LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

huge estates and whole towns, were favorably disposed towards the Jews who lived in their domains, and added to their wealth as farmers and tax-payers. But the petty Shlakhta, the struggling squires, who were looking for places in the civil and state service, arrayed themselves on the side of the burgher class, which had always been hostile to the Jews. This petty Shlakhta bitterly resented the fact that the royal revenues had been turned over to Jewish contractors, who, as collectors of customs and taxes, attained to official dignity, and gradually forced their way into the ranks of the nobility. The income from the collection of the revenues and the influence connected with it this Shlakhta regarded as its inalienable prerogative. The clergy again saw in this enhancement of Jewish influence a serious menace to the Catholic faith, while the urban estates had a vital interest in limiting the commercial rights of the Jews.

      At the Piotrkov Diet of 1538 the anti-Jewish agitation was carried on with considerable success. It resulted in the adoption of a statute, or a "constitution," containing a separate Jewish section, in which the old canonical laws cropped out:

      We hereby prescribe and decree—it is stated in that section—that from now on and for all future time all those who manage our revenues must unconditionally be members of the landed nobility, and persons professing the Christian faith. … We ordain for inviolable observance that no Jews shall be intrusted [in the capacity of contractors] with the collection of revenues of any kind. For it is unworthy and contrary to divine right that persons of this description should be admitted to any kind of honors or to the discharge of public functions among Christian people.

      It is further decreed that the Jews have no right of unrestricted commerce, and can do no business in any locality, except with the special permission of the king or by agreement with the magistracies; in the villages they are forbidden to trade altogether. Pawnbroking and money-lending on the part of Jews are hedged about by a series of oppressive regulations. The capstone of the Piotrkov "constitution" is the following clause:

      Whereas the Jews, disregarding the ancient regulations, have thrown off the marks by which they were distinguishable from the Christians, and have arrogated to themselves a form of dress which closely resembles that of the Christians, so that it is impossible to recognize them, be it resolved for permanent observance: that the Jews of our realm, all and sundry, in whatever place they happen to be found, shall wear special marks, to wit, a barret, or hat, or some other headgear of yellow cloth. Exception is to be made in favor of travelers, who, while on the road, shall be permitted to discard or conceal marks of this kind.

      The fine for violating this regulation is fixed at one gulden.

      The only articles of the "constitution" of 1538 which had serious consequences for the Jews of the Crown—the Jews of Lithuania were not affected by these regulations—were those barring them from tax-farming and subjecting them to commercial restrictions. The canonical law concerning a distinctive headgear was more in the nature of a demonstration than a serious legal enactment, since compliance with it, owing to the high state of culture among the Polish Jews and their important rôle in the economic life of the country, was a matter of impossibility. Behind this regulation lurks the hand of the Catholic clergy, which was alarmed at that time by the initial successes of the Reformation in Poland, and was in fear that the influence of Judaism might enhance the progress of the heresy. The excited imagination of the clerical fanatics perceived signs of a "Jewish propaganda" in the rationalistic doctrine of "Anti-Trinitarianism," which was then making its appearance, denying the dogma of the Holy Trinity. The specter of a rising sect of "Judaizers" haunted the guardians of the Church. One occurrence in particular engendered tremendous excitement among the inhabitants of Cracow. A Catholic woman of that city, Catherine Zaleshovska by name, the wife of an alderman, and four score years of age, was convicted of denying the fundamental dogmas of Christianity and adhering secretly to Jewish doctrines. The Bishop of Cracow, Peter Gamrat, having made futile endeavors to bring Catherine back into the fold of the Church, condemned her to death. The unfortunate woman was burned at the stake on the market-place of Cracow in 1539.

      The following description of this event was penned by an eye-witness, the Polish writer Lucas Gurnitzki:

      The priest Gamrat, Bishop of Cracow, assembled all canons and collegiates in order to examine her [Catherine Zaleshovska, who had been accused of "Judaizing"] as to her principles of faith. When, in accordance with our creed, she was asked whether she believed in Almighty God, the Creator of heaven and earth, she replied: "I believe in God, who created all that we see and do not see, who cannot be comprehended by the human reason, who poureth forth His bounty over man and over all things in the universe." "Do you believe in His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost?" she was asked. She answered: "The Lord God has neither wife nor son, nor does He need them. For sons are needed by those who die, but God is eternal, and since He was not born, it is impossible that He should die. It is we whom He considers His sons, and His sons are those who walk in His paths." Here the collegiates shouted: "Thou utterest evil, thou miserable one! Bethink thyself! Surely there are prophecies that the Lord would send His Son into the world to be crucified for our sins, in order that we, having been disobedient from the days of our ancestor Adam, may be reconciled to God the Father?" A great deal more was said by the learned men to the apostate woman, but the more they spoke, the more stubborn was she in her contention that God was not and could not be born as a human being. When it was found impossible to detach her from her Jewish beliefs, it was decided to convict her of blasphemy. She was taken to the city jail, and a few days later she was burned. She went to her death without the slightest fear.

      The well-known contemporary chronicler Bielski expresses himself similarly: "She went to her death as if it were a wedding."

      During the same time there were rumors afloat to the effect that in various places in Poland, particularly in the province of Cracow, many Christians were embracing Judaism, and, after undergoing circumcision, were fleeing for greater safety to Lithuania, where they were sheltered by the local Jews. When the rumor reached the King, he dispatched two commissioners to Lithuania to direct a strict investigation. The officers of the King proceeded with excessive ardor; they raided Jewish homes, and stopped travelers on the road, making arrests and holding cross-examinations. The inquiry failed to reveal the presence of Judaizing sectarians in Lithuania, though it caused the Jews considerable trouble and alarm (1539).

      Scarcely had this investigation been closed when the Lithuanian Jews were faced by another charge. Many of them were said to be on the point of leaving the country, and, acting with the knowledge and co-operation of the Sultan, intended to emigrate to Turkey, accompanied by the Christians who had been converted to Judaism. It was even rumored that the Jews had already succeeded in dispatching a party of circumcised Christian children and adults across the Moldavian frontier. The King gave orders for a new investigation, which was marked, like the preceding one, by acts of lawlessness and violence. The Jews were in fear that the King might lend an ear to these accusations and withdraw his protection from them. Accordingly Jews of Brest, Grodno, and other Lithuanian cities, hastened to send a deputation to King Sigismund, which solemnly assured him that all the rumors and accusations concerning them were mere slander, that the Lithuanian Jews were faithfully devoted to their country, that they had no intention to emigrate to Turkey, and, finally, that they had never tried to convert Christians to their faith. At the same time they made complaints about the insults and brutalities which had been inflicted upon them, pointing to the detrimental effect of the investigation on the trade of the country. The assertions of the deputation were borne out by the official inquiry, and Sigismund, returning his favor to the Jews, cleared them of all suspicion, and promised henceforward not to trouble them on wholesale charges unsupported by evidence. This pledge was embodied in a special charter, a sort of habeas corpus, granted by the King to the Jews of Lithuania in 1540.

      All this, however, did not discourage the Catholic clergy, who, under the leadership of Bishop Gamrat, continued their agitation against the hated Jews. They incited public opinion against them by means of slanderous books, written in medieval style (De stupendis erroribus Judaeorum, 1541; De sanctis interfectis a Judaeis, 1543). The Church Synod of 1542 assembled in Piotrkov issued the following "constitution":

The Synod, taking into consideration the many dangers that confront

Скачать книгу