1 Preliminary Remarks
In his popular book about how to lie with maps,1 Mark Monmonier offers teasing instructions for how to establish a new state:
âIf your grand duchy or tribal area seems tired, run-down, and frayed at the edges, simply take a sheet of paper, plot some cities, roads, and physical features, draw a heavy, distinct boundary around as much territory as you can claim, colour it in, add a name [â¦]: you are now the leader of a new, sovereign, autonomous country. Should anyone doubt it, merely point to the map. Not only is your new state on paper, itâs on a map, so it must be real.â2
This was the method employed by the principals and creators of a propaganda undertaking unprecedented in eastern Europe before 1580, that is, StanisÅaw PachoÅowieckiâs cartographic epinicion in the form of the Atlas of the Principality of Polatsk. Using the innovative mass medium, which the printed map was at the time, they did not so much âreproduceâ or ârepresentâ the achievements of Stephen Báthoryâs expedition to Polatsk in 1579. They rather created anew a state by the name of the Principality of Polatsk that had not existed for a long time, giving it an extremely long-lasting lifeâa life on paper. It was a justification of the aggression on its territories led with the declared aim to ârecuperateâ the âhistorical landsâ of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that Muscovy had occupied for several years. As we undertake to show, the authors of the map manipulated the history of the âregainedâ PolatskâPolotia recepta,3 âhistoricallyâ a Lithuanian city, in response to the contemporary Muscovite discourse of power based on Ivan the Terribleâs hereditary rights to a long-non-existent principality. Paradoxically, it was the tsar who, by resurrecting the very name of the Principality of Polatsk, made it appearâthrough the maps of StanisÅaw PachoÅowiecki and Maciej Strubiczâin the atlases of Gerardus Mercator up until the 1630s (see Figs 11.1 and 11.2).4
A fragment of the Strubicz, Lithuania; the borders of the Principality of Polatsk are dotted on the map
A fragment of Gerardus Mercatorâs map: the Principality of Polatsk. Mercator, Lithuania. NiewodniczaÅski Collection, shelfmark TN 1127
This analysis is devoted to an important element of the propaganda message of the PachoÅowiecki, Ducatus: we will focus on one of the paratexts, which is an element of the âperimapâ,5 namely an extensive legend that contains a historical note on Polatsk and the Principality, placed in a cartouche in the upper left corner of the map (see Fig. 11.3aâb). Such a position on the map gives the text interpreted here a special importance. As the territory depicted is unrecognizable by itself, the assumed reader will reach for an aid in the form of text and, according to the ânaturalââor rather conventional but dominant in the European cultural areaâreading order, he or she will first look at the upper-left part of the map. The title of the map is placed in the bottom-right corner and in the top-right part there is Tomasz Treterâs stemma on the coats of arms of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Stephen Báthory. All these elements together with the linguistic character of the toponymy used and the significant omissions in the geographical content of the map make up a coherent, persuasive ideological discourse.6 Therefore, we can consider Descriptio Ducatus Polocensis to be a text of dispute and the historical note of Polatsk to be its key argument. It is an argument from the field of historical policy which legitimizes Stephen Báthoryâs rule, contested by Tsar Ivan the Terrible, not only over the small Polatsk region but over the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and, consequently, over the whole Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.7
PachoÅowiecki, Ducatus (Bibliothèque nationale de France, shelfmark VX-48-FOL 198â199); the position of the historical note about Polatsk on the map of the Principality
In the early 1560s, Polatsk was given a central place in Muscovyâs discourse of power. According to Ivan the Terrible, grand dukes of Lithuania came from the Rurik dynasty of Polatsk princes. He based this lineage on chronicles and genealogical documents written not long before in Muscovy. Being a descendant of Vladimir the Great (in the main, Kyivan, and then the Vladimirian line), he justified his right to the Lithuanian throne and to the Polish crown with his pedigree. Soon, in February 1563, he took over the Polatsk region, besieged and conquered its capital, and the efficient Muscovite diplomacy began to proclaim the inalienable dynastic rights of the tsar to rule over Lithuania and Poland.
Bearing in mind the mythogenic role of Polatsk in the sphere of politics, we will put forward the following hypothesis: contrary to official royal declarations, the decision to direct the first Polish-Lithuanian offensive in the war of 1577â1582 to Polatsk was not only motivated by military and strategic considerations. It was rather a decision of far-reaching political consequences that such strategists as King Báthory and Chancellor Jan Zamoyski were certainly able to predict. In the light of the above it is obvious that the capture, or rather ârecoveryâ of Polatsk was not just a military and administrative fact. It was alsoâand we are inclined to think, above allâa momentous political and propaganda fact.8
Having presented the circumstances in which PachoÅowieckiâs map served as a propaganda action, we will critically close-read the historical note previously mentioned, extracting from it the pretexts that make up its message. We will then discuss the Muscovite pretext with which the map polemicizes, acquiring the status of a text of dispute. In accordance with the propositions of the founders of critical cartography, we consider a map as a redescription of the worldâand not a representation of itâcreated within the framework of specific cultural practices. A map thus perceived is Foucaultâs power-knowledge (pouvoir-savoir) in action, while from a different perspective, it also functions as a linguistic-iconic performative, capable of creating, as here, a wishful state of a specific shape and qualities.9 We are interested in the opacity of the cartographic text,10 which means that we will investigate what the map communicates and how it conveys its message, as well as what it passes in silence, how and for what purpose. The propagandistic hidden agenda of its authors11 is a link in the process of dispossessing Polatsk of its state-forming role in the history of Rusâ. This process of dispossession was first set in motion by the Lithuanians, then by the Muscovites, and finally by the Poles. We will therefore try to show that Descriptio Ducatus Polocensis, largely due to the legend with the note on the history of Polatsk, is a rhetorically organized act of appropriation of territory that disavows competitive narratives. It is an example of âcultural texts taking possession of the landâ which âproclaim a social gospel and serve to reinforce itâ, as Brian Harley wrote about analogically deconstructed maps of British colonies in North America.12
2 Context
Although it depicted a local conflict on the northeastern frontiers of Europe, which was just a prelude to the showdown in wars for Livonia, or dominium Maris Baltici, PachoÅowieckiâs innovative cartographic work was part of a massive propaganda campaign that presented its subject as an event of pan-European importance. The royal chancery headed by Grand Chancellor Jan Zamoyski, one of the greatest statesmen of the time, acted in the capacity of a âwar press officeâ.13 The royal edicts and reports prepared by it were immediately published in Walenty Åapkaâs mobile printing house that accompanied the army. It was given the publishing address of the official royal printer, MikoÅaj Szarffenberg in Cracow or Warsaw.14 Written in Latin and widely distributed, they were then reprinted en masse in the form of leaflets and translated into other languages (mainly into German, but also into Czech, Italian, French, and even English). It was not the first time Polatsk made headlines. The conquest of the city on 15 February 1563 by Ivan the Terrible and the slaughter of its inhabitants were widely publicized in Europe.15 This time, however, in 1579 and 1580, the content of the press accounts was supervised by an institutionalized entity that intentionally conducted a specific information policy. The first official text that was published on 12 July 1579 by the Åapkaâs printing house is a Latin edict in which the king explained to the multinational army gathered in Svir the reasons for starting a pre-emptive war against Ivan the Terrible. This document was immediately translated into Polish, Hungarian, and German, as testified by the official historiographer of Báthoryâs expeditions, Reinhold Heidenstein.16
The edition printed in the first days of September, just after the capitulation of Polatsk, and signed by the king on 31 August 1579 is the most important one with regards to international publicity.17 A print entitled Edictum regium de supplicationibus ob rem bene adversus Moschum gestam (The Royal Edict on Thanksgiving for the Fortunate Success of the War with Muscovy) with the Cracow address of Szarffenbergâs printing house is considered to be the very first version of this document.18 Even before the end of 1579, this official announcement was reprinted four times in Latin and translated into German (three editions in 1579, two more in 1580), Czech, and English.19 This last translation was, by the way, one of the first pamphlets in the British Isles.20 If we add the editions and reissues together with EDICTUM SVIRENSE and Rerum post captam Polotiam contra Moscum gestarum narratio (Report on the Actions against Muscovy after the Conquest of Polatsk), the total number of editions amounts to eight in Latin and six in German, not to mention Czech and English.21 The scale and range of the propaganda action was therefore quite significant and extremely effective, also because in this propaganda war Ivan the Terrible did not have at his disposal any advanced means of communication, such as printed texts and cartography above all else. He could only count on the activity of his diplomats in Rome or London. The royal chancery also took care of the legal empowerment of the ânarrative security machineâ shortly before the next campaign against Muscovy. In the decree of 7 February 1580, Báthory decided,
âthat anyone, both in our country and abroad, who, without our knowledge and our permission, dares to print any texts concerning either the history of this nation of the past or the present times, or on any questions related to the Commonwealth, or who paints or engraves objects connected with the affairs of the Commonwealth, should be punished with the penalty provided in the Magdeburg law for pasquils, even if there was nothing reprehensible about them.â22
The official narrative, which increasingly represented Polish rather than Lithuanian-Polish raison dâetat, soon found its way into the historical compendia compiled in Europe. The author of one of them, Johann Becker vel Pistorius, not only reprinted the entire royal edict on the conquest of Polatsk, but also added his own commentary, in which he stated the following, among other things:
â[The king] decided that it was in the interest of the whole kingdom that he should proclaim the name and fame of Poland by force or arms and recover its territories, unjustly seized by Muscovy. [â¦] May it happily come true for the salvation and preservation of this powerful kingdom, which is the wall and rampart of Germany against cruel and barbaric enemies.â23
3 Text and Pretexts
3.1 Text of the Historical Note and the Lithuanian Pretext
The first two sentences of the historical note on PachoÅowieckiâs map present the most ancient history of the statehood of Polatsk known from chronicles:
âIn the olden times, that is in the year of Christ 980 or according to the Rusâian calendar in 6488 since the creation of the world, Polatsk had its own prince, Rogvolod. According to Muscovyâs chronicles, he refused Vladimir the Great the hand of his daughter Rogneda, which is why Vladimir defeated him in the war, in which Rogvolod lost two sons, a duchy, and his own life.â (transl. G.F.)
Annales Moscorum (!) is the famous, oldest Kyivan chronicle written at the beginning of the 12th century and known as the Tale of Bygone Years (PovÄstâ vremennykh lÄt). At the year 980âtoday it is assumed that the events described took place between 977 and 978âthe chronicler noted:
âVladimir returned to Novgorod with Varangian allies [â¦] and sent word to Rogvolod in Polotsk that he desired his daughter to wife. Rogvolod inquired of his daughter whether she wished to marry Vladimir. âI will notâ, she replied, âdraw off the boots of a slaveâs son, but I want Yaropolk insteadâ. Now Rogvolod had come from overseas, and exercised the authority in Polotsk [â¦]. The servants of Vladimir returned and reported to him all the words of Rogned, the daughter of Rogvolod, prince of Polotsk. Vladimir then collected a large army [â¦] and marched against Rogvolod. At this time, the intention was that Rogned should marry Yaropolk. But Vladimir attacked Polotsk, killed Rogvolod and his two sons, and after marrying the princeâs daughter, he proceeded against Yaropolk.â24
The first ruler of Polatsk, who came âfrom overseasâ (âiz zamorjaâ) was probably a Varangian, as evidenced by the Scandinavian origin of his name (Rogvolod â Ragnvald) as well as his daughterâs (Rogneda â Ragnheidr/Ragnhild).25 For our deliberations, however, it is more important that the chronicle says that the Polatsk Rurikid dynasty originated independently from Kyiv (after Rogvolod, the dukeâs throne was held by the son of Rogneda and Vladimir the Great, Izyaslav).26
The further history of the independence of the Principality of Polatsk is summarized in four words (âinde monarchis Russiae paruitâ), after which Polatsk is smoothly adjudged to Lithuania: âafter the removal of the line that ruled southern Rusâ, [the principality] surrendered to Lithuanians with part of the Ruthenian landsâ. Let us add some information to that. First of all, the Polatsk part of Rusâ is âsouthernâ from the perspective of Muscovyâthe dangerous, northern pretender to dominion over the entire former Kyivan Rusâ. Secondly, the key but unclear formula of âsublata stirpeâ is worthy of deeper consideration. The principality allegedly âsurrendered to the ruleâ of the Lithuanians (âLituanis concessitâ) after the âremovalâ or âreplacementâ of the native dynasty. The first Lithuanian ruler of Polatsk mentioned in sources was the ânoble prince Tovtivilâ (â
So is it possible that the people of Polatsk got rid of local princes and placed the land under Lithuanian rule on their own initiative? Or maybe the Lithuanians âremovedâ and âreplacedâ hereditary sovereigns by force of arms? The issue seems important. The first interpretation would fit perfectly into the modern concept of heredity not by virtue of feudal, patrilinear genealogy (the Muscovite narrative was based solely on this archaic logic), but by virtue of the rights resulting from the election. Polatsk elected for Lithuania. Lithuania and Poland elected for Báthory, transferring to him the territorial rights and claims of the grand dukes of Lithuania. The other interpretation would be in line with the Lithuanian triumphalist narrative, according to which the imaginary Kunigas (prince) Mingaila defeated the people of Polatsk in battle to take over the principality and integrate it into Lithuania a hundred years before it was taken over by Tautvilas. Let us investigate this narrative further as it seals this specific translatio imperiiâfrom Polatsk to Vilnius.
In his monumental Chronicle of Poland, Lithuania, Samogitia and All of Ruthenia (1582), which was an identity-making text for the Lithuanian nobility, Maciej Stryjkowski describes the episode we are interested in:
âMingaila son of Erdivilas [â¦] was neighbouring and bordering on the people of Polatsk, who at that time were independent and had no ruler over them, but instead chose thirty men from the elders of their republic as senators to rule. [â¦]. Not being nobles by birth, however, they let freedom fuddle their wits with hubris and, complacent in their freedom, they soon began to threaten their neighbours with war. Unable to endure this impudence any longer, the Duke of Navahrudak, Mingaila [â¦] set off straight to Polatsk intending to curb the haughtiness of the townspeople. Having heard about it, the people of Polatsk [â¦] gathered several thousand peasants and formed an army of them, [â¦] they left Polatsk against Mingaila [â¦]. And Mingaila [â¦] struck them even more confidently with a huge shout as he knew that peasants lacked military discipline and skills. When they saw that the enemy was gaining the upper hand over them, the crowds made a run for it [â¦] and the Lithuanians chased them, beat them, slashed them, and took them prisoner [â¦]. Then they burned Horodets Castle and, in completing their victory, they reached Polatsk the same day. Seeing this, the frightened common folk opened the city and castle gates, surrendering voluntarily to Prince Mingaila. Thus Mingaila, having tamed their pride, was the first of the Lithuanian princes to become the prince of Polatsk and Navahrudak.â30
The story of the armed conquest of the Principality of Polatsk by the Lithuanians is a narrative based on the concept of a historical necessity: having no sovereign after the expiration of the native princely dynasty, the Polatsk burgesses and peasants were subdued by the Lithuanian âNoblesâ Nationâ descended from the ancient Romans.31 How did Stryjkowski learn about it?
In the second half of the 15th and in the early 16th century, numerous Ruthenian-Lithuanian chronicles were created, from the so-called Chronicle of 1446 (Latopis 1446 roku) to three redactions of Chronicles of the Grand Duchies of Lithuania and Samogitia (Kronika Wielkiego KsiÄstwa Litewskiego i Å»mudzkiego), in which the legend of the origin of the grand dukes from the Roman refugee Palemonas took a prominent place, and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania appeared to be a Ruthenian-Lithuanian state and a proper heir to Kyivan Rusâ.32 Mingaila, a fictional character and son of analogously fictional Erdivilas, was supposedly a fifth-generation descendant of Palemonas. Historians assume that the account on the Battle of Horodets is a Lithuanian reinterpretation of the fights for the Principality of Polatsk between the representatives of the Izyaslavichi of Polatsk and the Vseslavichi, rulers of Drutsk, Minsk, and Vitebsk. Both families derived their ancestry through Vseslav the Sorcerer (d. 1101) from Vladimir the Great and Rogneda. In the Battle of Horodets in 1161, Prince Volodar Glebovich of Minsk smashed the army of his own cousin, Rogvolod-Vasil Borisovich, prince of Polatsk.33 The family-dynastic clash served the Ruthenian-Lithuanian chronicler to move Lithuanian rule over Polatsk back a hundred years.
In the words of Oleg Åatyszonek, Stryjkowski âsealed the removal of the oldest history of the Principality of Polatsk from the historiography of the Grand Duchies of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitiaâ.34 He made the first ruler of Polatsk, Rogvolod, a prince of Pskov: Vladimir the Great âsent to Rechwold, the prince of Pskov, who was a Varangian that took the rule of this principality, asking for the hand of his daughter Rochmidaâ.35 The disinformation is made worse by the running headline: âRechwold, the duke of Pskov, is killed. Pskov or Pleskov taken by Vladimir.â36 As Åatyszonek has proven, Stryjkowski reproduced the mistake of none other than the chief Muscographer of the 16th century, Sigmund von Herberstein, even misspelling the names of Rogvolod and Rogneda in the same way.37 This clearly proves the thesis that âthe former Ruthenia of Stryjkowski comprised only Kyivan and Galician statesâ.38
Let us return to the note on the map of PachoÅowiecki. After the fragment on the easy transfer of Polatsk under the rule of Lithuanian dukes, the text tells us about three crucial moments in the history of Polatsk and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The first was the rebellion of Andrius Algirdaitis (Andrei of Polatsk called the Hunchbacked, d. 1399), who was the titular prince of Polatsk from about 1345. When his half-brother Jogaila, the future King Ladislaus II of Poland, went to Cracow for his coronation in the spring of 1386, Andrei, taking advantage of the situation and in agreement with the Livonian Order, conquered Polatsk, which was then under the control of the third brother, Skirgaila-Ivan. Jogaila recovered Polatsk in 1387, imprisoned the usurper, and reinstated his loyal brother Skirgaila. However, the author of the note does not mention further events. Skirgaila ruled the Principality of Polatsk until 4 August 1392. Then, under the Astrava Agreement between the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Jogaila and his cousin Vytautas the Great, who until then had been in conflict with him, the latter took over all the titles of Skirgaila in Lithuania. From then on, Polatsk ceased to be a sovereign principality even nominally as it was ruled by the grand dukeâs governor. The second key event mentioned in the note is the conquest of Polatsk by Ivan the Terrible, which it took place on 15 February 1563. The third finally takes us into the present time (ânunc vero demumâ) and is the proper fulfilment of historical justice: âPolatsk and the other castles were either taken or destroyed by the most serene King Stephen of Poland and the whole principality was recoveredâ (âuniversusque ille Ducatus receptusâ).
This is the last time that the Polatsk region is called a âprincipalityâ. The historical narrative is followed by a short, conventionalized laus urbis that begins with the term âditioâ, which means area or administrative unit. A terse statement puts it in the grammatical present: âThe royal prefect of Polatsk with senatorial dignity holds the title and office of voivodeâ (âRegius praefectus Polocensis cum ordine senatorio palatini titulum et dignitatem habetâ). The Principality of Polatsk was transformed into a voivodeship under the rule of Alexander I Jagiellon in 1504. Reinhold Heidenstein explained:
â In former days, Polatsk, as well as Kyiv, were ruled by royal governors. There was no position or office of Polatsk voivode as in the whole of Lithuania there were only two voivodes, of Vilnius and Trakai, and just as many castellans. Later, however, when the number of Lithuanian senators was increased, not only the Principality of Polatsk and Kyiv, but also Vitebsk was raised to the dignity of the voivodship [boldâG.F.].â39
After the victorious campaign of 1579, Báthory simply restores the status quo ante 1563, reinstating a voivodeship where, even during the years of Muscovite occupation, the nominal continuity of offices was maintained.40 The âPrincipality of Polatskâ is still a useful topos in the discourse of power for a while, and soon disappears from official texts and maps. On the monumental RadziwiÅÅ Map of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania made in the 1590s (oldest known edition: Amsterdam 1613), the engraver carefully marked the borders of the Polatsk region (see Fig. 11.4).
A fragment of the RadziwiÅÅ Map. The borders of the Polatsk voivodeship reincorporated into Lithuania are marked with dots on the map.
However, its territory is no longer called Ducatus Polocensis. It is an unnamed administrative unit within the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The victorious Polatsk campaign is only recalled in an inscription (âIn the year 1563, during the rule of the Polish King Sigismund Augustus, Polatsk was seized by Muscovy and later recovered by King Stephenâ)41 and by the symbols and toponyms of the Muscovite fortresses conquered and razed to the ground, such as Sokol, depicted at the decisive moment of the siege by the Polish-Lithuanian army.
The text of the historical note was certainly written by Zamoyskiâs chancery. Later, the royal secretary Heidenstein,42 working on the basis of chancery documents, also included a historical digression about Polatsk in De bello Moscoviticoâthis text, apart from minor changes, is practically identical to the note on the map by PachoÅowiecki.43 The term âducatusâ does not appear once there; the former principality is consistently referred to as âlandâ or âPolatsk regionâ (âregioâ), while in the whole De bello the dominant terms referring to this area, apart from âregioâ, are âditioâ and âager Polotiensisâ.44 This reflects perfectly the rhetoric of the official royal edicts and letters mentioned at the beginning. In the Royal Edict on Thanksgiving for the Fortunate Success of the War with Muscovy (Edictum regium de supplicationibus â¦) and its reprints, or in the Report on the Actions against Muscovy after the Conquest of Polatsk (Rerum post captam Polotiam â¦) the Polatsk lands are referred to as âditioâ, âregioâ, and finally âprovincia Polocensisâ.45 âDucatusâ appears only in the editorial summaries that precede the foreign reprints of these pamphlets.46 In the end, the âPrincipality of Polatskâ was only needed until a certain moment as a counterargument to Muscovite pretext.
3.2 The Muscovite Pretext
In January 1578, Tsar Ivan the Terrible ordered his secretaries, the dyaks, to renew Muscovyâs territorial claims against Lithuania and Poland at the meeting with Báthoryâs envoy, the Mazovian voivode StanisÅaw Kryski, who arrived in Moscow. He started his argumentation with his own lineage:
âOur reign starts with sebastos Augustus, the emperor of Rome, famous all over the world, and also from Prus, Augustusâs brother, who reigned in Malbork, ToruÅ, Chojnice, and GdaÅsk, up to the river called Neman which empties into the Varangian Sea. And fourteen generations of our forefathers come from Prus.â47
The legend, which aroused the amusement of Polish diplomats and humanists, appeared in a text created in 1511â1521 and attributed to Spiridon-Savva under the title The Epistle (Poslanie) and then in an extremely influential Tale of the Princes of Vladimir (Skazanie o Kniaziakh Vladimirskikh).48 The latter work had a decisive effect on the doctrine of tsarist power after the coronation of Ivan the Terrible. In the Book of Royal Degrees (Stepennaia kniga tsarskogo rodoslovia) written after 1560, which had the status of an official document and was intended for the tsar, the theme of Prus served to closely connect the earthly power of the tsars with the history of salvation. âThe tsarist autocracyâ, as we read in the life of Saint Olga, which opens the Book, âbegan with Rurik, [â¦] who came from Varangians to Veliky Novgorod with two of his brothers and their families, and who descended from the tribe of Prus, from which the Prussian land takes its name. Prus was the brother of the only sovereign Emperor Augustus of Rome, during whose rule the ineffable Nativity of the Lord God our Saviour Jesus Christ, the Son of God through the Holy Spirit and the Ever-Virgin Mary, took place on earthâ.49 Before the Roman Empire broke up into the west and east, the tsarâs great-grandfather set out to give birth to a third, Northern Rome.50
However, if the Polish-Lithuanian side could laugh at the tsarâs Julian-Claudian ancestryâand they did laugh eagerly51 âthey could not ignore the rest of his argumentation, as it was essentially based on a translatio imperii from Polatsk to Vilnius, and finally to Moscow. So Báthoryâs envoys heard the following argument on Muscovyâs rights to Polatsk andâeo ipso!âto the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Polish Crown:
âBeginning with Vladimir the Great, who baptized the land of Rusâ, took the city of Polatsk, and married Rogneda, the daughter of the Polatsk Knyaz Rogvolod. And with Rogneda he begat his son Izyaslav and put him on the Polatsk throne. And Izyaslav had a son, Bryachislav, and Bryachislav fathered a son, Vseslav, and Vseslav fathered sons Boris and Rostislav, and Rostislav fathered Rogvolod. And the Great Kyivan Knyaz Mstislav, son of Vladimir Monomakh, prince of Smolensk [â¦] captured the children of Rogvolod, namely Vasily, Ivan, and Rostislav, and sent them in exile to Tsargrad for disobedience. [â¦] And hence the Vilnians chose the children of Rostislav son of Rogvolod, namely David and Movkold, as rulers of their state, and David had a son, Vid, whom people called Wolf. And Vidâs son was Traidenis, and Traidenisâs son was Vytenis, and Vytenis fathered the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas. And Gediminasâs son was Grand Duke Algirdas. And Algirdasâs son was King Jogaila, and Jogailaâs son was Casimir Andrew. And Casimirâs son was Sigismund, and Sigismundâs son was Sigismund Augustus, who ruled until our times. And these were famous and great rulers, our brethren, known around the world. And our brothers by blood. And this is why the Crown of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are our heritage (naÅ¡a votÄina) as there is no one left from that family. And the royal sister is no heir of a state.â52
Therefore, according to the official Muscovite version, Báthory had no hereditary rights to the Principality of Polatsk: after all, his âpatrimonyââand by the grace of the Ottomans at thatâis Transylvania, about which the tsar says contemptuously that âwe have never heard anything of it anywhereâ.53 This is why he demands:
âfirstly, have your lord Stephen write our tsarist name [â¦] and our full title. Also, that he would have you mention among our titles the Grand Duchy of Smolensk and the Principality of Polatsk, because [â¦] God gave us the Principality of Polatsk for the iniquity of our brother King Sigismund August, who had invaded the Livonian land, our patrimony. And now it is Godâs will, as our brother King Sigismund August departed this life, and the Polatsk patrimony has no heir except us. And your lord is not the heir of this patrimony (toj votÄine ne jestâ votÄiÄ).â54
The genealogical argumentation of Ivan the Terrible was the result of the process of strengthening the Rurikids of the Grand Duchy of Vladimir in patrilineal rights to the whole inheritance of Kyivan Rusâ from the end of the 15th century. Initially created for this purpose, among others, rodoslovia were intended to ennoble the origin of the grand dukes of Muscovy and at the same time to reduce the dynastic rank of the grand dukes of Lithuania. From Muscovyâs perspective, the latter were illegitimately ruling over vast lands that should rightfully belong to the descendants of Vladimir the Great. These documents were supposed to prove that Gediminas, the progenitor of the Jagiellons, was a servant and equerry of a certain Vytenis, one of the vassals of the duke of Smolensk.55 Over time, however, a different, more politically useful and far-reaching narrative prevailed. It appeared in a document written between 1520 and 1548 entitled The Beginnings of the Lithuanian Rulers (
âAs the alleged descendants of the princesââizgoiâ, exiled for disobedience to Vladimir Monomakh to Constantinople and deprived of any rights to the Rusâian land, Gediminids had no rights to the heritage of Vladimir [the Great].â58
But this was not the end of it. When the âPolatsk argumentâ first appeared in the Muscovite diplomatic practice in the relations with Lithuania and Poland, Ivan the Terrible was preparing to conquer the Polatsk region. As Boris N. Floria established, it happened in the gramota sent to the Lithuanian aristocrats by the Boyar Duma between November 1562 and January 1563. It reads as follows:
âWhat kind of justice is it, my lords, to hold someone elseâs patrimony and call it oneâs own? Just remember, my lords, how the Lithuanian hetmans brought back the sons of Rogvolod, David, and Movkold, to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and how they sent tribute to Kyiv to the Grand Duke Mstislav, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, which we know well to be true. And this is why not only the whole Rusâian land, but also the Lithuanian land is our lordâs patrimony [boldâG.F.].â59
In this document, the low-rank version of the Gediminids was still maintained. Ivan the Terrible adopted the Polatsk variant of the pedigree of the Lithuanian grand dukes a little later, around 1567. The official, contrasting interpretation of the rank and position of the Muscovite and Polish-Lithuanian monarchy was as follows: while the Tsar of All the Russias is by Godâs will a hereditary self-governing monarch (in the Byzantine sense of autokratÄs) with unlimited power, the grand dukes of Lithuania and the kings of Poland are ânon-indigenousâ (nekorennye) rulers limited by the will and orders of their subjects, whose ancestors placed their ancestorsâthe deservedly exiled Polatsk princesâon the throne.60
No wonder that official documents from the period of the Muscovite Polatsk campaign are dominated by the same topic as in the quoted texts: âthe tsar and grand prince [â¦] attacked his enemy, that is, the Lithuanians, for the great iniquities they committed, to regain the city of Polatsk, his patrimony. And God [â¦] has gave him his patrimony, the city of Polatsk.â61 Nine days after the conquest of the city, the deputies of Sigismund II Augustus received a gramota, signed on 24 February 1563 âin Polatsk, His Majesty the Tsarâs patrimonyâ,62 in which Ivan the Terrible named himself prince of Polatsk for the first time. From then on, Muscovite letters would contain the demand that the tsarâs full title be acknowledged, including in particular those elements that were unacceptable for the Polish-Lithuanian state: âthe Tsar and Grand Duke of All the Rusââ (
Does this mean that the Principality of Polatsk, once it was incorporated into the lands of Muscovy, preserved, or rather regained its administrative separateness in 1563â1579? Naturally, the answer is: it did not. As part of the consistent centralization of Muscovy, Ivan the Terrible removed all traces of post-feudal forms of statehood. Polatsk became a de jure district (povetâcounty) administered by the tsarist governor.65
3.3 The Triumph of the Text of Dispute and Power
We would like to emphasize once again that the choice of Polatsk as the target of the Polish-Lithuanian offensive in 1579 was a decision with major political and propaganda consequences. In the Royal Edict on Thanksgiving for the Fortunate Success of the War with Muscovy, Báthoryâs chancery mentioned only the strategic motivation, stating that âcarefully considering all the circumstances, [â¦] we came to the conclusion that the aim of the first offensive of our troops should be to capture Polatsk. This fortress, like a sword above the neck, threatens our Grand Duchy of Lithuania and even our city of Vilnius itselfâ.66 But Polatsk in the hands of Ivan the Terrible threatened Vilnius and Lithuania even more as the key element of the dynastic argumentation that undermined the legal basis of the electoral power of the monarchs of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in international public opinion. It is therefore not without reason that no other success of the Livonian War was so broadly publicized and used by the Polish-Lithuanian side as propaganda. It was about international politics and diplomacy, and the key issue was the legitimacy of the election model in opposition to the hereditary monarchy based on dynastic logic.
The effect of Báthoryâs propaganda action was a long- term triumph in the symbolic sphere. Poland-Lithuania presented the successful conquest of Polatsk as a triumph of the Commonwealth, although more of Poland than Lithuania, even though it was the latter that reclaimed its province. This is how the ârecuperationâ of Polatsk was told in the texts of the power dispute, especially those intended for the external, European audienceâfor example in the Atlas of the Principality of Polatsk. In all the prints, without exception, of which it consists, the conqueror is called âThe Most Serene Stephen King of Polandâ. Apart from the three mentions of Lithuania in the historical note on the map of the Principality of Polatsk, which serves to legitimize the translatio imperii from Vilnius to Cracow, the adjective âLithuanicusâ appears only as a description of the Lithuanian cavalry and the location of the camp of Lithuanians on the PachoÅowiecki, Polatsk. The nomenclature on the PachoÅowiecki, Ducatus is consistently Polish (e.g. Dzisna, Glebokie), sometimes in a Latinized form (Polockum, Horodcum). It is therefore hardly surprising that the English reader of True Reporte learned that âthe Towne and Castell of Polotzkoâ was recovered âto the Crowne of Poland againe, as it hath beene in times pastâ, while the toponym Litto, whose mistaken spelling followed a German model, rendered Lithuania a geographical reality comparable to âthe desert seacoast of Bohemiaâ in The Winterâs Tale.67 The cartographic content of the map of the Principality of Polatsk is silent not only about Lithuania. It does not mention Muscovy either. On 16th-century maps, fragments of countries adjacent to the centrally depicted title territory were marked with the pars/partes formula. The map of PachoÅowiecki does not in any way indicate the limits of territorial achievements of Báthoryâs campaign of 1579. And the historical note that we tried to read according to the hermeneutics of suspicion is placed where the inscription âPars Moscoviaeâ couldâor even shouldâbe placed (see Fig. 11.5).
A fragment of PachoÅowiecki, Ducatus. The approximate, unmarked LithuanianâMuscovite border after the Polatsk campaign is marked.
4 Epilogue
In Belarusian historiography, starting with the canonical Review of the History of Belarus since the Earliest Times by the 19th-century historian Osip Turchinovich, the Polatsk Principality is considered to be the first âpre-Belarusianâ state form.68 As Oleg Åatyszonek writes in the chapter with the telling title BiaÅa RuÅâkraj bez historii (White Rusâ: A Country without History), âContemporary Belarusians unanimously consider the Principality of Polatsk to be the first Belarusian state. There is no textbook in Belarus in which Prince Rogvolod of Polatsk would not appear as the first historical figure with [â¦] his daughter Rognedaâ.69 The same Rogvolod appeared on the twenty-rouble coin that opened the commemorative series put into circulation by the National Bank of the Republic of Belarus entitled Strengthening and Defending the State (see Fig. 11.6). The current historical discourse refers to the same state, whose idealized, politicized and naively didactic-patriotic image was presented in one of Alyaksandr Lukashenkaâs ceremonial speeches:
âBack then, 1155 years ago, Polotsk was known as a trade and administrative centre of Slavic Europe. And the Principality of Polotsk, our historical cradle, was a peaceful, hard-working and friendly state. Back then its people were determining their future themselves. The most courageous and wisest representatives of that land were elected as leaders at popular assemblies. [â¦] Back then the Varangians brought statehood to many peoples. Not everyone liked the aspiration of our ancestors to be independent. Therefore, throughout its history our people had to protect this piece of land.â70
A Belarusian silver twenty-rouble coin from the series âУмаÑаванне Ñ Ð°Ð±Ð°Ñона дзÑÑÐ¶Ð°Ð²Ñ â (âStrengthening and defending the stateâ): obverse commemorating Rogvolod and Rogneda (2006, 38.61 mm., 33.62 g.)
G. Franczak, private collection
It is evident that the way the former Principality of Polatsk has been used by the Belarusians in their own way fits into the universal scheme of cartographic power-knowledge in action. Monmonier, quoted at the beginning of this chapter, described this phenomenon in the most accurate and simple way:
âNowhere is the map more a national symbol and an intellectual weapon than in disputes over territory. When nation A and nation B both claim territory C, they usually are at war cartographically as well. Nation A, which defeated nation B several decades ago and now holds territory C, has incorporated C into A on its maps. If Aâs maps identify C at all, they tend to mention it only when they label other provinces or subregions. If nation B was badly beaten, its maps might show C as a disputed territory. Unlike Aâs maps, Bâs maps always name C.â71
Here is how the story we are interested in here, that is, the story of appropriation and misrepresentation, went. State A, i.e. the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, incorporated the independent territory C, i.e. the Principality of Polatsk, gradually blurring its statehood and finally transforming it into a voivodeship in 1504. State B, i.e. Muscovy, put forward a dynastic claim to C, resurrecting the title and the principality as such and conquering it in 1563, in order to immediately turn it into an ordinary povet. Sixteen years later, State A, which in the meantime managed to become the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, again conquered State C, claiming its own dynastic and historical rights to the principality exhumed by State B. State A put State C on a map only to wipe it off again as soon as possible from subsequent maps, when it reduced the principality back to the rank of a voivodeship. After two centuries, State B, this time known as the Russian Empire, while partitioning State A together with two other allied empires, took over the territory of C for a longer time. Its former metropolis P soon became a modest povet town in a province whose capital was the rival city V.
Nonetheless, the monarchs of B never ceased to call themselves princes of C: their series is closed by the all-Russian emperor and autocrat, the last prince of Polatsk, Nicholas II Romanov, executed on the night of 16â17 July 1918. Today, the territory of C is only mentioned on the maps and in the official iconosphere by State D, which used the formerâs earliest history to create its founding myth. That state is the Republic of Belarus.
Originally published as G. Franczak, âPolotia recepta. Mapa KsiÄstwa PoÅockiegoâteksty i preteksty sporu o wÅadzÄâ, Terminus 23 (2021), 2(59), pp. 97â133; DOI 10.4467/20843844TE.21.005.13439.
M. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps, Chicago 1991, p. 45. In the latest edition (Chicago 2018, p. 102), Monmonier rewrote the quoted passage in the past tense, referring only to old cartography, but with a new comment: âTodayâs would-be sovereign could do the same with graphics software.â
We discuss the history of the iconic reuse of the Polotia recepta propaganda slogan (interesting in itself, yet marginal in the context investigated here) in chapter 12.
We examine the filiation of maps dependent on PachoÅowiecki, Ducatus in chapter 5.
Cf. D. Wood, Rethinking the Power of Maps, New York 2010, p. 97.
The importance of the title and the toponyms is most strongly emphasized by Ch. Jacob. In his canonical monograph, in a chapter entitled Maps & Writing, Jacob notes e.g. that the title of the map âprograms its readingâ and represents âa statement of authority that marks the domination of social convention over a process of recognition and identificationâ (Ch. Jacob, The Sovereign Map: Theoretical Approaches in Cartography throughout History, transl. T. Conley, Chicago 2006, pp. 192, 198). Speaking of toponyms, understood as an onomaturgic acts, Jacob states: âTo the acts of delimitation and the division of space are necessarily added naming, with its etiological, mythic, and ritual implications, and its political and juridical consequences [â¦]. The toponym is thus a signature, a claim of precedence and of symbolic ownershipâ (ibidem, pp. 203, 205).
The question of Muscovite claims to the Polish throne justified, as we shall see in further in this study, by alleged dynastic rights of the Rurikids to the Jagiellonian heritage, has been discussed many times; scholars have also paid much heed to the Muscovite candidacy during Polish interregna. Important studies on these subjects include:
It should also be remembered that in the pacta conventa he signed in Medgyes on 16 February 1576, Báthory undertook, among other things, to recover the territories lost to Muscovy.
Cf. J.B. Harley, The New Nature of Maps â¦, p. 35: âFar from holding up a simple mirror of nature that is true or false, maps redescribe the worldâlike any other documentâin terms of relations of power and of cultural practices, preferences and priorities.â Ibidem, p. 112: âCompilation, generalisation, classification, formation into hierarchies, and standardisation of geographic data, far from being mere neutral technical activities, involve power-knowledge relations at workâ (boldâG.F.). Cf. Ch. Jacob, The Sovereign Map â¦, p. 23: âMapping is a speculative process in which the graphic mechanism attests to the symbolic violence inherent in every model, that is, to the transformation of real space into a figure ruled by laws of reason and abstraction, of the conquering appropriation of reality by means of its simulacrum.â About the map as a performative cf. D. Wood, Rethinking â¦, p. 31: âThe ability of the map to [â¦] perform the shape of statehoodâ; Ch. Jacob, The Sovereign Map â¦, p. 273: âThe map has, above all, a performative effect. [â¦] [It] is blessed with a presumption of reality because it conveys an image of and knowledge about the world that are socially constituted and validated through a consensus and a tradition, through widespread use, the institutional status of its producers, and perhaps, too, the prestige of those who order its production or those to whom it is dedicated.â
Cf. Ch. Jacob, The Sovereign Map â¦, p. xiv: âA map is transparent to its meanings, to the information it delivers. Opacity occurs when this semiotic power fails.â
Cf. J.B. Harley, The New Nature of Maps â¦, p. 45: âA hidden agenda has to be teased out from between the lines of the map. [â¦] Instead of picking up social messages that the map emphasises, we must search for what it de-emphasises; not so much what the map shows, as what it omits. Interpretation becomes a search for silences.â
J.B. Harley, The New Nature of Maps â¦, p. 45.
According to J. Nowak-DÅużewski, OkolicznoÅciowa poezja polityczna w Polsce: Pierwsi królowie elekcyjni, p. 231.
Báthoryâs propaganda machine is discussed at length in chapter 9, where we reconstructed the chronology of subsequent actions, as well as the human network engaged in the creation and distribution of (dis)information. A part of the propaganda action was a publication of Polish and Latin poems by Jan Kochanowski. Jakub Niedźwiedź provided a comprehensive analysis of these lyrical epinicions (namely of the Latin ode De expugnatione Polottei and the Polish song O wziÄciu PoÅocka, both published in print in 1580): J. Niedźwiedź, Poeta i mapa â¦, pp. 198â251. See also: R. Krzywy, ââChcesz byÄ groźnym, a uciekasz â¦â. Nad komentarzem do epinikionów moskiewskich Jana Kochanowskiegoâ, PamiÄtnik Literacki 104 (2013), pp. 185â194.
Ten prints are known, including seven in German (K. Zawadzki, Gazety ulotne polskie i Polski dotyczÄ ce XVIâXVIII wieku: Bibliografia, vol. 1: 1514â1661, WrocÅaw 1977, posit. 55 and 59â64), one in Latin (ibidem, posit. 56), one in Czech (ibidem, posit. 57), and one in French (ibidem, posit. 58).
Cf. R. Heidenstein, De bello Moscovitico â¦, p. 43: âFor the world to consider not only the war itself, but also the reasons behind it, to be just, he published a manifesto originally written in Latin and then translated into Polish, Hungarian and German, as the army consisted mainly of these three nationsâ (â[cum] non bellum modo, sed causam etiam belli omnibus probatam vellet, edictum, latine prius scriptum inque Polonicam, Ungaricam et Germanicam linguam translatum, quod ex iis fere gentibus exercitus constabat, proponitââtransl. G.F.). The first edition of this edict, known as the EDICTUM SVIRENSE (The Royal Edict to the Soldiers in Svir, from which One Can Learn the Reasons for Starting a War against the Grand Duke of Muscovy) has not survived. It appeared again only after the end of the Polatsk campaign (after 6 October, when the Muscovite stronghold SuÅ¡a surrendered) together with two other documents: Edictum Regium Svirense ad milites, ex quo causae suscepti in magnum Moschoviae ducem belli cognoscentur: Edictum regium de supplicationibus ob captam Polotiam; Rerum post captam Polotiam contra Moscum gestarum narratio, [M. Szarffenberg]: Warsaw, 1579 (cf. K. Zawadzki, Gazety ulotne â¦, vol. 1, posit. 145); reprinted twice as Edictum Serenissimi Poloniae Regis ad milites, ex quo causae suscepti in Magnum Moscoviae Ducem belli cognoscuntur: Item Edictum eiusdem de suplicationibus ob captam Polociam habendis; cum Epistola qua ordines ad comitia convocantur et rerum post captam Polociam gestarum narratione; Hisce adiecta sunt quaedam de Magni Moscoviae Ducis genere, quod se nescio qua autoritate ab Augusto Caesare ducere iactitat, Cologne 1580 (cf. ibidem, posit. 160) and as De rebus gestis Stephani I, regis Poloniae, magni ducis Lithuaniae etc., contra magnum Moschorum ducem narratio, apud haeredes Antonii Bladii, Rome 1582. The latter work is sometimes mistakenly attributed to StanisÅaw Reszkaâin fact, it was compiled by Giovanni Michele Bruto, hiding behind the pseudonym Flaminius Nobilius (cf. P. Marchesani, âLa Polonia nella storiografia italiana del XVI e XVII secolo: i clichés ideologici e la loro evoluzioneâ, Europa Orientalis 5 (1986), p. 213).
See chapter 9 of this book.
Edictum regium de supplicationibus ob rem bene adversus Moschum gestam, Cracow, Officina Nicolai Scharffenbergii, 1579. Four copies have been identified: in Paris (Bibliothèque nationale de France, shelfmark 4-H-4349 [8]), Petersburg (
Latin editions: a reprint not listed by Zawadzkiâs compendiumâ Cologne: Maternus Cholinus, 1579 (Stadtbibliothek Trier, shelfmark X I 1: 2 an); a reissue published twice as Stephani regis Poloniae epistola, historiam susceptae a se superiori aestate adversus Moschum expeditionis et expugnatae civitatis et arcis Polotzko recitans: Ad ordines Regni Poloniae scripta Anno 1579, b.m. [Rostock: S. Möllermann], 1579 (cf. K. Zawadzki, Druki ulotne â¦, vol. 1, posit. 152 and 153). German editions: Neue Zeitung von der Eroberung des Schlosses Polocia durch den König von Polen, Speyer 1579 (cf. ibidem, posit. 149); Neue Zeitung von der Festung Polozk, welcher der polnische König am 30. August erobert hat, b.m., b.d. [1579] (cf. ibidem, posit. 150); Wahrhaftige Zeitung wie die königliche Majestät von Polen am 30. August 1579 die Festung Polozk erobert hat, GdaÅsk 1579 (cf. ibidem, posit. 155), and another reissue published twice as Pollnische Zeittung: Summarische und Warhaffte Beschreibung, von jüngster bekriegung und eroberung etlicher fürnemer Städt und Vestungen, so König. Mayst. zu Polln, etc. dem Moscovittischen Tyrannischen Feind, mit sieghaffter hand glücklich aberhalten, Nuremberg 1580 (cf. ibidem, posit. 167 and 168). Unpreserved Czech edition: Novina jistá a pravdivá o dobytà znamenitého zámku a pevnosti velikého mÄsta hraniÄného Polocka, ležÃcÃho na pomezà litevském, Prague: Michal Petrle, 1579 (cf. ibidem, posit. 151). English edition: A True reporte of the taking of the great towne and castell of Polotzko ⦠(see Introduction, footnote 6); a unique copy in the British Library, shelfmark: General Reference Collection, C.95.a.21 (cf. K. Zawadzki, Gazety ulotne polskie i Polski dotyczÄ ce XVIâXVIII wieku. Bibliografia, vol. 3: 1501â1725, WrocÅaw 1990, posit. 1740).
See chapter 8 of this book.
There is also an extensive account in Italian, which survived in a manuscript version, worthy of a separate study. It is utterly independent from the official editions and was written for the use of the papal curia by an eyewitness, Antonio Martinelli, secretary of the papal nuncio. Martinelliâs authorship was established by the Russian scholar I.V. Dubrovskij. See: A. Martinelli, âNarratione del successo â¦â, pp. 10â68. A study by J. PirożyÅski on the interest in the âMuscovite newsâ in Europe is also noteworthy: Z dziejów obiegu informacji w Europie XVI wieku: nowiny z Polski w kolekcji Jana Jakuba Wicka w Zurychu z lat 1560â1587, Cracow 1995.
âNe postmodum quisquam typographorum in regno nostro aliquid tale nobis insciis et non consentientibus typis excudere, vel alibi ubicunque extra regnum imprimendum dare audeat, quodque res gestas sive vetustiores sive recentiores in hoc regno nostro, sive quippiam ad negotia reipublicae quoquomodo spectans et pertinens complecteretur, nullas praeterea icones ac picturas rerum quarumvis ad rempublicam hanc nostram pertinentium conficere ac edere. Quicunque vero secus aliquid fecerit, etiamsi nihil in illo libro vel scripto typis excusso insit, quod dignum reprehensione esset, poenam, quae iure theutonico Magdeburgensi in famosorum libellorum scriptores sancita est, sustinebuntâ (Akta Metryki Koronnej co ważniejsze â¦, pp. 122â123).
âExistimavit [rex] e re totius regni esse, si armis aperiret nomen famamque Polonicam et repeteret possessiones a Moscho iniuste acceptas. [â¦] Quod utinam felix faustumque sit, ad salutem et incolumitatem illius potentissimi regni, quod est Germaniae maceria et propugnaculum adversus feros hostes et barbarosâ (J. Pistorius [Johann Becker], Polonicae historiae corpus, vol. 3, Basel 1582, pp. 114â117). Cf. also J. Wechel, Rerum Polonicarum tomi tres, vol. 1, Frankfurt am Main 1584, pp. 214â220 (reprint of the edict). Unless otherwise stated, translations of sources in this chapter by G.F.
The Russian Primary Chronicle. Laurentian Text, transl. and ed. S. Hazzard Cross and O.P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Cambridge MA 1953, p. 91. For the original text, see: The PovÄstâ vremennykh lÄt: An Interlinear Collation and Paradosis, ed. D. Ostrowski, D. Birnbaum, H.G. Lunt, vol. 1, Cambridge, MA 2004, pp. 532â537. Vladimir takes revenge on Rogvolod for his insult: not only does Rogneda choose his stepbrother Yaropolk for her husband, but she reminds the Kyivan ruler with contempt that he is a son of the former slave MaluÅ¡a.
Cf. O. Åatyszonek, A. Bely, âOn the Scandinavian Origin of Rahvalodâ, Annus Albaruthenicus/
NB, the author of one of the editions of the PovÄstâ, the so-called Laurentian Chronicle (c.1377), stresses the rivalry between the Rurikids of Polatsk and those of Kyiv that started with the bloody pacification of Polatsk by Vladimir: âAnd from then on, the grandchildren of Rogvolod raise their sword against the grandchildren of Yaroslav [the Wise]â (â
This is how he is described in the entry under the year 6771 (1263), Novgorod First Chronicle, cf. Latopis nowogrodzki pierwszyâprzekÅad na jÄzyk polski i opracowanie naukowe najstarszego zabytku historii Nowogrodu Wielkiego, project of the National Programme of the Development in the Humanities no. 22H16036884, researched by a team led by Z.A. Brzozowska, http://ki.wfi.uni.lodz.pl/ceraneum/latopis/html/index.html (accessed 22.07.2024).
M. Stryjkowski, Która przedtym nigdy Åwiata nie widziaÅa Kronika polska, litewska, żmodzka i wszystkiej Rusi, Królewiec 1582, p. 326: âTowciwiÅ [â¦] PoÅocko wziÄ Å [â¦] i zostaÅ ksiÄ Å¼Äciem poÅockimâ.
The history of Polatskâs transition under Lithuanian rule is briefly discussed in: [introduction to:] UrzÄdnicy Wielkiego KsiÄstwa Litewskiego: Spisy, vol. 5, pp. 5â7. Cf. also:
âMingajÅo ErdziwiÅowic [â¦] miaÅ sÄ siedztwo z poÅocczany i granice przylegÅe, którzy wtenczas wolno sobie panowali i żadnej zwierzchnoÅci nad sobÄ nie mieli, tylko trzydzieÅci mÄżów starców spoÅrzodku Rzeczypospolitej swojej na potoczne sprawy i sÄ dy jako senatorów przekÅadali [â¦]. A iż poddanym w wolnoÅci, w której siÄ nie jako Ålachta rodzili, rogi rosÅy, poczÄli zaraz panowie poÅoczanie, ufajÄ c w swojej wolnoÅci, sÄ siadów na wojnÄ wyzywaÄ. Którego swowoleÅstwa nie mogÄ c dÅużej cierpieÄ, ksiÄ Å¼Ä nowogrodzkie MingajÅo ErdziwiÅowic [â¦] ciÄ gnÄ Å prosto do PoÅocka, chcÄ c miesczaÅskÄ hardoÅÄ uÅmierzyÄ. Co usÅyszawszy poÅocanie, [â¦] zgromadzili chÅopów o kilko tysiÄcy, które wojsko zszykowawszy, [â¦] wyciÄ gnÄli przeciw MingajÅowi z PoÅocka [â¦]. A MingajÅo [â¦] tym Åmielej na nich z ogromnym okrzykiem uderzyÅ, iż wiedziaÅ chÅopstwo byÄ bez porzÄ dku i bez wojennej sprawy, co obaczywszy poÅocczanie, iż im potÄżnie nieprzyjaciel dogrzewa, zarazem tyÅ podali, których [â¦] Litwa goniÄ c bili, siekli i imali, [â¦] Horodziec potym ich zamek spalili, a koÅczÄ c zwyciÄstwo, do PoÅocka tegoż dnia przyciÄ gnÄli. Co widzÄ c strwożone pospólstwo, otworzyli miejskie i zamku poÅockiego wrota, podajÄ c siÄ dobrowolnie ksiÄ Å¼Äciu MingajÅowi. Tak tedy MingajÅo pirwszy z ksiÄ Å¼Ä t litewskich poÅockim ksiÄ Å¼Äciem i nowogrodskim, skróciwszy ich hardoÅÄ, zostaÅâ (M. Stryjkowski, Która przedtym nigdy Åwiata nie widziaÅa Kronika â¦, pp. 271â272). Cf. also: idem, O poczÄ tkach, wywodach, dzielnoÅciach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sÅawnego narodu litewskiego, żemojdzkiego i ruskiego, ed. J. Radziszewska, Warsaw 1978, p. 183.
The mythical ethnogenesis of Lithuanians based on the false etymology according to which Lietuva was derived from LâItalia is discussed by DÅugosz: J. DÅugosz, Annales seu Cronicae inclicti regni Poloniae: Liber 10, Varsoviae 1985, p. 165.
For an in-depth and critical analysis of the sourcesâKyivan, Muscovite, Ruthenian-Lithuanian, as well as Polish-Lithuanian chroniclesâfrom which emerges an image of repeated appropriation of the narrative of medieval statehood of the Polatsk region, together with abundant literature on the subject cf. O. Åatyszonek, âPolityczne aspekty przedstawienia Åredniowiecznych dziejów ziem biaÅoruskich w historiografii Wielkiego KsiÄstwa Litewskiego XVâXVI w.â, BiaÅoruskie Zeszyty Historyczne 25 (2006), pp. 5â44; idem, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, BiaÅystok 2006, pp. 265â304.
Cf. O. Åatyszonek, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, pp. 272â275. In the sources possibly known to Stryjkowski, the first edition of Chronicle of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Samogitia in the so-called KrasiÅski Codex (Latopis KrasiÅskich), Mingailaâs victory over the people of Polatsk is described in the following way: â
O. Åatyszonek, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, p. 295: âUsuniÄcie najdawniejszych dziejów ksiÄstwa poÅockiego z historiografii Wielkiego KsiÄstwa Litewskiego, Ruskiego i Å»mudzkiego przypieczÄtowaÅ Maciej Stryjkowski swojÄ KronikÄ .â
M. Stryjkowski, Która przedtym nigdy Åwiata nie widziaÅa Kronika â¦, p. 130: âposÅaÅ do Rechwolda, ksiÄ Å¼Äcia pskowskiego, który też byÅ z Waregów na to ksiÄstwo przyszedÅ, proszÄ c u niego córki Rochmidy w maÅżeÅstwo.â
Ibidem: âRechwold ksiÄ Å¼Ä pskowskie zabity.â
Cf. S. Herberstein, Notes upon Russia, transl. R.H. Major, vol. 1, London 1851, p. 14: âIn the interim he sent messengers to Rochvolochda, prince of Plescov, through whose country he had passed in his march from Wagria, to ask the hand of his daughter Rochmida in marriageâ (original text: idem, Rerum Moscoviticarum commentarii: Synoptische Edition der lateinischen und der deutschen Fassung letzter Hand, Basel 1556 und Wien 1557, erst. von E. Maurer und A. Fülberth, München 2007, p. 45: âInterea temporis mittit ad Rochvuolochdam principem P[l]escovuiae (nam & ipse ex Vuaregis illuc commigraverat) et filiam suam Rochmidam uxorem petitâ).
O. Åatyszonek, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, p. 296: âdawna RuÅ Stryjkowskiego to wyÅÄ cznie paÅstwo kijowskie i halickie.â
R. Heidenstein, De bello Moscovitico â¦, pp. 70â71: âRegebatur Polotia antiquitus, quemadmodum et Kiovia, a legatis regiis: palatinorum honore ac dignitate, cum per universam Lituaniam non plures quam duo palatini, Vilnensis ac Trocensis, totidem castellani essent, carebat. Postea amplificato senatu Lituanico, non modo Polotiae et Kioviae ducatus, sed et Vitepscia digna visa est, quae a palatino administraretur.â
From 1542, the office of the voivode of Polatsk was held by StanisÅaw Dowojno until his death in 1574, even though during this time he spent four years in Muscovite captivity and his voivodeship ceased to exist. When it came to the restoration of the Grand Ducal administration after the recovery of Polatsk, the task was assigned to MikoÅaj Monwid Dorohostajski, appointed to this position three years earlier. Cf: UrzÄdnicy Wielkiego KsiÄstwa Litewskiego: Spisy, vol. 5 â¦, pp. 24â26, 251.
âAnno 1563 Polotia sub Sigismundo Augusto rege Poloniae a Moscho adempta, a Stephano autem rege recuperata.â
Heidenstein was not an eyewitness to the events: during Báthoryâs campaign he studied in Padua and travelled around Italy and France, and was only appointed royal secretary on 5 June 1582. Cf. B. Kocowski, âHeidenstein Reinhold (1553â1620)â, PSB, vol. 9, WrocÅaw 1960â1961, pp. 342â344.
R. Heidenstein, De bello Moscovitico â¦, pp. 47â48. Apart from the more extensive urbis laus, which he supplemented with a meticulous hydrography of the Polatsk region, perhaps based on PachoÅowieckiâs map, there are only minor differences. The only more important one is the replacement of the term âsublata stirpeâ with the formula âextinctaâ: thus, Lithuanians would take over Polatsk not after the âremovalâ, but after the âexpiryâ of the local dynasty.
The name Ducatus Polotiensis appears in De bello extremely rarely, e.g. in the context of the restitution of goods confiscated from the Polatsk nobility by Ivan the Terrible (R. Heidenstein, De bello Moscovitico â¦, p. 71) or on the occasion of peace proposals put forward by Muscovy (ibidem, p. 209).
Cf. e.g.: âRex posteaquam dierum quinquaginta spacio, sex arcibus captis [â¦] provinciam omnem Polocensem, mira agrorum fertilitate, magna fluminum opportunitate praeditam, octavo decimo post anno, quam esset ab hoste occupata, bello Reipublicae recuperassetâ (Rerum post captam Polotiam â¦, G2 r., bold G.F.).
E.g. in Stephani regis Poloniae epistola â¦, b.m. [Rostock: S. Möllermann], f. A1 v.: âIohannes Basilii, magnus Moschoviae dux, anno Christi 1563, die 15 Februarii Lithuaniae Ducatum et urbem Polotsko, flumini Dunae impositam et 40 milliaribus a Vilna distantem occupaverat. Hanc Stephanus Poloniae rex superiori aestate, die 30 Augusti bello expugnatam recuperavitâ (bold G.F.).
An edition and monographic elaboration of both texts:
â
On the political theology of Moscow as the Third Rome cf. e.g.: M. Poe, âMoscow, the Third Rome: The Origins and Transformations of a âPivotal Momentââ, Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 49(3) (2001), pp. 412â429; D. Strémooukhoff, âMoscow the Third Rome: Sources of the Doctrineâ, Speculum 28 (1953), 1, pp. 84â101.
During the Pskov campaign in 1581, the royal chancery countered the tsarist gramotas with the following words: âYou say you are the one who not only reads the Psalms, but also the chronicles. So read serious chroniclers and do not tell childish fairy tales, and do not make up stories about things that never took place, as you made up your story about Prus, brother of Augustus, which is only your stupid inventionâ (â
â
â
â
Cf. O. Åatyszonek, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, pp. 281 ff.
The text was published in:
A concise discussion of this question, together with a critical review of the literature on the subject, see: O. Åatyszonek, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, pp. 284â286. More important studies:
O. Åatyszonek, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, p. 286: âJako rzekomi potomkowie ksiÄ
żÄ
tââizgojówâ, zesÅanych za nieposÅuszeÅstwo wobec WÅodzimierza Monomacha do Konstantynopola i pozbawionych udziaÅów w ziemi ruskiej, Giedyminowicze nie mieli praw do dziedzictwa WÅodzimierza.â See also:
â
The relevant fragment of the Boyar Dumaâs letter from JulyâAugust 1567: âOur ruler takes orders from no one, while your gentry command you as they see fit; for our rulers were not put on the throne by anyone [â¦], they have sovereign power in their countries, and you need to listen to the advice of your gentry because the Lithuanian hetmans gave the ruling power to your forefathers [â¦] David and Movkold, [â¦] and this is why you are obedient to your gentry: you are not native rulersâ (â
â
Cf. H. Grala, ââPieczatâ poÅotckajaâ Iwana IV Groźnego. TreÅci imperialne w moskiewskiej sfragistyce paÅstwowejâ, Rocznik Polskiego Towarzystwa Heraldycznego 3(14) (1997), pp. 117â134.
Ibidem, p. 129: âWydaje siÄ wiÄc wysoce prawdopodobne, iż herbowi PoÅockaâdomniemanej kolebki Giedyminowiczówâ przypadÅa na pieczÄci Iwana IV rola szczególna: dziÄki przemyÅlanej mistyfikacji heraldycznej wystÄpowaÅ on jako pars pro toto Wielkiego KsiÄstwa Litewskiego, legitymizujÄ c uroszczenia carskie.â
Cf.
âRebus vero omnibus in accuratam considerationem vocatis, [â¦] eam tandem in sententiam descendimus, ut primam nostrorum armorum vim ad Polotiam oppugnandam conferri oportere concluderemus, quod quidem ea arx cervicibus Magni Ducatus nostri Lithuaniae atque adeo ipsi civitati nostrae Vilnensi [â¦] immineretâ (Edictum regium de supplicationibus â¦, f. D2 v.âD3 r.). Besides, the decision to conquer Polatsk was made against the Lithuanians, who insisted on a quick march through Livonia to first attack Pskov. As demonstrated by Karol Åopatecki, Lithuanian Grand Hetman MikoÅaj RadziwiÅÅ âthe Redâ even presented Báthory with a detailed plan of the Pskov march, which is preserved in the archives as The Route to [the Land of] Muscovy (Droga do [ziemi] moskiewskiej). See K. Åopatecki, âItineraria jako źródÅa poznania myÅli strategicznej i operacyjnej w okresie panowania Stefana Batoregoâ, Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 2(63) (2018), pp. 39â40.
A True reporte â¦, f. A2 v.
O.
O. Åatyszonek, Od Rusinów BiaÅych â¦, p. 265: âWspóÅczeÅni BiaÅorusini za pierwsze paÅstwo biaÅoruskie zgodnie uważajÄ ksiÄstwo poÅockie. Nie ma w BiaÅorusi podrÄcznika, w którym jako pierwsza historyczna postaÄ nie pojawiaÅby siÄ ksiÄ Å¼Ä poÅocki RogwoÅod [â¦] [z] córkÄ RognedÄ .â
A. LukaÅ¡enka, Solemn Meeting on Occasion of Belarusâ Independence Day, 1 VII 2017, President of the Republic of Belarusâs official website: http://president.gov.by/en/news_en/view/solemn-meeting-on-occasion-of-belarus-independence-day-16584/ (accessed 26.03.2024). Original text in Belarusian: â
M. Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps â¦, p. 91. Bold letteringâG.F.