sign in sign up
<<
Home , Croatian nobility, Croats, Greater Croatia, Habsburg Monarchy

https://doi.org/10.24101/logos.2017.51 Received 23 03 2017

Vladislav B. Sotirović Mykolas Romeris University, Mykolo Romerio universitetas, Lietuva

The Idea of a Greater (United) by Pavao Ritter Vitezović: An Early-Modern Model of the and Creation of the National State of the Croato- Pavao Ritterio Vitezovićiaus Didžiosios (Jungtinės) Kroatijos idėja: ankstyvasis modernus nacionalinės tapatybės modelis ir nacionalinės kroatų-slavų valstybės kūrimas

SANTRAUKA

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas kroatų didiko publicisto ir istoriko Pavao Ritterio Vitezovićiaus (1652–1713) „Didžiosios Kroatijos“ modelis. Daugelis istorikų tyrinėjo Vitezovićiaus politines mintis ir jo išplėtotą vie- ningos Pietų Slavų valstybės, kaip platesnio vieningo Slavų pasaulio dalies, ideologinę sistemą. Pasak vy- raujančio mokslininkų požiūrio, Vitezovićius buvo „jugoslavizmo” (suvienytos Pietų Slavų tautinės valsty- bės) ir netgi vieningo slavizmo, vieningo slavų kultūrinio ir politinio abipusiškumo idėjos pirmtakas. Jo amžininkų tekstuose siūlomas alternatyvus būdas apibrėžti modernių Pietų Slavų etninių valstybių sienas. Vitezovićius siekė kurti kroatų nacionalinę valstybę remiantis pastangomis konsoliduoti kroatų „etnines teritorijas“ ir „etnolingvistines linijas“. Šios tapatybės sampratos analizė atskleidžia, kaip buvo suprastos numatytos ankstyvosios modernios kroatų etninės valstybės sienos. Ji apima plačias teritorijas nuo Adrijos jūros iki Maskvos ir nuo Baltijos jūros iki Juodosios jūros. Vitezovićiaus požiūris į lietuvius ir Lenkijos- Lietuvos Sąjungą liudija, kad argumentas, kuriuo grindžiami jo reikalavimai Kroatijos tautinei valstybei, paremtas etnolingvistine giminyste.

Key words: Croatia, , Slavs, Lithuania, Lithuanians, national identity, . RAKTAŽODŽIAI: Kroatija, kroatai, slavai, Lietuva, lietuviai, tautinė tapatybė, Balkanai. 92 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema

Summary

The paper will examine the model for the creation of a ‘’ designed by the Croatian noble- men, publicist and historian Pavao Ritter Vitezović (1652–1713). Many historians have viewed Vitezović’s political thought and his developed ideological framework of a united South Slavic state as part of a wider pan-Slavic world. According to the prevailing notion, Vitezović was a precursor of the idea of ‘Yu- goslavism’ (a united Southern Slav state) and even ‘Pan-Slavism’, a pan-Slavic cultural and political reciprocity. Yet a closer look at Vitezović and his contemporaries’ writings suggests an alternative model for outlining the borders of modern ethnic states among the Southern Slavs. Vitezović argued for the crea- tion of a Croat national state, based on the integration of the Croat ‘ethnic territories’ and their consolida- tion along ethno-linguistic lines. The analysis of Vitezović’s understanding of nationhood explains how the borders of an envisioned early modern Croat ethnic state had been perceived as including vast territories from the to Moscow and from the Baltic Sea to the Sea. In this respect Vitezović’s views on the Lithuanians and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth will show that the argument used to substan- tiate his claims for a Croatian was based on an ethno-linguistic kinship.

An ideological concept of the Pan Croatianism and a Greater (United) Croatia

A Croatian nobleman of ethnic Ger- ern territories of the Balkans. Conse- man origin from , Pavao Ritter quently, according to this belief, the fore- Vitezović (1652–1713), was the person fathers of present-day Eastern and West- who transformed old Dalmatian Pan- ern Slavs emigrated from the Balkans Slavic idea into the ideological concept and nearby Danubian lands and settled of Pan-Croatianism that included all themselves on the wide territory of Eu- Slavic population into the membership rope from the Elbe River on the West to of the Croatian nationality. Dalmatian, the Volga River on the East.1 However, and especially Ragusian () the remained in the Bal- humanists, in the 16th century accepted kans – the peninsula that was considered the old domestic popular tradition that as the motherland of all Slavonic people all Slavs originated in fact in the Balkans (Istorija naroda Jugoslavije 1960: 224–227). and the south Danubian region. It means Subsequently, all famous historical actors that according to this tradition, the South who originated in the Balkans were ap- Slavs are autochthonous inhabitants at propriated as members of the Slavdom: both the Balkan Peninsula and its neigh- Alexander the Great and his father Phi­ boring south Danubian region. More lip II of Macedonia, Aristotle, St. Jerome precisely, the entire Slavonic population (Hieronymus), Diocletian, Constantine had its progenitors in the ancient Balkan the Great, SS. Cyril and Methodius, etc.2 , Macedonians and Thracians. On the territory of present-day , Principally, the ancient Illyrians were for instance, eighteen Roman considered as the real ancestors of the of the (Slavic?) origin were born South, Eastern and Western Slavs who among whom Constantin the Great be- have been living in the central and west- came famous.

LOGOS 92 93 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

P. R. Vitezović, “plemeniti i hrabreni According to the Peace Treaty of gospn hërvatski i senski vlastelin” (“noble , the border between and brave gentleman and feudal lord the Habsburg and the Otto- from Senj”) (Bogišić 1970: 143), a Senj’s man Sultanate was fixed on the Morish delegate to the Hungarian feudal Parlia- and Tisa Rivers. Therefore, ment () in Sopron, a representative and became now parts of the of the Croatian feudal Parliament (Sabor) , the of at the Imperial Court in , devel- Temeshvar of the Ottoman Sultanate oped its ideology of Pan-Croatianism in while the region of Srem (Sirmium) was the following writings: Kronika, aliti szpo- divided between these two empires. The men vszega szvieta vikov (“Chronicle, or a state border of the Habsburg Monarchy Remembrance of all the Times of the became moved from the River to World”), , 1696; Anagrammaton, the River (in the present-day Bos- Sive Lauras auxiliatoribus Ungariae liber nia) and to the Mt. Velebit in . secundus (“The Second Book of Ana- However, the European peace was es- grams, or a Laurel to the Helpers of tablished next year when on June 13th Hungary”), Vienna, 1689; Croatia rediviva: the and the Ottoman Regnante Leopoldo Magno Caesare (“Re- Sultanate signed a bilateral treaty in Is- vived Croatia”), Zagreb, 1700; and in tanbul () that was valid Stemmatographia, sive Armorum Illyrico- for the next thirty years. According to rum delineatio, descriptio et restitutio this treaty, Russia got Azov, stopped to (“Stemmatography, or the Delineation, pay annual tribute to the Tatar Han, re- Description, and Restoration of the Illyr- ceived a right to freely visit the Christian ian Coat of Arms”), Vienna, 1701. Nev- holy places in Palestine and to have its ertheless, the fundamental political pur- own diplomatic representative in Istan- pose of these four works was to indicate bul (Dimić 1999: 266−267). to the Habsburg Leopold I P. R. Vitezović clearly pointed out in (1658–1705) the “Croatian” historical his Kronika… that entire ex-Roman prov- lands that should be united under the ince of Illyricum should be understood as Habsburg imperial crown, but not to be a land populated by the Slavs (Vitezovich divided between three Balkan super- 1696: 6). However, he implied the term powers: the Republic of San Marco (Ven- Illyricum to the entire Balkan Peninsula ice), the Ottoman Sultanate and the that was settled by the Slavs including Habsburg Monarchy (Bratulić 1994: 74; and the who were (wrongly) Istorija naroda Jugoslavije 1960: 948–949). considered as direct descendents of the Especially his Croatia rediviva… was a ancient Illyrians. Moreover, taking into political protest against the Austro-Ot- consideration the fact that the South toman Peace Treaty of Sremski Karlovci Slavic (Roman Catholic) au- (Karlowitz), which, according to thors mainly (wrongly) applied the name Vitezović, deprived Croatia of her al- Illyrians and Illyricum to the Croats and leged ancient historical and ethnical ter- Croatia, Vitezović in fact called all de- ritories (Ritter 1700; Šišić 1934: 44). scendents (the Slavs and Albanians) of

94 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema the Illyrians as Croats. Thus, the main kans and a part of the South-East portion of the Balkans, from the Istrian into the Illyricum that was later described Peninsula and the Adriatic Sea to the in his Croatia rediviva… as the South Cro- , the River and the Ae- atia (Ritter 1689; Ritter 1700). gean Sea belonged exclusively to the P. R. Vitezović actually divided the Croatdom. Vitezović stressed that the whole world into six ethnolinguistic, his- idea of Illyrian-Slavic nationhood, or the torical, cultural and geographical areas, Croatdom, was based on linguistic unity civilizations and cultures as they are: and community for the simple reason I) Germania, which embraced the that all of these territories and their in- whole German-speaking world: the Holy habitants spoke and wrote “szlavni nas of the German Nation, (i.e., the Croatian) Illyrski aliti Szlovenski headed by , the Kingdom of Swe- jezik” (“our glorious Illyrian or Slavic den (, , Finland), Den- language”) (Vitezovich 1696: 199; mark, East , Curonian Isthmus Blažević 2000, see map on p. 225). (Kuršių Neria) with the Curonian Bay or A Roman province of Illyricum was the Courish Lagoon (Kuršių Marios), Me­ established during the time of the Roman mel (Klaipėda). However, Angliae regnum Emperor Augustus’ conquering the West- (Scotland, England, Wales, and Ireland) ern Balkans in the years of 35 B.C. – A.D. was included into Germania as well. 9. During the time of the Emperor Con- II) Italia cum parte Greciae ( with stantine I (Great), one of (four) imperial the part of Greece) referred to the Apen- Praefecturas (the largest administrative- nine Peninsula, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, territorial unites of the Roman Empire) Attica, Peloponnesus (Morea) and the was the Illyricum which covered almost main number of the Aegean and the Io- the whole Balkans (except present-day nian Islands, Malta and Crete. and the European Turkey) and III) Illyricum that was the whole Bal- the parts of the present-day Hungary and kans (except Attica and Peloponnesus Austria. The Preafectura Illyricum was di- with the adjoining islands), vided into the following : Achaia, (Dacia and ), Transylvania and Thessalia, Macedonia, Dacia, Moesia Hungary. Prima, Epirus Vetus, Epirus Nova, Prae- IV) Hispania, which was composed by valitana, Dalmatia, Prima, Pan- and Portugal and their European nonia Secunda, Savia, Ripense possessions and overseas colonies in Af- and Noricum Mediterraneum (Wester- rica, Asia, America with Florida mann 1985: 38–39, 42–43). It partially and . covered the territories of modern Austria, V) Sarmatia that was composed by the and Hungary, but covered all territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Com- present-day Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovi- monwealth (the Republic of Two Na- na, Serbia, , Greece (without tions) with and Muscovy (i.e., the West Thrace) and . Neverthe- the Russian Empire). less, in his Anagrammaton… Vitezović VI) Gallia that was (Ritter included the entire territory of the Bal- 1689: 69–117).

LOGOS 92 95 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

A real ideological source for such Rus’, and Lithuanians. division of the whole world was the P. R. Vitezović found that the ances- Slavic idea which decisively influenced tors of all North Croats (Wends and Sar- Vitezović who recognized that all Slavs matians) were the White Croats (Belohro- belonged to a single ethnolinguistic batoi, from the Byzantine historical sourc- community. Nevertheless, he metamor- es) who lived in the early phosed this idea of Pan-Slavism eleven around the upper Dniester River and the years later into the idea of a Pan-Croa- upper Vistula River, i.e., and tianism and a Greater Croatia. In fact, Little (Engel 1979: 10–11; Wester- Vitezović claimed that all Slavs are the mann 1985: 50–51, 54–55; Macan 1992: Balkan Illyrians who were autochtho- 15–16; Klaić 1971: 18–22). A traditional nous inhabitants of Illyricum. However, name from the sources for White Croatia for him it was clear that ancient Illyrians was a Greater Croatia or an Ancient Croa- were modern Croats and ancestors of all tia (Ćorović 1993: 34; Klaić 1971: 21). At Slavs. This ideology of Croatian-Slavic the time of Vitezović’s writing of Croatia ethnogenesis Vitezović developed in his rediviva… this territory was integral part work Croatia rediviva… that was an out- of the Republic of the Two (the line for more ambitious general history Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). of the Croats and Croatia, i.e. the entire The South Croatia, or Illyricum (the Slavic population. In this work Vitezović Balkans), was subdivided by Vitezović divided total territory of ethnic, histori- into two parts: Croatia Alba (White Croa- cal and linguistic Croatia into two parts: tia), and Croatia Rubea (Red Croatia). I) Croatia Septemtrionalis (the North Cro- Croatia Alba was composed by Croatia atia), and II) Croatia Meridionalis (the Maritima (central and maritime Monte- South Croatia). The boundary between negro, Dalmatia and the East ), them was the Danube River. Northern Croatia Mediterranea ( and Croatia encompassed the entire territo- Bosnia-), Croatia Alpestris ries of , , (Slovenia and the West Istria) and Croatia (Łužica or Łužyca in the East Interamnia ( with a part of Pan- and the South Brandenburg) (The nonia). Croatia Rubea consisted of Serbia, in 1998: 5), Hungary, Transyl- the North-East Montenegro, Bulgaria, vania, Wallachia, Muscovy, Poland and Macedonia, Epirus, Albania, Thessaly Lithuania (Ritter 1700: 109). The people and Thrace (Vitezović’s Odrysia) (Ritter who were living in the North Croatia 1700: 32). Therefore, there have been were divided into two groups: the Vitezović’s “limites totius Croatiae” (“bor- North-West Croats, called the Venedicos ders of whole Croatia”) that was settled (Wends) and the North-East Croats, by ethnolinguistic Croats (Vitezović 1699; named as the Sarmaticos (). Ritter 1699; Vitezović 1997: 188–215; The Wends consisted of the , Perković 1995: 225–236). However, Vite­ , and Sorbs (Sorabi, who lived zo­vić recognized the reality that his in Lusatia), whereas the Sarmatians who Greater (United) Croatia and a Pan-Cro- were living in Muscovy, Poland and atian national identity was not a unified Lithuania (Ritter 1700: 10), i.e., were the in whole. In the other words, he acknowl-

96 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema edged differences in borders, names, em- of the common Croat name especially for blems, and customs: “cum propriis tamen all South Slavs (the ancient Balkan Illyr- singularum limitibus etymo, Insignibus, ians) with regional and historic differ- rebusque ac magis memorabilibus populi ences was expressed in Vitezović’s heral- moribus” (Ritter 1700: 32; Ritter 1701). dic manual Stemmatographia… where he After all, he believed that these distinc- presented all “Croatian” historical and tions were of lesser importance than the ethnolinguistic lands in the South-East common Croatian nationhood of all of Europe, like Serbia, Bulgaria, , these people and lands. His apotheosis etc. (Ritter 1701; Banac 1993: 223–227).

The sources of ideological background of P. R. Vitezović’s Pan-Croatianism

The ideological background of P. R. next four historical sources relating to Vitezović’s Pan-Croatianism lies un- the early history of the Slavs, their ori- doubtedly in the 16th–17th centuries de- gin, ethnogenesis and their settlement at veloped Pan-Slavic idea, which is pre- the Balkans: sented in the first part of this article. 1) Already mentioned above Povest’ Vitezović accepted the main point of this vremennyh let. idea – all Slavs constitute a single ethno- 2) Letopis Popa Dukljanina or Barski linguistic community of kinship.3 rodoslov (“Chronicle of the Priest from The basic elements of this assumption Dioclea” or “Bar’s Genealogy”). This is he found in the well-known and widely- a mid-12th century chronicle, possibly read East Slavonic Povest’ vremennyh let originally written in the Slavic language, or Nestor’s Chronicle (“Primary Chroni- but surviving only in its Latin transla- cle” – a compilation from the early 12th tion. The only survived copy of this century, containing both oral and earlier manuscript can be found in the Manu- written material), which main ideological script Collection of Library of Vatican construction, i.e., tradition of the three under the signature: Vat. Lat. 6958. The Slavic progenitors – brothers Czech, Lech main part of this chronicle is based on and Rus’, who originated in the Balkans oral tradition. It is the most detailed and Pannonian Plain around the Danube source for the early history of Montene- River (Povest’ vremennyh let 1884: 4; Con- gro and Herzegovina and important te 1986: 14–15). This source became fur- source on history of Bosnia, Croatia and ther developed in the various medieval Macedonia. Dalmatian, Czech and Polish chronicles 3) Historia Salonitana (“History of and Renaissance- Slavic histories Split”). This is the most important, but written by the South Slavic authors, es- biased historical source for the history pecially by those living in Dalmatia. of Dalmatian city of Split from the 7th to Constructing his own ideology of a the 13th centuries. There is as well an ex- Pan-Croatianism, P. R. Vitezović, on the panded version of this work from the first place, used information from the 16th century that is known as Historia

LOGOS 92 97 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

Salonitana maior by Thomas the Archdea- ed all Croats (from the Balkans and out- con of Split who died in 1268. side the Balkans) into “Transdanubian” 4) (“On gov- and “Cisdanubian” Croats. Furthermore, erning of the state”). This unfinished combining information from Povest’ vre- work is dealing with the foreign policy mennyh let and those from Orbin’s Il of the , diplomatic techniques, Regno degli Slavi, Vitezović concluded and sketches of the neighbouring Slavic firstly that the brothers Czech, Lech and and non-Slavic people. It is written by a Rus’ (i.e., the Czechs, Moravians, Poles, Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Por- and entire population of Polish- phyrogenitus, 913–959. Lithuanian Commonwealth including P. R. Vitezović, became ideologically and Lithuanians) were not only the na- influenced and by three specific South tives of Illyricum (i.e., Croatia, according Slavic authors who were the principal to him), but as well that all of them were South Slavic champions of a Pan-Slavic actually ethnolinguistic Croats. He used national and linguistic reciprocity: Vinko Porphyrogenitus’ text to claim and that Pribojević, Mavro Orbin, and Juraj the were of the Croat origin for the Križanić. In addition to them, a Central reason that the Emperor wrote that the European writer, Georg Horn – the 17th Croats bordered themselves with the century author who wrote in 1666 the Slavic Serbs “who are called Croats” (Klaić so-called Georgii Horni, sive Historia im- 1972: 3; see as well, Moravcsic 1949; Bury periorum et regnorum, a conditio orbe ad 1906). Finally, the name “Red Croatia” nostra tempora – left as well a distinct (Croatia Rubea) from Letopis Popa Duk- ideological impression on Vitezović. ljanina (Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina 1967, Surprisingly, P. R. Vitezović in his 196), which was related to the mediaeval work reconciled, on one hand, the legend Montenegro (called or Dioclea, from Povest’ vremennyh let and informa- Doclea), Herzegovina and the North Al- tion from Historia Salonitana that the Cro- bania, Vitezović extended to the whole ats (called in this latter work as the Cu- territory of the East Balkans populated retes) were living in the Balkans in the by the Slavs (i.e., Illyrians or Croats in first century B.C. with, on other hand, his opinion); whereas the name “White the information about the Croat settle- Croa­tia” (Croatia Alba) from the same ment in the Balkans that he found in source (Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina 1967, Porphyrogenitus’ De Administrando Impe- 194–195) that was related to the East rio. Actually, for Vitezović the most inter- Adriatic littoral, he extended to the whole esting part of Porphyrogenitus’ work was portion of the West Balkans. the chapter № 30 where the Byzantine From the sentence “Clarius Constant. Emperor pointed out that the Balkan Porphirogenitus Imper. …qui Sarmatas Be- Croats lived in former time “on the other lochrobatos, id est Albos, sive magnos, aut side of , where the White Croats can terram multam posidentes, appellat” is clear be found today”(Klaić 1972: 3). Vitezović that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus’ from this information derived a conclu- De Administrando Imperio served to sion that the Croats lived out from the Vitezović to claim that all Western and Balkans too, and consequently he divid- Eastern Slavs, i.e., the Czechs, Sorbs,

98 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema

Moravians and all inhabitants of the of the Lithuanian origin (Bumblauskas Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and 2007: 172−179; Zinkevičius 2013: 162−167). Russia, originated in Belohrobatoi (White The ideological principles that guid- Croats) who are also called by Vitezović ed M. Stryjkowski’s chronicle undoubt- as the Sarmatians. edly strengthened both Pan-Slavic ideol- The author of Croatia rediviva… ac- ogy and the ideology of Sarmatism that cepted an old idea of the Sarmatian ori- dominated Poland at the second half of gin of the Slavs, especially of the Poles, the 16th century and the first half of the by reading at his lifetime very popular , consolidating at the same following four publications: time a Polish position within the Grand 1) The Polish historian Matthew Mie- of Lithuania (Kiaupa et al. 2000: howita’s Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis 292–293). The “Sarmatian myth” was Asiana et Europeana (“Treatise about two transformed by the Poles from a geo- Sarmatias – Asian and European”), Cra- graphic term to the ethnic dimension cow, 1517, for whom ancient Sarmatians and became finally political program were contemporary Russians. under the motto: Polonia caput ac Regina 2) The Polish poet Ian Kohanowski totius Sarmatiae (Conte 1986: 301). (1530–1584). P. R. Vitezović, in general, accepted 3) The Polish historian Martinu Kro­ old writings about the Slavs, or at least mer’s, De origine et rebus gestis Polonarum the peoples whom he believed to be the (Basel, 1555), who supported the idea of Slavs. For that reason, he accepted the ethnic and linguistic Sarmatian-Slavic Polish “Sarmatian ideology” based on symbiosis telling that the Slavic Sarma- the writings of the ancient Greek and Ro- tians came to the Central and South-East man historians and geographers (for in- Europe from “Asian Sarmatia” (north stance, Strabo 63 B.C. – 23 A.D., Ptolemy from the Black Sea) (Cromer 1555; Cy- 100–168) who divided the territory of narski 1968, 6–17). contemporary Poland into two parts: Ger- 4) The Polish historian Matthew mania (the West Poland) and Sarmatia (the Stryjkowski’s Kronika Polska, Litewska, East Poland) (Conte 1986: 292). Ptolemy Žmudzka i wszystkiej Rusi (“Chronicle of named the whole territory of the Central Poland, Lithuania, Žemaitija/Samogitia, and the East Europe as Sarmatia (Sulimir- and all the lands of Rus’”), Königsberg, ski 1945: 26). It should be emphasized 1582. Vitezović became particularly af- that the Roman Empire succeeded to es- fected with Stryjkowski’s association of tablish between the years of 16 B.C. and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the GDL) 9 A.D. three new provinces – Raetia, Nori- with the “Polish Sarmatian Empire”. cum and Pannonia – and to firm its own P. R. Vitezović accepted from these position along the Danube, only after the four works of the Polish Renaissance au- military victories over two Sarmatian thors the notion that “European Sarma- peoples: Roxolanes and Iazyges. How- tia” encompassed Poland, Lithuania, ever, both of them were occupying the Byelorussia, and , i.e. the lands Roman province of Moesia Inferior (that under the sceptre of the “Polish” Jagel- is today Bulgaria) from 69 B.C. The re- lonian royal dynasty, which was, in fact, gion of Pannonia and the North-East Bal-

LOGOS 92 99 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

kans (i.e. “Hungary and Bulgaria”) are ad nostra tempora (1666) into Venedicos (the considered in Povest’ vremennyh let as Wends) and Sarmaticos (the Sarmatians).4 birth-places of the three brothers – Slavic Finally, Vitezović was influenced at the progenitors (Povest’ vremennyh let 1884: great extend by the works of Juraj 4). For Vitezović, it was quite logical to Križanić and Martin Cromer with regard conclude that the Slavic progenitors from to the Pan-Slavic unity and reciprocity, Povest’ vremennyh let originated in Pan- but he rejected their teaching that all nonian-Danubian-Balkan Sarmatians, Slavs originated in Rus’ (Cromer 1555; who are mentioned in the Roman annals. Križanić 1661–1667; Križanić 1859).5 In The Stryjkowski’s chronicle strength- sum, combining the works of Stryjkows- ened the idea of Pan-Slavism in the eyes ki, Vrančić, Križanić, Cromer and Horn, of J. Križanić, but in the eyes of P. R. Vi­ Pavao Ritter Vitezović effectively claimed te­zović this Pan-Slavic ideology was con- all Western, Southern and Eastern Slavs verted into the Pan-Croatian one. Fur- to be of the Croat ethnolinguistic origin. thermore, Vitezović was familiar with the Ultimately, in dealing with the Balkan theory of the Sarmatian origin of all Slavs Croatia, he accepted an idea of the Croa- that was developed in 1606 in the short tian 17th –century historian from Dalma- history De slowinis seu Sarmatis written tia – Ivan Lučić – who divided a whole by Dalmatian historian, inventor, phi- Croatia into three provinces: Maritima, losopher and lexicographer from Mediterranea, and Interamnensis sive Savia. Šibenik – Faust Vrančić. The next step However, Vitezović added additional used by Vitezović was to identify Por- two provinces of the Balkan Croatia: Ci- phyrogenitus’ “White Croats” with the terior (Istria and Slovenia) and Ulterior Slavi Vandali (the Vandalic Slavs), whose (Serbia). These were further divided into were divided in Georgii Horni, sive Histo- “županije” (counties) and “comitatus” ria imperiorum et regnorum, a conditio orbe (judicial districts) (Vitezović 1997: 195).

Political purpose of Vitezović’s writings The ultimate political purpose of P. Vi­ the beginning of irreversible decline of tezović’s works, based on his ideological the Ottoman power which consequently construction, was of a triple nature. opened the so-called Eastern Question First of all, he tried to refute the Ve- or the question of destiny of the Ottoman netian claims on the territory of Dalma- Sultanate in Europe. tia, the Istrian Peninsula, the Dalmatian A state of the Ottoman dynasty Islands and Kotorska (Cattaro Gulf reached its heyday in the mid-16th cen- in the present-day Montenegro) that rose tury when it occupied and annexed most during the Great Vienna War 1683–1699 of the Arab world, most of Hungary with in which the Republic of St. Marco suc- Transylvania, Srem and Slavonia, Azer- cessfully fought the Ottoman Sultanate baijan, Georgia and many of the islands in a coalition with the Habsburg Empire in the East Mediterranean Sea. The Sul- [Banac 1984, 73]. The war clearly marked tanate also inflicted several heavy naval

100 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema defeats on Spain, Genoa and . Af- in their struggle against Asiatic-Islamic ter the fall in 1521 of a strongest Hungar- “infedels” who occupied their feudal do- ian military fortress of , known mains and destroyed their medieval in- as a Gate of Hungary, a way to the Cen- dependent states. The European posses- tral Europe became fully open to the Ot- sions of the Sultanate reached its maxi- toman army. Subsequently, a biggest part mum extent as late as 1676 and in 1683 of historical Hungary became occupied the Ottomans were enough strong to up to 1544 including and the biggest por- launch a decisive war for the heartland tion of the present-day Croatia. After the of the by putting Vienna Mohács Battle in 1526 Hungarian, Bohe- under the siege for two months (Bide- mian and Croatian elected the leux, Jeffries: 1999, 82). However, it was Habsburg Emperor as their new ruller the last attempt by the Sultanate to - and protector. etrate deeper into Europe – an attempt The Hungarian and Croatian feudal which became not only a total military hope to reconquer their his- fiasco but much more seriously, the be- torical territories from the Ottomans ginning of the final end of the Ottoman backed by the Habsburg rullers. There- state. In 1699, the Sultanate lost all of its fore, any kind of revived Hungary or Central European possessions opening Croatia was possible only within the the doors to the Habsburg Monarchy and borders of the Habsburg Monarchy after Venice to divide between themselves con- the military defeat of the Ottoman Sul- quered territories from the Sultanate. At tanate. The House of Habsburgs before such circumstances, it was for the Croa- 1526 had their family domains only in tian nobility of the fundamental impor- the region of Alpes: the Upper and Low- tance which lands from the Ottoman er Austria, Styria, , Carniola, Sultanate are going to be included into and . However, the invita- the Habsburg Monarchy as they could tion to the Habsburg dynasty to become only these territories to be united the Hungarian-Croatian king in 1526 with the rest of the Habsburg-rulled change dramatically the territorial base Croatia into a separate administrative- of their rule as the Habsburgs started to territorial province under the name of claim all historical lands of the pre-1526 Croatia. In the other words, all South including and Slavic lands left outside the Habsburg Croatia-Slavonia and the lands of the Monarchy were lost for united Croatia. together with Bo- As a result of the Venetian military hemia itself, Moravia, and Lusatia victory over the Ottoman Sultanate at (Magocsi 2002: 62). Subsequently, after the end of the Great Vienna War, the of- 1526 the geopolitical aims of the ficials of the Republic of St. Marco re- Habsburgs coincided with those of the quired considerable territorial enlarge- Hungarian and the . ment of their possessions on the East An example of the Spanish Recon- Adriatic littoral at the expense of both quista from 1492 gave a great impetus to the Ottoman Sultanate and the South the Christian Central European nobility Slavs. These territorial demands had

LOGOS 92 101 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

been based on the Venetian state-histor- clude into the Habsburg Monarchy all ical and ethnolinguistic rights on the “Croatian” lands. For that purpose, lands and people of the East Adriatic Vitezović based Croatian territorial seacoast. It was pointed out in the Vene- claims primarily on state-historical tian territorial claims that Signorina ruled rights – iura municipalia – (at that time of Istria, Dalmatia and the Adriatic Islands the feudal order, society and values the since the year of 1000, strengthening her only justifiable rights in international re- realm by the further territorial annexa- lations), but combining them to the cer- tions in 1409, 1420, 1433, and 1669.6 Fur- tain degree as well with the Croatian eth- ther, according to the opinion of the Ve- nolinguistic rights. Subsequently, for in- netian authorities, the majority of popu- stance, the whole territory of Adriatic lation of the East Adriatic littoral were Dalmatia was appropriated to Croats by the Italian-speaking inhabitants, whose Vitezović for the reason that the Croatian wish, natural rights and interest were to King Peter Krešimir IV (1058–1075) in- be liberated from the Ottoman sway and cluded this region into the Croatian me- governed by the Italian-speaking Venice. diaeval state (Fine 1994: 278–279; Klaić Due to their military victories over the 1971: 105–111; Macan 1992: 36–41): “Cresi- Ottomans and well-organized propa- mirus Croatorū Rex Adriaticum Mare suae ganda network, the Venetians extended appropriabat jurisdictioni” (Ritter 1700, 13). their Dalmatian possessions according to P. R. Vitezović’s writings were espe- the Peace Treaty of Sremski Karlovci that cially directed against pro-Venetian texts was signed with the Ottoman Sultanate of the famous historian and doctor of law on January 26th, 1699. However, the trea- from Dalmatian city of – Ivan Lučić ty was revised on April 15th, 1701 in the (Lucius Joannes 1604–1679) – who is tra- Venetian favour by acquisition of whole ditionally considered as a founder of the Peloponnesus/Morea, some islands, the Croatian scientific historiography. Lučić’s city of Herzeg Novi, part of Boka - most important work – De Regno Dalma- ska, the mouth of the River and tiae et Croatiae libri six (“The Kingdom of continental Dalmatia up to the Dinaric Dalmatia and Croatia in Six Volumes”), Range (Istorija naroda Jugoslavije 1960: Amsterdam, 1668 – that includes many 777–778; Dimić 1999: 266). narrative sources, genealogical tables and P. R. Vitezović tried to negate Venetian historical-geographical maps, tells the territorial claims on the South Slavic truth that Dalmatia in former time was a Adriatic littoral, which was considered by separate territory from the state of Croa- him as a Croatian state-historical and eth- tia and in fact the Venetian possession. nolingiustic territory, which was at the However, Vitezović, due to his Croato- same time a part of the lands of the Hun- centric point of view, used every oppor- garian Royal Crown inherited in 1526 by tunity to accuse Lučić (Lucius) of Dal- the Habsburg Monarchy. He was acctu- matocentric and pro-Venetian, attitude, a ally protesting against the articles of the subject to which he devoted a whole work 1699 Habsburg-Ottoman peace treaty under the title Officiae Ioannis Lucii de requiring its revision for the sake to in- Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae Refutatae (“Ref-

102 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema utation of Lučić’s Kingdom of Dalmatia presented his memorandum, printed un- and Croatia”) written in 1706. For this der the headline Croatia rediviva…i.e., his purpose, Vitezović referred to the Priest view of the “real historical borders and from Doclea who wrote in his chronicle territory of Croatia” (Marković 1987: that a synonym for Croatia Alba (White 71–99; Fürst-Bjeliš 2000: 211–214; Croatia) is Dalmatia Inferior (Lower Dal- Kovačević 1973) to the Habsburg Em- matia), while a synonym for Croatia Rubea peror Leopold I, urging him to liberate (Red Croatia) is Dalmatia Superior (Upper and annex to the Habsburg Monarchy Dalmatia) (Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina 1967: all Cisdanubian “Croatian” territories, 194–196). Clearly, for both the Priest from what was actually the whole Balkans Doclea and Pavao Ritter Vitezović, Croa- without Central and South Greece. Sure- tia and Dalmatia were the same territo- ly, Vitezović’s political plan presented to ries, just with two names. Leopold I fitted to the Habsburg’s plans Second of all, P. R. Vitezović’s politi- of the future Habsburg foreign policy. cal aim was to put all “Croatian” Balkan Thus, already in the late 1700, after sub- territories under the sceptre of the Habs­ mission of manifesto Croatia rediviva… burg Emperor Leopold I. The regions in to the Habsburg authorities, the question, which remained outside the Habsburg Emperor officially invited borders of Croatia and the Habsburg Vitezović to visit him in Vienna “since Monarchy after the Peace Treaty of Srem- certain and important reasons make your ski Karlovci in 1699, became the object presence in order to provide some informa- not only of Vitezović’s Croatocentric, but tion urgently required, also bring all letters as well as of the Habsburg imperial de- and documents delineating and defining sires. For instance, during the first peace borderlines and demarcations of our said treaty negotiations between the Habs­ Kingdom of Croatia you have on your per- burg Monarchy and the Ottoman Sultan- son…” (Klaić 1914: 105). ate in 1689, the Habsburg diplomatic The fact is that Leopold I Habsburg, representatives steadily demanded that as the Emperor of the Holy Roman Em- the eastern frontier of the Habsburg pire of the German Nation, the King of Monarchy had to follow the Hungary and the King of Croatia, start- River (in Serbia). It means that Bosnia- ed to frequently express the Habsburg Herzegovina, Srem, Croatia, Slavonia hereditary claims on Dalmatia, at the and the West Serbia had uncondition- expense of Venice, exactly after the con- ally to be part of the Habsburg Monar- versation with Vitezović in Vienna. chy (Stoye 1994: 71–72). Vitezović himself confirmed that his Unsatisfied with the newly estab- manifesto was accepted at the Viennese lished borders accorded by the Peace imperial court with full attention: “the Treaty of Sremski Karlovci in January Viennese are applauding my Prodromus in 1699 (Weigl 1699), the Croatian represen- Croatiam Redivivam I have sent them…” tative in the Habsburg Monarchy’s com- (Lettere del Cavaliere Ritter 1700). mission for demarcation, a cartographer P. R. Vitezović based his claims on and historian Pavao Ritter Vitezović, these “Croatian” territories on two prin-

LOGOS 92 103 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

ciples of legitimisation: 1. State-historic Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Rus- rights of Croatia; and 2. The Croatian/ sian Empire (according to Vitezović, Illyrian form of the local place-names as Croatian Sarmatia). It should be pointed the most reliable marker of the national out that Bohemia, Moravia and Lusatia, character (Simpson 1991: 94; Blažević which were considered by Vitezović as 2000: 228–229). A Croatia Meridionalis (the Croatian Venedia, already were parts of South Croatia) was designed by Vitezović the Habsburg Monarchy. A historic Bo- to join the Habsburg Empire, and as a hemia became integral part of the consequence, the whole Balkan Croatia Habsburg Monarchy in 1526, while Lu- (Illyria) would be politically united un- satia, which was a part of the Holy Ro- der the Habsburg administration. P. R. man Empire of the German Nation, was Vitezović attempted to institute the piece ruled by the members of the Habsburg of evidence that historical borders of the dynasty as the German Emperors already Kingdom of Croatia were considerably from 1438 onward (Bérenger 1994: 80–98; larger than those Croatia’s borders estab- Kann 1990: 7; Johnson 1996: 60). There- lished in his time. Beside the far-reaching fore, the final step of a Pan-Croatian po- consequences of the future annexation litical unification should be annexation of Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Croatia, which were according to and Russia into the Habsburg Monarchy. Vitezović the integral parts of a united As the matter of fact, this phase of a historical (but as well and ethnolinguis- Pan-Croatian unification started to be tic) Croatia, Pavao Ritter Vitezović in fact realized by the First (1772) and the Third formulated with his works a political (1795) of Poland and Lithuania program that would have a significant when Galicia was incorporated into the impact on the 19th-century Croatian na- Habsburg Monarchy in addition to Bu- tional revival, officially named as the kovina (Bukowina) that became included (Fürst-Bjeliš 2000: 211– into the Habsburg domains in 1775 214; Perković 1995: 225–236). Shortly, (Hammond MCMLXXXIV: 24; Wester- Vitezović protested against geographical, mann 1985: 115; Kiaupa et al. 2000: 340– historical-administrative and ecclesiasti- 358). With and cal division of “historic” Croatia accord- Lithuania and annexation of Bukovina7, ing to the 1699 peace treaty between the the parts of the territory of a Transdanu- Habsburg Monarchy, the Republic of St. bian Croatia Septemtrionalis – “White/ Marco and the Ottoman Sultanate. Greater Croatia”,8 became politically Third of all, It can be understood that united by (i.e., by the according to Pavao Ritter Vitezović, the Habsburg ruler) with the parts of a Cis- second and final phase of a total “Croa- danubian Croatia Meridionalis – “Croatia tian” historical-ethnolinguistic unifica- Alba” or the West Balkans. tion under the Habsburg government Finally, P. R. Vitezović’s writings had should be realized by the Habsburg oc- clear (geo)political purpose being in di- cupation and annexation of the Polish- rect coordination with the Habsburg for-

104 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema eign policy direction at the time. It is tary rights on Croatia, the Habsburgs known fact that the Habsburgs laid their claimed from 1526 all “Croatian” terri- territorial claims in the Central and tories as hereditary lands of the Habsburg South-East Europe on the historical rights Monarchy. Subsequently, Vitezović had of the Hungarian Royal Crown. As the the only duty to “prove” that all South Habsburgs were elected in 1526 by the Slavs are ethnolinguistic Croats. He as the Kings of Hun- started in 1682 to urge the Habsburg au- gary, accordingly, all pre-1526 Hungarian thorities to actively work on the realiza- lands are inherited by the Habsburgs. tion of their foreign policy based on Nevertheless, it was wrongly understood arbitrary understood “hereditary rights” that Walachia, Moldavia, Bulgaria and of the Hungarian Royal Crown by send- the Serb-populated lands at the Balkans ing the poetical letter to the Habsburg were part of historical Hungary too and Emperor Leopold I in which he remined therefore have to be liberated from the the Emperor that Dalmatia, Croatia and Ottoman Sultanate and included into the Slavonia have to be annexed by the Habsburg Monarchy. Habsburg Monarchy from the Ottoman Basically, Vitezović’s idea was to ideo- Sultanate and the as logically pave the road to creation of a these provinces were parts of the pre- united Croatia with the help of the 1526 Kingdom of Hungary (Dimić 1999: Habsburg foreign policy as all South 75). After the Great Vienna War, he con- Slavs and their lands were already be- tinues to urge the Emperor with the new fore the Great Vienna War considered by writings on his duty to liberate all “he- Vienna to be within the Habsburg sphere reditary lands” of the Kingdom of Hun- of interest. As the Hungarian Royal gary, but now under the name of revived Crown enjoyed even from 1102 heredi- Croatia (Croatia rediviva).

The Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Vitezović’s anthropological-political ideology

One of the most significant questions (the Eastern and the Western) that re- of our interest, which needs satisfactory sulted in the graduate process of Slaviza- answer, is: Why P. R. Vitezović consid- tion of Lithuania’s cultural life and Lith- ered Lithuania as a Croato-Slavonic land, uania’s ruling class. This historical fact and therefore, Lithuania’s inhabitants as influenced Vitezović to conclude that all the Croato-Slavs? (or majority) inhabitants of Lithuania The most possible and realistic an- were of the Slavic, i.e. the Croat origin. swers to this question are: 2) Because of pro-Slavic and pro- 1) Because of historical development Polish historical sources and writings of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which related to the affairs of the common brought the ethnic Lithuanians into very Polish-Lithuanian state which were read closer cultural relations with the Slavs and used by Vitezović. Consequently, a

LOGOS 92 105 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

Croatian nobleman got impression that The conflict with the Polish Kingdom the entire territory of the Polish-Lithua- over Galicia, Volynia and in the nian Commonwealth was settled by the 14th–15th centuries ended in the sharing Slavic population and that their common of these three provinces, mainly popu- spoken and written language was Slavic. lated by the Slavs, between Poland and It will be presented in the next para- Lithuania (Kojelavičius 1650/1669: 489– graphs the most remarkable historical 513). It is known that nearly 150 Slavisms facts in connection with this problem entered Lithuanian language, either from and offered hypothetical answers to the the side of the East Slavs or from the formulated question. Poles, before the 17th century (for in- In several letters written by the Lith- stance, words like angelas, bažničia, uanian Grand Gediminas (1316– gavėnia, kalėdos, krikštas, velykos, etc). A 1341) from 1322 to 1324 he named him- number of the Slavic borrowings in the self as lethphanorum ruthenorumque rex Lithuanian language appreciably in- (“King of the Lithuanians and Ruthe- creased during the time of J. Križanić nians”9), although he did not have in and P. R. Vitezović – for both of whom reality a title of the king. However, it the language was a crucial indicator of clearly shows that he was a ruler of the the national identification. Slavic subjects. When the Grand Duchy The Slavic population (for example, of Lithuania during the time of Gedimi- tradesmen from Rus’ lands) was living nas extended its state borders towards in Lithuania’s capital from the the east and the south-east, i.e. when the time of the Lithuanian Grand Duke Al- territories populated by the Slavic people girdas (1345–1377), who declared in 1358 became incorporated into the 14th-centu- that all “lands of Rus’” should belong to ry Lithuania, the country became multi- Lithuania (Kiaupa et al. 2000: 110). J. Kri­ ethnic, multilinguistic and multiconfes- ža­nić, who was travelling across the sional medieval state in which gradually Kingdom of Poland and the Grand the Slavs significantly outnumbered the Duchy of Lithuania and was living in ethnic Lithuanians: for instance, there Vilnius for several months in a Domini- were 70% of the Slavs and 30% of the can monastery, became familiar with Lithuanians in the mid-16th century on ethnically and religiously heterogeneous the territory of the Grand Duchy of Lith- situation within the Grand Duchy of uania (Kapleris, Meištas 2013: 123). Fur- Lithuania, with number of Slavic popu- thermore, in the following centuries, as lation in Lithuania and Vilnius and with Lithuania was extending her borders far often usage for the official purposes of to the east, south-east and south-west, the Slavic language within the Grand making more profound contacts with her Duchy of Lithuania, which in general Slavic neighbours and even including became a Lithuanian-Slavic state. them into her state’s borders, the Lithu- An influence of the Slavic tradition, anian language acquired significant and culture, and especially vernacular, within numerous Slavic borrowings. the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, have been

106 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema particularly strong in the area of writings so-called Brasta Bible in the Polish lan- (literal-administrative language). In the guage in 1563 shows clearly that a sphere first half of the 15th century the Old Sla- of influence of the Polish (i.e. Slavic) vonic language was used in Lithuania as language within the Grand Duchy of one of the three written languages along- Lithuania was significantly spreading side with the Latin and the German. The on. At that time, the Lithuanian rulers, so-called Old language court and nobility () already was used in Lithuania in relations with used overwhelmingly the Polish lan- the Russian , the Tartars in guage in a public life within the Grand Crimea and in internal life of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. It is paradoxically, Duchy of Lithuania. For instance, during but true, that the Lithuanian aristocracy the time of the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and ruling political elite, which tried to Vytautas the Great 1390–1430, a state- defend Lithuania’s state (political) inde- official Slavonic language (Old Church pendence from the Kingdom of Poland, Slavic) was used for writing of the first accepted both the Polish culture and the annals of the Lithuanian Grand , which became an offi- (Chronicle of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes, cial language of their communication 1429–1430, with Shorter Compilation of with a Polish-Lithuanian ruler and the Lithuanian Chronicles added around Polish political elite. Shortly, Lithuanian 1446). Furthermore, Christianisation of magnates did not become defenders of Lithuania from 1387 established strong the Lithuanian language, as they were prerequisites for the usage of the Polish defenders of the Lithuanian independent language for the official purposes in the statehood. Subsequently, spoken Polish next centuries. language became very serious competi- In a period of the Lithuanian history tor to the Lithuanian language (vernacu- after the death of Vytautas the Great, in lar) within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania the official domestic civic life, in addition that finally led to the gradual, but in- to the Lithuanian and the East Slavic evitable, Polonization, i.e. Slavization, of language (spoken in the cities) were used Lithuania’s cultural life.10 Literary and as well as the German, Latin and the Pol- linguistic developments within the Re- ish (spread in the second half of the 15th public of Two Nations (Poland-Lithua- century). In the Renaissance time, there nia) helped to accelerate the Polonization were many texts and books in the Grand of the ethnic Lithuanian, Russian, Bye- Duchy of Lithuania printed in the Old lorussian and Ukrainian aristocratic East Slavonic or the Polish language (as circles (Kamiński 1980; Kamiński 1983: well as in the Lithuanian). It is a fact that 14–45; Maczak 1992: 194; Bideleux, Jef- on the territory of the Grand Duchy of fries 1999: 129). Lithuania in the first half of the 16th cen- For Lithuania’s ruling elite the notion tury the first books were printed in two of “nation” was not connected with the Slavonic languages: the Old East Sla- language (spoken or written) or ethnic- vonic and the Polish. The printing of the ity as it was in the case of Križanić and

LOGOS 92 107 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

Vitezović for whom spoken and written themselves with one cultural tradition language was crucial national identifier. and as a united “political nation” (Da- Contrary to these two Croatian intellec- vies 1981: 115–159; Johnson 1996, 52). tuals, for Lithuania’s magnates the “na- The ethnolinguistic structure of the tion” (natio) was connected to the state- Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the follow- hood and social strata belonging, but not ing centuries was changing in the favour to the language or ethnicity. Therefore, of the ethnic Slavs. Thus, at the time of for example, during the conclusion of the the Union in 1569, the ethnic Lublin Union with Poland in 1569 the Lithuanians constituted around one- ruling elites of the Grand Duchy of Lith- third of the total Lithuania’s population uania, composed by the ethnic Lithua- (approximately 3.000.000 people were nians and the ethnic Slavs, who spoke living at that time within the whole ter- and wrote in the Polish language, called ritory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). themselves Lithuanians what means ac- However, at the same time 2/3 of the tually natio Lithuanica (Lithuania’s “po- population of the Grand Duchy of Li­ litical nation”), i.e. the aristocracy who thua­nia were ethnic Slavs who lived in lived within the state borders of the the Eastern and South-Eastern provinces Grand Duchy of Lithuania.11 In this re- annexed by the Grand Dukes of Lithu- spect, the most influential champion and ania, i.e. the former duchies of Polotsk, ideologist of natio Lithuanica was Myko- Vitebsk, Volynia, Kiev and Smolensk las Lietuvis (Vaclovas Mikolajaitis/Mi- (Kiaupa et al. 2000: 162). We have to keep chalo Lituanus), a Lithuanian aristocrat in mind as well the fact that the Slavic from Maišiagala, who developed his territories, ruled by the Lithuanians till theory about “political nation” of the the Lublin Union of 1569, were approx- Grand Duchy of Lithuania in his his- imately ten times bigger than Lithuania toric treatise De Moribus Tartarorum, proper (Samalavičius 1995: 42). Lithuanorum et Moschorum (“On the Cus- After 1569, a linguistic polarization toms of the Tartars, Lithuanians and within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Muscovites”), written in the Latin in remained. There were still two basic spo- 1550 (incomplete text of this treatise was ken languages – the Lithuanian and the printed in 1615). It is a matter of fact that Slavic – and two bureaucratic languag- after the Lublin Union of 1569 the Poles es – the Old Slavic and the Latin (Bide- became the senior partners in the Polish- leux, Jeffries 1999: 122). However, in the Lithuanian Commonwealth till its final West and the West Ukraine after dismemberment in 1795 (Wandycz 1997: 1569, the educated, middle, and admin- 72–78, 88–93, 102–107). The Lithuanian istrative classes and the landowning gen- nobility, i.e. natio Lithuanica, became as- try became predominantly the Polish- similated or Polonized to such extent speaking social strata. The spreading of that the term “Polish” represented joint the Polish language in both written and Lithuanian and Polish interests. In fact, spoken forms in Lithuania was going Polish and Lithuanian ethnically differ- through the Lithuania’s landowning and ent groups of aristocracy identified political aristocracy who have been in

108 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema most frequent contacts with their Polish ing the “Polish” for the reason that peo- counterparts, through the Polish priests, ple from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania monks and the Polish intellectuals. did not oppose in high degree the ap- Especially the 17th century, a century propriation of the Polish language and of J. Križanić and P. R. Vitezović, was a culture (Kiaupa et al. 2000, 362). Accord- period of expansion of the Polish lan- ing to Robert Bideleux and Ian Jeffries, guage in the public life in the Grand “since Lithuanian [language] is directly Duchy of Lithuania. Moreover, at the related to the Slavonic languages, and first year of realm of Friedrich August II since an old form of Byelorussian (not Saxon (1697–1706/1709–1733) in 1697 the Lithuanian) was the official language of Polish language officially eliminated the the grand duchy [of Lithuania], the Lith- Old East Slavonic language from public uanian nobility probably felt some de- offices in the Grand Duchy of Lithua- gree of cultural kinship with their Polish nia – coaequatio iurium (Šapoka 1936: counterparts… Indeed, the Lithuanian 371–374; Kiaupa et al. 2000: 265]. In the nobility gradually became thoroughly late 17th century, both magnates and gen- ‘polonized’” (Bideleux, Jeffries 1999: try of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania 122)… “with the ironic result that Polish knew Polish and used it. There was [language] eventually became more formed, even, the so-called Lithuanian widely used among the Lithuanian than type of the Polish language. On the same among the Polish nobility in the future territories of the Polish Kingdom and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth” (Da- Grand Duchy of Lithuania through vies 1982: 20–21). which J. Križanić travelled, the urban Because of right belief that the Lithu- centres were as well Polonized (i.e. got anian language is closely related to Sla- Slavic feature). The lower classes and the vonic languages (the standpoint fa- rural population of serfs were the East- voured by our-days contemporary lin- ern Slavs. Even Lithuania’s capital Vil- guistics) and because of the Polonization nius or Ukrainian L’viv, a political-cul- (Slavization) of upper strata of the Lith- tural centre of Galicia, became the “Pol- uanian society, Pavao Ritter Vitezović at ish”, i.e. the Slavic, that the Polish-speak- the end of the 17th century considered all ers regarded them as essentially Poles (or at least overwhelming majority) in- even at the beginning of the 20th century habitants of Lithuania as the Slavs (i.e. (Johnson 1996, 52). the Croats) and Lithuania as the Slavic The Polish historiography during the (i.e. the Croatian) country. last two centuries created an image that As a result of the Polonization of the a federal state of the Polish-Lithuanian vast territories of the East-Central Eu- Commonwealth after 1569 was actually rope from 1569 to 1795 many Poles con- only the Polish one. Certainly, cultural- sidered these lands as the Polish linguis- linguistic Polonization spread faster, but tic and cultural space. It became a com- in the sphere of politics and social life mon attitude of modern western histo- the Polish-Lithuanian Comonwealth was rians of non-Polish origin to describe the as well, gradually, but certainly becom- Republic of Two Nations as an exclu-

LOGOS 92 109 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Vladislav B. Sotirović

sively the Polish one, due to the great of the most significant sources about the scope of the Polonization of the Lithu- ethnolinguistic situation within the bor- anian society and culture. For example, ders of the Polish-Lithuanian Common- Alan Palmer is in opinion that the ethnic wealth for both Križanić and Vitezović. Lithuanians were readily assimilated by In his Razgowori ob wladatelystwu (1661– the Poles: the greatest of the Polish dy- 1667), J. Križanić frequently cited Mar- nasties, the Jagiellonian one (1386–1572) tinu Kromer, the author of a history of was in fact of the Lithuanian origin, and Poland under the title De origine et rebus Vilnius (Wilno) was a city, despite of its gestis Polonarum (Basel, 1555), who saw Lithuanian foundation, a symbol of the Lithuania as an ordinary province of Po- Polish-Lithuanian cultural union (Palm- land. Particularly it has been Križanić er 1970: 4). Such impression had and who was acquainted with quite number Juraj Križanić who passed across the of the Polish and other authors who whole Ukraine, main part of Belarus and wrote on “Slavic matters” and who con- who spent some time in Vilnius as well sidered the whole territory of the Polish- becoming a member of estate circle of Lithuanian Commonwealth as exclu- the Dominican Order in Lithuania’s cap- sively Slavic country. ital. At the turn of the , the As a consequence, J. Križanić became members of natio Lithuanica and the acquainted with the work Bellum Prute- Lithuanian middle class society faced the num (“The Prussian War”) written in 1515 real danger of denationalisation through by the poet Jan Vislicius who presented the process of Polonization. Ultimately, the Lithuanian history as a part of the it should not be forgotten that over- Slavic one. Vislicius viewed the future whelming majority of 7,5 milion of total development of the Grand Duchy of Lith- population of the Republic of Two Na- uania only within a united “Polish Sarma- tions (Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow), i.e. tian Empire”. After the Lublin Union of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 1569, the Polish doctrine of Sarmatism, (established by the Lublin Union in 1569) which proclaimed Lithuania, Samogitia were the ethnic Slavs; the fact which in- (Žemaitia) and the Russian duchies as duced P. R. Vitezović to consider the integral parts of the Polish state, became whole Republic as exclusively the Slavic popular on the territory of the Grand state and, according to his Croatocentris- Duchy of Lithuania as a result of firm tic theory, to understand the Polish-Lith- contacts of Lithuania’s nobles (ethnic uanian Commonwealth as in fact the Lithuanians and ethnic Slavs) with Po- Croatian ethnolinguistic territory. land, the Polish culture and the Polish A pro-Polish viewpoint of Stanislaw state ideology. It is quite sure that J. Kri­ Orzechowski and especially of Martinu žanić and P. R. Vitezović were familiar Kromer (Martin Cromer) about the Pol- with the Polish doctrine of Sarmatism and ish-Lithuanian relationships, Lithuania’s especially Križanić with the influence of incorporation into the Polish Kingdom this doctrine among noble circles within after 1569, and the Polonization of the the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. However, Grand Duchy of Lithuania, became one the line of reasoning of the Sarmatian

110 LOGOS 92 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS Aktualioji Tema doctrine presented the territory of the based very much on his personal experi- Grand Duchy of Lithuania as the Slavic ence about the Polonization of Lithuania, one; a viewpoint that was accepted by were one of the most significant sources Vitezović and even served him to name for Vitezović, it is not surprisingly that total population of the Kingdom of Po- Pavao Ritter Vitezović interpolated the land, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and whole territory of the Kingdom of Po- Muscovite Russia as Sarmaticos, which land and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania belonged to his Croatia Septemtrionalis. into the Slavic lands, and furthermore, Finally, if we know that Križanić’s according to his ideological doctrine writings about the “Slavic matters”, into a Greater Croatia.

Endnotes

1 About the western borders of Slavic extension 4 About the problem of the homeland of the Vene- in the , see in (Engel 1979: 36). tae, see in (Darden 1997: 430–435) 2 About the idea of Pan-Slavic ethnolinguistic 5 About the Slavic origin, see in (Gołąb 1991). kinship in Dalmatia and Croatia, see in (Sotiro­ 6 About the Venetian territorial expansion in the vić 2014). Balkans, see in (Difnik 1986: 330–338; Wester- 3 Ideology, from a pure geopolitical perspective, as mann 1985: 63, 94). social phenomena is in essence a scope of mean- 7 was in the second half of the 15th cen- ings that practically “serves to create and/or to tury a vassal territory of the Polish-Lithuanian maintain relationships of domination and subor- united state. dination, through symbolic forms such as texts, 8 According to P. R. Vitezović’s ideological cons- landscapes and spaces” (Cloke et al. 2009: 358). truction, this territory was a motherland of the Therefore, it can be interpreted that P. R. Vi­ Czechs, Moravians, Sorbs, Poles, Lithuanians tezović’s ideological concept of Pan-Croatianism and Rus’. was founded on a geopolitical idea of subordina- 9 A meaning of the ethnonym „Ruthenians“ is tion of all Slavic people and their lands to the very disputed among the historians and ethno- Croat national interest for the creation of a nation- logists. Undoubtedly, it lables the East Europe- state. A nation-state is a form of political organiza- an Slavs in whole or in part. tion that involves a framework of different institu- 10 For a more extensive treatment of the Polish- tions which has to govern the inhabitants within Lithuanian relationships, see in (Davies 1981). a particularly defined (state) territory. A nation- 11 About differences between the feudal-time “po- state, at any case, claims allegiance and legiti- litical” and Romanticism-time “linguistic” con- macy from its own inhabitants likewise from the ceptions of “nation”, see in (Hutchinson, Smith other states, but on the fundamental basis that the 1994; Johnson 1996: 45–62, 136–148; Bideleux, Government of the nation-state represents a Jeffries 1999: 153–161; Guibernau, Rex 1999; group of people living on its controlled territory Hobsbawm 2000). that they are definied in cultural, ethnolinguistic and political terms as a “nation”. TBC

LOGOS 92 111 2017 LIEPA • RUGSĖJIS