Introduction: East and West
Archduchess Catherine of Austria and Sigismund August, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, married by proxy on the cusp of summer 1553. It should have been a happy occasion. Catherine, daughter of Ferdinand, King of the Romans, would become queen of the largest monarchy in Europe. But the atmosphere at the wedding deteriorated soon after the hand of the princess was bound with a bishop’s stole to the hand of Mikołaj ‘the Black’ Radziwiłł, Voivode of Vilnius and Sigismund August’s proxy. Some modern historians are still too careful to include an account of the episode in their studies, calling it ‘distasteful’.1 It was also removed from the nineteenth-century edition of the chronicle by Łukasz Górnicki, who was in the entourage of Jan Przerebski, the other ambassador sent to conclude the marriage negotiations.2 Górnicki reports:
After the banquet there was dancing. King Ferdinand was dancing himself, and rather a lot. After dancing they went to the bedroom. There, the King told the Voivode of Vilnius to lie down, saying: ‘The usual custom has to be observed in our House.’ And when the Voivode of Vilnius lay down as he was dressed, the King ordered his daughter to lie down beside him, but she was too embarrassed to do it. So her father caught her by the shoulders and said to his son: ‘Maximilian, help me.’ Maximilian caught her legs, and they put her next to the Voivode. Immediately afterwards the Queen leapt out of
1 U. Borkowska, Dynastia Jagiellonów w Polsce (Warsaw: PWN, 2011), p. 251.
2 The censored version: Ł. Górnicki, Dzieje w Koronie Polskiej od r. 1538 do r. 1572, K. J. Turowski (ed.) (Sanok: Karol Pollak, 1855).
© The Author(s) 2019
K. Kosior, Becoming a Queen in Early Modern Europe, Queenship and Power, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11848-8_1
1
K. KOSIOR
bed, not without help, and the Voivode as well. There were other ceremonies too, but not accompanied by grand speeches as in our country.3
This moment of tension has much to teach us about queenship, royal ceremonies, and royal families. The Polish and Habsburg sides both understood the purpose and general procedure of marriage by proxy, but differences in political cultures were alluded to. The Poles, having just arrived from an elective, parliamentary monarchy where rhetorical skill was highly valued as part of the culture of active political participation, expected royal ceremony to be accompanied by ‘grand speeches’. Consummation by proxy was not usually part of Polish ceremonies, and Ferdinand referred to it as the custom of ‘our House’. These differences could be navigated by ambassadors, who acted as intermediaries and were normally well versed in the protocol of royal courts. However, Mikołaj ‘the Black’ Radziwiłł was not an experienced ambassador and had only entered the world of high-level politics following his cousin Barbara’s scandalous, but short-lived, marriage to Sigismund August in 1547—she died in 1551. This helps explain why he was so oblivious to the custom that Ferdinand had to give him instructions. Górnicki reports that the voivode lay down ‘as he was dressed’, while the usual custom was for the ambassador to undress down to his shirt. Even if Radziwiłł’s behaviour was unusual, Catherine’s resistance cannot be explained by maidenly embarrassment. She was already 20 years old and a widow, having been married to Francesco III Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, for four months in 1549–1550. Catherine must have been familiar with the custom and understood that this was part of the job. Instead of the maidenly blushes that would befit a princess bride, the episode reveals the complex personal anxieties Catherine must have felt about the marriage. She had to be put into bed by force and immediately leapt out almost fainting in the process, because she was marrying the same man her sister Elizabeth had married ten years previously, the man who notoriously neglected the older Archduchess on account of his then mistress, Barbara Radziwiłł. Having to get into bed with the cousin of the woman who stole her older sister’s (and now Catherine’s own) husband added insult to injury. This episode
3 All translations are my own unless otherwise stated. Ł. Górnicki, Dzieie w Koronie Polskiey za Zygmunta I y Zygmunta Augusta az do smierci iego z przytoczeniem niektorych postronnych Ciekawosci od Roku 1538 az do Roku 1572 (Warsaw: Drukarnia J.K.M. y Rzeczypospolited Collegium XX Scholarum, 1754), p. 56.
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
throws into sharp relief that these ceremonies, which so often come down to us as sets of depersonalised platitudes, were, in fact, deeply personal. Górnicki’s report also helps us think about family dynamics in the context of dynasticism and rehearses ideas about the gendered expectations of royal women. Ferdinand would not be humiliated by his daughter and she is made to comply by force. In the report, dynastic rhetoric of ‘our house’ quickly becomes the family business of disciplining Catherine—the father calls his son, not his courtiers, to help him.
Catherine embodies the connections between European royal courts in the sixteenth century that this study encompasses. As the daughter of Anne of Bohemia and Hungary, she was niece, sister, and aunt to queens of France and Poland-Lithuania. She was also the granddaughter of Anne de Foix, who was the cousin to the queens of France Anne of Brittany and Claude of France. But even though Catherine’s cousins, sisters, aunts, and nieces figure prominently in French and English-language scholarship, she and her fellow queens of Poland are absent from narratives about sixteenthcentury queenship, even those that claim to have a pan-European focus.4 The obscurity of Polish queens helps perpetuate the notion that Europe was historically divided into ‘West’ and ‘East’, implying that a fundamental political and cultural divide animated life on the continent. As Norman Davies observes, ‘by taking transient contemporary divisions, such as the
4 For example, see: T. Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); T. M. Vann (ed.), Queens, Regents and Potentates (Cambridge, 1993); J. Eldridge Carol, Fairy Tale Queens: Representations of Early Modern Queenship (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012); D. Barrett-Graves (ed.), The Emblematic Queen: Extra-Literary Representations of Early Modern Queenship (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); S. Jansen, The Monstrous Regiment of Women: Female Rulers in Early Modern Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002); A. J. Cruz and M. Suzuki (eds) The Rule of Women in Early Modern Europe (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2009); L. O. Fradenburg (ed.) Women and Sovereignty (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1992); J. C. Parsons (ed.) Medieval Queenship (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1993). Exceptions: A. Bues (ed.) Frictions and Failures: Cultural Encounters in Crisis (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2017), pp. 105–132; C. Fleiner and E. Woodacre (eds), Virtuous or Villainess? The Image of the Royal Mother from the Early Medieval to the Early Modern Era (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016); E. Woodacre (ed.), A Companion to Global Queenship (Amsterdam: ARC Humanities Press); H. Matheson-Pollock, J. Paul, C. Fletcher (eds), Queenship and Counsel in Early Modern Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018), pp. 15–34. Two Polish eighteenth-century queens were included by: H. Watanabe-O’Kelly, ‘Religion and the consort: two Electresses of Saxony and Queens of Poland (1697–1757), in C. Campbell Orr (ed.) Queenship in Europe 1660–1815: The Role of the Consort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 252–276.
K. KOSIOR
Iron Curtain, as a standing definition of “West” or “East”, one is bound to distort any description of Europe in earlier periods. Poland is neatly excised from the Renaissance, Hungary from the Reformation’.5 Davies wrote this in the immediate aftermath of the fall of communism, but the tendency to diminish the extent of contact between Poland and the West while emphasising the ‘otherness’ or marginality of Polish culture persists in the historiography. For example, the tendency to downplay the significance of the Polish nobility in European affairs is even evident in Fanny Cosandey’s otherwise outstanding study of French queenship. In her introduction, she lists the 12 French queens of her study. Only Marie Leszczynska, the wife of Louis XV and queen of France for 42 years, is given a descriptor. She is called ‘a modest Polish princess’ in direct contrast to Marie Antoinette, who is identified as ‘born archduchess of Austria’.6 This apparently innocuous contrast speaks volumes. Marie Leszczynska was the only surviving daughter of King Stanisław I Leszczynski of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania (1704–1709, 1733–1736), later Duke of Lorraine, and Katarzyna Opalinska, like her husband of a very distinguished Polish family.
Since Davies wrote in 1992, Robert Frost and Natalia Nowakowska have pioneered early modern Polish history as an English-language field of study. Nowakowska is right to argue that ‘where our models are built from examples garnered from only half the continent, we risk operating with only a half (or even a half-accurate) picture of Renaissance European society’.7 In other words, historians have tried to define the ‘European’ by looking only at half of Europe, as eastern and central Europe remains the primary context for representing the Polish monarchy.8 Polish historiography is no less guilty of this tendency. It tends to treat queenship in even more reclusive terms, for although it includes assiduously researched biographies of some queens, particularly Bona Sforza, few attempts have
5 N. Davies, Europe: a history (London: Pimlico, revised edition 2010), pp. 25–26.
6 F. Cosandey, La Reine de France. Symbole et pouvoir, XVe–XVIII siècle (Paris: Gallimard, 2000), pp. 11–12.
7 N. Nowakowska, Church, State, and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland: The Career of Cardinal Fryderyk Jagiellon (1468–1503) (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), p. 6. Also, R. Frost, The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania. Volume I: The Making of the Polish-Lithuanian Union, 1385–1569 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).
8 Of this tendency, see: U. Borkowska and M. Hörsch (eds), Hofkultur der Jagiellonendynastie und verwandter Fürstenhäuser (Ostfildern: J. Thorbecke, 2010); F. N. Ardelean, C. Nicholson and J. Preiser-Kapeller (eds), Between Worlds: The Age of the Jagiellonians (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2013).
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
been made to relate Polish queens to each other, never mind other European consorts.9
This study seeks to address these imbalances. It uses ‘East’ and ‘West’ in a strictly geographical sense, eschewing any sense that these terms necessarily signify fundamental cultural difference, and pierces stereotypes of sixteenth-century Poland’s cultural and political isolation by offering the first substantial comparison of Polish royal ceremony and culture with that of France, an apparently quintessentially western realm. French queens have been studied as a group by historians such as Fanny Cosandey, Kathleen Wellman, and Simone Bertière, but their connection to the Polish queens has never been fully understood or appreciated.10 More
9 Bogucka, Bona Sforza (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1998/2010); M. Bogucka, Anna Jagiellonka (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1994/2009); J. Besala, Zygmunt Stary i Bona Sforza (Poznan: Zysk i S-ka, 2012); W. Pociecha, Królowa Bona (1494–1557): czasy i ludzie Odrodzenia, vols. 1–4 (Poznan: Poznanskie Towarzystwo Nauk, 1949). A collection of sources relating to Jagiellonian women was published by: A. Przezdziecki, Jagiellonki Polskie w XVI w.: uzupełnienia, rozprawy, materyały, vols. 1–5 (Cracow: Drukarnia Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego, 1878). Jagiellonian princesses who became Queen of Sweden and Duchess of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel: A. Bues, ‘Art collections as dynastic tools: The Jagiellonian Princesses Katarzyna, Queen of Sweden, and Zofia, Duchess of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel’, in H. Watanabe-O’Kelly and A. Morton (eds), Queens Consort, Cultural Transfer and European Politics, c. 1500–1800 (Oxon and New York: Routledge, 2017), pp. 15–36. The discussion about the post-1572 queenship was opened up by Robert Frost with a study Louise Marie Gonzaga: R. I. Frost, ‘The Ethiopian and the Elephant? Queen Louise Marie Gonzaga and Queenship in an Elective Monarchy, 1645–1667’, The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 91, no. 4 (October 2013), pp. 787–817; Maria Bogucka put Polish women on the map of English-language gender studies with her book that applies its methodologies to studying Polish women’s everyday lives. M. Bogucka, Women in Early Modern Polish Society, against the European Background (Oxon: Routledge, 2nd edition, 2016).
10 Cosandey, La Reine de France. Symbole et pouvoir, XVe–XVIIIe siècle ; S. Bertière, Les Reines de France au Temps des Valois (Paris: Éditions de Fallois, 1994); K. Wellman, Queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013).
See also: J. Boucher, Deux épouses et reines à la fin du XVIe siècle: Louise de Lorraine et Marguerite de France (Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne, 1995). However, the most studied queens remain Anne of Brittany, Catherine de Medici, and Mary, Queen of Scots: J. Poirier, ‘Catherine de Medicis and the Performance of Political Motherhood’, The Sixteenth Century Journal , vol. 31, no. 3 (Autumn 2000), pp. 643–673; K. Crawford, Perilous Performances: Gender and Regency in Early Modern France (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004); R. J. Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (London: Longman, 1998); I. Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis (Paris: Fayard, 1992); C. J. Brown, The Queen’s Library image-making at the court of Anne of Brittany, 1477–1514 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011); J. J. Rorimer, ‘The Unicorn
K. KOSIOR
generally, even in the robustly developing area of royal studies, sustained comparisons are rare, an exception being Jeroen Duindam’s study of the Valois-Bourbon and Habsburg royal courts.11 By framing Polish and French queenship comparatively and relating Polish queenship and monarchy to the ongoing debates in recent scholarship, this study will reinforce our growing understanding of how queens helped spin the thread that connected early modern Europe, linking together various European realms with blood-ties and alliances; it will also demonstrate that Poland was very much a part of that rich tapestry, exposing the extent to which the wives of the Valois and Jagiellonian kings related to each other.
Tapestries Were Made for Anne of Brittany’, The Metropolitam Museum of Art Bulletin , New Series, vol. 1, no 1 (Summer 1942), pp. 7–20; C. J. Brown, ‘Books in Performance: The Parisian Entry (1504) and Funeral (1514) of Anne of Brittany’, Yale French Studies , No 110 (2006), pp. 75–79; A. Fraser, Mary Queen of Scots (London: Pheonix, 1969/2002); J. Guy, My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots (London: Harper Perennial, 2004); J. Wormland, Mary, Queen of Scots: Politics, Passion and a Kingdom Lost (New York: Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2nd edition, 2001). Focus on the more ‘powerful’ queens, i.e. regnants and regents has persisted in queenship studies since the pioneering articles on Elizabeth I: A. Heish, ‘Queen Elizabeth I and the Persistence of Patriarchy’, in Feminist Review , vol. 4 (1980), pp. 45–56; C. Levin, The Heart and Stomach of a King: Elizabeth I and the Politics of Sex and Power (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994); T. Earenfight, The King’s Other Body: Maria of Castile and the Crown of Aragon (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009). Fanny Cosandey similarly focuses on queens of France as regents: F. Cosandey, ‘“La blancheur de nos lys”. La reine de France au cœur de l’État royal’, Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine , vol. 44, no 3 (1997), pp. 387–403. See also: M. Perry, Sisters to the King: The Tumultuous Lives of Henry VIII’s Sisters: Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France (London: Andre Deutsch Limited, 1998); J. F. Petrouch, Queen’s apprentice: archduchess Elizabeth, empress María, the Habsburgs, and the Holy Roman Empire, 1554–1569 (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2010).
11 J. Duindam, Vienna and Versailles: The Courts of Europe’s Dynastic Rivals, 1550–1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Some examples of thematic or regional approaches: Peggy McCracken, The Romance of Adultery: Queenship and Sexual Transgression in Old French Literature (Philadelphia, 1998); Eldridge Carol, Fairy Tale Queens; Jansen, The Monstrous Regiment of Women; Cruz and Suzuki (eds) The Rule of Women in Early Modern Europe; W. Layher, Queenship and Voice in Medieval Northern Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Woodacre, The Queens Regnant of Navarre; Elena Woodacre (ed.) Queenship in the Mediterranean: Negotiating the Role of the Queen in the Medieval and Early Modern Eras (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); C. Beem, The Lioness Roared: The Problems of Female Rule in English History (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); A. Hunt and A. Whitelock (eds) Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); C. Levin, D. Barrett -Graves, and J. E. Carney (eds), High and Mighty Queens of Early Modern England: Realities and Representations (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
The ceremonies of becoming a queen, understood as the wedding with the accompanying festivals, coronation, childbirth, and motherhood, marked the transition of a bride into a queen consort but have never been studied as a sequence in a larger European context. The analysis of these ceremonies illuminates French and Polish queenship by revealing the ideological, conceptual, political, diplomatic, and family frameworks within which queens functioned. Establishing the patterns that marked the movement of royal brides between East and West, laying bare the connections that bound together monarchical Europe, enables us to question whether the differences in European royal ceremony and queenship were motivated by specific ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ ideas. This study uses both queens and royal ceremonies as a way of understanding the political and cultural dynamics that animated life on the continent in the sixteenth century.
Although the historiography of the Polish monarchy has not been affected by the ‘ceremonial turn’ to the same extent as the English and French-language scholarship, works on Polish royal ceremony have been produced by Michał Rozek, Urszula Borkowska, Aleksander Gieysztor, Krystyna Turska, and Karolina Targosz.12 But the tremendously prolific English-language scholarship on ceremonies is limited too. The tendency
12 M. Rozek, Polskie Koronacje i Korony (Cracow: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1987); U. Borkowska, ‘Theatrum Ceremoniale at the Polish Court as a System of Social and Political Communication’, in A. Adamska and M. Mostert (eds), The Development of Literate Mentalities in East Central Europe (Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2004), pp. 431–452; Borkowska, Dynastia Jagiellonów, pp. 229–259; U. Borkowska, ‘Królewskie zaslubiny, narodziny i chrzest’, in Jacek Banaszkiewicz (ed.), Imagines Potestatis: Rytuały, symbole i konteksty fabularne władzy zwierzchniej. Polska X–XV w. (Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy PAN, 1994), pp. 75–92; A. Gieysztor, ‘Gesture in the Coronation Ceremonies of Medieval Poland’, in J. M. Bak (ed.), Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 152–164; K. Turska, ‘Stroje Jagiellonów podczas ceremoniału witania narzeczonych’, in M. Markiewicz and R. Skowron (eds), Theatrum ceremoniale na dworze ksiazat i królów polskich (Cracow: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 1999), pp. 101–111; K. Targosz, ‘Oprawa artystyczno-ideowa wjazdów weselnych trzech sióstr Habsburzanek (Kraków 1592 i 1605, Florencja 1608), in Markiewicz and Skowron (eds), Theatrum ceremoniale, pp. 207–244. See also, a work of popular history: K. Targosz, Królewskie Uroczystosci Weselne w Krakowie i na Wawelu, 1512–1605 (Cracow: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2007). Texts related to ceremonies, like wedding songs, are often studied not by historians but from the literary criticism point of view: J. NowakDłuzewski, Okolicznosciowa poezja polityczna w Polsce. Czasy Zygmuntowskie (Warszawa: Pax, 1966); K. Mroczek, Epitalamium staropolskie: miedzy tradycja literacka a obrzedem weselnym (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolinskich, 1989).
K. KOSIOR
to focus on the western part of the continent has produced a lopsided account of European ceremony, and therefore royal culture, because not only does the literature neglect a large expanse of European territory but it also fails to take account of ceremonies in a different political setting than that provided by hereditary and absolute monarchies.13 Among the works claiming to have a European focus, only Karin Friedrich’s chapter in Europa Triumphans deals with ceremony in sixteenth-century Poland.14 The spotlight on Western Europe in other works, for example, by Gordon Kipling or Roy Strong, limits them to analysis of one type of royal ingress celebrated with pageants, which was often not characteristic of other parts of the continent, including Poland.15 Polish ceremony can be misconstrued as developing more slowly, rather than understood as developing a set of theatrical forms more appropriate to parliamentarism and elective monarchy, the bedrocks of Poland’s early modern political culture.16 Addressing this imbalance is the aim of this study. To approach these ceremonies systematically using the methodologies of the ‘American ceremonial school’, as some French historians call it, would be to reproduce much of the interpretation already developed by historians like Edward Muir and David Kertzer.17 Undeniably, monarchical authority was based on a
13 J. Adamson (ed.), The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture Under the Ancien Régime (London: Seven Dials, 2000); R. J. Knecht, The French Renaissance Court (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).
14 J. R. Mulryne and E. Goldring (eds), Court Festivals of the European Renaissance: Art, Politics and Performance (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002); R. Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450–1650 (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 1973/1984); K. Friedrich [et al] (ed.), ‘Festivals in Poland-Lithuania from the 16th to the 18th Century’, in J. R. Mulryne, H. Watanabe-O’Kelly and M. Shewing (eds) Europa Triumphans: court and civic festivals in early modern Europe, vol. 1 (Aldershot: MHRA and Ashgate, 2004), pp. 371–462.
15 G. Kipling, Enter the King: Theatre, Liturgy, and Ritual in the Medieval Civic Triumph (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); R. Strong, Art and Power.
16 For example, see: D. Kosinski, Teatra polskie. Historie (Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 2010), pp. 189, 400–414.
17 Anthropological approaches and some studies that emulate them: A. van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, transl. M. B. Vizedom and G. L. Caffee, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960/2004); V. Turner, The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure (London: AldineTransaction, 1969/2008); D. I. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics, and Power (London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988); E. Muir, Ritual in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997). A very good critique of these approaches is provided by: P. Buc, The Dangers of Ritual: Between Early Medieval Texts and Social Scientific Theory (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2001).
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
familial model, with all that this implied for queens as wives and mothers. Instead of seeking to establish how Polish and French ceremonies fit anthropological models, this study investigates how, on the one hand, ceremonies marking the universal stages of human life were adapted to the political context particular to each match and each realm, and how, on the other, connections help us understand royal culture as a pan-European phenomenon. It takes inspiration from studies that locate ceremonies in their particular political contexts, including Maria Hayward on ceremonial dress, Alice Hunt on royal coronations, Fanny Cosandey on queenship and the legal frameworks of monarchy, Retha Warnicke on royal marriage protocol, and Erin Sadlack on ceremony and letters.18 By placing Polish and French queenship and ceremony firmly in their political context and approaching these subjects comparatively, an analysis is offered of the transnational and local contexts of both royal courts. This study will not attempt to homogenise queenship or underestimate the personal experiences of queens. Of central concern is whether displays of emotion made during ceremonies reflected political calculations and should be seen only as a staged part of the public life of a monarch. Moreover, it is my contention that affection between spouses or between parents and children has not attracted the serious historical scrutiny it deserves, perhaps seeming reminiscent of popular biographies and historical fiction. However, sentiment animated the life of early modern courts and this demands serious and nuanced analysis. Royal ceremony, especially, has been considered a staged performance, an orchestrated festival of contrived propaganda.19 The role family feelings played in governing dynastic display has very rarely been tackled by historians. The focus on
18 M. Hayward, Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII (Leeds: Maney, 2007); A. Hunt, The Drama of Coronation: Medieval Ceremony in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008); R. Warnicke, The marrying of Anne of Cleves: royal protocol in early modern England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); E. Sadlack, The French Queen’s Letters: Mary Tudor Brandon and the Politics of Marriage in 16th-Century Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). See also: L. Oakley-Brown and Louise J. Wilkinson (eds), The Rituals and Rhetoric of Queenship: Medieval and Early Modern (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009).
19 S. Broomhall, ‘Ordering Distant Affections: Fostering Love and Loyalty in the Correspondence of Catherine de Medici to the Spanish Court, 1568–1572’, in S. Broomhall (ed.), Gender and Emotions in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: Destroying Order, Structuring Disorder (Oxon/New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 67–88; T. Adams, ‘Married Noblewomen as Diplomats: Affective Diplomacy’, in S. Broomhall, Gender and Emotions, pp. 51–66.
K. KOSIOR
dynasticism is a valuable approach that helps us contextualise the particular politics of European monarchies, but it often overshadows our understanding of the royal family as a family.20 This study brings insight gleaned from the history of emotions to try to add another layer of understanding to these ceremonies.21
Previously untranslated and unpublished sources are drawn upon to explore the dynamic between the pan-European royal culture, political cultures particular to the French and Polish states, and the practicalities of staging royal ceremonies. These ceremonies are the gateway to understanding European royal culture as a blend of national, alien, and shared customs and fashions. Analysis of the ceremonies of becoming a queen casts a new light on how queens experienced their marriages both in private and public, suggesting that there were moments of unstaged emotion. Treating ‘family’ and ‘dynasty’ as distinct terms of historical analysis, this study asks about the ways in which Polish and French royal families were emotionally connected and tests the idealised vision of royal queenship and motherhood conveyed by coronation and pageants against the reality of the lives of queens. Although this examination of the ceremonial processes that accompanied the continuous swapping of brides posits a new pan-European model of queenship and court culture that is resistant
20 Examples of dynastic approaches: A. J. Cruz and M. G. Stampino (eds), Early Modern Habsburg Women: Transnational Contexts, Cultural Conflicts, Dynastic Continuities (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013); A. Hunt and A. Whitelock (eds), Tudor Queenship: The Reigns of Mary and Elizabeth (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); A. Weir, The Six Wives of Henry VIII (London: Vintage Books, 2011); D. Starkey, Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII (London: Vintage Books, 2004); D. Loades, The Six Wives of Henry VIII (Chalford: Amberley, 1994/2009).
21 S. Broomhall (ed.), Early Modern Emotions: An Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, 2016); J. Plamper, The History of Emotions: An Introduction, transl. K. Tribe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); C. Jones, The Smile Revolution in 18th Century Paris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); T. Dixon, Weeping Britannia: Portrait of a Nation in Tears (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015); G. K. Paster, K. Rowe and M. Floyd-Wilson (eds), Reading the Early Modern Passions: Essays in the Cultural History of Emotion (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); R. Meek and E. Sullivan, The Renaissance of Emotion: Understanding Affect in Shakespeare and His Contemporaries (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015); M. Champion and A. Lynch (eds), Understanding Emotions in Early Europe (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015); B. Escolme, Emotional Excess: on the Shakespearean Stage: Passion’s Slaves (London: Bloomsbury, 2013); L. R. Perfetti, The Representation of Women’s Emotions in Medieval and Early Modern Culture (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2005); M. Steggle, Laughing and Weeping in Early Modern Theatres (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007).
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
to crude East/West categorisations, it does not obscure its variety. Ultimately, no complete understanding of early modern European court culture can ignore its Polish dimension.
Polish and French Politics and culture
This comparison between Poland and France aims to complicate our notion of what ‘European’ means and to demonstrate that early modern queens had to operate in a variety of political contexts. Even though the royal customs and ceremonies of these monarchies developed from the shared experience of medieval Christian rulership, during the sixteenth century, these countries were in the final stages of developing two very distinctive political systems: elective and absolute monarchy. There had been precedent for both legendary and historical election of Polish kings, but Poland became an elective monarchy after the Grand Duke of Lithuania, Władysław Jagiełło, married the Polish queen regnant, Jadwiga I, in 1386; the electiveness of the Polish monarchy was formalised in 1434.22 The marriage between Władysław and Jadwiga also established the personal union between Poland and Lithuania, creating what was to become the largest composite monarchy on the continent, and laying the foundation for the subsequent elections of Jagiełło’s sons and grandchildren, as hereditary rulers of Lithuania, to the Polish throne. Thus, in the sixteenth century, Poland still functioned as a de facto hereditary monarchy, because the king’s son was likely to be elected to the Polish throne to perpetuate the union with Lithuania. The elective monarchy was further consolidated when Poland and Lithuania entered into a constitutional union at the Parliament of Lublin in 1569. This coincided with the lack of a Jagiellonian male heir to the Polish throne following Sigismund August’s death in 1572, which allowed the nobility to choose their kings in ‘free elections’ theoretically open to any member of the European nobility. In practice, candidates tended to come from the European royal and princely houses, or from the Polish nobility.
The establishment of the elective monarchy was accompanied by the consolidation of the political privileges and freedoms of the Polish
22 J. Bardach, B. Lesnodorski and M. Pietrzak, Historia panstwa i prawa polskiego (Warsaw: PWN, 1987), pp. 62–63; 102–103; Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland, p. 33.
K. KOSIOR
nobility.23 In order to secure the succession for his daughter, Jadwiga I, in 1374 Louis I of Hungary signed the Koszyce privileges, which exempted the nobility from all taxes levied without their consent, except for a land tax, and ‘established the important principle that the monarchy could only levy extraordinary taxes with szlachta [noble] consent’.24 This started the process of gradually establishing the Polish nobility as the dominant political group. In 1505, Alexander I Jagiellon signed the Nihil Novi act, in which the Polish kings renounced much of their legislative power in favour of the bicameral parliament, or sejm, giving equal powers to the Senate and Chamber of Envoys. The sejm was thus established as the central organ of what Robert Frost calls ‘Poland’s consensual, mixed parliamentary monarchy’.25 The Nihil Novi act provided the basis for the idea of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, based on the Roman Republic, where all nobles enjoyed equal privileges and liberties. Within this extraordinary political system, the nobility were identified by their non-hereditary offices, such as voivode or castellan, rather than aristocratic titles like duke or count. This fostered a sense of collective responsibility for the state in theory and practice, because service to the Commonwealth by holding a state office rather than birth was the mark of status and power. Despite the best efforts of some historians to dispel these negative stereotypes, Karin Friedrich is right to argue that the modern view of Poland-Lithuania is still largely based on ‘the caricature of Poland’, propagated successfully by Austria, Prussia, and Russia following their partitions of Poland at the end of the eighteenth century, as an ‘ineffective elected monarchy with its “medieval” corporate freedoms and factionalised nobility’.26
During the early modern period France developed into an absolute monarchy, which ‘has long been considered to be the essential form of the early modern state’ and does not require a lengthy introduction.27 French kings were legitimised by divine and hereditary right, which was strengthened by the fact that since the first Capetian was crowned in 987, France
23 Nowakowska, Church, State and Dynasty in Renaissance Poland, p. 32.
24 Frost, The Oxford History of Poland-Lithuania, pp. 65–66.
25 Ibid., p. 351.
26 K. Friedrich, ‘Royal Entries into Cracow, Warsaw and Danzig: Festival Culture and the Role of the Cities in Poland-Lithuania’, in J. R. Mulryne, H. Watanabe-O’Kelly and M. Shewring (eds), Europa Triumphans: Court and Civic Festivals in Early Modern Europe, vol. 1 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), p. 386.
27 P. R. Campbell, ‘Absolute Monarchy’, in W. Doyle (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Ancien Régime (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 11.
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
was ruled by the same dynasty until the end of the sixteenth century and the advent of the Bourbons. Even though the French king’s powers were far from truly absolute, French absolutism ‘developed claims and practices that ran counter to long-term representative tendencies contained within its own structures’.28 The French Estates General wielded less power than the Polish sejm and, before their temporary revival in 1560, ‘they were a nearly defunct institution’.29 The king was at the very centre of French politics and his court was an important instrument of government, so the nobility flocked to it in order to secure royal favour—a significant means for French nobles to be involved in politics.30 It is rather extraordinary that at the end of the eighteenth century the French and Polish models of government, despite their fundamental differences, both started to be perceived as decayed and inefficient. This cast a long shadow onto the period when both of these regimes were robustly developing in the sixteenth century. For example, Georges Picot, a nineteenth-century French historian makes a harsh judgement that ‘avec François Ier, la monarchie […] avait marché rapidement vers la despotisme’, while Peter R. Campbell makes a more balanced claim that the French monarchy merely failed at ‘modernising sufficiently’.31
Rather than explaining the diversity of European political culture, historians tend to homogenise it by excluding or representing stereotypically what is considered different. A few studies of the Renaissance include Poland, notably by Peter Burke and Harold B. Segel, but many works still mention it only in passing or not at all.32 If Poland is referred to, it is often
28 Ibid., p. 12.
29 P. Zagorin, Rebels and Rulers 1500–1660, Volume 2: Provincial rebellion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), p. 71.
30 O. Chaline, ‘The Kingdoms of France and Navarre: The Valois and Bourbon Courts c. 1515–1750’, in J. Adamson (ed.) The Princely Courts of Europe: Ritual, Politics and Culture Under the Ancien Régime 1500–1750 (London: Seven Dials, Cassel & Co, 2000), pp. 76–77; Detailed information about the French nobility may be found in: J. Russell Major, From Renaissance Monarchy to Absolute Monarchy: French Kings, Nobles & Estates (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), pp. 57–107; D. Bitton, The French Nobility in Crisis, 1560–1640 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969).
31 G. Picot, Histoire des Etats Généraux considérés au point de vue de leu influence sur le Gouvernement de la France de 1355 à 1614, vol. 2, (Genève: Mégariotis Reprints, 1979), p. 1; Campbell, ‘Absolute Monarchy’, p. 12.
32 J. B. Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland: The Rise of Humanism, 1470–1543 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1989); J. Hale, The Civilisation of Europe in the Renaissance (New York: Touchstone, 1993); P. Burke, The European Renaissance: Centres and Peripheries
K. KOSIOR
to emphasise its cultural ‘otherness’. Dispelling these stereotypes is important, because they go hand-in-hand with misinformed statements such as that ‘it was not unusual for a coronation in Poland to be accompanied by bloodshed’.33 In her recent book about expressions of identity through costume in the European Renaissance, Ulinka Rublack mentions Poland once and in relation to its ‘ostentatious barbarism’ and argues that the Polish nobility
used oriental clothes, weapons, and hairstyles to emphasise its closeness to Asian rather than Western European aesthetic ideals, as well as male valour and hardiness. Italy, France, and Spain mattered less than Ottoman, Russian, and Tartar styles, so that French observers of Polish ceremonies routinely felt as though they were back in periods of ancient Persian glory.34
Karin Friedrich also argues that the ‘otherness’ of Polish culture was ‘founded on Polish self-representations of a heroic eastern “Sarmatian” tribe of warriors, with chivalric values, Tartar-style haircuts and Turkish style dress’.35 However, most of these ostentatious characteristics became established as a form of national culture only at the end of the period discussed in this study. For much of the sixteenth century, and prior to the great wars of the seventeenth century, Poland, and its elites in particular, followed the trends of the European Renaissance.36 Łukasz Górnicki, the chronicler who recorded what happened during Catherine of Austria’s marriage by proxy and the author of the Polish adaptation of Castiglione’s The Courtier, comments on the range of fashions in Poland: ‘we have so many fashions here today that there is no counting them: Italian, Spanish, Brunswick, Hungarian, either old or new, Cossack, Tartar, Turkish […]. Some shave their beards and wear only moustaches, others trim their (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998); C. G. Nauert, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
33 R. J. Knecht, Hero or Tyrant? Henry III, King of France, 1574–1589 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), p. 79.
34 U. Rublack, Dressing Up: Cultural Identity in Renaissance Europe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 146; Term ‘ostentatious barbarism’ was first coined by G. Klaniczay, ‘Everyday Life and the Elites in the Later Middle Ages: The Civilised and the Barbarian’, in P. Linehan and J. L. Nelson (eds), The Medieval World (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 684–685.
35 Friedrich, ‘Royal Entries into Cracow, Warsaw and Danzig’, p. 386.
36 P. Mrozowski, ‘Ubiór jako wyraz swiadomosci narodowej szlachty polskiej w XVI–XVIII wieku’, in A. Sieradzka and K. Turska (eds) Ubiory w Polsce (Warsaw: Kopia, 1994), p. 25.
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
beards in the Czech style, or in the Spanish fashion.’37 Sixteenth-century Poland was a bustling cosmopolitan and multi-cultural environment where Latin, German, and Ruthenian were spoken almost as often as Polish, and the Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish refugees of the religious wars could find a safe haven.38 The robust academic culture of the University of Cracow, founded in 1364, contributed to the dissemination of other (especially literary) Renaissance trends, through constant interaction with other European universities.39 Most importantly, the Polish royal court keenly pursued the fashionable Italian Renaissance. In 1516, Sigismund I the Old contracted Francisco of Florence and Bartolommeo Berrecci to carry out the conversion of the medieval Wawel palace into a Renaissance palazzo.40 Foreign brides of Polish kings arrived in Cracow to find that, despite differences, in some ways their new home resembled the palaces they had left behind in the West.
Politics oF French and Polish royal Marriages
To explicitly link the interests behind the Jagiellonian and Valois marriages is to demonstrate how politically connected Europe was in the sixteenth century. However, Poland is often removed from the master narrative of sixteenth-century European politics just as from the Renaissance. Some studies do include it, if only to point out that Poland was ‘too republican for its own good’, or to argue that ‘the politics of Poland, Lithuania, Muscovy and Sweden only rarely came seriously into contact with the affairs of any western European state’.41 However, in their essence European dynasties were a network of relatives in which the connections
37 Ł. Górnicki, Dworzanin Polski (Gdansk: Wirtualna Biblioteka Literatur y Polskiej), p. 76, [http://biblioteka.vilo.bialystok.pl/lektury/Odrodzenie/Lukasz_Gornicki_Dworzanin_ polski.pdf, accessed on 24/11/2014].
38 P. Jasienica, Ostatnia z rodu (Warsaw: Czytelnik, 1965), p. 53.
39 P. Knoll, ‘A Pearl of Powerful Learning’: The University of Cracow in the 15th Centur y (Amsterdam: Brill, 2016).
40 Burke, The European Renaissance, p. 82.
41 E. Cameron, Early Modern Europe: An Oxford History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 131. See also: R. Mackenney, 16th Century Europe: Expansion and Conflict (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1993); T. A. Morris, Europe and England in the 16th-Century (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 5; Other works including eastern and northern Europe: M. E. Wiesner-Hanks, Early Modern Europe 1450–1789 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); C. Wilson, The Transformation of Europe, 1558–1648 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1976); H. G. Koenigsberger, G. L. Mosse,
K. KOSIOR
were motivated by the ever-changing alliances comprising both East and West. Poland maintained wide-ranging relationships with other European countries resulting in dynastic marriages, the majority of which were motivated by three elements: the Polish struggle to maintain its influence in Hungary, the need to protect eastern Lithuania from the expansionist designs of Muscovy, and the Italian Wars. The below account of the machinations behind Polish and French royal marriages between 1495 and 1576 makes clear that Europe was nothing if not politically connected.
Muscovy started to gain significance as its subjugation to the Mongolian Horde lessened in 1480 and thereafter rapidly became an important player on the European stage. After the annexation of the Grand Duchy of Tver, Grand Duke Ivan III started to call himself the ‘overlord of all Rus territories’. The Slavonic term ‘Rus’ refers to the eastern European ethnocultural region, which in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries comprised the majority of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (modern Belarus, Ukraine, south-eastern Poland) and the western parts of Muscovy.42 Ivan promptly proceeded to annex parts of Lithuania, gathering support among the Lithuanian orthodox Christian nobility. In 1483, he married Zoe Paialologina, the granddaughter of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II and adoptive daughter of Pope Pius II. Their daughter, Helena of Moscow (b. 1476–d. 1513), had suitors from both Poland and the Holy Roman Empire. Muscovy flirted with the idea of an anti-Polish alliance with the Habsburgs but chose a temporary peace on its western borders. Helena married the Polish prince and Grand Duke of Lithuania, Alexander Jagiellon, in 1495 and became the queen of Poland following the premature death of her husband’s brother, John I Albert, in 1501.
However, the conflict between Muscovy and Poland was only resolved for a very short time, and its renewal resulted in the alliance between the Habsburgs and Muscovy, which was then countered by the alliance between Poland, France, and the Ottomans. The dynastic expansion of the Jagiellonians was directed, ever since the times of Władysław Jagiełło (crowned 1386–d. 1434) and Władysław Warnenczyk (crowned 1434–d. 1444), towards the Hungarian and Czech territories, where it collided
G. Q. Bowler, Europe in the 16th Century (London: Longman, 1999); F. Tallett and D. J. B. Trim, European Warfare 1350–1750 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
42 K. Chojnicka, Narodziny rosyjskiej doktryny panstwowej: Zoe Paleolog – miedzy Bizancjum, Rzymem a Moskwa (Cracow: Collegium Columbianum, 2008), pp. 32, 44–45, 113–114.
INTRODUCTION: EAST AND WEST
with the dynastic politics of the German Habsburgs.43 At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the kings of Poland (Alexander I Jagiellon until 1506, then followed by Sigismund I the Old) and Hungary (Vladislav II Jagiellon) were brothers, but by the end of the sixteenth century Hungary was under control of the Holy Roman Emperors. The duo of Jagiellonian kings began to weave a network of alliances, which from the very beginning included France, fortifying their dominions against the Habsburgs. In 1500, Hungary, Poland, France, Rome, and Venice signed a treaty ‘against all common enemies’, meaning in fact Emperor Maximilian I and Sultan Bayezid II, even if the Polish king was determined to bypass the treaty and remain on good terms with the Ottoman Empire.44 Vladislav married Anne de Foix (b. 1484–d. 1506), the daughter of Gaston of Foix and Catherine of Navarre, in 1502. Anne was the cousin of the French queen, Anne of Brittany (b. 1477–d. 1514), and the two women were close friends. Anne de Foix stayed with her royal cousin from the time of her betrothal until the beginning of her journey to Hungary in May 1502.45 Anne of Brittany was the heiress to the Duchy of Brittany, which resulted in her marriages to two consecutive kings of France, Charles VIII and Louis XII. For similar reasons, Anne and Louis’ daughter Claude became the queen consort to Francis I of France in 1515. Even though Poland and France were not linked by a dynastic marriage in the sixteenth century, the French and Polish queens consort were related by blood. Anne de Foix would later become the grandmother to two Polish queens (Elizabeth and Catherine of Austria) and a great-grandmother to another French queen (Elizabeth of Austria).
The conflict between the Jagiellonian brothers and Emperor Maximilian I was escalated by Sigismund’s deliberate choice of his wife, Barbara Zapolya (b. 1495–d. 1515), the daughter of a Hungarian, anti-Habsburg magnate Stefan Zapolya. The marriage linked the Jagiellonians to the Hungarian national party, which was Maximilian’s worst nightmare realised. The wheels of politics turned again, when Muscovy, realising that Poland was once again at odds with the Emperor, attacked Lithuania soon after Barbara and Sigismund’s wedding in 1512. On the other side of the
43 H. Łowmianski, Polityka Jagiellonów (Poznan: Wydawnictwo Poznanskie, 2006), p. 319.
44 It was the first ever treaty that Poland and France entered together: Łowmianski, Polityka, pp. 447–448.
45 Brown, The Queen’s Library, pp. 27–62, 321. For the family tree including Anne of Brittany and Anne de Foix, see: Woodacre, The Queens Regnant of Navarre, Chart 4.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
COMPANY B.
Corning, Joseph W., Captain, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Captain to October 3d, 1861, then promoted to Lieutenant-Colonel, vice Calvin Walker resigned.
White, Josiah J., Captain, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; First Lieutenant to October 3d, 1861, then promoted to Captain, vice Joseph W. Corning promoted; resigned at White House, Va., May 20, 1862.
Draime, Henry J., Captain, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Second Lieutenant to October 3d, 1861, then promoted to First Lieutenant, vice J. J. White, promoted; was First Lieutenant from that date to May 20th, 1862; then promoted to Captain, vice J. J. White, resigned.
Corning, John W., First Lieutenant, enlisted September 26th, 1861, at Palmyra; appointed Second Lieutenant November 30th, 1861, vice Henry J. Draime, promoted; promoted, May 20th, 1862, to First Lieutenant, vice Henry J. Draime promoted; appointed Adjutant November 1st, 1862, vice Sutton, resigned.
Mix, Lucius C., First Lieutenant, enlisted May 22d, 1861, at Elmira; Second Lieutenant of Co. C, to October 17th, 1862, then promoted to First Lieutenant, and transferred to Co. B, vice John W. Corning, appointed Adjutant.
Carter, John J., Second Lieutenant, enlisted May 13th, 1861, at Nunda; Private from date of enrolment in Co. F, Captain James McNair, to September 1, 1862; then appointed Commissary Sergeant; served as such to May 22d, 1862; then appointed Second Lieutenant, vice J. W. Corning promoted.
McCall, Sanford, First Sergeant, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to February 17th, 1862; then promoted to Corporal, served to July 1st, 1862; then promoted to Sergeant; promoted to Orderly Sergeant,
December 1st, 1862, vice John Allice, discharged; wounded May 4th, 1863, at Fredericksburg, Va.
Sours, William, Sergeant, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Corporal from date of enrolment to February 17th, 1862; then promoted to Sergeant.
Birdsall, John, Sergeant, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Corporal from date of enrolment to October 1st, 1862; then promoted to Sergeant.
Crane, Henry, Sergeant, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to February 17th, 1862; then promoted to Corporal; then promoted to Sergeant, December 1st, 1862.
Harris, Solon C., Sergeant, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to January 1st, 1863; then promoted to Sergeant.
Everett, Washington, Corporal, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; wounded May 3d, 1863, at Fredericksburg, Va.
Turner, Richard, Corporal, enlisted May 9th, 1861; Private from date of enrolment to October 1st, 1862; then promoted to Corporal.
Stickles, Griffin, Corporal, enlisted May 9th, 1861; at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to December 1st, 1862; then promoted to Corporal.
Mepham, Benjamin, Corporal, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to December 1st, 1862; then promoted to Corporal.
Clemmens, John, Corporal, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to December 1st, 1862; then promoted to Corporal.
Murphy, John, Corporal, enlisted Sept. 21st, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to March 20th, 1863; then promoted to Corporal.
Geer, Charles, Corporal, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to March 20th, 1863; then promoted to Corporal.
Albreze, Gotleib, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Brookins, William, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Becker, Lewis C., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Beck, William, Private, enlisted Sept. 16th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Bennett, Charles W., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Camp, Lewis, Private, enlisted May 15th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Clevenger, Samuel B., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Clum, Chancey J., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra. Absent sick at hospital, of wounds since September 17th, 1862; place unknown.
Dake, Royal E., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Corporal from date of enrolment to February 17th, 1862; then promoted to Sergeant, October 7th, 1862.
Dillon, William, Private, enlisted July 5th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Eisentrager, Charles F., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Grattan, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Gilbert, William S., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Held, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Hill, Munson G., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Henderson, Albert, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Hibbard, Thomas P., Private, enlisted July 5th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Huxley, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Howell, Allied, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Hanley, Thomas, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Jarvis, John P., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra. Sergeant from date of enrolment to October 1st, 1862.
Jarvis, Edward, Private, enlisted October 15th, 1861, at Rochester; wounded May 3d, 1863.
Jackson, Joseph, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Johnson, James, Private, enlisted Oct. 19th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Johnson, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Johnson, Thomas, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Kramar, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Lee, Mason, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra, wounded May 4.
Little, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Lennon, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Mosher, Lewis, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
McGuire, Barney, Private, enlisted Sept. 21st, 1861, at Palmyra.
Moss, Hubbard M., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Natt, Valentine, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Palmer, Clinton S., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra. Orderly Sergeant from date of enrolment to December 17th, 1862.
Parks, Erastus B., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Posse, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Quinn, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Risley, Nathaniel B., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Sanders, Winfield S., Private, enlisted Oct. 19th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Shear, John, Private, enlisted Sept. 21st, 1861, at Palmyra.
Smith, John H., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Smith, Frank, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Smith, William M., Private, enlisted Sept. 15th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Struchin, Alexander, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Turner, George, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Vandyne, James, Private, enlisted Sept. 19th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Vosburgh, James, Private, enlisted Sept. 18th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Vanderwerken, Jason, Private, enlisted July 5th, 1861, at Palmyra.
Wexmoth, George, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra.
KILLED.
Bennett, Addison, Sergeant, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; killed in action June 28th, 1862.
Gardner, George W., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; killed in action June 28th, 1862.
Knowles, Louis, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; killed in action June 28th, 1862.
Deyoe, Francis, Private, enlisted August 18th, 1862, at Palmyra; killed in action May 4th, 1863.
MISSING IN ACTION.
Hoffman, John, Private, enlisted September 2d, 1862, at Palmyra; missing in action May 4th, 1863.
Ingraham, William L., Private, enlisted August 30th, 1862, at Rochester; wounded May 4th, 1863.
DIED.
Hart, David, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at Camp Griffin, Va., January 3, 1862.
Mead, Albert, Private, enlisted October 22d, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at Camp Griffin, Va., February 17th, 1862.
Kellogg, James, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at Georgetown, D. C., May 23d, 1862.
Sherman, Jacob, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at Alexandria, Va., March 22d, 1862.
Ottman, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1881, at Palmyra; died of disease at Alexandria, Va., September 26th, 1862.
Kelly, Hiram H., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at Palmyra, N. Y., October 14th, 1862.
Lenhart, Samuel, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at Hagerstown, Md., October 15th, 1862.
Kellogg, Erastus, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at White Oak Church, Va., December 26th, 1862.
Sedgwick, George, Private, enlisted August 28th, 1862, at Palmyra; died of disease at White Oak Church, Va., February 24th, 1863.
Coonen, Michael, Corporal, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; died of disease at White Oak Church, Va., March 19th, 1863.
DESERTED.
Reynolds, Billings, Private, enlisted July 5th, 1861, at Palmyra; deserted from Camp Griffin, Va., March 20th, 1862.
Hill, Silas, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; deserted from Chickahominy, Va., June 5th, 1862.
Hill, William B., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; deserted from Chickahominy, Va., June 8th, 1862.
Armstrong, Robert, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; deserted from Harrison’s Landing, Va., July 28th, 1862.
Price, William, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; deserted from Harrison’s Landing. Va., June 28th, 1862.
Pelton, Stephen, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; deserted from Harrison’s Landing, Va., June 28th, 1862.
Dennis, Samuel F., Corporal, enlisted September 21st, 1861, at Palmyra; deserted from Warwick Court House, Va., April 8th, 1862.
Kimball, Alvin, Private, enlisted August 31st, 1862, at Rochester; deserted from Hagerstown, Md., October 22d, 1862.
Piersall, Thomas, Private, enlisted August 31st, 1862, at Rochester; deserted from Hagerstown, Md., October 22d, 1862.
DISCHARGED.
Everson, Gilbert, Sergeant, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged for disability, at Camp Griffin, Va., January 23d, 1862.
Tristen, Benjamin, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at Camp Griffin. Va., March 12th, 1862.
Hewett, Daniel, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at Camp Griffin, Va., March 9th, 1862.
Goodall, George F., Private, enlisted September 21st, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at Fortress Monroe, Va., May 23d,
1862.
Corcoran, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at Chicahominy, Va., June 17th, 1862.
Stafford, Horatio, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at Fortress Monroe, Va., June 16th, 1862.
Drake, William B., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at Fortress Monroe, Va., September 13th, 1862.
Allice, John, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; appointed Orderly Sergeant, February 10th, 1862; discharged at Fortress Monroe, Va., November 30th, 1862.
Halsted, Reuben L., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at White Oak Church, Va., December 26th, 1862.
Paul, Thomas, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at White Oak Church, Va., December 26th, 1862.
Jacklin, Miles, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at White Oak Church, Va., January 4th, 1863.
Hoyt, Myron, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged on account of wounds at Harrisburg, Pa., December 5th, 1862.
Fisher, Jeremiah, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at White Oak Church, Va., February 3d, 1863.
Knox, William H., Private, enlisted August 18th, 1862, at Palmyra; discharged at Baltimore, Md., February 3d, 1863.
Stanley, Charles S., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1863, at Palmyra; discharged at White Oak Church, Va., February 14th, 1863.
Bunting, George, Private, enlisted August 26th, 1862, at Palmyra; discharged at Washington, D. C., March 30th, 1868.
Heath, Henry M., Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; discharged at Philadelphia, Pa., January, 1863.
TRANSFERRED.
Barker, Francis, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to June 1st, 1861; transferred to Regimental Band.
Edger, Joseph, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to June 1st, 1861; then transferred to Regimental Band.
Hunt, William, Private, enlisted May 9th, 1861, at Palmyra; Private from date of enrolment to July 6th, 1861; then transferred to Co. K, 33d Regiment.
Lewis, Elisha, Corporal, enlisted August 30th, 1862, at Palmyra; wounded at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863; transferred to 49th Regiment N. Y. S. V., by special order, May 13th, 1863, from Brig. Headquarters 3d Brigade.
Adams, Samuel, Private, enlisted August 30th, 1862, at Palmyra; wounded at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863; transferred as above.
Ebert, Michael, Private, enlisted August 26th, 1862, at Palmyra; wounded at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863; transferred as above.
Glossender, Thomas, Private, enlisted August 24th, 1862, at Palmyra; wounded May 3d, 1863; transferred as above.
Harse, William, Private, enlisted August 22d, 1862, at Palmyra; wounded May 4th, 1863; taken prisoner and paroled; transferred as above.
Hazen, Marcellus E., Private, enlisted August 28th, 1862, at Palmyra; transferred as above.
Hasketh, Robert, Private, enlisted August 29th, 1862, at Albany; transferred as above.
Howard, John, Private, enlisted August 28th, 1862, at Palmyra; transferred as above.
Kimball, Henry, Private, enlisted August 31st, 1862, at Rochester; transferred as above.
Laird, Pliny P., Private, enlisted August 29th, 1862, at Palmyra; transferred as above.
Stickles, Robert, Private, enlisted August 31st, 1862, at Palmyra; transferred as above.
Scully, Thomas, Private, enlisted August 30th, 1862, at Palmyra; transferred as above.
Truax, Joseph H., Private, enlisted September 4th, 1862, at Palmyra; taken prisoner and paroled May 4th, 1863; transferred to 49th Regiment N. Y. S. V. by special order of May 13th, 1863, from Brigade Headquarters, 3d Brig.
Truax, Charles L., Private, enlisted September 4th, 1862, at Palmyra; wounded May 4th, 1863; transferred as above.
Vedder, William S., Private, enlisted September 3d, 1862, at Perinton; transferred as above.
COMPANY C.
Cole, Chester H., Captain, Waterloo; wounded at Fredericksburg, Va., May 3, 1863.
Brett, Robert H., First Lieutenant, Waterloo; promoted from First Sergeant.
Mix, Lucius C., Second Lieutenant, enlisted June 2d, 1861, at Rochester; promoted to First Lieutenant of Company B, October 17th, 1862.
Stebbings, James E., Second Lieutenant, enlisted May 22d, 1861, at Waterloo; promoted from First Sergeant, October 17th, 1862.
Alexander, William A., Sergeant, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded in waist and arm, at Fredericksburg, Va., May 3d, 1863.
Gunn, James D., Sergeant, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded in thigh, at Antietam, Md., September 17th, 1862.
Durham, George, Sergeant, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded in thigh, at Antietam, Md., September 17th, 1862.
Wheeler, Charles, Sergeant, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Martin, James, Sergeant, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; missing in action at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863.
Edwards, John, Corporal, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Ridley, Richard, Corporal, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; missing in action at Fredericksburg, May 4th, 1862.
Covert, George T., Corporal, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded in ankle, at Marye’s Heights, Va., May 3d, 1863.
Dobson, Robert J., Corporal, enlisted at Washington, July 1st, 1861; wounded in wrist and both sides, at Marye’s Heights, Va., May 3d, 1863.
Caldwell, Charles W., Corporal, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Smith, Charles H., Corporal, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Coffin, William H., Corporal, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Cook, William T., Corporal, enlisted at Waterloo, April, 24th, 1861; Promoted to Corporal, November 1st, 1862; died from wounds received at Fredericksburg, Va., May 3d, 1863.
Alexander, John W., Private, enlisted at Rochester, November 4th, 1861; promoted to Quartermaster Sergeant, October 1st, 1862.
Allen, Robert, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; discharged for disability, February 26th, 1863.
Alexander, William A., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; promoted to Sergeant, October 17th, 1862.
Batelle, Samuel, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Bowman, Frederick, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Caldwell, Charles W., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; promoted to Corporal, November 1st, 1862.
Covert, George T., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; promoted to Corporal, May 22d, 1861.
Cusic, Michael, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; missing in action at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863.
Carding, William, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Cook, William G., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; died from wounds received on Marye’s Heights, Va., May 3d, 1863.
Coffin, William H., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; promoted to First Corporal, November 1st, 1862.
Colville, Alexander, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 24th, 1861.
Dewey, James S., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Day, Charles L., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Dobson, Robert J., Private, enlisted at Washington, August 3, 1861; promoted to Corporal, December 1st, 1861.
Duckenfield, Edwin R., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1862.
Dillmann, Christian, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1862; died at U. S. General Hospital, Amsden Street. Baltimore, Md., October 2d, 1862.
Flinn, Thomas, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Finner, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, June 1st, 1861.
Feyly, Thomas, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861.
Green, William H., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861.
Groesbeck, James, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861.
Gruss, Bernard, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1861; discharged for disability, May 30th, 1862.
Hartrouft, William, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; deserted from Elmira, N. Y., July 8th, 1861.
Hendrickson, Cornelius J., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861.
Hiser, Frank P., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1861.
Hinman, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1861; discharged for disability, March 5th, 1863.
Klein, Jacob, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; discharged from a wound in wrist at York, Penn.
Knowlton, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1861; missing on the march, and not since been heard of.
Murphy, Thomas, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; died at Clear Spring, Md., November 2d, 1862.
Monroe, Eugene W., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; discharged for disability, November 23, 1862.
Moran, William, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; wounded at Marye’s Heights, slight, May 3d, 1863.
Mungum, Richard, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; discharged for disability, November 2d, 1862.
Morse, Hiram A., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; wounded below the knee at Marye’s Heights, Va., May 3d, 1863.
Marshall, William, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1861; deserted from Camp Griffin, Va., February 23d, 1862.
Odell, John, Private, enlisted April 24, 1861.
O’Neil, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; missing in action at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863. Supposed dead; last seen very sick and prisoner.
Olds, John H., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded slightly in the head at Antietam, Md., September 17th, 1862.
Pulver, Mark D., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Palmer, Daniel, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; deserted from Camp Granger, August 2d, 1861.
Peasley, William O., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; wounded severely in the lung at Marye’s Heights, Va., May 3d, 1863, since dead.
Roberts, Mark, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1801; died at hospital, September 13th, 1862.
Ryan, Thomas, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Ridley, Richard, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; missing in action at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863.
Renner, John S., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; discharged for disability, February 18th, 1862.
Rogers, Stephen, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 26th, 1861; discharged. Time unknown.
Shirley, Alexander, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; missing in action at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th,
1863.
Simmons, William H., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; discharged December 4th, 1862; dead.
Smith, Marion W., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded in the breast slightly, at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863.
Smith, Charles H., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; promoted to Corporal, November 1st, 1862.
Smith, George T., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; discharged for disability, January 15th, 1863.
Slattery, Morris, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded at Antietam, Md., September 17th, 1862.
Snellgrove, Luther E., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; discharged as an alien subject, February 26th, 1862.
Taylor, Benjamin F., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Thomson, Joseph, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Outrine, Pierre, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 4th, 1861; died at Camp Griffin, February 10th, 1862.
Van Zile, Henry, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Woolidge, Truman, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; died at Philadelphia, Pa., September 6th, 1862.
Witt, Louis, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; killed at Antietam, Md., September 17th, 1862.
Watson, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; discharged March 1st, 1863.
Warner, William, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Walsch, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; wounded at Antietam, Md., in groin, September 17th, 1862.
Waterman, Robert, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
DIED, DISCHARGED, DESERTED, AND TRANSFERRED.
Alexander, John W., Private, enlisted at Rochester, November 6th, 1861; promoted to Quartermaster Sergeant.
Gunn, Jacob, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, October 31st, 1861; discharged May 28th, 1862.
Hunter, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, October 31st, 1861.
McGraw, George C., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, October 31st, 1861; deserted January 29th, 1862.
Swift, William B., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, October 21st, 1861; discharged February 2d, 1863.
Saunders, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, October 31st, 1861; deserted February 1st, 1862.
Rager, George, Private, enlisted at Buffalo, February 1st, 1862; killed at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863.
Hayden, Henry D., Private, enlisted at Rochester, September 1, 1861; discharged December 26th, 1862.
Hermance, Andrew L., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, February 10th, 1862; killed at Marye’s Heights, Va., May 5th, 1863.
Pulver, Algernon, Private, enlisted at Geneva, February 28th, 1862.
Beach, Lucius P., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861.
Robinson, John C., Private, enlisted at Geneva, February 28th, 1862; wounded at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863.
Rotzkin, Martin, Private, enlisted at Geneva, February 15th, 1862; discharged April 10th, 1862.
Pillbean, Edward, Private, enlisted at Geneva, February 15th, 1862; discharged April 10th, 1862.
Barber, William, Private, enlisted at Geneva, February 1st, 1862.
Woodruff, Lewis D., Private, enlisted at Geneva, February 24th, 1862; discharged January 16th, 1862.
Fantz, John, Private, enlisted at Geneva, June 9th, 1862; discharged June 9th, 1862.
Banchman, William, Private, enlisted at Geneva, January 1st, 1862.
Wooderline, John, Private, enlisted at Geneva, April 1st, 1861; leg amputated at Fredericksburg, May 3d, 1863.
Young, Luther, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, October 4th, 1862.
Bennett, Charles, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 20th, 1861; discharged at Camp Granger, July, 1861.
Harrington, Albert, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, July 3d, 1861; discharged July 1st, 1861.
Bailey, John, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, September 11th, 1862.
Batelle, John H., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, September 11th, 1862; missing in action at Fredericksburg, Va., May 4th, 1863.
Riley, Peter, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 25th, 1862; killed at Marye’s Heights, May 3d, 1863.
Vantile, Newton, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 15th, 1862; discharged March 22d, 1863.
Rice, Elijah J., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 25th, 1862; wounded in hand at Marye’s Heights, Va., May 3d, 1863.
Pierce, Samuel, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 16th, 1862.
Wunderlin, Franklin, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 26th, 1862.
Winder, Joseph, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 26th, 1862; missing in action, May 4th, 1863.
Smith, Irving T., Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 31st, 1862; discharged February 18th, 1863.
McBeam, Samuel, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 13th, 1862.
Seeley, William, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 26th, 1862; discharged March, 1863.
McLaughlin, Andrew, Private, enlisted at Ovid, August 31st, 1862.
Barker, Theodore, Private, enlisted at Albany, September 14th, 1862.
Alexander, Henry N., Private, enlisted at Elmira, June 1st, 1861; promoted to Quartermaster.
Coker, James H., Private, enlisted at Rochester, August 31st, 1862; transferred to Brigadier Band.
Stanton, Willard, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, August 31st, 1862.
Langdon, George, Private, enlisted at Waterloo, April 24th, 1861; died at Camp Griffin, February 24th, 1862.
COMPANY D.
A large majority of this Company are still in service, being 3 years men recruited in 1862, and assigned to Company D, retaining Captain Gifford in command.
Gifford, Henry J., Captain, enlisted April 25th, 1861, at Rochester, in 13th N. Y. V.; promoted and transferred to 33d N. Y. V., Co. D.
Rossiter, Charles D., First Lieutenant, enlisted September 13th, 1862, at Rochester; wounded May 4th, 1863, in Battle of Salem Heights; died in hands of the enemy, May 11th, 1863.
Roach, William E., Second Lieutenant, enlisted September 13th, 1862, at Rochester; on detached service in Ambulance Corps.
Beedle, John, First Sergeant, enlisted August 26th, 1862, at Rochester.
Van Der Carr, David, Second Sergeant, enlisted May 7th, 1861, at Canandaigua; discharged with Regiment, June 2, 1863.
Rodney, Theodore C., Third Sergeant, enlisted May 7th, 1861, at Canandaigua; discharged with Regiment, June 2d, 1863.
Walls, James, Fourth Sergeant, enlisted August 19th, 1862, at Rochester.
Boulles, William E., Fifth Sergeant, enlisted August 19th, 1862, at Rochester.
Hogan, Hugh, Corporal, enlisted August 29th, 1862, at Rochester.
Byrne, John, Corporal, enlisted October 30th, 1862, at Bergen; discharged with Regiment, June 2d, 1863.
Noyes, James H., Corporal, enlisted August 20th, 1862, at Rochester.
Nicholas, John Y., Corporal, enlisted August 20th, 1862, at Rochester.
Mylacraine, John E., Corporal, enlisted August 22d, 1862, at Rochester; wounded May 4th, 1863.
Roach, Thomas W., Corporal, enlisted August 21st, 1862, at Rochester.
Michael Flood, Corporal, enlisted August 29th, 1862, at Rochester; wounded May 4th, 1863; died in hospital, Washington, May 6th, 1863.
Wark, John F., Corporal, enlisted August 26th, 1862, at Rochester.
Appleton, Richard, Private, enlisted May 7th, 1861, at Canandaigua; sick in hospital, Frederick City, Md., since September 19th, 1862.
Andrews, James M., Private, enlisted August 21st, 1862, at Rochester.
Annis, Alonzo, Private, enlisted August 28th, 1862, at Rochester.
Bennett, Thomas, Private, enlisted August 28th, 1862, at Rochester.
Brooker, John, Private, enlisted August 29th, 1862, at Rochester.
Boss, Henry, Private, enlisted August 30th, 1862, at Rochester; wounded May 3d, 1863.
Buffon, John, Private, enlisted September 3d, 1862, at Rochester.
Budd, Hiram, Private, enlisted August 27th, 1862, at Rochester; taken prisoner May 4th, 1863.
Bayley, Alonzo, Private, enlisted August 28th, 1862, at Canandaigua.
Barras, Edwin P., Private, enlisted May 7th, 1862, at Canandaigua; discharged with Regiment, June 2d, 1863.
Crofutt, George, Private, enlisted May 7th, 1861, at Canandaigua; wounded May 3d, 1863; discharged with Regiment, June 2d, 1863.
Cutler, John R., Private, enlisted August 31st, 1862, at Canandaigua.
Carroll, John, Private, enlisted August 28th, 1862, at Rochester.
Corby, Bernard, Private, enlisted August 25th, 1862, at Rochester.
Catlin, George, Private, enlisted August 22d, 1862, at Rochester
