Europe were discovered to be deeply superstitious,even pagan, in the seventeenthcentury - in Brittany,for instance,kneeling to the moon while recitingthe Lord's Prayer- and therefore the task of the Counter-Reformationwas no less thanthe thorough"Christian- ization" of society.Even in the eighteenthcentury, "it would certainlynot be verydifficult to gathernumerous documents on the religious ignorance of the masses and the survival of superstition."166In Josephine Galicia the Uniate bishops addressed themselves to this same problem in the 1780s, and their specificconcerns gave some idea of eighteenth-centurypopular cultureamong the Uniates. Ryllo, bishop of Chehn, issued a pastoral letterin 1781, warning his diocese against celebratingunauthorized festivals, making religious use of images and herbsto heal the sick, throwingchildren before the feet of thepriest at communion,believing in dreams forprophecy, fearing that extreme unction causes death,lighting candles in churchwith prayers for revenge, and involving poultry,cattle, and goats in various religiouspractices. Ryllo urgedhis clergyto remindthe people that"not the saints,and much less theirimages, are capable of workingwonders, but only God alone."167 BiliansTcyi,archbishop of Lviv, issued his own pastoralletter in 1788, specifi- cally addressed to both clergyand laity: "To the secular and regularclergy as well as the people of the dioceses of Lviv, Halych, and Kam'ianets, regarding theelimination of several superstitioususes and abuses." These includedputting littlepictures or writingsunder the communioncup duringmass, and relying on "prayersin a specific number,performed in a specific way and at a specific time"- but not,apparently, specified by the Church- to cure the ills of humans and cattle. Biliansicyi was aware that "here and there are found springs and streamsto which the people go in crowds, in the superstitiousopinion thatone could be freedof all sicknessand unWellness by washingand submerging,if one leftbehind a piece of clothing."Similarly, there were knownto be places where "so-called wonder-workingimages are found,"and where"the people are accus- tomedto gatherin greatcrowds, and worshipand esteemthese images so highly as to attributeto themeven miraculouspower." Such episcopal appeals signaled thesort of movementtoward "Christianization" described by Delumeau, and also thatreligious "reformof popular culture"described by Peter Burke.168 Though these developments came to the Commonwealth along with the Roman CatholicCounter-Reformation, there was a particularreason for their long delay in reachingthe Uniate Church.The Union compromise,as SmohozhevsTcyi explained it in St. Petersburgin 1773, allowed the Uniates to preserve their "sacred ritesand trulypious and honestcustoms." His eighteenth-centuryqualifi-

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 229 cation- "trulypious and honest"- matchedthe concerns of Ryllo and Bilianslcyi, but he dared not deny the association of ritesand customs. The millions could acquiesce in the Union because, by preservingtheir rites and customs,it affected theirreligious life so little,but such a commitmentto thecultural status quo made any challenge to popular culture both arguably illegitimateand dangerously provocative. Even in 1774, when Smohozhevsicyi considered proposals for reducingthe numberof religiousholidays, he was in no hurryto take advantage of selective reductionto reinforcethe Catholicism of his Uniates. He thoughtit would be best to wait on theOrthodox Church, and matchits reductions,for fear thatotherwise "the Catholic peoples could reducethemselves to schismprecisely because in theother church they were observingthe festivals and being idle." The idleness of festivaldays reflectedfor the archbishopthe religious passivity of people who consentedto be Uniates as long as thatdid not upset theircustoms. The pun on "reduction"was his: by the "reduction"(riduzione) of holidays one risked provoking the people to "reduce themselves" (ridursi) to Orthodoxy. Burke,in his discussion of "the worldof carnival,"has suggestedthe importance of festivalcelebrations for popular culturein early modernEurope.169 At the same time, indeed in the same dispatch of 1774, Smohozhevslcyi - expressed his characteristicallyeighteenth-century confidence that education "instructionin the sciences"- was the key to the Uniates' religious stability: "because deep down (infondo) theyare optimalCatholics, and theywill be so for certain(lo saranno per certo)"110His confidencein thefuture, and in theUniate souls "deep down," rebuttedKonysTtyi's backward-looking insistence in 1773 thatthe Uniates remained Orthodox "in theirhearts." Whatever they had been in the past, Smohozhevsicyiaccepted thateducation was the key to theirfuture, and popular "ignorance"- the guaranteeof religious acquiescence in centuries past- could no longer supportthe Union in the politicallypressured age of the partitions.The most engaged analystof this state of affairswas Garampi at the Warsaw nunciature,from 1772 to 1776, observing the Orthodox occupation of Uniate churches in Ukraine. "The people blindly follow theirpastors," he wrote,"and ignorancemakes themblindly obey schismaticpriests who intrude themselves."Here "ignorance"was specificallyidentified as theroot of apostasy, thoughas Garampi mighthave pointed out as well, thatwas how those same people had entered the Union to begin with. His particularlycondescending Italian Roman Catholic perspectiveon Uniate ignorance was developed in his Exposé of the Conditionof the Churchin Ukrainein 1773, aimed at arousingthe concern of the Polish Sejm. He warned thatthe Uniates of the Commonwealth, having apostatized to Orthodoxy,would be virtuallysubjects of the Russian Empire: "Ignorantand course,often rough men, sometimes superstitious, almost always stupid- theyare certainlyincapable of distinguishingcivil fromreligious obedience." The conjunctionof ignoranceand superstitionon the one hand, and

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 230 WOLFF coarsenessand roughnesson theother, neatly associated thedimensions of popular cultureand peasant societyas somethingpotentially subversive. The dangers were spelled out in Garampi's 1774 proposal of an appeal to Constantinople, warningthat the Russian governmentwould use Orthodoxyto enslave and exploit thepeople of Ukraine,"a people capable of everytransport and barbarismwhen one proposes to thema pretextor motive of supposed- and always misunder- stood- religion."171Though "ignorance"was a catch-allconcept, expressing the nuncio's Italian condescension,there was one fundamentalissue at thecenter of his concerns: the understandingand misunderstandingof religion. When theabolition of theJesuits and theirJesuit schools led to theformation of the Polish National Education Commission in 1773, Garampi immediately envisioned new schools thatmight remedy "the extremeroughness and supine ignoranceof theRuthenian peoples." In 1774, while Smohozhevsicyiwas hope- fullywaiting for vacancies in the PontificalCollege in Vilnius, Garampi was worryingabout fundingfor that same institutionwhich was said to provide "in thewhole Rutheniannation the only priests who are well instructedand qualified to instructthe people."172 Thus, he clarifiedexplicitly that the most fundamental reason foreducating the ignorantparish priestswas so thatthey could educate theirignorant parishioners. The same point was made by the firstHabsburg governorin Galicia in 1773, remarkingupon the "stupidityof these miserable people." They were ignorantof the "basic principlesof religion,"because of "lack of schools and lack of vigilance on thepart of the clergy."Joseph in 1784 orderedthe establishment of a school in everyparish. Starting in 1787 everyparish priestwas requiredevery year to delivera special sermonurging attendance at school.173The convergenceof politicaladaptations, religious imperatives, and enlightenedconventions made thedialectic of ignoranceand educationimportant throughoutthe partitionedUniate domain. In theCommonwealth in theearly eighteenth century the founding of a church in thePolissia regionoccasioned thecomment, in 1705, thatthe villagers scarcely considered themselvesChristians, and some preservedthe practice of ancient Lithuanianpaganism; meanwhile,"the trueChristians who findthemselves in thesevillages leave thisworld without baptism, and withoutthe holy sacraments of penance." In 1765 thefounding of a parishchurch in theAshmiany (Oszmiana) districtnear Vilnius was intendedfor communities that "having no definitepar- ish, and separatedby distancefrom other churches and parishes,often leave this world withoutproper knowledge of the rudimentsof the holy faithand without the holy sacraments,except forholy baptism." In 1766 the magnateFranciszek Potockiestablished schools at Uman in Ukrainefor peasants on thePotocki fam- ily estates,explaining that the schools were "not only intendedfor the education in pietyand knowledge of the simple peasants, but also and above all forthose who aspired to the clergyof the Greek rite."174Thus, on the eve of thereligious

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 23 1 crisis in Ukraine, about to erupt with the arrival of Russian troops in 1768, therewas already awareness and concern about the religious ignorance of the Uniate population,which was clearlyrelated to thescantness of the institutional infrastructureof priests,churches, and schools in the Commonwealth. The pastoral visitations conducted in the 1780s in the diocese of Chehn revealed boththe depth of theproblem and a new level of commitmentto under- taking the remedy.A series of catechistic questions to the faithfulproduced devastatingresults:

"Whatis theTrinity?" "The Motherof God." "Who is Christ?""The HolyTrinity."175

The profferedexplanation for such confusion was thatthe parish priesttaught nothingto his parishioners.In 1783, whena visitationyielded analogous instances of ignorancein anotherparish, the priestwas sent offfor a four-week course in basic religion at the Chelm seminary.In 1787 pastoral visitorsalready noted a generationgap amongthe Uniates, inasmuch as "especiallythe younger parishioners know well therudiments of faith,but older ones know less since theprevious priestsdid not teach them." The improvementof education among the Udiate clergywas correlatedwith a diminutionof religiousignorance among the Uniate populations.Bieñkowski concludes thatthere was "significantprogress" in the Christianizationof the Uniates duringthe second half of the eighteenthcentury, thoughmore in breadththan in depth,as basic religiousknowledge was extended to a greaterpercentage of the Uniate population.176 A travelerin Galicia in 1800 noted that "the piety of the Ruthenianpeas- ants restsmore on formthan on actual graspingand understandingof religious content."177Though "form" was generally importantfor early modern piety, providingthe basis for what Delumeau notes as religious "conformism,"the significance of "form" was all the more fundamentalin the Uniate Church, the raison d'être of which was the conservationof ritual and custom. In fact, considering the mass response to religious pressure in the age of the Polish partitions,it appears thatthe Uniate millions,in spiteof theirrepeatedly deplored "ignorance" and "roughness,"were more committedto the Union thananyone expected.The firstto be surprisedwas Giuseppe Garampl.He, who had trumpeted theirsupine ignoranceand blind subservience,who promotedfantastic appeals on theirsupine behalf to foreigncourts, could not help notingand reportingin 1775 thatthe apostates were returningto the Union: "The various populations all by themselves(da se stesse) are reuniting(riunendosi) withus and pleading for theirformer pastors." He went so far as to creditthe Uniates with return- ing "spontaneously."178Garampi, who only the year before had asserted as an axiom that"the people blindlyfollow theirpastors," now foundthat the religious

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 232 WOLFF impetuswas coming from"the people" themselves:"pleading fortheir former pastors."This was theUniate Churchturned upside down. The Union createdby bishops on the pastoralpremise of passive populations,now foundthe millions actively,"spontaneously," restoring the Union in Ukraine"all by themselves."In employingthe reflexive verb reunirsi- "reunitingthemselves" - Garampieven suggestedthat the act of Union was being recreated,this time fromthe bottom insteadof fromthe top. The worstfears of the Roman Catholic nuncio were no morejustified than the rosy hopes of the Orthodoxbishop, KonysTcyi,who in 1773 remindedthe Uniates that"their fathers and ancestors" were Orthodox and appealed to the Orthodoxyhidden "in theirhearts." In fact,almost two hundredyears after Brest, the Uniate Church had a historyof its own, and most Uniates looked back to Uniate fathersand ancestors.What theyheld in theirhearts was the traditional ritualand popularculture that had been conservedwithin the Union. Konyslcyi's protégé,SadkovsTcyi, would make thesame appeal in 1794- to "arise" and return to "the Orthodoxconfession thatinspired your ancestors"- but the passing of anothergeneration only made the rhetoricthat much more hollow.179In fact, the spontaneousreturns of the 1770s foretoldthe returns of the late 1790s, once again as soon as the pressurewas lifted.The historianmight even look further forward,to the 1990s, and thetremendous resurgence of theUnion in independent Ukraine,as modernreligious identityasserted itselfanew afterthe removal of Soviet constraints.The Vaticanof the 1990s mightwell have observed,echoing Garampiacross thecenturies, that "the various populations all by themselvesare reunitingwith us," and, unlikePius VI, Pope JohnPaul II had theopportunity to witnessthe fruitsofthat reunion in person duringhis visitto Ukraine in 2001. SmohozhevsTcyiin 1774, observingUkraine from Belarus, did expressconfi- dence in the "constancyof the Ukrainians"(la costanza degl'Ukrainesi), but he betrayedhis uncertaintyby going on to suggestthat "in my opinion therewould be more value in the efficacyof a petitionfrom Vienna," not to mentionthe involvementof "otherCatholic courts."180Faced withthe episcopal impotence of himselfand his fellow bishops,he was capable of looking to thelocal populations,but preferred,like Garampi,to appeal to thecourts. His hopes of popular "constancy"were neverthelessinsightful as well as predictive,for he seemed to appreciatethe dialectic by which constancycould emergefrom vacillation. His designationof the "Ukrainians" offeredan eighteenth-centuryterritorial usage of what would eventuallybecome the nineteenth-centurynational name. This referenceto thepeasant population of Ukrainesuggested the importance of early modernreligious affiliationfor the evolution of modernnational identity.The Ukrainiannational historian Mykhailo HrushevsTcyi,who came fromOrthodox Kyiv to Uniate Galicia in 1894 to teach Ukrainianhistory at Lviv, arguedthat the Union had originallybeen createdby thePolish Commonwealth"to weaken the

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 233 nationalculture" of Ukraine.Yet ironically,as HrushevsTcyiobserved, "to thenew generationwhich had been borninto the Uniate Churchthis faith was thenational Ukrainianreligion," and as "the Churchof the peasants" it became "a mirrorof contemporarynational life."181 The Union, in protectingthe ritualsand customs thatconstituted early modern popular culture,provided in the late eighteenth centurya base forthe emergence of modernreligious and national identityin peasant society. Such were the historicalconsequences of a religious union thatrespected, as SmohozhevsTcyiinsisted it must,"the desires of the nations" as expressed in "sacred ritesand trulypious and honestcustoms." It was theimportance of those ritesand customsthat undercut any easy assumptionsabout "blindobedience" on the partof the peasant laity,just as it was Smohozhevs'kyi'sstrict interpretation of the union compromise thatqualified his own personal assurance of "blind obedience" to the Vatican in 1774. The "blindness" was perhaps exaggerated, literallyas well as figuratively,for only two monthsbefore he was awaiting"with patience" in Polatsk the deliveryof a pair of eyeglasses orderedfrom Rome.182 When SmohozhevsTcyiwas promotedto the metropolitanatein Poland in 1779, he leftbehind a buddingcrisis at Polatsk, but arrivedat his new post to findthat the recentcrisis in Ukraine was basically over.The demonstratedvitality of the Union thereencouraged him to tryto close the chasm thatseparated the Uniate hierarchyfrom its social base, and he planned to divide his metropolitanactivity between political business in Warsaw and pastoral concerns in Ukraine with a residence at Radomyshl:

I have directedall mycares to thevast province of Ukraine,which is the largestportion of themetropolitanate. I have establishedmyself in these parts,where until now no othermetropolitan has evermade his residence, and I try,with my presence and mylive voice(colla vivavoce), to retainin theHoly Union those many populations, which after being seduced by the violenceand fraud of the schismatics in the recent most unhappy turbulences ofUkraine, have in large number returned spontaneously (spontaneamente) to theCatholic faith.183

His echoing of Garampi's word- "spontaneously"- confirmedthe verdict; a less strictlyfair-minded bishop mighthave been temptedto take more creditfor himselfin those returnsto Catholicism. SmohozhevsTcyicalled it "the Catholic faith,"of course, but no one knew betterthan he how much and how littlecould be comprehendedin "the perplexityofthat one littleword": Catholics.184 In thecase of theUniates of Ukraine,it was notnecessary for SmohozhevsTcyi to specifywhether their return to the fold was more a matterof Catholic faithor of customaryculture. His establishmentof a residence in Ukraineadumbrated a

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 234 WOLFF new concernfor pastoral proximity; the people had come seeking theirpastors, and thepastors would reciprocatewith greater attention to theirflocks. Above all, it was theunexpected level of popular attachmentto theUnion, as demonstrated in the "spontaneity"of returnfrom apostasy, that enabled the Uniate Churchto survivethrough the age of the Polish partitions.Those peasants who "reunited themselves"were the unexpectedactors in a modernrenewal of the Union, at a timewhen "the body of theUniates" was "splitinto so manycompletely different parts,and subject to diverse heads."

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 235

Notes

1. JasonSmogorzewski, Epistolae Jasonis Junosza Smogorzevskyj, metropolitae KioviensisCattolici, 1780-1788, Analecta OSBM, ser.2, sec. 3, ed. AthanasmsG. Welykyj(Rome, 1965), 120.All translationsin thisarticle are by Larry Wolff.

2. BorysGudziak, Crisis and Reform:The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarch of Constantinople,and theGenesis of the Union of Brest (Cambridge, Mass., 1998); John-PaulHimka, Religion and Nationality in WesternUkraine: The Greek Catholic Churchand theRuthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867-1900(Montreal, 1999); BarbaraSkinner, "Borderlands of Faith:Reconsidering the Origins of a UkrainianTragedy," Slavic Review 64, no. 1 (Spring2005): 88-116.

3. EduardLikowski, Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls der unirtenruthenischen Kircheim XVIII und XIX Jahrhundert, trans. Apollinaris Ttoczyñski, vol. 1 (Poznan, 1885),282.

4. JulianPelesz, Geschichteder Unionder ruthenischenKirche mit Rom, vol. 2 (Vienna,1 881), 552; see also Himka,Religion and Nationalityin WesternUkraine, 15, 112-14,125-26.

5. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 139.

6. Acta S. C. de PropagandaFide: EcclesiamCatholicam Ucrainae et Bielarusjae Spectantia,vol. 5 (1769-1862),Analecta OSBM, ser.2, sec. 3, ed. AthanasiusG. Welykyj(Rome, 1955), 60.

7. Archiviodella Nunziaturadi Varsavia,Registro 65 (hereafterANV 65), "Copia tiratadal Dispaccio originaledell'Imperatrice di Russia al suo Ambasciatorein Varsavia,"p. 408.

8. Skinner,"Borderlands of Faith,"109-10; see also Zenon Kohut,"Myths of Old and New: The HaidamakMovement and the Koliivshchyna(1768) in Recent Historiography,"Harvard Ukrainian Studies 1, no. 3 (September1977): 371-74.

9. Pelesz,Geschichte der Union,2:561.

10. LarryWolff, "Vatican Diplomacy and the Uniates of Ukraine after the First Partition ofthe Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8, no. 3-4 (December1984): 404; ANV 57, Garampi,5 December1772.

11. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligen Verfalls,1:159; Sophia Senyk,"The Educationof theSecular Clergy in theRuthenian Church before the Nineteenth Century,"Orientalia Christiana Periódica 53 (1987): 414.

12. Wolff,"Vatican Diplomacy and theUniates," 409; ANV 58, Garampi,23 July 1774.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 236 WOLFF

13. Wolff,"Vatican Diplomacy and the Uniates," 414-15.

14. Ibid.,412; ANV 58, Garampi,16 July1774.

15. Wolff,"Vatican Diplomacy and theUniates," 417; ANV 59, Garampi,22 March 1775.

16. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1: 186; Isabelde Madariaga,Russia in theAge ofCatherine the Great (New Haven,1981), 512.

17. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 108-9.

18. Ibid.,85.

19. Madariaga,Russia in the Age of Catherine, 51 2-14; JohnAlexander, Catherine the Great:Life and Legend(Oxford, 1989), 76-77; Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 173.

20. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 91-92.

21. Arkheograficheskii sbornik dokumentov otnosiashchikhsia kistorii Severv-Zapadnoi Rusi,vol. 10 (Vilnius,1874), 365.

22. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 61-62; Arkheograficheskiisbornik, 10:365-66.

23. Arkheograficheskiisbornik, 10:367-69.

24. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 84; see also JohnLeDonne, Ruling Russia: Politics and Administrationin the Age ofAbsolutism, 1762-1796 (Princeton, 1984), 317-25.

25. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 87, 95.

26. Ibid.,173-75.

27. Ibid.,227.

28. ANV 63,Archetti, 24 November1779.

29. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 227.

30. Ibid.,228.

31. Aktyizdavaemye Vilenskoiu arkheograficheskoiu kommissieiu, vol. 16 (Vilnius, 1889),395-97.

32. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1: 196.

33. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 262.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 237

34. Aktyizdavaemye Vilenskoiu arkheograficheskoiu kommissieiu, 16:325.

35. JohannesMadey, Kirche zwischen Ost und West:Beiträge zur Geschichteder Ukrainischenund Weissruthenischen Kirche (Munich, 1969), 102.

36. Ibid.,pp. 117-18.

37. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:201 .

38. Ibid.,205; fromAugustin Theiner, Neuesten Zustände der katholischenKirche beiderRitus in Polen undRussland seit Katharina II (Augsburg,1840).

39. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:200.

40. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 260.

4 1. Likowski, Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1: 202-3 .

42. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 268.

43. LarryWolff, The Vaticanand Poland in theAge of the Partitions: Diplomatic and CulturalEncounters at the WarsawNunciature (Boulder and New York,1988), 173; ANV 65, CatherineII to Pius VI, 30 January1782.

44. Wolff,The Vaticanand Poland, 164-65;ANV 63, 29 March1780.

45. Wolff,The Vatican and Poland,1 69, 174; ANV 64,Archetti, 28 March1 78 1; ANV 65, Archetti,2 October 1782.

46. ANV 65, Archetti,6 March 1782.

47. Paul Pierling,La Russieet le Saint-Siège,vol. 5 (Paris,1912), 155-57.

48. AlbertM. Ammann,Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte (Vienna, 1 950), 443.

49. AntonKorczok, Die griechisch-katholischeKirche in Galizien (Leipzig and Berlin, 1921),54; fromWladyslaw Chotkowski, Historya Polityczna Kosciola w Galicyi (Cracow,1909).

50. Pelesz,Geschichte der Union, 2:569; fromMichael Harasiewicz, Annales Ecclêsiae Ruthenae(Lviv, 1862).

5 1. Madey,Kirche zwischen Ost undWest, 1 20.

52. Ibid.,118.

53. Wolff,The Vaticanand Poland, 170; ANV 64, Archetti,16 May 178 1.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 238 WOLFF

54. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 307.

55. Wolff,The Vaticanand Poland, 188-96.

56. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:256-57.

57. Arkheograficheskiisbornik dokumentov otnosiashchikhsia k istoriiSievero- ZapadnoiRusi, vol. 5 (Vilnius,1871), 246.

58. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:263.

59. Ibid.,1:264.

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.,1:263-64.

62. ActaS. C. de PropagandaFide, 5: 156.

63. LudwigPastor, The Historyof thePopes, vol. 39 (Pius VI), trans.E. F. Peeler (London,1952), 172-73; Madariaga,Russia in theAge ofCatherine, 514.

64. StephenK. Batalden,Catherine H s GreekPrelate: Eugenios Voulgaris in Russia, 1771-1806(Boulder and New York,1982), 85-87.

65. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligen Verfalls,261; LudomirBieñkowski, "OrganizacjaKosciola Wschodniego w Polsce,"in Jerzy Kloczowski, ed., Kosciól w Polsce,vol. 2, WiekiXV1-XVIII (Cracow, 1970), 859.

66. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:268.

67. Ibid.,1:270-71.

68. Ibid.,1:282.

69. Aktyizdavaemye Vilenskoiu arkheograflcheskoiu kommissieiu, 16:569.

70. NormanDavies, God's Playground: A Historyof Poland, vol. 1 (1982; New York, 1984),542.

7 1. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 87-88.

72. Ibid.,87-89.

73. Ibid.,89.

74. Ibid.,59, 69.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 239

75. Ibid.,103-5.

76. Ibid.,147.

77. Ibid.,89; see also Gudziak,Crisis and Reform,77-88, 245-55.

78. JeanDelumeau, Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire:A New Viewof the Counter-Reformation,trans. Jeremy Moiser (1971; London,1977), 175-202.

79. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 115.

80. Ibid.,99.

81. Ibid.

82. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 87-93.

83. Ibid.,I()3n6.

84. Arkheograficheskiisbornik, 10:375-76.

85. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 106-7.

86. Ibid.,147.

87. ActaS. C de PropagandaFide, 5 : 102.

88. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 148.

89. Ibid.,115, 173.

90. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1: 204-5.

91. Madey,Kirche zwischen Ost undWest, 122.

92. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:243.

93. Ibid.,1:246.

94. Ibid.

95. Ibid.,1:247-48.

96. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 82-83.

97. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 353.

98. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 28.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 240 WOLFF

99. Ibid.,29.

100. Madey,Kirche zwischen Ost undWest, 121.

101. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1: 190.

102. Madey,Kirche zwischen Ost undWest, 78-80.

103 . Zbigniew Dmochowski , TheA rchitecture ofPoland: An Historical Survey (London , 1956),282-85; and Ammann, Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchenge schichte ,413-14; see also David Buxton,The WoodenChurches of EasternEurope (Cambridge, 1981).

104. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 99.

105. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 94.

106. Acta5. C. de PropagandaFide, 5: 100.

107. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:206.

108. AndyWarhol, The Andy Warhol Diaries, ed. Pat Hackett(New York,1 989), 580; PeterSchjeldahl, "Warhol in Bloom: Puttingthe Pop Artistin Perspective,"The New Yorker,11 March2002, 84.

109. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:209.

110. ActaS. C. de PropagandaFide, 5: 148;see also LeonidZytkowicz, "Lisowski, Józef (Heraclius),"Polski Slownik Biograflczny, vol. 17 (Cracow,1972), 473-74.

111. ActaS. C de PropagandaFide, 5: 150.

112. Ibid.,5:150-55.

113. Ibid.,5:155.

114. Ibid.,5:166.

115. Ibid.,5:167.

116. Dmochowski,The Architecture of Poland, 400; JulianBartoszewicz, Koscioty warszawskie(Warsaw, 1855), 298-300; Jean Fabre, Stanislas-Auguste Poniatowski et l'Europedes lumières(Paris, 1952), 387-88.

117. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 175.

11 8. ActaS. C. de PropagandaFide, 5: 172.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 24 1

119. Ibid.,5:187-88.

120. Ibid.,5:190.

121. Ibid.,5:188.

122. Ibid.,5:190-91.

123. John-PaulHimka, "The Conflictbetween the Secular and theReligious Clergy in Eighteenth-CenturyWestern Ukraine," Harvard Ukrainian Studies 15, no. 1-2 (June1991): 37-39; Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:292.

124. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:293; Korczok,Die griechisch- katholischeKirche, 16-18; Ammann, Abriss der ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte, 437.

125. Ammann,Abriss der ostslawischenKirchengeschichte, 420-21; Himka,"The Conflictbetween the Secular and theReligious Clergy," 40-41.

126. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 58-6 1; Himka,"The Conflict between theSecular and theReligious Clergy," 42-44.

127. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 54-55; Himka,"The Conflict between theSecular and theReligious Clergy," 44-46.

128. ActaS. C. de PropagandaFide, 5:178.

129. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 64.

130. Wolff,The Vaticanand Poland,87.

131. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 69.

132. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:289; M. M. Wojnar,"Ukrainian (Ruthenian)Rite," New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 14 (New York,1967), 373.

133. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 141.

134. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 13.

135. Madey,Kirche zwischen Ost undWest, 115.

136. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:303.

137. LudomirBieñkowski, "Organizacja Kosciota Wschodniego," 963-68; Senyk,'The Educationof the Secular Clergy," 412.

138. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:285.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 242 WOLFF

139. See NorbertElias, The History of Manners, trans. Edmund Jephcott, The Civilizing Process,vol. 1 (New York,1978).

140. Bieñkowski,"Organizacja Kosciola Wschodniego," 957-58.

141. Likowski, Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1: 18 1, 285.

142. Ibid.,1:242,302.

143. Ibid.,1:285.*

144. Delumeau,Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire,159.

145. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1:193.

146. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 96.

147. Ibid.,97.

148. Ibid.,97, 115.

149. Ibid.,97.

150. Ibid.,98.

151. Ibid., 139; Bieñkowski,"Organizacja Kosciola Wschodniego,"974-75; Senyk, "The Educationof the Secular Clergy," 407-8.

152. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 148, 175; Bieñkowski,"Organizacja Kosciola Wschodniego,"977-80.

153. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 46-48; Bieñkowski,"Organizacja KosciolaWschodniego," 980-81.

154. Bieñkowski,"Organizacja Kosciola Wschodniego," 978-8 1 ; Senyk,"The Education ofthe Secular Clergy," 389.

155. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 46.

156. Madey,Kirche zwischen Ost und West, 1 15 ; Likowski, Geschichte des allmaeligen Verfalls,1:286.

157. Pelesz,Geschichte der Union,2:572.

158. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 340-41 .

159. Pelesz,Geschichte der Union, 2:583 ; Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligen Verfalls, 1:282; Davies, Gods Playground,1:513; Madey,Kirche zwischen Ost und West,

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions UNIATE CHURCH AND THE PARTITIONSOF POLAND 243

107;Korczok, Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 10; Emanuel Rostworowski, "The Societyand Civilizationof theAge of Enlightenment,"in Aleksander Gieysztor, ed.,History of Poland, (Warsaw, 1979), 293; WitoldKolbuk, Koscioty wschodnie w Rzeczypospolitejokoto 1772 roku(Lublin, 1998), 72-76.

160. Smogorzewski, Epistolae, 3 85 .

161. Bieñkowski,"Organizacja Kosciola Wschodniego," 858-59.

162. Delumeau,Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire,213, 227.

163. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 164, 1: 190.

164. Ibid.,1:296.

165. Senyk,"The Educationof the Secular Clergy," 410-1 1.

166. Delumeau,Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire,161-62, 175,225.

167. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 20-23.

168. Ibid.,22-23; PeterBurke, Popular Culture in EarlyModern Europe (New York, 1978),207-43.

169. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 1 16; Burke,Popular Culture in EarlyModern Europe, 178-204.

170. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 115.

171. Wolff,"Vatican Diplomacy and theUniates," 401, 406, 411; ANV 58, Garampi, 16 July1774; ANV 59, Garampi,15 March1775.

172. Wolff,"Vatican Diplomacy and the Uniates,"400-401; ANV 58, Garampi,19 January1774 and 19 March1774.

173. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 20, 32.

174. Bieñkowski,"Organizacja Kosciola Wschodniego," 976, 986-$7.

175. Ibid.,997.

176. Ibid.,989, 996-97.

177. Korczok,Die griechisch-katholischeKirche, 20.

178. Wolff,"Vatican Diplomacy and theUniates," 419; ANV 59, Garampi,30 August 1775and 15 November1775.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 244 WOLFF

179. Likowski,Geschichte des allmaeligenVerfalls, 1: 190, 268.

180. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 120.

181. MykhailoHrushevsky, A History of Ukraine(New Haven,1 94 1), 462, 469-70.

182. Smogorzewski,Epistolae, 145, 148.

183. Ibid.,307.

184. Ibid.,139.

This content downloaded from 128.163.8.28 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 11:23:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions