Jesuits' Historiographic Canon in the Works of A. Wijuk-Koialowicz in the Age of the Historical Revolution (1580-1661) ; Jėzuitų istoriografinis kanonas A. Vijūko-Kojalavičiaus darbuose istorijos revoliucijos laikotarpiu (1580–1661)

Ju

Sujets

• Cartesianism
• HIStory
• Society of Jesus

Informations

• Publié par: vytautas_magnus_university
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2011
• Nombre de lectures: 24
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

VYTAUTAS MAGNUS UNIVERSITY
THE LITHUANIAN INSTITUTE OF HISTORY





Moreno BONDA





JESUITS' HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON
IN THE WORKS OF A. WIJUK-KOIALOWICZ
IN THE AGE OF THE HISTORICAL REVOLUTION (1580-1661)




Doctoral Dissertation

HUMANITIES, HISTORY (05 H)









Kaunas, 2011


The doctoral dissertation was prepared at Vytautas Magnus University in 2006–2011.
The doctoral study license is granted to Vytautas Magnus University together with the Lithuanian
Institute of History by resolution No. 926 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania on the
th15 of July, 2003.


Scientific supervisor:
Prof. habil. dr. Egidijus Aleksandravičius
(Vytautas Magnus University, Humanities, History 05 H)
















2 CONTENTS
FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................................. 5
INTRODUCTION .......... 6

I. EUROPEAN JESUITS' HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON ..................................................................... 32

I.1. FOUR PARAMETERS FOR THE DEFINITION OF A JESUITS’ HISTORIOGRAPHY ..................... 33
I.1.1 Eduard Fueter’s Criteria .................................................................................... 33
I.1.2. Humanist Historiography as the “Origin” of the Modern One. ........... 36
I.1.3. Re-Definition of the First Parameter: Permanence of the Scholasticism in the Neo-
Platonism .......................................................................................................................................................... 39
I.1.4. Re-Definition of the Second and Third Parameters: the Non-Opposition to the Pagan
Values Tradition ............................................................................................................................................. 44
I.1.5. Re-Definition of the Fourth Parameter: Rhetoric as a Method ........... 48

THI.2. THE PLACE OF HISTORY IN 17 CENTURY “ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCES” .......................... 52
I.2.1. Making history For the Major Glory of God (and Roman Church) ..................................... 52
I.2.2. Making History to Preserve Values: Jesuits and the New Political Doctrines ............... 54
I.2.3. The Cartesian Opposition to Memory .......................................................................................... 63

I.3. JESUITS HISTORIOGRAPHY IN EARLY MODERN EUROPE ............................. 70
I.3.1. General Traits of Jesuits’ Historiography ................................................................................... 71
I.3.2. Jesuit Historiographers .................................................... 77
I.3.3. Piotr Skarga and Pedro Hurtado de Mendoza – The Two Phases of Jesuits’
Historiography................................................ 85
I.3.4. Definition of History in the Ratio Atque Insitutio Studiorum ............................................... 89

I.4. ANTONIO POSSEVINO: THE DEFINITION OF THE HISTORIOGRAPHIC CANON ...................... 93
I.4.1. Possevino's Moscovia ......................................................................................................................... 93
I.4.2. The Bibliotheca Selecta: a Project of Historiographic Canon ............ 102

II. KOIALOWICZ AS A JESUIT HISTORIAN ..................................................................................... 108

II.1. FOUR UNIONIST WORKS: SKARGA'S SERMONS TO THE DIET, POSSEVINO’S MOSCOVIA
AND KOIALOWICZ’S FIRST BOOK OF HISTORIAE LITUANAE AND MISCELLANEA RERUM ....... 109
II.1.1. The “Polemical” Method of Skarga ........................................................................................... 113
II.1.2 Unionism in Possevino and Koialowicz: Historiae Lituanae as Implementation of the
Moscovia’s Theories. .................................................................. 114
II.1.3. Unitarism in Koialowicz’s Miscellanea Rerum ad Statum Ecclesiasticum in Magno
Lituaniae Ducatu pertinentium .............................................................................. 122

II.2. KOIALOWICZ'S HISTORIAE LITUANAE IN THE FRAME OF THE JESUITS
HISTORIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 127
II.2.1. The Portrait of Mindaugas in Koialowicz: Between the structure of Stryjkowski and
the Philosophy of Mariana ....................................................................................................................... 128
II.2.2. Historiae Lituanae and Historiae de rebus Hispaniae: Outlines for a Comparative
Study ................................................................ 134

II.3. ADAM TANNER, MARTIN BECAN AND ALBERT WIJUK-KOIALOWICZ: THE STRUGGLE
AGAINST THE PHILOSOPHES FROM BOHEMIA TO LITHUANIA ....................................................... 140
II.3.1. Rhetoric as Means of Education ................................................................ 145
II.3.2. The Historical Context: a Force that Shapes Consciences ................ 148
3 II.3.3. The Second Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Religious and Political153
II.3.4. The Third Level of Understanding of Historiae Lituanae: Moral and Gnoseologic . 158

CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................................165
ABBREVIATIONS....168
SOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................168
LITERATURE ...........171
PUBLICATIONS ON THE DISSERTATION THEME ........................................................................181


4 FOREWORD

This Doctoral work might appear too similar to a historiography handbook than to a monographic
research because of its approach to the object studied. Some will claim there is too much theory in
it and not enough work in the archives.
However, the main aim of a Doctoral research is to plug gaps being original and „useful.“
For this reason, and since all previous works on the subject are very vast in terms of archive
research and philological analysis but very poor in terms of philosophical contextualization of the
problem, we decide to adopt this second, peculiar, approach even if it is unusual for a doctoral
research.


5 INTRODUCTION

The Field of Research. 'Sometimes, the modern thought even seams to dissolve in the history.
[…] The History not only has acquired its own autonomy but the historical knowledge is now
1knowledge of the truth'. With these two short sentences, Federico Chabod pointed out, in his
Lessons of Historical Method, the relevance, in the coeval thought, of the history as an instrument
of knowledge in its widest sense. According to this scholar, not only the modern identities, but also
the whole modern thought is impregnated with historical reflection. However, the phenomenon is
not exclusively contemporary. Particularly during the Antiquity and Middle Ages, the philosophic
reflection was imbued with history even if the latter was subordinated to ethic and theology: the
dawn of humanity delimited the beginning of a process due to conclude with the accomplishment
2 thof the biblical prophecy. By the end of the 13 century, even the heritage of the Roman history
had been incorporated in the frame of a history guided by the divine providence where the
unification of the known world was due to prepare the descent of Christ among the men (see
§I.2.1.).
Nevertheless, it is only with the sunset of the medieval forma mentis, which subordinated
every aspect of life to the religion, that history begins to be partially freed from the subjection to
morals and the theology. This acquired autonomy stimulated the historical debate and, in turn, the
elaboration of a historical method that finally evolved in a philosophy of history. It is only with the
Humanism that history becomes an autonomous discipline, independent from the high purposes of
ththe ethic and the theology. Yet, even after the 16 century, while the autonomy of history had been
fully achieved by Humanists, some Christian historians continued to understand the study of the
past, and particularly its narrative, as an instrument more than a process. According to these
th th thChristian scholars of the 15 , 16 and early 17 centuries, the great efforts exerted by Christians
since the fall of the Roman Empire to make history the vox Dei, could not be wasted during the
ideological conflicts of the modern ages: while it is true that, on one hand, the modern thought
sometimes seems to dissolve in history, on the other hand, the challenges put out by the new
religious, political and scientific reforms made the philosophy of history an ideological battlefield
(§ I.2.2. and § I.2.3.).
Such an ideological and philosophical confrontation in the arena of history became
thparticularly intricate