A Forgotten Bishop: Lutsk Bishop Ostafy (Eugene) Yelo-Malynsky in the Shadow of His Outstanding Contemporaries

Abstract

The article deals with the activity of the Union Bishop Ostafy (Eugene) Yelo-Malynsky, who headed the Lutsk Episcopal Chair in 1607–1620. The questions of the origin of the Yelo-Malynsky family, their formation in the status of large landowners in Volhynia; the peculiarities of the secular period of the future bishop’s life are also analyzed. It is noted that Ostafy Yelo-Malynsky was, figuratively speaking, a member of the “club of Volhynian magnates”, owned numerous estates and distinguished himself as a successful businessman. At the same time, from a young age he proved to be an extremely controversial person. On the one hand, Yelo-Malynsky was a recognized lawyer and city judge in Volhynia, while on the other hand, he was involved in a crime including at least two high-profile murders. That circumstance had a great impact on the formation of his reputation and created serious problems in his further activity as a bishop. The issue of national and religious values of Ostafy Yelo-Malynsky is considered separately. It is mentioned that he belonged to the wealthy elite, who followed the Eastern rite at the turn of the 16th–17th centuries. Having opted for the union, he took part in the Lublin Declaration of 1603, which aimed to provide political support to the Union Church and members of the church. Since then, Ostafy Yelo-Malynsky had become one of the few large landowners in Volhynia who professed the Union and had real opportunities to support it.It is noted that granting the privilege to Ostafy Yelo-Malynsky at the Lutsk Diocese met with mass protests of the Volhynian nobility. The aristocratic community mainly did not perceive him as a pastor due to the ambiguous past of the new bishop. This, in turn, was the main reason for the local spread of the Union in the Lutsk-Ostroh diocese.The author made the conclusion that Ostafy (Eugene) Yelo-Malynsky combined in his person contradictory features of his time (aristocratic arbitrariness and the connection with crime, as well as the education, talent of a businessman and the practice of a lawyer). Becoming a bishop, he showed the abilities of an administrator, but did not realize his material potential in the field of philanthropy, and thus remained in the shadow of his prominent contemporaries.