TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes
have been moved to the end of the essay.
Italicized text is surrounded by underscores: _italics_.
Sidenotes, also in italics in the original, are surrounded
by ♦diamonds♦.
Text in small caps has been converted to ALL CAPS.
Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have
been standardized. Obvious typographical errors have been
corrected. Proper names, French language, and "reproch" in
the diary entry, have been retained as published in the
original publication.
JOHN SOBIESKI.
LOTHIAN PRIZE ESSAY
FOR
1881.
BY
EDWARD H. R. TATHAM, B.A.
BRASENOSE COLLEGE.
“Non perchè re sei tu, si grande sei,
Ma per te cresce e in maggior pregio sale
La maesta regale.”
VINCENZIO DA FILICAIA, _Canzone_.
OXFORD:
A. THOMAS SHRIMPTON & SON, BROAD STREET.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO.
1881.
JOHN SOBIESKI.
♦Strangeness of Polish history.♦ The Kingdom or Republic of
Poland has always seemed a strange phenomenon in European
history, partly from the aboriginal character of its population,
and partly from its exceptional constitution. The ancient
Sarmatians, who occupied the same territory, had no share in
the old Roman civilisation, but rather, by their constant
irruptions upon the empire, were mainly instrumental in its
downfall. Christianity was introduced in the tenth century; but,
until recent times, no other civilising force has ever effected
a permanent conquest of the country. ♦Aboriginal character of
the Poles,♦ During the eight following centuries the Poles,
surrounded by enemies--on the north and east by more barbarous
tribes, on the south and west by a superior civilisation--were
exclusively confined to the defensive and so missed those
humanising influences to which a conquering nation has so often
had to submit. As late as the eighteenth century they might truly
be called the lineal descendants in race, in character, and
almost in habits, of the hunters and shepherds of the ancient
North. ♦Seen in their social system.♦ Throughout their history
there were two great classes in the State; the so-called noble
class--the heirs of the savage in their desire for equality, and
of the nomad in their love of freedom--and the peasant class--the
descendants of captives taken in war--whose lives and properties
were at the absolute disposal of their masters. Only in the
western portion of the kingdom was there a burgher class, and
this was on the same[1] political footing with the serfs. The
union of two great evils arising from such a system--licence
and servitude--made the Polish constitution as disastrous as it
was unique. Poland thus differed so widely, both socially and
politically, from every other European state, that it would be
impossible to examine any important period of her history without
explaining alike her position in Europe and some of her internal
peculiarities.
♦European position of Poland,♦ Although considerably[2] larger
than France, Poland took scarcely any part in the general
history of Europe before the end of the sixteenth century. Once
only, just before the taking of Constantinople, we find her
with Hungary striving to check the advance of the Turks, when
she lost in battle her king Wladislas VI. (1444). ♦At first
inconsiderable,♦ As she was the north-eastern outpost of the
Church, the Popes took care that she should always be remarkable
for her submission to the Holy See. But it was beyond their
power to check the turbulence of the nobles or to instil any
love for a higher civilisation. During the sixteenth century,
chiefly through the enterprise of foreigners, commerce made rapid
advances in the country. English and Italian merchants, favoured
by treaties between the king and queen Elizabeth, settled in
the prosperous town of Dantzic, and spread a moderate knowledge
of Poland in western countries. That this knowledge was only
moderate may be judged from a valuable geographical work[3]
published in London early in the seventeenth century, in which we
are told that the Lithuanians still worshipped idols, and that in
another province they had not learned the use of the plough. The
reformed doctrines were widely disseminated before the year 1600;
but their progress was checked by the activity of the Jesuits.
♦Owing to exclusiveness,♦ The Papal Nuncio of that time[4]
complains of the exclusiveness of the Poles and their distrust
of foreign nations. They used commonly to boast that alliances
were of no service to them, for, if the country were conquered,
they could, like their ancestors, recover in winter what they had
lost in summer. Yet very early in their history they had lost
the rich province of Prussia[5] by neglect and mis-government.
When, in 1573, they allied themselves with France by electing
as their king Henry of Valois, they bound him by such a crowd
of onerous restrictions that he fled the country in disgust at
their wild and barbarous freedom. ♦Anarchy,♦ During the next
three quarters of a century (1573-1648), under three princes of
conspicuous ability, Poland began to rank among the second-rate
powers of Europe; but her internal condition was all the while
frightful. Unceasing struggles between the greater and lesser
nobility, and the cruel oppression of the peasants by both alike,
distracted the kingdom. ♦And foreign wars,♦ Then followed thirty
years of desolating war, in which the country was several times
on the brink of final subjugation by a foreign invader. The Poles
themselves attributed their survival to God alone[6], who had
preserved them to form a barrier against the Turks.
♦Then suddenly most prominent,♦ At the close of this period,
instead of finding Poland exhausted almost to death, we see
her occupying the proud position of the saviour of Europe. At
a most critical moment, when the last great wave of barbarian
invasion was rolling over Europe, and seemed likely to overwhelm
the ancient empire of the Hapsburgs, this little republic stood
firmly in the gap, and became the bulwark of Christendom against
the infidel. Nay more, by her own sacrifices no less than by her
opportune intervention, she was the main instrument in setting
the final limit to the Ottoman advance. ♦Owing to John Sobieski.♦
This extraordinary result is to be ascribed almost solely to
the personal character and exploits of her patriot king, John
Sobieski. Rising to the throne by his personal merits alone in
spite of the most malignant envy, he was the first native king
unconnected with the old royal line. ♦His difficulties mainly
caused by the constitution.♦ It may be said that his life from
his early manhood is at no time the history of a private man; it
rather comprises the whole contemporary annals of his country.
Yet it forms the most destructive comment on her institutions,
both social and political, and on the character of the national
nobility. While we must admire a conservative constitution which
admits of the supremacy of the best man, we cannot but deplore
those faults in its working which had the effect of nullifying
his authority. In Poland there was neither a republic nor a
monarchy, but the sovereignty of one man under the control of an
unrestrained class, which mistook licence for freedom. In order
to understand the position of Sobieski and the difficulties
with which he had to contend, a short account of the Polish
constitution is indispensable.
♦Monarchy generally becomes elective.♦ The authority of the king
was originally absolute, but in a nation of fierce warriors he
was easily controlled by armed assemblies of his subjects. His
consulting them, though at first only a mark of favour, was soon
looked upon as a right; and in course of time they even claimed
the disposal of his dignity. Two great dynasties successively
reigned in Poland. During the first, founded by Piast, a native
Pole (850-1386), the dignity was hereditary; during the second,
that of Jagellon (1386-1573), though in practice hereditary,
it was in theory elective. ♦Election of the king.♦ After the
latter period the whole nobility met in arms to elect a king,
and, though a relation of the old line was preferred, he was
considered to have no claim. This assembling of the Pospolite,
as it was called, was in an emergency the prerogative of the
king, and during an interregnum of the Primate, the Archbishop of
Guesna, who acted as interrex. The election was not legal unless
it was unanimous; and when this was accomplished, seldom without
violence, the republic imposed upon the new monarch a contract
styled “pacta conventa,” the conditions of which he swore
faithfully to observe. ♦His privileges.♦ His privileges were
few. He always presided in the national assembly, and he might
if he chose command[7] the army. But his most important function
was the appointment of officers of state. These are said to have
amounted in all branches to the astounding number of 20,000; ♦The
Senate.♦ but only the most important, about 140, composed the
Senate, which was the middle estate of the realm and the real
executive.
♦How composed.♦ Besides the bishops there were three great orders
in the administration, of which only the first two had seats
in the Senate. These were the palatines, the castellans, and
starosts. Each palatine, like a Norman baron, was the military
commander and supreme judge in his province or palatinate; he
was also its recognised political head. The castellans were
his deputies, who discharged the same functions in a more
confined area. The starosts were inferior magistrates, with
military and judicial duties, whose chief privilege was the
high value of their benefices. ♦The officers of state.♦ There
were twelve great dignitaries who were entrusted with the
higher executive,--six for the kingdom of Poland, viz., the
Grand Marshal, the Grand General,[8] the Second General, the
Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Grand Treasurer, and six
parallel officers for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The latter,
when incorporated with Poland in 1386, had insisted on a distinct
administration; but the arrangement proved most unfortunate,
for the Polish magnate had no authority over his Lithuanian
compeer. In the army, as in the administration, they might act
quite independently of each other, and the very equality made a
collision inevitable. Over the Senate as a whole the king had no
real power, but the Diet exercised a rigid supervision.
This body--the third estate of the realm--had originally been
composed of the whole adult nobility. So jealous were the Poles
of their privileges that it was not till 1466--two hundred
years after the foundation of the House of Commons--that they
consented to form a representative system. ♦The Diet.♦ A Diet of
400 deputies met every two years, and was liable to be summoned
on extraordinary occasions. The members of this assembly were
absolutely without discretionary powers. They were elected in
the dietines or provincial assemblies, and received minute
instructions as to their course of action. After the dissolution
of the Diet they had to appear again before their constituents
and give an account of their stewardship. Those who had offended
found their lives in peril. ♦Its dependence upon the nobility.♦
Thus the Diet took its stamp from the prevailing temper of
the nobility, and, as this was almost always quarrelsome, the
place of meeting often resounded with the clang of sabres.
♦Results of this dependence.♦ During the period which we shall
have to consider, this dependence will explain the constant
neglect of proper means for the national defence. The cavalry
of the nobles--the flower of the troops--displayed all the
disadvantages, and none of the merits, of a standing army. They
were always under arms, and ready to use them in any feud; but
they could not brook strict discipline, and as they grew more
luxurious their disinclination[9] to a long campaign was duly
reflected in the ranks of the Diet. The national haughtiness
found its vent in intestine strife. ♦The veto.♦ A most disastrous
provision made it necessary for every resolution of the Diet
to be unanimous. Any deputy might, without reason assigned,
pronounce his veto upon the subject under discussion; nay, more,
by a refinement of this privilege,[10] he might by withdrawing
declare the Diet dissolved, and until he was induced or compelled
to return public business was suspended. This power, though very
ancient, was not exercised till 1652, but was afterwards repeated
with increasing frequency. It would once have been dangerous
for an individual to defy the mass, but when the republic was
in a state of anarchy it was easy to find supporters, and the
gold of France or Austria often proved a powerful incentive.
♦Obstruction.♦ Another mode of obstruction was called drawing out
the Diet, which could not[11] sit for more than six weeks. This
consisted in the proposal and tedious discussion of irrelevant
matter, until the day of dissolution arrived. In this state of
things a resort to force was very common, and the public streets
were often the scenes of a sanguinary fray.
♦Confederations.♦ When the Diet was not sitting, the Senate,
with the king as its president, was responsible for the
government. But if the nobles were dissatisfied with their
measures, or if the veto had hopelessly clogged the wheels of
state, recourse was had to an extraordinary assembly called a
“confederation.” ♦Convocations.♦ This was formed sometimes to
resist, sometimes to enforce the established law; and in the
latter case it often took the shape of a “convocation,” which
exactly resembled the Diet except that the veto was inadmissible.
The Poles were always more happy in organising anarchy than
in organising their institutions. Of course, the authority of
a confederation depended upon the number and weight of its
adherents; and it frequently happened that several of these
bodies were sitting at the same time. We sometimes find in
Polish history the Senate at variance with the Diet, the Diet
with the king, the king with the grandees, the greater with the
lesser nobles, and the whole nobility with their armed serfs.
♦Strife among the nobles--how caused.♦ Among the nobles religious
inequality was the principal cause of dissension. Although none
but Catholics could hold offices of state, a large number of
the poorer nobles were “Dissidents,” and belonged to the Greek
or Protestant persuasion. ♦Their three main classes.♦ They were
thus naturally jealous of the official families; for, though
all were theoretically equal, the differences of wealth and
prestige tended to divide them into three classes: first, a few
princely families who owned whole provinces and aspired to the
posts of the supreme executive; secondly, the average gentry,
who scrambled for the lesser offices, or were indignant at their
religious disabilities; and thirdly, the poorer freemen, who made
up for their lack of power by a spirit of captious disaffection.
In stormy times the confusion was increased by half the middle
gentry taking part with the grandees and half with the freemen.
♦Ancestry of John Sobieski.♦ From the highest of these classes
was sprung John Sobieski. He belonged to that group of families,
whose ancestral device was the Buckler--the most illustrious of
the rude Polish coats of arms. Far back in the mist of ages are
placed the exploits of Janik--the Polish Hercules--the founder
of his house. His immediate ancestors had gained less doubtful
laurels. His grandfather, Mark Sobieski, palatine of Lublin,
had so great a military reputation that King Stephen Bathori
(1575-1586) was wont to say that he would not fear to entrust
to his single arm the defence of the fortunes of Poland. His
father, James Sobieski, was not only an able general, but a man
of cultivated mind, and of some diplomatic skill. To him belonged
the real credit of the famous victory of Kotzim in 1621 over a
vast host of Turks and Tartars, although the nominal commander
of the Poles was the young Prince Wladislas, son of Sigismund
III. His success in negotiating the treaty that followed was
so conspicuous that he was afterwards sent on several foreign
embassies to the Western Powers. Such eminence in peace as
in war doubtless procured for him the post of castellan of
Cracow[12]--the first secular senator of Poland, inferior only
to the archbishop of Guesna. He had also been four times elected
Marshal of the Diet--an office resembling that of Speaker of
the House of Commons. In or about 1620 he married Theophila
Danilowiczowna, grand-daughter[13] of the famous Zolkiewski. That
heroic general, after taking Moscow (1610), and carrying off to
Poland the Czar Basil VI., met his death (October 5th, 1620) at
Kobylta on the Dniester, with a band of 8,000 men, at the hands
of 70,000[14] Turks and Tartars. Thus on both sides the ancestors
of Sobieski were worthy of his subsequent fame. ♦Birth.♦ The
circumstances of his birth are romantic; but they rest on no less
an authority than a manuscript in his own hand. On the 17th of
June, 1624,[15] his father’s castle of Zloçkow in the palatinate
of Red Russia[16] was visited by a storm of unprecedented
violence. The old mansion, which stood exposed on the bare
summit of a vast “mohila” or Slavonic tumulus, was shaken to its
foundations, and some of the attendants were rendered deaf for
life. Amid the raging of the elements was born John Sobieski, in
the presence of the widow of the conqueror of Moscow; and the
respect for prodigies,[17] which distinguishes the Poles above
all other modern nations, must have marked him out in their
eyes for an exceptional career. Yet his youth was singularly
peaceful. Except for the war against Gustavus Adolphus, which
was terminated by the peace of Altmark (September 15th, 1629),
and an incursion of the Tartars (1636), successfully repelled
by Wladislas VII., Poland enjoyed from the time of his birth an
unexampled respite of more than twenty years.
♦Education.♦ During this period John and his elder brother Mark
were enjoying all the benefits of a careful education. Their
father chiefly resided at his princely estate of Zolkiew, which
had come to him through his wife--a domain as large as some of
our English counties, and embracing a hundred and fifty villages.
He had engaged as their tutor the learned Stanislas Orchowski;
but he himself superintended their more important studies. The
treatise which he has left upon education is alone enough to show
how well the task must have been performed. Besides instructing
them in several languages he imparted to them his own skill in
music, painting, and the other fine arts; and they had the rare
advantage of a home in which to the barbaric splendour of a
Polish noble were added some of the refined tastes of an Italian
court. Ardent and robust by nature, John early distinguished
himself by his activity in hunting, and in the use of the small
sword; and the traditions of his family soon taught him against
whom his strength was to be employed. The inscription[18] on his
great grandfather’s tomb in the neighbouring Dominican chapel,
erected by his mother, aroused in his mind what may be called his
life-purpose--to curb at all hazards the advance of the Turkish
power.
♦His travels.♦ At length in 1643 the castellan sent his two sons
to travel in the West. Their longest stay was made in France--at
that time closely united to Poland by the marriage of Wladislas
with a French princess[19]--but they also visited England[20]
and Italy. At Paris they frequented the salon of the Duchesse de
Longueville, sister of the great Condé; and it was here that an
intimacy sprang up between John Sobieski and the French general,
who, though only three years his senior, was already crowned with
the laurels of Rocroi. The prince procured for his friend the
honour of a commission in the king’s Grands Mousquetaires, and
continued in correspondence with him during the remainder of his
life. Quitting France before the disturbances of the Fronde, the
brothers took the measure of the Ottoman power at Constantinople,
and were preparing to pass into Asia, when news arrived which
called them home to defend not only their country but their
own fireside. It was to the effect that the Cossack serfs had
revolted, and were carrying all before them.
♦Cossack revolt caused by the oppression of the serfs.♦ Of the
grinding oppression under which the serf class laboured we have
already spoken. Some efforts had been made by Casimir the Great
(1347) to give them a legal footing in the state; and he had
even succeeded so far as to provide that the murderer of a serf
should pay a fine of ten marks.[21] But his regulations were
soon broken, and the condition of the peasants in the outlying
districts became more hopeless than before. ♦The Cossacks.♦ The
situation of the Cossacks was peculiar. Inhabiting a wild though
fertile country on the borders of Poland and Muscovy called the
Ukraine (Slavonic for “borderland,” exactly the French “marche”),
they had long retained their independence, and had only been
incorporated in the kingdom by the wise measures of Stephen
Bathori (1582). ♦Under Stephen Bathori.♦ Originally deserters
from the armies of the republic, they had betaken themselves to
the almost inaccessible isles of the Borysthenes, where they
led a life of plunder in defiance of their neighbours. Their
piratical skiffs were an object of terror even to the dwellers
on the Golden Horn. Bathori did all that lay in his power to
conciliate a people who, in spite of their savage habits, were
noted for their fidelity. He gave them the city of Tretchimirow
in Kiowia, and formed them into regiments, for the defence of
Poland against the Tartars. They were granted the power of
electing their own hetman, or Grand General, who, on doing homage
to the king, received as the symbols of his office a flag, a
horsetail, a staff, and a looking-glass. James Sobieski in his
historical work[22] notices the value to a retreating Polish army
of their waggon-camps, which they called “Tabors,”[23] and which
they seem to have drawn up after the fashion of a Dutch “laager.”
Unfortunately their independence was confined to the period of
military service. The Ukraine, like other parts of the kingdom
of Poland, was divided into estates of crown land, which, like
fiefs,[24] were held by the nobles on condition of furnishing the
state with troops. But this condition was seldom fulfilled even
in Great Poland, and never in a distant province, such as the
Ukraine, where all the nobles were absentees.
♦Their grievances.♦ There was thus no tie except that of
gratitude for their honourable position in war to bind the
Cossacks to Poland; and this was soon broken by the outrageous
rapacity of the Jewish stewards to whom the nobles entrusted
their lands. Complaints were lodged in the Diet by the Cossack
chiefs, who claimed to send thither their own representatives;
but the nobles, whose love of domination was as strong as their
love of liberty, turned a deaf ear; and Wladislas VII., seeing
the fatal tendency of this policy, had the hardihood to remind
the Cossacks that they still possessed their sabres.[25] ♦Success
of their revolt.♦ At length, in 1648, a dastardly outrage by
a steward on Bogdan Chmielniçki, one of their chiefs, forced
them to follow this hint; and electing the injured man as their
hetman, they poured into Poland with the Tartars as their allies.
Bogdan was an experienced soldier. He completely defeated
Potoçki, the Grand General of Poland, at Korsun (May 26th, 1648);
and numbers of disaffected Poles--Arian nobles, Calvinistic
burghers, outlawed serfs--at once flocked to his standard. ♦Death
of Wladislas VII.♦ Six days before this disaster Wladislas VII.
expired at Warsaw; and his death at this moment blighted the
hopes of the moderate party. James Sobieski, who had done all he
could to save Bogdan from oppression, had died in March (1648)
when the king was on the point of naming him the representative
of Poland at the congress in Westphalia. ♦Danger of Poland.♦
The nobility in general were bent on revenge. Assembling their
forces in haste, they suffered an ignominious defeat at Pilawiecz
(September 23rd); and Poland was left exposed to the Cossacks.
Madame Sobieska, with her two daughters, and many others of
the nobility, took refuge within the walls of Zamosç, and was
soon joined by her sons, who had evaded without difficulty the
undisciplined besiegers.
♦Election of John Casimir.♦ At this crisis the nobles assembled
at Warsaw to elect a king. They chose (November 20th) Cardinal
John Casimir, brother of the late king, who put off the purple
to assume the crown. The new prince saw the necessity of
conciliation, and had the courage, in spite of the opposition
of the nobles, to open a negotiation with the rebels. Bogdan,
who had been deserted by the Tartars, was not disinclined for
peace, and, in order to show his respect for the king, retired
thirty leagues from Zamosç. ♦His peace violated by the nobles.♦
But the treachery of the nobles frustrated the intentions of
their sovereign. Jeremiah Wiesnowiesçki, the harsh oppressor
of the serfs, fell suddenly upon the unsuspecting Cossacks,
and routed them with great slaughter. After this the war broke
out afresh. Bogdan sought and obtained the alliance of Isla,
khan of the Crim Tartars, and in an engagement at Zbaraz, in
Volhynia (June 30th, 1649) he gained another great victory.
♦Sobieski joins the army,♦ At this news the king hastened to join
the remnants of the defeated army, and was accompanied by John
Sobieski in command of a select troop. The young noble had been
prevented taking part in the events of the past six months by a
wound which he had received in a duel with one of the family of
Paz, the most powerful clan in Lithuania; and he afterwards had
cause to regret the quarrel. His presence with the king at this
juncture was destined to be of some importance. No sooner had
Casimir assembled the discomfited Poles, than half his available
force, terrified at the enemy’s numbers, insisted on retreat,
and proceeded to put their threat into execution. ♦And quells a
mutiny.♦ Sobieski galloped into their midst, and, exerting that
native eloquence of which he possessed no common share, succeeded
in restoring them to their allegiance. His efforts were rewarded
by the starosty of Javarow--a military post which had been
previously held by his father and by the great Zolkiewski. ♦Peace
of Zborow.♦ One of the immediate results of the bold front now
presented by the Poles, was the conclusion of the peace of Zborow
(August 18th), in which the Cossack chief displayed remarkable
moderation. He consented to do homage to the king and to forego
his just demands for vengeance upon his oppressors, on condition
that all his adherents should receive a free pardon.
♦Broken by the Poles. June 30th, 1651.♦ But the Polish nobility
were incapable of learning any lesson from their recent
reverses. War was again declared by the Diet in 1650; and the
next year Bogdan was defeated by Casimir at Berestezko, owing
principally to the desertion of the Tartars. In this battle,
John Sobieski received a wound in his head, from the effects
of which he suffered constantly until his death. A transitory
peace which followed this success was again broken by the Poles,
who attacked Bogdan’s son Timothy at Batowitz (June 2nd, 1652),
but were surrounded and annihilated. ♦Death of Mark Sobieski.♦
The prisoners, among whom was Mark Sobieski,[26] were all
massacred after the battle by the Tartar khan. Another duel wound
fortunately prevented John from being among the victims. But he
had the pain of seeing that his folly had made his mother despair
of the name of Sobieski. Overwhelmed with grief at the loss of
her favourite son, and auguring ill from the headstrong passions
of John, she quitted Poland and took refuge in Italy.
♦Lessons of the Cossack War.♦ The Cossack war, which had
now lasted with little intermission for four years, demands
considerable attention. It throws a lurid light on the vices
of the Polish constitution, and its bitter lessons cannot have
been lost upon a thoughtful mind like that of John Sobieski. By
oppression the Polish nobility had converted faithful subjects
into deadly foes; and their pride and treachery contrast most
unfavourably with the moderation of the Cossack chief. Although
we have little information about this period of Sobieski’s life,
his ardent temper makes it probable that he joined at first with
the most uncompromising of the nobles. But their independence
of the regal authority, their disregard for treaties with the
serf class, and, above all, their unprecedented employment of
the fatal veto (1652), must have soon convinced him that the
discipline of self-restraint was the only means left to save his
country. Hereafter we shall see him nobly practising this lesson
under the most fearful provocation.
♦Anarchy.♦ At this period (1654) Poland was distracted by
anarchy at home, and in the next six years she suffered all the
usual consequences of civil strife. Henceforward the Cossack war
loses its character of a struggle between the republic and her
rebellious subjects. ♦The Cossacks call in Muscovy.♦ Its natural
result was to draw into the contest those neighbouring nations
who might hope to gain advantage from the distracted state of
Poland. Bogdan, despairing of concluding any definitive peace
without foreign aid, persuaded the Czar Alexis to declare war
against Poland, and, on the frivolous pretext that his titles had
not received due respect, that monarch invaded Lithuania and took
Smolensko (Sept. 10th, 1654).
♦War with Sweden.♦ But a greater enemy was arising in the north;
Charles X. of Sweden, the “Pyrrhus of the North,” succeeding to
the throne on the abdication of Christina in June 1654, had set
his mind on the conquest of Poland. The Polish vice-chancellor,
Radzejowski, who had been expelled from the kingdom by Casimir
on some private quarrel, took care that Charles should be well
acquainted with the weakness to which his country had been
reduced. He gave the welcome advice that no apology which
Casimir might make as to his assumption of the title of king of
Sweden[27] should receive any attention. The king of Poland was
anxious to send Sobieski to Stockholm to avert the impending
storm; but he declined the hopeless mission. Charles eagerly
took advantage of the anarchy caused by the Russian war, and
invaded Pomerania and Great Poland in August, 1655. He gained
an easy victory over the divided forces of the republic, and
entered Warsaw at the end of the month. Cracow surrendered
early in October, and, as Casimir had fled into Silesia, the
whole country lay at his feet. ♦Charles X. conquers Poland,♦
Surrounded by such a host of enemies, the nobles seemed to have
no choice but to offer the crown to Charles X.; and the standing
army, called Quartians,[28] among whom Sobieski commanded a
troop, took the oath to the king of Sweden. ♦But alienates
it.♦ But Charles was not inclined to keep faith with a people
whom he had conquered in three months. Contrary to his express
promises hereditary monarchy was proclaimed, heavy contributions
were levied, and the Catholics were openly persecuted by the
Swedes. The national spirit was deeply wounded by the haughty
demeanour of the conquerors. ♦Resumption of the war.♦ During the
absence of Charles in Prussia, a confederation was formed in the
palatinate of Beltz under the auspices of the absent Casimir, to
which Sobieski attached himself, and with him the able generals
Lubomirski and Czarnieçki. When Charles returned he found that
he had the greater part of Poland to re-conquer. ♦Successes of
Sobieski.♦ In conveying his army through the marshes of Little
Poland, he was blocked up between the Vistula and the San by
Sobieski’s cavalry, and was only extricated by the prompt arrival
of reinforcements. Soon after, while he was superintending the
siege of Dantzic, Casimir and the valiant Czarnieçki recaptured
Warsaw; but they lost it again on his return after a battle
of three days, in which Sobieski, who commanded a troop of
Tartars[29] trained by himself, performed prodigies of valour.
But other nations had looked on with jealousy at the brilliant
career of the king of Sweden. The Czar, resenting the manner
in which he had been baulked of his prey, declared war against
Sweden; and the emperor Ferdinand III., just before his death
(May 30th, 1657), concluded an offensive and defensive alliance
with the king of Poland. ♦Charles attempts a partition,♦
Meanwhile Charles was using all his efforts to carry out a scheme
for the partition of Poland between himself, the Czar, the Great
Elector of Brandenburg,[30] and Ragoczy, prince of Transylvania.
But her time had not yet come. Almost at the same moment Denmark
declared war against Charles, the Elector deserted him, and
Austria prepared to send troops in support of her new ally (June,
1657). ♦But is obliged to retire.♦ In July Charles evacuated
Poland in all haste, and began his wonderful campaigns in
Denmark. Another stroke of good fortune was the death of Bogdan
Chmielniçki (August 27th), and the return of a large number of
Cossacks to their allegiance. ♦Gradual recovery of Poland,♦
Though sorely shaken by the terrible ordeal through which she had
passed, Poland gradually recovered her independence. Treaties
were concluded with the Elector, and with Prince Ragoczy, with no
more serious loss than the suzerainty of ducal Prussia (1658);
and two years later, shortly after the death of Charles X., a
peace was signed with Sweden at Oliva (May 3rd, 1660). ♦Sobieski
rewarded.♦ Casimir re-established his authority throughout
the kingdom; and in distributing rewards to his most faithful
subjects, conferred upon Sobieski the post of Korongy, or
standard-bearer of the crown.[31]
♦War with Muscovy.♦ There still remained, however, the war with
Muscovy. The ever-active Czar Alexis, now that he could take
his own measures with Poland, overran Lithuania, and captured
Wilna, its capital. But his general, Sheremetieff, suffered a
serious defeat, and shut himself up in his fortified camp at
Cudnow to await the arrival of a large reinforcement of Cossacks.
♦Victories of Sobieski at Slobodyszcza and Cudnow.♦ Sobieski
was detached with a small force from the investing army to
confront this new enemy. Finding them encamped on the heights
of Slobodyszcza, he carried the position by assault, and gained
a victory so complete that the Cossacks laid down their arms
(Sept. 17th, 1660). He then hastened back to Cudnow, and joined
in the attack on the Muscovite camp, which was so successful that
the whole army, with their ammunition and stores, fell into the
hands of the Poles. Such a brilliant campaign astonished Europe.
Sobieski, whose reputation was already high in his own country,
was justly credited with giving her breathing time to recover
from her misfortunes.
♦Anarchy in Poland.♦ She employed it, according to her wont, in
internal dissensions. It is difficult to trace the true origin of
the deplorable state of Poland during the next six years; but it
may be attributed, in the first instance, to the foolish conduct
of the queen, Louise de Nevers. Though a woman of masculine
spirit, and exercising a great ascendancy over the uxorious
Casimir, she was herself entirely governed by the Jesuits.
♦1661.♦ They persuaded her, and through her the king, to violate
that article of the _pacta conventa_ by which he pledged
himself not to tamper with the succession to the crown. The
person for whom they designed it was her nephew, the young Duc
d’Enghien, son of the great Condé. ♦1662-3.♦ The power of French
gold soon converted the majority of the senate. But the lesser
nobles were not so easily cajoled, and they possessed a secret
though powerful supporter in Lubomirski, Grand Marshal and Second
General of the crown. To this main grievance was added another,
which pressed heavily on the poorer nobles. Large arrears of pay
were, as usual,[32] owing to the army, who accordingly formed
themselves into a confederation, and demanded the diminution
of the immense revenues of the clergy. This brought upon them
all the thunders of the Church; and the fearful spectacle was
presented of a country divided into hostile camps, in which the
senate was at enmity with the diet, the clergy with the army, the
larger with the lesser nobility. Sobieski and other patriotic
spirits tried to strike at the root of the evil, and furnished
funds from their private resources for the payment of arrears. As
this did not allay the complaints of the army, the senate opened
a negotiation with the malcontents from Sobieski’s “court”[33] at
Zolkiew, which was so far successful that the king was able to
lead them against Muscovy. ♦Campaign against Muscovy.♦ But the
campaign, though not disastrous, was not especially fortunate;
and the absence of Lubomirski, who had been kept at home by the
king’s suspicions, created general discontent.
On his return the king summoned Lubomirski to trial on a
charge of high treason. He did not appear, and was condemned to
perpetual banishment and the loss of his honours and estates.
♦Sobieski, Grand Marshal and Second General.♦ His office of Grand
Marshal was bestowed on Sobieski, and that of Second General on
Czarnieçki; but the latter dying shortly after, this post was
also conferred on Sobieski. The appointments were most politic,
for Sobieski was a great favourite with the army. His duties
having kept him constantly on the Cossack frontier, he had not
compromised himself with either party.
♦Marriage of Sobieski.♦ These signs of the royal favour were
followed by another which bound him still more to the interests
of the court. On his visit to Warsaw to assume the insignia
of his offices, he became enamoured of a French lady in the
retinue of the queen, Mary Casimira d’Arquien, who had lately
become a widow by the death of the rich Prince Zamoyski. ♦His
wife.♦ She was daughter to the Marquis d’Arquien; captain of
the guards to the Duke of Orleans, and had attended the queen
from France nineteen years before. Though over thirty years
of age, she still possessed in a remarkable degree all those
fascinations which usually belong to extreme youth. Dr. South,
who saw her seven years later, says that even then she did not
look more than twenty.[34] To these advantages she united a
piquant vivacity which had a peculiar charm for Sobieski. His
passion was so strong[35] that he besought the queen’s consent
to their immediate union. Scarcely four weeks had elapsed since
the death of Zamoyski, to whom she had borne several children;
but so necessary was it to conciliate the new officer that the
queen gave way, and the marriage was celebrated, according to
the Polish fashion, by a festival of three days. ♦July 5-7,
1665.♦ Sobieski was hereafter to receive severe punishment for
this indecent haste in the conduct of his wife. ♦Rebellion of
Lubomirski.♦ In the midst of the marriage _fêtes_ tidings arrived
that Lubomirski, who had entered Poland with a large army, was
ungenerously plundering his estate at Zolkiew, and carrying off
his stud of horses. The proscribed general, who was a prince of
the empire, had received secret support from Leopold of Austria,
and was now in open rebellion.
The whole kingdom was divided against itself. The palatinates
of the west, gained over by Austria, resented the predominance
of France at court, and joined Lubomirski. ♦Sobieski tries
arbitration.♦ An effort was made by Sobieski to get the decision
of the Diet on Lubomirski’s claims, but the assembly was
dissolved by the fatal veto, and the two armies advanced to the
struggle. Contrary to the earnest advice of Sobieski, Casimir
made his attack in the marshes of Montwy (July 11th, 1666),
and his troops, entangled in the difficult ground, were easily
defeated. ♦Peace with Lubomirski.♦ But Lubomirski was anxious to
come to terms, and, having extracted a promise from Casimir that
he would not interfere in the succession, he waived his personal
claims, and retired to Silesia, where he died six months after.
His faction, however, was not silenced. Bands of hungry soldiers,
clamouring for pay, levied black-mail upon the provinces; and the
central authority seemed powerless to restrain them. ♦Invasion of
the Tartars.♦ At this juncture news arrived that 80,000 Tartars
were plundering Volhynia, and that the Cossacks under Doroscensko
were preparing to join them. The utmost consternation prevailed
at Warsaw; a peace was hastily patched up with Muscovy, and
efforts were made to raise fresh troops. But the treasury was
empty; the republic had only 10,000 men under arms; and many of
these were most imperfectly equipped. Casimir applied vainly for
help at the principal European courts; Brandenburg alone sent a
few companies of infantry. At this crisis Potoçki, the aged Grand
General, died, and the king at once appointed the Grand Marshal
to the post.
♦Sobieski Grand General,♦ Never before had any Polish subject
united in his own person these two offices. As Grand General
Sobieski had absolute control over military affairs, and could
quarter his army where he pleased; ♦As well as Grand Marshal.♦
as Grand Marshal he was at the head of the administration,
received foreign ambassadors, and could inflict death without
appeal. In most points, as in the last, his power was really
greater than that of the king; for although the king could confer
these honours, he could not revoke them. No higher testimony
could have been paid to the prudence and ability of Sobieski
than the readiness with which these unusual powers were granted,
and the very transitory murmurs that they provoked amongst an
exceptionally jealous nobility. His rise, though fortunate at
its close, had not been so rapid as to be out of proportion to
his merits. The gravity of the crisis doubtless operated in
his favour; and he took pains at once to relieve all suspicion
by his temperate and vigorous action. His persuasive eloquence
silenced the clamours for pay, and he hesitated not to drain
his private coffers in raising new levies. ♦His bold plan of
the campaign.♦ By this means he doubled his original forces,
and then prepared to execute a grand plan for the destruction
of the Tartars. Throwing his army into the fortified camp of
Podhaic, a small town in Red Russia, he detached several large
bodies of cavalry to act in the vicinity. These had orders on a
given day, when the enemy had worn himself out by the assault, to
close round the vast host and help their general to assume the
offensive. To divide so small a force seemed hazardous in the
extreme,[36] and the soldiers murmured openly that their lives
were to be thrown away. The cool courage of Sobieski made them
blush for shame. “He gave all cowards liberty to depart; as for
himself, he was determined to remain with all those who loved
their country.” ♦Sept. 28th-Oct. 15th, 1667.♦ The enemy appeared;
and for seventeen days in succession this heroic band withstood
their most determined assaults. Finally Sobieski, whose troops
had suffered far less loss than they inflicted, gave the signal
to his outlying parties, and attacked the Tartars in front and
rear. ♦Great victory of Podhaic.♦ The battle was hotly contested;
but at length victory declared for the Poles. Galga, the Tartar
khan, found his troops so severely handled that he was forced
to sue for peace, and concluded an alliance with the republic.
Doroscensko, on the part of the Cossacks, agreed to restore to
the nobles their estates in the Ukraine.
♦Gratitude of Poland.♦ Poland had been saved almost by a miracle;
and multitudes flocked to the churches to return thanks to God.
When the danger was at its height, so inert and feeble was
the body-politic that Casimir had found it impossible to arm
the Pospolite for the relief of their devoted general. Their
gratitude was now the greater that their sacrifices had been
few. When Sobieski on his return detailed in modest language the
success of the campaign, and ascribed his victory to the mercy of
God, the Diet rose with one accord and answered that the republic
knew who had saved her, and would remember to thank him. ♦Birth
of a son.♦ The tidings reached his wife, who was staying with
her relatives in France, just after she had borne him a son; and
such was the general admiration that Louis XIV. and Henrietta
Maria, the mother of Charles II., were willing to answer for the
child at the font. He was named James Louis, in honour of his
grandfather and his illustrious sponsor.
No successes against the invader could allay the internal broils
of Poland. Although Casimir had lost his queen in the spring of
the year 1667, the outcry against the French influence continued
unabated. On one occasion the king so far forgot himself as to
exclaim, in full diet, “If you are weary of me, I am no less
weary of you.” ♦Abdication of John Casimir.♦ At length, bowed
down by domestic sorrow, tormented by scruples of conscience,[37]
and disgusted at the turbulence of the nobles, he came to the
resolution, which those words seemed to imply, of laying aside
the crown. He took farewell of the Diet in a dignified speech,
in which he asked only for six feet of earth, where his bones
might rest in peace. If he had offended any, he begged them to
forgive him as freely as he forgave those who had offended him.
The assembly was profoundly affected; but, although Sobieski
and others from motives of gratitude besought him to retain the
crown, it does not appear that this was the wish of the nation.
We are told that on the day after his abdication the people
hardly paid him the respect due to a gentleman;[38] and much
ill-feeling was shown in the Diet, when the question of his
pension came before it. After remaining in Poland too long for
his own credit[39] he retired to France, where Louis XIV. gave
him the Abbey of St. Germain. He was the last of the dynasty of
Jagellon,[40] which had reigned in Poland nearly three hundred
years.