The daughter of Bona Sforza,Footnote 1 Catherine Jagiellon (1526–83) was a Polish-Lithuanian-Italian princess married to a Swedish prince, John Vasa (1537–93), Duke of Finland, later King of Sweden. The primary reason for their marriage was Duke John’s foreign policy in the Baltic Sea, and as a consequence Catherine’s life in Sweden involved balancing between the position of a daughter, sister and mother of the Polish king(s) and that of a Swedish queen consort. The dynastic interests of the two royal families sometimes intertwined but were often different and even conflicting. Catherine Jagiellon can be regarded both as a “counsellor” and as an object of “counselling”. She was counselled by both families as well as by important stakeholders such as ecclesiastical agents. In the absence of an established, specific regimen for queens consort at the time, the concepts and practices of counsel and counselling were especially fluid and demand closer investigation. The Latin word consilium appears in few texts investigated for this chapter, but more often, the act of counsel-giving is subject to interpretation. Moreover, the reconstruction of the sixteenth-century Swedish queens consort political involvement is fragmentary, privileging particular roles, and marked by silences, gaps or other archival distortions. The survival of Catherine Jagiellon’s correspondence and other sources represents only a fraction of which remains: sources for her husband and other male agents survive rather better.Footnote 2

While exceptional pre-modern Scandinavian sovereign female rulers such as Margaret (1353–1412), Queen Regnant of Denmark , Norway and Sweden, and Christina (1626–1689), Queen Regnant of Sweden, have been regarded in scholarship as political agents, queens consort like Catherine JagiellonFootnote 3—usually excluded from the formal mechanisms of political power—have mostly been studied in relation to the forms of “indirect power” or “soft power”Footnote 4 they used, as well as the mechanisms of cultural transfer they were involved in. Cultural exchange is by no means a negligible issue, since international marriages were commonplace in early modern European royal courts and through them not only individuals, but material objects, practices, languages and ideas crossed existing boundaries.Footnote 5 What makes Catherine Jagiellon’s situation more complex is that she was Roman Catholic (her great-grandfather King Jogaila (1362?–1434) converted to Catholicism, which would later become an important symbol of Lithuania’s conversion to Christianity) while her husband John was raised Lutheran (his father King Gustavus I (Vasa) had implemented the Reformation in Sweden). On one hand, the number of cross-confessional marriages or bi-confessional households was generally low in post-Reformation Europe, but occasionally political and dynastic purposes could dictate such princely or royal matches, as was the case with Catherine de Bourbon and the Duc de Bar, Henrietta Maria and Charles I, and Anna of Denmark and James I (discussed in Chap. 11 of this volume by Anna Whitelock). On the other hand, cross-confessional dynastic marriage served as a means of attempting to negotiate toleration and gain a public presence for the minority faith in a princess’ marital kingdom.Footnote 6 In Sweden, however, the country was gradually moving towards Lutheran Orthodoxy at the end of the sixteenth century. This chapter discusses Catherine Jagiellon’s role of giving and receiving counsel between these two groups of interest, the Jagiellons and the Vasas, particularly as it concerned questions of religion.

The chapter further examines different forms and means of counsel, of which the Swedish queen consort was both the object and the provider. It explores who her counsellors were and to whom she gave advice, as well as how the advice was exchanged and received. In addition, it seeks to analyze how Catherine Jagiellon was able to establish a network of confidants in a situation where her husband was crowned king after four years of imprisonment together. The couple were married in October 1562, but their life at court in Turku, Duchy of Finland, ended quickly the following summer when King Eric XIV’s troops besieged Turku Castle. Duke John’s independent foreign policy (including the marriage with a Jagiellonian princess) had precipitated a total break with his half-brother King Eric. Catherine and John were captured, taken to Sweden and incarcerated in Gripsholm Castle, but the terms of surrender stated that they should not be executed. After their release in 1567, John joined with his younger brother, the future Charles IX of Sweden, in 1568 to depose Eric and secure the throne for himself. It seems that Catherine and John developed a close relationship during the years of imprisonment, when they did not have many confidants around. Since she was a foreigner by birth and also a member of the Roman Catholic Church, which was strongly suspected of planning to re-Catholicize Sweden, it is relevant to ask whether the confessional strife made establishing trust more difficult for her than it was for Lutheran consorts. (Her predecessor, Queen Karin Månsdotter, and successor, Gunilla Bielke, were both Swedish and Lutheran.) The question is examined by exploring letters and other preserved written material (such as diplomatic reports) on the negotiations in which she was involved.

Catherine Jagiellon’s term as a duchess and queen in Sweden (1562–83) is particularly interesting in terms of counselling, since religious and ethnic tensions were increasing then. It was also an active period of the state-building process (c. 1560–1720), a much studied and debated phenomenon in Swedish, Finnish and international historical scholarship.Footnote 7 Although the state-building process began in Sweden in the sixteenth century, the major structural changes were not implemented until the next century.Footnote 8 However, even during the early stages of state-building, the king recruited experts and advisers from among his followers. What about the queen consort? Was she mostly in contact with the same persons as the king or did she have her own network of confidants? Points of comparison are quite scarce and difficult to make with other queens consort, since there was no clear-cut legislation regulating the queen consort’s position and privileges in Sweden. Moreover, scholarly interest in queens consort at the turn of sixteenth century has not been very intense.Footnote 9

Juridically, Catherine Jagiellon was not a monarch, since Poland was an elective monarchy and even if a title of princeps or infans was used for her and she was treated as a princess (in the meaning of a king’s daughter or sister), her position was technically not hereditary. She could have ascended to the Polish throne only through election, as her sister Anna and her son Sigismund did. No less importantly, there was no tradition of female monarchs in Sweden.Footnote 10 In Sweden, Catherine was not in the position of a ruling queen, nor that of a regent, who had more political power than a queen consort. In 1569, after King Erik XIV had been dethroned and John replaced him, the Succession Pact was renewed. It included a provision that in the case of King John’s death, Catherine could stand as Queen Regent until their son Sigismund came of age.Footnote 11

In the background to this alliance confirmed by marriage between the royal houses of Sweden and Poland-Lithuania was the growing power of Russia and its threat to both countries.Footnote 12 Indeed, John’s decision to marry a Polish princess was part of a foreign policy strategy to develop a closer relationship with Poland-Lithuania, which would not incidentally increase his own power (even as his half-brother Eric XIV sought to reduce it through parliamentary action). Although John was aware that this strategy was against Eric’s wishes, his political plans were linked to a personal interest in Catholicism and irenic religiosity.Footnote 13 After long-term negotiations via various envoys travelling between the royal courts in Sweden and Poland- Lithuania and bringing letters and portraits, the marriage between Princeps Catherine Jagiellon and Dux John was finally realized relatively quickly. It unified one of the most established royal dynasties in Central Europe, the Jagiellons, with a newcomer dynasty from the north, the Vasas. The Jagiellons had been hereditary grand dukes of Lithuania, as well as kings of Poland, Hungary and Bohemia, and had married into several ruling houses, including the Habsburgs, Europe’s imperial dynasty, when the Vasas had been mere provincial nobles.

Through the wedding held in Vilnius on 4 October 1562, Catherine Jagiellon became Duchess of Finland, and the ducal couple travelled almost immediately to Turku, the capital of the Duchy. The wedding in the Lower Castle of Vilnius was conducted as a Roman Catholic ceremony, even though John was a Protestant. A clause in the marriage contract permitted Catherine to practise her religion without interference.Footnote 14 This kind of clause had been typical of Jagiellon marriage contracts since the 1530s.Footnote 15 Catherine’s brother, King Sigismund August of Poland, and the bride herself had probably (too) high expectations about the duke’s position during the marriage negotiations, since John had made assurances that as Duke of Finland he was independent of Sweden, like a prince of the Empire in Germany.Footnote 16 When John was appointed Duke of Finland in 1556 at the age of eighteen, he took up his residence at Turku Castle, first with his mistress Catherine (Karin/Katarina) Hansdotter, with whom he had four children between 1556–60.Footnote 17 Serious doubts at the Jagiellon court regarding the young Swedish groom were assuaged by means of a loan of 120,000 riksdaler to Sigismund August, although against Eric XIV’s consent.

In return John received as security seven castles in Livonia, perhaps the most strategically important area in the Baltic.Footnote 18 When Eric XIV found out all these actions of his half-brother against his consent, the conflict between the brothers burst into the open.

Doska the Dwarf and the Polish Courtly Community

Duchess Catherine brought a large entourage (fifty-nine persons) with her to Turku, including courtiers and servants who were mostly of Polish origin. It seems that she favoured Polish familiares until the end of her life in Sweden, although her court was characteristically international, as early modern courts usually were. In Turku, her hovmästare (court master),Footnote 19 cooks and baker were Poles, while an Italian named Cola took care of the wine cellar. In addition, the apothecary Mathias Losius and a dyer are mentioned. Among the women, there were nine ladies-in-waiting, four servants and a washer, all of whom had Polish names. Catherine also brought with her four dwarfs: two male, Maciek and Siemioniek, and two female, Doska and Baska.Footnote 20 Doska was probably a certain Dorotea Ostrelska, who is often mentioned in connection with Catherine, and Baska may have been a woman called Barbara.Footnote 21 According to Małgorzata Wilska, Doska was educated, but we do not have any details of her education. Doska was one of the only members of Catherine’s entourage that she kept with her while imprisoned with her husband by Eric XIV. At the time of the imprisonment, in the late summer of 1563, the new duchess and her foreign courtiers had been in Turku for only eight months. It was also Doska who was in correspondence with Catherine’s sister, Duchess Sophia of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1522–75).Footnote 22

Clothes and books were sent to the prisoners. John had a relatively large library with typical humanistic titles, while Catherine’s books are described only as “papistic” (papistiska böcker) in an inventory. Apparently, they read in the prison and since Catherine was not allowed to keep any of her Catholic chaplains with her, it is possible that she sought religious consolation and counsel from books.Footnote 23 The ducal couple was finally released from Gripsholm after four years’ imprisonment. Three children had been born during these years: Isabella in 1564, who died before the age of two, Sigismund in 1566 and Anna in 1568, just after the family’s release. In turn, Eric XIV was deposed and incarcerated as a result of the upheaval. John and Catherine were crowned the new King and Queen of Sweden in 1569. In a letter to the Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Doska worried that lenient Catherine would let the dethroned king out of prison. It is not clear whether she counselled her mistress directly on this issue, but her correspondence with the duchess is suggestive. In addition, Dorotea Ostrelska is said to have warned the Polish guards when the royal prisoner (Eric) attempted to escape.Footnote 24 It seems that Doska was a trusted and much-appreciated court dwarf: dwarfs’ clothes were included in John’s and Catherine’s property inventory at the time of the imprisonment in 1563Footnote 25 and when Doska was ill, she was treated with expensive, imported substances, such as saffron.Footnote 26 However, her position did not differ remarkably from that of other dwarfs in European courts. Dwarfs were not uncommon in early modern European courts; on the contrary, they were owned, exchanged and sent as gifts by early modern monarchs in Spain, France, England, Italy, Russia, Poland, Portugal, Germany, the Spanish Netherlands and further afield. The fact that they were objectified as gifts did not prevent dwarf attendants from becoming long-lasting and much-loved court subjects.Footnote 27

Nevertheless, it would be imprudent to regard Doska as a “counsel-giver” to the queen consort. The social gap between a servant—even if serving at court—and a member of the royal family was too vast, although there could have been an emotional bond between them. Real friends—who could securely counsel each other—were believed to be bound by likeness.Footnote 28 Instead, Doska was a confidant and an observer, who reported about various situations and impressions she saw around the queen and her entourage, but apparently abstained from giving straightforward counsel, as a peer could have done. Interestingly, Betty M. Adelson has noted that despite differences between the various courts, there are several themes that span nations and centuries. One of them is the loyalty of court dwarfs, who followed their masters or mistresses to prison.Footnote 29 It is known that after the siege of Turku Castle by Eric XIV’s troops, many of the duchess’ servants travelled back to Poland, but it is obscure why Doska was chosen or expected to follow her mistress to Gripsholm. Was it a convention for trusted court dwarfs, who were separated from their parents very early on and who did not necessarily have a family of their own? However, Doska disappears from the sources after 1577, probably due to her death. The queen continued to be surrounded by Poles, or at least by Polish ecclesiastics and servants, who returned from Poland to rejoin the court of their mistress, this time in Stockholm.

The Swedish court was modest by standards that we usually understand by “early modern European court” meaning French, Spanish or English courts, for instance.Footnote 30 Its structure followed northern German models and the offices were usually the same as at German courts. Each chamber was headed by a master or a mistress (mästare, mästarinna). The courtiers who served in the royal bedchamber and the surroundings formed the core group closest to the monarch. Hovfruntimret (derived from the German Frauenzimmer) consisted of the women who attended on a female member of the royal family and was headed by a court mistress (hovmästarinnan). Her duty was to control that no unwanted person was admitted into the lodgings of the hovfruntimret. All communication with the queen, whether spoken or written, had to go via the court mistress. A number of unmarried aristocratic court maids served under her and she controlled both their personal reputation as well as the court’s reputation by reading all their letters before they were sent out.Footnote 31 Thus, the hovmästarinnan was both aware of and monitored various kinds of information and knowledge at the court. She was a mental gate-keeper to keep undesirables out and played the final card in the selection process of people and knowledge.

The Polish courtiers of Catherine Jagiellon represented people, habits and languages from “home”. The “counselling” input of ordinary courtiers and servants was generally limited to everyday, practical matters such as housing, dressing, grooming, eating, drinking, gardening, moving from place to place, nursing, preparing medicine, washing and so forth, and it was primarily transmitted orally. This is not to say that their contributions were not important: without their specialized input on labour and empirical know-how, the court could not function. In contrast, the high household dignitaries who had regular access to the monarch, his or her councillors or other royal family members, and who could build personal relationships with them, were essential points of contact and could become influential mediators between different parties. Even the ladies-in-waiting of a queen consort could have considerable influence, as the chapter by Matheson-Pollock in this volume shows (Chap. 4), although their political activities have frequently been overlooked.Footnote 32 Queen Catherine Jagiellon’s long-term hovmästarinna was Karin Gyllenstierna (d. c. 1602), who probably acquainted her with Swedish court life. After Catherine’s death, Karin had the same position serving her daughter, Princess Anna. However, Karin did not follow Anna and Sigismund to Poland, but stayed in Sweden. Instead, King Eric XIV’s daughter, Sigrid, travelled to Poland and became a lady-in-waiting at her cousin’s court. John III’s illegitimate daughter Sofia Gyllenhielm served at the court of John’s sister, Elizabeth, but she was soon married to Pontus de la Gardie, previous hovmästare who was dispatched on an official embassy visit to Gregory XII for the Queen and the King of Sweden in 1576.Footnote 33 These few examples around Catherine Jagiellon show that these women were active and significant members of family networks at court. The marriage of the queen’s ladies-in-waiting to members of the local nobility was an effective strategy to bind nobles to the court, ensure continuity and transmission of knowledge, but also to raise a new group of loyal subjects.

Catherine’s servants and courtiers brought from Poland-Lithuania also formed a small religious community. Already in 1562, at least two Polish Roman Catholic priests travelled from Vilnius to Turku with the duchess in order to take care of her spiritual needs as had been agreed in the marriage contract. However, the number of her original chaplains varies in different sources.Footnote 34 When imprisoned the following year, Catherine had to survive without a court chaplain. As queen, she continued her Catholic practices privately with the help of her priests. In 1572, both of her chaplains were old and wanted to return to Poland. Only “Jacob” went back home, but the other court chaplain, old and sickly Albert Grohowski, stayed in Stockholm, a decision which was not without consequences. The queen and Father Albert were isolated from other Catholics, excepting those who were left from Catherine’s Polish entourage. On the one hand, Grohowski was apparently not a great theologician, nor was he in contact with his ecclesiastical superiors. On the other hand, John dominated the religious climate at the court with his irenic ideas. Catherine (whose religious education was perhaps not the most orthodox) seemed to slide away from correct dogma. When suspected of heresy by the Catholic dignitaries in Poland and Italy, Catherine blamed Grohowski for permitting it: a notable instance of the queen imputing her own conduct to poor counsel. She was evidently perceived to be in need of guidance and during the 1570s a number of newly educated Jesuits were sent to her court. Their mission was based on a scheme for the re-Catholization (or Counter-Reformation, known also as Missio Suetica among Jesuits) of Sweden. The Catholic queen was central to these plans, since it was thought that her court might serve as a base for the operation: her old chaplains were to be replaced by young and dynamic Jesuits. She was also thought to need spiritual advice, because her new practices were regarded as heretical, first and foremost the evangelical communion celebrated in two kinds (sub utraque specie), with both the bread and the wine given to the celebrants. Stanislas Warszewicki, Polish Jesuit and rector of the collegium of Vilnius, was sent to Sweden with the official purpose of negotiating the Sforza inheritance, but primarily to convert John and to make the local church more favourable to Catholicism. Another reason was to give confessional counselling to the queen.Footnote 35

Confessional Counselling

When John seized power with his Catholic consort beside him in 1568, the Catholic powers of Europe, particularly Poland, saw a chance to interfere with the politico-religious situation of Sweden. The series of events which followed confirms the fact that religious and political issues were inextricably intertwined and any incident could trigger renewed conflict, which—given the competition for power in the Baltic, together with ideas of expansion and competition among the European dynasties—had resulted and was likely to lead to new (military) conflicts. Since the distinction between “religion” and “politics” is often difficult to make in this situation, the conceptual framework of “confessionalism” encompasses both, in addition to the social sphere. Confessionalism means the formation of religious ideologies and institutions in Lutheranism, the Reformed Church and Catholicism, and one which denotes the articulation of belief systems and the recruitment of clerical bodies, as well as a system of rituals which can be seen as part of social discipline. The result was an inflexible situation with mutual antagonism on both sides, in Sweden involving mainly Lutherans and Catholics.Footnote 36

In a letter to Princess Anna Jagiellon, Catherine’s sister, in November 1569, Cardinal Giovanni Commendone, a papal legate to Poland, asked for instructions concerning Catherine Jagiellon’s politico-religious situation in Sweden.Footnote 37 Since Sweden and Poland were at war and communication between the sisters had been temporarily interrupted, Anna was unable to reply. However, cardinals and bishops involved in the plans for the re-Catholization of northern Europe in the Tridentine spirit rightly estimated both that Anna was worried about the reputation of the family and that she was able to influence her younger sister in Sweden. Simultaneously and in the same vein, the Bishop of Ermland, Martin Kromer, previously employed in the royal chancellery at the Polish courts of Catherine’s father (Sigismund I) and brother (Sigismund Augustus), had written directly to the new queen, urging her to convert her husband.Footnote 38 According to historian Henry Biaudet (1870–1915), Kromer was a friend (ami) and adviser (conseiller) of Catherine Jagiellon before her marriage.Footnote 39 It is also possible that he served as tutor of Sigismund II Augustus and his sisters with other theologians, such as Stanislaus Hosius, the poet Johannes Dantiscus and the historian Jost Ludwig Decius.Footnote 40 Kromer was not just another adviser, since from 1558 to 1564 he served as the Polish envoy to Emperor Ferdinand I. In this capacity his tasks included advocacy of King Sigismund Augustus’ claims in the complicated affair of the inheritance of his and Catherine’s late mother Bona Sforza, which was also claimed by the King of Spain. In February 1570, Catherine replied to Kromer, explaining King John’s decision to stay loyal to his father’s faith. She also expressed her concern that the Swedes might not respond in a good way to the conversion of their king and thus implicitly counselled her one-time counsellor not to put so much pressure on her in the matter.Footnote 41

Regardless of Catherine’s negative reply, rumours concerning the king’s conversion circulated in Europe. Even the king’s own envoys firmly stated that he had converted.Footnote 42 While there is no evidence to support this (nor of who counselled the envoys to pretend it was true), John obviously had both religious and opportunistic Catholic sympathies. Instead, John worked on reforms within the Lutheran Church. These reform plans were also reported to the pope, despite the fact that the king was the head of the Church in Sweden. John demanded that the pope grant him a number of dispensations, which would ease the establishment of an irenic Church in Sweden or—according to certain interpretations—permit him to pave the way for a reintroduction of Catholicism in his realm.Footnote 43 There are some notable parallels here with the case of James I of England.Footnote 44 The information travelled to the Papal Curia most often via Catherine’s letters. The three main requests in the correspondence between the Swedish queen and the pope in the 1570s were to grant permission for Mass to be recited in the vernacular, for the marriage rights of the clergy to be continued and to allow the practice of communio sub utraque specie, regarded as heretical by the Catholic Church. Catherine explained her pain at being suspected of heresy. First she denied her use of sub utraque, but later on she admitted it and demanded absolution (accusing, as we saw above, her confessor Albert Grohowski of granting permission). There were many other requests, but perhaps these three were deemed to be the most urgent, since they were repeated in several letters. It seems that Catherine repeated John’s demands, since their letters often follow the same narrative.

The pope was not receptive to Catherine and John’s demands. Catherine explained that these reforms were the best way to get the Swedes to be responsive to Catholicism. It is perhaps daring to say that Catherine Jagiellon counselled the pope. However, Gregory XII was more dialogical with her in contrast with his predecessor, Pius V, who found her suspicious and insincere and did not take her counsel on how to facilitate the re-Catholization of Sweden into consideration at all. Even the renowned special legate Antonio Possevino presented John’s demands to Rome, but the pope’s answer was “non possumus” (we cannot). Oskar Garstein provides an interesting narrative regarding this in his Rome and the Counter-Reformation, which is based on Catholic sources of these events.Footnote 45 It is striking, however, that he ignores Catherine Jagiellon in the process. Of course, John was the head of the Lutheran Church in Sweden and the pope was the leader of the Catholic world, but it is odd that Catherine’s letters and actions are neither analyzed nor even mentioned. It was Catherine who was most often in contact with the pope, although it is more than possible that John was behind the correspondence, since some of the letters with similar content from John’s chancellery are dated on the same day as that of Catherine’s. The letters addressed to the pope are not autographed but written in the chancellery, as most of the official letters have Catherine’s signature CATHARINA R[EGINA].Footnote 46 However, Catherine was able to write Latin, as evidenced by her autographed letter to the Abbess of Vadstena preserved in the Uppsala University Library.Footnote 47 According to a later source, the eminent Polish diplomat and cosmopolitan Christopher Warszewicki (1543–1603) explained to Sigismund, Catherine’s son, that issues associated with the Catholic faith were particularly her field, which she was able to facilitate.Footnote 48 It appears that John very clearly understood Catherine’s valuable relations with the Papal court, compared to his own, and used Catherine as a diplomatic tool or pathway to Rome as well as a means of access to the Sforza inheritance and the Polish throne. She was a member of the Jagiellonian dynasty, closely tied with the Roman Catholic Church. She was also a daughter of Bona Sforza, whose immense inheritance remained to be dispersed. That process demanded high-level, international Catholic support, since the money was stuck in Naples, which at that time was part of the devoutly Catholic kingdom of Spain, and whose king could not imagine the money going to Protestants. In matters related to confessionalism, there are several internationally significant matters on which Catherine and John can be considered a “working couple”: John III’s Church and the liturgical reforms in Sweden; Catherine’s religious habits which needed to be controlled in accordance with the Papal Curia (her need for “religious advice”); re-Catholization plans in Sweden; and the inheritance of Bona Sforza. In order to achieve results, they needed each other, and they attempted to work for their own, their families’ and the common good, with Lutheranism and Catholicism alternately and together, depending on the matter. Of course, the tasks were impossible.

In 1574, Pope Pius V had sent his Polish envoy, Stanislas Warszewicki, to Sweden to visit the queen. In his letter, the pope counselled Catherine to stay loyal to her father’s faith and to work for the propagation of Catholicism.Footnote 49 Cardinal Hosius wrote to Martin Kromer, his former colleague from the Polish royal court, informing that Warszewicki would be travelling to Sweden.Footnote 50 This type of correspondence, which continued especially between Cardinal Hosius , Anna Jagiellon and Catherine Jagiellon through the 1570s, is telling since it shows the importance of Catherine’s birth family and her early advisers. Hosius did not hesitate to continue to give counsel to the queens. In 1576, for instance, he advised Catherine to write to the Vice-King of Naples and to Philip II concerning the payment of her maternal inheritance.Footnote 51 When disagreements or misunderstandings between the two sisters appeared, Hosius tried to counsel them to reconcile.Footnote 52 The Jesuit diplomat Antonio Possevino arranged that Stanislas Warszewicki be left in Stockholm as chaplain to the queen and her son Sigismund. Since it was obvious in a hereditary monarchy that Sigismund would ascend the throne, there was every reason to create a network of trustworthy, preferably Catholic persons around the Swedish crown prince. Catherine Jagiellon’s position and networks were seminal in all this. She was at the heart of a network that facilitated Catholic counsel in Sweden through her own, previous counsellors from her youth.

Courtiers and Ambassadors Advising the King and Queen

After their release from Gripsholm Castle in 1568 and coronation in 1569, John III and Catherine Jagiellon gathered a group of trustworthy, educated noblemen around them to serve as courtiers and ambassadors . Some of these were Swedes, such as Ture Bielke, while others were of foreign origin, such as Pontus de la Gardie, Petrus Rosinus and Petrus Fecht. Both Pontus de la Gardie and Ture Bielke were also Catherine Jagiellon’s court masters (hovmästare), with Pontus de la Gardie holding the title already in 1568 in John’s court and next year in Catherine’s court.Footnote 53 However, as counsellors to the Catholic queen they took considerable risks. While Pontus de la Gardie died as a celebrated war hero in 1580, Ture Bielke’s loyalty to Catherine—and after Catherine’s death to her son Sigismund—cost him his life: John’s younger brother Charles IX ensured by means of threats and bribes that the Court of the Estates would issue death sentences against Erik Sparre, Ture Bielke, and Gustav and Sten Baner. Erik Sparre was Catholic and the others probably also had Polish and/or Catholic sympathies. They were decapitated in 1600. Petrus Rosinus, a Dutch Catholic who followed Ture Bielke to Rome in 1575,Footnote 54 and the ill-fated royal secretary Petrus Fecht drowned off Bornholm, Denmark in 1577 while on a mission to Rome and Naples for Catherine and John. As a theologian, Petrus Fecht was one of John’s closest advisers in his controversial Church reform.Footnote 55

It may also be that John and Catherine made mistakes in recruiting people to their service. Among these was undoubtedly Carlo Brancaccio, an Italian in the service of the Swedish royal couple.Footnote 56 Pontus de la Gardie, one of the most renowned military commanders in Sweden during the sixteenth century, has been credited with much of the country’s military success in the 1580s (in Narva, for instance). He played an essential, but not very successful, role in John’s and Catherine’s diplomacy. At least Cardinal Hosius blamed the queen consort of Sweden for not listening to his advice. Due to Brancaccio’s and de la Gardie’s (who were apparently Catherine’s and John’s choices) incompetency everything went wrong: the Sforza inheritance remained still unpaid in Naples and John’s religious ambitions were seriously suspected in the Papal Curia.Footnote 57 It is another striking example of political blame falling on poor counsel.

Pontus de la Gardie was originally from Languedoc in southern France, but he changed his name to make it sound aristocratic, which he was not (originally Pons d’Escouperie). Not much is known about his past. According to some sources he was formerly a monk, but what is certain is that he was an international mercenary before he came to Sweden. There he soon gained John III’s favour. While John’s father Gustav Vasa was oriented both politically and culturally toward the German-speaking world, John was interested more in central and southern European cultures. He had travelled extensively and spoke several languages, as did Catherine Jagiellon. De la Gardie’s confession seems to have been flexible, but plausibly his background was Catholic, which was an important factor when he was sent to Rome to negotiate about the Sforza inheritance. Being a native speaker of Romance language(s) was possibly an advantage, in addition to his skill in Latin. Nevertheless, papal legates complained about his behaviour and boastfulness.Footnote 58 De la Gardie returned from Rome without making any progress in the matter. On the contrary, it seems that as an ambassador in Italy he was more harmful than useful and he behaved more like a military commander than a diplomat. Despite the poor results, John bound him tightly to the family in 1580 by marrying him to Sofia Johansdotter Gyllenhielm (ca. 1556–83), his own illegitimate daughter, who had been born from his relationship with Karin Hansdotter before his marriage to Catherine Jagiellon. It is unclear if the marriage was a reward for military success or as a means of keeping an eye on Pontus de la Gardie, or both.

King John III and King Stefan Batory of Poland (Catherine’s brother-in-law), had allied against Tsar Ivan IV in December 1577. However, there were several severe disagreements between them. First, the issue of the substantial inheritance due to Catherine and her Jagiellonian sisters had not been resolved. Second, Poland claimed the whole of Livonia, without accepting Swedish rule of any part of it. Third, the 120,000 daler loan from John to Sigismund Augustus on the occasion of his and Catherine’s marriage in 1562 had still not been repaid, nor had Catherine’s dowry. In the spring of 1582, John III’s Catholic sympathies had waned and relations with Stefan Batory were tense. The Italian-born legate to Poland, Domenico Alamanni, came to Stockholm to meet the king and negotiate about Livonia.Footnote 59 John was reluctant to cooperate and behaved aggressively. After not achieving any results with the king, Alamanni wished to meet the queen. John accepted, but warned that it would not change his mind. At first, the legate begged the queen to mediate between the two kings. Catherine’s whole life was characterized by tensions and conflicts in which she often conducted the role of a maker of concord . The intersection of women as mediators and coordinators of extended networks is indeed an essential characteristic of early modern European societies. Overlapping familial and political concerns were part of court politics and diplomatic networks. Although Catherine operated both formally and informally, these kinds of encounters with diplomats, for instance, show the manifold indirect ways of exercising political influence and authority. This time, her emotions, both sadness and annoyance, are described in the legate’s report as if emphasizing her frustration toward continuous negotiations and counselling. With tears in her eyes, Catherine assured him that she suffered greatly from the discord between the brothers-in-law. Alamanni blamed Pontus de la Gardie for the troublesome relationship between Poland and Sweden. When the war with Russia was ended, Sweden was able to keep the conquests led by de la Gardie in Karelia and Ingria, but had to withdraw from Livonia. Catherine cautiously agreed. During a second audience, Catherine was not as receptive as before. For instance, she spoke about the large sums spent on ambassadors, resulting in nothing but futile words and phrases. In saying this, she referred to favours which Sweden had asked from Poland, including failed negotiations around her own inheritance from her mother. In the background, there was also her dowry, which still remained unpaid. John had attempted to collect the money several times and had also discussed the issue with Alamanni earlier. Alamanni gave several explanations, and the Queen listened calmly to what he said, but she left immediately after he finished his talk. A third audience was planned, but the queen announced that she could not attend because of illness. It is possible that in this way, Catherine, who still had hopes for better results, forced John to give the farewell audience to Alamanni. On this final occasion, the legate was kept waiting until one of the royal secretaries, Per Rasmusson Brun (1581–96), came to say “apud principes sunt varia consilia et mutabilia” (“among princes, plans are varied and changeable”).Footnote 60 We do not know the tone of the quotation—whether it possibly includes irony, for instance—but it can be interpreted as expressing the feeling of frustration of both the royal couple and their counsellors (the secretary himself). Finally, the king was ready to give the farewell audience. Ture Bielke and Pontus de la Gardie were present. The audience was another fiasco, and culminated in John losing his temper. Worried about the possible consequences, Bielke and de la Gardie sought to appease the legate afterwards. They were quite right, for relations between the brothers-in-law never improved. Furthermore, their successors inherited disputes, the most significant being the quarrel over Livonia, which caused a series of wars between the two countries.

Conclusion

Early modern royal and princely families used the “hard power” of administration, diplomacy and war, but their authority was also legitimized by “soft power”, defined as attraction and cooption through the promotion of culture and values rather than coercion and force. The idea of “soft power” is frequently linked with aspects of religious and cultural patronage, often regarded as a woman’s domain. This division is visible in those of Catherine Jagiellon’s activities for which written sources have been preserved. She was not directly involved in administration or warfare, but she was taken up with important diplomatic negotiations, at least via correspondence. One of the reasons for her involvement was her confession, an advantage when operating in Catholic Europe, together with her birth and transnational networks with lay and ecclesiastical Catholic agents. While these made her contributions intrinsically valuable, even if she personally negotiated with the pope and cardinals and attempted to recruit the best possible advisers and intermediators, one has to conclude that they were not very successful: the relationship between Poland and Sweden—as well as between her husband and her brother-in-law—remained difficult, she did not receive her maternal inheritance, her dowry was not paid and Sweden did not get re-Catholicized, among other things.

It is important to bear in mind that the situation after John and Catherine’s release from prison in 1568 was far from easy: Sweden and Poland were practically at war and Catherine had lost the court and entourage which she had brought with her to Turku in 1562 after the wedding. She never saw any of her family members after leaving Vilnius; she corresponded with her siblings at a distance, and their relations were not particularly warm. In the correspondence with Cardinal Hosius and Anna, her sister, it was Catherine who was given advice, probably because of the order of their ages and because Anna was the Queen (first queen consort and then queen regnant) of the powerful kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchess of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. However, Catherine was able to quickly establish a new court in Sweden proper, largely formed of Polish courtiers but also including Swedish and international courtiers. Some of these were experienced professionals in court life, such as the dwarf Doska , who had endured the tough years in Gripsholm with her mistress. While “counsel” is generally understood as something abstract, the practical agency of sixteenth-century servants—as well as the psychological and affective aspects of long-term, even entire life or transgenerational, household relationships—certainly included continuity that helped the queen consort in a new situation and activities which can be defined as “everyday counsel” between queens consort and their extended household familiares. Archival research, studies of material culture and household spaces, and ability to interpret between the lines would provide better insight into the experiences and cultural forms of this group of men and women.Footnote 61 Horizontal networks of peers were important, but vertical interdependences and cross-hierarchical ties in early modern courts also need further investigation. Naturally, the basis of Catherine Jagiellon’s networks was founded on her family and kin. In various conflicts and negotiations, there was at least an undercurrent of concern regarding the dynastic succession of the Catholic Jagiellons.

Pressures from the side of the Jagiellons and also the Vasas were enormous. Dynastic succession, purity of confession, and negotiations of war and peace endangered emotional bonds with one’s siblings and even one’s spouse and children. In the end, it seems that Catherine Jagiellon was reactive rather than proactive, but she dutifully attempted to fulfil her tasks as an intermediary if we do not include her last years. Similarly, she calmly received counsel from various fronts without complaining. From the modern perspective of face-negotiation theory—and, related to that, politeness theoryFootnote 62—it can be said that she was concerned with “saving face” and she carefully managed her self-presentation in ambiguous, vulnerable and uncertain situations (unlike her husband John III or some of their ambassadors) characterized by conflict, embarrassment and potential threat. She even helped others, for instance, her sister Anna and the legate Alamanni, to maintain face in a difficult situation, as basically required for successful participation in an orderly civil society.

While Gustav Vasa recruited several experts from Germany who were crucial in the formation period of the administration in the 1530s, John and Catherine as a “working couple” recruited servants, courtiers, various envoys and ambassadors as well as ecclesiastics equally from the Catholic world. Some of their unofficial counsellors, like Cardinal Hosius, were not directly in their service, but linked with Catherine’s previous court in Poland. The relationship between Catherine and Anna Jagiellon’s early counsellors and their former protégées was not cut after the princesses were married. Their previous counsellors such as Cardinal Hosius might have had his own (and indeed Catholic Church) interests, but it seems that he also felt responsible to continue their “counselling”. Catherine in particular, attempted to spread these counsels in her new environment and balance the various demands. It was, however, not always easy to recruit adept counsellors at the marital court dominated by a different culture, language and religion. Nevertheless, this international group of people communicated (although not always very successfully) with foreign audiences, creating and working on transnational issues and paving the way for the development of the public sphere. After this period of the Catholic, central and southern European influence at the royal court, Catholicism became punishable in Sweden either by deportation or the death penalty from Sigismund’s dethronement in 1599. Sigismund’s successor was Charles IX, whose favouritism towards Protestant German-speaking areas was particularly notable. Sweden turned again towards German culture.