‘The Golden Nature’ and ‘the Golden Freedom’

A physician to King Jan III Sobieski, Bernard O’Connor had a high opinion of the Commonwealth gentry, including their health and looks but also their character. He stressed their open-heartedness, generosity and honesty, ‘The Poles are generally open-hearted and honest… more apt to be deceiv’d than to deceive.’ He also pointed to the Polish hospitality towards foreigners, apparent in the fact that visitors would be taken in noblemen’s own homes and readily imitated. A similar opinion of Polish gentry was expressed by the secretary to the French Embassy. ‘Polish gentlemen are very courteous towards foreigners’, he observed. The same author also noted that Polish nobles were quite straightforward, as opposed to other nations. Naturally, there were exceptions to that rule. For instance, in reference to Crown Marshall Stanisław Herakliusz Lubomirski the same writer remarked that he was, ‘As complicated as a Spaniard’. As for O’Connor, he was most impressed by ‘the honest and good Temper of the Polish Gentry’ which consisted in the most difficult thing, namely their failure to make use of the available power. Although nobles had the power of life and death over their subjects and national law was exercised to a minimal extent, O’Connor stressed that, ‘all the while that he was in that Kingdom, he neither saw nor heard of any Barbarity or Cruelty committed by the Gentry on their Subjects; nor, what is a great­er Wonder, of any High-way Robbers.’ Instead, he noticed ‘the honest and good Temper of the Polish Gentry.’ Such description is especially valuable when juxtaposed with the situation in contemporary England, which in different circumstances he quoted as exemplary for other countries. He noted that, ‘When it is certain, had we in England but the third Part of their liberty, we could not live together without cutting one anothers Throats, since Experience dayly shews, that notwithstanding the great Vigilancy of our Officers, the Severity of our Laws, the just Rigour of our Judges and Magistrates, and the punctual Execution of their Sentences and Judgments, the Gallows and Gibbets are more frequently visited here, than even the Prisons are in Poland.’ O’Connor provided an explanation for the differences between England and the Commonwealth in liberty exercised by Polish nobility. ‘I fancy the Reason that the Poles are so quiet and good natur’d is, because  being born free, and living in excessive Liberty, under no Laws nor Arbitrary Power, there is nothing before them that can constrain their Minds, bridle their Passions, or curb their Thoughts.’ And yet, the present strength of the state could eventually turn into its weakness for, as remarked by O’Connor, ‘but as there is nothing that can entice them to do ill, so nothing likewise can hinder them from doing it.’ O’Connor was exceptionally lenient with Polish gentry when compared with far more critical opinions presented by other authors. Towards the end of the 16^th century, Fynes Moryson wrote that, ‘Nobles in the Commonwealth are most prone to squabble, fight and homicide, especially when warmed up by alcohol, which often is the case.’ Nearly half a century later, an English sales agent Francis Gordon partaking in the coronation of Władysław IV wrote that, ‘The nation [nobles] tend to be excessively haughty, totally without faith and scruple when dealing with others, most corruptible in the entire world.’ Admittedly, the two aforementioned travellers presented an overall positive view of the Commonwealth and its inhabitants when juxtaposed with authors like John Barclay, Thomas Lansius or Ulrich Werdum, who left far more unfavourable descriptions. The latter visited Poland in 1670–1672 and commented that, ‘Thus, wrongdoing of all sorts has been flourishing in Poland. Poles themselves admit that with money one can get in court as many a perjured oath as… one is prepared to pay in Polish zlotys. Debauchery has become a public entertainment... As for curses and oaths, the nation uses such revolting and blasphemous expressions that they make one’s hair stand on end.’ All assessments of the character of Polish gentry were infected with excessive generalisation. In truth, nobles were neither too gentle towards peasants, as noted by O’Connor, nor were they permanently drunk or prone to pick fights. Debauchery should not be overestimated either. For, there is no such notion as ‘a character of gentry’; instead, there are specific characters of individuals. Naturally, inhabitants of the Commonwealth also cultivated their own stereotypes concerning other nations, albeit not so superficial as that of ‘an average nobleman’. Englishmen were given a positive assessment as ‘being perky, brave, valiant, witty, proficient and perfect at various sciences and arts; simultaneously, they are melancholic, restless, easily enraged, haughty and cruel.’ Scots in turn were to beware of, as ‘they are sober, hard-working, faithful, at the same time stubborn, vindictive and loathsome.’  Frenchmen were considered grown-up children. On the one hand they were perceived as ‘perky, cheerful, pretentious, humane and kind at partying and welcoming of strangers’, but on the other ‘hot-headed, reckless, excessively gentle and lofty with an overblown ego.’ Russians, despite their good points, had better been avoided altogether. Though generally ‘humane, agreeable and tidy...’, many Russians were prone to rebellion and severity, excessive drinking, disrespect for others and exaggerated self-confidence.’ Inhabitants of German-speaking countries enjoyed a surprisingly favourable opinion, viewed as ‘faithful friends and open enemies. Courageous, honest… Witty at different sciences and crafts... Fierce at the time of war and hard-working at peace.’ Even their most significant weakness, described as ‘the common people’s tendency to excessive drinking’, had a humane touch in it. Prussians represented a worse version of Germans. They had similar virtues but far many more vices, as they were ‘restless, fierce, haughty and proud.’ The most superior nation of all was understandably Poles themselves, who were ‘humane, generous, agreeable above all towards strangers. Exceptionally gifted and witty at miscellaneous languages and sciences. Ardent advocates of the freedom of government which they vaunted and revered for centuries.’ Poles had vices too, among them ‘mutual discord, excess in meals, clothes, houses and vehicles.’ It goes without saying that the said vices resulted from detrimental influence of foreign countries and cultures. ‘Harmful to them [Poles] are… the ever more common foreign travels, resulting in Polish youngsters’ loss of fortune, health and faith.’ Obviously, there is no place like home…