b a ž n y č i o s i s t o r i j o s s t u d i j o s , v i . v i l n i u s , 2013
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis . t. 37 B. issn 1392-0502
Wioletta Pawlikowska-Butterwick
The Vilnius CaThedral ChaPTer and The
JeWs in The sixTeenTh and seVenTeenTh
CenTuries: Cases from The aCTs of The
CaThedral ChaPTer
M
any scholars have been drawn to study relations between
the Jewish population and the Catholic clergy in the Polishlithuanian Commonwealth 1. however, the coverage of these
complicated questions remains uneven. doubtlessly, among the most
prominent issues are conlicts related to confessional diferences. it was
from the position of religious alterity that the Catholic side most often
acted against those who kept the old Covenant. such attacks were
also the ones that had the most far-reaching efects, at least according
to most of the historiography. however, mutual relations between
the Catholic clergy and the Jews were by no means restricted to such
conlicts. here can be no doubt that contacts of economic nature were
among the principal ways the two groups interacted. sometimes these
religious and economic factors overlapped.
hroughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Catholic
clergy, although it constituted a single social and legal (although not
1
see, e. g., antony Polonsky, he Jews in Poland and Russia: 1350 to 1881,
vol. 1, oxford: he littman library of Jewish Civilization, 2010; Zenon Guldon,
“Żydzi wśród chrześcijan w miastach małopolskich w xVi–xViii wieku”, in: Nasza
Przeszłość, 1992, vol. 78, pp. 187–222; stefan Gąsiorowski, Chrześcijanie i Żydzi w
Żółkwi w XVII i XVIII wieku, Kraków: Polska akademia umiejętności, 2001; Barbara
Wizimirska, “Chrześcijanie i Żydzi w rzeszowie w xVii i xViii wieku”, in: Prace
Historyczno-Archiwalne, 1993, vol. 1, pp. 75–90; Waldemar Kowalski, “ludność
żydowska a duchowieństwo archidiakonatu sandomierskiego w xVii-xViii wieku”,
in: Studia Judaica, 1998, vol. 1, pp. 177–99.
87
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
a parliamentary) estate, was not a monolith. nor, of course, were the
Jews. herefore relations between a parish priest or his assistant and local
Jews in a small town or village would have difered considerably from
those between the Jews and the higher clergy – that is, prelates, canons
and bishops – associated with cathedral cities such as Vilnius (Wilno
in Polish, Vilne in Yiddish, Вильня in Belarusian). similarly, oicial
relations could difer considerably from private contacts.
in this paper, i will discuss relations between the Vilnius Cathedral
chapter and Jews (both those who had converted to Christianity and those
who remained in the Judaic religion) in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, mainly in the light of the protocols of the sessions of the
Vilnius chapter. he choice of this kind of material as the principal source
requires a brief commentary. hese protocols are not a faithful relection
of past reality; they do, however, present a record of certain issues and
problems that preoccupied the canons and prelates of Vilnius at the
time. in general, “spicier” situations were recorded, whereas those that
would have seemed rather common to the clergymen in question were
not. so it is in such records that we should look for various exceptional
situations, novelties and revelations. moreover, the one-sidedness – the
roman Catholic view of the given problem – which is characteristic
of this kind of sources may prompt us to question the reliability of
information contained therein. especially suspect may be information
concerning “others”, that is, people in opposing and usually lower social,
confessional or legal positions. hese doubts are, however, mitigated
by the fact that the book of protocols was maintained by a capitular
notary under an oath to record the sessions faithfully. he sessions were
held in secrecy, and members of the chapter who were present were
obliged to maintain secrecy or else face ecclesiastical penalties. above
all, the protocols were kept chiely for internal use of the corporation.
hey were not intended as Judeophobic propaganda, nor were they
court records2. hey were not written in order to persuade their readers,
but simply for ease of reference. herefore, as sources go, they are not
2
references to disputes between inhabitants of the capitular jurydyki were,
however sporadically, entered into the acts.
88
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
particularly biased. my research to date on these protocols has revealed
that they can cast much new light on the everyday life of the city of
Vilnius and its diverse inhabitants. he documents also contain valuable
information on capitular estates that were dispersed over vast areas of
the Grand duchy of lithuania3. he picture that emerges from these
sources is, in its own way, reliable; but, given their limitations, it is
certainly not a full picture. nevertheless, it may serve as a good point of
departure for further research.
from the second half of the sixteenth century, if not earlier, cities
and small towns of the Grand duchy of lithuania became urban centres
that attracted increasing numbers of Jews to settle and trade. he trend
is usually explained by favourable privileges granted to them by the
Grand dukes, in order to stimulate economic life4. unique in europe
was the partial right granted to lithuanian Jews to own and trade
in land. according to Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, this possibly
testiies to “a new quality in the way in which they could function in
society”5. Certainly, Jews played an important role in urbanization
processes within the towns of the Grand duchy of lithuania.
during the seventeenth century, a conviction began to take root that
Jews were necessary in order to create, maintain or restore the trading
character of a settlement. for example, one leaseholder of the Vilnan
capitular estates informed the chapter that “to maintain marketplaces
in Karpiłówka (Карпілаўка), it is necessary to permit the Jews to settle
there, and to provide them with a synagogue and a kirkut”. he chapter
accepted the proposal and decided “to give 30 Jews a site for a synagogue
and a kirkut just outside the town”.6
Wioletta Pawlikowska, Wileńska kapituła katedralna w drugiej połowie XVI
wieku, doctoral dissertation, Poznań, 2011, pp. 13–14.
4
Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, “Žydai”, in: Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos
kultūra: tyrinėjimai ir vaizdai, ed. Vytautas ališauskas [et. al.], Vilnius: aidai, 2001,
p. 796 (Polish translation: Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, “Żydzi”, in: Kultura
Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Analizy i obrazy, Kraków: universitas, 2006, p. 886).
5
Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, “Žydai”, p. 801; Jurgita ŠiaučiūnaitėVerbickienė, “Żydzi”, p. 892.
6
Józef maroszek, “Żydzi wiejscy na Podlasiu w xVii i xViii wieku w świetle
3
89
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
he Jews’ legal status was regulated, although not exclusively, by
privileges granted by the Grand dukes of lithuania. he privilege
granted by Vytautas legalized two kinds of activity – lending at an interest
(pejoratively called usury) and trade – in which less wealthy Jews were
most frequently engaged. hose Jews who succeeded in amassing
greater fortunes sought leases on taverns and other properties and
businesses, especially those that were monopolies, such as distilling and
selling alcohol (propinacja). By the same token, they became the chief
competitors for Christian burghers, especially artisans.
Perhaps paradoxically, the very success achieved by Jews in
the economic sphere contributed to the rise of negative images and
stereotypes, and thus also became one of the motives for assaults and
accusations directed at them. Jewish communities sought to defend
themselves in various ways. one strategy was to appeal to Christian
authorities, such as the king and the grand duke, the lithuanian Tribunal,
municipalities7 and even the Vilnius chapter8 or the bishop, in order to
defend Jewish lives, livelihoods and property. he second strategy was
to take the case to institutions of Jewish communal life – local qahals or
the general council of lithuanian Jewish communities – the Va’ad9.
Vytautas’s privilege regulated social as well as economic aspects
of Jewish life. it permitted the Jews to perform their funeral rites, to
take their oaths by the doors of a synagogue, to maintain synagogues
and cemeteries, and also forbade Christians to disturb their sabbath
(protecting them from attacks by their neighbours)10.
przemian struktury rynku wewnętrznego”, in: Studia Podlaskie, 1989, vol. 2, p. 64.
he cites Kościół zamkowy czyli katedra wileńska w jej dziejowym, liturgicznym,
architektonicznym i ekonomicznym rozwoju, vol. 2: Źródła historyczne na podstawie
aktów kapitulnych i dokumentów historycznych, ed. Jan Kurczewski, Wilno, 1910,
pp. 94–102, but unfortunately these quotations are not to be found there.
7
Cf. david frick, “Jews and others in seventeenth-Century Wilno: life in the
neighborhood”, in: Jewish Studies Quarterly, 2005, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 9.
8
Biržų dvaro teismo knygos, 1620–1745, eds. Vytautas raudeliūnas and romualdas
firkovičius, Vilnius: mintis, 1982, p. 91.
9
david frick, “Jews and others”, p. 9.
10
Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, “Žydai”, p. 799, Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-
90
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
although Jews never became town citizens or burghers, they
remained an established group in towns of the Grand duchy of
lithuania. some historians have even called them the “second urban
estate”11. he Jews of Vilnius were particularly privileged in comparison
to their brethren in Kraków or Warsaw, or the Tatars who lived in the
Vilnan suburb of lukiškės (Łukiszki)12, in that they could settle in the
city centre, which meant that they lived among Christians (Catholics of
both rites, orthodox Christians and various Protestants). he privilege
granted by sigismund iii on 1 June 1593 guaranteed Jews the right “to
acquire and purchase dwellings with the nobility (szlachta), especially
since, at the time of our accession to these domains, the Polish Crown
and the Grand duchy of lithuania, we found [Jews] living [here]”13.
Jewish houses and tenements in Vilnius, according to the indings
of Jerzy ochmański14, Józef maroszek15, mindaugas Paknys16 and
david frick17, were generally located in the area deined by three
streets, named respectively after the Germans (niemiecka / Vokiečių),
the Jews (Żydowska / Žydų / Yidishe), and meat shops (Jatkowa /
mėsinių / Yatkever)18. despite plans made and eforts undertaken in the
Verbickienė, “Żydzi”, p. 890; Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, “he social and legal
status of Jews in the Grand duchy of lithuania and its inluence on the status of
Tatars and Karaites”, in: Central Europe, 2010, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 71.
11
see most recently andrzej B. Zakrzewski, Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie (XVI–
XVIII w.). Prawo – ustrój – społeczeństwo, Warsaw: Campidoglio, 2013, p. 81.
12
Jan Tyszkiewicz, Tatarzy na Litwie i w Polsce. Studia z dziejów XIII-XVIII w.,
Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo naukowe, 1989, p. 228.
13
Quoted after david frick, “Jews and others”, p. 13.
14
Jerzy ochmański, Dawna Litwa, olsztyn: Pojezierze, 1982, p. 90.
15
Józef maroszek, “ulice Wilna w xiV–xViii wieku”, in: Kwartalnik Historii
Kultury Materialnej, 1999, vol. 47, no. 1–2, p. 168.
16
mindaugas Paknys, “Wilno roku 1636 według ‘rewizji gospód’, in: LituanoSlavica Posnaniensia. Studia Historica, 2007, vol. 12, pp. 103n; see also mindaugas
Paknys, Vilniaus miestas ir miestiečiai 1636 m.: Namai, gyventojai, svečiai, Vilnius:
Vilniaus dailės akademijos leidykla, 2006.
17
Quoted after david frick, “Jews and others”, p. 16.
18
see the plan of the city reconstructed by maria Łowmiańska on the basis of
the 1648 plan of the city’s fortiications by friedrich Getkant (1614–1666) and other
91
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
seventeenth century, there was no distinctly Jewish district isolated from
the rest of the city. Jewish tenements were, however, in most respects
excluded from the jurisdiction of the city courts, and could almost be
considered a separate Jewish jurydyka, albeit without the land19.
over the two centuries in question, several dozen issues with
a Jewish element appear in the Vilnan capitular acts. many were of
religious or confessional nature, others were economic, although the
categories can overlap. one of the earliest cases of the former kind
may be linked to accusations that Jews participated in “profanation of
the host”20. under the date of 25 december 1525, it was noted that
during the administering of communion in the parish church of st
John in Vilnius, “a common lithuanian man, who did not even know
our father” (simplex homo lituanus, nesciens Pater noster), took the
holiest sacrament of the eucharist without having irst confessed his
sins. having exited the church, he retrieved the host from his mouth
with his hand and placed it in a pouch (marsupium). he was, however,
caught in the sacrilegious act by a passing woman. during interrogation,
he testiied that he had been paid by Jews, from whom he had received
20 lithuanian grosze in advance, and expected to receive the same
sum upon delivery21. unfortunately, the acts do not inform us of the
outcome of this case. further research will be hindered by the absence
of any names.
ecclesiastical legislation, following the principle of restricting
contacts between Christians and Jews, forbade mixed marriages and
Jews holding public oice22. he decrees of the hird lateran Council of
sources, maria Łowmiańska, Wilno przed najazdem moskiewskim 1655 roku, Wilno:
Wydawn. magistratu m. Wilna, 1929. see also Vilniaus namai archyvų fonduose, vol.
1–13, ed. Vladas drėma, Vilnius: savastis, 1995–2007.
19
Józef maroszek, “ulice Wilna”, p. 171.
20
on this question, see most recently (for a slightly later period): magda Teter,
Sinners on Trial: Jews and Sacrilege after the Reformation, Cambridge harvard university
Press, 2011, pp. 89n.
21
[mamert herburt], Wypisy z aktów czyli dziejów kapituły katedry wileńskiey
z siedmiu pierwszych tomów od 1501 – do 1600 r., in: Czartoryski library, ms 3516
(hereafter – herburt), § 212, 213, fol. 36.
22
david Knowles, dimitri obolensky, Historia Kościoła, vol. 2, Warsaw, 1988,
92
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
1179 prohibited Jews from employing Christian servants, and forbade
Christians to live together with Jews. hese regulations were extended at
the fourth lateran Council in 1215. at the same time, while Jews were
permitted to engage in supplying credit, charging excessive interest rates
was condemned as usury. he fourth lateran Council also commanded
that Jews wear distinctive clothing in order to alert others about their
presence. he aim of the conciliar legislation was therefore maximally
to restrict contacts between Jews and Christians and, by the same
token, to minimize the inluence of Jews on Christians – an inluence
considered highly negative. his medieval legislation was conirmed in
its essential points by the Council of Trent (1545–1563)23. however,
the legal situation of Jews was also regulated by, alongside the grand
ducal privileges, the lithuanian statutes. Bans contained in all three
statutes (1529, 1566, 1588) on Jews holding public oice or employing
Christian servants, especially wet-nurses24, were based on canon law25.
his question is all the more interesting in that some senior clergymen–
prelates and canons with beneices in Vilnius – were members of the
commission which drafted the statutes26. Provisions of the civil law were
supplemented and deined more precisely in the statutes of provincial
and diocesan synods and in the pastoral letters issued by bishops27.
p. 290; Jacek Krochmal, Krzyż i menora: Żydzi i chrześcijanie w Przemyślu w latach
1559–1772, Przemyśl: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Przyjaciół nauk w Przemyślu,
1996, pp. 141n.
23
Wojciech Góralski, Reforma trydencka w diecezji i prowincji kościelnej
mediolańskiej w świetle pierwszych synodów kard. Karola Boromeusza, lublin:
Wydawnictwo Kul, 1988, pp. 309–11.
24
andrzej B. Zakrzewski, “ograniczenia ludności żydowskiej w nieświeżu
xVii-xViii wieku: dwa przyczynki”, in: Praeities Pėdsakais: skiriama profesoriaus
daktaro Zigmanto Kiaupos 65-mečiui, eds. egidijus aleksandravičius, artūras dubonis,
elmantas meilus, rimantas miknys, edmundas rimša, Vilnius: lietuvos istorijos
institutas, 2007, pp. 381–82; andrzej B. Zakrzewski, Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, p. 81.
25
leszek Winowski, Innowiercy w poglądach uczonych zachodniego chrześcijaństwa,
Wrocław: Zakład narodowy im. ossolińskich, 1985, pp. 134–63.
26
Grzegorz Błaszczyk, Diecezja żmudzka od XV wieku do początku XVII wieku.
Ustrój, Poznań: uniwersytet im. adama mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 1993, pp. 58–59.
27
Judith Kalik, “Jews in Catholic ecclesiastical legislation in the Polish-
93
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
he prohibition on Jews employing Christian servants was intended
to protect Christians from “corruption” by the “inidels”28. it is noteworthy
that corresponding proscriptions, aimed at isolating Jews from Christians,
can be found in Jewish law and teaching29. it is also characteristic that
the frequency with which these bans were repeated testiies to their
very limited efectiveness, given that even popes were known to
employ Jewish physicians30. he Bishop of Wenden (Cēsis), aleksander
Krzysztof Chodkiewicz († 1676) even gave a Jew keys to a church31.
on 11 october 1557, the bishop of Vilnius announced at a session
of the chapter that many Christian women openly lived with Jews and
other “inidels”, and that children had been born in these relationships.
he chapter advised him that, in order to avoid the divine wrath that
had once destroyed sodom and Gomorra being turned on Vilnius for
such appalling lawlessness, the bishop should try, if these women should
persist in their sin without punishment, to reform these ofenders using
lithuanian Commonwealth”, in: Jewish History Quarterly, 2004, vol. 209, no. 1, pp.
26–39; Zakrzewski, Wielkie Księstwo Litewskie, p. 81.
28
Jacek Krochmal, Krzyż i menora, pp. 141n; see also adam Kaźmierczyk, “he
Problem of Christian servants as relected in the legal Codes of the Polish-lithuanian
Commonwealth during the second half of the seventeenth Century and in the saxon
Period”’, in: Gal-Ed, 1997, vol. 15–16, pp. 23–40; Judith Kalik, “Christian servants
employed by Jews in the Polish-lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17–18th Century”,
in: Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, 2001, vol. 14, pp. 259–70; Jakub Goldberg, “sprawa
zatrudniania przez Żydów czeladzi i służby chrześcijańskiej w rzeczypospolitej w
xVi–xViii wieku”, in: Jakub Goldberg, Żydzi w społeczeństwie, gospodarce i kulturze
Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej, Kraków: Polska akademia umiejętności, 2012, pp. 71–76.
29
magda Teter, “here should Be no love Between us and hem”: social life
and the Bounds of Jewish and Canon law in early modern Poland”, in: Polin: Studies
in Polish Jewry, vol. 22: Social and Cultural Boundaries in Pre-Modern Poland, eds.
magda Teter, adam Teller and antony Polonsky, 2010, oxford; Portland, oregon:
littman library of Jewish Civilization, pp. 253n.
30
majer Bałaban, Historia i literatura żydowska ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem
historii Żydów w Polsce, lwów: Zakład narodowy im. ossolińskich, 1925, vol. 2, p. 75;
Jacek Krochmal, Krzyż i menora, p. 142.
31
Kościół zamkowy czyli katedra wileńska: w jej dziejowym, liturgicznym,
architektonicznym i ekonomicznym rozwoju, vol. 3: Streszczenie aktów kapituły wileńskiej,
ed. Jan Kurczewski, Wilno: nakład i druk J. Zawadzki, 1913, p. 182.
94
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
the means at his disposal, imposing penalties and even imprisonment.
as a last resort, the stubbornly disobedient could be reported to the
king32. a complaint of similar content was noted in the capitular acts
a century later. on 21 may 1668, the bishop of Vilnius addressed the
chapter, asking, with a heavy heart, for counsel regarding what could
be done with those Jews and Tatars who kept Christian women in
their houses, fathered children with them, and later smothered them.
should he turn to the king for help, or summon those accused before
the episcopal court? he chapter advised the bishop to ask the king for
the execution of the law forbidding Christians (in royal possessions) to
serve in households of Jews and Tatars33. his accusation should not
be confused with accusations of ritual murder, which became more
common during the seventeenth century34.
in 1598 the papal nuncio Germanico malaspina evidently regarded
the situation in Vilnius as scandalous: “ordinary Catholic men marry
heretic [Protestant] women, and vice versa, and although the Catholic
man or woman almost always converts the heretic to his or her faith,
such marriages are forbidden by canon law. Bishops do not usually
permit them and prohibit parish priests from solemnizing matrimony,
although they sometimes look the other way”35. it is worth adding
that while marriages between diferent Christian denominations were
accepted, marriages between Christians and Jews had to be preceded
by conversion. he acts refer to several cases of Jews converting to
Catholicism. he Vilnius chapter put some efort into supporting
Acta Capituli Vilnensis (hereafter – ACV), vol. iii, f. 171v–72, constitute f. 43,
s. 210/1–225, in: Manuscript Department of the Wróblewski Library of the Lithuanian
Academy of Sciences.
33
ACV, vol. xV, fol. 29.
34
marcin Zgliński, “nagrobki i kult oiar rzekomych żydowskich mordów
rytualnych na historycznych ziemiach litewskich w xVii–xix wieku”, in: Dailės istorijos
studijos, vol. 4: Socialinių tapatumų reprezentacijos Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės
kultūroje, ed. aistė Paliušytė, Vilnius: lietuvos kultūros tyrimų institutas, 2010, pp.
303–43. for the Polish Crown Cf. Zenon Guldon, Jacek Wijaczka, Procesy o mordy
rytualne w Polsce w XV–XVIII w., Kielce: dCf, 1995.
35
Relacye nuncyuszów apostolskich i innych osób o Polsce od roku 1548 do 1690,
vol. 2, ed. erazm rykaczewski, Poznań and Berlin, 1864, p. 90.
32
95
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
converts from Judaism. on 21 may 1674, it instructed the subcustodian of the cathedral to disburse 40 złotys to a converted Jew, Józef
Józefowicz, to support him in his craft as a tailor. on the same day it
was decided to aid “a certain freshly converted unmarried orphan” with
20 złotys36. finally, maciej dobratycki, who was a secretary and scribe
to bishop Paweł holszański and a supernumerary canon of Vilnius, was
ex Iudeo Christianus factus37.
Were converts from Judaism really considered noble, as the letter
of the hird lithuanian statute suggests? in describing the severity of
punishment for killing a Jew38, it proposes: “and if a Jew or Jewess shall
accept the Christian faith, then every such person and their descendants
shall be considered noble”39. some light may be shed on the interpretation
of the law in an ecclesiastical town in the later seventeenth century by
a complaint made to the Vilnius chapter on 3 october 1667 by the
burghers of Poswol (Pasvalys) against local Jews. hey complained, irstly,
that Jews owned more than eight houses in Poswol; secondly, that a Jew
who was wronged or assaulted by Christians received compensation
according to the rights of a nobleman, whereas a Christian wronged or
assaulted by Jews received compensation as ordinary burghers. hey also
asked to remove from lease izaak moszkowicz, a Jew, and reported that
ACV, vol. xVii, fol. 38.
Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lithuaniae gentiumque initimarum historiam
illustrantia; maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta collecta
ac serie chronologica disposita, vol. 2: ab Ioanne PP. XXIII. usque ad Pium PP. V. 1410–
1572, ed. augustinus heiner, rome: Zeller, 1861, pp. 552–553.
38
according to the first lithuanian statute (1529), the punishment for killing a
Jew was the same as for killing a nobleman – 100 schocks of lithuanian grosze. he life
of a burgher was priced at just 12 schocks. see anatol leszczyński, “sytuacja prawna
Żydów ziemi bielskiej od końca xV w. do 1795 r.”, in: Biuletyn Żydowskiego Instytutu
Historycznego, 1975, vol. 96, no. 2, p. 34.
39
Litovskij Statut 1588 goda, vol. 2, ed. ivan ivanovič lappo, Kaunas:
“spindulio” sp., 1938, p. 450. it is notable that at least some Jews who changed
their confession were enobled even before the adoption of the hird lithuanian
statute: Jakub Goldberg, “Żydowscy konwertyci w społeczeństwie staropolskim”,
in see: Jakub Goldberg, Żydzi w społeczeństwie, gospodarce i kulturze Rzeczypospolitej
szlacheckiej, pp. 247n.
36
37
96
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
Jews had taken a site where Christians had hitherto had a slaughterhouse.
he chapter’s reply is equally suggestive: “1) Jews may not have more
than eight sites and houses. But they may receive neighbouring Jews on
one site and into one house; 2) in disputes between Christians and Jews,
punishments should be equal; 3) the arendator has the right, according to
the contract, to lease property until the feast of st Casimir [4 march]; and
the chapter will discuss the situation after that”40; 4) regarding the site of
a former slaughterhouse, the chapter decided that although “Jews have
paid the heirs of the owner, Christians are free to pay the Jews. in case of
competition between a Christian and Jews for the lease of empty sites, the
Christian shall have priority as closer and as better suited to business”41.
although we might suppose that the Catholic clergy celebrated
every newly-caught soul, the chapter showed a certain reserve regarding
conversions from Judaism. at a capitular session on 30 september 1670,
a case was discussed concerning a Jew who had apparently abducted
his daughter (a convert) and her child from the house of her Christian
husband. for this he had been arrested and incarcerated in the episcopal
prison by Wojciech oborski, who was the canon of Piltyń (Piltene),
dean of minsk (Менск) and the parish priest of iwieniec (Івянец). in
the meantime, a noble arendator, Pożaryski, wishing to free the Jew,
iled a suit against reverend oborski in the castle court at minsk, and
simultaneously slandered him. he chapter 1) resolved to summon
Pożaryski before a consistory court, in order that he might hear the
punishments he had incurred by violating the bull In Coena Domini42
izaak moszkowicz’s lease was probably extended. in any case he was mentioned
as an inhabitant of Poswol alongside the wójt of Trakai (Troki) abraham moszkiewicz
on 2 march 1695. see Biržų dvaro teismo knygos, p. 89.
41
ACV, vol. xV, fol. 9. see Kościół zamkowy, vol. 3, pp. 185–86.
42
he bull In Coena Domini (1366) was a statement of ecclesiastical censure
against heresies, schisms, sacrilege, infringement of papal and ecclesiastical privileges,
attacks on person and property, piracy, forgery and other crimes. Traditionally read
out on maundy hursday, it caused controversy well into the nineteenth century, as
evidenced by Papal Diplomacy and the Bull “In Coena Domini”; or, a Collection of
authentic facts and documents, Proving that the Principles of the Bull “in Coena
domini” are the only Principles of international law recognized by the Papacy,
london: J. hatchard, 1848.
40
97
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
and committing an illegal evocation (evocatio)43 of a priest; 2) suggested
that reverend oborski sue Pożaryski for slander; 3) forbade oborski to
appear before the minsk castle court; and 4) ordered the oicjał (oicialis)
of the diocese to inform the starosta of minsk about a démarche exceptio
forum44 with regard to the dean45. in cases involving Christians, Jews
were to answer before the palatine’s court46. in this particular case,
however, the dispute over a Jew occurred between a clergyman and a lay
nobleman. moreover, the Catholic clergy, on the basis of the privilege
privilegium fori, was exempted from lay jurisdiction (with the exception
of suits over landed estates)47.
a few weeks later, on 17 december 1670, the Jew, who had been
kept in the episcopal prison, expressed his fervent desire to accept baptism
and, moreover, pointed to six Vilnan Jews who had supposedly hidden
two abducted baptized Jewesses. he also advised the imprisonment
of those Jews. however, the chapter considered this denunciation
suspicious. in the question of abduction, it judged it better to summon
not the Jews of Vilnius, but those of minsk. as for the possible baptism
of the incarcerated Jew, it recommended that a Jesuit be sent to examine
him; if the sincerity of his wish to be baptized was conirmed, then the
Jesuit should instruct the Jew in the principles of the Catholic faith48.
Both in the sixteenth and in the seventeenth century, Jews were
often assigned leases of taverns and other property. he conditions that
in old Polish law this meant a summons before a court that was inappropriate
for the person summoned, for which there were punishments poenae evocatoriae,
see Zygmunt Gloger, Encyklopedia staropolska ilustrowana, vol. 2, Warsaw: druk
P. laskauere i W. Babicki, 1901, p. 138.
44
a formal-legal complaint with regard to the course of court procedure, made
by the summoned person during the court session.
45
ACV, vol. xV, fol. 99.
46
adam Kaźmierczyk, Żydzi w dobrach prywatnych w świetle sądowniczej i
administracyjnej praktyki dóbr magnackich w wiekach XVI–XVIII, Kraków: Księgarnia
akademicka, 2002, pp. 160n.
47
Zdzisław Kaczmarczyk and Bogusław leśnodorski (eds.), Historia państwa i
prawa Polski, vol. 2: Od połowy XV wieku do r. 1795, ed. Juliusz Bardach, Warsaw:
Państwowe Wydawnictwo naukowe, 1968, p. 82.
48
ACV, vol. xV, fol. 112.
43
98
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
were applied, however, difered from those for noblemen and burghers.
Christians paid their dues in instalments, whereas Jewish arendators
usually paid the entire sum for a speciied duration of the lease up front49.
he Chapter of Vilnius leased taverns and other property to both Jews
and converts from Judaism. he known cases attest to a considerable
care shown by the corporation with regard to both kinds of leaseholders.
on 18 June 1571, the chapter heard that the permanent assistant priest
(wikary) of the parish church of Vitsebsk (Віцебск), reverend seweryn
Pankowski, had leased a tavern in the town to a baptized Jew. he lease
was to be paid in several instalments, amounting to 110 schocks of
lithuanian grosze. despite the fact that Pankowski had not consulted
anyone in making his decision, the chapter agreed to issue a receipt for
the lease50. he question came up again the following year – on 1 July
1572 – before the lease had expired. Vilnan canons and prelates, and the
assistant priests of Vitsebsk, considered the proposal of the palatine of
Vitsebsk, stanisław Pac (†1588), who wished once again to take the lease
of the tavern, which was currently held by the converted Jew. assistant
priests of Vitsebsk, represented by the sub-dean, Jakub młyński, and
maciej Chmielewski, left the decision to the Vilnius chapter51. at a
capitular session on 25 august 1572, the procurator of the chapter, Canon
Wawrzyniec Wolski, presented letters from the manager of the chapter’s
Vitsebsk properties, Bazyli Bohdanowicz, and the unnamed arendator
of the tavern. Both advised the chapter against leasing the tavern to
Palatine Pac, among other reasons because he had demanded to see the
measures used for vodka, beer and other drinks. When the arendator
had asked for time to consult the chapter, Pac “violently sent military
Cossacks and his servants to the tavern, who having broken the doors
and locks, partly drank the vodka and beer, partly sold it, and poured
the rest from its barrels onto the ground, breaking open some barrels,
michał Wąsowicz, Kontrakty lwowskie 1676–1685, lwów, 1935, pp. 44n; Jakub
Goldberg, “Władza dominalna Żydów w xVii–xViii w.”, in: Przegląd Historyczny,
1990, vol. 81, p. 194.
50
herburt, § 128-30, f. 205–06; ACV, vol. V, f. 42v–43.
51
herburt, § 230–31, fol. 211; ACV, vol. V, f. 70v–71.
49
99
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
and in doing so causing damage reckoned at 100 schocks of lithuanian
grosze. such serious violence was committed by him there, despite and
overriding protests from the gentlemen in charge of the inspection
of the said church in Vitsebsk and of recording its income”52. in this
situation, the chapter resolved to send a vicar of the cathedral, maciej
Chmielewski, along with the capitular notary to Vitsebsk53. it was only
ive years later – on 5 october 1584 – that the Vitsebsk tavern was given
on a three-year lease to stanisław Pac54. on 7 april 1587, the lease was
extended for further three years, commencing on 2 february 158855.
soon afterwards, on 28 september 1588, Pac died, and the chapter
decided to accede to the requests of lew sapieha, the vice-chancellor of
the Grand duchy of lithuania, to lease him the taverns, which belonged
to the Vitsebsk parish, for three years56. he acts of the chapter indicate
that the leasing of the Vitsebsk taverns to a converted Jew was but an
episode. nevertheless, Jews still played a part in their functioning. on
15 July 1597, at the request of an “inidel Jew”, Jakub ilinicz, a trader
in the Vitsebsk taverns, the chapter instructed the manager, hieronim
Podlecki, immediately to repair the buildings that belonged to the
tavern, including storehouses. he costs were to be met by the chapter57.
Clergymen sometimes took the side of their Jewish leaseholders
in court. in 1670, the Vilnan prelate Krzysztof Przecławski successfully
testiied in the defence of fajwisz, his leaseholder, in a case against a
Jewish criminal gang accused of forgery, theft and murder. fajwisz was
probably their partner in crime but, in order to obtain his own acquittal,
he had decided to betray the gangsters58.
herburt, § 237–38, f. 211–12; ACV, vol. V, f. 73–4.
herburt, § 237–38, f. 211–12; ACV, vol. V, f. 73–74.
54
herburt, § 290–92, fol. 267; ACV, vol. Vi, f. 375–78.
55
herburt, § 111, fol. 285; ACV, vol. Vii, f. 59v–60.
56
herburt, § 202–04, f. 293–94; ACV, vol. Vii, f. 104–05.
57
herburt, § 853–854, fol. 335; aCV, vol. Vii, fol. 305.
58
Judith Kalik, “economic relations between the Catholic Church and the Jews
in the Polish - lithuanian Commonwealth in the 17th – 18th Centuries”, in: http://
icj.huji.ac.il/conference/papers/Judith%20 Kalik%20.pdf (2013-05-20).
52
53
100
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
Prince hieronim sanguszko, sufragan bishop of Vilnius and later
bishop of smolensk, declared in a contract of 1651: “i have leased [the
raków estates] to mr idel Jakubowicz, one of my Jews from raków,
for three years for 27,000 Polish złotys, reckoning 9000 for each year,
and of which a sum of 27,000 Polish złotys i have already received in
full”59. his was not a secured loan but a lease, in which the lord or the
starosta obtained credit, as it were, from the arendator. he payment of
the entire sum for the lease in advance strengthened the latter’s position,
because if the contract were breached by the former, he would have to
repay a substantial amount to the Jew60, who thus could enjoy relative
stability and could make his investment grow.
Contacts between the Vilnius chapter, both as a corporation
and its individual members, with Jews, both those in the city of
Vilnius and those living in capitular estates, were, because of the
proximity of their residences, certainly more frequent than the sources
indicate. such co-existence, unsurprisingly, gave rise to conlicts. at
the same time common interests necessitated compromises. hese
are particularly visible in the urban space of Vilnius, which the papal
nuncio aloisius lippomano called, in 1555, “Babylon, because [–]
there are armenians, muscovites, ruthenians, Tatars, lithuanians,
Germans and italians, but few good Christians”61. he streets of Vilnius
Quoted after Goldberg, “Władza dominalna Żydów”, pp. 193–94.
Wąsowicz, Kontrakty lwowskie, pp. 44n; Goldberg, “Władza dominalna
Żydów”, p. 194.
61
“Questa Citta e una Babilonia, perche pare che vi sia d’ogni natione, quae
sub coelo est: armeni, moscoviti, rotoni [sic], Tartari, Turchi, littuani, Tedeschi et
italiani, ma pochi buoni Christiani” (Vilnae, 3 xi 1555), (Acta Nuntiaturae Poloniae,
Aloisius Lippomano (1555–1557), vol. 3/1, editor henryk damian Wojtyska, romae:
institutum historicum Polonicum, 1993, p. 77, no. 50.) it is interesting that lippomani
mentioned neither “Poles” nor Jews. he composition of the Vilnius chapter in the
second half of the sixteenth century is also notable: of the 75 canons and prelates who
were members of the chapter during this period, just 17, or 23%, came from the Grand
duchy of lithuania (including its ruthenian, but not its Podlasian territories). six
came from Podlasie (8%), all of whom were installed while Podlasie was still formally
part of the Grand duchy of lithuania. among the remaining members of the chapter,
we can establish an origin in one or other lands of the Polish Crown, not including
59
60
101
bažnyčios istorijos studijos, vi.
lietuvių katalikų mokslo akademijos metraštis. t. 37 b.
were illed by a multilingual crowd. “ethnic” diferences overlapped
with religious ones62.
Catholic and Jewish religious authorities alike sought to restrict
contacts between Christians and Jews – they oicially opposed mixed
relationships. in practice, though, the boundaries could be crossed.
marital bonds between a Catholic and a non-Christian partner were
preceded by the conversion of the latter, which was a source of great
distress to the rabbis. hey in turn treated informal sexual relations
between Jews and Gentiles as idolatry. formal prohibitions and both
secular and canon law restricted, but could not entirely prevent,
personal contacts between individual priests or the chapter as a whole
and Jews, which we may generally characterize as correct. he acts of
the Vilnius cathedral chapter contain relatively little evidence of either
fervour to convert Jews to Catholicism or phobias about ritual murder
or profanation. in the more frequent economic problems, the chapter
generally strove to uphold the rights of “its” Jews, whether they were
royal Prussia, for a further 41–55 % of the total. nine persons (12 %) came from
places beyond the Grand duchy of lithuania and the Polish Crown and one person
(1 %) came from royal Prussia. We have insuicient information to establish the origin
of one clergymen. see Wioletta Pawlikowska-Butterwick, “a “foreign” elite? he
Territorial origins of the Canons and Prelates of the Cathedral Chapter of Vilna in the
second half of the sixteenth Century”, in: Slavonic and East European Review, 2014,
vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 44–80. he igures published in my article “he Prelates and Canons
of Vilnius in the second half of the sixteenth Century: a Prosopographical study
of selected Questions”, in: Studies in Church History, vol. 5: Religious Communities in
Lithuanian History: Life and Identity, ed. arūnas streikus (lCas annuols, vol. 36,
series B), Vilnius: 2012, pp. 40–41 need to be corrected. it has since been possible to
establish the territorial origins of a further six persons (8%).
see Акты издаваемые Коммиссіею, Высочайше учрежденною для разбора
древних актов в Вильнѣ, vol. 29, Вильна; Wilnianie: Żywoty siedemnastowieczne, ed.
david frick, Warsaw: Przegląd Wschodni, 2008; david frick, “Jews in Public Places:
Chapters in the Jewish-Christian encounter in seventeenth-Century Wilno”, in: Polin,
2010, vol. 22, pp. 215–48; david frick, “according to the Confession in Which i die:
Taking the measure of allegiances in seventeenth-Century Wilno”, in: Central Europe,
2010, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 107–22; david frick, Kith, Kin, and Neighbors: Communities
and Confessions in Seventeenth-Century Wilno, ithaca: Cornell university Press, 2013;
J. niedźwiedź, Kultura literacka Wilna (1323–1655): Retoryczna organizacja miasta,
Kraków: universitas, 2012.
62
102
wioletta pawlikowska-butterwick. the vilnius cathedral chapter
and the jews in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
converts or not, against those noblemen and burghers who challenged
them – sometimes violently. Contacts between Jews and Christian
burghers were often far less polite. Was this perhaps due to the fact that,
for the chapter, Jews were a source of income, whereas for the burghers
they were unwelcome competitors?
103