Themedievalchronicle11

The Medieval Chronicle 11

Edited by

Erik Kooper Sjoerd Levelt

leiden | boston

Preface ix List of Contributors xi

Eyewitness and Medieval Historical Narrative 1 Marcus Bull

La Chronique de Memmingen: histoire et luttes politiques dans une ville d’Empire au xve siècle 23 Dominique Adrian

Le rôle du connecteur car (ou nam/enim) dans la prose historique: connecteur interphrastique? 43 Anders Bengtsson

The Vindication of Sancho ii in the Crónica de Castilla: Political Identity and Historiographical Reinvention in Medieval Castilian Chronicles 64 Kim Bergqvist

Faux Pas in the Chronicles: What is a Pas d’Armes? 87 Catherine Blunk

The Perception and Evaluation of Foreign Soldiers in the Wars of King Peter i of Cyprus: The Evidence of the Cypriot Chronicles and Its Shortcomings 108 Nicholas Coureas

Toujours loyal. A Middle Dutch Chronicle of Flanders by Jan van Dixmude in Sixteenth-Century Ghent 127 Lisa Demets

Using an Example: Denis Sauvage, Philippe de Commynes and the ‘Vieil Exemplaire’ 154 Catherine Emerson

Reassessing Spanish Chronicle Writing before 900: The Tradition of Compilation in Oviedo at the End of the Ninth Century 171 Rodrigo Furtado

Decennovenal Reason and Unreason in the C-Text of Annales Cambriae 195 Henry Gough-Cooper

The Battle of Gallipoli 1416: A Detail Rescued from a Chronicle 213 John Melville-Jones

The Origins of the Polish Piast Dynasty as Chronicled by Bishop Vincent of Kraków (Wincenty Kadłubek) to Serve as a Political Model for His Own Contemporary Time 220 Grischa Vercamer

Review: The Chronicle of Amadi, Translated from the Italian by Nicholas Coureas and Peter Edbury 248 Karl Borchardt

Review: Éloïse Adde-Vomáčka, La Chronique de Dalimil 253 Ivan Hlaváček

Anthony Munday’s ‘Briefe Chronologicall Suruay Concerning the Netherlands’ and the Medieval Chronicle Tradition of Holland in the Early Modern Period: Introduction and Edition 258 Sjoerd Levelt

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV The Origins of the Polish Piast Dynasty as Chronicled by Bishop Vincent of Kraków (Wincenty Kadłubek) to Serve as a Political Model for His Own Contemporary Time

Grischa Vercamer

Abstract

Bishop Vincent of Kraków, known as Wincenty Kadłubek, was the most influential scholar in Poland in the late twelfth to early thirteen century. In his Chronica Polonorum (c. 1205) he wrote the prehistory of Poland in a very untypical way. Instead of construct- ing a straight lineage of the dynasty of the Piasts from ancient times up to his own day (as most of the other authors of his time did), he invented deliberately different prehistoric dynasties for the Poles and inserted artificial time gaps among them. Thus, he stressed the idea of Poland as a res publica (people of Poland), who could survive quite well without rulers, if indeed the latter turned out to be bad and egotistical. This implied a clear warning to the contemporary Piasts: they should keep the matters of the res publica in mind or they could be replaced. Poland had already managed to get by— so he argued—without rulers for various periods in the past and could, if necessary, do it again.

Introduction

When inquiring into the origins of a dynasty, we soon come to the term origo gentis. This term was rarely used in direct translation as a certain model in the Middle Ages and perhaps this is the reason why it seems to be controversial among scholars nowadays.1 The origo gentis does not refer to a dynasty specifi-

1 For a survey of recent research, see Anton et al. (2003), Plassmann (2006: 13–27, esp. 15–16). The term is rarely used in a title, as it is for instance in the Origo gentis Langobardorum from the seventh century (Anton et al. 2003: 174–175). There exists as well an origo gentis romanae from the fourth century. In 533 Cassiodor wrote his Origo actusque Getarum. Other authors (for instance, Isidor and Gregory of Tours), however, do not have origo in the title. For a critical

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004351875_013 For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV the origins of the polish piast dynasty 221 cally, but rather to the origins of the people (gens).2The two terms gens and regnum are closely connected in this context.3 There are simply no origines regum or origines ducum as far as we know; so the histories of the dynasties are part of the origo gentis. The princes of the time period with which we are dealing here wanted to trace their ancestors back as far as possible.4 In the twelfth century a revival occurred in recalling the heroes and members of the royal family of Troy, invoking them to serve as ancestors of various noble dynasties. A first wave in this process shows up already in the sixth to eighth centuries.5 Direct descendants of Priam of Troy like Aeneas, Francio or Brutus were adapted to take on the roles of heros eponymos for a people or dynasty, for example by the Franks or the British.6 The Carolingians, by omitting the Merovingian dynasty, tried to monopolise theTrojans for themselves.7 Later, dynasties like the Staufer or Capetians or Plantagenets—who were quite aware that their ancestors had come from rather humble backgrounds in comparison to emperors and great kings—as a consequence claimed to be related to Charlemagne. Such a lineage sufficed and there was no need to trace their dynasties to Troy as well. The Cen- tral and East European8 dynasties like the Arpads, Přemyslids, Rurikids or Piasts differ from theWest European dynasties—here, a different legend of origin was chosen in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. What is striking is that they did

approach to the concept, see Goffard (1988), whose views are well summarised by Gillett (2002: 8–9). 2 Plassmann (2006: 11, 189), Anton et al. (2003: 174–178),Wenskus (1961: 14–17). Plassmann shows how Fredegar put the gens and the duces of the Carolingian dynasty (at that time the ‘mayor of the palace’) in the traditional line from Troy by playing down the Merovingian dynasty.The conflict with the Romans was especially important, something in which the duces played a major role. 3 Werner (1997); Plassmann (2006: 17), Anton et al. (2003: 189, 192). Earlier authors from the Early Middle Ages relate the origo from Troy to the folk, while younger authors like Gregory of Tours took into account the representatives of the Merovingian Dynasty. 4 Anton et al. (2003: 175). 5 Wolf (2009: 14–39). 6 Anton et al. (2003: 194):The re-interpretation by the Carolingian authors of their predecessors (Fredegar, Gregory) by directly connecting the Carolingians to the Trojans (Anchises, Franco) and by omitting the Merovingians is typical. One should mention that the older Anglo-Saxon authors like Bede had no interest in the origo from Troy (cp. Anton et al. 2003: 202). 7 Anton et al. (2003: 194). 8 We could speak as well of ‘Alteuropa’ (Old Europe) and ‘Neueuropa’ (New Europe) (Halecki) or, later, of ‘Older Europe’ and ‘Younger Europe’ (Moraw, Samsonowicz, Kłoczowski; cp. Kersken 1999: 111–113).

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 222 vercamer not choose to refer to Troy, Macedonia (Alexander the Great), the Romans or other ancient places, but seemingly were content with much more modest origins.9

The historic realms of Bohemia, Hungary, Rus’ or Poland emerged in the ninth and tenth centuries. The first historiographical works from these areas about the origins and developments of their nations or peoples did not appear until some two hundred years later, in the first half of the twelfth century.10This delay between the process of the conquest of their territories and the establishment of their dynasties, and then only later the subsequent historical legitimation through chronicles, is not easily explainable. I would suggest that there was in all areas of written activities a certain backlog during this period and in the eleventh century the rulers of these regions did not see the necessity for, or even the possibility of, legitimising themselves.11 It is, in any case, no coincidence that the origins of these peoples as constructed were indeed more provincial or modest; yet at the same time they were markedly independent and self- referential in that they did not require any explanatory reference to an entity outside themselves. The Arpads, somewhat more ‘international’ or glamorous than the rest, were presented as descendants of a mythological hawk (turul), who impregnated the mother (Emese) of Álmos in a dream while she was still in Scythia, the ancient home of the Hungarians. The grandson was Árpád, the founder of the dynasty.12 In Bohemia, Přemysl is the mythical first prince of the Bohemians (a ploughman, who was accepted by Libuše, the daughter of Boemus, as her husband).13 In the first chronicle of the Rus’ one reads how the Slavic people, after God had shattered the union of humankind during the building of the tower of Babel, then wandered and settled in the areas of the Danube, and later on the Polianians, a smaller Slavic tribe to whom the author of the chronicle seemed to number himself, settled along the Djnepr. They got rid of the Varangian ruler, but in the end quarrelled so much that they decided to ask the Rus’ (once again, the Varangians) for a leader (ad862), who eventually became Rurik.14

9 Cp. Plassmann (2006: 367), with regard to Gallus and Cosmas of Prague in comparison to ‘western’ authors. 10 Kersken (1999). 11 Kersken (1999: 117); for a good overview on this topic, see the different contributions in Adamska/Mostert (2004). 12 This was first mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum, 3, 36; cp. Engel (2001: 18–20). 13 Cosmas i, c. iv–v, 11–15; Bláhová (2002: 69–70). 14 Nestorchronik, a. 862, 19–20.

Turning now to the Poles, we advance slowly towardsVincent (known in Pol- ish research as Wincenty Kadłubek). To begin with, we need to take the first Polish chronicle by Gallus Anonymus (from about 1116)15 into account and it is amazing what the author did: he created (one may say, with Banaszkiewicz, ‘invented’) three generations of princes prior to the first historically known prince Mieszko i (from the second half of the tenth century). Gallus did not seek to go back any further. He was expected by the Polish elites to write a history of the dynasty of the Piasts and so he had to explain the dynastical name of the Piasts.16 Therefore he invented the story of the poor ploughman Piast who became the ‘prince’.17 The three generations between Piast (the legendary founder of the Piasts) and Mieszko (the first historically documented Piast ruler) are, as Jacek Banaszkiewicz once stated, rather typical for Euro- pean myths—although for a long time these fictional rulers were taken to be real figures by Polish research.18 Gallus only briefly mentioned these princes and therefore the Polish research was and is forced to focus more on their sym- bolic names (Siemowit, Lestek, Siemomysł) than on their deeds.19 Be that as it may, what is important is that Gallus did not construct any specific gap into the story of the Piast dynasty: there exists a straight line from the ploughman Piast to Duke Boleslaw iii, and there is only one exception, when Gallus introduced a ruler before Piast—the prince Popiel, who was a despot and therefore legitimately deposed (not by Piast, but by his own egoistical action). To this point we have seen that Central and East European concepts differ decisively from the West European ones in tracing back their various ancestors. In the Polish case we have to stress that Gallus, as the first and only ‘Polish’ predecessor of Vincent, focused solely on the dynasty of the Piasts and not on the Polish people and, therefore, did not go further back than to the ninth century. The stability and welfare of Poland was—from his point of view or one may say in his perception20 (and apparently in the view of the Polish elites

15 Wiszewski (2004; 2010); For a recent overview of the research undertaken about this author, see Mühle (2009), and for different contributions, see Stopka (2010). 16 Wiszewski (2010: 365–375). 17 Gallus Anonymus, i, 2–3, 10–14. 18 Łowmiański (1962: 112) tried yet again to prove the historicity of the first rulers that had been given by Gallus and was followed in this effort by others (Labuda, Jasiński); Banaszkiewicz on the other hand tried to show the parallels to European myths in that story (Banaszkiewicz 1986: 6–24). Today these two approaches continue to exist, see Piastowie (2009: 11–14). 19 For a summary (in addition to his own analysis), see Wiszewski (2010: 157–181). 20 Cp. for the concept of the history of such perceptions (‘Vorstellungsgeschichte’): Goetz (1979: 253–271; 2011: 15–30).

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 224 vercamer of his time)—dependant on the stability of the Piast dynasty. Only this particular dynasty was able to hold the country together.

The Approach of Vincent of Kraków to the Origins of the Poles and Poland—A Fresh View

With this introduction in mind, we come to Vincent of Kraków (Wincenty Kadłubek). He wrote his Chronica Polonorum about eighty years after Gallus Anonymus’s work, around 1205. The chronicle is divided into four books. The first three books are written in the form of a dialogue between two historically real Polish bishops from the late twelfth century. The fourth book is a narration in prose.21 How Vincent constructed the dynasty in the chronicle manifests a remarkable variation: he extended the story of the Polish princes significantly back in time. Even more, he wove gaps into the story of the Polish princes and the lineage of the dynasties, which I regard as a deliberate decision on his part. This assumption is the starting point for the present article and in the following I will offer my explanation for this phenomenon. True enough, Vincent had to take into account the report of Gallus regarding the Polish prince Popiel, who had been deposed in favour of Piast, so there was already one caesura provided by the first chronicler. Yet, Vincent could have invented a new story and so could have ignored Gallus,22 especially because Gallus was a foreigner in Poland and had himself somehow ‘made up’ the story about Piast. But at the end of the twelfth century probably the ‘collective mind’ of the Polish elites (deeply influenced by Gallus) played a certain role in Vincent’s planning of his chronicle. This solution seems both tempting and logical, although one cannot really prove it.23

21 For recent works on the topic with additional literature, see Vercamer (2013), Gawlas (2013), Lis (2013), and also Grzesik (2015). 22 Just as, for example, the way in which younger Carolingian authors had not kept to the stories told by Gregory of Tours and Fredegar (Anton et al. 2003: 193–194), and Geoffrey of Monmouth had not held on to the Anglo-Saxon tradition of historiography, but rather constructed history in a new way. For Vincent there was no real need to copy Gallus as to the very beginning of the Polish principality, but nevertheless he did. 23 The Piasts and the court would have been aware that a fancy history of the origin of the Piast dynasty that would omit Popiel and his dynasty was not possible or even would have looked ridiculous, because the ‘collective mind’ of their time would have remembered Popiel (this in spite of the fact that we have no known reference to Popiel apart from Gallus in the earliest sources of Poland; cp. Drelicharz 2003). In any case, if we take

What is apparent is that Vincent did struggle to develop a clear alterna- tive to Gallus’s: Vincent placed emphasis on the res publica as the guarantor of peace and order,24 and not on the natural rulers, the Piasts, as Gallus had done.25 Vincent’s chronicle, as its title states, is the history of the Poles and not the history of their princes.26 He did not accept the Piasts as domini naturales, ‘natural princes [of Poland]’, as Gallus puts it.27 Instead, Vincent used in one place principes succedanei. A straight translation would be: ‘princes in a row of succession’, but another translation is possible and fits well in this place: ‘the deputy princes’, who act on behalf of something or someone else, e.g. of the res publica.28 In the context of this phrase he writes that the princes did not spring from plebs (‘the lower folk’), nor did they seize the country (from somebody); rather, they had always been there.29 So we have to acknowledge that they were in Vincent’s perception ‘natural princes’ from Poland, not at all referring to the Piasts, but rather to the natural nobility of Poland and its independence from other nations (e.g. the German emperor). What had priority for Vincent was

this ‘collective mind’ point seriously, Vincent had to construct breaks in order to avoid putting the dynasty of Popiel at the beginning of Polish history. This dynasty had already been very negatively branded by Gallus. What would a history of the Poles starting with the dynasty of the Popiels have looked like? Very bad indeed. One may find, however, a certain parallel to that phenomenon, in the silence of the Carolingian sources towards the origo gentis of the Franks under Carolingian leadership, although it is awkward that the Carolingians did not use the chance after the radical change during the eighth century to create their own self-legitimation.This can only be explained by the fact that Pippin and Charlemagne knew exactly about the absurdity of a history of the Carolingians devoid of any Merovingian roots (Plassmann 2006: 375–377, esp. 376). 24 Mądrowaska (2004: 41–46); for a survey in the Early Middle Ages up until Jordanes: Suerbaum (1977). 25 Cp. Plassmann (2006: 356) for objections to Gallus: Gallus identifies the beginnings with the terra and not with the gens. 26 Yet it should be underlined that the title of the chronicle was not chosen by Vincent, but instead later on by the editors (cp: ix–x; xx [Introduction by Marian Plezia]). Nevertheless the chronicle leaves no doubt that the benefits to the people of Poland are important for Vincent. 27 Somewhat misleading in this regard is the title of the book by Mądrowska (2010): Domini Naturales, Portrety polskich władców w Chronicon Polonorum mistrza Wincentego [Domini Naturales. Portraits of the Polish rulers in the Chronicon Polonorum by Master Vincent]. 28 Succēdāneus u. succīdāneus, a, um (v. succedo), ‘an des anderen Stelle tretend, stellvertre- tend, als Stellvertreter’ (Georges, ldhw, vol. 2, 2893; http://www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/ K/Georges-1913-02-2894; accessed 28 March 2017). 29 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 1, 7: ‘Non enim plebei ab origines, non uendicarie illi principate sunt potestates, set principes succedanei.’

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 226 vercamer the suitability for the ‘job’, which meant in this case to lead and reign over the country thoughtfully, a disposition which Vincent cobbled together from different virtues.30 If necessary, the res publica, or Polonia, as Vincent argues, could even be governed without princes or kings.31 By interpreting the text in this way, one can actually go further and claim that the Piast princes themselves were not legitimised by their noble descent: Vincent depicted scenarios of good and bad rule.32 In his view the legitimacy of a ruler had to be always open to revision or refutation depending only on the quality of the individual’s rule and not on his heritage. The gens had the right to rebel against bad rule. What is highly probable is that Vincent adapted these thoughts from the contemporary currents of his time. Even if he never came directly into contact with the works of John of Salisbury,33 who regarded the murder of a tyrant as rightful ultima ratio if nothing else was possible, one cannot deny that this idea would have spread very quickly among the intellectual elites of the time.34 In any case, Vincent—scholar, clergyman, politician, author of the late twelfth and early thirteenth century—had good reasons for justifying good rule and condemning bad: Poland had suffered badly from the conflicts of the Piasts regional rulers in the provinces and was on the brink of falling apart. Indeed, Silesia was already alienated from the Polish patrimony and the Silesian Piasts were looking instead in the direction of Bohemia and Germany.35 The neigh- bours of Poland would not hesitate to swiftly move to conquer parts of such a weak nation, something which the Poles had already experienced back in the eleventh century. Granted, this insecure situation of Poland in the last decades of the twelfth century is well known, but in my view this unstable situation seems somehow to be the starting point from which Vincent could create a perception of the past and then transfer his ideas into a vision for the present.

An Argument in Favour of This Thesis

One could reduce Vincent’s conception down simply to the slogan: through dynastical gaps, the ideal prince, even if he be from a new dynasty, always

30 Gawlas (2013: 285–287). 31 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 9, 14. 32 Vercamer (2013: 322–328). 33 Polish research very much doubts that he knew Salisbury; cp. Gawlas (2013: 287); Domań- ski (2006: 29). 34 Struve (1978: 144–146). 35 Samsonowicz (2009); Irrgang (2007: 20–22).

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV the origins of the polish piast dynasty 227 comes to power because his adoption and pursuit of a moral approach is supe- rior to any legitimacy through legacy. In the following, I will provide arguments for and answers to questions about the thesis I am offering, namely, that the chronicle of Vincent possesses some very special features as it creates the ancestry and the ‘origo gentis’ of the Polish people, and providing therewith a vision for the future.

How Did Vincent Construct the Prehistory of the Poles? Vincent, as already mentioned, specifically elaborated on the idea of the res publica or the people of Poland, proffering that it was independent of other rulers or peoples. In the Prologue he says that he wants to depict the ‘golden columns of his homeland’ and ‘the real characters of its fathers’ (nb: not rulers).36 It is the story (the ‘beginning, development and demise’) of the ‘republic’.37 In the first chapters the Poles are depicted as free and independent: ‘The rulers do not come from plebeian origins, nor do they assume the rule [from someone], but they are princes of free succession, or deputy princes, acting on behalf of something or somebody [the republic].’38 As I have shown above, the term principes succedanei confuses the reader on purpose. Once again: Vincent deliberately did not use the domini naturales (from Gallus) and one might ask: Why not? My answer to that is that succedanei could and would be taken in an ambiguous sense by the readers of his time. Vincent could not afford to criticise openly, because there would have been severe repercussions coming from Piast princes of his time, so the recipient has to read between the lines. Further on in the text it says that the Poles did not value a kingdom more than their fields and were not driven by any ambition to rule:

… aput quos tanti regni inmensitas uix unius meruit iugeris estimatione censeri. Adeo illos non dominandi ambitus … set adulte robur animosi- tatis exercebat, ut preter magnanimitatem nihil magnum estimarent vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 2, 7

36 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, Prologus, 2, 4: ‘aureas patrie columpnas’ and ‘ueras patrum effigies’. 37 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 1, 6: ‘de huius rei publice origine, progressu et consum- matione’. 38 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 1, 6: ‘Non enim plebei ab origines, non uendicarie illi principate sunt potestates, set principes succedanei.’

(… the immensity of such a realm was not more highly esteemed by them than one field. There was no ambition to rule … but they exercised the power of braveness, for nothing was more highly esteemed than magnanimity; my trans.)

It is therefore not surprising that the first prince of the Poles known by name, Gracchus, is introduced only later, after the Poles had established themselves as an independent people. In line with this, only simple sketches of the rulers in the first, ‘prehistoric’ book are provided. Vincent did not aim to give a full account of their deeds, but rather only give us a limited amount of informa- tion. These ‘tales’ of the first princes served for him as exempla for good or bad rule.Vincent was an educated man and therefore he refers frequently to ancient times.39 But these ancient references served merely to emphasise the very independence of Poland. To put it another way, the ancient realms of the classical period were not seen by him as having an influence on Piast-Poland, i.e. through an introduction of democratic or republic tendencies to it. In Vincent’s eyes Poland was self-referential and not in need of any appeal to legitimacy outside of itself. Famous ancient military leaders and kings (like Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar) are perceived instead in a negative way, as oppressors of true lib- erty, because they tried—in the words of Vincent—to conquer Poland. In order to defend their country, the Poles elected military leaders, not kings. These military leaders could, if effective and successful, become famous princes of Poland. But then their sons, if they turned out to be weak and a threat to the ‘commonwealth’ of Poland, would need to be replaced. Interestingly, Vincent refers to Poland as a regnum Poloniae, res publica, Polonia or even imperium, although Poland was not strictly a kingdom at all, but only a principality similar to a dukedom.40 In one place Vincent even talks about the imperatrix Polo- niae, who rejected the commands of Alexander the Great to surrender (see below for the references to the given examples). Vincent conveyed in this way the image of an independent, equal Slavic partner to the Roman and Frankish empires. The greatness of Poland was its readiness to replace bad (or hopeless) rulers.

39 Chmielewska (2003). 40 Boleslaw i the Brave and his son, Mieszko ii, who had been kings of Poland, were certainly known in Vincent’s time, but since then nobody had been king of Poland; cp. Sach (2007).

How were the Interruptions of the Dynasties Depicted? There were three Polish dynasties in the ‘prehistory’ phase, i.e. before the Piasts:

1. Gracchus i—Gracchus ii—Wanda, followed by a time without rulers (a caesura, the duration of which is not clearly defined by Vincent) 2. Lestek i, followed by a caesura of an unclear duration 3. Lestek ii—Lestek iii—Popiel i—Popiel ii After a short break: 4. Piast—Siemowit—Lestek iv—Siemomysł—Mieszko i (followed by the historically real Piasts)

The interruptions follow more or less the same principles, but they do merit a fuller description here. Gracchus, a military leader, had just returned from ‘Carinthia’ (today geo- graphically a part of Austria) as the Galls prepared to conquer Poland after having already subjugated many other nations. Gracchus called for an assem- bly and spoke there in front of the Poles:

Ait ridiculum esse pecus mutilum, hominem acephalum. Idem esse cor- pus ex anime, sine luce lampadem, mundum sine sole, quod sine rege imperium. … Se non regem set regni socium pollicetur, si se deligant … vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 5, 9

(He says that a mutilated animal or a man without a head is ridiculous. The same goes for a body without a soul, a lamp without light, the world without the sun, and as well a realm (imperium) without a king (sine rege). … They shall not elect him as a king, but as a companion of the realm (regni socius); my trans.)

After his election as king, Gracchus immediately introduced a constitution (Vincent comments: ‘Sic ergo nostri iuris civilis nata est conceptio’).41 Now the Poles all of a sudden had a king and a constitution. Vincent finished this episode: ‘And the written law brought the most benefit to those who were the poorest!’42 The threat from the Galls had obviously been overcome by the Poles under the leadership of Gracchus, but—curiously—Vincent does not even comment on this. More importantly for him, the state was in good hands

41 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 5, 9. 42 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 5, 9: ‘et dicta est iustitia que plurimum prodest ei qui minimum potest’.

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 230 vercamer and everything seemed to go well. But now the story goes on: Gracchus sends both his sons to fight with a dragon that was constantly demanding human sacrifices. After the younger son, the later Gracchus ii, had killed his elder brother deceitfully and cruelly during the deadly fight with the dragon, he pretended that the dragon had actually killed the older brother. Later he was made king by his father, who had not suspected anything untoward. But the murder of the brother weighed heavily on the glory of his kingdom, as Vincent puts it.43 After his bloody deeds were discovered (by whom is not revealed to the reader), Gracchus ii (already as emperor [‘imperium’]) was banned forever. It was only through their fond remembrance of the first Gracchus that the Polish people allowed Wanda, the sister of Gracchus ii, to succeed her brother. She ruled very righteously and justly, as we learn from Vincent. Taking this into account, it seems not really to have been necessary for Vincent to finish off the dynasty of Gracchus with her as its last representative, yet Vincent lets her die without any successor. The only plausible explanation for his choice is that he wanted to send a clear sign: ‘Poland can manage without kings.’ After her death, therefore, he does not even name any princes who followed her, but instead only underlines their humble descent:

Huius quoque rei publice administratio humilibus nonnumquam et incertis cessit personis, nulla prorsus uel uulgi uel procerum sugillante inuidia, utpote quorum gloriosis etiam hodie gloriari delectet insignibus. vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 9, 14

(The administration of our ‘res publica’ lay [afterwards] often in the hands of persons of low origins. But nobody, not the normal people nor the noble men, objected to that. On the contrary: even today there is remembrance of their great deeds; my trans.)

The next interruption took place when Lestek i came to power. He was a goldsmith and by a clever trick he enabled the Poles to defeat the army of Alexander the Great and was afterwards elevated to king. His low origins are justified byVincent through the parallel that previously Sosthenes of Macedon, a man of very modest origins, had been elected king by the Macedonian army instead of a nobleman. Most interestingly, Lestek i had neither ancestors nor descendants. Vincent informs us that before him and after him there had been

43 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 5, 11: ‘Sic iunior Graccus paterno succedit imperio …, set diutius fratricidio fuit sordidus quam imperio insignis. Nam paulo post dolo deprehenso piaculi deputatur supplicio, exilii perpetuitate dampnatus.’

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV the origins of the polish piast dynasty 231 a period without rulers. Although the description of the tactical trick by Lestek against Alexander the Great occupies more than two pages of the chronicle, there is no comment on the actual reign of Lestek. It is only said that he was elected because of his virtues, especially because he was so smart.44 After a time without rulers, Poland was abused and run down by the ambi- tions of different Polish nobles, who tried to take advantage of the situation.45 The need for a strong leader steadily increased and it was eventually decided by the nobles to place the procedure for the election in the hands of neutral people of modest descent.46 These neutral people organised a horserace, the winner of which would be the new prince. Lestek ii, once again a man of modest background, won the race. Of his reign Vincent tells us at least a little bit: Lestek stayed very modest and wanted rather to be known by his low origin than by his wealth as a king. So, whenever he approached the throne in a pub- lic ceremony, he wore his old garment and only when close to the throne did he change into an appropriate royal robe.47 The descendants of Lestek ii were, in both subsequent generations, as good and virtuous as the founder of the dynasty.48 The son, Lestek iii, even married a daughter of Julius Caesar, because the Roman emperor could not defeat Lestek ii by military means. Even though Julia, the Roman mother of his sons, later returned to Rome, their son Pompilius, the grandson of Lestek ii, stayed in Poland with his father. He had twenty younger brothers from different concubines of his father; all of them were ‘humbly’ conpeting with each other to gain the attention of Pompilius i, who was their uncontested emperor. With

44 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 11, 18: ‘Ideo ille tam saluberrime magister artis patrie quam saluauerat princeps constituitur. Nec multo post uirtutum coadiutus meritis regie dignitatis celsitudine insignitur, dictusque Lestco id est astutus, quia astu plures hostium confecerit quam uiribus.’ 45 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 13, 18: ‘Orbata namque rege Polonia, dum de regis suc- cessione contenderent, seditionis pene obruitur tempestate, singulis primorum tyranni- dem occupare ambientibus.’ 46 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, 18–19: ‘Diuque non sine periculo ea conflictatione agitati, eligendi tandem censuram principis priuatorum deferunt arbitrio, utpote quorum insus- pecta uideretur simplicitas et a quibus longe relegata esset omnis ambitio.’ 47 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 15, 21: ‘Quotiens namque regalibus eum insigniri regia, ut assolet, poposcisset dignitas, originarie non immemor condicionis in habitu sordido prius orchestram conscendit, regalium ornatum scabello pedum supprimens, subinde regiis decussatus insignibus scabello insedit, illis extreme paupertatis panniculis in supremo orchestre suggestu reuerentissime collocatis.’ 48 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 17, 22: ‘Huius item filius non tam patris imperio quam paternis multa adiecit uirtutibus.’

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 232 vercamer their assistance, Pompilius reigned not only over Poland but over the adjacent imperia as well.49 Although his son, Pompilius ii, had as a child already been acknowledged as the future prince by his twenty uncles, he nevertheless lived in continuous fear that, once he was ruling, his uncles wanted to kill him. Vincent goes on to say that he was a good ruler, but was influenced by a woman, or better, a ‘witch’, as Vincent put it, so that all his good virtues mutated into bad ones.50 He conspired against his uncles, set a trap for them and killed them all. From the corpses of his uncles issued forth mice, which hunted down Pompilius ii and his family and ate them. Vincent sums it up:

At uero hiis occidentibus patrie sideribus etiam omne decus occidit et omnis Polonorum Gloria collapsa in fauillam extabuit. vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 21, 27

(With the death of these stars of the fatherland [uncles], all honour died; the glory of the Poles was burnt to ashes; my trans.)

Here the first book of the chronicle ends; then Vincent begins the second book with a new perspective:

Radice itaque Pompilii stirpitus excisa, noua principum iniciatur succes- sio. vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, ii, 3, 31

(The roots of the Pompilian dynasty were excised; a new succession of princes began; my trans.)

Vincent modified, which is very important, Gallus’s original story, which only began with Pompilius ii. In Vincent’s version, Pompilius ii and Piast have no direct contact with each other. Gallus’s version refers to a poor ploughman,

49 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 17, 23: ‘Ex hac et aliis thoris minus legitimis xx perhi- betur filios suscepisse, quibus totidem principatus assignauit, quibusdam ducatus, aliis comitias seu marchias, nonnullis regna distribuens. Pompilium uero iure primogeniture regem omnium statuit. Cuius nutu non Slauie dumtaxat monarchia, set etiam finitimo- rum gubernata sunt imperia.’ 50 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 19, 24: ‘Ille siquidem ille meritorum regratiator benefi- cus, ille, inquam, regum eximius minor Pompilius, cuiusdam uenefice debriatus illecebris, odiis gratiam, amicitias insidiis, cruore pietatem colere, fidem perfidia, tyrannide obse- quia recompensans.’

Piast, who lived in the village connected to the palace of Pompilius. In that version Pompilius refused to receive three strangers, but Piast did welcome and host them. The story of the strangers can be seen as initiating the end of Pompilius’s rule and the beginning of the Piast dynasty. It could, in an indirect way, also be read as a matter of guilt: Piast as the founder of the new dynasty is guilty of the demise of the previous dynasty, or in short: Piast usurped the leadership of the realm. Vincent’s version does not allow one to draw such a conclusion. Prior to Piast, the realm had already existed without a leader (i.e. a king), as in the cases of Gracchus, Lestek i and Lestek ii. Someone had to be in charge of the Polish affairs and so Piast and his son Siemowit assumed power, but without harming anyone else. They, too, as rulers (like Lestek i), remained fully aware of their simple background, which is very important from the point of view of the chronicle.

Summing up our examples, we have traced two repeating motifs:

1. After his reign a good king can be succeeded by his legitimate, natural successor, but there is no guarantee that the successor will not turn out to be useless or bad. If so, the ruler is forced by the people to leave his throne (Gracchus ii, Pompilius ii; the mice are taken as a metaphor for the people). 2. The next dynasty has absolutely no connection to the old, displaced dynasty. Any form of accusation, be it king-murderer or usurper of power, is snuffed out by that construction at the very start.

Which Ancient Elements Played a Role in the Chronicle? One could argue that Vincent followed the lead and examples of different ancient stories when inventing the prehistory of the Poles. The first three books are constructed like this: Matthew, the bishop of Kraków, is focused solely on recounting the history of Poland, and John, the archbishop of Gniezno, as hierarchically a higher church official and the wiser man of the two, comments and responds in the form of examples from ancient or biblical times. Vincent has him cite from the classic Roman authors: Cicero, Sallust, Livy etc., but especially from the Epitomes of Justin (third century ad)—a short version of the Historiae Philippicae (44 books) by Pompeius Trogus, wherein Justin more or less limits himself to the parts of Roman history (Iustinus, Marcus Iunianus Iustinus).51 Without pursuing the issue too much further here, the

51 Lewandowski (1976); Chmielewska (2003: 116–117).

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 234 vercamer crucial point for our subject is that Vincent artfully underlined or emphasised and justified (in his view) the rightful course of Polish history by quoting ancient parallels that present people of humble origins or even the murder of an ancient tyrant.52 But he never let the ancient examples take over or control his own conception. It actually worked the other way around: Vincent always adapts the ancient examples to the flow of his Polish story. So Bishop Matthew tells us an anecdote from Polish history and Archbishop John comments on this by recalling ancient parallels. Vincent, in answering the question of this section, did not take any particular ancient example as his starting point, but, conversely, adapted them to the Polish affairs.

What Role Did the People Play in the Chronicle? The ‘normal people’ (vulgus) of Poland play a central role in the chronicle. The humilitas of the princes is periodically emphasised, as if to say that the princes belong to the people. The simple origins (for example of Lestek i and Lestek ii) are often accentuated, as we have already seen. Piast was a poor ploughman (humillimus agricola).53 The law of Gracchus (mentioned previously) was to protect the poor and normal people. In the latter books of his chronicle, Vincent points out many times that it was not the nobles but the normal people who should benefit from the law.54 The author is, without any doubt, on the side of the righteous prince who does not put heavy burdens on the people.55 While it is true that humilitas is a virtue emphasised as well in other chronicles, it seems that Vincen, as a Cistercian monk, especially bore in mind the words of Bernhard of Clairvaux from his work De gradibus humilitatis et superbiae about humility:

Nescit sanus quid sentiat aeger, aut plenus quid patiatur jejunus. Et aeger aegro, et jejunus jejuno quanto propinquius, tanto familiarius compatiun- tur. … exemplo scilicet Salvatoris nostri, qui pati voluit, ut compati sciret; miser fieri, ut misereri disceret. bernard of clairvaux. De gradibus Superbiae, 3,17

(The healthy one does not know what the sick one feels, nor does the one who has had his fill know what the hungry one suffers. The closer the sick

52 Chmielewska (2009: 219, 224–225). 53 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, ii, 3, 31. 54 Lis (2011: 109–111). 55 Such as Mieszko iii, who tried to introduce (or reinforce) a system of central rights, traditionally called in Poland the ius ducale; cp. Gawlas (2013: 292–296).

one is to the sick, the hungry one to the hungry, the more intimately they suffer with each other. … namely, by example of our Saviour, who willingly suffered to know how to be compassionate, who willingly became miserable to learn how to be merciful.) Trans. kitchen 2005: 100–101

In a nutshell: one must feel humility by living it, or, at least, by coming from a modest background.

Why Did Vincent Create His Story in This Way? As pointed out above, Vincent did not want, like Gallus, to write the story of a dynasty, but rather of the people of Poland. The people were suffering in Vincent’s time from civil war as well as the intrigues among the different Piast branches. He was the first true Pole to write a chronicle, not like Gallus, who was a foreigner and who was fulfilling a commission from the court. Vincent longed for a solid and strong ruler who would nonetheless be affable and just. Such a ruler, as depicted by Vincent in the fourth book, was Casimir ii the Just, who had died before the chronicle was finished. All his qualities—humilitas, simplicitas and iustitia—are prefigured by Vincent in the book that presents the prehistory. It bears repeating: Vincent could just as well have traced the dynasty of the Piast back into prehistoric or biblical times (invoking ancestors in Troy, Rome etc.). He could have ignored Gallus’s model. But he most deliberately did not. Indeed, he uses the interruptions, one might call them ‘gaps’, in the dynastical lineage in Poland as particular Polish exempla, distinct from the ancient exempla, and used them to spotlight good rule and separate it from bad rule. The guiding thought is rather simple: the rulers must stay aware of their humble backgrounds and origins. The picture of Casimir ii points in this very same direction.56 Highly tendentious in pursuing his aim, we must assume that Vincent was not at all interested in conveying the tiniest bit of a true ‘prehistory’ of the Poles,57 whether he knew something about it or not. He delivered in his fictional prehistorical conception quite consciously a moral lecture and a vision or even model of the future of Poland for his contemporaries. Most remarkably, he was in fact the first author who mentioned the last will of Bolesław iii (†1138) and therefore gave initial form to the conception

56 Cp. Dobosz (2011: 215–227); Vercamer (2013: 328–335). 57 Banaszkiewicz (1998: 455–458).

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 236 vercamer of the ‘Agnatic seniority’58 ( Seniorat) of the Piast dynasty, which was often repeated and referred to thereafter. Yet, he himself does not seem to adhere to this notion, namely that only one particular family or dynasty had a right to rule.

How Did Other Chroniclers of the Time Deal with the Problem of the Origins, the Gens and the Dynasties? With these results in mind, we can add the further question: how did other chroniclers of the time deal with the prehistory of a given country or dynasty? Did they as well invent history as boldly as Vincent did? We cannot go deeply into this topic, because it exceeds the space given here. Nevertheless I want to provide at least some comparable material. In the first centuries of the Early Middle Ages, the histories of the Goths, Lombards and Franks (by Cassiodor and Jordanes; Paulus Diaconus; Fredegar and the Liber historiae Francorum)59 already showed a clear tendency to create long pre-ethnographical lineages, which were scarcely traceable (if at all). These lines were populated with princes or kings who were often associated with antiquity (Trojan) or Roman history. So we can answer positively the question raised above, namely that the historian of that time or earlier was an inventor of the past:

Im wesentlichen wären es zwischen 500 und 1200 lateinische, seltener volkssprachliche Autoren, die vorethnographische Daten mit etymologis- chen Konstruktionen mischten, um die partikulare Herkunft eines Volkes in die universal, bis in ihre eigene Zeit reichende Geschichte zu überset- zen und ihm eine römisch-historische und damit christliche Identität zu geben.60

(Essentially, between ad500 and ad1200 there were Latin authors, more rarely authors writing in the vernacular, who mingled pre-ethnographic data with etymological constructions in order to set the origins of a given people in a universal timeframe, reaching up to their period. They bestowed upon the origination of the people a Roman and later Christian identity; my trans.)

58 Vercamer (2013: 324–348). It denotes a system of inheritance of power within the family of the Piasts by the eldest member. 59 Cp. Anton et al. (2003: 178–193). 60 Anton et al. (2003: 174–175).

These authors, whose works are comparable to Vincent’s, made up the prehistory parts; they invented them out of a concern for the greatness of their own people and their rulers:

Wohl aus dem Fehlen einer eigenen Herkunftstradition sowie aus kräfti- gem Eigenbewußtsein sind die Herkunftssagen bei Fredegar und im Liber historiae Francorum im späten 6. oder um 7. Jh. gestaltet worden.61

(Probably it was out of the absence of a tradition of their own origin mixed with a strong self-confidence, that the legends of origination were constructed by Fredegar and the Liber historiae Francorum in the late sixth century or early seventh century; my trans.)

The crucial point and the difference when compared to Vincent is the role which a migration plays in the accounts of these others. A movement of people served importantly as a starting point for a nation’s new beginning and new order of things. None of the authors analysed by Alheydis Plassmann created a history in which the people (gens) had from the very start always been in the same particular region.62 The migration phase in their early histories was normally connected to a leader (heros eponymos), be it Aeneas, Britto, Francio or some other. This leader basically was succeeded by an unbroken lineage of princes from his specific family, in the best case up to the present time of a given author.63 The identity of the gens was, thus, rather dependent on single individual rulers or a particular dynasty of rulers.64 We can see here two important differences to Vincent: Vincent bound his gens with strong bonds to the country of Poland, 65 and the gens was not dependent on a particular dynasty.

61 Anton et al. (2003: 193). 62 Plassmann (2006: 361). 63 Fredegar is an exception, because he wrote of the origins in Troy but he did not connect these roots directly to the duces of the Franks. The love of freedom is accredited to the folk of the franci and not to their rulers. Plassmann (2006: 155–156), concludes from this that Fredegar saw in the ‘mayor of the palace’ (Hausmeier) better rulers than the official rulers. Important for our context is that Fredegar did not construct any breaks within the dynasties; maybe the transfer from the Trojans to the Merovingian was natural for him. 64 Plassmann (2006: 363–365);Wenskus (1961: 66–70); and as well Luhmann (1997: 693–694). Plassmann sees a development: the earlier historians emphasised the single ruler (rex) and the gens, while the later ones underlined the dynasties ( familia) and the territory (terra). The familia became a guarantee for the right order in the terra; cp. as well: Kersken (1995: 823–828) in this last regard. 65 Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum, i, 2, 7: ‘Narrabat itaque grandis natu quidam infinitissime

But we can test this in another way: since the examples referred to here came rather from the Earlier Middle Ages, we can shift and have a look at a couple of concrete examples from the High Middle Ages. William of Malmesbury (c. 1090–c. 1143) wrote his chronicle on the kings of England around 1120 and he is regarded as a ‘serious’ historian.66 He was the first author since Bede to collect significant material and to travel around in order to write an extensive history. His Gesta regum Anglorum begins with the year 449, but he stretched the history back to the Romans under Julius Caesar. He could have created a connection to the earlier British kings, especially because he was aware of King Vortigern as a king of the whole of Britain (not like the later petty kingships in Britain). It was Vortigern who called on the Angles and Saxons for help against the Scots and Picts. ButWilliam simply chose not to do so—in following Bede he did not construct a fictional history for the political purposes of his own time. The Anglo-Saxons, in turn, had their noble origins reaching back to Wodan, from whom all royal families amongst the barbarians issued forth:

… erant enim ab nepotes illius antiquissimi Woden, de quo omnium pene barbararum gentium regium genus lineam trahit, quemque gentes Anglorum deum esse delirantes … malmesbury, Gesta regum, i, 5, 22

(… they were descendants from this ancient Woden, from whom almost all barbarian tribes derive. The tribes of the Angles adhere to this god; my trans.)

William accurately reconstructs king after king by describing their reigns, mostly with the help of narrative elements framed by war and marriage. Only in the fourth book, with the appearance of the dukes of Normandy, does the narrative become more particular. But William did not bother to introduce the origins of the dukes because he probably took them to be known to his readers. William did not invent or make anything up. Although the welfare of the people and the church were central points for William, he did not come up with ‘fairy tales’ to accomplish or underline his goal. Geoffrey of Monmouth (around 1100–1154)67 constructed his English History in a very different way.

numerositatis manum quondam hic uiguisse, aput quos tanti regni inmensitas uix unius meruit iugeris estimatione censeri.’ 66 Gransden (1974: 168); Malmesbury, Gesta regum, i: xx; Preface: in Gesta regum, ii: xxxix– xlvi. 67 See Gillingham (1990) and Faletra (2008: 8–21).

One can conclude that he invented a great deal by extending the story of the English kings back to Brutus, the descendant of Priam of Troy. Yet this, like the Arthurian myth, had already been mentioned by Nennius in the Historia Brit- tonum in the ninth century.68 So we can conclude that Geoffrey only elaborated on these legendary stories: the Trojans freed Britain from giants and brought culture to the island—that is the core of his origo-tale. Like Aeneas, Brutus was a relative of Priam and therefore the English Kings were noble equals of the German emperors. But there were certain doubts as to whether the Norman kings could link themselves to that tradition.69 Therefore we can assume that Geoffrey wanted to differentiate himself from his contemporaries with an original and fresh historical attitude.70 Yet, even in his own time he was exposed as a liar.71 As William of Newsburgh wrote:

It is quite clear … that everything this man wrote about Arthur and his successors, or indeed about his predecessors from Vortigern onwards, was made up, partly by himself and partly by others. quoted by thorpe (1966: 17)

Nonetheless the majority of English historians after that actually followed the lead of Geoffrey and Nennius, and not William and Bede.72 But one cannot conclude that Geoffrey, in making up certain bits of the English history, was trying to emphasise or underline the matter of the ‘people’ of England. He wanted most certainly to entertain, and not morally instruct, the kings of England. His were completely different motives from those of Vincent.

In German historical writing we do not find an overall history of the German empire as we do in England, France or Poland. On the one hand, there do exist chronicles of the world (like those of Frutolf, Ekkehard, Otto of Freising, Saxo Annalist, Godfrey of Viterbo, or the German Chronica regia Colonensis, Kaiserchronik) or, on the other hand, histories of certain rulers (e.g. the Gesta Frederici by Otto of Freising and Rahewin).73 None of the authors doubted that the German dynasties were all related to the Carolingian ones and therefore

68 Gransden, (1974: 5–12); Wolf (2009: 197–199). 69 Wolf (2009: 198). 70 The romance literature from France would have had a notable influence on Geoffrey; cp. Gransden (1974: 186–187). 71 Faletra, Geoffrey [1] (2008: 8). 72 For a summary, see: Wolf (2009: 175). 73 For all these authors or anonymous opera, cp. the digital Repertorium ‘Geschichtsquel-

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 240 vercamer had their roots in ancient times. In their view, there was adequate earlier material (for example Gregory of Tours or Fredegar, to name only a few) to support this claim.74 Dynastical caesurae occurred naturally and did not need to be invented. In his chronicle of the world (Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus) of the second half of the twelfth century, Otto of Freising wrote that Pippin, the administrator of the Merovingian kings, asked the pope what he should do since he in fact possessed the real power but did not have the title:75 ‘The pope answered that it would be better when the real holder of the power would be named “king”, rather than someone being king who only had the title.’76 So Pippin deposed the last Merovingian king, Childeric iii, and sent him to a monastery. Otto comments without emotion: ‘Here ends the rule of the Merovingians and the rule of the Carolingians begins.’77 One can argue that the need in the empire for fanciful creations was not as strong as in Poland. There was no pressing purpose served in the empire through showing off a pedigree, because there was no trouble in tracing the ancestors back to the Roman Empire. The issue of suitability to rule was something German historians reflected on, especially during the periods of imperial elections. For example, Frederic One-eye, the father of Frederic Barbarossa, was not elected, though he was the most powerful prince in the empire, because he acted arrogantly and ignorantly during the preliminaries to the election, as is shown in the Narratio de electione Lotharii.78 There are many other examples of this kind, where individual rulers are criticised, but never in the elaborate (and to some extent well-hidden) way offered, for example, by Vincent. In France we can see as well tendencies at the end of the twelfth century and beginning of the thirteenth century (by Rigord and others after him) to connect the Capetian dynasty and especially Philip ii to the Trojans.79 This can be interpreted without any doubt as legitimising the reign of Philip, although we cannot be sure that Philip was even aware of the book. Rigord used the story about the extension of Philip’s capitol of Paris, a major project during

len des deutschen Mittelalters’ (http://www.geschichtsquellen.de/index.html; accessed 7 April 2017) for the newest publications on the works mentioned. 74 See Anton et al. (2003: 189–193). 75 Ottonis Chronica, v, 21–23, 249–250. 76 Ottonis Chronica, v, 249: ‘Pontifex ergo melius esse, ut ille, qui curam omnium haberet, rex diceretur, quam qui solum nomen regis gereret, remandavit.’ 77 Ottonis Chronica, v, 250: ‘Hic Merovingorum regno finito Karolingorum … cepit.’ 78 Narratio de electione, 511. 79 Carpentier et al. (2006: 51–85); Wolf (2009: 240–243).

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV the origins of the polish piast dynasty 241 his reign, as an opportunity to connect to the Trojans: back in 895bc they had already settled around Lutetia and ultimately adopted the name ‘Pariser’— after Paris Alexander.80 Rigord argued that in the past now and again doubts were expressed about the continuity to the Trojans and, in recalling older historiographers (Gregory of Tour etc.), he wanted to clear up these doubts.81

I have briefly surveyed tendencies in England, France and the German empire in order to compare them to the ‘prehistory’ of Vincent. None of these dealt with the problem of origins in the way Vincent did. The recent history (the last centuries) of the three was often already known and verifiable, so there was no need to invent new stories. Fantastic fabulators like Geoffrey of Monmouth were not taken seriously by scholars of their time (though his story was often copied).

Results

Vincent, as we have seen, wrote or created his history of the Poles in an untypical way, even though he belonged to the intellectual elite in Europe. He very much stressed the idea of the res publica and the independence of the Poles.82 The humble origins of the Polish rulers were of crucial importance for him. Additionally, in Vincent’s opinion, if the Polish kings acted vainly or not on behalf of their people, they deserved to be replaced. Not the king’s, but the needs of the people were what counted—the princes needed to keep this in mind. Furthermore, Vincent conveys to us a certain model of justice with regard to the poorer and ‘normal’ people (vulgus). The continuing existence of Poland in his time was so often at stake that in his view only a good, strong leader or prince was able to change the situation. His master plan of a just and righteous Poland is revealed in his composition of good and bad rulers in his prehistory: the bad rulers caused a clear cessation in their dynasties, which then ultimately led to a new dynasty of rulers on the Polish throne. The durations of the caesurae were for the most part not specified by the author; the reader sim-

80 Wolf (2009: 241). 81 He disparaged as well an English origin linked to the Trojans and Brut and denigrated it in comparison to the French origin from Paris; see Wolf (2009: 243). 82 Mądrowska (2004: 41–46); it is striking, that there is no recent work which has undertaken the task to research the usage of res publica in chronicles of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. I have only come across an older study, which studies the use of the terminology in the Early Middle Ages: Suerbaum (1977).

For use by the Author only | © 2018 Koninklijke Brill NV 242 vercamer ply does not find out for how many years (decades, centuries?) these gaps went on. But Vincent left no doubt that the new ruler should not be regarded as a usurper of the throne, even though he had no connection to the old dynasty. Even between Popiel and Piast, Vincent created an artificial gap by modifying the base text in the chronicle of Gallus. Nor did Vincent copy the model of the domini naturales from Gallus to highlight the dynasty of the Piasts as natural leaders. Instead he used the term principes succedanei (as mentioned earlier, in one possible translation: ‘the princes, who act on behalf of somebody or something’ i.e. the res publica) in its broader meaning for all Polish princes and did not just limit it to the Piasts. Casimir ii the Just (1138–1194) was as a ruler the ideal in the eyes of the chronicler, but he died well before Vincent even began (in all likelihood) to write his chronicle. Therefore, it seems highly probable, although Vincent does not mention this directly, that the author would not have even bothered with the possibility of a new ruler of non-Piast origin in order to save the res publica. This conclusion clearly results from his unique idea of the Polish past. This idea of the prehistory of his nation strongly differs from the European trends of his time. None of the otherWest European authors of the time or earlier, or the known authors from Bohemia, Rus’ or Hungary, struggled to create artificial dynastical gaps in the prehistory as Vincent did. The majority of them tried as hard as possible to make their dynastic history continuous, often not factually based, seeking thereby to underline the noble, elitist legitimation for the reigning dynasties. What Vincent did was very original and unique.83

Bibliograpy

Primary Sources mgh Monumenta Germaniae Historica mph Monumenta Poloniae Historica

83 This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 665778. Furthermore, I want to thank Dr Darius von Guettner (Melbourne University, Australia) and Dr Norbert Kersken (Herder Institute, Germany) for their critical reading and dis- cussion of this article with me. Also my thanks to Dr Philip Jacobs, editor at English- Exactly.com, for his work in reading and correcting this article. To all of them, my appre- ciation and thanks.

Bernard de Clairvaux. De gradibus Superbiae et Humilitatis. Ed. Jean Leclercq, Henri M. Rochais and Charles H. Talbot. Sancti Bernardi opera 3. Rome: Editiones Cister- cienses, 1963. 13–59. [Cosmas of Prague] Cosmae Pragensis Chronica Boemorum. Ed. Bertold Bretholz, Wil- helm Weinberger. mgh: Scriptores rerum Germanicarum, ns 2. Berlin: Weid- mannsche Buchhandlung, 1923. [Gallus Anonymus] Galli anonymi cronica et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum / Anonima tzw. Galla kronika czyli dzieje książąt i władców polskich. Ed. Karol Male- czyński. mph sn 2. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1952. [Gallus Anonymus] Gesta principum Polonorum. The Deeds of the Princes of the Poles. Trans. and annotated Paul W. Knoll and Frank Schaer. Central European Medieval Texts 3. Budapest/New York: Central European University Press, 2003. Geoffrey of Monmouth [1]. The History of the Kings of Britain. Ed. and trans. Michael Faletra. Peterborough/Ontario: Broadview Books, 2008. Geoffrey of Monmouth [2]. The History of the Kings of Britain. Ed. and trans. Lewis Thorpe. London: Penguin, 1966. [Gesta Hungaroum] Die “Gesta Hungarorum” des anonymen Notars: die älteste Darstel- lung der ungarischen Geschichte. Ed. Gabriel Silagi with the assistance of László Veszprémy. Ungarns Geschichtsschreiber 4. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1991. Malmesbury, William of. Gesta regum Anglorum. The History of the English Kings. Vol. 1. Ed. and Trans. R.A.B. Mynors, completed by Rodney M. Thomson and Michael Win- terbottom. Oxford: Claredon Press 1998. Vol. 2. General introduction and commen- tary by Rodney M. Thomson in collaboration with Michal Winterbottom. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999. Narratio de electione Lotharii ducis Saxoniae in regem Romanorum. Ed. Wilhelm Wat- tenbach. mgh, Scriptores (in Folio) 12. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1856. 510–512. Nennius. Historia Brittonum. Ed. and trans. Günter Klawes. Wiesbaden: Marixverlag, 2012. [Nestorchronik] Die Nestorchronik. Ed. Ludolf Müller. München: Fink, 2001. [Otto of Freising] Otto Bischof von Freising. Chronik oder die Geschichte der zwei Staaten. Ed. Adolf Schmidt. Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe 16. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1960. [Otto of Freising] Ottonis episcopi Frisingensis Chronica sive Historia de duabus civitatibus. Ed. Adolf Hofmeister. mgh, Script. rer. Germ. in us. Schol. 45. Hannover: Hahnsche Buchhandlung, 1912. Rigord. Histoire de Philippe Auguste. Ed. and trans. Élisabeth Carpentier, Georges Pon and Yves Chauvin. Paris: cnrs Éditions, 2006. [Vincentius Kadłubek] MistrzWincenty (tzw. Kadłubek). Kronika polska. Ed. and trans. Brygida Kürbis. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich, 1992.

[Vincentius Kadłubek] Magistri Vincentii dicti Kadłubek Chronica Polonorum. Ed. Mar- ian Plezia. mph sn 11. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1994. Referred to as ‘Vincentius, Chronica Polonorum’.

Secondary Literature Adamska, Anna, and Marco Mostert, eds. (2004). The Development of Literate Mentali- ties in East Central Europe. Turnhout: Brepols. Anton, Hans Hubert (1994). ‘Origo gentis—Volksgeschichte. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit Walter Goffarts Werk “The Narrators of Barbarian History”.’ In Historiographie im frühen Mittelalter. Ed. Anton Scharer, Georg Scheibelreiter. Wien: Oldenbourg. 262–307. Anton, Hans Hubert, Matthias Becher, Walter Pohl, Herwig Wolfram, I.N. Wood (2003). ‘Origo Gentis.’ In Hoops 22. 174–210. Bláhová, Marie (2002). ‘Die Anfänge des böhmischen Staates in der mittelalterlichen Geschichtsschreibung.’ In Von sacerdotium und regnum. Geistliche und weltliche Gewalt im frühen und hohen Mittelalter. Festschrift für Egon Boshof zum 65. Geburt- stag. Ed. Franz-Reiner Erkens and Hartmut Wolff. Köln: Böhlau. 67–76. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek (1979). Kronika Dzierzwy. xiv-wieczne kompendium historii ojczys- tej. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek (1986). Podanie o Piaście i Popielu: studium porównawcze nad wczesnośredniowiecznymi tradycjami dynastycznymi. Warszawa: Państwowe Wy- dawnictwo Naukowe. Banaszkiewicz, Jacek (1998). PolskieDziejeBajeczneMistrzaWincentegoKadłubka.Wro- cław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Bisson, Thomas N. (2010). ‘Witness to crisis? Power and resonance in the Chronicle of the Poles by Wincenty Kadłubek.’ In Stopka (2010). 205–213. Carpentier, Élisabeth, Georges Pon and Yves Chauvin, ed. (2006). ‘Introduction.’ See Rigord. Histoire de Philippe Auguste. Chmielewska, Katarzyna (2003). Rolawątkówimotywówantycznychw“Kronicepolskiej” Mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem. Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo wsp. Chmielewska, Katarzyna (2009). ‘Recepcja rzymskiej literatury antycznej w Kronice polskiej Mistrza Wincentego.’ In Dąbrówka/Wojtowicz (2009). 215–230. Dąbrówka, Andrzej, and Witold Wojtowicz, eds. (2009). Onus Athlanteum. Studia nad Kroniką biskupa Wincentego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytut Badań Literackich pan. Dobosz, Józef (2011). Kazimierz ii. Sprawiedliwy. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznański. Domański, Juliusz (2006). ‘Prolog Kroniki polskiej Mistrza Wincentego zwanego Kadłubkiem. Próba anarracji.’Przegląd Tomistyczny 12: 9–60. Drelicharz, Wojciech (2003). ‘Mittelalterliche Krakauer Annalistik.’ Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 8: 231–288.

Engel, Pál (2001). Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. London: Tauris. Faletra, M., ed. (2008). ‘Introduction.’ See Geoffrey of Monmouth [1]. The History of the Kings of Britain. Gawlas, Sławomir (2000). O kształt zjednoczonego królestwa. Niemieckie władztwo tery- torialne a geneza społecznoustrojowej odrębności Polski. 2nd edn. Warszawa: Wydaw- nictwo DiG. Gawlas, Sławomir (2013). ‘Das Problem der Fürstenmacht zur Zeit von Vincentius Kadłubek.’ In Kersken/Vercamer (2013). 277–312. Georges, Karl Ernst (1913). Ausführliches lateinisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch (http:// www.zeno.org/Georges-1913/K/Georges-1913-02-2894). Gillett, Andrew (2002). ‘Introduction: Ethnicity, History and Methodology.’ In Gillett (2002). 1–20. Gillett, Andrew, ed. (2002) On Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages. Turnhout: Brepols. Gillingham, John (1990). ‘The Context and Purposes of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain.’ Anglo-Norman Studies 13: 99–118. Goetz, Hans-Werner (1979). ‘“Vorstellungsgeschichte”. Menschliche Vorstellungen und Meinungen als Dimension der Vergangenheit. Bemerkungen zu einem jüngeren Arbeitsfeld der Geschichtswissenschaft als Beitrag zu einer Methodik der Quel- lenauswertung.’ Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 61: 253–271 [Rpt in Vorstellungs- geschichte. Gesammelte Schriften zu Wahrnehmungen, Deutungen und Vorstellungen im Mittelalter. Ed. Anna Aurast. Bochum: Verlag Dr. Dieter Winkler, 2007. 3–17]. Goetz, Hans-Werner (2011). Gott und die Welt. Religiöse Vorstellungen des frühen und hohen Mittelalters. Part 1, Vol. 1. Das Gottesbild. Berlin: De Gruyter. Goffard, Walter (1988). The Narrators of Barbarian History (a.d.550–800). Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gransden, Antonia (1974). Historical writing in England c. 550 to c. 1307. London: Rout- ledge and Kegan Paul. Grzesik, Ryszard (2015). ‘Kadłubek, Wincenty.’ Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle. Ed. Graeme Dunphy. Brill Online, 2015. (accessed: 25 Dec. 2015) Hardt, Matthias, Christian Lübke and Dittmar Schorkowitz, eds. (2003). Inventing the Pasts in North Central Europe: the national perception of early medieval history and archaeology. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Herwig, Wolfram (1994). ‘Origo et religio. Ethnic Traditions and Literature in Early Medieval Texts.’Early Medieval Europe 3: 19–38. Hoops, Johannes (2003). Reallexikon der Germanischen Alterumskunde 22: Ostgöta- lag—Pfalz und Pfalzen. Gen. ed. Heinrich Beck, Dieter Geuenich, Heiko Steuer. Berlin: De Gruyter. Referred to as ‘Hoops 22’. Irgang, Winfried (2007). ‘Der Anteil der Piastischen Landesherren an der Deutschen

Besiedlung Schlesiens.’ In Schlesien im Mittelalter. Ed. Winfried Irgang, Norbert Kersken and Jürgen Warmbrunn. Marburg: Verlag Herder-Institut. 20–29. Kersken, Norbert (1995). Geschichtsschreibung im Europa der “nationes”. National- geschichtliche Gesamtdarstellungen im Mittelalter. Marburg: Böhlau. Kersken, Norbert (1999). ‘Mittelalterliche Geschichtsentwürfe in Alt- und Neueuropa.’ In Die Geschichtsschreibung in Mitteleuropa. Projekte und Forschungsprobleme. Ed. Jarosław Wenta. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika. 111–134. Kersken, Norbert, and Grischa Vercamer, eds. (2013). Macht und Spiegel der Macht— Herrschaft in Europa im 12. und 13. Jahrhundert vor dem Hintergrund der Chronistik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Kitchen, John (2005). ‘Bernhard of Clairvaux’s De Gradibus Humilitatis et Superbiae and the postmodern revisioning of moral philosophy.’ In Virtue and Ethics in the Twelfth Century. Ed. István P. Bejczy, Richard G. Newhauser. Leiden/Boston: Brill. 95–117. Lewandowski, Ignacy (1976). ‘Mistrz Wincenty a Justyn—epitomator Pompejusza Troga.’ Studia Źródłoznawcze 20: 28–34. Lis, Artur (2011). ‘Mistrz Wincenty Kadłubek—ojciec prawa w Polsce?’ In Prawo w Europie średniowiecznej i nowożytnej 1. Ed. Artur Lis. Lublin: Wydawnictwo kul. 91– 118. Lis, Artur (2013). Spory wokół biografii mistrza Wincentego Kadłubka. Lublin: Wydaw- nictwo kul. Luhmann, Niklas (1997). Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. 2 vols. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Łowmiański, Henryk (1962). ‘Dynastia Piastów we wczesnym średniowieczu’ In Początkipaństwapolskiego.Księgatysiąclecia.Vol. 1. Ed. K.Tymieniecki. Poznań: Poz- nańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Mądrowska, Ewa A. (2004). ‘Polska jako “patrimonium”, “regnum” i “res publica” w “Kronice” Mistrza Wincentego.’ In Od liryki do retoryki. W kregu słowa, literatury i kultury. Prace ofiarowane Jadwidze i Edmundowi Kotarskim. Ed. Irena Kadulska. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego. 41–46. Mądrowska, Ewa A. (2010). Domini Naturales, Portrety polskich władców w Chronicon Polonorum mistrzaWincentego. Bydgoszcz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Kazimierza Wielkiego. MistrzWincenty Kadłubek—pierwszy uczony polski—w 750-lecie śmierci (1976). Sym- pozjum naukowe zorganizowane w Poznaniu staraniem ptpn i pth w dniach 23 i 24 listopada 1973 roku. Studia Źródłoznawcze 20: 3–140. Mühle, Eduard (2009). ‘Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum. Neue Forschungen zum so genannten Gallus Anonymus.’DeutschesArchivfürErforschung des Mittelalters 66: 459–496. Münkler, Herfried, and Hans Grünberger (1998). ‘Origo et Vetustas. Herkunft und Alter als Topoi nationaler Identität.’ In Nationenbildung. Die Nationalisierung Europas im

Diskurs humanistischer Intellektueller. Ed. Herfried Münkler and Hans Grünberger. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 235–261. Ożóg, Krzysztow, and Stanisław Szczur (1999). Piastowie: leksykon biograficzny. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie. Plassmann, Alheydis (2006). Origo gentis: Identitäts- und Legitimitätsstiftung in früh- und hochmittelalterlichen Herkunftserzählungen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Sach, Maike (2007). ‘Stiftungs- und Schenkungsakte als Formen von Herrschaftsle- gitimation und religiöser Selbstvergewisserung im mittelalterlichen Polen (10.–12. Jahrhundert).’ Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 55: 491–516. Samsonowicz, Henryk (2009). ‘Sytuacja polityczna Polski w czasach Wincentego.’ In Dąbrówka/Wojtowicz (2009). 29–39. Stopka, Krzysztof, ed. (2010). Gallus Anonymous and his Chronicle in the context of twelfth-century historiography from the perspective of the latest research. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Struve, Tilman (1978). Die Entwicklung der organologischen Staatsaufassung im Mitte- lalter. Stuttgart: Hiersemann. Suerbaum,Werner (1977).Vom antiken zum frühmittelalterlichen Staatsbegriff: ÜberVer- wendung und Bedeutung von Res publica, Regnum, Imperium und Status von Cicero bis Jordanis. Münster: Aschendorf. Thorpe, Lewis, trans. (1966). See Geoffrey of Monmouth [2]. The History of the Kings of Britain. Třeštík, Dušan (1978). ‘Die Anfänge der bömischen Geschichtsschreibung. Die ältesten Prager Annalen.’ Studia Źródłoznawcze 23: 1–37. Vercamer, Grischa (2013). ‘Vorstellung von Herrschaft bei Magister Vincentius von Krakau (um 1150–1223).’ In Kersken/Vercamer (2013). 313–344. Wenskus, Reinhard (1961). Stammesbildung und Verfassung. Das Werden der frühmitte- lalterlichen gentes. Köln: Böhlau. Wiszewski, Przemysław (2004). ‘At the Beginnings of the Piast Dynastic Tradition. The Ancestors of Mieczko in the Chronicle by Gallus Anonymous.’ Quaestiones Medii Aevi Novae 9: 153–182. Wiszewski, Przemysław (2010). Domus Bolezlai: Values and social identity in dynastic traditions of medieval Poland (c. 966–1138). Leiden: Brill. Wolf, Kordula (2009). Troja, Metamorphosen eines Mythos: französische, englische und italienische Überlieferungen des 12. Jahrhunderts im Vergleich. Berlin: Akademie Ver- lag.