Piotr Wawrzeniuk - Böcker

This work examines and analyses the reform attempts undertaken by the Greek Orthodox and Uniate Bishop of Lviv, Iosyf Shumliansky, during his episcopacy (1668-1708). These reforms are seen as a means of facing the intensified confessionalising pressures at state and regional levels in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The analysis focuses on the Bishop’s model priest as illustrated in his handbook for the clergy; the influence the Bishop and the Consistorial Court had over the parish clergy; the types of litigation and the categories of plaintiff in the cases concerning the parish clergy; and the clergy’s behaviour. Iosyf Shumliansky required the clergy to adjust its behaviour and educational standards to be similar to those of the nobility and Roman Catholic clergy. The parish clergy should refrain from dressing like peasants, becoming too close to the villagers and from participating too enthusiastically in village festivities. They should learn Polish and Latin. The Bishop expected the clergy to adopt a style of dress and behaviour that would distinguish and elevate it as a group above the mass of the peasantry. Included in the analysis, are cases from the Lviv and Halych main deaneries but not the main deanery of Kamianets Podilsky. The Bishop and the Consistorial Court had good control over most of the western and central regions of the Diocese. The Court could not control the situation in the eastern territories, as it was unsafe because of wars, Tatar raids and occupation by Ottoman forces. The possibility for Shumliansky to influence the parish clergy through the Court in these regions was limited. Their participation in court proceedings was negligible. The most common type of litigation was official misconduct by the priests. After that came violence, finance and defamation. The most common category of plaintiff was parish priests, followed by nobles and honest/reputable/townsmen. In the study, violence has been treated as a means of interaction and communication. It would appear that the status of the parish clergy was often frail and had to be publicly, vigorously and violently defended. Many of the clergy could not live up to the demands of the Bishop because they lived as and among peasants.