Urszula Świderska-Włodarczyk

A self-portrait of a nobleman. Personal self-models in the light of selected Polish 17th-century autobiographical texts

The main purpose of this article is the analysis of the self-portrait of the nobility as presented in autobiographical literature. The analysis was based on four components typical not only of the period described, yet, taken together, determining a comprehensive self-portrait. These include: the fulfilment of genealogical conditions, which is associated with possessing one’s own crest; the theoretical and practical preparation for adult life – gained through education; the personal maturity manifested regardless of the stage of life, although with tolerance for some weakness – so typical of the teenage years; and finally the wealth, inherited and multiplied, although of various provenance, yet primarily used for the right purpose. The fulfilment of the genealogical conditions presented in the analysed autobiographies would be worth little but for the positive verification of the personality conditions based on internal excellence and morality built throughout life. They all enabled the existence of professional and even multi-professional conditions, like the noble’s right to and duty of a civil, parliamentary, diplomatic and military service, as well as working in one’s own belongings, for the benefit of the Republic. None of these, however, could occur, if not complemented by descriptions in the form of social conditioning. These asserted the involvement in the community’s life both on the micro and macro level, ranging from family relationships, friendships, neighbourhood or region, to national and religious community. These are the starting point and culmination of virtues such as patriotism and faith – certified individually and publicly. Such a kind of self-portrait of a nobleman was built by Krzysztof Pieniążek, Jerzy Ossoliński and Jan Chryzostom Pasek. At the same time, they ignored or misrepresented the biographical moments – especially Pieniążek and Pasek – which could depreciate the perfect picture. From a human point of view, those inaccuracies seem possible to excuse. In any case, however, they did not meet the standards of the era, the noble system of values, and hence the personal models and ideals. These standards testify as best as they can to the quality of the times that the Old Polish nobility had to live in.
 

The model of a diplomat at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century in the light of traditional Polish diplomacy guidebooks

The basic source for the study of the pattern of a diplomat were old diplomacy guides from the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century, written by authors such as Krzysztof Warszewicki, Wawrzyniec Piaseczyński and Stanisław Miński. They were all practitioners in the diplomatic service, and each of them had left their own ideas concerning this issue. Despite some differences in the emphasis on individual values, ​they remained consistent in the basic standards. That convergence concerns not only the axiological aspect, but above all the similarity of approach. As a result, we are dealing with depersonalized though personified patterns. This allows us to distinguish those patterns from personal ones, associated with real characters. This observation prompted the formulation of a new definition of a pattern and personal model, written from a historian’s point of view. Both: the above mentioned differentiation and the distinguishing of values conditioning the existence of patterns and models – hence moral authorities, distinguishing between the objective (external), subjective (internal), professional and socio-religious, constitute the essence of the paper. From this perspective, a model diplomat appears as a noble (usually) wealthy man (prefe-rably), a professional of the highest quality, while at the same time a good husband, son, father, neighbour, statesman, patriot and Christian. Analysing other patterns favoured at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century, it can be seen that in general they represent a sum of clearly positive characteristics. The model of a diplomat ordering a double morality might be an exception to this rule. On the one hand, bearing in mind the tasks that the diplomat had to complete, this double morality was obvious, but on the other hand, such a requirement could evoke, and it really did, ethical discomfort and confusion of values. In no case did those confusions concern the authors of the guides. For them, the sovereignty of the fatherland and the Christian faith always remained the highest values. In the name of such values, even unethical conduct was ethical in every respect, because it served the supreme goals.