Abstract
The paper analyzes the community of the Lithuanian province of the Society of Jesus between 1608 and 1773. It adopts a prosopographical approach based on the full set of the order’s personnel catalogs for the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces, which have been analyzed by means of RStudio, an integrated development environment based on the R programming language. The author focuses on the total number of Jesuits in the province, their religious or secular status, final vows, education, regional distribution, and geographic origin. In the long term, changes mainly depended on local factors such as the cultural assimilation of the inhabitants of the eastern territories marked by the influence of the Orthodox Church. In the short term, wars and epidemics also played an important role. However, some of the trends in the Lithuanian province, such as the number of professed of the four vows, which increased due to the larger availability of theological courses during religious formation, were similar to those in other administrative units of the Society. Overall, the article demonstrates that the seventeenth-century crises had a profound impact on the Jesuit community both in terms of numbers and internal structure.
Researchers focusing on the history of the Society of Jesus as a global enterprise have paid less attention to East-Central Europe than Western Europe, the Americas, or Asia. Within this region, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth represented a challenge for the Jesuit Roman curia. The second largest European state after Muscovy, on the borders of Latin Catholic and Greek Orthodox civilization, the Commonwealth was also inhabited by non-Christian minorities such as Jews and Tatars. In the mid-sixteenth century, Protestantism threatened to undermine the influence of the Catholic Church thanks to the support of the nobility and King Sigismund Augustus’s (r.1548–72) religious tolerance. In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (henceforth gdl), which had only converted to the Roman church in the late fourteenth century, evangelization had yet to reach the entire rural population. The country’s re-Catholicization required the support of the local nobility, which played a greater political and social role than in Western Europe. From the Roman point of view, this was not a local affair since a Catholic Poland–Lithuania could also influence Lutheran Scandinavia and Orthodox Russia.
The Jesuits established in Poland–Lithuania in 1565, when they opened their first college in the German-speaking town of Braniewo in Royal Prussia. On the eve of its suppression in 1773, the Society operated more than 150 houses inhabited by 2,330 Jesuits.1 In contrast to the situation in other countries, the Jesuit foundations in Poland–Lithuania were mainly supported by the nobility, while monarchs and the urban elite, though crucial in introducing the Jesuits to the country and its largest cities, played a secondary role in financial terms.2 Thanks to the adaptation of the Jesuit school system to the needs of this social sector, many young noblemen joined the order. The development of administrative structures accompanied the expansion of the network of Jesuit colleges. In 1574, the Polish vice-province, subject to the Austrian province, became autonomous. In 1608, the Jesuits created the Lithuanian province. This administrative unit included not only the gdl but also Warmia (Braniewo) and Masovia (Warsaw and Pułtusk) in the Kingdom of Poland.3 The administrative partition between the Polish and the Lithuanian province lasted for almost 150 years until the Polish province was divided into the provinces of Greater and Lesser Poland in 1755. Four years later, the province of Masovia separated from the Lithuanian province (Map 1).4
The administrative partition of the Society of Jesus in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (1759–72)
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Polish researchers, followed by their colleagues from Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, and Ukraine, have mainly focused on the Society’s cultural and religious activities. In particular, they have emphasized the adaptation of the Tridentine reform to the social and political milieu of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. While still addressing this issue, the present article adopts a different perspective, focusing on the Society’s members instead of their activities. It seeks to verify whether the changes in the Jesuit community’s structure corresponded to a global trend in the Society or depended on local factors. More precisely, it focuses on the Society’s response to the crises of the seventeenth century. This crisis had a global character (as Geoffrey Parker argues), and in Poland, of course, particular manifestations.5
Due to the large amount of available archival sources, the present research focuses on the community of the provinces of Lithuania (1608–1773) and Masovia (1759–73). These administrative units included firmly Catholic regions (such as Masovia) and territories where the influence of the Roman church was much weaker (i.e., the Ruthenian territories).
This contribution fits into the historiographic trend of Jesuit prosopography. Regarding Western Jesuits, such research has a long tradition, represented among others by Edmond Lamalle (1900–89),6 Lászlo Lukács (1910–98),7 Lászlo Szilas (1927–2012),8 Adrien Demoustier (1930–2014),9 Bernard Dompnier,10 and Dorothy Gillian Thompson.11 Polish historiography has only recently attempted to draw a collective portrait of the Society of Jesus, either adopting a survey approach12 or focusing on a small data subset.13 Unlike previous research, the present paper exploits the entire set of personnel catalogs—breves and triennales—of the provinces of Lithuania and Masovia from the Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu.14 The analysis of data concerning the Jesuits’ age, education, and geographic origin was carried out through RStudio, an Integrated Development Environment for R, a programming language for statistical computing and graphics.
Total Jesuit Population
The personnel catalogs mention 6,107 Jesuits. More than 250 of them entered the Society before 1608, and almost 1,250 were active in the year of suppression. Thus, the number of Jesuits in the Lithuanian province nearly quintupled in the analyzed period.
However, the process was not linear (see fig. 1). Two crises happened in the 1650s and the first decade of the eighteenth century, whereas two stagnation periods occurred in the 1620s and the 1730s. All these events were related to wars. Military conflicts affected the Jesuit population in a variety of ways, either directly (through violent death, epidemic diseases, or the worsening quality of life) or indirectly (pillage of real estates and deprivation of income, closure of colleges due to occupation or permanent territorial losses, decreasing number of candidates caused by the disruption of educational activity).
Number of Jesuits in the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
The most severe crisis occurred in the mid-seventeenth century due to the Cossack uprising led by Bohdan Khmelnytsky (1596–1657) in 1648–54, the Polish–Russian War of 1654–67, and the Polish–Swedish War, known as the Deluge, in 1655–60. The conflict with Russia had tragic consequences for the gdl: most of its territory fell under Russian occupation, and the colleges along the eastern border—Orsha, Polatsk, Smolensk, and Vitebsk—were closed. Moreover, the Russians plundered Vilnius in August 1655 and occupied it until 1660.15 Human losses were caused either by the invaders, who were responsible for killing or deporting several Jesuits,16 or the plague of 1652–53.17 The second crisis coincided with the Great Northern War (1700–21). During this conflict, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth became the theater of the clash between Russia and Sweden, intertwined with a civil war between the supporters of King Augustus ii (r.1697–1706, 1709–33) and his Swedish-backed rival Stanisław Leszczyński (r.1704–9, 1733–36). Unlike the previous crisis, no college was closed, but the Jesuits had to pay ransoms. In 1708 and 1709, a plague depopulated the western territories of the province, spreading in 1710 to the gdl.18
In the 1620s, a dynastic conflict broke out between the Polish and the Swedish branch of the Vasa family. Fights in the northern territories of the Commonwealth caused the Jesuit population to stagnate. This war resulted in the partial loss of Livonia (with Riga) between 1621 and 1625 and the temporary occupation of the Baltic region of Royal Prussia (1626–35). Human losses were caused, in this case, by the plague of 1624–25. The stagnation of the early 1730s was due to the Polish War of Succession (1733–36), during which the Russian and Saxon armies supporting Augustus iii (r.1733–63) strived to suppress the nobility who were backing the French candidate Stanisław Leszczyński. The decade before the suppression was also a period of stagnation related to internal and external factors. The political uncertainty of the early reign of Stanisław Augustus (r.1764–95) culminated in the Polish–Russian War of 1768–72. In a broader context, dark clouds gathered over the Society after its suppressions in Portugal (1759), France (1764), and Spain (1767). These events discouraged many young Poles from joining a religious order that seemed to be doomed.
The development of the Jesuit population depended on the number of Jesuits joining the community and those leaving it. The admission of candidates or their arrival from other provinces contributed to the growth of the Jesuit community, while deaths, dismissals, or departures reduced the population. Since the transfer of Jesuits to or from other administrative units played a secondary role, the analysis should focus on the balance between admissions on the one hand and deaths and dismissals on the other, according to a pattern of expansion, crisis, recovery, and stabilization.
Despite significant yearly fluctuations, a positive balance lasted until the late 1640s, except for the mid-1620s (see fig. 2). A negative balance, as indicated by the red line in the figure, marks the following period, whereas a recovery occurred in the 1670s. The situation stabilized in the last two decades of the seventeenth century. A similar cycle occurred in the eighteenth century, following the plague of 1708–10, which caused the heaviest losses in absolute numbers ever observed, with more than a hundred deaths in 1710 alone. The balance turned positive during the 1710s and 1720s and later stabilized—from the Polish War of Succession—at slightly above zero for almost two decades. Outside this scheme lies only the expansion of the 1750s. In this case, the high number of candidates was related to the reform of the Jesuit school system, implemented since the late 1730s through the addition of new disciplines, such as history, geography, experimental physics, and modern languages, to the teaching program.19 The delayed effects of these changes were short-lived: in the 1760s, the political turmoil and the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Society discouraged many potential candidates.
Number of admissions, deaths, and dismissals among the Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Although deaths usually prevailed over dismissals, the latter could also play an important role. These usually occurred a few years after admission, whereas the professed rarely left the Society, since only the superior general could dismiss professed members of the Society. Therefore, dismissals deprived the community of members who could potentially be active for many years ahead. These were frequent in the first half of the seventeenth century and in the 1670s and 1680s. They became rare in the first half of the eighteenth century and only increased again in the decade before the suppression. This growth in the number of dismissals suggests that the order’s difficulties abroad may have reduced its attractiveness in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Seeing that the order was persecuted abroad, many who had recently joined the Society in Poland–Lithuania may have decided to ask for dismissal on the grounds that they would receive similar treatment. The authorities may also have applied a stricter personnel policy, foreseeing the economic and political difficulties that the order would face. Another regularity emerges following major crises when the number of dismissals was significantly lower to sustain the recovery in the overall number of Jesuits.
The admission rate (see fig. 3) was usually between five and ten percent of the overall Jesuit population, while death and dismissal rates usually remained well below five percent. The admission rate was generally higher in the first part of the seventeenth century, as the overall Jesuit population was smaller. It also shows regular patterns, increasing strongly after each crisis and slowly diminishing as losses were recovered. Death and dismissal rates were relatively similar in the seventeenth century but diverged in the eighteenth century. Death rates were strongly affected by wars and epidemics, as shown by the sudden negative peaks in 1625, the 1650s, and 1708–10.
Rates of admissions, deaths, and dismissals related to the overall Jesuit population of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in a given year
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Religious and Secular Status
Ignatius of Loyola (c.1491–1556) required the order’s candidates to meet high intellectual and spiritual standards. At the same time, he was aware that practical skills could also be useful to the Society. Accordingly, the Constitutions defined four “classes” of Jesuits: the professed, the coadjutors (either spiritual or temporal), the scholastics, and those admitted without being assigned to any specific group.20 The membership of each class was determined by the type of religious vows. These, in turn, depended on the studies accomplished, the general exam on doctrine at the end of the philosophical and theological cycle of studies (examen ad gradum), and the progress in spiritual life. Personnel catalogs allow for a fundamental distinction to be made between religious and secular members. The first group included the priests, the scholastics, and the novice scholastics, who either had or would become priests. The secular consisted of the temporal coadjutors (also called lay brothers) and the novice coadjutors. These did not receive formal education and usually performed practical tasks within the Jesuit house or its estates. Of the 6,107 Jesuits listed in the catalogs, 3,983 (sixty-five percent) were religious and 2,124 (thirty-five percent) secular members. Although these groups developed according to the same trend (fig. 4), on an annual basis the secular members represented only about thirty percent of the overall Jesuit population (see fig. 5). This was because their career was usually shorter, and they thus had a greater turnover.
Number of religious and secular members of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Proportion of religious and secular members of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Priests were the most numerous group, while scholastics and temporal coadjutors switched between second and third place (fig. 6). Among the novices, scholastics usually prevailed over coadjutors by a ratio of 3:2 or 2:1. Priests usually represented between forty and fifty percent of the Jesuit population after novitiate (fig. 7). During the mid-seventeenth-century crisis, the peak of seventy percent was due to the shrinking number of scholastics and lay brothers. These made up around twenty-five or thirty percent of the members in any given year.
Number of Jesuits of various classes in the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Proportion of Jesuits of different classes (novices excepted) in the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Each class was affected by the crises in different ways. During military conflicts, the number of scholastics rapidly dropped due to the disruption of educational activity. However, once the crisis was over, this group quickly recovered. The number of priests, on the other hand, decreased at a slower rate but for a prolonged period. This pattern depended on the scarcity of trained scholastics who could replace the dying senior priests. Temporal coadjutors were affected in a different way by the crises. After being killed by epidemics or invaders while assisting the sick or overseeing the Jesuit houses, the number of temporal coadjutors rapidly grew once the crisis was over. This depended on the need for skilled members to rebuild the economy of Jesuit houses.21
The Priests’ Final Vows
While the ratio between various classes remained relatively stable, changes occurred within the group of priests regarding their final vows. One of the characteristic features of the Society was the fourth vow, promising obedience to the pope regarding missions. The superior general only allowed Jesuits with sufficient knowledge in the field of dogmatic theology to make this vow. The professed of the four vows were appointed to posts of responsibility, becoming theology professors, rectors, and superiors provincial. Less talented Jesuits became spiritual coadjutors after making the three religious vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience. Unlike the professed of the four vows, they received a shorter period of training, usually in the field of moral theology (casuistry), and performed humbler tasks such as preaching, hearing confessions, and teaching catechism. The Jesuit legislation also allowed the public profession of the three vows, a solution that was rarely applied.22
During the analyzed period, the professed became predominant over the spiritual coadjutors, following a constant trend in the Society of Jesus, particularly in the German assistancy.23 In the Lithuanian province, this process was not linear, since a reversal occurred in the late seventeenth century. During the first half of the century, there were more spiritual coadjutors than the professed (fig. 8). While the first group stabilized in the early 1620s, the latter began to increase until they exceeded the number of spiritual coadjutors in the early 1650s. Each group responded to the mid-seventeenth-century crisis differently. While the number of professed remained stable, the number of spiritual coadjutors diminished until the early 1680s and then began to increase rapidly. By 1700, the ratio between professed of the four vows and spiritual coadjutors was almost 1:1. After the Great Northern War, the number of professed grew while that of spiritual coadjutors constantly declined. This pattern can be seen even more clearly in percentage terms. Whereas in 1608 the professed of the four vows represented only thirty-five percent of all priests who had made their final vows, by 1773 they made up more than ninety percent (fig. 9). The growing percentage of spiritual coadjutors in the late seventeenth century depended on the increasing need for trained priests devoted to the ministry. This solution particularly appealed to the Jesuit authorities in a post-crisis scenario, with limited financial resources available.
Number of Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces who had made their final vows
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Proportion of Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces who had made their final vows
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Studies before and after Admission
The vows of Jesuit priests are closely related to their religious formation. The Jesuit authorities paid particular attention to candidates’ education.24 In this field, profound changes occurred in the earlier decades. Whereas the first Jesuits had usually completed higher education before joining the Society, from the late sixteenth century candidates had usually received only secondary education, often at a Jesuit school. Most candidates had studied rhetoric or poetry at least, thus attending almost the entire five-class humanities course (infima, grammar, syntax, poetry, rhetoric). In the Lithuanian province, graduates of the secondary schools represented about seventy-two percent of the candidates. Around eleven percent had at least partially attended the philosophical course before admission, while the graduates of theology and casuistry courses were respectively two and 1.5 percent. No data are available for thirteen percent of religious members.25 Such a structure was relatively stable, albeit with some geographical variations. Royal Prussia, for example, had a higher percentage of philosophy graduates before admission. This depended on the social structure of this region, where candidates mainly originated from burgher families. For this social layer, philosophical knowledge was preliminary to law and medicine, two disciplines that enabled social advancement. Nobility from the other regions of Poland–Lithuania, in contrast, did not require much more to start a political career than the practice of rhetoric from school education, since knowledge of common law and political institutions was granted by participation in the local self-government.26
After entering the Society, scholastics attended the three-year philosophical course, divided into logic, physics (natural philosophy), and metaphysics, and the four-year theology course. Those who had graduated before admission were either exempted or repeated these courses privately. Some of them attended an annual or two-year rhetoric course after novitiate.27 In the interval between the philosophical and theological course, scholastics taught in the secondary schools as magistri. Less talented students attended an annual or two-year casuistry course. In the eighteenth century, the demand for mathematics teachers led to the creation of a two-year mathematics course between philosophy and theology.28 This was a significant improvement compared to the traditional teaching of mathematics during the second year of the philosophic course, as foreseen by the Ratio studiorum (1599).29
The admission age is a useful starting point for analyzing the Jesuit course of study (fig. 10). Novice scholastics typically joined the Society between fifteen and seventeen years old, thus well above the minimum age of fourteen settled by Jesuit legislation.30 Novice coadjutors were admitted at an older age after learning a profession. The average admission age of novice scholastics tended to diminish from above twenty to eighteen years old (fig. 11). Trend reversals after the mid-seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century crises were probably due to the delayed admission of candidates. The reduction in the average admission age did not mean that the candidates were less educated. On the contrary, the number of rhetoric graduates compared to those who attended poetry classes increased until the 1740s.31 The same applies to candidates who had studied philosophy before admission.32 This reflects an increasing uniformity in the education level of candidates.
Distribution of Jesuits admitted at various ages to the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773, divided into religious and secular members
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Average admission age of the novice scholastics of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces in 1608–1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
After completing the novitiate, young Jesuits devoted several years to intellectual formation. During this time, they focused on philosophical and theological studies. Between these courses, they usually taught the humanities course to secular youth for three or four years, starting from the infima class before moving up through grammar, syntax, poetics, and ending with rhetoric. The personnel catalogs refer to such teachers as magistri. In the seventeenth century, priestly ordinations usually took place during the fourth year of the theology course, while in the eighteenth century, these were anticipated for the third year or even earlier, if required to recover from a crisis.33
Fig. 12 shows a relatively regular pattern across all three subperiods. Most Jesuits studied for seven or eight years, completing both the three-year philosophical and the four-year theological course. The predominance of Jesuits who had completed a seven-year formation period increased after the mid-seventeenth-century crisis and even more so in the period 1717–73. As well as the three-year philosophy and four-year theology course, Jesuits who had completed eight years of formation had also attended the rhetoric course. The relatively large group with four-year formation usually consisted of people who only attended the theology course, having graduated in philosophy before admission.
Distribution of the Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces according to the overall duration of studies
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Fig. 13 shows the percentage of Jesuits studying various disciplines in relationship to the overall number of scholastics in a certain subperiod. Important changes occurred between the first and the second half of the seventeenth century. In the earlier subperiod, the popularity of the rhetoric and casuistry courses was quite high: more than sixty and twenty-five percent of Jesuit scholastics respectively attended these courses. The percentage later fell below forty and ten percent respectively. On the contrary, the percentage of Jesuit scholastics attending the theological course increased from below sixty to almost eighty percent. Philosophy remained stable at more than eighty percent, representing the most frequently attended course throughout the analyzed period. The changes can be better analyzed if we focus on each group of students to see how many years scholastics usually attended each course, and how this changed between each subperiod (fig. 14). The rhetoric course usually lasted one year, although in the first half of the seventeenth century more than twenty-five percent attended it for two years. The philosophical and theological courses lasted for three and four years respectively. However, it is worth noting that the percentage of Jesuits partially attending these courses was generally higher in the early seventeenth century. The most significant changes occurred with casuistry. Whereas in the first subperiod the course usually lasted two years, it was later shortened to one year.
Proportion of Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces studying various disciplines, divided into subperiods
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Distribution of Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces, according to the study duration for various disciplines, divided into subperiods
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
These trends testify to an increasingly homogeneous level of education and the growing importance of dogmatic theology compared to the practical training provided through casuistry courses. Thanks to the increasing uniformity of education prior to admission, the superior provincial could assign fewer scholastics to the rhetoric course or at least shorten it to one year. In a post-crisis scenario, this decision shortened the period of religious formation, albeit to the detriment of teaching quality.34
The absolute number of students in each discipline changed significantly on a yearly basis (fig. 15). These data confirm the peculiarity of the early seventeenth century, when the number of rhetoric and casuistry students peaked. They also show a numeric relationship between philosophy and theology students. The delayed growth in the number of the latter depended on the succession of subjects in the course of study. Toward the end of the seventeenth century, the casuistry course ceased to be held regularly, which may seem surprising given that the number of spiritual coadjutors increased in that period. Most coadjutors actually made their final vows after accomplishing only a part of the theology course. Such a personnel policy was related to the need to shorten the period of religious formation and to cut costs. Spiritual coadjutors could be trained without a special casuistry course.
Number of Jesuits studying various disciplines in the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces between 1608 and 1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Geographic Distribution
The growth of the Jesuit population in a given region depended on the foundation of new houses or the development of existing ones, whereas a population loss was caused either by an economic crisis or the closure of existing houses. For a general analysis, one should distinguish between the houses in the gdl and those in the Kingdom of Poland. On a more detailed level, the gdl can be divided into six historical regions (Livonia,35 Lithuania,36 Central and Eastern Ruthenia,37 Samogitia,38 and the capital Vilnius), while the houses in the Kingdom of Poland can be assigned to three regions: Masovia,39 Podlachia,40 and Royal Prussia (Warmia).41
Between 1608 and 1773, the number of Jesuits in the gdl more than quadrupled, while it only tripled in the Polish territories (fig. 16). After rapid growth in the first half of the seventeenth century due to new foundations, the gdl was particularly affected by the Polish–Russian War of 1654–67. At this time, the number of Jesuits plunged below the 1608 level. Recovery was, however, relatively fast. Similarly, the losses caused by the plague of 1710 were made up quickly and turned into an unprecedented expansion. Between 1720 and the mid-1730s, the number of Jesuits in the gdl increased by fifty percent, from about five hundred to 750. This positive trend continued at a slower pace until the mid-1760s. Some Jesuits lacked a house affiliation. This was the case with the provincial curia (i.e., the superior provincial, his secretary, and a lay brother), and—in the 1630s—a few court chaplains.42 The group of Jesuits outside the province included the Lithuanian representatives to the general curia in Rome and the scholastics studying abroad. For financial reasons, journeys to receive education in other countries ceased in the second half of the seventeenth century. They were renewed only in the mid-eighteenth century, once the superiors acknowledged the need for better training. Unlike the earlier period, when Jesuit scholastics mostly attended the theology course at the Collegium Romanum, in the mid-eighteenth century, young Jesuits received education in the field of mathematics and physics in the Habsburg countries, France, and the Italian peninsula.43 A peak in the number of Jesuits outside the province occurred between 1654 and the early 1660s due to the emigration of about one hundred members (particularly scholastics and young priests), mainly to the Bohemian and Austrian provinces, in the face of Russian and Swedish invasions.44
Number of Jesuit residents in various macro-areas of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces between 1608 and 1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
The diverse growth patterns between the gdl and Polish territories resulted in a shift in the proportions of Jesuit populations (fig. 17). In the early seventeenth century, the inhabitants of the Jesuit houses in the gdl represented about seventy percent of the province population. By 1773, they had grown to almost eighty percent.
Proportion of Jesuit residents in various macro-areas of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces between 1608 and 1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
For most of the analyzed period, Vilnius had the largest Jesuit population in the area (fig. 18). The Lithuanian capital was the administrative center of the province. The Jesuits operated three houses there in the seventeenth century (the academy, the professed house, and the novitiate), and opened a further two in the eighteenth century (tertianship house and noblemen college). In Vilnius, the number of Jesuits could vary due to fires. In particular, those of 1610, 1737, and 1748 caused a significant reduction in the number of Jesuit residents. After the mid-seventeenth-century crisis, the number of Jesuit residents in Vilnius recovered relatively quickly, although it did not reach the pre-war level. Only after the Great Northern War did it begin increasing above the two hundred-person level. On the whole, however, the number of Jesuits in Vilnius grew more slowly than the overall Jesuit population. This resulted in a percentage decrease from forty percent at the beginning of the analyzed period to twenty-five percent at the suppression of the Jesuit order.
Absolute number of the Jesuit residents in various historical regions and their rate related to the overall population of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces between 1608 and 1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
A large Jesuit population was also present in Central and Eastern Ruthenia. Although both regions had around the same number of residents in the first half of the seventeenth century, they later developed differently. After the mid-seventeenth-century crisis, Central Ruthenia made up losses relatively quickly. In the 1720s, it even overtook the number of Jesuit inhabitants in Vilnius. By 1773, a quarter of the Jesuit population was in Central Ruthenia. Eastern Ruthenia, on the other hand, only regained the pre-1654 level toward 1730. This slow recovery was due to the colleges on the eastern border of the gdl being particularly affected by military conflicts. The Russian invasion of 1655, for example, caused the temporary closure of the colleges in Orsha, Polatsk, and Vitebsk. In Smolensk, the college never reopened, as the city was formally annexed by Russia as a result of the Andrusovo armistice of 1667.45 Toward the end of the century, new foundations in Mahiliou and Mstislaw partially compensated for the loss of Smolensk.46 Compared to Vilnius and Eastern Ruthenia, the negative trend of Central Ruthenia during the mid-seventeenth-century crisis was milder thanks to new foundations in Minsk, Novaya Mysh, and Slutsk.47 In the early years of the Great Northern War, the Jesuit population of Central Ruthenia even increased despite the Russian occupation of Polatsk and Vitebsk.
In the territories of the Lithuanian province belonging to the Kingdom of Poland, the Jesuits had established an important presence in Royal Prussia (Warmia) and Masovia, where the first Jesuit colleges were established, respectively in Braniewo (1564) and Pułtusk (1566). In general, both regions did not keep up with the growth pace of the eastern territories of the province. This resulted in a decreasing percentage of the local Jesuit community related to the overall population of the order. In the short term, however, Masovia and Royal Prussia evolved slightly differently. In particular, in the first half of the seventeenth century, these regions showed opposite trends. In Warmia, the Swedish occupation in the late 1620s and early 1630s led to a temporary closure of the Braniewo college and thus to a reduction of the local Jesuit population.48 The scholastics and the alumni of the Braniewo papal seminary moved to Pułtusk, while some priests were sent to Eastern Warmia, still under Polish control, to open a college in Reszel.49 The Jesuit population in Royal Prussia, on the other hand, remained relatively stable during the mid-seventeenth-century crisis despite Swedish and Prussian occupation. In contrast to this broader trend of a shrinking Jesuit population, the percentage of Jesuits resident in Warmia increased significantly. Being farther from borders, Masovia was safer. This favored the development of new foundations in the early seventeenth century: the professed house in Warsaw and the colleges in Płock and Łomża.50 Thanks to these foundations and further ones (such as the noblemen college in Warsaw in 1752), the number of Jesuits in Masovia doubled between the mid-seventeenth and the eighteenth century. In the last few decades before the suppression, Masovia was one of the most dynamic regions of the province, while Warmia suffered a relative decline. The third region of the Kingdom of Poland—Podlachia—played a secondary role. In this area, the Jesuits opened only one residence in Drohiczyn in the mid-seventeenth century. Until 1773, this was the only foundation in Podlachia,51 with no more than twenty-five residents and about two percent of the overall Jesuit population.
The remaining regions of the gdl developed along different patterns. At the beginning of the analyzed period, Livonia was the most important area. However, this border region was periodically affected by wars with Sweden. In the 1620s, the local Jesuit population decreased due to the closure of the colleges in Riga and Tartu (Dorpat) and the mission in Cēsis (Wenden).52 The opening of a house in Daugavpils, in the southern part of Livonia still under Polish–Lithuanian sovereignty, could not fully compensate for these losses.53 The number of Jesuits in Livonia began to increase significantly only in the last decades of the seventeenth century thanks to new foundations in Jelgava (Mitawa), Skaistkalne, and Ilūkste.54 The growth continued through most of the eighteenth century thanks to Jesuit missions on the private estates of wealthy noblemen. In Livonia, the lack of secular priests who could master Latvian, German, Lithuanian, and Polish made Jesuit ministry necessary.55 Despite this recovery, the percentage of Jesuit residents in Livonia did not exceed ten percent of the overall Jesuit population.
In Samogitia, Jesuits were based in Kražiai and Pašiaušė (after 1654) and the mission in Varniai.56 The region did not suffer too much during the mid-seventeenth-century crisis. Therefore, the local Jesuit population increased in the last decades of the century. In terms of proportions, it reached its peak with about ten percent of the overall province population shortly after the mid-seventeenth-century wars. On the contrary, the 1710 plague caused severe losses. Only in the 1750s did the number of Jesuit residents return to the pre-epidemic level. Despite this recovery, the percentage related to the overall Jesuit population remained stable.
In Lithuania, the network of Jesuit houses expanded slowly. Only two houses were founded in this area in the first half of the seventeenth century: one in Grodno in the Slavic-speaking part of the Trakai voivodeship (1622),57 and the other in Kaunas, in the Lithuanian-speaking district (1642).58 In the Vilnius voivodeship, the creation of new houses was hindered by the influence of the Vilnius Academy. Only in 1709 did the Jesuits open the Zodziski college in the eastern part of the Ashmyany district.59 The growth of the Jesuit population in the region was mainly fueled by the Grodno college, which in the eighteenth century provided philosophical or theological courses for scholastics. By 1773, the residents of these colleges represented only seven percent of the overall Jesuit population.
Geographic Origin
The geographic origin of members largely depended on the presence of Jesuit houses in a given region. Schools, together with related institutions such as Marian sodalities, boarding schools, apothecaries, and printing houses, contributed to a surge in religious vocations. At the same time, Jesuits were a mobile religious order. The deployment of members from a given region across the entire province strengthened the sense of community and accelerated cultural integration.
The 6,107 Jesuits mentioned in the catalogs were assigned to one of nine geographic denominations, shown in table 1.
These denominations originate from the triennial catalogs and reflect the character of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth as a relatively scarcely urbanized area. For the purpose of this analysis, I have slightly simplified them and standardized diverging information.60 Missing data concern those Jesuits who belonged to the order for a very short time and thus were not registered in any triennial catalog.
The denominations can be divided into three general groups: those from the gdl, those from the Polish territories within the borders of the Lithuanian province, and those outside its territory. The first group included the Livonians (Livones), the Lithuanians (Lituani), the Ruthenians (Rutheni), and the Samogitians (Samogitae). The second group was formed by the Masovians (Masovitae), the Pruthenians (Prutheni or Varmienses), and the Podlachians (Subsylvani). The third group consisted of the Poles (Poloni) and the foreigners, who were usually defined by their country of origin. These three groups developed differently (fig. 19). Until the late 1660s, the Jesuits from the Polish territories of the Lithuanian province represented the largest group. In the 1670s, they were overtaken by the Jesuits born in the gdl, whose predominance grew until 1773. Jesuits from outside the Lithuanian province were relatively numerous in the first half of the seventeenth century. Their number dropped due to the mid-century crisis and only recovered in the late 1730s. The percentage of Jesuits from the Polish regions of the Lithuanian province grew from about forty-five percent to more than fifty percent in the 1630s, later dropping below thirty percent (fig. 20). On the contrary, the Jesuits born in the gdl grew from below forty percent in 1608 to almost sixty percent in 1773.
Number of Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces originating from various macro-areas between 1608 and 1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Proportion of Jesuits of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces originating from various macro-areas between 1608 and 1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
Regarding vocations, each region had different trends (fig. 21). Among the Jesuits from the gdl, the Lithuanians were the largest group at the beginning and at the end of the analyzed period. Their percentage in relation to the overall Jesuit population diminished from above twenty-five percent to fifteen percent in the first half of the seventeenth century before later recovering to slightly above twenty percent. Only toward the end of the analyzed period were the Lithuanians once again more than a quarter of the Jesuit population.
Absolute number of Jesuits originating from various historical regions and their rate related to the overall population of the Lithuanian and Masovian provinces between 1608 and 1773
Citation: Journal of Jesuit Studies 10, 2 (2023) ; 10.1163/22141332-10020006
In the early eighteenth century, the Lithuanians were overtaken by their confrères from the Ruthenian lands, who had started from one of the lowest positions to become the largest group for most of the century. Their growth had already begun in the second quarter of the seventeenth century and resumed between 1675 and 1725 after the mid-century crisis. It is worth noting that the Ruthenians were not particularly affected by the epidemic of 1708–10. In the last half-century before the suppression, the percentage of Ruthenian Jesuits stabilized at about twenty-five percent of the overall population. Such spectacular growth proves that the Society attracted the nobility from the eastern territories of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. This phenomenon reflects a broader process of cultural assimilation among the Ruthenian nobility who converted to Catholicism and adopted Polish culture.
Even the number of Masovians rapidly increased to over two hundred members in the early 1640s. At that time, the Masovians contributed to the expansion of the overall Jesuit population, representing more than a third of it. As a historical region, Masovia was left little affected by the Protestant Reformation. For the staunchly Catholic Masovian petty nobility, with limited chances of achieving ecclesiastical benefices or local offices through political connections, the Society of Jesus represented a path of social advancement. Moreover, the Jesuits had developed a tight network of educational institutions in the region and spread the worship of the Masovian-born Blessed (and later Saint) Stanisław Kostka (1550–68).
The Jesuits from Royal Prussia were a relatively stable group, usually representing between fifteen and twenty percent of the province’s population. Unlike other areas of the Lithuanian province, where an increasing number of noblemen entered the Society, almost all Pruthenians were townspeople. Lay brothers were often appreciated as artists, musicians, and artisans.61 Despite being employed as German preachers in other territories of the province, such as Livonia or the capitals Warsaw and Vilnius, the Jesuits from Warmia made up between seventy-five and eighty percent of the Jesuit residents in that region in the eighteenth century. This percentage was much higher than in other areas of the province, where the locally born Jesuits usually represented about one-third of the community. This depended on the cultural milieu of Warmia, where knowledge of the German language was required in all social relationships.62
Compared to Masovians and Pruthenians, there was only a small number of Jesuits from Podlachia. Their number was relatively constant, oscillating between forty and sixty in a given year. The percentage of Podlachian Jesuits tended to increase from below to above five percent. Podlachia was a region of transition: in 1569, it had been taken from the gdl and merged with the Kingdom of Poland. Its social structure resembled that of Masovia, being characterized by a large number of petty nobility.63 This also explains the relatively high number of Podlachians compared to the very limited Jesuit presence in the region.
The decreasing number of Jesuits from Livonia in the second quarter of the seventeenth century depended on territorial losses to Sweden. The number of Livonians only returned to the pre-1620s level in the 1740s. Generally, they did not exceed five percent of the overall Jesuit population. The milieu of this northeast region of the Commonwealth was diverse. In the Duchy of Courland, Lutheranism was the ruling confession, while Catholics only enjoyed freedom of worship. Restrictions over the purchase of real estate by Catholic institutions hindered the expansion of Jesuit houses.64 Polish Livonia followed a different path: the Counter-Reformation efforts were implemented there, but only gradually to prevent social unrest on the border with Swedish-controlled territory. Catholicism gained supporters among the German-speaking local elite, and many influential families (Borch, Hylzen, Plater, Wolff, and Zyberg) converted in the late seventeenth century. The elite’s ethnic structure also changed due to the migration of noble families from Poland and Lithuania. Many of these families’ offspring joined the Society in the eighteenth century.65 Despite these changes, the number of vocations from Livonia was insufficient to meet the demand for Jesuit priests. Thus, an import from other regions was required. Many came from Samogitia. Knowing Lithuanian, they could easily learn Latvian, the language of Livonian peasants.66
The development of the Jesuit community in Samogitia followed an atypical trend. Between the 1660s and early 1670s, their number increased rapidly, reaching a peak of one hundred members around 1700. Between 1675 and 1710, they made up almost fifteen percent of the province’s population. Heavy losses occurred during the 1710 plague, after which the number of Jesuits never fully recovered, settling at about seventy-five members. By 1773, their percentage had fallen to about six percent of the overall population. The statistical data reflect the development of the Catholic identity of Samogitia.67 In the first half of the seventeenth century, the Jesuits had helped to lay the foundations for these transformations. Before the establishment of the college in Kražiai in the 1610s, the nobility had converted to Calvinism, the network of Catholic parishes in Samogitia had virtually ceased to exist, and the rural population still practiced paganism. Four decades later, Catholic institutions had revived, but much of the local elite remained Protestant. Further change occurred after the mid-seventeenth-century crisis due to the extinction of the Calvinist branch of the Radziwiłł family, whose patronage extended over Samogitia.68 The rise of the staunchly Catholic Pac family contributed to the conversion of the local nobility.69
Both groups from outside the province—foreigners and Poles—developed similarly. Their number dropped in the first half of the seventeenth century before partially recovering only in the eighteenth century. Thus their percentage in relation to the overall Jesuit population did not usually exceed five percent. This was significantly less than the level of almost ten percent that both the Poles (Poloni) and foreigners had when the province was created. In the first half of the seventeenth century, the Vilnius Academy had attracted Jesuit professors and scholastics from abroad. The situation changed dramatically after the Russian occupation. The growing number of foreigners and Poles during the eighteenth century was related to various factors: the modernization of the Jesuit school system, the general economic recovery, and closer relationships with foreign countries.70 Once again, Poland–Lithuania attracted artisans and professionals from abroad. Some of them joined the Society as lay brothers. This changed the composition of the foreigners’ group: whereas religious members had been more numerous in the early seventeenth century, in the eighteenth century temporal coadjutors prevailed. A closer relationship with West European countries also contributed to the reform of Jesuit education, as demonstrated by the migration of French Jesuits after 1762.
Foreigners are just one of many cases of uneven representation among religious and secular members (table 1). This is significant since it reflects the role of each group beyond its numerical consistency. The inhabitants of Masovia, Royal Prussia, and Ruthenia were more represented among religious than secular members. On the contrary, the Lithuanians and Poles were overly present among lay brothers. Overrepresentation among religious members ensured Jesuits from a specific region a greater influence on the Society’s government, pastoral, and educational activities. The ratio changed over time. For instance, from being scarcely represented in the early seventeenth century, the Ruthenians were overly represented in 1773 among religious members.
Certain regions had abundant religious vocations, while others lacked them. The Polish territories usually provided more candidates than the local houses could absorb: this was the case with Warmia and Podlachia through the entire period, as well as Masovia in the first decades of the seventeenth century. In the gdl, Samogitians were overrepresented, whereas the Livonians and Ruthenians were underrepresented compared to the Jesuit population of the respective regions. Such disparities, however, tended to diminish over time. The situation of the Lithuanians was unique since the number of Jesuit residents in the voivodeships of Trakai and Vilnius (besides the capital) was small. The relatively constant number of Jesuits from this region was mainly due to the role of Vilnius as the province’s administrative and cultural center. Geographic mobility often compensated for internal unbalances.
Conclusion
From a small group of foreign priests, the Jesuit order became deeply rooted in Polish–Lithuanian society thanks to its adaptability to the local milieu. Similarly to other countries, the Jesuits answered the needs of early modern nations through individualized piety and an educational system addressed to secular elites and future public officials.
The changes in the structure of the community of the Lithuanian province mainly depended on local factors. In the short term, wars and epidemics caused a reduction in the number of Jesuits, whereas political stability favored its growth. In the aftermath of a crisis, the Society’s authorities took various measures to accelerate recovery. To improve the financial situation of the houses, they admitted more lay brothers. To encourage young noblemen to join the Society, they accepted novice scholastics at an older age and temporarily loosened the requirements, as shown by the decline in the number of dismissals. Finally, to allocate fewer resources to the education of the religious members, they shortened the course of study and promoted more Jesuits to spiritual coadjutors. These phenomena confirm the findings of Polish historiography, which has considered the second half of the seventeenth century as a period of cultural decline.
In the long term, the composition of the Jesuit community reflected the cultural and ethnic diversity and the assimilation process in Polish–Lithuanian society. The decision to assign some houses on Polish territory to the Lithuanian province was fundamental for the future development of this administrative unit. The Jesuits from the western areas of the province, and particularly Masovia, largely contributed to the rapid growth of the community in the first half of the seventeenth century. It was only later, thanks to their conversion to Catholicism and the adoption of the Polish language and culture, that an increasing number of Ruthenians began joining the Society of Jesus. Many of them would also be assigned to posts of responsibility. However, this assimilation process should not be overstated. The eastern regions of the Lithuanian province remained deficient in vocations until 1773. On the eve of suppression, the Jesuit residents in the gdl represented about eighty percent of the overall province population, while those from the gdl only represented about sixty percent. Moreover, non-Slavic regions like Warmia, Samogitia, and Livonia maintained specific features. Thanks to geographical mobility, this regional variety, far from being an obstacle, improved the activity of the province as a whole.
It would be interesting to verify whether crises, cultural assimilation, and enculturation of early modern Catholicism influenced the composition of Jesuit communities in other provinces as well. From a comparative perspective, a prosopographical study of the Austrian province, an administrative unit characterized by ethnic diversity and regional imbalances, would be informative. For now, one can observe that the development of a network of Jesuit schools determined an increasing uniformity in the education of candidates and their religious formation. The growing percentage of professed of the four vows was related to an increasing number of theology graduates and a consistent policy of the superior general. Amid this global context, however, temporary trend reversals can be observed following political and military crises. These prompted a quantitative response rather than a qualitative one.
Acknowledgements
The present paper has been created thanks to the funding of the National Centre for Science (Narodowe Centrum Nauki) as part of the project no. 2019/35/B/HS3/00311 (“Inwentarze kolegium jezuickiego w Słucku oraz domu trzeciej probacji w Nieświeżu—opracowanie i edycja źrodłowa”).
Ludwik Grzebień et al., eds., Encyklopedia wiedzy o jezuitach na ziemiach Polski i Litwy 1564–1996 (Kraków: Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna “Ignatianum”–Wydawnictwo wam, 1996), 541. Henceforth cited as ewj.
See Andrea Mariani, I gesuiti e la nobiltà polacco–lituana nel tardo periodo sassone (1724–1763): Cultura e istruzione fra tradizione e innovazione (Poznań: Instytut Historii uam, 2014).
Ludwik Grzebień, “The Circumstances of Partition of the Polish Province and the Origin of the Lithuanian Province,” in Jėzuitai Lietuvoje (1608–2008): Gyvenimas, viekla, paveldas/Jesuits in Lithuania (1608–2008): Life, Work, Heritage, ed. Neringa Markauskaitė (Vilnius: Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus, 2012), 19–28.
Andrea Mariani, “Między Płockiem a Połockiem: Powstanie prowincji mazowieckiej Towarzystwa Jezusowego jako wspólny efekt jezuickiej rutyny zarządzania i ingerencji magnaterii,” Nowożytnicze zeszyty historyczne 5 (2013): 111–33.
Geoffrey Parker, Global Crisis: War, Climate Change, and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013).
Edmond Lamalle, “Catalogues des provinces et des domiciles de la Compagnie de Jésus,” ahsi 13 (1944): 77–101.
Lászlo Lukács, “Le catalogue-modèle du Père Lainez (1545),” ahsi 26, no. 51 (1957): 57–66; Lukács, “De graduum diversitate inter sacerdotes in Societate Iesu,” ahsi 37, no. 74 (1968): 237–316.
Lászlo Szilas, “Die österreichische Jesuitenprovinz im Jahr 1773: Eine historisch-statistische Untersuchung,” ahsi 47, no. 93 (1978): 97–158; 47, no. 94 (1978): 297–349.
Adrien Demoustier, “Les catalogues du personnel de la province de Lyon en 1587, 1606 et 1636,” ahsi 42, no. 83 (1973): 3–105; 43, no. 85 (1974): 3–84.
Bernard Dompnier, “L’activité missionnaire des jésuites de la province de Lyon dans la première moitié du XVIIe siècle: Essai d’analyse des ‘catalogi,’” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 97 (1985): 941–55.
Dorothy Gillian Thompson, “The Jesuit Province of France on the Eve of Its Destruction in 1762,” ahsi 87, no. 173 (2018): 3–72.
Andrea Mariani, “Personaleinsatz und -mobilität in der Litauischen Ordensprovinz der Gesellschaft Jesu im 18. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa-Forschung 63, no. 2 (2014): 163–213; Mariani, “Proweniencja geograficzna i kompetencje językowe jezuitów prowincji litewskiej: Przyczynek do badań nad wielokulturowością Rzeczypospolitej xvii–xviii w.,” in Stan badań nad wielokulturowym dziedzictwem dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, ed. Wojciech Walczak and Karol Łopatecki (Białystok: Instytut Badań nad Dziedzictwem Kulturowym Europy, 2017), 7:85–112; Mariani, “Wspólnota jezuitów w Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów: Między tradycją a zmianą,” Zapiski historyczne 84, no. 4 (2019): 124–77; Mariani, “Kształcenie jezuitów prowincji litewskiej między tradycją a zmianą: Przyczynek do prozopografii jezuitów w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej,” Studia paedagogica ignatiana 22, no. 4 (2019): 19–48.
See Justyna Łukaszewska-Haberkowa, Pierwsze pokolenie polskich jezuitów w świetle biografii i egzaminów (Kraków: Wydawnictwo wam–Akademia Ignatianum, 2013); Łukaszewska-Haberkowa, ed., Examina novitiorum (egzaminy nowicjuszów) jezuitów z Braniewa z lat 1569–1574 (Kraków: Wydawnictwo wam–Akademia Ignatianum, 2014).
See Andrzej Paweł Bieś et al., eds., Polonica w Archiwum Rzymskim Towarzystwa Jezusowego, vol. 1, Polonia (Kraków: Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna Ignatianum–Wydawnictwo wam, 2002); vol. 2, Lituania (Kraków: Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna Ignatianum–Wydawnictwo wam, 2003).
See Konrad Bobiatyński, Od Smoleńska do Wilna: Wojna Rzeczypospolitej z Moskwą 1654–1655 (Zabrze: Inforteditions, 2004). On the Jesuit community in occupied Vilnius, see Andrea Mariani, “Vilniaus jėzuitų personalinė sudėtis xvii–xviii amžiuje: Statistinės-prozopografinės analizės bandymas,” Lietuvos istorijos metraštis 1 (2018): 5–48, here 20.
ewj, 419.
ewj, 148.
See Jan Poplatek, “Ofiary miłości z litewskiej prowincji Towarzystwa Jezusowego w czasie zarazy w 1710 roku,” Nasze wiadomości 9 (1928–31): 264–72, 368–69; Andrea Mariani, “Jezuici prowincji litewskiej wobec epidemii dżumy z lat 1708–1711,” Zapiski historyczne 81, no. 2 (2016): 65–104.
See Kazimierz Puchowski, Jezuickie kolegia szlacheckie Rzeczypospolitej Obojga Narodów: Studium z dziejów edukacji elit (Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 2007).
John W. Padberg, ed. and trans., The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus and Their Complementary Norms: A Complete English Translation of the Official Latin Texts (St. Louis, MO: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1996), 25–26.
See Mariani, “Jezuici prowincji litewskiej wobec epidemii,” 96–101.
Lukács, “De graduum diversitate inter sacerdotes,” 237–316.
Lukács, “De graduum diversitate inter sacerdotes,” 296–301.
Examina novitiorum (egzaminy nowicjuszów), 14–19.
Mariani, “Wykształcenie jezuitów,” 27.
Mariani, “Wykształcenie jezuitów,” 28.
See Anna Królikowska, Kształcenie nauczycieli dla jezuickich szkół średnich w Polsce od xvi do xviii wieku (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Ignatianum, 2019).
A two-year mathematics course had already been held in Warsaw in 1690–92 without success. Only in 1753 was a similar course opened at the Vilnius Academy by Tomas Žebrauskas (Tomasz Żebrowski [1714–58]), a Lithuanian Jesuit trained by Joseph Stepling (1716–78) in Prague in 1751–52. In the province of Masovia, mathematics was taught to Jesuit scholastics in Warsaw (1766–70), Njasvizh (1770–72), and Polatsk (1772/73). Bogdan Lisiak, Nauczanie matematyki w polskich szkołach jezuickich od xvi do xviii wieku (Kraków: Wydawnictwo wam–Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna Ignatianum, 2003), 66, 70–71.
Lisiak, Nauczanie matematyki w polskich szkołach jezuickich, 18–20.
Padberg, Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, 75.
Mariani, “Kształcenie jezuitów,” 27.
Mariani, “Kształcenie jezuitów,” 28.
In 1712, some theology students in the second year of the theology course had already been ordained. Stanisław Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce (Kraków: Druk. W. L. Anczyca, 1905), 4:part 1, 104.
Stanisław Bednarski, Upadek i odrodzenie szkół jezuickich w Polsce: Studjum z dziejów kultury i szkolnictwa polskiego (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Księży Jezuitów, 1933), 27–48.
For “Livonia,” I mean the Latvian and Estonian territory directly ruled by either Poland–Lithuania or Sweden and the Duchy of Courland, a fief of the Kettler family subject to the Commonwealth. The region was inhabited by a German-speaking nobility and a Latvian or Finno-Ugric (Estonian) rural population.
For “Lithuania,” I mean the voivodeships of Vilnius and Trakai. The northern part of this region was mostly inhabited by Catholic Lithuanians, the southern part (Grodno and Ashmyany districts) by Eastern Slavs (Ruthenians).
For “Ruthenia,” I mean the territories mainly inhabited by Eastern Slavs that had belonged to Kievan Rus’ until the mid-thirteenth century. For the purpose of analysis, I divide this region into a central and an eastern part. The first includes the voivodeships of Navahrudak, Minsk, and Brest; the second those of Polatsk, Vitebsk, Mstislav, and Smolensk.
The Principality of Samogitia was mainly inhabited by ethnic Lithuanians.
Until 1526, Masovia had been an autonomous principality. Only after the extinction of the local dynasty was it incorporated into the Kingdom of Poland.
The principality of Warmia, alongside the Baltic Coast, belonged to the historical region of Royal Prussia and was inhabited by a German-speaking population. Unlike the larger cities of Gdańsk, Toruń, and Elbląg, where royal privileges had made Lutheranism a dominant confession, the bishops of Warmia enjoyed wide juridical powers over the Warmian cities and thus successfully supported the Counter-Reformation efforts.
Podlachia, known in Latin sources as Subsylvania, had belonged to the gdl until 1569. From a cultural point of view, it was a region between the East and the West, inhabited by a nobility of Polish origin.
Andrea Mariani, “Aktywność jezuickich kapelanów nadwornych na ziemiach koronnych: Między dworem a placówką zakonną,” in Wielkie rody na ziemiach polsko–litewskich w xvi–xx wieku: Postacie i legendy; Działalność i pamięć; Majątki rodowe i ich znaczenie, ed. Norbert Kasparek et al. (Olsztyn: Instytut Historii i Stosunków Międzynarodowych Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego, 2017), 128–53, here 135–36.
Bednarski, Upadek i odrodzenie, 58–66.
Ludwik Piechnik, Dzieje Akademii Wileńskiej, 4 vols. (Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis Iesu, 1987), 3:13–17. On the studies of Lithuanian Jesuits in Prague, see Robert T. Tomczak, Kontakty edukacyjne Polaków z uniwersytetami praskimi w xvi–xviii wieku: Studium prozopograficzne (Poznań: Wydział Historii uam, 2021).
See Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 2, 1098–102.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 4, 1552–69, 1742–51.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 4, 1502–15, 1540–45, 1611–22.
Braniewo was under Swedish occupation between 1626 and 1635. Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 1, 26–27.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 3, 1325–32.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 2, 1025–35, 1068–80.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 4, 1485–96.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 1, 245–83.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 3, 1310–24.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 4, 1528–40, 1603–9.
Andrea Mariani, “Jezuici w Inflantach i w Kurlandii (1700–1773): Między wielką polityką a elitą lokalną,” Zapiski historyczne 77, no. 4 (2012): 113–38.
See Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 2, 999–1019; 4:part 4, 1497–502.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 3, 1224–46.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 3, 1425–39.
Załęski, Jezuici w Polsce, 4:part 4, 1665–69.
For example, I have unified the denominations Pruthenus, Varmiensis, and Prutheno-Varmiensis. To achieve a significant statistical sample, I have put foreigners into one category, although they were usually defined by the country of origin. Discrepancies can either depend on errors (for instance, it is easy to confuse Ruthenus with Pruthenus) or on the identification with neighboring regions (for instance, Lithuanus and Samogita or Masovita and Polonus). In these cases, I have chosen the most frequent denomination.
See Jan Poplatek and Jerzy Paszenda, Słownik jezuitów artystów (Kraków: wam, 1972); Ludwik Grzebień and Jerzy Kochanowicz, eds., Słownik jezuitów muzyków i prefektów burs muzycznych (Kraków: Wyższa Szkoła Filozoficzno-Pedagogiczna “Ignatianum” – Wydawnictwo wam, 2002).
Mariani, “Wspólnota jezuitów,” 161–63; Mariani, “Personaleinsatz,” 198.
Stefan K. Kuczyński, ed., Drobna szlachta podlaska w xvi–xix wieku: Materiały sympozjum w Holnach Mejera (26–27 maja 1989) (Białystok: Dział Wydawnictw Filii uw w Białymstoku, 1991).
To avoid these restrictions, the Jesuits acquired estates in the Upytė district, just across the Lithuanian border. Andrea Mariani, “State-Sponsored Inventories of Jesuit Houses in the Aftermath of the Suppression of the Society of Jesus: Notes on a Source for Jesuit History from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth,” ahsi 87, no. 174 (2018): 289–373, here 367–68.
This was the case of Rafał and Stanisław Szadurski, and Jan and Konstanty Benisławski, who joined the order in 1744 and 1761 respectively. ewj, 35–36, 656.
Mariani, “Wspólnota jezuitów,” 169; Mariani, “Personaleinsatz,” 194–95. Janusz Tazbir, “Propaganda kontrreformacji wśród chłopów inflanckich (1582–1621),” Kwartalnik historyczny 65 (1958): 720–41.
See Mathias Niendorf, Das Großfürstentum Litauen: Studien zur Nationsbildung in der Frühen Neuzeit (1569–1795) (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 179–99.
On the situation of Lithuanian Calvinists in the second half of the seventeenth century, see Marceli Kosman, “Sytuacja prawno-polityczna kalwinizmu litewskiego w drugiej połowie xvii wieku,” Odrodzenie i reformacja w Polsce 20 (1975): 81–110.
See Konrad Bobiatyński, Michał Kazimierz Pac: Wojewoda wileński, hetman wielki litewski; Działalność polityczno-wojskowa (Warsaw: Neriton, 2008); Bobiatyński, W walce o hegemonię: Rywalizacja polityczna w Wielkim Księstwie Litewskim w latach 1667–1674 (Warsaw: Neriton, 2016).
Mariani, “Wspólnota jezuitów,” 164–66.
