THE WEALTH OF THE POLISH CHURCH IN THE XVITH
CENTURY: ITS EFFECT ON THE NOBILITY
One of the most potent causes of the spread of the Reformation in
Poland in the sixteenth century was the enormous wealth of the Polish
church. Owing to the liberality of princes, kings, magnates, and
pious devotees, the church became a great economic power. Its large
landed estates and great financial resources were both exasperating
and enviable. It was one of the largest landowners in the country. Its
financial resources were greater than those of the crown. It happened
not infrequently that the king had to come to the powerful church
dignitaries to ask them for financial contributions to the state
treasury for purposes of government and defense. By the side of the
baronial estates and princely incomes of some of the Polish bishops the
wealth of even the most powerful magnates faded into insignificance.
In Great Poland, out of a total of 33,000 “łanów kmiecych,”[267] or
hides of land under peasant cultivation, the church was in possession
of 3,430 łanów or of 10.33 per cent.[268] In some districts and
palatinates the estates of the church were more concentrated than
in others. In the Palatinates of Poznań and Kalisz, for instance,
they formed only 6 per cent. of the total land area under peasant
cultivation, while in the Palatinate of Inowrocław they rose to 12
per cent., in the Palatinate of Brześć to 16 per cent., and in the
Palatinate of Łęczyce to 22 per cent.[269]
In Little Poland, out of a total of 5,455 villages and 205 towns, the
church owned 772 villages, 83 sections, or parts of villages, and 28
towns.[270] Allowing 5.3 villages to a square mile, the proportion then
prevalent, 2 sections to a village, and a quarter of a mile to a town,
we find that the landed property of the church in Little Poland in the
sixteenth century covered an area of 160 square miles in a total of
1,013 square miles, and constituted about 15.5 per cent. of the total
estimated land area of the province.[271] This property was about
equally divided between the secular clergy and the monastic orders, the
former owning 360 villages, 65 sections, and 12 towns, and the latter
372 villages, 18 sections, and 16 towns.[272] Fully one-half of the
ecclesiastical lands in Little Poland,--388 villages, 49 sections, and
9 towns, or between 440 and 450 landed estates,--were located in one
palatinate, namely, that of Cracow.[273]
Mazovia had an area of 578.3 square miles, 5,990 villages numbering
23,361 hides of land under peasant cultivation, and 94 towns. The
church here was in possession of 15 towns and 505 villages comprising
5,849 hides of land. This was 16 per cent. of the towns, 8.7 per
cent. of the villages, and 25 per cent. of the land under peasant
cultivation.[274] The church lands in Mazovia were very intensively
cultivated; for while the general proportion of “łanów kmiecych” to
a Mazovian village was only 3.9, within the area of ecclesiastical
estates the proportion was 11.5.
The Palatinate of Podlasie consisted of an area of 173.72 square miles,
and numbered in the sixteenth century 1,304 villages, 26 towns, and
14,455 “włók wiejskich,” or village hides of land.[275] Of the 1,304
villages 30, or 2.3 per cent. containing 678.75 “włók wiejskich,” or
4.7 per cent. of the total acreage under village cultivation, were in
possession of the Roman Catholic clergy.[276] The apparently small
landed property here of the bishopric and the cathedral chapter of
Łuck was further supplemented by various income producing privileges
like fishing rights, rents, and tolls. For instance, besides his lands
the bishop of Łuck had the right to maintain and operate a “liburnam
et navigium” on the River Bug near the town of Drohiczyn. On account
of its productiveness the operation of this ferry became a bone of
contention in 1570 between Christopher Iwanowski and the bishop.[277]
In Volhynia the bishopric of Łuck owned several tracts of land
numbering 14 villages with an area of 2.77 square miles, and the
cathedral chapter of Łuck was in possession of 5 additional villages
of 64 hides of land, covering an area of 0.8 of a square mile.[278]
Besides the Latin bishopric of Łuck, there were in Volhynia two Greek
Orthodox bishoprics, Łuck and Włodzimierz. The two owned together good
sized landed estates. The figures for the totals are lacking. But one
of the estates of the Greek Orthodox bishop of Łuck numbered 6 villages
of 33 hides of land. The estates of the bishop of Włodzimierz consisted
of two sections, including 13 villages and 1 town and covering an
area of 4.38 square miles.[279] In Podolia the estate of the bishop
of Kamieniec consisted of 13 villages and 1 town and had an area of
2.4 square miles. This was further supplemented by a few other smaller
properties.[280]
When we come to Red Russia, we find that in that part of Poland the
landed property of the church was composed of 98 villages and 8 towns,
forming 3 per cent. of the total land under peasant cultivation in
Red Russia.[281] Here most of the ecclesiastical lands were located
in the “Ziemie” or districts of Sanok, Lwów, and Halicz. In the first
they made up 5 per cent. of the total peasant cultivated lands, in the
second 4 per cent., and in the third 3 per cent., although in the
districts of Lwów and Halicz they maintained a percentage of four.[282]
In Ukraina by far the most extensive and the best located estates were
those of the Latin clergy. The largest contribution in the nature of
a land tax paid into the Commonwealth Treasury in 1581 was that of
the cathedral and the cathedral chapter of Wilno, 158 and 133 Polish
florins respectively. The only other large land owners, approaching
anywhere near the clergy, were the Wiśniowieckis and the Kmitas, the
former paying a contribution of 110 złp. and the latter of 90 złp. All
the rest averaged only 35 złp.[283]
It is evident, therefore, that the Polish church belonged in the
sixteenth century to the class of large property owners. Even in the
eastern provinces of Podlasie, Volhynia, Podolia, Red Russia, and
Ukraina, where its lands constituted a smaller percentage of the
total land area cultivated by peasants than in the western provinces,
the ecclesiastical estates were invariably large. Compared with the
individual holdings of the Polish nobility and even of the crown, the
estates of the bishops, cathedral chapters, and monastic institutions
were everywhere baronial.[284]
To get a still clearer idea of the extent of the landed property of the
church in sixteenth century Poland, it will be well to look at it a
little more closely in the various sections of the country and compare
it with that of the crown and of the nobility. We have seen that in
Great Poland the church owned 10.33 per cent. of the land under peasant
cultivation, in Little Poland 15.5 per cent. in Mazovia 8.7 per cent.
of villages and 25 per cent. of “łanów kmiecych,” in Podlasie 2.3 per
cent. of villages and 4.7 per cent. of “włók wiejskich,” and in Red
Russia 3 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation. For Volhynia,
Podolia, and Ukraina the figures are very incomplete, and consequently
the approximate proportionate amount of church property unknown. But
judging by the size of some of the ecclesiastical estates we have
observed in these palatinates, it is safe to infer that the percentage
of church property in them was not smaller than in the immediately
adjoining provinces.
Turning our attention now to the crown lands, we discover that in the
most important sections of the country they were considerably smaller
than those of the church. In Great Poland the crown lands constituted
only 9 per cent. of the total property under peasant cultivation,[285]
in Little Poland 7.5 per cent.,[286] in Mazovia 4.6 per cent.[287] From
this it is evident that in Little Poland and in Mazovia the landed
property of the church was more than twice as large as that of the
crown. In Great Poland, taken as a whole, the disproportion was not
quite as striking; yet in the Palatinate of Łęczyce, where the crown
lands formed only 9 per cent., those of the church were more than
twice as large, 22 per cent.[288] In Podlasie the crown lands gained
in size, assuming a proportion of 19.4 per cent.[289] But in Volhynia
and Podolia they were very small in the sixteenth century; in fact,
compared with the estates of the church and the secular aristocracy in
these provinces, the royal estates were very insignificant there.[290]
This disproportion was somewhat made up in Red Russia, where the
crown lands comprised 22 per cent. of the total area under peasant
cultivation,[291] while those of the church formed only 3 per cent.
This comparison reveals clearly the fact that only in two provinces,
Podlasie and Red Russia, the royal lands occupied a more favorable
position in respect of size than those of the church. In all the other
provinces of the country the landed property of the church was larger,
in some decidedly larger, than that of the crown. This, as we shall
see later, had a very important bearing on royal and state finances,
the problem of defense, and the attitude of the Polish nobility toward
the church and its clergy. The economic implications in this matter
were deeprooted and farreaching.
The individual possessions of the Polish bishops, abbots, and cathedral
chapters were, by the side of those of the Polish nobles, princely.
Speaking generally, they surpassed in size the estates of the secular
magnates. The cathedral chapter of Lwów, for instance, had a landed
estate of 10 villages,[292] that of Łuck of 5 villages comprising 64
“łanów kmiecych” and covering an area of 0.80 of a square mile,[293]
and that of Gniezno of far greater proportions.[294] The landed
estate of the cathedral chapter of Cracow consisted of 46 villages,
14 sections, and 1 town.[295] The endowments of monastic institutions
were on the whole, of even greater proportions. The monastery of
Trzemesz in Great Poland was endowed with 40 villages comprising
200 “włók chłopskich.”[296] In Little Poland the number of monastic
institutions was very large, and they were all well provided for. The
Abbey of Tyniec, the oldest in the country, possessed 44 villages,
4 sections, and 5 towns; the convent of the Klarysek at Sącz, 48
villages; the monasteries of Miechów, 42 villages, 2 sections, and 1
town; Pokrzywnice, 29 villages, 1 section, and 1 town; Łysa Góra, 21
villages, 1 section, and 2 towns; Sieciechów, 21 villages, 1 section,
and 1 town; Jędrzejów, 20 villages, 1 section, and 1 town.[297] In
Mazovia, the Abbey of Płock was in possession of 20 villages, and the
Abbey of Czerwieńsk of 63 villages.[298] Especially striking as to
size were the episcopal estates. The bishop of Poznań owned in the
county of Poznań 16 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation, in
Mazovia, 19 villages, and in Little Poland, 3 villages.[299] The bishop
of Łuck owned in Podlasie 100 “włók osiadłych,” besides “liburnam et
navigium” on the River Bug near Drohiczyn, and in Volhynia 14 villages
covering an area of 2.77 square miles.[300] The estate of the bishop
of Kamieniec in Podolia consisted of 13 villages and 1 town, covering
an area of 2.40 square miles, besides a number of other smaller tracts
of land.[301] The bishop of Chełm had 11 villages, 3 towns, and other
minor real estate properties. This last estate was evidently a very
small episcopal estate; for as late as the beginning of the eighteenth
century the bishop of Chełm was regarded as “a sola paupertate
commendabilis.”[302] The bishop of Przemyśl was lord of 18 villages and
3 towns, and the archbishop of Lwów of 29 villages and 5 towns.[303]
The wealthiest of the Polish prelates were the archbishop of Gniezno,
primate of Poland, and the bishops of Płock and Cracow. The archbishop
of Gniezno was grand lord of 200 villages; 30 in the county of Gniezno,
20 in the Palatinate of Łęczyce, and 130 in Mazovia in the Palatinates
of Rawa and Mazovia, covering 20 square miles.[304] The bishop of Płock
was the owner of the most extensive landed possessions in Mazovia. His
estate consisted of 232 villages and 6 towns.[305] The landed estates
of the bishop of Cracow were the most extensive, numbering from 280 to
300 villages and covering an area of from 50 to 70 square miles.[306]
Excepting the royal lands, the largest estates, whether in Great or in
Little Poland, were those of the bishops or monastic institutions. They
completely overshadowed the estates of the Polish nobility. Two-thirds
of the landed estates of the nobility of Great Poland consisted of
one village each. Even the magnates of Great Poland had comparatively
small possessions. Large estates were exceptional in Great Poland, and
they were either royal or ecclesiastical.[307] In Mazovia the only
large land owners were the king and the clergy. There was absolutely no
magnate in the entire duchy equal in wealth to the bishop of Płock. In
fact, outside of the clergy, there were no magnates in Mazovia.[308]
Nor was there a magnate in Little Poland equal as a landlord to the
bishop of Cracow. The wealthiest of them, Prince Constantine Ostrogski,
could boast of only 80 villages, an estate one-fourth the size of that
of the bishop of Cracow. The next wealthiest aristocratic family,
the Jordans, were lords of only 33 villages, the Zborowskis, 30, the
Komorowskis, 29, the Szafraniec family, 22, and the rest had 10 to 20
villages each. To equal the landed property of the bishop of Cracow,
it would have been necessary to combine the estates of ten wealthiest
and foremost aristocratic families of Little Poland, whose combined
properties numbered 292 villages, about the number of those of the
bishop.[309] Viewed in the light of their landed property, the Polish
bishops were not only ecclesiastical, but also secular princes. In
fact, a number of them bore princely titles. The archbishop of Gniezno
and primate of Poland was prince of Łowicz; the bishop of Warmia was at
the same time prince of Warmia; the bishop of Cracow was prince of the
Principality of Siewiersk; the bishop of Płock was prince of Pułtusk;
and the prebendary of Płock was prince of Wieluń.[310]
These princes of the church were also in the habit of leaving princely
private fortunes to their relatives. Many Polish aristocratic families,
like the Oleśnickis, the Myszkowskis, the Rytwianskis, the Górkas,
and the Łaskis, owed their great wealth and power to having been left
large fortunes by some of their ancestors who had occupied high offices
in the church.[311] Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki and Peter Myszkowski,
both bishops of Cracow at different times, were notable examples in
this particular. Peter Myszkowski, born in 1505 and educated abroad
at Padua, on his return home received a large number of benefices,
the canonries of Cracow and Gniezno, the prebendaries of Gniezno,
Płock, Łęczyca, and Poznań, and the deanery of Cracow, so that he
was called “the prebendary of the whole of Poland.” In 1563 he was
appointed under-secretary of state, and at the same time coadjutor of
the bishop of Płock. In 1568 he became bishop of Płock and in 1577
bishop of Cracow. In the last named office he remained for fourteen
years until his death in 1591. He left his nephews a private fortune of
8,000,000 Polish florins, besides large landed estates purchased from
the Oleśnickis.[312] One of his successors in office, Andrew Lipski,
dying in 1630 as bishop of Cracow, left a private fortune of 900,000
ducats, not counting any real estate property. John Kuczborski, bishop
of Chełm, left in 1623 in cash alone 500,000 ducats. In this connection
let us recall that the bishop of Chełm was regarded as the poorest of
the Polish bishops, and held up as an example of poverty. Karaffa,
bishop of Płock, on his death in 1615, left his brother 7,000,000
thalers.[313] These legacies bespeak the handsome incomes of the Polish
high church dignitaries.
Although some of the largest ecclesiastical estates were frequently
situated along the borders of the country, and were sometimes in
a somewhat primitive condition,[314] yet as a rule the lands of
the church were most favorably located, and were compact and very
productive.[315] They were usually grouped around the episcopal sees
or monastic institutions in the most productive, most thickly settled,
and most easily accessible parts of the country. A large portion of the
landed property of the bishop of Poznań was located in the county of
Poznań, in close proximity to the episcopal see and to the city. In the
county of Gniezno, the lands of the archbishop of Gniezno constituted
22 per cent. of its area cultivated by peasants. In the Palatinate
of Łęczyce, the most thickly settled and the most productive, the
ecclesiastical lands made up also 22 per cent. of the total under
peasant cultivation. In Mazovia in the Palatinate of Płock 71 villages
belonged to the bishop of Płock. In Red Russia in the most thickly
settled and most productive district around Lwów the church lands
constituted 5 per cent. of the area cultivated by peasants. And when we
come to Little Poland, we find that half of the ecclesiastical lands
of that province,--388 villages, 49 sections, and 9 towns, or between
440 to 450 landed estates,--were located in the Palatinate of Cracow.
The counties containing most of them were Proszowice, Szczyrzyce, and
Ksiąsk, Proszowice leading with 183 ecclesiastical estates.[316] The
number of “łanów kmiecych” per square mile shows that these counties
were the best cultivated, most productive, and the richest. The County
of Proszowice numbered 62.7 “łanów kmiecych” to the square mile, the
County of Ksiąsk 40.1, and that of Szczyrzyce 32.4. In the Palatinate
of Sandomir the County of Wiślice, where again numerous ecclesiastical
estates were found, numbered 41 “łanów kmiecych” to the square
mile.[317]
Another interesting characteristic of these ecclesiastical lands was
that they invariably bordered on royal property. This close proximity
of ecclesiastical estates to royal was to be found everywhere in
Poland in the sixteenth century. This fact showed clearly that
the ecclesiastical estates owed their existence to royal grants;
that they had been carved out of the royal domain, and of the best
portions of it.[318] For wherever the ecclesiastical estates were
large and numerous, there existed also a corresponding diminution
of royal property. In Great Poland, Mazovia, and in Little Poland
the ecclesiastical property was twice as large as the royal. In the
Palatinate of Łęczyce, where the church owned 22 per cent. of the
land cultivated by peasants, the king owned only 9 per cent. In the
Palatinate of Płock, where the bishop of Płock owned 71 villages, the
king had only 12 villages.[319] In the Palatinate of Cracow the church
owned 440-450 landed estates, while the king owned only about 240 to
250 estates in that rich and easily accessible section.[320]
In the light of these facts it is not to be wondered at that the royal
treasury found itself in the sixteenth century constantly embarrassed;
that the szlachta demanded “egzekucji praw,” that is, the return of
royal property illegally acquired; and that it was exceedingly jealous
of the privileged position of the clergy and envious of its wealth.
In this connection it is well to note that a similar proximity to royal
lands characterized also the large estates of the secular aristocracy.
In fact, the three groups of lands went invariably together. The
natural inference, therefore, is that the estates of the secular
aristocracy, as the estates of the clergy, were carved out of the royal
domain. That this was actually the case there seems to be no doubt.
This further explains the jealousy of the secular aristocracy of the
clergy. It was a question of which class would be more successful in
courting the favor of the king, and as a result of it could secure
additional grants of royal land. And since the estates of the church
already were disproportionately large, the magnates naturally kept a
jealously watchful eye on the clergy.
Striking as is the foregoing picture, it is necessary, in order to
make it still more realistic, to supplement it with a number of
details. It is necessary to bear in mind that the statistics here
cited, giving the landed wealth of the Polish church in the sixteenth
century, are minimum statistics; that while they are the best we
have of the period, they are not always complete for every province;
and that they do not include the private properties cultivated by
serf labor. These statistics are based on Income Registers of the
Commonwealth Treasury. They invariably give only minimum property
figures, and only for properties from which contributions were actually
collected, omitting those that succeeded in evading the payment of
these contributions.[321] Then, too, they are not always complete.
For instance, the extent of the church’s landed property in Great
Poland is calculated on the basis of statistics for only six out of
the eight palatinates.[322] For the Palatinates of Sieradz and Wieluń
there are no figures. Yet we know that they, too, included church
lands; for the Prebendary of Płock was prince of Wieluń. Nor do our
statistics include the principality of Warmia. We know, also, that
the bishop of Warmia was prince of that principality. Due to the same
fact, the real extent of church lands in the eastern provinces is
likewise somewhat uncertain. Moreover, as has already been stated,
the foregoing statistics do not include private lands cultivated by
serf labor; for gentlemen paid no land tax from the “łany” which they
exploited directly by means of forced labor. They give only estates
cultivated by tenant peasants. The tax known as “łanowe” or “poradlne”
was paid by peasants only. The private estates of the clergy and of the
nobility, cultivated by serf labor, were free from this tax,[323] and
consequently not listed in the tax registers. In the fourteenth and the
first half of the fifteenth century the “łany” of the peasants were a
great deal more extensive than the demesne estates of the nobility,
clerical and lay. In the sixteenth century the peasant lands and the
demesne estates were about equal in area. By the seventeenth century
the ratio was inverted, greatly to the peasants’ disadvantage.[324]
In no way, then, is our picture of the extent of the Polish church’s
landed property in sixteenth century Poland overdrawn. On the contrary,
it need be supplemented in a number of details. Its lines can safely
be still more sharply and clearly drawn, making the picture still
more striking. It is estimated that in France the landed property of
the church constituted from one-fifth to one-fourth of the lands of
the country;[325] in Poland, according to Dr. Kubala, the lands of
the church constituted one-third of the entire landed property of the
commonwealth in the sixteenth century.[326] As late as 1791, after a
considerable portion of ecclesiastical lands had already been sold in
1790, particularly in Galicia, the peasants of ecclesiastical lands
still constituted 10.5 per cent. of the entire population of the
country at that time, or one-sixth of the peasantry alone.[327] At that
time, besides their lands, the clergy owned also over one-tenth of the
houses in Poland, or 153,551 out of a total number of 1,434,919.[328]
Moreover, in addition to these large estates and the income derived
from them, the Polish clergy were entitled to one-tenth of the gross
receipts which the nobility derived from their estates, to one-tenth
from the peasantry, jura stolae, free gifts of the pious, and, as a
specially privileged class, to exemption from practically all public
burdens, although the Greek Orthodox clergy were placed on the same
footing with the peasants as regards taxation.[329] The tithes paid
to the clergy by the nobility were voluntary at first, but by the
middle of the fifteenth century they were made compulsory;[330] and
in consequence became very obnoxious to the nobility, for they were
the only tax the nobility paid.[331] Before the thirteenth century the
prince called upon the population of ecclesiastical estates as well as
on that of the estates of the knighthood to participate in the building
of new or in the rebuilding of old strongholds, but in the course
of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, owing to the immunities
granted the clergy, the princely right to summon the population of
ecclesiastical estates to perform any work on defenses was either
very much curtailed or altogether abolished.[332] Also, the mayors of
ecclesiastical villages were largely exempt from participation in the
country’s defense prior to the reign of Casimir the Great (1333-1370).
In Casimir’s time a law was passed, making these mayors liable to
military service.[333] The clergy, however, disregarded and evaded
the provisions of this law after Casimir’s death. It was not until in
the second half of the sixteenth century that the nobility brought the
clergy to terms in this regard. Taking their actual receipts plus the
value of their exemptions into account, Dr. Kubala estimates that the
Polish clergy of the sixteenth century were recipients of one-half of
the national income.[334]
It was this enormous wealth of the Polish church and its clergy,
actual and potential, that made the Polish nobility very restless,
and gradually led it as a class to an open revolt from the Roman
Catholic Church and to a determined opposition to the Roman clergy, its
pretensions, its greed, and its exactions. This all the more so, since
owing to its great wealth, the Polish clergy had lost its religion
and its moral authority. It was far more concerned about its social
position, its political influence, and its tithes than about religion
and morals. Monastic discipline was loose. The ignorance of the lower
clergy was proverbial. Simony was the order of the day, paving the way
to higher ecclesiastical appointments. The higher clergy were wholly
indifferent to religion, and cared far more for comfort, luxury,
and the enjoyment of life than for the things of the spirit. Bishop
Zebrzydowski of Cracow used to say: “Believe in a goat, if you wish,
only pay me your tithes.”[335] John Drohojowski, learned, prominent,
and influential, for years bishop of Kuyavia, preached only twice in
his church during that time.[336]
Indifferent as the Polish clergy were in matters of religion and
morals, they were never found napping in matters of property and the
exaction of tithes. It was this greed, this completely materialistic
character of the Polish clergy, together with their immense wealth
resulting in great influence and unscrupulous power, that chiefly paved
the way in Poland for Hussitism in the fifteenth century and for
the Reformation in the sixteenth century. As early as 1406 and 1407
the Polish nobility in conventions at Piotrków assembled deliberated
regarding measures to safeguard itself against the exploitation of
the clergy.[337] In 1432, owing to a war with the Teutonic Knights
and the need of large sums of money, regular taxation of the clergy
was being considered.[338] In the course of the first half of the
fifteenth century, due very likely to the unprecedented grants of
Wladislaus Jagiello to the church, the nobility proposed a confiscation
of ecclesiastical estates.[339] This proposal, as we shall see later,
was repeated again several times in the sixteenth century. At that time
the nobility protested also against the concentration of prebendaries
and benefices in the hands of a few specially favored and privileged
ecclesiastics, and against the exportation of annates to Rome.[340]
These protests, too, were renewed in the sixteenth century. In 1544
the Diet voted that the king take steps to secure the Pope’s consent
to the retention of the papal tax within the country for purposes
of defense.[341] The desired papal consent had evidently not been
given, for the Diet of 1567 voted the retention of the annates, with
the king’s consent, even though against the wishes of the Pope.[342]
These annates amounted to 21,266 florins annually,[343] and were to
strengthen the national treasury (Skarb rawski). But according to the
treasury registers these annates were not being paid in. In every
annual summary report of the Treasury a note is found, stating that the
higher clergy, from whom these annates were due, had not paid them in,
with the exception of Krasiński, bishop of Cracow, and his successor,
Peter Myszkowski.[344] So stubborn were the bishops that the Diet of
1569 threatened them with collecting double the amount from all the
delinquent payers, and the Diet of 1576 had to call upon them again to
comply with the law regarding annates.[345]
By a law of 1496 and 1505 the nobility, with its eye on the wealth
of the church, restricted all the higher ecclesiastical offices and
preferments to itself and its sons, excluding from them the townspeople
and all plebeians.[346] In 1510 and again in 1527, as the needs of
the country were steadily growing, it was proposed that the clergy
share in carrying the burdens of the country’s defense along with the
nobility. In all proposed measures of treasury reform in the sixteenth
century the clergy were singled out as the wealthiest estate in the
land and placed at the head of the lists of those best able to help
bear public burdens. In some of the proposals they were asked to give
up their tithes to the needs of the country, and bishops and abbots
were urged to contribute the annates to the national treasury.[347]
The clergy, however, protested vigorously. They were opposed to any
taxation of their property; at the same time they were also reluctant
to make voluntary contributions.[348] The collection of the “subsidium
charitativum” was always a very difficult matter. Out of the 40,000
florins, which the clergy agreed in 1510 to contribute toward the
country’s needs, only 7,000 florins actually came into the national
treasury.[349] At the synod of 1577 the clergy manifested the greatest
reluctance to make any contribution,[350] and the same thing was true
in every case until the end of Poland’s national existence toward the
close of the eighteenth century.[351] Yet in justice to the clergy it
must be said that once in a while they did manifest unusual liberality.
Inspired by the new religious reform movement of the century, the
nobility went so far in 1536 and 1537 as to propose confiscation
and a sale of all ecclesiastical estates, which were tax-free, and
on account of which the nobility had to bear all the heavier public
burdens.[352] In 1563 it at last succeeded in securing actual taxation
of ecclesiastical property.[353] In 1576 it again protested against
the great wealth of the church.[354] And so practically throughout
the sixteenth century it struggled under the inspiration and with the
help of the religious reform movement against the social and economic
oppression and exactions of the Roman clergy.
[267] A Polish _łan kmiecy_ (laneus agricolae) was of
two sizes, large and small. The large _łan_ called
Frankish, was used as a land measure chiefly in
Little Poland, and equalled 43.2 morgi, or about
57 acres. The small _łan_, known also as Flemish,
used in Great Poland and Mazovia almost exclusively,
equalled 30 morgi, 16 hectares, or approximately 40
acres.
[268] Historical Sources (Źródła dziejowe), Warsaw,
1883-1909, vol. xii, p. 135; cf. p. 72.
[269] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 135.
[270] Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 72-73; cf. table to p. 71.
[271] 772 villages plus one-half of 83 sections = 814
villages. This divided by 5,455, total number of
villages, = approximately 15 per cent. Or on the
basis of 5.3 villages to a square mile: 814 divided
by 5.3 = 153.5 square miles. This gives us 15.5 per
cent. of total land area of 1013 square miles.
[272] Źr. dz. vol. xiv, pp. 72-73.
[273] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 75; cf. chart to p. 71.
[274] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 54-55.
[275] A włóka was the Lithuanian land measure corresponding
to the Polish łan, containing about 40 acres.
[276] Źr. dz., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 52.
[277] Ibid., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 123; see also pp. 212-225.
[278] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 105.
[279] Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 103-104.
[280] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 106.
[281] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 354.
[282] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, pp. 66, 354.
[283] Ibid., vol. xxii, pp. 599-600.
[284] Cf. ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 355.
[285] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 133.
[286] While the church owned in Little Poland 772 villages,
83 sections, and 28 towns, the possessions of the
crown consisted only of 469 villages, 60 sections and
14 towns (see Źr. dz., vol. xiv, Table to p. 71).
[287] In Mazovia the ecclesiastical possessions numbered
505 villages and the royal only 262 (see Źr. dz.,
vol. xvi, pp. 50-51).
[288] Źr. dz., vol. xii, p. 133.
[289] Ibid., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 52.
[290] Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 97-98.
[291] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 354.
[292] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 266.
[293] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 105.
[294] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 136.
[295] Ibid., vol. xiv, Table to p. 71.
[296] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 137; vol. xiv, pp. 83-84.
[297] Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 72-73.
[298] Ibid., vol. xvi, p. 57.
[299] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 136; vol. xvi, p. 57; vol. xiv,
Table to p. 71.
[300] Ibid., vol. xvii, No. 2, p. 123; vol. xix, p. 105.
[301] Ibid., vol. xix, p. 106.
[302] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 266.
[303] Ibid., vol. xviii, No. 2, p. 266.
[304] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 83; vol. xvi, pp. 56-57.
[305] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 56-57.
[306] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 86.
[307] Ibid., vol. xii, pp. 138-144, 168.
[308] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 61, 62.
[309] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 86.
[310] Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 97, chap. ii, n. 4.
[311] Starczewski, p. 66.
[312] Ibid., pp. 120-121.
[313] Krasiński, vol. i, pp. 129-130, n.
[314] Źr. dz., vol. xiv, pp. 78, 79, 80.
[315] Ibid.
[316] Ibid., vol. xiv, p. 75; cf. chart to p. 71.
[317] Ibid., vol. xiv, pp. 32, 98, 104; vol. xvi, p. 20.
[318] Ibid., vol. xii, pp. 136, 137.
[319] Ibid., vol. xvi, pp. 54-55.
[320] Ibid., vol. xiv, table to p. 71.
[321] Ibid., vol. xix, pp. 1, 5.
[322] Ibid., vol. xii, p. 135.
[323] Ibid., vol. viii, pp. 392, 424.
[324] Polish Encyclopaedia, Geneva, 1921, vol. ii, No. 2,
p. 85.
[325] W. S. Davis, A History of France, p. 44.
[326] Kubala, Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 20.
[327] T. Korzon, Internal History of Poland (Wewnętrzne
dzieje Polski), vol. i, chart to p. 320; see also
vol. iii, p. 253.
[328] Ibid., vol. i, p. 160; vol. iii, chart to p. 250.
[329] Źr. dz., vol. viii, pp. 147, 399.
[330] Smoleński, pp. 49, 74; see also Caro, History of
Poland (Dzieje Polski), Warsaw, 1900, vol. iv, p. 40.
[331] Źr. dz., vol. viii, p. 399.
[332] S. Kutrzeba, Constitutional History of Poland
(Historja ustroju Polski), Lwów, 1912, 3rd ed., vol.
i, p. 64.
[333] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 5.
[334] Stanisław Orzechowski, p. 21.
[335] See Brückner, History of Literature in Poland
(Historja literatury w Polsce), Warsaw, 1908, vol. i,
pp. 99-100, 123-124.
[336] Kot, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski, Kraków, 1919, p. 121.
[337] Smoleński, p. 75.
[338] Caro, vol. iv, p. 35.
[339] Brückner, vol. i, p. 100; cf. Caro, vol. iv, pp.
85-89.
[340] Brückner, vol. i, p. 100.
[341] “De spiritualibus beneficiatis, qui sacerdotes actu
non sunt, erit Sacrae Majestati curae, ut apud
Pontificem Romanum impetret, quo possint personaliter
ad hoc bellum proficisci, per quem quidem Nuntium
annatas impetrare conabitur, quas ei nostri Episcopi,
contra Concilii Basiliensis decretum pendabant” (Vol.
leg., vol. i, fol. 585).
[342] “We permit that the annates be kept within the Crown
for the defense of the Commonwealth” (Vol. leg., vol.
iii, fol. 729).
[343] Źr. dz., vol. viii, p. 143.
[344] “Annatae ab episcopis juxta constitutiones sunt
omnes retentae, nullus enim illorum eandem thesauro
r. p. intulit, praeter olim Krasiński episcopum
Cracoviensem et modernum episcopum Cujaviensem”
(Note in “Ks. Kwarty 11” of the year 1578. Similar
notes are found in “Ks. Kwarty 12” of the year
1580 and in Bk. 15 of the year 1581). Regarding
Bishop Myszkowski the Crown Register under date of
March 13, 1578, contains this note: “annatam ex
episcopatu Cracoviensi intulit, quam nos in usum
belli Gedanensis conversam esse hisce literis nostris
testamur” (Źr. dz., vol. viii, p. 143).
[345] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 782, par. 12, fol. 908, par.
9. It looks as if the actions of the Diets of 1569
and of 1576 had produced some results.
[346] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 262 ff., 302 ff.
[347] Źr. dz., vol. viii, pp. 383, 385.
[348] A. Sokolowski, History of Poland (Dzieje Polski),
Vienna, 1904, vol. ii, pp. 220, 227.
[349] Ibid., p. 220.
[350] Źr. dz., vol. iv, p. xxiii.
[351] Korzon, Internal History of Poland, vol. iii, p. 169.
[352] Sokołowski, vol. ii, pp. 282-283.
[353] See above, pp. 60-61.
[354] Vol. leg., vol. ii, Laws of 1576.