Life

Within the scope of this paper it is possible to present no more than an outline of Terlecki’s life.³ But even this will suffice to show the strange turns of fate and the wealth of experiences which were this man’s lot.

Hipolit Terlecki was born in 1808 in the Starokostiantyniv district of Volhynia province. He belonged to an old Ukrainian noble family which in the sixteenth century had produced Kyrylo Terletsky, the Orthodox bishop of Lutsk, one of the architects of the Union of Brest (1596). The Terleckis, however, like the rest of the Right-Bank nobility, had become Polonized, and Hipolit was baptized a Roman Catholic.⁴

Hipolit Terlecki’s parents must have been comparatively poor, be­cause he chose a professional career which would have been considered unsuitable for a rich landowner’s son. He attended the Lycee of Kremia- nets (Krzemieniec), the celebrated Polish educational institution in Vol- hynia, and afterwards, from 1825 to 1830, the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Vilnius. The granting of a medical doctorate was prevented by the outbreak of the Polish revolt in November 1830, which spilled over from the Congress Kingdom into Right-Bank Ukraine. Terlecki has­tened to join the Volhynian Cavalry Regiment, formed by volunteers from the local nobility. He took part in the campaign in the capacity of a military surgeon, experienced battle, and was at one time captured by the Russians, but succeeded in rejoining his unit. He shared the fate of his regiment: first the retreat to Congress Poland, and afterwards the final defeat and the flight to Galicia, where the insurgents laid down their arms before the Austrians.

He found a new home in Cracow, then a free city under the joint pro­tectorate of the three partitioning powers. Terlecki resumed medical studies at the Jagellonian University, and in 1834 obtained the doctorate.

Terlecki settled in Montpellier. The loss of everything which was dear to him and the sudden transplantation to a foreign country caused him to fall into a deep depression. Until that time he had been religiously indif­ferent, but now he experienced a conversion, became an ardent Catholic, and began to think of the priesthood. As he wrote in his memoirs, “even then an ineffable feeling attracted me to the Eastern rite.”⁵ Terlecki de­cided to dedicate his life to the idea of the union of the Eastern Chris­tians, especially of the Orthodox Ukrainians, with the Catholic Church. Before embarking on this great design, however, he wished to validate his medical degree. He enrolled in the Faculty of Medicine at Montpel­lier, and in 1838 obtained a second, French doctorate. Terlecki also visi­ted Paris, where he was introduced to Prince Adam Czartoryski, the “un­crowned king of the Polish emigration.” He made the acquaintance of the French liberal Catholic politician, Count Montalembert, and be­friended the poets Adam Mickiewicz and Bohdan Zaleski. Terlecki felt particularly attracted to the latter, because Zaleski was a native of Ukraine and an exponent of the “Ukrainian School” in Polish literature. But these mundane connections did not deter Terlecki from his spiritual vocation. After briefly practicing medicine in France, he left for Rome in 1839. He had just recently turned thirty.

In Rome Hipolit Terlecki joined the Resurrectionists, a recently founded Polish religious order. He embarked on the study of theology, was ordained a priest in 1842, and the next year received the Doctorate of Divinity.

The main points of Terlecki’s memorandum were the following⁶: East­ern churches united with Rome should enjoy privileges and honour equal to those of the Latin-rite Catholic Church, and their customs and liturgies should be preserved integrally; Eastern Catholic churches should be per­manently represented in the College of Cardinals; all Latin missions among the Orthodox should be discontinued, and missionary work en­trusted exclusively to Uniates, members of the same nationalities and the same rites as the respective Orthodox communities. Point four of the memorandum stated that “there should be created a Ruthenian Slavonic [i.e., Ukrainian Catholic] patriarchate, with rights equal to those of the other [Uniate] patriarchal sees”; the Ruthenian patriarch should also be made cardinal.⁷ In conclusion, Terlecki asked a personal favour: permis­sion to rejoin his ancestral Slavonic rite, so as to be able better to devote himself to his unionist task. The Pope’s reaction to Terlecki’s proposals was most encouraging, and he immediately granted his personal request. One result of Terlecki’s turning from a Latin into a Uniate priest was the end of his association with the Resurrectionist Order.

On Terlecki’s initiative, an Oriental Society for the Union of Churches was founded in Rome. It was to include ecclesiastics and influential lay­men, and was to serve as a platform for the proposed unionist action.

Immediately after the founding of the Oriental Society, Terlecki went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. The purpose of the journey was to ac­quaint himself with the condition of the Christian communities in the Near East. It seems that this was the occasion on which he was given the title “apostolic missionary.’’ After a brief visit to Jerusalem, Terlecki stopped for two months in Istanbul. His guide there was his old comrade­in-arms from the Volhynian Cavalry Regiment, Michal Czajkowski, a prolific author of historical romances on the Ukrainian Cossacks and by that time Prince Czartoryski⁵S chief political agent in the Ottoman Empire. On his return trip Terlecki took the overland route. In Belgrade he had an interview with Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic, the ruler of Serbia.

After his return to Rome, in March 1848, Terlecki found the Oriental Society dormant because of his own absence and the departure of Bishop Lucquet, appointed nuncio to Switzerland.

Terlecki was instructed by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith to use this enforced interval for a visit to the Greek Catholic dioceses¹¹ of the Habsburg Empire, in Galicia and northeastern Hungary, and to report on conditions there. Personally, he wished to see his son in Cracow. But Terlecki was able to reach only Dresden in Saxony; the Austrian frontiers were closed because of revolution and civil war in the country. During his stay in Saxony Terlecki established contacts with some Lusatian Sorb leaders. This acquaintance with the representatives of the smallest Slavic nationality strengthened his Pan-Slavic procliv­ities. On the outbreak of an overt revolution in Saxony in May 1849, Ter- Iecki was arrested on suspicion of being a foreign revolutionary agent. He spent one month in prison together with Mikhail Bakunin, who had played an active part in the Saxon upheaval. Upon his release, Terlecki was ordered to leave Saxony in twenty-four hours.

For the next six years, from 1849 to 1855, Terlecki lived in Paris. There he published, in 1849, his programmatic pamphlet, Siowo Rusina ku wszej braci szczepu Stowianskiego î rzeczach Siowianskich (Address of a Ruthenian to All Brethren of the Slavic Race on Things Slavic).¹³ The pamphlet, which appeared anonymously, contains the fullest exposi­tion of Terlecki’s religious and political ideas. With his wonted energy, Abbe Terlecki (to give him his French appellation) soon established rela­tions with many leading ecclesiastical and lay personalities. In 1852, on Mickiewicz’s recommendation, he was granted an audience by Prince Louis Napoleon, the president of the republic. Terlecki’s main efforts during his Paris years were centred on the Oriental Society for the Union of All the Christians of the East, founded on his initiative. Although based on the precedent of the earlier Oriental Society in Rome, it was technically a new organization, constituted on 29 April 1850. The Arch­bishop of Paris, Sibour, accepted the position of honorary president; the Duke Louis Cadore de Champagny (the son of a foreign minister of Na­poleon I, a member of the Chamber of Peers during the July Monarchy, and former treasurer of the Oriental Society in Rome) became president, and Terlecki vice-president. The celebrated Dominican preacher, Lacor- daire, in a sermon delivered in Notre Dame cathedral (14 April 1850), called on French Catholics to support the work of the Society with their donations. Also in 1850 the first Eastern Catholic church was inaugu­rated in Paris, with Terlecki as its rector. The church, named after Sts. Cyril and Methodius, was located at rue Babylone 69. According to a re­port in the Lusatian Sorb organ, Jahrbiicher fur slavische Literatur und Wissenschaft (Bautzen 1852), “on the iconostasis of the new church one finds the icons of the sainted Slavic apostles, Cyril and Methodius, of St. Olha and of St. Volodymyr, the prince of Kiev who evangelized Rus’. Every Sunday a liturgy is celebrated in this church in the Slavonic rite, and a sermon is preached in Ruthenian.”¹⁴ The Oriental Society at­tempted to publish a periodical, but only one issue of the Annales de la Societe Orientale pour Γ Union de tous les Chretiens d^,Orient (July 1853) appeared. Under the auspices of the Society, and under Terlecki’s direc­tion, an institute was founded in Paris for the education of future mis­sionary priests who would eventually work among Eastern Christians. The pupils lived at the institute while attending classes at the Saint Sul- pice seminary as externs; from Terlecki they received instruction in the Church Slavonic language and in the usages of the Eastern church. But the number of pupils never exceeded ten, and only two were finally or­dained. Both were young Galician Ukrainians who in 1849 had joined the Polish volunteers fighting against Austria in Hungary, and had gone to France after the defeat of the Hungarian revolution.¹⁵ One of Ter­lecki’s proteges, Iuliian Kuilovsky, was later to make a distinguished ec­clesiastical career: he became Bishop of Stanyslaviv (today Ivano- Frankivsk; 1891-8), and toward the end of his life briefly occupied the see of the Metropolitan of Halych (1899-1900).¹⁶

Despite his multifarious and apparently successful activities, Ter­lecki’s position in Paris was anything but easy. He met with suspicion and hostility from many quarters. He was charged simultaneously with such contrary things as being a red revolutionary inciting European pow­ers against Russia and a Crypto-Orthodox and Russian agent trying to subvert the Catholic church and the Polish nationality. Terlecki’s support among the Polish emigration came from the so-called Hotel Lambert, i.e., the circle of Prince Adam Czartoryski. In 1850 Terlecki was consid­ered for the position of co-editor of a propaganda paper in Ukrainian which two of Czartoryski’s collaborators, Michal Czajkowski and Fran- ciszek Duchinski (both natives of Ukraine and strong Ukrainophiles), were planning to start either in Istanbul or on Corfu.¹⁷ But Terlecki felt increasingly disinclined to subordinate his action to Polish political goals.¹⁸ Attacks on Terlecki in the Polish press, published abroad and in Poznania, multiplied, and he had to engage in rebuttals and distasteful polemics.¹⁹ To make his situation even more difficult, he no longer had the full trust and support of Rome. His old protector, Pius IX, chastened by the experiences of 1848-9, lost interest in innovative projects. Dur­ing Terlecki’s repeated visits to Rome, the Pope showed him personal kindness, but there was no more talk of the 1846 and 1848 memoranda. Terlecki’s former favour with the Pope must have evoked many jeal­ousies, and his current behaviour created new resentments. A circular let­ter of the Oriental Society sent under Terlecki’s signature to Eastern Catholic bishops contained criticism of the work of Latin missionaries in the lands of Eastern Christendom. This was an old idea of Terlecki’s, to be found already in his 1846 memorandum. But now the powerful Con­gregation for the Propagation of the Faith took offence at Terlecki’s un­diplomatic frankness. He was reprimanded, and the papal nuncio in Paris was advised by the Congregation to keep a watchful eye on Terlecki and his Oriental Society.²⁰ It appears that by the early 1850s he was looked upon by his superiors as a difficult man and a potential troublemaker. The second Oriental Society, in contrast to the first, was only tolerated by Rome, and never formally approved or granted official status. Thus Terlecki felt that his efforts were obstructed by the Vatican bureaucracy.

In addition to all these worries Terlecki experienced personal grief: the death of his son at the age of eighteen.²¹ Weary in his soul and disgusted by the futility of an emigre’s existence, he had no wish to remain per­manently in Paris. He applied for permission to go to Bulgaria as a mis­sionary, but in view of the unstable political situation in the Balkans caused by the Crimean War, the request was refused by the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith.²² But Terlecki had already conceived an alternative plan: to settle among the Galician Ukrainians, a people of the same nationality and religion as his own. From Paris he had established contacts with some Galician leaders, such as Hryhorii Iakhymovych, the Bishop of Przemysl (Peremyshl), and had contributed dispatches to the Lviv newspaperZoria Halytska.²³ In 1855 he dissolved his Paris Institute and donated its library, archives, and other moveable possessions to the Narodnyi Dim (Ruthenian National Home) in Lviv.

Terlecki left Western Europe, never to return, in September 1855. His decision was to go to the Ukrainian areas of the Austrian Empire and to enter a monastery there. Before renouncing the world, however, he wished to revisit the Holy Land and neighbouring countries. Terlecki’s second Near Eastern journey lasted about a year and a half, and its itinerary included the following major stations: Malta, Alexandria, Cairo, Jerusalem, Beirut, Damascus, Smyrna, and Istanbul. In Jerusalem Terlecki was called to render medical services to the Turkish pasha, the governor of the city. After three months in Jerusalem, he went to Beirut, where he again remained several months. There he made friends among the Maronites, Syrian Christians whose church was united with Rome, and had an opportunity to assist at the election of the Maronite patriarch. From Beirut Terlecki mailed a long letter (19 May 1856) to the Galician scholar and civic leader, Rev. Iakiv Holovatsky, in which he described some of his travel experiences and expressed his hopes of finding a per­manent refuge among Ruthenian compatriots.²⁴ After having reached Istanbul, Terlecki took a boat across the Black Sea and up the Danube to Belgrade. From there he crossed into Austria in the spring of 1857. He is mentioned in a letter from Vienna (26 April 1857) by Ivan Holovatsky to his brother Iakiv in Lviv: “Father Hipolit Terlecki, a mixture of a Pole and a Ukrainian, arrived here recently in an Orthodox, or rather Greek, garb.’’²⁵

Terlecki’s desire to settle in Galicia was frustrated by the veto of the provincial governor, Count Agenor Goluchowski, an exponent of the in­terests of the Polish aristocracy and a determined opponent of the Ukrain­ian national revival. Instead of Galicia, Terlecki went to the Ukrainian area of north-eastern Hungary, the so-called Hungarian Rus’, known to­day as Carpatho-Ukraine or Transcarpathia. There, in 1857, he entered the Basilian Order, adopting a new religious name, Vladimir. Thus the former Abbe Hipolit Terlecki was transformed into Father Vladimir Ter- lecki, OSBM (Ordo Sancti Basilii Magni).

We are only imperfectly informed about the circumstances of Ter- lecki’s life in Austria. He had turned fifty in 1858, but was still physi­cally vigorous and mentally alert as ever. In time he was entrusted with the position of hegumen of the Basilian monastery in Mala Bereznytsia, and later in Krasnyi Brid. But the widely travelled man, who was used to the great capitals of Paris and Rome, must have found the cloistered exis­tence in the Carpathian wilderness confining. In a letter to Iakiv Holovatsky he complained about the lack of news and of an intellectually stimulating environment.²⁶ Occasionally he contributed to the Lviv newspaper Slovo. Trips to Galicia provided diversions, and became more frequent after 1859, when Goluchowski was summoned to become a cabi­net minister in Vienna.

Vladimir Terlecki’s situation remained precarious. Goluchowski^,s atti­tude toward him was a token of the hostility of the Polish ruling class in Galicia, in whose eyes Terlecki was a renegade. But he was also mis­trusted in the circles of the Greek Catholic clergy, for whom a man of his background and experience remained something of a riddle. There is evi­dence in contemporary memoirs of a lingering suspicion that Terlecki was in reality a “Conrad Wallenrod,’’ i.e., a Pole in disguise working covertly to the detriment of the good Ruthenian people.²⁷ His long hair, flowing beard, and Orthodox-style cassock contrasted with the shaven faces and Latinized clothing of the local Greek Catholic clergy. For Ter- Iecki this was an expression of his adherence to the traditions of Eastern Christianity, but his exotic appearance made him conspicuous and scan­dalized many.²⁸ Still, owing to his warm, affectionate personality, he was, as always, able to attract people and form new friendships. He found a devoted friend in Rev. Oleksander Dukhnovych, the Transcar­pathian poet, educator, and national “awakener.” Dukhnovych wrote a poem in honour of Terlecki in which he expressed the wish that the old “Ruthenian champion’’ (ruskyi bohatyr) might find “friendship and peace’’ in his Carpathian mountain retreat.²⁹

But peace was not to be Terlecki^,s lot. Soon he again found himself in the midst of public controversy in connection with the purist, or ritualist, movement. This was a drive by a group of Greek Catholic clergymen to purify the liturgy and rituals of their Church of all Latin accretions which had gradually crept in since the Union of Brest (1596), and especially since the Synod of Zamosc (Zamostia) (1720). For Terlecki this was an old pet idea. Already in his Address of a Ruthenian he had protested against the contamination of the rituals of the Eastern-rite Catholic churches by the usages of the Latin church. Now he raised the issue again. The Ukrainian church historian, Bishop Iuliian Pelesh, a contem­porary of the events, names Terlecki as the chief instigator of the ritualist movement of the 1860s.³° His involvement in this controversy earned Terlecki a new reprimand from the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and a warning not to stir up discord between Catholics of the two rites in Galicia.³¹ He was advised by his superiors to return to the monastery in Transcarpathia.

There is no reason to doubt that Terlecki sincerely wished to spend the remainder of his days among his compatriots in Austria. But a train of events beyond his control was to give a completely new direction to his life.³² In 1867 the Austro-Hungarian Compromise transformed Hungary into a self-governing state. The Budapest government and the chauvinistic Magyar ruling class immediately embarked on a policy of repression and Magyarization of the national minorities, and on a hunt after real or imaginary Pan-Slavists. The Transcarpathian Ukrainians were the weakest among the non-Magyar nationalities of Hungary and, consequently, were exposed to the greatest pressure. Terlecki was too conspicuous a figure not to attract the attention of the Hungarian admin­istration. In 1871 the Ministry of the Interior in Budapest requested his transfer from the Basilian monastery in Krasnyi Brid to that in Mukachevo, a larger town, where he could be watched more closely. Six months later a denunciation was lodged against Terlecki (we do not know its author) in which he was charged with being a secret agent of Russia. The only basis for the accusation was the fact that he received books from Russia. On the strength of this, Terlecki was arrested. He was kept in prison only briefly, as there was insufficient evidence for a formal in­dictment, but upon his release he was ordered to leave Hungary immedi­ately.³³ This outrage must have shocked Terlecki profoundly, and it in­duced him to take a radical step. He sent a letter of protest to the Hungarian interior minister in which he declared his innocence. But as he was being unjustly persecuted, Terlecki stated, he preferred to surrender himself to the justice of his native country, against which he had indeed offended in his youth. Simultaneously he addressed a petition to Emperor Alexander II, put himself at the tsar’s mercy, and asked permission to re­turn to Russia. The request was granted, and in September 1872 he went to Russia. Upon his arrival in Kiev, still during the same month, he was admitted to the fold of the Russian Orthodox Church.

At that time Terlecki was sixty-four years old. He still had sixteen years to live. The story of the rest of his life can be told briefly. At first he resided in the Mykhailivsky monastery in Kiev and worked as the sec­retary of the Slavic Benevolent Committee in that city. In 1874 Terlecki went to Italy with a Russian aristocrat, Prince Demidov, and spent five years as a private chaplain at Demidov’s estate near Florence. This must have been a pleasant sinecure for the old man, and we can only wonder with what feelings Terlecki revisited Italy, the scene of his early activi­ties. In 1879 he returned to Kiev. After Prince Demidov’s death, his widow granted Terlecki a pension which secured him financially for the rest of his days. Next Terlecki moved to Zhytomyr, in his native prov­ince of Volhynia, where he had a friend and protector in the person of Ar­chbishop Dimitrii. When the latter was transferred to Odessa, Terlecki followed him in 1881. The Russian Orthodox Church had granted Ter- Iecki the rank of archimandrite. He was associated, probably in an honorary capacity, with the Odessa theological seminary, and then lived in that city in retirement. During those last years he wrote his “Zapiski arkhimandrita... ” (Reminiscences).³⁴

Father Vladimir Terlecki died in Odessa on 17 January 1888, at the age of eighty.