Making a Great Ruler: Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania 9786155211072

Citation preview

MAKING A GREAT RULER: GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

MAKING A GREAT RULER: GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Giedrė Mickūnaitė

Central European University Press Budapest New York

© 2006 by Giedrė Mickūnaitė Published in 2006 by Central European University Press An imprint of the Central European University Share Company Nádor utca 11, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary Tel: +36-1-327-3138 or 327-3000 Fax: +36-1-327-3183 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.ceupress.com 400 West 59th Street, New York NY 10019, USA Tel: +1-212-547-6932 Fax: +1-646-557-2416 E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the permission of the Publisher. ISBN 963 7326 58 8 cloth 978-963-7326-58-5 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mickunaite, Giedre. Making a great ruler : Grand Duke Vytautas of Lithuania / Giedre Mickunaite. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-9637326585 ISBN-10: 9637326588 1. Vytautas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 1350-1430. 2. Lithuania—Kings and rulers—Biography. I. Title. DK505.714.V96M53 2006 947.93—dc22 [B] 2006020005

Printed in Hungary by Akaprint Kft., Budapest

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix A NOTE ON PERSONAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES . . . . . . . . . . xxi INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE LIFE AND DEEDS OF VYTAUTAS THE GREAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRUCTURE AND METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SOURCES AND SCHOLARSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I. VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE EARLY YEARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Troubled 1380s: A “Serpent in the Bosom” or a “Duke with Neither Men nor Lands” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Return . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Second Flight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 4 8 12 19 19

“And I Shall Sit in Moscow” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Fields of Grunwald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19 20 21 21 21 22 24 26 26 29 31 33 33 33 35

WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN VALUES: FROM SARACEN TO A NEW MESSIAH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

RIGHT OF BLOOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rex iustus, pacificus et christianissimus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stableman’s Grandson: the Development of the Origin Story . . . . . . . . . . Gediminas’ Worthy Successor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ON THE GRAND DUCAL SEAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Give Way to the Duke! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Receptions and Gifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Parade of 1411 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Purple Throne of 1428 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ON THE FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

CONTENTS False Christianity of Lithuanians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Perverse Saracen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The New Apostle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Restorer of the Universal Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Embracing the Heresy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Son of Man” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE VISUAL EXPRESSION OF LORDSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Residence in Trakai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE MURALS: COPIES AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TRADITION OF MURAL PAINTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE DECORATION OF THE PALACE IN TRAKAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coins and Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE CHERISHED AND TROUBLED CROWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The 1390s: From “Unsere König” to “König Zu Littowen” . . . . . . . . . . . . The 1410 and 1420s: No Crown at the Right Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1429–1430: “One Bone for Two Dogs” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Fundamental Issue of Liberty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Crown for the King of Lithuania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acta Volant, Verba Manent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE FINAL WORD OF PRAISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36 40 43 45 47 50 52 52 52 54 54 62 64 65 66 68 69 70 72 76

CHAPTER II. THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

MEMORY AND MEMORIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 The Warrior’s Grave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Prayers for the Soul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

THE GOOD OLD TIMES OF VYTAUTAS IN LAW AND ANECDOTE . . . . . . . . . 122 JAN DLUGOSZ ON VYTAUTAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 The Desirable Ruler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Distinguished Warrior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Perfidious Lithuanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between Ambition and Virtue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

125 127 130 131

CHAPTER III. THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS . . . . . . . 145

IN LITHUANIA AND IN POLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Legal Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 The Pater Patriae: Vytautas at the Grand Ducal Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

THE HERO’S ENSIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE PUBLIC DISPLAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Name of Vytautas as Political Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPEALS TO RULERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

148 150 152 152

CONTENTS

vii

Stephan Bathory as a New Vytautas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Popular Appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

DEBATING THE UNION AND RULERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Historical Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

THE POLISH PERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE LITHUANIAN MAN OF VIRTUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE SPIRIT OF THE BAROQUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vytautas and the Magnates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE RADVILAS AS WORTHY FOLLOWERS OF VYTAUTAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Exemplum Docet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JESUIT SCHOOL DRAMAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “Portraits” of Vytautas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vytautas in Popular Piety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FOLKLORE TRADITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Popular Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Lithuanian Hero or the Son of a Vestal and a Knight . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Everlasting Imprints of the Grand Duke’s Deeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Traditions of Lithuanian Tatars, Karaites, and Jews . . . . . . . . . . . . . A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITHUANIAN TATARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITHUANIAN KARAITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE UNIFYING MILITARY VIRTUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE WARRIOR PATRON OF THE TATARS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE FAIRY PRINCE OF THE KARAITES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE LEGISLATOR FOR THE JEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN OTHER COUNTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Russia: Warrior of the Neighbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Western Europe: The Most Powerful Ruler or a Bloodthirsty Tyrant . . . .

160 165 169 170 170 173 173 175 177 180 181 181 186 188 188 191 192 194 196 198 199 199 203

CHAPTER IV. IMAGE AND IMAGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

MEMORY AND OBLIVION: MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN IMAGES COMPARED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 FOLLOWING THE PATTERNS OF KINGSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 An Ideal Prince . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254 Roots and Fruits of Tyranny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

THE POLITICAL THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TERROR IN PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JULIUS CAESAR OR IVAN THE TERRIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE SENSE OF BYZANTIUM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE MAKING OF A NATIONAL HERO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PATHS NOT PURSUED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St Vytautas of Lithuania?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Spirit of Adventure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

255 257 258 259 262 263 263 264

viii

CONTENTS

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

PRIMARY SOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Unpublished Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 Published Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276

SECONDARY LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 INDEX OF GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES AND PEOPLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 SUBJECT INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book is based on the research and text of my dissertation entitled “Grand Duke Vytautas: Establishing Vytautas the Great” defended summa cum laude at the Department of Medieval Studies of the Central European University in Budapest in 2002. Throughout the years of working on this study, I have incurred a number of debts to many people and institutions. Without their generous help this study would not have been what it is. Above all, my deepest gratitude goes to the supervisor of my dissertation and wise advisor of my further research, Prof. János M. Bak. His patience in sharing his time, knowledge, and opinions as well as his constant encouragement sustained me from the very beginning until the very last phase of editing and polishing this work. During long hours of discussion, difficult periods as well as moments of discovery, I highly appreciated his wise guidance and continuous support. I will always remember the time we spent working on this thesis as intellectually stimulating and personally rewarding. Suggestions, commentaries, insights, and foresights of Prof. Leonardas V. Gerulaitis and Dr. Stephen C. Rowell, made enormous contribution not only to the dissertation but also to my general scholarly development. Their critical comments and advice helped to make this study more international. My special thanks go to Dr. Rasa Mažeika, whose comments written on the margins of my dissertation not only enhanced my historical knowledge, but also sometimes refocused the path of my thought. I remain indebted to Alice Choyke, who not only patiently corrected the language of my work but also enriched its content. I am grateful to Dorottya Domanovszky, who helped immensely with dealing with all kinds of paperwork and assisted in numerous other matters. My sister, Rūta Mickienė, advised me with arrangement of visual matter. I would like to extend the round of thanks to my friends and colleagues around the world who contributed their time, thoughts, and good humor to this study.

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am greatly indebted to the Central European University and the Open Society Institute for funding my research and preparation of this thesis. I have received invaluable support and helpful collaboration in research institutes and academia throughout the world. The CEU Doctoral Research Grant supported my work at a number of libraries and archives in Poland. The CEU/OSI Doctoral Support Grant enabled me to broaden my knowledge at the Institute for Medieval Studies of the Catholic University in Leuven. The Saxl Fund awarded me a Research Fellowship at the Warburg Institute in London. The stay at Warburg deserves special mention since without the resources and atmosphere of the Institute the visual part of this book could not have been as extensive. The Junior Scholar Fellowship awarded jointly by the Woodrow Wilson Center, German Marshal Fund, and CEU allowed me to stay in Washington, D. C., and work at the Library of Congress and the Library and Collection of the Dumbarton Oaks. Finally, Soros Supplementary Grant supported me during this final year of completing this project. Even this long list leaves out many who generously shared their experience, insights, and support and from whom this study benefited greatly. As to mistakes and other imperfections, they all are exclusively my own responsibility.

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Vincas Grybas, Monument to Grand Duke Vytautas in Kaunas, 1932. Rebuilt, 1989. Photo by Giedre Mickunaite, 2000. 2. Vincas Grybas, Monument to Grand Duke Vytautas in Kaunas. Detail: Russian warrior. Photo by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 2000. 3. Vincas Grybas, Monument to Grand Duke Vytautas in Kaunas. Detail: Teutonic Knight. Photo by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 2000. 4. Vincas Grybas, Monument to Grand Duke Vytautas in Kaunas. Detail: Tatar warrior. Photo by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 2000. 5. Vincas Grybas, Monument to Grand Duke Vytautas in Kaunas. Detail: Polish warrior. Photo by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 2000. 6. Vincas Grybas, Monument to Grand Duke Vytautas in Kaunas. Detail: the map of Lithuania under Vytautas. Photo by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 2000. 7. Stanislovas Mikulionis, Trakai, a plan. From Baliulis, Mikulionis, and Miškinis, Trakų miestas ir pilys, back inner cover. 8. Stanislovas Mikulionis, Trakai island-castle, ground plan. From Lietuvos architektūros istorija (History of Lithuanian Architecture), vol. 1, Nuo seniausių laikų iki XVII a. vidurio (From the most ancient times until the seventeenth century), ed. Jonas Minkevičius (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987), fig. 51b, 103. 9. B. Kruminis, Reconstruction of Trakai island-castle. From: “Atstatomi Trakų salos pilies centriniai rūmai pritaikant muziejui” (The reconstruction of the palace of Trakai island castle for museum purposes) (Vilnius: Paminklų restauravimo institutas, 1960), F2 50-14/384, l. fol. 1. Courtesy Vilnius County Archives. 10. Napoleon Orda, Trakai island-castle, lithograph, second half of the nineteenth century. Courtesy Lithuanian Art Museum. 11. B. Kruminis, Cross-section of the palace of the Trakai island-castle. From “Atstatomi Trakų salos pilies centriniai rūmai,” F2 50-14/384, l. fol. 4. Courtesy Vilnius County Archives.

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

12. Audience-hall, the palace of Trakai island-castle. Courtesy “Paletti” Ltd. 13. I. Borovskis, the audience-hall, the palace of Trakai island-castle, groundplan. From I. Borovskis, “Trakų salos pilis kaip tvirtovė,” fig. 8, 207. 14. Wincenty Smokowsky, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, a sketch, pencil on paper, 1822. Photo by Gintautas Trimakas, 1999. Courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. 15. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, a sketch, pencil on paper, 1822. Photo by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999. Courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. 16. Wincenty Smokowsky, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, a sketch, pencil on paper, 1822. Photo by Gintautas Trimakas, 1999. Courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. 17. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, a drawing, pencil on paper, 1823. Courtesy Czartoryski Collection of the National Museum in Krakow, photograph of the museum, 1998. 18. Wincenty Smokowsky, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, a project for the lithograph, Indian ink on paper, before 1841. Photo by Gintautas Trimakas, 1999. Courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. 19. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 15. Second floor, western chamber, southern niche: unknown saint in profile. 20. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Second floor, western chamber, southern niche: unknown saint in profile. 21. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 15. Second floor, western chamber, southern niche: two donors offering a church (?). 22. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Second floor, western chamber, southern niche: two donors offering a church (?). 23. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 15. Second floor, western chamber, southern niche: unknown female saint. 24. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Second floor, western chamber, southern niche: unknown female saint. 25. Vasilii Griaznov, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colours on paper, 1864/65. Photo by Leonas Žilevičius, 1987; re-photographed by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999, courtesy Vilnius County Archives. Second floor, western chamber, southern niche: unknown female saint.

LIST OF FIGURES

xiii

26. Jerzy Hoppen, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1932. Photo by Virginijus Usinavičius and Zenonas Nekrošius, 1997, courtesy LVIA. Computer arrangement by Giedrė Mickūnaitė. Second floor, western chamber, western niche: remnants of ornamental border. 27. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 16. Second floor, western chamber, western niche: the preaching (?) scene. 28. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Second floor, western chamber, western niche: the preaching (?) scene. 29. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 16. Second floor, western chamber, western niche: unknown male saint. 30. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Second floor, western chamber, western niche: unknown male saint. 31. Vasilii Griaznov, murals the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1864/65, a detail. Photo by Leonas Žilevičius, 1987; re-photographed by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999, courtesy Vilnius County Archives. Second floor, western chamber, western niche: unknown male saint. 32. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 18. Second floor, western chamber, western niche: two male figures in conversation. 33. Vasilii Griaznov, murals the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1864/65. Photo by Leonas Žilevičius, 1987; re-photographed by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999, courtesy Vilnius County Archives. Location unknown: Christ Pantocrator. 34. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 15. Second floor, central chamber: ornaments. 35. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Second floor, central chamber: ornaments. 36. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 18. Second floor, southern chamber: a conversation scene. 37. Jerzy Hoppen, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1932. Photo by Virginijus Usinavičius and Zenonas Nekrošius, 1997, courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. Computer arrangement by Giedrė Mickūnaitė. Audience-hall, eastern niche: unknown male figure in profile. 38. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 14. Audience-hall, eastern niche: unknown male figure in profile. 39. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Audience-hall, eastern niche: unknown male figure in profile.

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

40. Jerzy Hoppen, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1932. Photo by Virginijus Usinavicius and Zenonas Nekrošius, 1997, courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. Computer arrangement and contour drawing by Giedrė Mickūnaitė. Audience-hall, central niche. 41. Vasilii Griaznov, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1864/65. Photo by Leonas Žilevičius, 1987; re-photographed by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999, courtesy Vilnius County Archives. Audience-hall, central niche. 42. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 14. Audience-hall, central niche, scene on the left: a ruler and a lady in conversation. 43. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Audience-hall, central niche, scene on the left: a ruler and a lady in conversation. 44. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 14. Audience-hall, central niche, scene on the right: a ruler receiving gifts. 45. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Audience-hall, central niche, scene on the right: a ruler receiving gifts. 46. Murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, detail of a photograph, before 1927. re-photographed by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999, courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. Audience-hall, central niche, remnants of the scene on the right. 47. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 14. Audience-hall, central niche, scene on top: a standing ruler. 48. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Audience-hall, central niche, scene on top: a standing ruler. 49. Jerzy Hoppen, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1932. Photo by Virginijus Usinavičius and Zenonas Nekrošius, 1997, courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. Computer arrangement by Giedrė Mickūnaitė. Audience-hall, south-western niche, remnants of decoration. 50. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 15. Audience-hall, south-western niche: Tatars (?). 51. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Audience-hall, south-western niche: Tatars (?). 52. Jerzy Hoppen, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1932. Photo by Virginijus Usinavičius and Zenonas Nekrošius, 1997,

LIST OF FIGURES

xv

courtesy Lithuanian State Historical Archives. Computer arrangement by Giedrė Mickūnaitė. Audience-hall, western niche: St Nicholas (?) in medallion. 53. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 16. Audience-hall, western niche: St Nicholas (?) in medallion. 54. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Audience-hall, western niche: St Nicholas (?) in medallion. 55. Vasilii Griaznov, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1864/65. Photo by Leonas Žilevičius, 1987; re-photographed by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999, courtesy Vilnius County Archives. Audience-hall, western niche: St Nicholas (?) in medallion. 56. Wincenty Smokowski, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 16. Audience-hall, western niche: scene of conversation (?). 57. Jan Nepomuk Głowacki, murals from the palace Trakai island-castle, detail of fig. 17. Audience-hall, western niche: scene of conversation (?). 58. Vasilii Griaznov, murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle, water-colour on paper, 1864/65. Photo by Leonas Žilevičius, 1987; re-photographed by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 1999, courtesy Vilnius County Archives. A group of three women and a bearded man, location unknown. 59. Vytautas’ denar, second decade of the fifteenth century. From Ivanauskas and Balčius, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės lydiniai ir monetos, fig. 25a, 57. Averse: the Columns of Gediminas; reverse: a lion and a lily. 60. Vytautas’ denar, second decade of the fifteenth century. From Ivanauskas and Balčius, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės lydiniai ir monetos, fig. 25b, 57. Averse: the Columns of Gediminas; reverse: two leopards and a lily. 61. Vytautas’ denar, ca. 1396. From Ivanauskas and Balčius, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės lydiniai ir monetos, fig. 23, 55. Averse: Vytis (Lithuanian coat of arms – mounted knight); reverse: the Columns of Gediminas. 62. Vytautas’ half denar, ca. 1396. From Ivanauskas and Balčius, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės lydiniai ir monetos, fig. 24, 56. Averse: the Columns of Gediminas; reverse: Vytis (Lithuanian coat of arms – mounted knight). 63. The seal of Vytautas, 1379. From Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, fig. top right, p. 177. 64. The seal of Kestutis, 1379. From Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, fig. top left, p. 177. 65. The seal of Vytautas, 1384 – 1385. From Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 180. 66. The seal ofVytautas, 1386 – 1392. From Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 183.

xvi

LIST OF FIGURES

67. The seal of Vytautas, 1397 – 1411. From Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 189. 68. The seal of Vytautas, 1415 – 1423. From Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 187. 69. The major seal of Vytautas, 1401 – 1404. From Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 185. 70. The major seal of Vytautas, 1407 – 1430. From Semkowicz, Sfragistyka Witołda, 16 (photograph on the right); Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 186 (lithograph on the left). 71. Unknown artist, the portrait of Grand Duke Vytautas, oil on canvas, second half of the seventeenth century, Vilnius Cathedral. Courtesy Bishopric of Vilnius. 72. Workshop of Józef Ozębłowski, the portrait of Grand Duke Vytautas from the Radvilas’ gallery in Nesviezh, lithograph, 1841. Courtesy Lithuanian Art Museum. 73. Unknown artist, the portrait of Grand Duke Vytautas from the Augustinian Church in Brest Litovsk, oil on canvas, late seventeenth – early eighteenth century. Courtesy Lithuanian Art Museum. 74. Unknown artist, Grand Duke Vytautas (?), wooden sculpture covered with silver plate, second half of the seventeenth century, the Chapel of St Casimir, Vilnius Cathedral. Courtesy Bishopric of Vilnius. 75. Unknown artist, the portrait of Grand Duke Vytautas, oil on canvas, end of the seventeenth century. Parish Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Trakai. Courtesy Bishopric of Vilnius. 76. The portrait of Grand Duke Vytautas, woodcut from the chronicle by Alessandro Guagnini (1611). Photo by Giedrė Mickūnaitė, 2002, courtesy Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. 77. Unknown artist, Queen of Heaven from Old Trakai, tempera and oil on wood panel, carving, gilding, sixteenth, mid-eighteenth century, Vilnius Cathedral. Courtesy Lithuanian Art Museum. 78. Unknown artist, Madonna of Trakai, oil on wood panel, carving, gilding, sixteenth-early seventeenth century, silver setting, early eighteenth century, Parish Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, Trakai. Courtesy Bishopric of Vilnius. 79. Unknown artist, Madonna of Trakai, oil on wood panel, sixteenth, early seventeenth century, state after restoration. Courtesy Bishopric of Vilnius. 80. Maria Orłowska-Gabryś and Stanisław Nahlik, the Jagiellonian Card Pack, 2001. Queen Hedwig as Queen of Spades. From Jacek Balcewicz, “Kolekcion-

LIST OF FIGURES

xvii

erskie rarytasy: Jagiellonowie / Card Rarities: The Jagellonians / Sammlerstüke: Jagiellonen Spielkarten,” Casino 2 (2001): 17. 81. Maria Orłowska-Gabryś and Stanisław Nahlik, the Jagiellonian Card Pack, 2001. King Jogaila as King of Spades. From Jacek Balcewicz, “Kolekcionerskie rarytasy: Jagiellonowie,” 17. 82. Maria Orłowska-Gabryś and Stanisław Nahlik, the Jagiellonian Card Pack, 2001. Grand Duke Vytautas as Jack of Spades. From Jacek Balcewicz, “Kolekcionerskie rarytasy: Jagiellonowie,” 17.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AAAV ABS ACC AOZR AU AUUF AW BBL BIHEB

Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai / Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis Acta Baltico-Slavica Acta Consiliii Constancienis Akty otnossiashchiesia k istorii Zapadnoi Rosii Akta unji Polski z Litwą Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Figura n.s. Ateneum Wileńskie Bibliotheca Baltica Lithvania Bibliothéque de l’Institut Hellénique d’Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines de Venise BJ Biblioteka Jagiellońska BK Lietuvos metraštis. Bychovco kronika BN Biblioteka Narodowa, Warsaw BRMŠ Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai By Belarus’ian CDECV Codex diplomaticus Ecclesiae Cathedralis necnon dioeceseos Vilnensis CDPr Codex diplomaticus Prussicus CEV Codex epistolaris Vitoldi, Magni Ducis Lithuaniae, 1376 – 1430 CEXV Codex epistolaris seaculi decimi quinti ChDS Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14 bis 16 Jahrhundert CMSD Codex Mednicensis seu Samogitiae diocesis CEXV Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti COE Contemporaries of Erasmus D German Długosz, Annales Joannis Dlugossii annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae Długosz, Opera omnia Joannis Długosz Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia

xx GDL Hu KB KH Lat LB LC LE Lites LM LSP.SH Lt LTE LUB LVIA MAB MADA NŽ Oeuvres PLC Pl PP PSB PSRL RBrS Rozbiór Ru Sąvadas Sl Sk SLL SRPr SŹ Vat. Lat. Vitoldiana VMPL ZfO

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Grand Duchy of Lithuania Hungarian Kultūros barai Kwartalnik Historyczny Latin Lituanistinė biblioteka Liber Cancellariae Stanislai Ciołek Lietuvių enciklopedija Lites ac res gesta inter polonos ordinemque cruciferorum Lietuvos metrika Lituano-Slavica Poznaniensia. Studia Historica Lithuanian Lietuviškoji tarybinė enciklopedija Liv-, Esth- und Curländishes Urkundenbuch nebst Regesten Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas Mokslų akademijos biblioteka, Vilnius Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A Naujasis židinys Oeuvres de Ghillebert de Lannoy Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Polish Pisma polityczne z czasów pierwszego bezkrólewia Polski słownik biograficzny Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores Gawęda, St. et al., Rozbiór krytyczny Annalium Poloniae Jana Dlugosza Russian Lietuvos TSR istorijos ir kultūros paminklų sąvadas, vol. 1, Vilnius Slavonic Slovak Senoji Lietuvos literatūra Scriptores rerum Prussicarum Studia Źródloznawcze Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vitoldiana: Codex privilegiorum Vitoldi Magni Ducis Lithuaniae Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lituaniae Zeitschrift für Ostforschung

A NOTE ON PERSONAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES

This book mentions many names that are not standard in English and their versions in the languages of Eastern Europe vary. Understanding that choices are arbitrary, I have used the Lithuanian version of the names of historical personalities regarded to be of Lithuanian origin and Polish ones for those of Polish origin. Names of historical actors, above all rulers and magnates, that have a standard English form, have been anglicised. As to authors of primary sources, I tried to keep the name as it appeared in the text referred to. However, in a number of cases, I have changed this name into its better-known form. For example, I use Długosz instead of Dlugosius and Camblak instead of Tsamblak. As to geographical names, all names of places, rivers, and lakes, that have no standard English equivalent, are kept in the forms that they are known in the country/ies they belong today. To lessen the confusion with personal and geographical names, I have indicated their versions in languages they are wider known in the notes or otherwise.

INTRODUCTION

In the late 1980s, a wave of national revival rolled through the Baltic States. The so-called Singing Revolution manifested itself in many ways and had many faces. As with any other revolution, the Singing one had to reconsider its relation with the past. Naturally, the Soviet reality was rejected and a “golden age” was discovered in the interwar period. In Lithuania, the bond with the Lithuanian Republic was laboriously fashioned: towns and streets were returned their ancient names and cleansed of Soviet connotations, newspapers and magazines were issued under earlier titles, books were reprinted and manuscripts published, old monuments were rebuilt and new ones erected. Destroyed statues of national heroes were restored with great zeal as the most visible junction to the past. The new monuments that emerged throughout the country had broad appeal and emotional charge. Together with numerous sculptures from the time of independence, the statue of Grand Duke Vytautas / Witold / Vitovt (ca. 1348–1430), generally called Vytautas the Great, was erected in Kaunas in 1989 (fig. 1). The monument was placed in the central part of the city and for a while became a popular meeting spot and a focal point for numerous public events. For several years there was even a professional photographer who offered his services to those wishing to be immortalized in front of the Grand Duke’s effigy. The rebuilt statue of the medieval ruler conveyed numerous messages: a protest against the Soviet regime, which had destroyed the monument in the 1950s, an allusion to the country’s power in the Middle Ages, and a connection with interwar values. The original statue of Vytautas was commissioned by the Military Academy and erected in 1932. The construction of this monument was the result of festivities held throughout Lithuania in 1930, when the country commemorated the 500th anniversary of the Grand Duke’s death. Although the committee of the so-called Jubilee Year planned rather sophisticated events,

2

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the country as a whole was involved in a kind of pseudo-religious veneration of its national hero. The Grand Duke’s portrait was carried across Lithuania like a relic,1 newborn sons were named after Vytautas, and monuments sprang up in nearly each town and parish. Most of these constructions were rather primitive and artistically weak; nonetheless, they carried an immense emotional charge. Three teenage shepherds, for example, decided to build a monument to the Duke. For a few years they carried pebbles onto a mound where their pastures met. Finally, a triangle-shaped spearhead construction was built on this place. The inscription indicated that it was built to commemorate the Grand Duke.2 The so-called Jubilee Committee assembled to coordinate the festivities tried to prevent the multiplication of amateurish effigies and advertised the idea of a Vytautas’ mausoleum that would also serve as a national shrine. The money was eagerly donated and, within four years, the Vytautas the Great Military Museum was built in Kaunas, then the temporary capital of Lithuania. The museum’s expositions were meant to express the heroic spirit of the Lithuanian people. Regardless of the success of the project, however, the need for effigies was still not satisfied. Hence, when the Military Academy named after the Grand Duke commissioned a monument to be placed in its courtyard, numerous voices were raised urging that the sculpture be displayed in a more public space. Although the monument was designed to serve the representational needs of the Academy, it also had a much broader purpose: to demonstrate Vytautas’ glory and his appeal to patriotic and national sentiment. The sculpture represents Vytautas in full armor wearing the grand ducal mantle and cap (fig. 1). Both of his hands rest on a bare sword. These are the traditional attributes of sovereigns known ever since the Middle Ages and widely used in the Grand Duke’s portraits of the early modern time (figs. 69–71). While the statue itself accords with the principal requirements of royal imagery, its base exceeds them. The pedestal is a massive rectangular pillar with the embedded figures of four defeated warriors. The kneeling solders support the effigy of the victorious Duke. Moreover, their nationalities are easily identifiable and represent a Russian (fig. 2), a Teutonic knight (fig. 3), a Tatar (fig. 4), and a Pole (fig. 5). Generally speaking, the figures of the warriors signify Lithuanian dominion over Eastern Europe during the late Middle Ages. However, the introduction of the Pole in this composition alludes to the desires of the early twentieth century. While Vytautas’ victories against Russian principalities, Tatar hordes, and the Teutonic Order are well

INTRODUCTION

3

known historical facts, the twentieth-century composition also included the personification of Poland, a country Vytautas had never been at war with. In this way, the hated usurpers of the historical capital, Vilnius, appeared among the historically defeated nations. Moreover, Vytautas’ effigy was positioned so that the Grand Duke looked towards the occupied Vilnius.3 The map, featuring the grand duchy extending “from sea to sea” (fig. 6) embedded on the front side of the base, made the idea of Lithuania’s might even more explicit. Although politically thorough, the monument’s artistic expression is twofold. While the realism of the Duke’s statue fulfils the requirements of academic art, the effigies of the warriors are styled following the principles of Art Deco. I would suggest that the difference in styles is a compromise between the artist and the public. The heroic image of Vytautas has a clear visual expression and any stylization would have been perceived as a violation of this perception. Therefore, the popular vision of the hero dominates the trends in modern art. As to its political message, the monument functions like a scheme representing the desires associated with Vytautas’ image and cult. The representation of a warrior in full regalia reflects a ruler’s rank and military skill. The sculptures of the defeated soldiers and the orientation of the monument towards Vilnius not only incorporated the political desires of the interwar period, but also relied on the much deeper roots of Vytautas’ image that this book presents and examines. Having begun investigating the image of Vytautas, I was neither interested in the Grand Duke’s deeds, nor in writing an exposé of his image. Rather, I have tried to answer questions as to how and why it happened that Vytautas came to be considered as he was. Arranged according to rulers and battles, historical tradition usually singles out particular persons or events as most significant for a particular nation or country. In the history of Lithuania, Vytautas stands out from those late medieval European rulers who are commonly accepted as being their nations’ great heroes. It seems that the lives of such rulers are distinguished by several features: long reigns, political achievements, and military victories. Their deeds and lives are well known, and widely approved of. Vytautas’ life, however, is full of compromise and contradiction; his deeds are frequently regarded as ambiguous, his ends as too ambitious. A betrayer and loyal ally, twice a refugee and avenger, a born heathen thrice baptized, a supporter and promoter of the Catholic Church, a perfidious neophyte, always striving for victory, glory, and regalia, an omnipotent ruler, who died

4

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

waiting for the royal wreath, and a tyrant relishing bloodshed—these and many other characteristics have been ascribed to Vytautas in historical writings of varied dates and provenances. Moreover, all of them are factually based. Therefore, before examining the Grand Duke’s image and reputation, let me briefly introduce the main facts and circumstances of his life, and present a historical panorama of his lifetime.

THE LIFE AND DEEDS OF VYTAUTAS THE GREAT Lithuania entered the fourteenth century as a state constantly expanding into the territories of the former Kievan Rus’ and governed by heathen rulers, of whom the policy of Grand Duke Gediminas (1316–1341)4 became decisive for this epoch.5 Gediminas established a permanent grand ducal seat in Vilnius and maintained contacts with neighboring Poland and, in the early 1320s, with the Papacy. He invited merchants and artisans from the German towns to settle in Lithuania, granting them broad immunities. Historical tradition credits Gediminas to have set the pattern of grand ducal authority and state government. The hesitant tone of the above statement requires an explanation; it lies in Lithuanian heathenism up to 1387. Heathen Lithuanians left very few records, which also came from the pens of Christian scribes. Thus the picture of this period for the most part relies on foreign informers, who, of course, have not written “objective” testimonies, but rather reported in accordance with their (or their audiences’) understanding, goals, and expectations. Despite the fragmentary sources, one might say that, by the end of Gediminas’ reign, the grand ducal authority was established within the lands of Lithuania and Samogitia (more or less coinciding with today’s territory of Lithuania) and the Ruthenian principalities. Geography was decisive in Lithuania’s cultural and political encounters, ranging from Byzantium and the Tatar hordes in the southeast, to Russian and Livonian lands in the north, as well as Poland and the Teutonic Knights in the southwest. The second half of the fourteenth century witnessed the growth of contacts with the Christian neighborhood; few of these encounters, however, were peaceful. Gediminas died in 1341, to be succeeded in the grand ducal seat in Vilnius by his son Jaunutis.6 In 1345, two other sons of Gediminas, Algirdas7 and Kęstutis,8 overthrew their brother and Algirdas was elevated to Grand Duke. Kęstutis governed the duchy of Trakai just as before the turnover. However,

INTRODUCTION

5

the two brothers cooperated closely in matters of state, and historiography labeled their cooperation a diarchy. It was sometime around 1348, that a son, Vytautas by name, was born to Duke Kęstutis. From the late 1360s, Vytautas begins to be mentioned in historical narratives. The young prince’s appearance on the political and military scene looks like a traditional apprenticeship in warfare and statecraft. A major change in our knowledge of Vytautas begins with the death of Grand Duke Algirdas in 1377. Jogaila9 succeeds his father to the grand ducal seat and into the diarchy with his uncle Kęstutis. The latter aspect disappoints the young ruler, who begins building his own political line. Vytautas also takes part in Jogaila’s plans and holds his own political platform, which differs from his father’s, sometimes even opposing it.10 Events come to a head in the early 1380s with the civil war breaking out between Kęstutis and Jogaila. Vytautas fully supports his father in the coup d’état of 1381, which develops as follows: Kęstutis, having become aware of Jogaila’s secret negotiations with the Teutonic Order, expels him from Vilnius and is recognized as the Grand Duke. Naturally, Vytautas’ political role increases. However, the grand ducal office places a heavy onus on Kęstutis.11 In 1382, Jogaila captures Vilnius in Kęstutis’ absence. Trying to regain the grand ducal seat, Kęstutis declares war on his nephew. The forces being unequal, negotiations seem to offer the best solution to the conflict. Having come to the camp of Jogaila, Kęstutis and Vytautas are captured and imprisoned in the castle of Kreva.12 Several days later, Kęstutis is found dead (tradition says he was strangled on the order of Jogaila and his brother Skirgaila13). The body of Kęstutis is cremated according to grand ducal ceremonials.14 Vytautas is kept in prison. Late in the year 1382, Vytautas disguised in his wife’s clothing escapes from imprisonment and flees to Prussia, asking the Teutonic Knights for refuge.15 The noble refugee joins the Knights’ policy and actions against Lithuania. Later (on 21 October 1383) he is baptized as Wigand.16 It seems that the Order expands the credentials given to Vytautas. However, Vytautas prove equal to the credit he is given: on 3 July 1384, he breaks with the Order, devastates its castles, and, loaded with booty, marches to Lithuania.17 Back home, he is granted the government of certain Ruthenian territories; however, his policy and decisions of “international” character are left under the control of Jogaila and his brothers. Sometime in the early winter of 1386, Vytautas, as a governor of the Ruthenian lands, is baptized according to Or-

6

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

thodox rites and takes the name of Alexander.18 A year later, at the wedding of Jogaila and Queen Hedwig19 in Krakow, he is re-baptized a Catholic, retaining Alexander as his name. As king of Poland, Jogaila is much more preoccupied with matters of the kingdom. Although Polish garrisons enter the main Lithuanian castles, the grand ducal seat in Vilnius becomes vacant for increasingly longer periods. This vacancy, though temporary, attracts the attention of Vytautas, who accumulates more and more power and influence. To Vytautas’ disappointment, Skirgaila is recognized as superior among the brothers of Jogaila (i.e., potential claimants to the grand ducal office) in 1389. Tensions grow and Vytautas becomes determined to occupy Vilnius. The occupation fails, and early in 1390 Vytautas flees to the Teutonic Order for the second time.20 Vytautas arrives in Prussia with quite a large entourage and certain authority left behind in Lithuania (especially in the city of Grodna21). Moreover, men-at-arms from Lithuania and Samogitia continuously flow into Prussia, expressing their support for Vytautas. The Lithuanian Duke requires the Order’s support in taking Vilnius, and, with it, the grand ducal seat. However, the Knights have not, over six years, forgotten how the first stay of Vytautas ended. They hesitate temporarily, but the current political situation favors Vytautas. In September–October 1390, the Teutonic Knights, together with Vytautas, besiege Vilnius, but fail to occupy the castles. Attacks against Lithuania grow vaster and more intense; moreover, several Lithuanian castles surrender to Vytautas without even entering battle. Jogaila begins secretly negotiating with his cousin, promising him the rule over the grand duchy. In late June of 1392, Vytautas repeats the pre-arranged scenario of departure: he breaks with the Order, destroying the Teutonic castles, and marches to Vilnius to be recognized as the governor of his motherland. Formally, Vytautas governs Lithuania under Jogaila’s supremacy until 1401, when he received the grand ducal title for life. In fact, soon after his installation in Vilnius, Vytautas acts and is perceived as the Grand Duke. His moves and the steps undertaken toward building up his authority are as follows: Having been recognized by Jogaila, Vytautas begins consolidating his powers and demands recognition of the different lands entering into the grand duchy. Those hesitating to acknowledge the new governor lose their offices, if not their lives. By 1396 Vytautas firmly controls his office and begins expansionist wars eastwards. To secure the western frontier, Vytautas and Jogaila repeatedly transfer Samogitia to the Teutonic Knights.22 In 1397

INTRODUCTION

7

and 1398, he leads successful campaigns against Tatar hordes and resettles the Tatars and Karaites into Lithuania and Poland. Vytautas becomes determined to subjugate the Tatars. This aim, however, ends in ruins on the steppes of the Vorskla River23 as the large army assembled by the Grand Duke suffers an absolute defeat in its battle with Khan Edigey24 (12 August 1399). This loss is a major challenge to the growth of Vytautas power and authority. Nonetheless, the Duke maintains his office and gradually regains military power; moreover, he attempts to balance Lithuania’s eastern and western policy. The Samogitians revolt against the Knights, but in early 1400 Vytautas supports the Teutonic rule there. The situation changes in 1407, when Vytautas concludes first a truce and, later, an eternal peace (September 1408) with Muscovy and supports the Samogitian uprising of 1409. Samogitia is de facto united with the grand duchy and the Teutonic Knights declare war on Poland and Lithuania, which is postponed by a truce until June 24, 1410. On July 15, 1410, the allied Polish–Lithuanian forces defeat the Teutonic army at the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg. The consequences of this victory become a matter of numerous disputes. In 1411, a peace treaty concluded at Thorn (Toruń) recognizes Samogitia as a part of the grand duchy for Vytautas’ lifetime. In 1413, Vytautas and Jogaila begin the conversion of the Samogitians. The dispute with the Teutonic Knights involves the Emperor Sigismund of Luxemburg (1387–1437) and is placed on the agenda of the Council of Constance (1414–1418). Meanwhile, Vytautas begins strengthening his position in Ruthenia, seeking the restoration of the Lithuanian metropolitanate of the Orthodox Church and making attempts at a church union. In the early 1420s, the Grand Duke intervenes in Hussite affairs and is even invited to become king of the Czechs. Without providing a definite answer, Vytautas sends Sigismund of Kaributas25 to Bohemia as his representative, and he declares war on Emperor Sigismund. On September 27, 1422, Poland and Lithuania conclude a peace whit the Teutonic Knights. This treaty defines the borders between Lithuania and the Order’s state and recognizes Samogitia as an integrated part of the grand duchy. From this moment on, Vytautas refocuses his interest from the Hussites to Ruthenia, in particular the principalities of Pskov and Novgorod. Vytautas’ authority, international reputation, and wealth grow. In January 1429, he holds a meeting of East Central European rulers and potentates at Lutsk, in Vohynia. There, Emperor Sigismund offers Vytautas a royal wreath.

8

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Regardless of Polish opposition, the Grand Duke accepts the imperial offer, resulting in intense disagreements with King Jogaila and Polish lords. The coronation is scheduled for September 8, 1430; however, imperial envoys carrying the crown are forced to return from the Polish border, and the coronation is twice postponed. Still waiting for the crown, the Grand Duke falls ill and dies on October 27, 1430. After Vytautas’ death, Jogaila’s brother Boleslas Švitrigaila26 and Vytautas’ brother Sigismund27 compete for the grand ducal seat. In 1432, Sigismund attains victory over Švitrigaila and takes the office. However, his government is a failure and the Grand Duke is assassinated as a result of a noblemen’s plot. In 1440, the Lithuanian nobility elects Jogaila’s son Casimir, still a minor, as Grand Duke. The first decade of Casimir’s reign signifies the growth of the nobility’s powers and increased share in state government.

STRUCTURE AND METHOD This brief description reveals events and circumstances that today seem decisive in the formation of Vytautas’ image. Throughout the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, they were referred to at different occasions and with various aims. The goal of this book is to construct the process of the creation and the functions of the image of Vytautas the Great. To put it simply, this is an analysis of how Vytautas became known as “the Great” and why specifically it was Vytautas who earned this epithet. Viewed from today’s perspective, the Grand Duke’s image developed rather unevenly. It rose and fell depending on the needs of the given time and people. Among many peaks in the appeal to Vytautas’ name and memory, the most critical would be the interwar period. The newly established Lithuanian Republic exploited the image of the medieval ruler most profoundly. Looking back, one would observe that another peak of interest in Vytautas was reached in the sixteenth century. Humanists appealed to the Grand Duke in their search for models and guidance for their own time. However, a closer look at Renaissance sources reveals that authors not only “produced” the image, but also were highly dependent on its medieval formations. These reasons made me determined to search for the roots of image making during Vytautas’ lifetime. The inquiry into medieval sources opened up a broad panorama of grand ducal propaganda, a phenomenon little touched upon thus far. As mentioned above, this research concentrates on the building, shaping, and functioning of Vytautas’ image; therefore, biographical ref-

INTRODUCTION

9

erence has been reduced to a minimum. This reduction shaped the structure of the entire book and in particular its first chapter. More or less keeping to the chronology of major events, it examines Vytautas’ actions aimed at the manifestation of his qualities as a candidate for, and holder of, the grand ducal office. Thus, the inquiry begins with an investigation as to the Grand Duke’s origins, looks at the exercise of his office, explores the echoes of his activities in foreign countries, and concludes with a discussion of his intended coronation. However, discussions of a certain “genre” of the ruler’s activities and/or propaganda interrupt this chronological layout. The second chapter considers the period from Vytautas’ death in 1430 until the end of the fifteenth century. This time period appears decisive in the shaping of the image created throughout the Grand Duke’s lifetime. Furthermore, texts written soon after Vytautas’ death contributed new features that influenced the overall perception of the Grand Duke. In addition, fifteenthcentury legal documents consolidated Vytautas’ name and reputation within the juridical tradition. A major part of the second chapter is dedicated to the texts by Jan Długosz (1415–1480).28 Given the importance of Długosz’s historical contribution and the amount of scholarly work dedicated to it, extensive inquiry into his writings might appear unnecessary. However, attentive reading of Długosz’s history of Poland offers unexpected insights into the development of Vytautas’ imagery. Moreover, Długosz, living when he did, provided a bridge between medieval and early modern portions of the image. The third chapter justifies the extensive analysis of Długosz and reveals several unexpected points that Długosz’s successors overlooked or neglected. However, the numerous histories of the sixteenth century are not the most significant material under investigation. Establishment of a historical tradition and, furthermore, the spread of print highly facilitated the circulation of Vytautas’ story. Thus, in many cases, historians of the Renaissance mediated the Grand Duke’s image to the literate public of the sixteenth century. As the Grand Duke’s deeds became better known, applications of his image became more diverse. The appeals to the image constitute the framework for the third chapter of this study. Most features of the image were formed during the medieval period; however, they never saw such a broad application and appropriation as in the early modern age. Wide and intense use of the image resulted in a certain rigidity of perceptions of the Grand Duke. Thus, quite clearly defined features began to acquire a thematic relevance. Vytautas’ name is evoked to manifest and define

10

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

supreme authority, to praise and reproach rulers, to set examples and teach military leaders, or to justify a variety of peoples and confessions existing in Lithuania. An overview of the traditions of the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites, who particularly cherished Vytautas’ memory, ends the discussion on the manifestations of Vytautas’ image in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Interestingly enough, Humanist perceptions of Vytautas contribute a major feature to his image: tyranny. The discussion of this tyrannical image concludes the third chapter and sets the framework for the final section of this book. The final, fourth chapter aims at a comparison between various parts and stages of Vytautas’ image making. It summarizes the discussion and places it against a broader background of royal imagery. In addition, this chapter considers several new sources that have not developed in certain features of the image, but which might have influenced different perceptions of the Grand Duke. By reminding the reader of the previous discussion, the final section ends the analysis of Vytautas’ imagery, returning to where the inquiry began—that is, to the present day. As to method, this is an interdisciplinary and intermethodological study. As with most historical inquiries, the investigation of Vytautas’ image is by nature a descriptive text. In fact, description and even retelling of sources is a fundamental aspect of this book, which begins with the conviction that the image of Vytautas actually exists. From the very beginning, I have acknowledged the image and recognized its principal features. On the one hand, this knowledge inspired the investigation; on the other, sometimes it proved an obstacle to the research. The guiding principle of the study was therefore to allow the sources to speak and, thus, shape the inquiry. The openness to primary materials led the research in several unexpected directions, resulting in minor studies within the major study. The analysis of the decoration of the palace in Trakai (chapter I) and Vytautas’ role within the traditions of Lithuanian Tatars, Karaites, and Jews (chapter III) are the most obvious examples. These parts employ and rely upon an iconographic approach, the study of symbols of authority, as well as an inquiry into folklore and oral traditions. Despite the fact that primary sources considered herein significantly broadened the initial project, in some cases they also limited its scope. At first, I planned the study as a more comparative undertaking. My idea was to compare the image of Vytautas with other renowned image-builders of the later Middle Ages. At the turn of the fourteenth century, rulers of Italian

INTRODUCTION

11

city-states, Dukes of Burgundy, and the Holy Roman emperors were deeply concerned with how they and their authority were perceived and treated. They fashioned these perceptions by means of power and show, literature and the visual arts, expressive devotion to the Christian faith and splendid pageantry. None of these means were foreign to Vytautas. Hence, the comparison between forms of medieval “publicity” and its commissioners as well as customers seemed enlightening. However, a deeper inquiry into Western European history resulted in an opposite conclusion: the more I analyzed the possible parallels, the less they convinced me. Despite many corresponding aspects, the greatest obstacle was the long European kingship tradition. In Lithuania, sources are nearly silent about grand ducal power prior to Vytautas. As to the theater of the state, it seems that Vytautas was the very first (hence, not always successful) director of these performances. Furthermore, the illiteracy of pre-Christian Lithuanian society resulted in a making of history, as opposed to the remaking so popular in the late medieval West. Finally, there is the survival of the image. In contrast to its numerous western counterparts, the image of Vytautas not only survived, but even flourished long after the Grand Duke’s death. Most of the images of European rulers, save those who became saints, sank into oblivion despite being occasionally evoked by the historian’s pen. Having minimized Western parallels, I introduced an Eastern one. Comparison with Byzantium was not part of the initial plan for the study. Lack of contacts, sources, and studies on the issue did not appear encouraging for a broader inquiry. Nevertheless, the investigation of artworks such as the murals from Trakai (chapter I) and the banner of Vytautas (chapter II), as well as panegyrics to the Grand Duke, suggested reconsideration of the initial planning. I still, however, lacked sources with which to demonstrate Byzantine influence on the court of Vytautas. Hence, a section entitled “The Sense of Byzantium” (chapter IV) reflects the compromise between the fragmented source evidence and interpretations of courtly life and politics in medieval Lithuania. Following the existing routes of history writing as well as finding my own paths within the field, I relied extensively on scholarly research. In addition to my background reading, which is rarely directly reflected in notes and quotations, the bulk of literature is dedicated to the medieval and early modern history of East Central Europe. Although not absolutely unexpected, I was pleasantly surprised to see how the image of Vytautas had penetrated

12

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

not only the minds of historians of the past, but also those of the scholars of today.

SOURCES AND SCHOLARSHIP The broad chronological scope of this study resulted in the need to use numerous and highly diverse sources, both visual and written. Due to the specific function of individual visual data, they are discussed in appropriate sections of this book. As to the written sources, this study relies on Vytautas’ correspondence,29 privileges,30 and various treaties concluded with the Teutonic Knights31 and Poland.32 As to the narrative sources, two major collections, the Prussian chronicles and the Russian annals,33 formed the basis of this book. While the chronicles written in the state of the Teutonic Knights are quite precise and generally well informed about Lithuanian matters and events in Vytautas’ entourage, the Russian annals provide somewhat distanced commentary, frequently supplemented with anecdotes and impressionistic storytelling. Concerning sources and documents from the later periods, materials from the Lithuanian Metrica offer a glimpse at the appeal to Vytautas’ name in international agreements, private records, and legal cases.34 As already mentioned, this book significantly relies on the works of Jan Długosz. Interestingly, these well-known texts appeared like a discovery in this study: many judgements made by this author acquired new and unexpected meaning when viewed from the perspective of Vytautas’ imagery. Early modern sources are much more numerous. For the most part, they belong to the Humanist tradition as well as the writing of national histories and political pamphlets. I have also considered Baroque historiography, Jesuit school-drama, and folklore evidence. Some of these materials only contain echoes of the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, for a study concerned with the image rather than the person, they yield highly valuable information on medievalism and the “medievalization” of the historical mentality. Due to the great variety of written records, I have introduced each source or group of sources in the appropriate section of the text. Although quite widely known and frequently recognized, the image of Vytautas received little scholarly attention. In fact, only an article and a brief study by Alvydas Nikžentaitis considered the functioning of the image across the centuries.35 The interwar cult of the Grand Duke has attracted more interest. Nevertheless, only a few articles have been published thus far: Giedrius

INTRODUCTION

13

Viliūnas looked at the appeals to the Grand Duke’s name in the Lithuanian literature of the nineteenth and early twentieth century.36 Dangiras Mačiulis analyzed how the cult of Vytautas was cast to suit the goals of the nationalist dictatorship in Lithuania during the interwar period.37 In contrast to the four studies dealing with Vytautas’ image, the list of monographs and the Grand Duke’s biographies is much longer.38 Scholars of different nationalities rather than schools of historical research have perceived Vytautas’ image and biography differently; thus, I shall concisely present perceptions of Vytautas dominating Lithuanian, Polish, Russian, and German scholarship. Lithuanian scholars do recognize Vytautas as a charismatic and talented ruler, the protector of state and nation, and the advocate of the country’s independence. Case studies examining Vytautas’ particular activities sometimes interrupt this highly positive perception, but do not challenge the overall understanding of the Grand Duke’s role and reputation. In contrast, Polish historiography is somewhat reserved in its admiration of the Lithuanian hero. Although quite unanimous about Vytautas being a talented statesman, Polish authors are critical of the Grand Duke’s changing position towards Poland. Russian scholars in some way combine the Polish and Lithuanian perceptions and place additional emphasis on Vytautas’ relation to Orthodox Christianity and the Tatar hordes. The coexistence of evil and noble demons as ascribed to Vytautas by V. F. Voevodskii is characteristic of the interpretation of the Grand Duke’s activities in Russian historiography.39 The life and deeds of the Lithuanian ruler constitute a marginal topic in German scholarship dedicated to the history of the Teutonic Order. The only monograph on the Grand Duke was written by Josef Pfitzner and published in 1930.40 Pfitzner thoroughly analyzes Vytautas’ politics, describes the Grand Duke’s diplomatic skills, and admires his military success and his ability to arrange political spectacles. This study offers deep and sometimes unexpected insights into late medieval culture and places the Lithuanian ruler within the context of the contemporary history of Eastern and Western Europe. As to the studies that significantly informed my project, I would like to highlight Sven Ekdahl’s book on the battle of Grunwald.41 This work not only thoroughly examines the battle and its outcome, but also considers the myth of Grunwald/Tannenberg and its exploitation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A selection of studies on the “invention of tradition” edited by Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger42 inspired my initial hypothesis and

14

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

led me to reading a number of works on historical myth making. Although rarely referred to directly in this book, these studies43 shaped my inquiry by suggesting new questions and different perspectives. Research on medieval and early-modern rulership was another source of theoretical impulse. Interestingly enough, “great” medieval rulers were usually canonized if they were good, while the bad ones acquired a negative, mystical, or even prophetic allure.44 The image of Vytautas combined these two oppositions; however, none of them was “pure.” Such contradictions are more particular to the imagery of early modern monarchs, of whom Queen Elizabeth I of England, Louis XIV of France, and Peter the Great of Russia can be easily singled out.45 Hence, in this respect, Vytautas’ image transcended the time in which it was cast. Generally speaking, the subject of this book relates to myths employed, patterns followed, and tools applied in building images of rulers across premodern Europe, but it is my conviction that the ambiguous image of Vytautas and its surprisingly long existence distinguished this inquiry from other studies on a similar topic.

NOTES 1 Didžiojo Lietuvos Kunigaikščio Vytauto jubiliejinių 1930 m. paveikslo kelionės po Lietuvą ir Lietuvos miestų, miestelių vaizdai su trumpais jų aprašymais: albomas (The travel of the portrait of Grand Duke Vytautas throughout Lithuania during the jubilee year of 1930 and images from Lithuanian cities and towns together with their brief descriptions: an album) (Kaunas: Joselevičiaus spaustuvė, 1931). 2 For a thorough description of monuments to Vytautas, see Jonas Aničas, “Paminklai Vytautui Didžiajam” (Monuments to Vytautas the Great), Statyba ir architektūra 6, 7, 8 (1990): 17–19, 13–15, 13–14. For the monument built by the teenagers, see ibid., 7: 13. 3 Dangiras Mačiulis, “Vytauto Didžiojo metų (1930) kampanijos prasmė” (The Reasons for Vytautas the Great to Be Made a National Hero), Lituanistica 2 (2001): 66. 4 Gediminas, Lt / Ru, Gedimin / Pl. Giedimin / Lat, Gedeminne (b. ca. 1275). Dates of lives and reigns of the Gediminids are given as in Jan Tęgowski, Pierwsze pokolenia Giedyminowiczów (The first generations of the Gediminids), Biblioteka Genealogiczna, ed. Marek Górny, vol. 2 (Poznań and Wrocław: Wydawnictwo historyczne, 1999). 5 For a thorough discussion of Lithuania in the 14th c., see S.C. Rowell, Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East Central Europe, 1295–1345, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4.25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). 6 Jaunutis, Lt / Ru, Yavnutei (later Ivan, b. ca. 1306/09 – d. after 1366).

INTRODUCTION 7 8 9 10

11

12 13 14

15

16 17

18

15

Algirdas, Lt / Pl, Olgird (b. ca. 1304, r. 1345–1377). Kęstutis, Lt / Pl, Kiejstut (ca. 1308/10–1382). Jogaila, Lt / Pl, Władysław Jagiełło (b. ca. 1350, r. 1377 – 1381 and 1382 – 1434). The best-known example of Vytautas’ duplicity is the so-called agreement of Dovydiškės (31 May 1380), Liv-, Esth- und Curländishes Urkundenbuch nebst Regesten, 10 vols., ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge (Reval: In Commission bei Kluge und Ströhm, 1853; Riga: Kymmel, 1896) [hereafter, LUB], 3: no. 1153, 362. This was a truce between the Teutonic Order and Jogaila which guaranteed that the Order would not raid the Duchy of Vilnius, while the Duchy of Trakai was left open to Teutonic incursions. The truce was concluded during a hunt in which Vytautas was also present. Recently, Darius Baronas has draw attention to a rather weak reputation of Kęstutis in the eyes of the Teutonic Knights, Darius Baronas, “Kęstučio pabėgimas iš Marienburgo” (The flight of prince Kęstutis from captivity in Marienburg), Lietuvos istorijos studijos 11 (2003): 23–33. Perhaps the same opinion on the elderly Duke was also shared at home. Kreva, By / Krewo, Pl / Lt, Krėva, castle and town in today’s Belarus. Skirgaila, Lt / Pl, Skirgiełło (d. 1397). The cremation of the Grand Duke is probably the most thoroughly described custom of heathen Lithuanians. As to Kęstutis’ funerals, the description by Wigand of Marburg appears informative: “Et duxit eum in Willam, ubi in cinerem est redactus. Et miraculose in terra vorago visa profunda in longitudinem unius viri et medii absorbens cineres, quod a multis visum est, et tamen nemo vitam de ostantibus emendavit; equi, vestimenta, arma etc. omnia fuerunt incinerata; aves atque canes venatici cum eo incinerantur,” Scriptores rerum Prussicarum. Die Geschichtsquellen der Preussischen Vorzeit bis zum Untergange der Ordensherrschaft, 5 vols., ed. Theodor Hirsch, Max Töppen, and Ernst Strehlke (Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1861–74; reprint, Frankfurt a. M.: Minerva, 1965) [hereafter, SRPr], 2:620. “Et habito consilio cum uxore et ipsa consenciente iuduit vestimenta viri, ipse vero conjugis et antequam custodes huiusmodi c gnoscerentur [sic], Wytaut evaserat,” ibid., 2:621. On Vytautas’ baptism see ibid., 2:628 and 3:127, 605. “Dux Wytaudus cognoscens insidias suas completas, et misi sic factum fuisset, ut postea expertum fuit, peiores excogitaverat parore insidias, proposuit preceptors vocare ad prandium et tunc eos omnes in dolo captivare, rex quoque Jagel debuisset ibidem interfuisse. Et hec fuit prima traditio per eum occulte facta,” ibid., 2:627; also see ibid., 3:131. The fact of Vytautas’ Orthodox baptism is known only from his complaint to the Teutonic Knights, its dating is uncertain, “dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln vnd Skirgaln,” in K. Alminauskis, “Vytauto skundas” (The complaint of Vytautas), Archivum philologicum 8 (1939): 211. Posilge refers to the Orthodox baptism as follows: “Wytowt wart ouch getowt und geheysin Allexander,” SRPr, 3:145. Later on Vytautas several times acknowledged this event as fake baptism and explicitly styled himself a Catholic, “dis ist witoldes,” 211. However, scholars sometimes consider Vytautas an Orthodox and his reign as a compromise between Catho-

16

19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28

29

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA lic Poland and the Orthodox Grand Duchy of Lithuania, e.g., Obolensky writes: “Fortunately for the Orthodox, who formed the majority of the population of the Grand Duchy, Jagiełło was unable to enforce this conversion to Rome [in 1387]. His cousin Witold, who became Grand Duke of Lithuania under Jagiełło’s suzerainity in 1392, was an Orthodox and the father-in-law of the grand prince of Moscow,” “A Philorhomaios anthropos: Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev and All Russia (1375–1406),” in Dimitri Obolensky, The Byzantine Inheritance of Eastern Europe (London: Variorum Reprints, 1982), XI:94; reprinted from Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978): 79–98. Jadwiga of Anjou (b. 1373 – d. 1399). SRPr, 2:639–40; 3:162. Grodna, By / Lt, Gardinas / Pl, Grodno, the city in today’s Belarus. For Vytautas’ authority there, see ibid., 3:162 and ibid., 2: 639–40. Samogitia located between Prussia and Livonia divided the two territories of the Teutonic Order, hence control over this land was a top interest to the Knights and from the 1380s Lithuanian rulers a number of times surrendered it to the Order. For a thorough description and analysis of the Samogitian situation, see Vytenis Almonaitis, Žemaitijos politinė padėtis 1380 – 1410 metais (The political situation of Samogitia in the years 1380 – 1410) (Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 1998). Vorskla is a left influent of the Dnieper River. Edigey or Edyga, (d. ca. 1420), on him see George Vernadsky, The Mongols and Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), 277–90. Žygimantas Kaributas, Lt / Pl, Zygmunt Korybut (d. 1435), Jogaila’s nephew. Pl, Bołesław Szwitrigiełło (ca. 1370–1452). Žygimantas Kęstutaitis, Lt /Pl, Zygmunt Kestutowicz (b. 1360 or later – d. 1440). [Jan Długosz], “Banderia Prutenorum,” in Sven Ekdahl. Jono Dlugošo “Prūsų vėliavos” Žalgirio mūšio šaltinis (Die “Banderia Prutenorum” des Jan Dlugosz— eine Quelle zur Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410), trans. Jūrate Kibirkštytė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis (Vilnius: “Vilties” spaustuvė, 1992) , 141–265; Joannis Dlugossii annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, bk. 10, 1370 – 1405, ed. Stanisław Gawęda et al., bks. 10–11, 1406–1412, ed. Marian Plezia et al. (Warsaw: PWN, 1985–97) [hereafter, Długosz, Annales]; and Joannis Długosz Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia, ed. Alexander Przezdziecki, vol. 13, Joannis Długossii seu Longini Canonici Cracoviensi Historiae Poloniae libri XII, vol. 14, Libri XI. XII (Krakow: Czas, 1877) [hereafter, Długosz, Opera omnia]. Codex epistolaris Vitoldi, Magni Ducis Lithuaniae, 1376–1430, ed. Antoni Prochaska, Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 6 (Krakow: Academiae Literarum Cracoviensis, 1882) [hereafter CEV]; Codex epistolaris seaculi decimi quinti: Ab anno 1384 ad annum 1492, vol. 1, pts. 1–2, ed. Augustin Sokolowski, Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 2; Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti ex antiquis libris formularum, corpore Naruszeviciano, vol. 2, ed. Augustin Sokołowski and Joseph Szujski, Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 12. Codex epistolaris seaculi decimi quinti, vol. 3, Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 14 (Krakow: Typis impressorum Colegii Historici Academiae

INTRODUCTION

30

31 32

33

34

35

36 37 38

17

Literarum Cracoviensis, 1874–94) [hereafter CEXV]. Liber Cancellariae Stanislai Ciołek: Ein Formelsbuch der polnischen Köningskanzlei aus der Zeit der husitischen Bewegung, 2 vols., ed J. Caro (Vienna: In Comission bei Karl Gerold’s Sohn, 1871–74) [hereafter LC]. Vitoldiana: Codex privilegiorum Vitoldi Magni Ducis Lithuaniae, 1386–1430, ed. Jerzy Ochmański (Warsaw and Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1986) [hereafter Vitoldiana]; Codex diplomaticus Ecclesiae Cathedralis necnon dioeceseos Vilnensis / Kodeks dyplomatyczny Katedry i diecezji Wileńskiej, vol. 1, 1387–1507, ed. Jan Fijałek and Władysław Semkowicz (Krakow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 1948) [hereafter CDECV]; Codex Mednicensis seu Samogitiae diocesis pt. 1, ed. Paulus Jatulis, pt. 1, Fontes Historiae Lituaniae 3 (Rome: Academia Lituana Catholica Scientiarum, 1984) [hereafter, CMSD]. Codex diplomaticus Prussicus, 6 vols., ed. Johannes Voigt (Königsberg: Koch, 1842–61) [hereafter CDPr] and LUB. Akta unji Polski z Litwą, 1358–1791 (The acts of the Polish–Lithuanian union, 1358–1791), ed. Stanisław Kutrzeba and Władysław Semkowicz (Krakow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umejętnośći i Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, 1932) [hereafter AU]. SRPr; Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisej (The full collection of Russian annals) [hereafter PSRL], published by Arkheograficheskaya kommissiya (St Petersburg, 1845–1919), and Akademiya Nauk SSSR (Moscow and Leningrad, 1922–1990; reprint, Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1997–). Since the major part of the Lithuanian Metrica remains unpublished, I have considered only those books that have thus far appeared in print. In Lithuania, the consistent publishing of the Lietuvos metrika / Lithuanian Metrica [hereafter LM] began in 1994. Alvydas Nikžentaitis, “LDK kultūrinės tradicijos praradimas: Vytauto Didžiojo kultas Lietuvoje XV–XX a.” (The Loss of a Cultural Tradition from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: The Vytautas Cult in Lithuania XV–XX Centuries), in Senosios raštijos ir tautosakos sąveika: kultūrinė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės patirtis (The Interaction of Old Literature and Folklore: Cultural Experience of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), ed. Rita Repšiene, Senoji Lietuvos literatūra [hereafter SLL] 6 (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998), 324–34; id., Witold i Jagiełło: Polacy i Litwini we wzajemnej stereotype (Vytautas and Jagiełło: Poles and Lithuanians in Mutual Steretypes) (Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk, 2000); recently this study has been published in Lithuanian: Alvydas Nikžentaitis, Vytauto ir Jogailos įvaizdis Lietuvos ir Lenkijos visuomenėse (The image of Vytautas and Jogaila in the societies of Lithuania and Poland) (Vilnius: aidai, 2002). Giedrius Viliūnas, “Vytauto mitas moderniojoje Lietuvoje” (The myth of Vytautas in modern Lithuania), Kultūros barai [hereafter KB] 6 (1995): 63–67. Mačiulis, 54–75. For the thorough discussion of the literature published before 1930, see Zenonas Ivinskis, “Vytautas Didysis istorinėje literatūroje” (Vytautas the Great in historiography), Atheneum 1.2 (1930): 190–212. For the extensive bibliography until the same date, see id., “Vytauto Didžiojo darbų ir jo periodo bibliografija” (The

18

39

40

41

42 43

44

45

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA bibliography of the deeds and the period of Vytautas the Great), ibid., 2.1 (1931): 89–141. “Dva demona emu sluzhili / Dve sily chudno v nem slilis’: / V ego glave orly tsarili, / B ego grudi zmei vilis’” (poem by Fiodor Tutchev), V. F. Voevodskii, Velikii kniaz’ litovskii Vitovt i ego vremia (Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas and his time) (St Petersburg: Gubernskaya Tipografiya, 1907), 54. Josef Pfitzner, Grosfürst Witold von Litauen als Staatsmann, Schriften der Philosophischen Fakultät der Deutschen Universität in Prag 6 (Brno, Prague, Leipzig, Vienna: Roher, 1930); Lithuanian translation: Jozefas Pfitcneris, Didysis Lietuvos kunigaikštis Vytautas kaip politikas, ed. Jonas Yčas, trans. J. Talmantas (Kaunas: n.p., 1930; reprint introduced by Mečislovas Jučas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1989). Sven Ekdahl, Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg, 1410: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen, vol. 1, Einführung und Quellenlage, ed. Jürgen Vietig, Berliner historische Studien, Friedrich-Meinecke-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin 8. Einzelstudien 1 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1982). The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). E.g., Myth and Mythmaking, ed. Henry A. Murray (Boston: Beacon Press, 1960); The Historical Imagination in Early Modern Britain: History, Rhetoric, and Fiction 1500–1800, ed. Donald R. Kelley and David Harris Sacks, Woodrow Wilson Center Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Francis Haskell, History and Its Images: Art and the Interpretation of the Past (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993); Peter G. Bietenholz, Historia and Fabula: Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Modern Age, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 59, ed. E. J. Wanderjagt (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1994); The Myths We Live By, ed. Ralph Samuel and Paul Thompson (London and New York: Routledge, 1993); Gabrielle M. Spiegel, The Past as Text: The Theory of Medieval Historiography, Parallax: Re-Visions of Culture and Society, ed. Stephan G. Nichols, Gerald Prince, and Wendy Steiner (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997); Iconography, Propaganda, and Legitimation, ed. Allan Ellenius, European Science Foundation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998); Raphael Samuel, Theatres of Memory, vol. 1, Past and Present in Contemporary Culture (London and New York: Verso, 1999). E.g., St Louis of France on him, see Jacques Le Goff, Saint Louis (Paris: Gallimard, 1996); or Frederic Barbarossa as negative hero, on him see Marcel Pacaut, Frédéric Barberousse (London: Collins, 1970). On Queen Elizabeth, see Frances A. Yates, Astraea: the Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century. Boston and London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1975; on Louis XIV, see Peter Burke, The Fabrication of Louis XIV (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992); on Peter the Great, see Peter Bushkovitch, Peter the Great: the Struggle for Power, 1671–1725 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001) and a collection of articles, Peter the Great and the West: New Perspectives, ed. Lindsley Hughes (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).

CHAPTER I

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

This chapter aims to reveal the image of Vytautas as expressed by the Duke himself and propagated by his entourage. The image is perceived as closely connected, but not limited, to Vytautas’ political aspirations and activities. The most vivid manifestations of this image building include political statements, ceremonials, and diverse means of representation, as well as other peoples’ perceptions of the Grand Duke. Hence, the chapter is arranged in both thematic and chronological order. While not attempting to outline the history of Vytautas’ times, brief references to the major events are inevitable.

THE EARLY YEARS The Troubled 1380s: A “Serpent in the Bosom” or a “Duke with Neither Men nor Lands” The Russian annals tell of the outcomes of the subsequent revolts in 1381 and 1382 as follows: they rose up against themselves, killing Grand Duke Kęstutis and his boyars, and Jogaila took over the Dukedom. Vytautas fled to the Germans and from there wreaked lots of evil upon the Lithuanian lands.1 Let us follow Vytautas to Prussia and have a look at his reputation there: “Serpentem in sinum ponere,”2 this is how Jogaila refers to Vytautas’ stay in Lithuania before his flight to the Teutonic Knights. Lithuanian propaganda of the period clearly labelled Vytautas a traitor. Thus, looking for a refuge seemed a logical step. Moreover, such a move was not a new invention. Rather, Vytautas followed a path forged by his brother Butautas, who fled to the Order in 1365. The latter’s son, Vaidotas, left for Prussia in 1381.3 In contrast to the brother and nephew, who had abandoned Lithuania never to return,4 Vytautas came to the Knights only for a while. The four years (i.e., 1382–1384 and 1390–1392) that the Lithuanian Duke spent with the Teutonic Order were not only a time of refuge, but also one of

20

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

intensive international schooling.5 The results of this education became evident after Vytautas’ installation in Vilnius, which was to come a decade later. For the time being, the fact that Vytautas was received as a potential ally is important. This is all the more so, as the Order clearly realized his miserable position. Wigand of Marburg describes Vytautas’ situation through the words ascribed to Grand Master Conrad Zöllner6: Vytautas arrived in Prussia and, having stretched out his hand, asked for refuge. The Grand Master reproached him for coming too late, adding that he was a Duke with neither men, nor lands.7 Nevertheless, the Knights provided Vytautas with asylum and support. A year later, baptized as Wigand, the refugee entered the ranks of Christian princes and began participating in military campaigns against his heathen motherland.8 The Knights were, of course, pleased with the internal conflicts in Lithuania. They were, however, interested above all in occupying Samogitia, viewed as an enclave dividing the Order’s territories in Prussia and Livonia. Having Vytautas as the Order’s ally, such an occupation seemed feasible, since the noble refugee enjoyed Samogitian support.9 Therefore, as soon as the Knights granted refuge to Vytautas, the latter sent messengers to Samogitia concerning his flight to Prussia. Samogitians, however, reacted carefully to this news: They did not believe the message until Vytautas showed himself in person.10 Such physical manifestation of Vytautas’ alliances persuaded the Samogitians. However, the Orders hopes were dashed as, having spent two years in Prussia, Vytautas decided to return home.

The Return In the summer of 1384, Vytautas left Prussia for Lithuania. On his way home, he devastated and plundered Teutonic castles, thus clearly stating his changed alliances. Regardless of the booty he brought, Jogaila was careful with his cousin: Vytautas was sent to Ruthenia and agreements concluded with Jogaila and his kin bound his government there. Even more importantly, the Duke was forbidden to receive foreign visitors.11 Hence, he was isolated from international affairs. Surviving documents convey the impression that Vytautas was under full control of Jogaila and his brothers.12 In fact, however, he was building up his reputation with the help of foreign courtiers, among whom the presence of distinguished prisoners such as the Teutonic knight, Marquard of Salzbach,13 and Gleb, the Duke of Smolensk, was notable.14 Perhaps Vytautas’ Orthodox baptism in early 1386, as well as his new

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

21

Christian name of Alexander, was part of a plan towards establishment and greater prestige in Ruthenia (later, however, the Duke denied such an interpretation). However, the situation changed the very same year, at Jogaila’s wedding in Krakow: There, Vytautas was re-baptized a Catholic and retained Alexander as his name. With time Vytautas’ power grew and earlier agreements with Jogaila and his brothers became too restrictive. In 1387, he received Basil Dimitrievich, the heir to Muscovy, who was to become engaged to Vytautas’ only daughter, Sophia.15 Having established himself in Ruthenia, Vytautas became determined to occupy Vilnius. According to the Lithuanian annals, he was offended by the fact that foreigners ruled the grand duchy, a thing that could not have been imagined before.16 These assumed patriotic motives moved him to capture Vilnius. Vytautas’ plan was worthy of Ulysses: under the pretext of provisioning his sister’s marriage, he had hidden soldiers in the wagons sent to Vilnius. Discovered by the citizens, the “Trojan” trick failed17 and Vytautas lost his place in Lithuania. The following moves followed a previously worked-out scenario: Vytautas fled to the Teutonic Order.18

The Second Flight Vytautas’ second flight was determined by greater claims and proved to be less of a failure. The Duke arrived with quite a large entourage. He needed the Order’s support to take Vilnius, and, with it, the grand ducal seat. However, the Knights must have been hesitant: on the one hand, the Order recognized Vytautas’ potential authority; on the other hand, the memories of the Duke’s previous refuge and, especially, his departure must still have been fresh. Naturally, there must also have been doubts concerning Vytautas’ reliability as an ally. Most likely, this was the principal reason for recording Vytautas’ speech in which he again asked for refuge.

RIGHT OF BLOOD Rex iustus, pacificus et christianissimus Sometime early in the year 1390, Vytautas addressed the Knights in a speech manifesting his just cause and accusing his cousins, Jogaila and Skirgaila, of various misdeeds committed against Vytautas and his family. The speech has entered the Order’s records under the title dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln vnd Skirgaln19 (henceforth called the Sache). Briefly, the Sache tells

22

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the story of the grand ducal succession after the death of Gediminas20 and serves as a testimony to Vytautas’ birthright to rule Lithuania. The initial aim of this declaration was to convince the Teutonic elite to provide the Duke with refuge and military support.21 However, the Sache had much broader potential. By exposing the injustice that Jogaila and Skirgaila imposed on him, Vytautas presents himself as rex iustus et pacificus.22 It was Vytautas’ father, Kęstutis, who ceded the grand ducal seat to Algirdas and educated his son Jogaila to hold the ruler’s office. It was Kęstutis who traced Jogaila’s betrayal, dethroned him, but retained his property and family rights. It was Jogaila who broke his oath of obedience and captured Vilnius in Kęstutis’ absence. It was Jogaila and Skirgaila who perfidiously killed Kęstutis and his wife, the mother of Vytautas. Only by fleeing to Prussia, did Vytautas escape his parents’ fate. However, his family remained in Lithuania, and Jogaila began sending messages inviting the Duke home. Finally, Vytautas agreed to return home, but was deceived once again. He was expelled to Ruthenia and forced to accept the Russian faith, in the hope that people would hate the Duke. Vytautas, however, maintained his Christian faith in secret, to be openly confirmed at Jogaila’s wedding in Krakow. The Duke’s troubles continued: Jogaila and Skirgaila maligned not only him, but also his entire kin and deprived him of power even over his own daughter. In short, having returned home, Vytautas was treated like a serf. The political conclusions of the Sache are self-evident: Vytautas is merely the Duke of a distinguished lineage maltreated by his cousins, who had usurped his rights. In order to convey this message persuasively, Vytautas referred to the grand ducal succession pointing to Jogaila’s usurpation of Vilnius. Quite unintentionally, the Sache became the earliest record dealing with the transfer of inheritance and authority in Lithuania. Quite significantly, it also introduced the motif of usurpation into the succession story. Although neither of these themes was the main subject of the Sache, it was the issues of origins and usurpation that inspired foreign echoes of Vytautas’ speech.

Stableman’s Grandson: the Development of the Origin Story Quite naturally, the first such text comes from the lands of the Order. The story, entitled Summarium von Jagel und Wytaut23 (henceforth, the Sum-

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

23

marium), appeared sometime in the years 1408-1409 as a response to the Samogitian revolts.24 Like the Sache, the Summarium was not directly concerned with the grand ducal dynasty. Its primary goal was to expose Vytautas’ unjust occupation of Samogitia. In the Sache, Vytautas addressed his origins to prove the legitimacy of his claims; in the Summarium the Teutonic Knights exposed these origins to demonstrate the illegitimacy of Vytautas’ government in Samogitia. In order to make the Lithuanian occupation of Samogitia self-evident, the authors of the Summarium went beyond the reign of Gediminas (1316–1341). By the same token, the Sache was given a kind of prequel, beginning with Grand Duke Vytenis (1295–1316). Having briefly described Vytenis’ reign, the Teutonic pamphlet recounts that after his death, the Grand Duke’s stableman, Gediminas by name, occupied the ruler’s office. This Gediminas, says the Summarium, is the grandfather of Jogaila and Vytautas.25 Having thus employed an ancient technique of political rhetoric, the Teutonic authors ascribed humble origins to the rulers of Poland and Lithuania,26 supplemented by the usurpation of the throne, thus denigrating their enemies. The political goals of the Summarium are obvious: since usurpation is illegal, the rule of the usurper’s descendants is equally illegitimate. However, the means of propaganda employed by the Teutonic Knights are more important than the pamphlet’s immediate aims. The matter of honorable lineage is a matter of dignity and Vytautas clearly demonstrated this in the Sache. In his Prussian refuge, he manifested himself as the rightful and just heir to the grand ducal seat. However, it sufficed for the Duke to name his grandfather Gediminas in order to show the legacy of his claims. This is not, of course, to suggest that the author of the Summarium knew the Sache when writing his piece. The fact that the speech, perhaps indirectly, created a prequel to the story of Vytautas’ origins is important. This form of propaganda was to be frequently employed later in anti-Lithuanian polemics.27 During Vytautas’ life, the issue of origins was again addressed after the battle of Grunwald. In 1416, Johannes Falkenberg28 composed a libel aimed against the Polish–Lithuanian alliance. The piece, entitled Liber de doctrina potestatis papae et imperatoris,29 proclaims that Vytautas, “the grandson of a shoemaker,” would not stop marching and spreading terror until he watered his horse in the Rhine.30 By attributing such base descent to the Lithuanian ruler, Falkenberg not only explained the Grand Duke’s uncultivated cruelty, but also made it seem credible.

24

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Gediminas’ Worthy Successor In addition to denigrating prequels, the Sache also contained positive remakes. The Lithuanian annals include a story entitled Letopisets velikikh kniazej litovskikh31 (“The annals of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes”; henceforth, the Letopisets). This text is very close in content and structure to the Sache. However, it is more detailed and encompasses a longer time period; it ends with the year 1392. Both texts would fall within the pattern of accusations, popular in Russian annals since the twelfth century. These texts were usually full of details and examples of misdeeds made by the opposing party, and were frequently distinguished by rhetorical skill and psychological persuasiveness.32 The Letopisets retained all the accusations and the detailed picture of harm done to Vytautas. However, within the annals it appeared as a story of a genealogical genre.33 The genre of the texts aside, the relation between the two texts should be clarified. How did the Sache become a part of the Letopisets copied into the Lithuanian annals? It is impossible that the Sache, kept among the Order’s records, was translated and became the Letopisets, circulating within the codes of the Lithuanian annals. However, the author could, at least partly, be the same. Hence, the most likely link between these texts is through the person of Vytautas: he is the author of the Sache and the main hero of the Letopisets. Scholars assume that it was due to his desire, and from some hypothetical family records, that the annals were supplemented.34 Although the general illiteracy of Lithuanian heathen society makes such records doubtful, the Letopisets possessed earlier drafts. A text entitled Origo regis Jagyelo et Wytholdi ducum Lithuanie35 (henceforth, the Origo) tells the same story as the Letopisets, but in Latin. Besides the language, the two texts differ in chronological scope: The Origo ends in the year 1382, while the Letopisets goes on for another ten years. The Origo is a Latin translation from Ruthenian made sometime at the turn of the fifteenth century.36 Hence, there must have existed a Ruthenian text ending in 1382, and, therefore, it is likely that the Origo is based upon the lost text compiled before Vytautas achieved power in the grand duchy. As for the development of the Letopisets, recent linguistic investigations revealed that one part of this text, identical in content to the Sache, is written in a colloquial style, specific to the grand ducal chancellery. The other parts appear in a literary style particular to monasteries, the place where annals were usually created.37 Therefore one might conclude that the origin story of

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

25

the Lithuanian Grand Dukes was a product of the chancellery elaborated and incorporated into the annals at some Orthodox monastery in Ruthenia.38 The Letopisets begins in a traditional style of the annals: “Grand Duke Gediminas had seven sons...” then introduces each of the sons and tells how patrimony and authority were divided among them. Later, the text proceeds like the Sache. The following details are politically important: the Letopisets is rather favorable to Jogaila, who has authorized Vytautas to hold the grand ducal office. Moreover, the annals tell of an ignoble commoner, Vaidila, whose bad advice cloaks Jogaila’s misdeeds against Vytautas that are exposed in the Sache.39 When discussing the grand ducal succession, the Letopisets states that Algirdas and Kęstutis had chosen their beloved sons Jogaila and Vytautas as their heirs.40 Hence, the stress falls on inheritance, not on Jogaila’s authorization. In this manner, Vytautas is pictured as the rightful and desired heir justly exercising the grand ducal office. To conclude, the Lithuanian dynastic tradition was established to justify Vytautas’ appearance on the grand ducal seat. Its inclusion within the annals demonstrates that the story had been aimed at posterity and that this aim was achieved: until today, Lithuanian historiography relies on Vytautas’ version of grand ducal succession. The credible scenario for the composition of the Letopisets would be the following: Having been installed in Vilnius, Vytautas ordered the scribes either to produce or to complement a text on his inherited rights for holding authority in Lithuania. This story ended in 1392; that is, the beginning of Vytautas’ reign. Thus, Vytautas initiated the creation of the Lithuanian dynastic tradition and established his place within the grand ducal succession. Above all, the newly established tradition served immediate political ends. The grand ducal lineage is therefore quite brief: the Letopisets, as does the Sache, begins with Grand Duke Gediminas, the grandfather of Vytautas. The reference to the grandfather could be explained as coming from the tradition of the Russian annals. Usually, when telling of the deeds of certain dukes the annalists introduced him (rarely her) by indicating the father and grandfather. Among the Orthodox Russians, indication of patrimony was the rule, hence naming a grandfather served as a more precise means of identification, as well as a reference to a lineage. Documents concluded in the Lithuanian lands, however, regardless of their language, do not refer to a person’s father or grandfather, unless he/she is of Russian origin.41 One should therefore look for a more credible explanation of the brief lineage of the Grand Dukes. To my mind, the permanent transfer of the grand

26

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

ducal seat to Vilnius seems to have been a decisive motif. To briefly explain this point, prior to the reign of Gediminas, Lithuania, like many other medieval states, had no established center of power. According to the Lithuanian annals, Grand Duke Gediminas was looking for a site suitable for his capital. Based on omens, Vilnius became this site.42 This choice meant that political and religious centers of the grand duchy were merged.43 From that time on, Vilnius became the stable capital of Lithuania and the individual who held the grand ducal seat in Vilnius ruled the country. To return to the Sache and Letopisets, manifesting his place within the Gediminid lineage, Vytautas confirmed his rights to the grand ducal seat in Vilnius. In the Sache, these goals were declared to the Knights. The Letopisets consolidated these claims and perpetuated them in the annals.44 Although the brief history of Vilnius as capital did not disturb Vytautas, the “young” Lithuanian ruling dynasty inspired various remakes of the origin story. Later, Muscovite authors created their version of Lithuanian grand ducal descent. However, these texts go beyond the image of Vytautas.45

ON THE GRAND DUCAL SEAT Throughout the history arranged by rulers and even later, public manifestations of authority had been a part of political, legal, and theological spectacle. Directed towards internal, international, or combined audiences, such displays acquired a very precise repertoire of gestures. Moreover, the notion of a gesture became valid upon its performance, regardless of whether made consciously, accidentally, or even against one’s will.46 By the late Middle Ages, the spectacle of state and authority developed into a magnificent pageantry, especially among the Dukes of Burgundy.47 In the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the most common political gestures were greeting, bowing one’s head to the ground, and the giving and taking of gifts. Occasions varied, but the diplomatic theater offered the most spectacular performances during entries into the cities. Narrative sources dominate the evidence, while letters offer more precise detail.

Give Way to the Duke! The rank of a prince of the blood required a demonstration of esteem, and Vytautas’ retinue performed this function. However, a massive demonstration of respect and supplication was connected to the grand ducal office it-

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

27

self. It is therefore natural to search for the earliest display of power in the year 1392. At that time, Vytautas entered Vilnius, aiming to assume the grand ducal seat. Although sources are silent with regard to any ceremonial aspects of this event, some parallels may be established. Jogaila’s path and entry into Krakow in 1386 seems to offer the closest comparison. According to Długosz, the heathen bridegroom of the queen entered Poland in the company of his brothers and in a train of carriages loaded with innumerable riches. The groom stayed in Lublin, allowing the news to spread. Then he proceeded towards Krakow and entered the city with a retinue of Polish nobles, rather than Lithuanian or Ruthenian ones. There he was baptized, married, and crowned as Wladislas II of Poland.48 The description of Jogaila’s path towards kingship emphasizes the treasures and personality of the new sovereign. The candidate’s looks and wealth had to convince his future subjects of his suitability to hold the royal office. Viewed in such a light, the story of Vytautas’ entry into Vilnius appears somewhat similar. It can be constructed on the basis of events mentioned in sources, above all, the Annales of Długosz. The description is combined from several narratives and runs as follows: In 1392, tired of Vytautas’ incursions and devastating attacks on Lithuania, Jogaila invites his cousin to return home and assume the seat of his uncle Grand Duke Algirdas and his father Grand Duke Kęstutis.49 Having received the invitation, Vytautas seizes all the knights and merchants in the castle of Ritterswerder and, in the company of his boyars and soldiers, marches to Lithuania. The castellan of Vilnius receives and treats Vytautas kindly. Having learned of the betrayal, the Teutonic Knights chase after the traitor. There is a fight. Vytautas not only defeats the Knights but also plunders and sets fire to two of their abandoned castles.50 Thus, one may imagine a picture of a victor entering the city: wagons loaded with booty testified not only to his wealth, but also to his excellence in arms. The next scene is somewhat opposite to the solemn portrait of the arrival. Having learned that Jogaila is on his way to Vilnius, Vytautas leaves the city and, in the company of his prominent supporters, goes to greet the king. The cousins meet in Vostrava.51 With Vytautas weeping and repenting his wrongdoings, Jogaila excuses and entrusts him with the government of the grand duchy.52 The Chronicle of Lithuania and Samogitia as well as early-modern histories of Lithuania read that in 1392 Vytautas and his wife were inaugurated as the grand ducal couple in Vilnius Cathedral according to ancient rites cleansed of heathen prejudice.53

28

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Such a scenario, however, is a false reconstruction. Until 1403, Vytautas ruled only ex parte regni Poloniae; thus, it is unlikely that the acknowledgement of the governor would have involved any grand ducal elevation. On the other hand, some kind of pomp and circumstance related to the transfer of power can be assumed, even though there is no document testifying to it. Be that as it may, Vytautas was perceived and behaved as a Grand Duke. In the words of the Lithuanian annals, Jogaila gave Vytautas the grand ducal seat and all of Lithuania rejoiced.54 Scholars investigating Vytautas’ rule are unanimous in stating that the centralization of government was his fundamental reform. In the words of Josef Pfitzner, having assumed the grand ducal seat, Vytautas began shaping his monarchy into “absolutism.”55 Strengthening of the rather loose ties with the Ruthenian principalities and destroying opposition at home were the first means towards “absolute” authority. However, authority required not only manifestation but also recognition. Events from the years 1392–1393 provide evidence on the consolidation of Vytautas’ power. The newly appointed governor tried to break the opposition of Jogaila’s brothers. Thus, he led his troops against Švitrigaila, who found refuge and support in Vitebsk. When passing the city of Drutsk, the Dukes of Drutsk came out to greet the Lithuanian ruler. They bowed their heads to the ground (Ru, cholom bit’) and expressed a wish to serve Vytautas.56 The Grand Duke reached Vitebsk. The Duke of Smolensk came to assist Vytautas with his forces. He also bowed his head to show his wish to serve Vytautas. The combined troops besieged Vitebsk. The castle yielded to the siege and Švitrigaila came out to bow his head and to serve Vytautas. This is how Vytautas took the city of Vitebsk, the annals conclude.57 The public bowing to the Grand Duke was a universal sign of obedience. Hence, when the governor of Kiev, Vladimir,58 did not bow his head, he was deprived of his office.59 In 1396, Vytautas captured Smolensk. The Russian annals are quite explicit about this occupation by deceit. Among numerous accounts of the city’s capture, only one text mentions the demonstration of authority to the new subjects. It says that the Grand Duke entered Smolensk in a company of dukes and prominent boyars. A cross was carried in front of the retinue and reed pipes were played, in accordance with Lithuanian custom.60 More explicit evidence on the ruler’s entries comes from Vitebsk in the year 1413. At that time, one of the Hussite leaders, Jerome of Prague61 (1378– 1416), visited the grand duchy. The celebrated reformer accompanied Vytau-

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

29

tas during his entry into the Ruthenian city. The ceremony, as described during Jerome’s trial, was the following: in April 1413 the Grand Duke arrived to the city with his numerous troops and his retinue. A procession of Christian nobles and clergy came out to meet their lord, carrying banners and holy relics. In parallel, an “accursed procession of Ruthenians and other schismatics also came to greet the Duke carrying false relics and images.” The ceremony assembled four or five thousand “schismatics” in front of the city.62 Despite the tone of the records, they inform us about the structure of the greeting ceremony; it had to reflect the city’s society. Since the distinction by religious confession was fundamental, two processions came out to meet Vytautas. A more explicit story of the welcoming ceremony comes from the meeting in Lutsk in 1429. According to Długosz, Vytautas went a mile from the city to meet King Jogaila and the Emperor Sigismund. They greeted each other and turned towards the city. The open space in front of the city walls was full of people. Trumpets sounded everywhere. Four processions, representing the dignitaries and religious confessions of Lutsk—that is, Catholic, Orthodox, Armenian, and Jewish—came out to greet the rulers.63 Sources list quite a few entries and meetings. However, they mostly concentrate on the rank of the people greeting the Grand Duke and the fact of approaching a guest before he or she reached the city. Usually, guests were awaited a mile from the city. Thus, Jogaila greeted Vytautas in 1409 and vice versa in 1415.64 In 1426, Bishop Mathew of Vilnius was sent to greet the approaching king, while the Grand Duke waited for the guests by the gate of Trakai castle.65 Jogaila’s letter tells us that such greeting procedures have not only been important to the chroniclers. The king describes his arrival at Vilnius in October 1430. On that occasion, Vytautas came out in the suite of his wife, the grand master of the Teutonic Order, the Grand Duke of Moscow, the Dukes of Tver’ and Riazan’, and many other prominent Dukes and boyars. The delegates carried their standards. On meeting, the Grand Duke greeted the king in person and cordially embraced him.66

Receptions and Gifts The entries into the cities marked only the initial part of a meeting. Having arrived in a town or castle, rulers as well as their guests were received and entertained. The form and manner of such receptions had huge political importance. Regrettably, only a few sources mention the etiquette at the grand ducal reception. It is clear that the Duke dined with his guests, and

30

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

that arrangement of the participants at such dinners was important. In 1410 after such a dinner, an envoy of the Teutonic Knights to Vytautas reported that war seemed unavoidable. This warning was based on the fact that the Grand Duke had seated him at the very end of the table, while Samogitians were placed around Vytautas. Despite open hostility, added the legate, the Grand Duke presented him with caps, gloves, and hounds.67 A decade later, the Burgundian knight, Ghillebert of Lannoy (1386–1462), not only mentioned dining with the Grand Duke but also counted the number of dinners. Three times the knight had dinner with the Grand Duke and was seated by the grand duchess and a Tatar prince.68 As to the meeting at Lutsk, the Bykhoviets Chronicle gives a quite detailed and exaggerated “menu” of the event, but does not mention the arrangement of the diners.69 Presenting, accepting, and exchanging gifts were routine diplomatic rituals; records specify gifts in great detail. Their meaning, therefore, was not merely one of value and occasion. From the moment Vytautas was appointed to the grand ducal seat, his active government caused anxiety among Lithuania’s neighbors. Those whose territories lay within the Grand Duke’s reach found it better to go to Vytautas, bow down to the ground, and obey his commands. Those who avoided this procedure lost their authority or their lives. Hence, several Russian potentates from further away took the initiative to smooth relations with Lithuania. At these occasions, costly gifts were exchanged and demonstrations of mutual favors made explicit.70 Lannoy provides an interesting account of the ambassadors from Pskov and Novgorod visiting Vytautas in Kamenets (today’s Ukraine). The legates bowed down to the ground and placed piles of precious furs and garments, gold and silver, all together sixty different kinds of gifts before him. The Grand Duke accepted the Novgorodian presents and rejected those from Pskov.71 In addition to various observations, the Burgundian knight also tells us about his experience in Lithuania. He writes that Vytautas provided foreign travelers crossing his realm with all necessary sustenance.72 Lannoy visited Vytautas twice, in 1414 and in 1421. However, the knight only noted the reception and awards he received during the second visit. On that occasion, the visitor and his retinue were presented with furs, fur clothes, and silver. Lannoy accepted the furs but rejected the silver, since at that time he regarded Vytautas as an ally of the Hussites.73 Vytautas’ correspondence provides us with more details concerning gift types and the occasions on which they were sent. To briefly summarize the available data, gifts were exchanged almost constantly and served as a mark

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

31

of mutual favor.74 Some of gifts sent to the Lithuanian ruler appear quite exotic. For example, according to the Teutonic Knights, Khan Edigey sent Vytautas some strange beasts,75 later specified as being three camels covered with red cloths and twenty-seven horses. The grand master presented Vytautas with a lion and received four aurochs in exchange.76 *** The above evidence suggests that the grand ducal court followed certain rules of diplomacy. Although these events occurred during Vytautas’ reign, they were tied to his office, rather than his person. These ceremonies seemingly followed an already established, even though a Christianized, pattern (regrettably, our knowledge of heathen ceremonials is too incomplete to further develop this assumption77). Ceremonials helped to sustain Vytautas’ image, adding a feature of largesse to it. Although the entry into Vilnius from 1392 may fit the pattern of a victor’s triumph, it was shaped more by current circumstances than as a planned triumph. As to the gift giving, lavish presents by the Grand Duke probably exceeded the “norms” of the period and were used as a tool to impress the guests, thus becoming part of the Grand Duke’s image. In addition to this, two events from Vytautas’ reign seem to transgress the traditional frameworks. Moreover, they might be regarded in terms of image building. The first dates to 1411, the second to 1428.

The Parade of 1411 The victory at Grunwald was indeed a tremendous achievement. Therefore, it is natural that the victors tried to make their glory manifest. They returned with booty, and Teutonic standards were displayed in the cathedrals of Krakow and Vilnius.78 Although little is known of the return from the battlefield (some sources describe it as chaotic and badly organized), the events that transpired a year after the victory deserve attention. These are based on the accounts of the Teutonic Order and the Annales of Długosz. On July 11, 1411, Livonian spies reported that the king of Poland and Duke Vytautas left Vilnius for Pskov. There, the governor of Smolensk and the Duke of Riazan, together with Vytautas’ daughter (the spouse of the Duke of Moscow), came to greet the rulers. A great number of people, namely five thousand men, formed the retinue of the king and the Grand Duke.79 The report concerns the first part of the march, which passed north eastwards from Vilnius up to Smolensk. Fifty years later, Długosz gave a more complete

32

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

picture of the rulers’ itinerary. The Polish historian described the same event as the journey of King Jogaila accompanied by Vytautas and his wife, Grand Duchess Anna. He also indicated that they traveled by ship from Zaslavl’ down the River Dnieper to Kiev. According to Długosz, the rulers undertook this entire journey to judge the archbishop of Gniezno, Nicholas Kurowski, who died a few days before their arrival.80 Długosz’s explanation aside,81 one should look at why they made such a long excursion. The entire event was quite extraordinary. Although our knowledge of the trip remains fragmentary, several features attract attention. It took place between July 8 and August 23, 1411,82 that is, a year after the battle of Grunwald. The itinerary of the rulers passed through all the major cities of Ruthenia. Moreover, it united the two most important political centers of the grand duchy, Vilnius and Kiev.83 These circumstances have already attracted the attention of Josef Pfitzner. He maintained that the journey was a parade of the rulers aimed at impressing eastern nations with their victory at Grunwald. Indeed, the march of the rulers was an extraordinary undertaking. Moreover, a peaceful march of rulers and soldiers might be viewed as a parade.84 Whatever the interpretation, the parade of 1411 hardly succeeded in conveying its message: A year later, the Teutonic Knights referred to this excursion as an inspection of castles in Ruthenia.85 The Russian Annals are absolutely silent as to the entire event. Hence, one may say that the “eastern nations” were not impressed enough to leave a record of the “parade.” To conclude, the march might have been initiated as a kind of medieval parade. However, the audience did not understand the parading leaders. Neither Vytautas nor Jogaila was to undertake any similar initiative later. Perhaps, they also viewed the army’s peaceful march as a failure. The question of why the parade failed remains open. The available evidence is too fragmentary for a construction of a more thorough argument, and only speculations are possible. One may imagine that in countries famous for their pageantry—for example, France or Burgundy—a similar march would be entered into some “Grand Chroniques.” There, however, one comes not only across “show-makers,” but also across spectators who enjoy gazing at pomp. In the grand duchy, the response from the audience is absent, thus indicating the failure of the entire endeavor. Most probably, the rulers’ march was not a success because it was a peaceful “show,” and the viewers did not appreciate power manifested this way. Credibly, it was exactly the peacefulness of the entire action that caused its failure. One might suppose that it was too early for the citizens of the grand duchy to be

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

33

impressed by great scenes as opposed to deeds with clear results, such as, the threat presented by men-at-arms.

The Purple Throne of 1428 Throughout the 1420s, Vytautas began regularly threatening the cities of Pskov and Novgorod the Great. The two cities sent the Grand Duke various gifts, but this was not enough to assuage him. In 1426, Vytautas organized a campaign against Pskov. Along the way, the Lithuanian army destroyed the town of Porkhov.86 Fearing a similar fate, Pskovians agreed to pay the Grand Duke a ransom, and Vytautas left. Two years later, the Grand Duke marched against Novgorod. According to Długosz, the Novgorodians felt protected by the surrounding woods and swamps, and even ridiculed Vytautas’ ability to access the city. However, the Grand Duke was successful; the Lithuanian army crossed the natural fortifications and began approaching Novgorod. The merchants—in Długosz’s words, people not suitable for fighting—sent a legation composed of the bishop and forty prominent boyars. Having learned of the approaching embassy, Vytautas ordered a throne to be built. The Grand Duke sat on the throne placed under a purple canopy and, surrounded by his soldiers, waited for the Novgorodian embassy. The legates, having passed through the rows of men-at-arms, prostrated themselves before the Grand Duke, recognizing his victory and authority, denouncing the war, and begging for peace. Vytautas reproached the embassy for its former arrogance, threatening to take all the people and horses in the nearby settlements unless Novgorod paid a ransom in silver, fur coats, and purple garments. The legates immediately promised to pay what was requested; within three days all the goods were lying at the Grand Duke’s feet.87 Although the two campaigns seem equal as to the “profit” gained, the Novgorodian one adds an aspect of royal purple to Vytautas’ image. The note concerning the canopy, of course, could be Długosz’s invention. In such a case, the story about the attributes of royalty used by the late Grand Duke would complement his posthumous image.

ON THE FIELD “And I Shall Sit in Moscow” As already noted, ceremonials were closely bound to the military plans and actions of Vytautas. Frequently, the two manifestations of power were inseparable. Successful campaigning eastwards in the later 1390s enhanced

34

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Vytautas’ military reputation and self-esteem. Victories yielded booty and prisoners. Becoming increasingly confident in the authority he exercised, Vytautas decided to subjugate his Tatar neighbors. After a number of successful raids into the steppes, he resettled the Tatars and Karaites in the grand duchy and Poland.88 Inspired by these achievements, Vytautas desired to take Moscow. The Russian annals tell of Vytautas’ negotiations with Khan Tokhtamysh and ascribe the following words to the Grand Duke: “Let us march against [Khan] Temir-Kutlugh with our forces of many princes. I shall seat you over the tsardom of the entire Horde. You should seat me over the Muscovite Dukedom and in Novgorod the Great and Pskov, while Tver’, and Riazan’ are mine already. And I shall take the Germans by myself.”89 As the scope of Vytautas’ plans exceeded his resources, western neighbors were called in for a crusade against the infidel Tatars.90 Vytautas’ initiative received quite a response. Allied Polish, Teutonic, Lithuanian, and Tatar troops marched even beyond Kiev. In the steppes by the River Vorskla, the combined army met with Khan Temir-Kutlugh. Scholars have thoroughly discussed the scenario of the battle.91 Therefore, I shall concentrate on its description as perpetuated in the Russian annals, which provide the most extensive narration of the event: The two armies camped on the opposite banks of the Vorskla River and the khan asked the Grand Duke why he had decided to attack him, adding that Tatars had not invaded Lithuanian lands. To this Vytautas replied: “God has subdued all the lands to me, thus, you should also be my subject. I shall be your father, you will be my son,92 and you will give me tribute yearly. If you refuse this offer, you will be my serf and I shall put the entire horde to the sword.” Feeling threatened by Vytautas’ words, Temir-Kutlugh agreed to paternal relations and an annual tribute. He sent legates to Vytautas, gave him many presents, and bowed his head to the ground, asking for mercy and agreeing to be his son and to pay the tribute. Vytautas accepted the Khan’s supplication, but added that he wanted his sign to be imprinted on the horde’s money.93 Temir-Kutlugh asked for three days to think things over. As agreed, Khan Edigey arrived. Having listened to the terms of the agreement, he declared he would rather be dead than serve Vytautas. Standing on the other side of the river, Edigey addressed the Grand Duke. Since the Khan was older than Vytautas, he proposed to the Grand Duke exactly the opposite of what had been offered to Temir-Kutlugh. Insulted, Vytautas ordered preparations for battle.94 The fight ended with the absolute and total defeat of Vytautas’ forces (August 12, 1399).95 However, its political consequences

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

35

were rather mild: despite this complete fiasco, Vytautas preserved his office and authority. Moreover, in 1403, he was assured of the grand ducal title for life.96 Most importantly, the idea of expansionist warfare and that of a crusade survived.97 Although the principal military actions began to concentrate on the western border, the idea of establishing domination over the eastern territories was not abandoned throughout Vytautas’ reign.

The Fields of Grunwald The first decade of the fifteenth century was a rather peaceful time.98 However, this must have been the silence before the storm. Warfare shifted its direction westwards against the Teutonic Order. The Knights were defeated in their own territory on the fields of Grunwald (15 July 1410). Medieval and modern historians have written a great deal describing and analyzing the famous battle. It is generally agreed that Vytautas was an active commander of the fight. Moreover, he seems to be the one who had decided to begin the battle.99 Nevertheless, contemporary sources do not contribute to the Duke’s image. The perception of Vytautas as a victorious warrior at Grunwald is exclusively a product of early modern Polish–Lithuanian sources100; therefore, it will be discussed later in this book. As to the years following the battle, the conflict with the Teutonic Knights was more concerned with Polish interests, so that Vytautas was not fully involved in it. However, the Grand Duke’s participation was significant in the so-called Famine War of 1414.101 Generally, the consequences of the victory at Grunwald preoccupied the Polish–Lithuanian rulers until the 1420s, thus preventing Vytautas from taking any major military action. Moreover, the victory against the Teutonic Knights, in combination with the latter’s successful propaganda, affected Vytautas’ Christian reputation; the Grand Duke, however, did not fail to pay back his opposition.

WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN VALUES: FROM SARACEN TO A NEW MESSIAH Vytautas’ political actions and image-building efforts were variously echoed abroad. As with many other medieval representations of the Grand Duke, his characteristics in foreign sources correspond to the traditional polarities of Christian values. On the one hand, Vytautas is perceived as a heathen, a false Christian, even a Tatar. On the other, he is considered a truly Christian prince,

36

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

a genuine defender of the Church, an apostle of his motherland, even a messiah. In between these contradictory views lies the notion of a neophyte. The novelty of the Christian faith in the Lithuanian lands has resulted in ambiguous interpretations. Conversion may be explained in two opposite ways. It is either more valued than the “inherited faith,” or suggests the risk of apostasy. Both explanations have been successfully attributed to Vytautas. The Grand Duke, of course, spared no effort to present himself as a Christian prince. His endeavors were not in vain: quite a number of foreign authors write about the Lithuanian ruler as a true follower of Christ. Nevertheless, most of the sources from outside the country consider Vytautas a heathen. There is one more noteworthy detail: the Grand Duke’s positive characteristics are much more diverse, while the negative ones are usually limited to stating various aspects of his heathenism. In brief, Vytautas’ neophyte status, his political and military actions, as well as his propaganda provided the image-makers with fertile ground, the discussion and analysis of which follow.

False Christianity of Lithuanians 102 Before looking at individual records, one should note that the pagan image of Vytautas is closely related to the general medieval perception of Lithuanians as non-Christian people. The Christian neighbors of Lithuania emphasized the heathenism of her people even after the country had been converted. In 1390, for example, Poles and Frenchmen launched a duel over the argument as to whether the Polish soldiers defending the castle of Vilnius protected neophytes or assisted pagans.103 A few years later, the Annals of Tver’ labeled Vytautas, who has just occupied Riazan’, a polytheist.104 Trying to enforce their conditions upon Novgorod, Lithuanian envoys complained that Novgorodians called them pagans.105 As late as 1426, Vytautas’ march on Pskov was noted as the action of a pagan.106 Among all Lithuania’s neighbors, however, the Teutonic Knights were most skilful and experienced in making propaganda against the Baltic heathens. The Order advertised the flourishing of Lithuanian paganism when searching for participants in the annual reysae107 held before and after the country’s conversion. Rather successful and long-lasting resistance to the crusaders earned Lithuanians a reputation of being the fiercest among the pagans.108 It is therefore natural that Vytautas inherited the godless aura of his people. To make the entire matter more familiar to Western eyes, the

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

37

Baltic heathens were labeled Saracens.109 Logically, the Saracen leader and, in this case, also Vytautas, were Saracens. This fertile label outlived Lithuania’s Christianization and was employed even without the clear intention of denigrating the Lithuanian ruler. A record from Lorraine constitutes a vivid example in this respect. It describes a reysa into Samogitia in the winter of 1400.110 The campaign followed Vytautas’ transfer of Samogitia to the Teutonic Order, concluded in 1398.111 The reysa aimed at subjugating Samogitians under Teutonic administration, and Vytautas assisted the Knights in this plan. His participation was noted as follows: “le Duc de Vitaire, ung Duc Sarazin de Lytowe,” accompanied by innumerable Tatar troops.112 Similar in context but opposite in judgment is the English evidence. I refer here to accounts of a trip by Henry, the Earl of Derby (the future Henry IV of England), to Prussia in 1392.113 This was Henry’s second trip to the eastern Baltic coast. During his first visit in 1390/91, the Earl met Vytautas, then a refugee with the Teutonic Knights. That autumn, Henry and Vytautas took part in a reysa, which attempted to capture Vilnius (when the curved castle of Vilnius was burnt down, never to be rebuilt). Having arrived in Prussia a year later, the English prince learned that Vytautas had returned to Lithuania and become a ruler of that country. This time Henry did not join the reysa and left Prussia for the Holy Land. The Earl changed his mind for a number of reasons;114 one of them concerned Vytautas. It is assumed that the fact that Henry had previously known Vytautas as a Christian prince caused the Earl to resign from the initially planned reysa and change the direction of his crusade.115 Indirectly, an entry from Thomas Walsingham’s Historia Anglicana strengthens this supposition. It urges an end to the crusades against Lithuania, since her people have accepted Christianity.116 While it would be hard to prove a relation between Henry’s action and the historian’s note, the fact that Lithuanians were starting to be treated as Christians is noteworthy. International authorities also contributed to the establishment of such an opinion. Already in 1395, the Emperor Wenceslas forbade crusading into Lithuania.117 In 1403, Grand Master Conrad of Jungingen118 asked Pope Boniface IX to cancel these restrictions. Having demonstrated his awareness of the mutual accusations between the Order and Vytautas, the Pope stated that renewal of incursions would be scandalous.119 However, it was only in 1415 and in the spirit of the Council of Constance (1414–1418), that Pope John XXIII cancelled all papal and imperial privileges that the Order possessed regarding either the lands or the subjects of Jogaila and Vytautas.120 In sum-

38

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

mary, despite a deeply rooted image of Lithuanians as a pagan nation, the Christianization of the country and its international advertising had begun to bear fruit. The fact of Lithuanian conversion became more widely known. For example, the Saxon historian Theodoric Engelhus (d. 1434) reflects upon the Christianization of Lithuania as follows: the Lithuanian Duke Vytautas adopted Christ’s faith, was baptized as Alexander, and founded numerous churches in his country.121 Interestingly enough, as Andrzej F. Grabski notes, Vytautas is singled out from the entire story of Jogaila’s baptism and his marriage to Queen Hedwig.122 Thus, the Grand Duke’s renown within the German lands earned him the glory of being his home country’s apostle. With regard to international awareness concerning the Lithuanian conversion, a curious and enlightening example comes from the English chronicles. Although, it would be too daring to suggest that the following information concerns Vytautas, it is worth including here as a clear pattern of image making. Monks from the abbey of St Albans entered the following story under the year 1401: According to Greek merchants, the king of Lithuania has converted to the Christian faith. He assembled 60,000 men of his sect and with this force turned against the son of Bayezet. Heaven sent him victory and Bayezet’s son was killed. As a sign of their new faith, the converts put on white mantles with red crosses over their armor. Having learned about the defeat of the Turks, the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II rejoiced and left Britain for Constantinople.123 It is quite clear that the entire story was compiled from a number of sources that reached Britain via different channels. In all likelihood, it refers to the victory of Tamerlane over Bayezet in the battle of Ankara (1402). As for the conversion, this looks like a combination of rumors concerning Tamerlane’s acceptance of the Christian faith124 and the news of the Christianization of Lithuania. All this is shaped into one story based on the well-known scheme of the conversions of Constantine and Clovis.125 That is, the newly baptized rulers immediately began fighting enemies of the faith. The greatest mystery is why the monks considered Tamerlane a Lithuanian ruler. Grabski assumed that the baptism of Lithuanians in 1387 constituted the background to the story as it hints at vestments distributed to the neophytes best known from Długosz.126 However, white vestments do not necessarily allude to Długosz’s texts (which are later). To my mind, the passage from the St Albans Chronicle appears to be a quasi-fulfillment of Philip de

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

39

Mézièrs’ crusading plan. This crusade was aimed as a worldwide campaign against the Ottoman Turks. According to this scheme, the king of Lithuania (already converted at the time of de Mézièr’s planning) would join the Prussian Knights and march towards Constantinople through Russia.127 The red crosses on white cloaks of the Lithuanians are likely to have been the signs of St. George. Thus, they accorded well with the crusading idea and de Mézièrs’ ideals, which were well known in an England even patronized by the royal family.128 Consequently, the project could have been responsible for shaping rumors about Bayezet’s defeat at the hands of neophyte Lithuanians. The entire story reveals what a short step lay between a Saracen and a Christian when regarded in light of the almighty conversion. Fluctuations in Vytautas’ image clearly illustrate this phenomenon. In addition, the idea of a crusade was also not foreign to Vytautas. On a number of occasions, the Grand Duke proved himself a capable student of the Teutonic Knights. He minted coins with the sign of the lily (figs. 59-60), thus borrowing the symbol of the Order’s patron, the Virgin Mary,129 and learned the lessons of the reysae. Having experienced the crusaders’ attacks from an early age and participated in a number of reysae during his time as a refugee, Vytautas found occasion to launch his crusade. The earliest such attempt dates to 1398. At that time, the assembled Lithuanian, Polish, Ruthenian, and Teutonic forces marched far into the steppes around the Dnieper River, plundered there for four weeks, and, having built the castle of St. John by the mouth of the river, returned home.130 Although the scenario for this expedition followed that of a Teutonic reysa, the action was not yet called a crusade. This oversight was rectified a year later. In 1399, the bishop of Krakow and King Jogaila asked the papacy for a declaration of a crusade against the Tatars and Turks. The Pope approved these initiatives and issued a bull urging people to take the Cross against the infidel Tatars and Muscovites.131 The celebrated initiative failed in the fields by the Vorskla River; however, the idea of a crusade survived. Usually well-informed Teutonic chronicles noted that in 1407 Vytautas asked papal permission to call a crusade against Russia; the papacy, however, did not satisfy this request.132 We do not know whether any of the subsequent incursions into Russian territories were proclaimed a crusade.133 It is nonetheless an important fact that the Grand Duke did not abandon the idea. One letter from Vytautas also illustrates his success in the role of crusader. This is a reply to an unknown prince. The Grand Duke’s response briefly repeats the original inquiry. It appears that

40

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the prince had asked Vytautas for advice on how to reach the Holy Land and invited him to join in the march to the Holy Sepulcher.134 Thus, the manifold experience of the reysae earned the Grand Duke some prestige along with an invitation for his crusade to the Holy Land.

The Perverse Saracen Despite the number of positive characteristics attributed to Vytautas, there are many more sources that consider him pagan. The Teutonic Knights elaborately nurtured the heathen motif whenever it was in their interests. These efforts correspond to the state of relations between the Order and Vytautas. Chronologically, they fall into two time periods divided by the battle of Grunwald. The sources dating before the battle portray Vytautas negatively; however, their rhetoric is far from the post-Grunwaldian disputes. The dates of both groups of sources can roughly be considered as a decade before and a decade after the battle.135 In 1401 (the year of the first Samogitian revolt),136 the grand master complained to the Pope that Vytautas, who initially was friendly with the Order, had changed: he had begun conspiring with the Polish king, schismatic Ruthenians, and other heretics. What’s more, regardless of a conspiracy, Vytautas styled himself a defender and patron of the Church. The grand master equates this to a union between Christ and Belial—that is, between God and idol—and points out that it is clearly directed against the Christian faith.137 In the Order’s complaint addressed to the Duke of Burgundy, Vytautas is called a traitor, one who fights against Christianity.138 Specific accusations are declared in the letter to the king of France, other potentates, and German princes: under the leadership of Vytautas, pagans assassinate Christians, devastate churches, and desecrate holy crosses and images. In short, Vytautas, who had only been recently baptized, and in spite of all the good that the Knights had done for him, turned against the Order with evil deeds.139 Vytautas was a capable student of the Order, and therefore sent his messages simultaneously with the Teutonic accusations. They ascribed similar vices to the Knights, always stressing that they did not attempt to spread the Christian faith in Samogitia, which at that time was under the Order’s administration.140 The mutual accusations between Vytautas and the Teutonic Knights stand in stark contrast. Each of the parties blames the other for adhering to a false Christianity, while proclaiming themselves genuine followers of the true faith. The more intense the relations, the more elabo-

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

41

rate the opposing parties’ arguments became. As early as 1396, the Order asked Vytautas to swear that he would not return to his previous errors, as if returning to one’s own vomit.141 Later the Order expanded this metaphor to embrace the Lithuanian neophytes, paralleling their possible apostasy to a dog returning to its vomit.142 In 1408, Jogaila declared to the papacy that he, together with Vytautas, and with their lands neighboring those of barbarians and schismatics, were the actual defenders of Christendom.143 The Order interpreted this as an alliance with the Russians and Tatars.144 In 1409 (the year of the second Samogitian revolt145), the tension among the parties increased significantly. Although Vytautas pretended ignorance of the Samogitian events, well-informed annalists of Thorn noted that the revolt happened “jussum et voluntatem Vitoldi.”146 Very shortly, the Grand Duke began openly confronting the Order. The grand master widely circulated accusations concerning Vytautas’ alliance with infidels and schismatics.147 Jogaila’s letter-pamphlet, written in response, included 29 articles enumerating the Order’s misdeeds, in addition to the traditional praise of the Polish–Lithuanian alliance.148 Simultaneously, Vytautas issued a highly rhetorical appeal asking the Knights what Christian deeds had they accomplished in Samogitia.149 Tensions increased, leaving no other solution but war. Both parties concluded a year’s truce and began military preparations.150 The conflict reached its peak on the field of Grunwald. Almost immediately after the battle, Sigismund of Luxembourg issued letters inviting the Christian princes to support the troubled Knights, who had suffered an unjust defeat at the hands of the pagans. Several days later, the text of this letter was announced to the Teutonic brethren defending besieged Marienburg.151 In this way, the battle took on an epistolary air as a conflict between pagans and Christians. The dispute had its roots in the fact that there were Ruthenian, Tatar, and Samogitian, that is, schismatic, Saracen, and heathen, troops among the forces of the allies. The Order’s advocates interpreted the Polish–Lithuanian victory as unjust and treated it as a shedding of Christian blood. The allies replied that they relied exclusively on their own subjects, who, although belonging to various confessions, supported their legitimate sovereigns.152 In addition to this quite precise epistolary dispute, narratives provide even more diverse evidence. I shall consider only the pro-Teutonic texts, as they alone contribute something to the perceptions of Vytautas. Authors supporting the allies reserved their judgment in naming the victors and moralized that the defeat was a just lesson for the Knights’ arrogance.153

42

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

The descriptions of the battle of Grunwald can be found in many narratives. Naturally, the information they contain varies, depending on the country in which it was recorded. Thus, chroniclers from the German-speaking lands describe the united forces as consisting of Poles under the leadership of Jogaila’s and Vytautas’ troops, consisting of Samogitians, Lithuanians, Russians, and Tatars. Other authors specify that Jogaila brought Poles, Vytautas brought Lithuanians, and a Tatar tsar appeared with his troops.154 Some of them are more detailed in describing the three leaders and introduce them not only by name, but also ascribe some feature to them. For instance, Andreas of Regensburg mentions that Jogaila and Vytautas were semi-Christians, but later describes Vytautas as a pagan or neophyte.155 While German sources usually differ in terms of the leaders and the nations of the troops, records from further away are less precise, though more curious. Quite elaborate descriptions of the battle appear in French and Burgundian chronicles. The Chronique du Religieux de Saint Denys contains a narrative concerning the conflict that emerged between the king of Krakow, his brother a Saracen king, and the Prussian Order.156 Enquerran de Monstrelet also mentions the battle, but in a rather different manner. At first he tells of the conflict between the Polish king and the master of the Order, in which, by the grace of God, the Poles retreated to their territory. Then, the king’s brother (in the text below, his cousin), the king of Lithuania, together with other Saracens, entered Prussia from the side of the sea. The intruders devastated everything in their path. After this the chronicler introduces Jogaila as a former Saracen and a patricide, who fled from Lithuania to Poland.157 After a few chapters on Burgundian events, Monstrelet returns to Baltic matters. He says that on July 15, 1410, the grand master entered Lithuania with the aim at ruining and depopulating the country. The Lithuanian king was assisted by the king of Sarmatia (Sarmac) and innumerable Saracens; nonetheless, the Christians won the battle. The Teutonic Knights killed the admiral of Lithuania and the constable of Sarmatia, in addition to 26,000 Saracens. Unfortunately, the king of Poland came to the aid of the Saracens and defeated the Prussian master.158 Compared with German records, the Francophone chronicles describe events less precisely: the Tatar tsar absolutely disappears from the story. It is likely he was combined with Vytautas, who, although nameless, emerges as a Saracen king.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

43

The New Apostle Numerous medieval authors wrote about the battle of Grunwald and its outcome. As mentioned above, the parties to the conflict appealed to papal and imperial authority in search of judgment.159 These efforts brought the issue to the agenda of the Council of Constance (1414–1418).160 The entire discussion is known as a dispute between Poland and the Teutonic Knights. As it appears from the title, Lithuania played only a secondary role in this argument. In the course of the Council, the dispute gradually departed from direct accusations and developed into a discussion on political theory involving the prominent legal minds of the period.161 Although highly sophisticated,162 this legal dispute on secular and sacred authority has no significance for the development of Vytautas’ image. These materials are therefore omitted from the following description. Internationally, Vytautas’ Christian image was especially brightly manifested on two occasions: the baptism of the Samogitians and the attempts to bridge the schism within the Church. The issue of Samogitia stemmed directly from the disputes with the Teutonic Order. The fact that Vytautas and Jogaila had transferred Samogitia to the Teutonic Knights greatly complicated the return of the donated lands. The Order possessed the land grants, and law was on the side of the Knights. The Polish–Lithuanian party had to invent a new approach. Hence, the shameful delay of Samogitian conversion constituted the core of the new dispute. Moreover, letter-pamphlets and scholarly speeches were obviously not enough. “Living proof” was necessary. Having met in L’viv on October 18, 1415, Jogaila and Vytautas decided to send a Samogitian delegation to Constance.163 On November 28, 1415, the Samogitians arrived at the Council. Naturally, the appearance of 60 neophytes, “viri satis procerae staturae,”164 impressed the Council’s fathers.165 As there was neither emperor nor pope, the legates had to wait before opening their cause. They delivered a speech, which became known as the Propositio Samaitarum.166 It accused the Order of greediness, cruelty, and indecent behavior, and provided specific examples illustrating these accusations. The proposal ended by asking the Council’s permission for the illustrious and the most Christian princes, Wladislas, king of Poland, and Alexander Vytautas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, to baptize the Samogitian people. The legates stressed that, without the assistance of these princes, the baptism would be impossible.167

44

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

It has been supposed that the idea of sending Samogitians to the Council might have originated among the Polish delegates at Constance.168 This assumption is quite credible, especially given the fact that they best knew the atmosphere of the meeting. As to the text, the Propositio Samaitarum is a piece of simple, but professional, literature the authorship of which remains unknown.169 Despite the gaps in factual evidence, the perception of the speech is important. The procurator of the Teutonic Order pointed out that the spectacle was arranged “ad iusum Wytauti.”170 Thus, the Teutonic Knights at least sensed Vytautas’ direction behind the performance. The results of the enterprise also testify to the truth of this assumption. The Samogitian appeal was crowned with success. On March 1, 1416,171 the delegation left Constance in the company of missionaries. These good intentions partly failed; the churchmen were not allowed to cross Prussia.172 Hence the legates returned home and Vytautas assumed the role of Samogitia’s apostle. The conversion was placed in the hands of John, archbishop of L’viv, and Peter, bishop of Vilnius. Sources testify that the Christianization began in Kaunas and lasted for at least three months.173 Having carried out their mission, the bishops informed the Council about their actions and glorified Vytautas’ personal contribution towards the spreading of the Christian faith. The Grand Duke is referred to as the author and director of the whole process.174 The establishment of the Samogitian bishopric and the foundation of the Cathedral in honor of the Holy Trinity, the Virgin Mary, the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the Martyr Alexander crowned the apostolic mission. All these activities were carefully described. The bishops’ letters provide details of the conversion and spread of the God’s word among the “populum gravem Samagitarum et gentem bellicosam.”175 Although the action was formally presented as a joint initiative of Jogaila and Vytautas, the latter was especially praised.176 Even at its earliest stages, the rulers’ Christ-loving deeds evoked papal and imperial delight and approval.177 Moreover, neither the king nor the Grand Duke remained reserved towards this apostolic mission. In describing their deeds, the rulers drew parallels between themselves and fishermen178 (it is not by accident that the cathedral was dedicated to the Roman Apostles Peter and Paul, as was the parish church in Veliuona)179 and extended their aspirations towards the Church’s union.180 Naturally, such initiatives could not be passed over without a word of praise.181

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

45

The Restorer of the Universal Church The endeavors towards a universal Church emerged in parallel to the Samogitian conversion and partly followed its scenario. Moreover, the Council of Constance sent envoys to Samogitia already having in mind the “infidel people” in Ruthenia and others living in the north.182 Reporting about the Samogitian delegation, the Order’s procurator, Peter of Wormedith, noted en passant that the Byzantine emperor, by mediation of King Wladislas and Grand Duke Vytautas, expressed a desire to return to the obedience of the Roman Church.183 The idea that Byzantium, rather than Ruthenian, principalities would unite with Rome seemed more real. The marriage of Vytautas’ granddaughter Anna184 to the imperial heir John (later to be John VIII Paleaologus, r. 1423–1448) served as proof that the first steps towards the union had already been undertaken. It was expected that the mission of a certain Dominican friar, Theodore by name, would become instrumental in achieving the long desired unity of the Christendom. 185 As far as the Byzantine emperor is concerned, he must have at least hesitated, while the patriarch was definitely against the Polish–Lithuanian mediation. Moreover, the entire idea has quite a history. The plan to bridge the schism is a direct consequence of the efforts to establish an independent metropolitanate of the Lithuanian Orthodox Church. These initiatives date back to the reign of Gediminas and Algirdas.186 Having captured Kiev, Lithuanian Grand Dukes tried to more closely associate the Orthodox Church with their government. Regrettably, these efforts were not always recognized by the patriarch in Constantinople; Orthodox Ruthenians frequently remained under the spiritual supremacy of the metropolitan of Kiev, residing first in Vladimir and later in Moscow. The entire story of the establishment of the Lithuanian metropolitanate with its capital in Kiev is rather complicated. However, bearing in mind Vytautas’ image, I shall proceed according to the letter of the Orthodox bishops of the grand duchy.187 In 1408, Metropolitan Photius (d. 1431) occupied the Kievan see; hence, he resided in Moscow. In the words of Lithuanian Orthodox dignitaries, Photius absolutely neglected the Ruthenian principalities, and never traveled there to solve spiritual matters. The situation would have led to a disaster if not for the help of Alexander Vytautas, sent by Providence. The Grand Duke recalled Photius from his office and sent to Constantinople asking the patriarch to consecrate a new metropolitan word for the Lithu-

46

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

anian lands. The bishops gladly received this just request, but the corrupted Constantinopolitans did not listen to their cause. No other way remained except to hold a meeting of spiritual and secular potentates. The synod assembled in Novgorudek, in the Church of the Mother of God. According to the Russian annals, Vytautas personally presided over it.188 On November 15, 1416, the meeting elected Gregory Camblak189 as the metropolitan of Kiev, that is, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.190 The Byzantines rejected the decisions of the synod and especially accused the bishops of listening to Vytautas, who was a Catholic, in spiritual matters. This was too much to bear and the Lithuanian ecclesiastics decided to behave according to the ancient tradition, once practiced in Rus’ but later abandoned under the influence of the Eastern emperor: they consecrated Gregory as metropolitan of Kiev against the will of the patriarch. In 1418, Camblak followed the footsteps of Samogitian legation. The appearance of Ruthenians in Constance impressed the Council,191 as did Camblak’s speech.192 Obviously, the latter ascribed the idea of the union to the most devoted princes, Jogaila and Vytautas.193 Finally, the letters from the rulers of Poland and Lithuania were read and the metropolitan respectfully left the Council.194 The practical results were modest: the unionist ideas were not put into action. However, Vytautas once again profited. The Emperor Sigismund was explicitly delighted with the Grand Duke’s achievements195 and Pope Martin V nominated him as a vicar general for Lithuania, Samogitia, as well as for the schismatic lands of Pskov and Novgorod the Great,196 and acknowledged him as guardian of the Livonian bishops.197 Such was the evaluation from the Catholic perspective. Russian Orthodox opinion judged Vytautas’ unionist activity quite differently. The annals tell Camblak’s story as follows: in autumn 1415, by God’s permission and Vytautas’ will and desire, Christian bishops from the Grand Duke’s lands assembled in Lithuanian Novgorudek and designated Gregory the Bulgarian as metropolitan of Kiev. Gregory approached Vytautas and asked him: “Why do you, Duke, follow the Latin faith instead of adopting Orthodox Christianity?” And Vytautas answered him: “If you wish to see me within the Orthodox faith and not only me, but also the infidel people of Lithuania, you should go to Rome, have dispute with the pope and his wise men. If you manage to convince them, then all of us will become Christians. If not, I shall convert all the people of my land to my German faith.” And Vytautas sent Gregory in the company of his boyars to Rome.198 While the annals recognized that Vytautas acted as he did with godly

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

47

permission, Photius’ description of Camblak widely circulated within the codes of the annals. Understandably, this characteristic is explicitly negative. Gregory is damned; the synod that elected him is equated with a meeting of a gang (Ru, sborishche), and so on.199 Surprisingly, Photius’ story does not condemn Vytautas, but rather, the Grand Duke appears as an outside participant within the ecclesiastic intrigue. Thus, one may assume that the Grand Duke’s manipulations within the Orthodox Church and his neglect of the patriarch’s and Photius’ interests and opinions did not harm his image as a powerful sovereign.200

Embracing the Heresy By the end of the Council of Constance, the territorial disputes between the Teutonic Order and the Polish–Lithuanian alliance were settled only in part. However, Vytautas had established an image of a Christian prince that was impossible to destroy. Diplomacy, spectacle, and real actions guaranteed its stability. Of course, even after the Church Council, doubts concerning the truthfulness of the Grand Duke’s faith emerged, but these did not manage to seriously harm his Christian image. Moreover, by this time Vytautas was actively established within Central European politics. There the key issues were the advancement of the Ottoman Turks and the Hussite heresy. Vytautas made his presence felt on both fronts. Even before the disputes concerning the consequences of the battle of Grunwald were settled, Vytautas entered into contacts with Ottoman Turkey. Actually, the Turks first appeared in political rhetoric, rather than as a physical threat to the Grand Duchy. The Polish–Lithuanian alliance manifested itself as the Christianizers of Lithuania and Samogitia and declared that the presence of the Teutonic Knights in Prussia had lost its meaning. Therefore, on February 13, 1416, the allies proposed that the Order should be resettled eastwards. There, the Knights would find the job suitable to their vocation: the defense of the borders of Christendom against the Tatars and the Ottoman Turks.201 Although this proposal sounds like pure rhetoric, in fact the idea of resettling the Knights had been pronounced in Lithuania as early as 1358.202 At this point it was important that the concept of the Turkish threat had entered the political vocabulary of the image-makers. The Church Council addressed Vytautas, asking for his assistance to the Emperor Sigismund against the Turkish advance.203 The practical side of these contacts was more prosaic, and certainly more cautious.

48

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Already before the 1420s, Vytautas had established contacts with the Turks. Bearing in mind all the efforts made to justify the Polish–Lithuanian alliance with the Tatars, these relations seem to have been quite a risky affair. Moreover, Turks were among the traditional medieval symbols of infidels, and heathen Lithuanians were occasionally associated with them.204 Hence, even a slight incident could have provoked a long-lasting conflict. The Ottoman menace to the Empire was more than real and any alliance with the advancing Turks was interpreted as an anti-Christian action. Vytautas was well aware of this fact and tried to avoid a new wave of propaganda against him. The Grand Duke was therefore quite careful not to reveal these relations.205 His tactics were successful. Although Polish–Lithuanian contacts with the Turks were more or less known in the west,206 the two rulers were treated as being within the anti-Turkish camp.207 Jogaila and Vytautas jointly maintained the Ottoman case.208 Hence, the Turks remained a minor issue within Vytautas’ imagery, worked out in accordance with Christian principles. Moreover, at some point the Grand Duke was considered as an anti-Ottoman ruler. His endeavors received papal praise and imperial appeals.209 Quite the opposite situation emerged in relation to the Hussites. Neither Jogaila nor Vytautas directly opposed the Hussite Czechs.210 It was rather the other way around. In contrast to the minor and careful contacts with the Ottoman Turks, the Polish–Lithuanian rulers quite openly supported the rebellious Czechs. In the west these collaborations were perceived accordingly. Ghillebert of Lannoy knew about the king’s and the Duke’s contacts with the Turks and even sought benefits from this collaboration. However, he manifested his disdain for Vytautas’ involvement in Bohemian affairs by rejecting some of the Grand Duke’s gifts.211 This attitude stems from political rather than religious concerns: as long as the conflict with the Teutonic Order was not settled, Bohemia seemed a natural ally to the rulers of Poland and Lithuania. Moreover, the alliance with the Czechs obviously threatened the Emperor Sigismund, by then acknowledged as the principal authority in the dispute with the Teutonic Knights.212 As far as the surviving sources reveal, the initiatives for the Bohemian–Polish–Lithuanian collaboration came from the Czech lands. Late in the year 1420, Bohemian envoys offered the crown to Jogaila; however, he rejected this offer. Then the embassy approached Vytautas213 and offered the Bohemian crown to the Grand Duke.214 According to Długosz, the Grand Duke kept the Czechs in suspense for an entire year.215 Instead of

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

49

a definite answer, Vytautas sent Sigismund of Kaributas216 to be his representative in Bohemia. The latter acted on behalf of Vytautas, who was styled the invited king of Bohemia,217 and in April 1422 declared war on the emperor.218 Obviously, these actions evoked a response: the machine of imperial propaganda was switched on, and the Tatar motif reappeared. Sigismund of Luxembourg complained to the Bishop of Dorpat219 that Vytautas had sent not only the son of Kaributas, but also Tatar troops to support the Czech heretics.220 Given the perceptions of the Hussite revolution,221 one would have expected that Vytautas would also have been declared a heretic. In fact, the Grand Duke’s occasional descriptions as heretic or adherent of the heresy222 seem quite modest accusations. What’s more, whenever Vytautas is reproached for helping the Czechs, he is warned that such behavior contradicts the ideal of a Christian ruler.223 The papacy and the Empire sought indirect ways of influencing the Grand Duke’s attitudes towards Bohemia.224 Sigismund of Kaributas’, military achievements were a serious threat to the Empire. Hence, the Pope and the Emperor endeavored to have Vytautas take him away from Bohemia.225 Pope Martin V threatened Vytautas with excommunication and a crusade226 and demanded that the Grand Duke swear an oath to recall Kaributas’ son from the Czech lands.227 In summary, the correspondence concerning Hussite matters shows that the achievements of the Council of Constance were still valid: although Vytautas’ influence in Bohemia disturbed the international authorities, he was treated as a Christian ruler. Having considered foreign opinions, it is important to look at Vytautas’ own position. The Grand Duke reflected upon his actions in a properly Christian spirit: He declared his involvement in the Hussite wars to have been an attempt to bring the erring Czechs back into the bosom of the Universal Church.228 Moreover, as rex iustus et pacificus, Vytautas wrote to Pope Martin V that the crusade against the Hussites was a useless effort and contrasted it to his own peaceful initiatives at overcoming the heresy.229 This position proved fruitful: even Vytautas’ neutrality was praised as a Christ-loving deed230 adding additional laurels to his wreath of honors. Whatever the Grand Duke’s reputation, students of political history agree that Vytautas’ alliance with the Hussites had very mundane goals: to “persuade” the Emperor Sigismund, who was arbitrating the dispute of the Polish–Lithuanian border with the Teutonic Knights, in his stand towards Samogitia. As soon as the peace treaty, which recognized Samogitia as an integrated part

50

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

of Lithuania, was concluded at Lake Mełno in 1422, Vytautas abandoned his interests in Bohemia. In 1423, he wrote to the Czechs explaining that he had never intended to accept the Bohemian crown.231 Thus, politically the Hussite involvement was merely a show of force to regain Samogitia. As far as Vytautas’ imagery is concerned, international authorities rejoiced greatly about the Grand Duke’s abandonment of Bohemia. The Pope extensively praised Vytautas’ efforts for Christendom and declared the struggle with heresy and the defense of Christians to be the greatest adornments of a princely title.232

The “Son of Man” The Grand Duke’s renown grew faster than his achievements. While the Emperor and the Pope wished to isolate the Lithuanian ruler from the Bohemian matters, there were restless minds that viewed Vytautas as a messiah in a country under turmoil. Such an interpretation comes from a hitherto nearly unconsidered prophecy by Johannes Wünfchelberg (fl. early 15th c.), a Dominican from Amberg in Bavaria.233 The preacher adapted a wellknown English prediction of “The Lily, the Lion, and the Son of Man” to the Bohemian context.234 The prophecy foresees that the Lily will establish its kingdom in the land of the Lion. Then the Son of Man will appear carrying a beast in his arms. And there will be turmoil in the world. The Eagle with his eaglets will assist the Son of Man. They will overthrow the Lily in the land of the Lion and the Son of Man will be crowned with the Lion’s crown. Later on, wars and other calamities will range through the world. During this period, the pope will lose his power. However, the Son of Man and the Eagle will survive. Finally, the preacher provides a key to these symbols: the Lily signifies Hungary, the Lion means Bohemia, the Eagle—Jogaila, the eaglets—the Poles, and the Son of Man represents Vytautas. This prophecy stands out from Vytautas’ imagery, so that a glimpse into its historical circumstances warrants a necessary excursus. 235 The Hussite movement inspired various visions of a better world. The Hussite disapproval of the clergy, the papacy, and the empire led to the flourishing of political prophecy.236 It is therefore not surprising that Vytautas’ appearance on the Bohemian scene attracted the attention of prophetic eyes. It is worth noting that the prophet speaks of the Grand Duke in the symbols of the Gospels. A closer look at the text of the prediction should be enlightening.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

51

The Bavarian preacher translated and extended the originally Latin text into German and changed its key. Initially this original prophecy concerned English and French interests in Flanders and was deciphered as follows: the Lion symbolized Flanders, the Lily—the French king, and the Son of Man meant the English king, Edward III, although later on it was adapted to allude to subsequent rulers.237 Knowing the patterns in which medieval political prophecies work, it is credible that the Bavarian Dominican discovered a “true” context for the Lily prophecy in Bohemia. This explanation seems convincing, since by that time the prognosis had not yet been fulfilled in Flanders. At the same time, the symbols of the prophecy correspond to the coats of arms of the countries in Europe’s east, and Vytautas was indeed offered the crown of the “Lion” (i.e., of Bohemia). Hence, in the 1420s, the signs meant for Flanders were occurring in Bohemia. Since I could trace neither contemporary nor later responses to this prediction, the motives for its adaptation remain shadowy. It is obvious that Vytautas’ involvement in Czech affairs made him the hero of the story. And the attribution to him of the symbol traditionally reserved only for Jesus Christ is an outstanding feature.238 Thus, events in fifteenth-century Bohemia and the interest of the neighboring rulers in the Czech lands were stimuli that prompted friar Johannes to adapt the unfulfilled English prophecy to Eastern Europe. The prophecy demonstrates that there was no difficulty in cloaking the “Tatar chieftain” beneath the sign of the messiah. *** In conclusion, Vytautas entered the political scene as a heathen prince with a reputation of being a leader of the fiercest pagans. Understandably, he spared no effort to be recognized as a Christian, although, until the Council of Constance, the steps he took bore only modest fruit. At the Council, the Polish–Lithuanian alliance endeavored to present itself as truly Christian. Despite the counterattack by the Teutonic Order, Vytautas left the Council victorious. He was not only recognized as a Christian prince, but even surpassed the traditional requirements of a Catholic ruler. Having captured the aura of a Samogitian apostle, the Grand Duke’s skills in converting his people were extended to the lands of schismatic Russians. Most importantly, once the image was established, it became as firm as the earlier perception of Vytautas as a Saracen leader. Initially, the Christianization of Lithuania hardly influenced the pagan image of her people.

52

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Later, neither the Grand Duke’s relations with the Ottoman Turks, nor his alliance with the Hussite Czechs could destroy the image of Vytautas as a Christian prince.

THE VISUAL EXPRESSION OF LORDSHIP The Residence in Trakai Vytautas was an itinerant ruler, who resided in many castles built throughout the territory of the grand duchy. The grand ducal office associated him with Vilnius. However, his favorite residence was established in his paternal city of Trakai.239 During the first decade of the fifteenth century, he built a second castle there. It was located on an island in Lake Galvė. Technically, this construction was one of the most sophisticated at the time, as it involved draining the lake, after which a number of islands emerged (fig. 7).240 As to the architecture, the castle has two parts: a fort with towers directed towards the city, and a fortified palace (figs. 8-9). There is no certain date for the completion of the building. However, in 1414 Ghillebert of Lannoy described it as newly built from red bricks according to the manner of France.241 Although the construction of a second stronghold in Trakai was planned as an extension of the town’s fortifications, it primarily served as the favorite residence of Vytautas, while the castle’s environs were used for entertainment.242 After the Duke’s death in 1430, the entire site was gradually abandoned. The palace stopped being used as a residence in the sixteenth century and was badly damaged during the mid-seventeenth-century wars.243 It remained in ruins (fig. 10) until the 1960s, when it was reconstructed in the form we see today (figs. 9, 11).

THE MURALS: COPIES AND RESEARCH While the castle is mentioned in many sources, this is not the case with its decoration: contemporary records are silent on the subject. However, circumstantial evidence and archaeological finds suggest that the painting of the interiors followed the construction of the castle.244 Nevertheless, it was only in the nineteenth century that fragments of the murals were brought into light and, thanks to Romantic zeal, copied and described.245 Discovered in the nineteenth century, the paintings attracted less attention than the architectural ruins. As far as sources reveal, remnants of the paintings survived in the windows of the audience-hall on the first floor, and in those of the chambers on the second floor of the palace’s southern wing.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

53

These fragments were copied by Wincenty Smokowski in 1822 (figs. 14-16), Jan Nepomuk Głowacki in 1823 (fig. 17), Vasilii Griaznov in 1864-65 (figs. 25, 31, 33, 41, 55, 58), and Jerzy Hoppen in 1932 (figs. 26, 37, 40, 49, 52). There are mentions of other artists and photographers documenting the murals; regrettably, the works that I have found thus far do not add additional evidence to this research.246 As to the written records, Smokowski and Hoppen not only copied, but also described, their finds. Several visitors to the castle noted their impressions of the mural decoration. Among the best-known copies are those made by Smokowski: the author’s reminiscences of the trip to the castle, together with descriptions and a lithograph featuring individual scenes from the murals, were published in 1841 (fig. 18).247 Although the lithograph has highly classicized the paintings, it does reflect their narrative. In addition, Smokowski’s descriptions are rather accurate and were made in situ. Głowacki’s drawing (fig. 17)248 seems to be a copy of Smokowski’s sketches from 1822 (figs. 14–16).249 These drawings not only increase our knowledge about the murals, but also reveal that Smokowski did not sketch every scene appearing on the lithograph. To date, Griaznov’s watercolors have had no wider scholarly application.250 His copies slightly differ from other pictures and it seems that besides copying, Griaznov placed emphasis not only on Byzantine/Russian style, but also on the Orthodox faith. In contrast, Smokowski’s lithograph secularized the images. Therefore, one should be careful when interpreting the evidence, especially since the most reliable copies by Hoppen are the least numerous.251 Though Byzantine art is generally a rather well-investigated subject, the case of Trakai has received little scholarly attention.252 Thus far, only two attempts at interpreting these murals have been made and I shall offer the third reading of this lost interior decoration. Considering earlier contributions and their resources, Tadas Adomonis253 discussed the copies based on Smokowski’s and Hoppen’s documentation; Anna Różycka-Bryzek254 examined them on the basis of Smokowski’s lithograph. Both authors place the murals within the context of Byzantine imagery and Lithuanian politics. However, they absolutely differ in their interpretations: Adomonis regards the murals as an illustration of Vytautas’ patriotic policy, while Różycka-Bryzek sees in them Biblical cycles of David and Joseph, metaphorically relating to the political roles of Jogaila and Vytautas.255 To my mind, neither of these explanations is acceptable: Adomonis viewed images as realistic depictions of everyday life at the grand ducal court,

54

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

which could not have happened in the Middle Ages. Różycka-Bryzek ignored the location of individual scenes, thus arranging Biblical cycles regardless of whether the image was on the first or the second floor and combining distanced scenes into one continuous story.256 In addition to this, more visual and written sources exist than these authors considered.

TRADITION OF MURAL PAINTING The tradition of decorating grand ducal residencies with al secco wall paintings executed in a Byzantine style can be traced back to the early fourteenth century. Archaeological evidence and artistic export to Poland257 testify to this fashion being widespread. In today’s Lithuania the only known piece of such decoration is the Crucifixion from the crypt under Vilnius Cathedral from the 1390s. This mural painting is distinguished for the combination of Byzantine style and Catholic iconography.258 When searching for wider contexts of palace decoration one recalls painted interiors of imperial residences in Byzantium, today known by their descriptions in contemporaneous literature259 and rare remnants of mosaic pavements. In contrast to this evidence, the copies from Trakai constitute a visually documented example of Byzantine mural painting from a ruler’s court. Thus far, I have not come across any other similar example.

THE DECORATION OF THE PALACE IN TRAKAI Since the analysis of the murals involves only copies without originals, interpretations of individual fragments are based exclusively on their message as inferred from the composition of individual scenes and attested to by circumstantial evidence. The following discussion does not concern the style of the mural decoration, given the assumption of credible distortions of the original painting.260 However, the research relies on eyewitnesses’ accounts that have identified these paintings as belonging to the Byzantine/Russian tradition. Hereafter, I shall first describe the copies according to their location in the palace, beginning with the least-documented fragments from the chambers on the second floor, and then shall proceed to the decoration of the audience hall on the first floor (figs. 12–13). After this, I shall present a theoretical interpretation of how these images can be viewed. Second floor, western chamber: On the left side of the southern niche there are fragments, a bust and legs, of a slightly bent figure in profile (figs. 19–20). On the right side of the niche, two persons kneel by a small construction with a gabled roof and an anthropomorphic figure on its front façade

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

55

(figs. 21–22). Deeper in the niche stands a full-size frontal figure of an unknown female saint (figs. 23–25).261 The same chamber contains a western niche. There are remnants of an ornamental border on the inner side of that niche (fig. 26). On the left side, there is a haloed bust in profile set before three or more slightly bent figures (figs. 27-28). Deeper in that niche, there is a full-size figure of a young male saint en face holding a book under his left arm (figs. 29-31).262 Smokowski also informs us that there was one more scene by the niche, on the chamber wall. It featured two men, one seated, his head leaning on his hand, opposed by a standing figure of another man (fig. 32).263 The artist’s description also mentions the figure of a seated woman opposed by a group of men and women.264 Practically no decoration except for a few ornamental and floral motives (figs. 34–35) survived in the central chamber. In the southern chamber, on the right side of the niche there is a male figure dressed in a distinctive costume, consisting of a long garment and quadrangular headgear, sitting opposite a group of three women and a man. The last male figure wears a triangular cap and a long robe (figs. 36). First floor: the audience hall (figs. 12–13). The southeastern niche contains a seated male figure in a long yellowish garment holding a round dark object in his right hand (figs. 37–39). The decoration of the central niche is documented most explicitly (figs. 40–41). On the left side of the niche is a scene in profile against a background of conventional architecture. A male is sitting on a three-step elevation. A female figure, dressed in lightly colored robes, is standing in front of the sitting male. Both figures are united by conversational gestures. Deeper in the niche is a fragment, a frontal torso, of a standing figure (figs. 40, 42–43). On the right side of that niche there is a similar scene in profile against the background of conventional architecture. Again there is a male figure sitting on an elevated seat opposite a group of four people, three of whom are female while the fourth is male. All the women in the group carry some objects and are characterized by expressive gestures. The last male figure wears a headgear identical to one of the sitting male (figs. 44–46). On the top of the niche is a frontal image of a standing figure depicted against a monochrome background. His right hand is elevated and his left hand stretches down, holding a light-colored rectangular object (figs. 40, 47–48). The decoration on the right side of the southwestern niche in the audience hall features three or four figures against the background of an interior

56

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

with columns (figs. 49-51). These figures are characterized by long garments with short cloaks worn over them. Smokowski describes the standing figures as having characteristically Asian facial features and identifies them with Tatars.265 The last set of copies documents the decoration of the western niche in the audience hall. An encircled bust of a saint has been traced on the left side of the niche (figs. 52–55). Two copies (figs. 52, 55) also indicate remnants of a circle above the bust of the saint. On the lower left side of the niche is a scene featuring a lady sitting opposite a standing group of four women and a man (figs. 56-57). Griaznov has copied a fragment of murals featuring three women and a man (fig. 58). This picture resembles Smokowski’s sketch and Głowacki’s drawing (figs. 56–57). It could perhaps be a smaller fragment of the same part of the decoration, even though the middle lady holds an oblong object reminding one of a scroll used to inscribe a figure’s words or prayers. The last figure of a bearded man does not have the same headgear (although he seems to have a beard [fig. 56]), and conventional architecture in the background situates this scene outdoors. Whatever the location of Griaznov’s picture, it allows us to better visualize the palace’s decoration. Having formally described the decoration, let me present a theory for its possible interpretation. However, before beginning the analysis of the images I must explicitly state that their fragmentary survival renders every reading of their iconography and message only hypothetical. The proposed interpretation relies on similar patterns in medieval iconography and arrangement of the fragments of mural painting within the palace’s architecture. When selecting between alternative readings, I give preference to that which corresponds better to Lithuanian realities of the early fifteenth century. Considering all the remnants of the decoration, one notes the repetitive image of a male, who appears seated (figs. 36, 40–46) and standing (figs. 40, 47–48, 56–57). This figure is distinguished by its costume, consisting of a tunic tied with a belt and adorned with a collar and a quadrangular cap. This dress is similar to, but not identical with, garments indicating the highest status of a person in Byzantine art: The quadrangular cap echoes the shape of the stemma, while the belt and collar resemble a loros.266 Christ and his prophets, Biblical rulers’, and worldly potentates used to be so clothed in Byzantine art.267 The fact that the murals of Trakai feature this figure without a halo suggests his being a historical ruler. Thus, I term this figure a ruler and I shall try to reveal his identity in the following.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

57

Returning to the paintings in the audience hall, little can be said about the fragment of a seated figure on the right side of the southeastern niche (figs. 37-39). It has been argued that the round object in the man’s hand is a seal. Hence, the person holding it was identified as a chancellor.268 Although such a depiction of an official would have precedents in Byzantine art,269 such an image does not correspond to the Lithuanian realities of the period, where the chancellor’s office has not been established.270 On the other hand, one should not forget a parallel from Saint Sophia Church in Kiev, where the princely family is depicted among the spectators at a hippodrome, although no hippodrome ever existed there. By the same token, poorly developed offices at the court of Vytautas do not exclude a depiction of an official in his palace. The appearance of the Kievan scene is explained by the Constantinopolitan origins of its artists. As I shall illustrate further, the painters of Trakai were of local provenance; hence, they could hardly paint something they were not familiar with. Since one very fragmentary picture does not allow any generalizations to be made, I shall proceed towards the central niche. Architectural setting situates the scene of the conversation between the lady and the ruler, as depicted on the left side of the indoor niche (figs. 40, 42–43). By contrast, the background of the scene on the right hints at its outdoor location (fig. 40).271 Moreover, the latter’s subject matter is more explicit, and evokes certain parallels. Western iconography offers a number of similar examples. In medieval royal and, especially, imperial imagery, women used to personify nations. When presented together or in context with the image of an enthroned ruler, usually an emperor, they demonstrate the supplication of different peoples. This motif is known as nationes. The simple iconography of the nationes was widely used throughout the Middle Ages and could have been borrowed in Lithuania as well. The question is whether there were any reasons for such a motif to appear in the grand ducal palace. This scene is the single image alluding to the nationes; however, texts on Vytautas’ reign provide more evidence. Of these, the most vivid is the panegyric to the late Grand Duke Vytautas. Although composed later than the murals, it expresses ideas that had been alive within the grand ducal entourage over a long period.272 The panegyrist names many sovereigns from the neighboring counties and those from further away, who paid obeisance to Vytautas. This extensive listing concludes that there was no land by the Baltic coast that would disobey the Lithuanian sovereign.273 If the idea of the nationes was put into words, it could be expressed visually in the murals of Vytautas’ favorite residence. Although the male figure in

58

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

a ruler’s garments last appearing in the scene on the right departs from the traditional iconographic scheme, he can be viewed as a Lithuanian contribution to the motif, alluding to some potentate and his realm. Despite the credible relation between the text and the image, alternative and more mundane evidence should not be ignored. This is the account of a Camaldolese monk, Jerome of Prague (ca. 1370–1440). Jerome had been on a mission among recently baptized Lithuanians. He was, however, expelled from the country on the order of Vytautas. The Grand Duke is said to have acted in this way following the appeal of his subjects. Jerome’s account emphasizes that it was mostly women who approached Vytautas.274 Although the expelled missionary was far from being an admirer of Vytautas his mention of women may well be true. Długosz simply states that the Grand Duke’s fortune was dependent on women; hence, he obeyed them submissively275 and emphasizes his passion for women.276 Other sources confirm a female presence at the grand ducal court.277 Surely, if this assumption is correct, the wall painting neither illustrated any of the stories nor reflected the Grand Duke’s reputation. It rather featured a contemporary custom— even more, a visualized ideal of this custom. At this point one might recall the lady depicted in a conversation with the ruler on the left side of the niche. She may also fit into the general feminine pattern. All these arguments would find support in Byzantine lay imagery. While the art of personification was quite advanced in Byzantium, women with gifts were not a part of its repertoire.278 However, eastern artists would depict women with gifts if that were what they actually meant. As texts place the inquiry within an ambiguous situation, I would like to leave this issue open for a while and consider the scene at the top of the niche. This is the en face representation of the standing ruler with his right hand held up and his left holding a rectangular object, commonly identified as a writ. Being the central image, the scene has received the most attention and was interpreted as representing of the Grand Duke in his majesty. This interpretation is based on the following features: the frontality of the ruler’s stature, the writ held in his left hand, and the sword or scepter raised in his right hand, as respectively noted in two descriptions of the murals.279 These insignia were linked with Lithuania’s sovereignty, or the country’s defense, as the writ was associated with legislation. However, a closer look at the copies reveals that the Duke’s right hand is empty (fig. 40). Thus, the historically minded nineteenth-century observers, who could not imagine a ruler without insignia, must have invented the scepter or the sword. Both attributes

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

59

are derived from well-known imagery: the scepter surmounted by a cross comes from Byzantine art,280 while the sword appears on numerous pictures of medieval rulers, including the great seal of Vytautas (fig. 70). Be that as it may, fiction was more convincing than reality, and the imagined signs of grand ducal authority smoothly entered into scholarship. Neither the copies nor the ruler’s gestures created obstacles to this misinterpretation.281 Having established the fact of the ruler’s empty palm, one should be more careful with the writ in the ruler’s left hand. Taken together with the invented insignia, the writ was termed a charter or a privilege. Although having an obvious basis in fact, this interpretation also raises several questions concerning the shape of the writ and the manner in which it is held. First, about the shape: it is quadrangular, that is, unrolled. Commonly, an open writ is a scroll used to quote the person’s words. This is a well-known device, and the masters of Trakai also used it (see fig. 58). Indeed the two scrolls (cf., figs. 40–41 and fig. 58) are of similar size; however, they are positioned differently in the hands of the persons holding them. In Byzantine imperial portraiture one would find numerous images of emperors holding charters, the so-called chrysobulls that signify God’s approval of imperial legislation. At this point, I would like to return to the question of how the document is held. The full-face image depicts the ruler standing with his empty right hand raised, while his left hand stretches downwards, holding the open scroll. Here words, better than the flat picture, express body language and convey the meaning of the ruler’s dexterous gesture. This message becomes even more vivid in a round image, perhaps best known from ancient Roman sculpture.282 Undoubtedly, the power of the elevated right hand was perceived in the same way by antique, medieval, and modern audiences; however, deeply Christian medieval minds associated this representation with the Lord and His prophets.283 Hence, one should ask whether this image features a worldly or a holy figure. The absence of the halo around the ruler’s head suggests his mundane authority. As for his elevated right hand, it may either appeal to the people in the audience hall (the recipients of his words/legislation), or point to the heavens, thus indicating a divine sanction for his law. Most likely, the gesture combines both messages. As to the decoration of the southwestern niche, which supposedly depicts Tatars (fig. 49–51), one may either reject or accept this supposition. Once again, the fragment is too small for an independent interpretation. Hence, the only possible way is to rely on the Tatar presence and relate this image to Lithuanian realities of the early fifteenth century. Foreign visitors frequently

60

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

noted the Tatar presence at the court of Vytautas. The Grand Duke’s panegyrist also marveled at his achievements on the field, and his authority over the adjacent hordes, when he wrote: “And grand khans sent [envoys] to [Vytautas] from the horde; they came to serve him, and to ask for his approval of a khan for their khanate. There were many great khans serving him at his court.”284 Thus one may assume that this scene featured Tatars, although in an unknown capacity. As to the iconographic patterns, the depiction of foreign nations is a well-known device in political imagery, and written sources attest to its popularity in Byzantium.285 At this point, I would like to return to the eastern chamber on the second floor and the image of a man in a triangular cap (fig. 36). Within the region under question, such a cap would have marked a traditional attribute of a Mucsovite boyar.286 Keeping in mind words from the panegyric on the obeisance of neighboring nations, one may observe a certain consistency in the imagery. Most likely, these people alluded to Tatars who had fully or partially submitted to Vytautas and, in a wider context, illustrated the scope and might of grand ducal authority. The last, western niche, in the audience hall is decorated with the encircled portrait of a saint (figs. 52–55). Fragments of Episcopal cloth and a book held under the saint’s arm, taken together with eyewitnesses’ accounts,287 suggest that this is a portrait of St. Nicholas. Remnants of a circle above the bust and its parallels within church decoration speak for the surrounding of the outer border of the niche by images of saints in medallions.288 As to the image of a lady seated opposite a standing group of four women and a man in ruler’s costume (figs. 56–57), one should first attempt to ascribe it to a certain iconographic pattern. Medieval imagery is quite reserved with respect to depictions of enthroned ladies, save for those of the Mother of God. The circle around the lady’s head in Smokowski’s sketch (fig. 56), considered together with the encircled portrait of the saint, strengthens the supposition that this niche was decorated with sacred scenes. However, the fact that the haloed woman does not have a child suggests considering her as a saintly woman, perhaps a queen, rather than the Virgin Mary. On the other hand one should admit that the saintly identity of the seated figure is based only on a line in the sketch. Smokowski’s lithograph features her with no headgear (fig. 18, scene no. 7) and Głowacki’s picture places something resembling a stemma on her head (fig. 57). Nevertheless, I would still consider this as being a depiction of saintly woman, and would ascribe the decoration of the western niche to devotional

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

61

imagery. Such a conviction derives from an obvious secularization of images in Smokowski’s lithograph, as compared to his sketches and eyewitnesses accounts.289 To make a final point as to the decoration of the audience hall, I would like to return to its central niche (fig. 40) and reconsider the geometry of scenes within this niche. The decoration is arranged in a triangle, on the base of which are pictures of the sitting ruler and the ladies (except one male figure on the right) standing in front of him, all featured in profile, while on the apex there is a frontal image of the ruler. Such a composition clearly follows the setting of images within a church apse. There, the image of the triumphant Lord, or a saint, appears on the vault, supported by the scenes from his or her life. By the same token, the decoration of the central niche could be read as a representation of the divinely sanctioned authority of the ruler (depicted on the apex), along with illustrations of the exercise of his office on the sides of the niche. I do not have evidence to extend this scheme to other niches, although narrative subjects located on their sides would at least support this idea in part. Getting back to the decoration of the western chamber’s second floor, one notes that it is dominated by sacred and devotional imagery. Thus, I suggest considering it a chapel. In addition to visual evidence, written sources support this consideration. These are documents naming a certain Jacob as altarist and chaplain of the island-castle.290 In the nineteenth century, visitors mentioned representations of the Mother of God, that of a Franciscan friar, and shiny haloes of gold that surround the heads of the saints.291 Moreover, Griaznov’s watercolors include an image of the Pantocrator (fig. 33) that could only have been located within a sacred interior. As to the message of this devotional imagery, I would like to concentrate on the scene with two figures kneeling in front of a small building. Smokowski labelled this construction a chapel and even drew a tree beside it in the lithograph (fig. 18, scene no. 10). If one forgets the Romantic spirit and historicist mind that governed Smokowski’s views and hand,292 the scene finds its parallels in the iconography of a church foundation widespread in Byzantine mosaics and the mural painting and Western stone relief of the central Middle Ages. The two founders kneel in front of a small model of a church, which they offered to a holy person who could have been depicted on the apex of the niche.293 The figure in prayer on the left side of the same niche (figs. 19–20) would support an assumption of the holy person, the addressee of the prayer and the recipient of the donated “church.” Finally, the

62

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

scene in profile from the western niche in the same chamber (figs. 27–28) could represent the Franciscan friar mentioned by visitors to the castle, and thus allude to missionary activity. Having considered all the documented fragments of the wall paintings, it is time to draw conclusions. Although many issues remain open due to the ambiguity of the evidence, it is clear that the murals rely more on eastern iconography. Patterns used in Byzantine art come from religious art, while the celebrated themes of imperial glory seem to have been ignored. I think the key to unlock this puzzle lies in the origins of the painters. Although the workshop that decorated the palace remains anonymous, something can be inferred from what we know about the tradition of mural painting in Lithuania. Byzantine art reached the grand duchy through Russian mediation (I use the term “Russian” in its broadest possible modern sense, rather than its medieval one). Having mediated the style, Russia could not provide the subjects, as she had not yet adopted court art.294 This means that masters working for the Lithuanian Grand Dukes were apprenticed in religious art. They were not familiar with the traditional practices in glorification of a sovereign and, thus, had to adapt their skills to the Lithuanian situation. The Crucifixion from Vilnius Cathedral shows that these artists were quite flexible in transforming and adapting iconography to serve the needs of their commissioner. Concerning the image of the ruler appearing in many scenes of the murals, one is, of course, tempted to identify him with Vytautas.295 However, given the existing documents such identification would be too far-fetched. Nonetheless, it is clear that the scenes with the ruler manifested Vytautas’ vision of government, and thus alluded to the office he held. The paintings from the audience hall projected an image of Christian devotion and mundane authority. This was an authority of active rulership exercised with Divine sanction that fully corresponded to the ideals manifested in Vytautas’ image.

Coins and Seals If palace decoration was aimed predominantly at the grand ducal entourage, images imprinted on coins constituted a more universal means of expressing authority. Vytautas not only minted his coins, but also maintained a lively monetary policy.296 Moreover, the episode preceding the battle by the Vorskla River testifies to his awareness of the implications of authority transmit-

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

63

ted through coinage. In 1428, the court fool, Henne, composed a short poem concerned with the Grand Duke’s power in the Russian lands, entertaining Vytautas and his retinue during the Novgorodian campaign. Henne admires the Grand Duke’s wealth and the obeisance of his subjects, who even mint groats in his honor.297 Although, there is no other evidence to confirm Henne’s statement, it shows that the authority of coinage was understood in the grand duchy. In the Middle Ages minted coins was much more a political, rather than a financial, tool. Images of potentates informed their subjects of who held the power. Heraldry and symbols of faith on the reverse accompanied the portraits on the obverse. Although, medieval Lithuanian coinage is quite poor, it employs most of the principal means of propaganda and authority, reflects changes in territory and statehood, and expresses political desires. Groats with the portrait of Jogaila on the obverse in combination with the Lion of Rus’ and Tatar tamg on the reverse constitute a vivid illustration to this practice. The crowned head of the ruler indicates his assumption of the Polish crown, while the heraldry on the obverse signified the dominion over Ruthenia at that time subjugated by Tatars.298 Vytautas’ coinage also served as a propaganda instrument. Scholars assume that he invented the so-called columns of Gediminas, a heraldic symbol indicating the continuity of the ruling dynasty, and marked his coins with this sign (figs. 59-62). If this supposition is true, it contributes to the Grand Duke’s attempts to show himself as a worthy successor to the throne in Vilnius,299 also proclaimed in the Sache. The conversions of Lithuania and Samogitia were noted on coinage bearing Christian symbols.300 Hence, it is surprising that Vytautas did not issue portrait coins, especially given the fact that the groats of Jogaila provide a precedent for such practice. The development of grand ducal seals offers a different picture.301 The earliest known seal of Vytautas dates from 1379. It features a standing knight in armor with a sword in his right arm and a shield over his left. The figure is turned to the right. The inscription reads: “+ S:DVCIS*VITAVTE*” (fig. 63).302 The iconography of the seal is very close to the seal of Kęstutis attached to the same document (fig. 64). Besides having a different name and title, the knight on Kęstutis’ seal is oriented to the left.303 However, this is the only seal of Vytautas featuring the standing knight. All the later examples depict either the knight on horseback (figs. 65–68) or the Grand Duke enthroned (fig. 70). Within the hierarchy of heraldry, the equestrian knight is of higher rank than the standing one. During the reign of Algirdas, the seals

64

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

of the Dukes of Vilnius and Trakai observed this ranking. Therefore, it is quite symptomatic that Vytautas placed the figure of a knight on horseback as early as 1384, that is, during his years in Prussian refuge. One may also assume that the choice of heraldry indicates Vytautas’ determination to achieve supreme authority. The equestrian motif was used throughout his reign, while the legend changed depending, quite loosely, on the Duke’s legal status. In 1401, the Grand Duke began using the great seal composed of a heraldic shield and a legend that indicated that Alexander Vytautas was the Grand Duke by the grace of God (fig. 69). The last document sealed with this sign dates to 1404. From 1407, another great seal appears (fig. 70). It features the Grand Duke en face seated on a bench covered with a pillow. He wears a long mantle over his armor, and has the grand ducal cap on his head. The Duke’s right hand holds a sword, while a shield with the Lithuanian coat of arms is held aloft in his left. Beneath this shield is a shield with a standing knight, representing the duchy of Trakai. On the left side of the seal, heraldic shields of Volhynia—the cross—and presumably that of Samogitia—the bear on all fours—are displayed.304 The legend around the seal inscribed in Gothic minuscule reads: “+ sigillum o allexandri o alias o witawdi o dei o gra o ducis o lithwanie o et o russie o et◦cetera.”305 To summarize, Vytautas’ seals reflect his political powers and aspirations. The development of sigillography culminates with the figure of the Grand Duke in all his majesty. It accords well with traditional patterns in Western European heraldry and displays Vytautas as the sovereign of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

THE CHERISHED AND TROUBLED CROWN Although there were precedents for royalty in Lithuania, the reign of King Mindaugas (1253–1263) was more of an episode than a tradition.306 Occasionally, Lithuanian rulers were addressed as, or styled themselves, kings. This, however, simply indicated fluidity in vocabulary, rather than specifying a ruler’s title.307 While fragmentary records from the heathen period provide little evidence on the ranks of authority, one may infer some sense of international hierarchy.308 As to the Lithuanian sense of kingship, it was manifested very irregularly. From time to time, the crown of Mindaugas emerged in texts. Gediminas and Kęstutis were offered crowns, and Jogaila received the Polish one. Thus, beginning with Jogaila’s election to the throne of Poland, it becomes increasingly evident that the royal title indicated royal office. Vytautas’ path to the crown309 confirms this supposition.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

65

The 1390s: From “unsere König” to “König zu Littowen” The earliest association between Vytautas and royal title comes from the period of his second refuge at the Teutonic Knights. In 1390, the Samogitian embassy visited Vytautas in Königsberg. The envoys expressed their support for the Duke and concluded an alliance against his enemies. For the purposes of the present inquiry, the vocabulary of this agreement is important: Vytautas is styled a king throughout this text. Moreover, when asking Vytautas to affix his seal to the concluded document, the Samogitians address him as “unsern König.”310 Of course, the kingly title reflected neither the Duke’s status, nor his intentions of the moment. It meant, rather, that a number of prominent Samogitians regarded Vytautas as their leader. However, as with many other instances of Vytautas’ image building, this episode had a sequel. Eight years later, the royal title as applied to Vytautas already implied kingship. During the meeting with the Teutonic Order at Salynas,311 boyars in the grand ducal retinue acclaimed Vytautas king of Lithuania and Russia.312 The record of the acclamation uses the same word “König” as the one describing the Samogitian submission in 1390; however, the two “Könige” differ in their message. While Samogitians expressed their support for the Duke in refuge, the boyars implied sovereign kingship. In scholarly opinion, this acclamation had been pre-arranged by Vytautas in order to demonstrate the independence of his authority. The public declaration of royalty was a response to Queen Hedwig’s request that Vytautas should pay her tribute for the Lithuanian and Ruthenian territories.313 According to Johann of Posilge, the queen’s letter offended Vytautas; thus, the Grand Duke began his approaches to the Teutonic Order.314 Having waited for a suitable occasion, the Lithuanian ruler made a show of demonstrating his independence from Poland, as well as his strong support at home. Most importantly, even before the meeting, as the frequently well-informed Teutonic records testify, Jogaila inquired about getting a crown for Vytautas from the papacy. According to the Knights, the Grand Duke was to become king of Lithuania and Russia, exactly as acclaimed at the meeting.315 It is believed that these intentions failed because of the defeat at the Vorskla River. The events of 1398 are too episodic to bear a more thorough political interpretation. However, Jogaila’s role distinguishes them from all the later initiatives at crowning Vytautas. Subsequent attempts to attain the crown for Vytautas were regarded as severely threatening the Polish–Lithu-

66

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

anian alliance, as well as Jogaila’s hereditary rights. Since the king did not resume the inquiries with the papacy, his strategy in this episode remains obscure. As to the image, the acclamation at Salynas linked Vytautas’ with royal authority. From that time on, the kingly association entered the political vocabulary. Although the idea of the coronation disappeared from the records for a decade, it must have survived in Vytautas’ mind.

The 1410 and 1420s: No Crown at the Right Moment In 1410, the Emperor Sigismund again raised the issue of the crown. This happened when Poland and Lithuania were preparing for war with the Teutonic Knights, and the emperor mediated between the conflicting parties. By the end of the truce, he met Vytautas in Kežmarok316 and offered him a royal wreath. The Grand Duke not only refused the imperial offer, but also made it public.317 The entire story has been popularized by Długosz, who clearly indicates that, by offering the crown to Vytautas, the emperor sought to break up Polish–Lithuanian unity. Very likely Długosz was only recording prevailing opinion: at the Council of Constance, offering a crown to Vytautas was referred to as a Prussian intent to harm the Polish–Lithuanian alliance.318 At this point, one must agree with Długosz’s judgment. Of course, neither before Grunwald nor after it could the Grand Duke accept such an offer and, hence, he made the most out of rejecting it. The exposition of the imperial offer confirmed Vytautas’ loyalty to Poland and the union, thus contributing another feature to his image.319 After the battle of Grunwald, Vytautas’ authority expanded and consolidated. Foreigners perceived him as a powerful sovereign and skilful military commander. For the most part, international opinion supported his actions, and his legal status was not questioned. However, it took yet another decade for the coronation plans to materialize. In 1421, the pro-Hussite Czech nobility turned to the Lithuanian ruler offering him the Bohemian crown.320 As I have already described Vytautas’ relations with Bohemia,321 I shall limit the following discussion to the issues pertaining to the crown. Although the Grand Duke did not give a definite answer, Bohemian records styled him as the invited king of Bohemia.322 A letter from June 10, 1421 gives quite a detailed picture of how Vytautas was perceived by the Czechs: In the name of Christ, the Grand Duke was asked to accept the noblest diadem of Bohemia. As a victorious, wise, and enlightened personality, Vytautas was the only right ruler for their country.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

67

Having complained about the unjust government of King Sigismund, the Czech delegates declared that they were glad to accept the son of Kaributas as Vytautas’ representative and were waiting for his highness to become their lord and king.323 The episode with the Bohemian crown represented a demonstration of power and international authority rather than a real intention. However, it is important since it marks a return of the notion of kingship to Lithuanian politics. When Vytautas officially refused the Bohemian crown, the papacy and the empire must have been glad to observe the bellicose Grand Duke expanding his authority eastwards. In western eyes, Vytautas’ abandonment of Bohemia and his peaceful relations with the Teutonic Knights were significant achievements. The emperor did not stint in his praise and the Grand Duke’s influence grew fast. In 1424, the joint embassy from the emperor and the king of Denmark became concerned with the marriage of Jogaila’s daughter Hedwig and addressed Vytautas in this matter. The legates spared no effort to praise and please the Grand Duke: in their words, everything depends upon Vytautas’ wish; since his wish is everybody’s wish his reluctance is everybody’s reluctance.324 The praise continues drawing extensive parallels between the Grand Duke and Julius Caesar. To better understand the comparison, the envoys described Caesar as an embodiment of multiple virtues: he was harsh in war and gentle in peace, gracious to friends and threatening to enemies, severe to rebels and lenient to the vanquished.325 From today’s perspective, this parallel can be viewed as a forerunner of the later Humanist formulas as applied to Vytautas. Laudatory rhetoric distinguishes the Grand Duke’s correspondence from the later 1420s. Although the issue of the Lithuanian kingdom does not appear in records until the meeting at Lutsk (1429), king-like acts enter Vytautas’ image-making. In addition to the customary reception of gifts and tribute, the Grand Duke strengthened the theatrical side of public events. The already mentioned mural decoration of Vytautas’ residence in Trakai as well as the purple throne built to receive ransom from Novgorod the Great in 1428 are vivid examples of handling royal imagery. Given the fact that the first panegyric to Vytautas was composed in 1428,326 the entire staging can be viewed as a prelude to the opening of the coronation project. Actually, simulation of royalty is not novel in history. Contemporaries of Vytautas, the princes of Bretagne, frequently used kingly symbols and attributes to emphasize their affinity to and supposed potential to become kings of France.327

68

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

1429–1430: “One Bone for Two Dogs” 328 The issue of the crown arose during the meeting held at Lutsk in January 1429. The Emperor Sigismund took the initiative once again and offered Vytautas a royal wreath. However, judging from the Grand Duke’s letter, as retold by Johannes Voigt, the spontaneity of an imperial offer was well prepared. On December 5, 1428, Vytautas wrote to Grand Master Paul of Rusdorf329 that he intended to loosen Lithuanian–Polish ties and, by the end of his life, have a crown put on his own head.330 As this letter has not been published, one may doubt the accuracy of the retelling, since the breaking of the alliance between Poland and Lithuania is the most popular explanation for the coronation since Vytautas was offered the crown in Kežmarok in 1410. On the other hand, our knowledge of Vytautas’ skill in creating spectacles and his keen nose for politics, makes such advanced preparation highly credible, despite the silence of the sources.331 The fact that the Grand Duke insisted on Jogaila’s presence at the meeting has also been interpreted as part of the planning to raise the issue of the crown. That is, Vytautas sought Jogaila’s approval for the coronation initiative. Hence, the king of Poland had to be present at the meeting.332 Be that as it may, the “real” coronation was initiated in early 1429 at the meeting at Lutsk. On January 23, Emperor Sigismund of Luxembourg offered to elevate Vytautas to the royal dignity. As soon as the plans to crown Vytautas king of Lithuania were made public, they evoked varied responses.333 Although initially Jogaila agreed with the plan, the Polish elite strongly opposed the imperial offer: Vice-Chancellor Władysław Oporowski together with Bishop Zbignew Oleśnicki 334 became the chief spokesmen against the Grand Duke’s coronation and made the king change his mind. In the name of Jogaila, Oporowski wrote to the Emperor saying that the king revokes his support for the coronation. The change in the king’s position was based upon Vytautas’ legal status: the Grand Duke had no right to become king of Lithuania since he held the grand ducal office only for his lifetime.335 Having learned about the letter, Vytautas perceived it as denigration and insult. Reflecting upon this message in his letter to the Emperor, the Grand Duke reproached Jogaila for breaking his word, adding that this was not worthy of royal dignity. Moreover, Vytautas stated that he was elected, held his office freely and with the consent of the nobility, and neither the lands nor the people of Lithuania were subordinate to Poland.336

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

69

To recall the events that transpired in the early 1390s, then Vytautas declared in the Sache that his birthright entitled him to the grand ducal seat. Fifty years later, he relied on election and the nobility’s approval to justify his office. Of course, Vytautas’ propaganda was not concerned with change of accents in identifying the fundamentals of supreme authority. However, for a study concerned with image-making, such a change in values once again testifies to the casting and recasting of his image to suit the goals and aspirations of the moment.

The Fundamental Issue of Liberty The emperor was not the only correspondent of Vytautas concerning the coronation. The Grand Duke also wrote to Jogaila. This letter explicitly stated that Vytautas had no prior intentions regarding the coronation, reminded the king of his initial consent, and reproached him for blackening Lithuanians and maligning the country, her citizens, and their ruler.337 Concluding the letter, Vytautas expressed his disappointment with the king, who had broadcast his stance, instead of discussing it privately.338 A few days earlier, the Grand Duke had written to the emperor presenting himself as full sovereign of the grand duchy.339 The two letters reveal that Vytautas clearly understood his position and was maneuvering. In June 1429, he addressed the Polish magnates explicitly stating his friendliness towards Poland. The Grand Duke made a historic excursus, reminding the magnates that the emperor had once offered him the crown in Kežmarok. However, he rejected this offer since he could not accept it without Jogailas’ consent. In contrast, the king had agreed at Lutsk to the coronation. Consequently, Vytautas wrote to say he did not understand why the Poles had subsequently denigrated him to the emperor and the pope.340 It is likely, as Mečislovas Jučas noted, that this letter formed Długosz’s interpretation of the coronation as an imperial intrigue aimed at splitting Lithuanian–Polish unity.341 There are multiple political implications and explanations surrounding the coronation. It has been chiefly regarded as an attempt to separate Lithuania from Poland and to establish an independent Kingdom of Lithuania. Although these issues are decisive for political history, they do not fully reveal the image-building process. Therefore, the rhetoric and vocabulary that Vytautas uses throughout the correspondence should be considered more thoroughly.

70

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Nearly each message sent to Poland concerning the coronation raises the question of the Grand Duke’s liberty. Vytautas either asks his addressees whether they consider the Grand Duke to be free, or complains that the Poles malign him, saying that he is not free. In the Middle Ages, this non-free status had many implications, the strongest of which was serfdom.342 Gediminid propaganda was sufficiently trained to denigrate their opponents by calling them non-free people.343 As early as 1390, the famous Sache of Vytautas referred to the Duke’s status of governor of Ruthenia as serfdom, meaning that he was not allowed to make his own decisions.344 Forty years later, Vytautas fully understood the confusion behind his words and knew that none of those asked would dare answer his question positively. On the other hand, if the Grand Duke were recognized as being free, he would also be recognized as being independent in his actions, including the coronation. In this respect, the accounts of the Lithuanian embassy to Poland are enlightening. Two letters, one from Jogaila and one from the Lithuanian envoys, inform us about these negotiations. The legates complained to Vytautas that the king had not answered any of their questions directly.345 They asked whether, in the opinion of the king, the Grand Duke was free. Only after a pause did the king answer that Vytautas was as free as was the king of Poland, in the same way as the Lithuanian gentry were as free as the Polish one.346 Jogaila’s letter tells us about different aspects of the Lithuanian visit. First, the legates requested the king to clearly state his position on the coronation. As Jogaila replied that he could not make judgements without the consent of the nobles, the Lithuanians declared they were not interested in royal opinion, since Vytautas would have the crown regardless of it.347

A Crown for the King of Lithuania Although thoughtful and influential, Vytautas’ diplomacy failed to break Polish opposition. The Poles argued that the coronation of Vytautas and consequent establishment of the Lithuanian Kingdom would violate the agreements of the Polish–Lithuanian alliance.348 The relations between the two countries became increasingly hostile. Both parties stuck firmly to their decisions. The Grand Duke’s determination must have annoyed the Poles. They realized that they could hardly prevent the coronation, and found a compromise: to let Vytautas have the crown, but prevent the establishment of a Lithuanian Kingdom. Hence, the council held in Sandomierz (September 8,

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

71

1429) sent an embassy to Lithuania offering the Grand Duke a Polish crown. The envoys assured Vytautas that his cousin Jogaila would gladly abdicate the throne.349 Such a bold move surprised Vytautas. The letter to the grand master clearly demonstrates his astonishment and indignation. The idea of taking the crown from the living king appeared most shocking of all.350 Thus, the Polish attempts yielded the opposite of their original intention: Vytautas not only refused the offer but was even more firmly determined to get the crown from the Emperor. Finally, the dispute over the crown changed direction and support was sought in legal expertise. The issue was formulated as follows: Can an elected king of the Romans invest another kingdom? The question exposed the status of Sigismund of Luxembourg, who assumed the imperial office in 1411, but was not yet crowned emperor (the imperial coronation was held only in 1433). Professors at the University of Krakow based their negative answer upon Canon law. Then Sigismund addressed the doctors of law at the University of Vienna. They declared that the king of the Romans indeed had such rights and authority. This explanation stemmed from Roman law.351 The emperor wrote to Vytautas to say that, since the coronation was a civil act, it did not require the blessing of the Church. Examples from the history of European kingship supported this conclusion.352 In addition to this written explanation, Emperor Sigismund sent Jean Batiste Cigala, a doctor versed in both kinds of law, to the Grand Duke.353 The lawyer had to explain all the legal details concerned with the legitimacy of his elevation. Vytautas accepted the explanation and began preparing for the coronation. Festivities were planned for the day of the Nativity of the Virgin (September 8, 1430). Guests were invited—indeed, some were already on their way—and the only missing thing was the instrument of the coronation, that is, the crowns for Vytautas and his spouse, Julianne. The emperor assured the Grand Duke that the crowns were ready and he would send them for the date established for the inauguration.354 The more real the coronation became, the more vigilant were the Poles. The only way to keep Vytautas from the crown was to not let the imperial envoys reach Lithuania. The meeting of Polish lords at Jedlna decided to control the roads. The first imperial delegation was captured at the Oder River.355 The second group of legates was held back at the Prussian border. The Poles confiscated all their documents, among them the crowning instructions and

72

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

many jewels.356 Having learned of the fate of their predecessors, the legates with the crowns were afraid to continue their mission and turned back.357 Meantime, Vytautas spared no effort to ensure the splendor of his elevation to royalty. The numerous invitations that the Duke sent to the Teutonic Knights indicate some nervousness,358 a fact also noted by his addressees.359 On September 8, 1430, Vilnius was full of distinguished guests waiting for Vytautas’ triumph.360 In the absence of the royal diadems, the celebration was postponed until the day of St. Michael (September 29). This time, the papacy interfered: Martin V forbade not only the Lithuanian, but also the Prussian, bishops to consecrate Vytautas as king.361 The Grand Duke remained determined to get the crown. He reproached the Emperor for the delay in sending the insignia.362 According to Długosz, the imperial ambassadors suggested Vytautas have the crowns cast in Vilnius.363 Why the Duke did not consider this option remains unknown. It is likely that he suspected that a coronation with locally made insignia would be illegitimate in some way. Thus, he continued asking the emperor to send the crowns. To assure safe delivery, the Grand Duke suggested that the legates traveled in a less ostentatious manner, so that their special parcel would not attract attention. The Lithuanian ruler was glad that Jogaila began to support the event, and informed him that Poland would be secure for imperial envoys.364 Things seem to have been settled. On 15 October, the Teutonic Knights noted the passing of imperial envoys with the crown through Stettin365 on their way to Lithuania.366 However, on October 16 Vytautas fell ill (tradition believes he fell from his horse on his way from Vilnius to Trakai) and died eleven days later (October 27, 1430). Letters concerned with the coronation continued to circulate even after the Grand Duke’s death. As to the crowns, which were the key element in the elevation, their fate is unknown. Judging from imperial messages, they remained within the borders of the Empire.367 Vytautas’ successor Švitrigaila seems to have had similar information, when he asked the emperor whether he wished to send him a crown.368 However, according to Lithuanian tradition, the Poles seized the crowns and kept them in the treasury of Krakow Cathedral on the Wawel hill.369

Acta Volant, Verba Manent The intensive course of the coronation events overshadows the rhetoric in the coronation documents. Of course, actions taken to get or obstruct the

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

73

crowns were decisive in the formation of the early modern perceptions of the Grand Duke. However, the correspondence from the period illuminates the building of the image during Vytautas’ lifetime. In the following, I shall consider three texts opposite in their purpose but similar in rhetoric. On the one hand there is an appeal to Vytautas370 written by Francis of the Counts of Aque Vive,371 on the other, the project372 and the instructions373 for Vytautas’ royal elevation. The reason for analyzing these texts is twofold: although they take aim at opposite goals, their arguments are based on nearly identical examples. Count Francis urges Vytautas to abandon his royal ambitions, while the emperor acclaims him king of Lithuania. Francis already makes his goals clear at the beginning of the appeal: Vytautas’ desire for the crown is a vicious quest. Examples from antiquity support this opinion. The author tells of the crime of Athis against his father, Cress, and its outcome, the destruction of Crete. Francis made sure Vytautas understands the point before proceeding with other examples. The reference to the count’s Neapolitan origins tells of the long tradition of inherited royalty in the Kingdom of Naples. Although nothing is directly stated, the negative parallel with Lithuania is implicit. The most explicit part and the one which most contributed to the image is a passage concerning Vytautas’ Christian name, Alexander. The Grand Duke’s name includes images of magnanimity and all the other virtues of a ruler.374 Count Francis argues that Vytautas has already reached the apex of his glory. Facts from the Grand Duke’s life are used to support this argument. Of those, the victory at Grunwald is the most vivid example.375 Vytautas’ triumph over the Teutonic Knights could easily be compared to others from the world’s military history: that of Hector and Achilles at Troy, Xerxes on the fields of Marathon, Scipio at Carthage, and others. However, Vytautas’ subjugation of the Tatars is the most distinguished of all his victories. In the East, the Grand Duke surpassed even Julius Caesar, since he not only defeated the nomads but also converted them to the true faith. Therefore, Vytautas could justly be named Caesar of the Tatars, as all the barbarian nations feared him.376 There is no doubt concerning Vytautas’ Christian merits: should the Grand Duke wish, he could easily overcome the Turks and recapture Jerusalem. Every venture is feasible for Vytautas since he has inherited the spirit of Alexander. He is a ruler equally virtuous in war as in peace, and worthy of the most elaborate words of praise. Nonetheless, the rhetorician is surprised how such an illustrious prince

74

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

could try to offend his beloved brother, the king of Poland. Due to the king’s grace, Vytautas expanded his kingdom and earned the glory of the noblest ruler. Thus, it is hard for the king to understand why he turned away from Poland and sought an independent kingship. There is no need to strive for the crown, since his state is already equivalent to a kingdom. The author reproaches Vytautas for seeking mere titles. As a mortal old man, the Grand Duke should understand the temporality and superficiality of earthly laurels and the vice of vainglory.377 The letter concludes with an extensive passage on human mortality and death, which does not spare any living being. The appeal is a condensed and, at the same time, elaborate piece of rhetoric, which could have served as the basis for much further speculation on Vytautas’ virtues. The coronation project addresses Vytautas as king of Lithuania and, after an appropriate introduction, enumerates the Grand Duke’s merits for Christendom. These are the following: the conversion of the Lithuanians and Samogitians, the foundation and provision of churches and cathedrals, and his daily acts in spreading the Christian faith across the vast territories under his rule. Given all this and with the aim at further expanding and strengthening Christianity, Vytautas is to be elevated to royal dignity.378 From that moment, the Emperor proclaims the Grand Duke king of Lithuania, which becomes a hereditary title. The kings of Lithuania are to be free, in no way dependent on any other kingdom or the Empire, and obedient only to the Lord.379 Finally, two crowns cast of gold and decorated with precious gems are to be placed on the heads of Vytautas and his wife as a sign of their elevation and the creation of a new monarchy. The instructions for the coronation ceremony repeat most of the items listed in the project. This text is most interesting as a kind of lay ritual of inauguration. The instructions noted that the imperial envoys knew how the kings should be elevated. However, no mention is made of any ecclesiastical authority. Thus, it seems that, for Vytautas, royal inauguration was intended as a secular ritual, exactly as the professors at Vienna University had claimed. The elevation was planned as follows: the ceremony was to take place in the presence of many people. The imperial legates would present the king and queen to be with the following items: first, weapons and horses; then, garments, and, finally, silver. Then three acclamations follow: The first urged Vytautas to fight hand in hand with the Teutonic Order against infidels, the

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

75

second declared him king on behalf of the king of Hungary and, the third, on behalf of the king of Bohemia and the king of the Romans. By the end of the ceremony, the imperial representatives were to ask Vytautas whether he confirmed his union with the above-mentioned powers. If he answered positively, a lance was raised. If the answer was negative, the legates should persuade the Grand Duke to conclude such a union so that Christianity would flourish. Finally, the Grand Duke was to confirm the alliance and be elevated to royal dignity. It appears that there was no precedent for such an attempt in the Middle Ages or later. However, the secular elevation made no contribution to the image; therefore, I shall consider only the rhetoric of its text. Despite the explicitly mundane interests in the ceremonial, the reason for crowning Vytautas would have been his Christian merits. The Grand Duke was said to have acted as an apostle of Christ when he converted the Lithuanians and Samogitians. Therefore, the crowns were offered in horror of infidels and in the name of Jesus Christ. Comparison of these texts reveals several essential features: Count Francis emphasized Vytautas’ military excellence, while the emperor accentuated his Christian merits. All these features are fundamental parts of Vytautas’ image. Most importantly, they remain within the image throughout the early modern age. As to specific contributions, Count Francis’ concentration on Vytautas’ Christian name, Alexander, marks the earliest explicit parallel between the Grand Duke and the ancient Macedonian ruler. The apostolic title attributed to him for the conversion of heathens in Lithuania and Samogitia also had a precedent (one may recall here that Christian allusion to fishing was made during the conversion of Samogitia).380 Sigismund of Luxemburg, however, was the first to spell it out. In retrospect the two texts are rather paradoxical. Although, the Christian merits of Vytautas never sank into oblivion, for the most part, they were maintained by the Church. The Grand Duke’s military exploits and, above all, their Tatar and Grunwaldian dimensions, became the core of the warrior image. Therefore, one may say that, in retrospect, Count Francis’ selection of examples was more apt. It could well be that Francis based his appeal on some kind of general impression of Vytautas in the West. In this case, this must have been the impression of a warrior, one that was to be so profoundly exploited during the early-modern age.

76

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

THE FINAL WORD OF PRAISE Having perpetuated Vytautas’ rights to the seat of Gediminas, the activity of scribes did not finish its service for the Grand Duke. However, in the late 1420s, scribal endeavors took a straightforward direction. In 1428, Timofey, scribe of Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk,381 wrote a panegyric to Vytautas known as Pokhvala Vitovtu382 (henceforth, the Pokhvala). The panegyric followed the text by Isaac of Syria, copied at the wish of Vytautas. This book ends with an indication of its author, the scribe, his patron, and the commissioner, after which the enumeration of the deeds of the “most glorious sovereign” begins. The most vivid manifestation of Vytautas’ glory is the vastness of his lands and the honor that other rulers pay him. Among those, many are mentioned, although the list of the Tatar khans is the most extensive. The panegyric ends by repeating the scribal details as above. As with many other means of propaganda employed by Vytautas, this laudatory exercise was not forgotten. After the meeting at Lutsk, a much more elaborate version of the panegyric appeared. The new Pokhvala reached us as part of the Lithuanian annals,383 where it acquired the function of Vytautas’ posthumous commemoration. This circumstance led scholars to suppose that, as was the custom, the new Pokhvala was created after the Grand Duke’s death.384 However, a closer look at the text, along with circumstantial evidence, suggests that it was aimed at glorifying the living ruler. My arguments are as follows: The text does not speak about the Grand Duke as a deceased person; neither does it include any lamenting parts. Moreover, there is a short text entitled Skazanie o velikom kniaze Vitofte385 (“Legend about the Grand Duke Vytautas,” henceforth, the Skazanie). It clearly belongs to the genre of lives, written in commemoration of deceased rulers. Therefore, it is highly credible that after the composition of the Skazanie was interrupted, the new version of the Pokhvala took its place within the annals, as was the general practice at the time.386 To return to the panegyrics, a comparison between the two texts shows that the earlier version became a part of the later one.387 Logically, the authorship of both pieces should be the same. Although there are no more proofs to attribute the later text to the scribe Timofey, one may safely assume that this initiative came from the entourage of Bishop Gerasim. The panegyric begins with an elaborate statement: “It is good to keep a tsar’s secrets; but it is likewise good to tell the deeds of a great sovereign.”388 Then, in a distinguished epic manner, the author introduces Alexander called

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

77

Vytautas and describes the scope and might of his authority: “As no one can discover the height of the sky and the depth of the sea, equally no one can describe the honor and courage of the glorious sovereign.” Quite soon, facts are provided to illustrate these statements. The author of the panegyric has seen how Vytautas ordered the king of Hungary, otherwise called the Caesar of Rome, to visit him in the city of Lutsk. Without any delay the king obeyed Vytautas’ request and arrived together with his queen bringing numerous presents to the Grand Duke. The list of rulers and potentates obeying Vytautas follow, the passage. It is summarized as follows: “To put it simply, not a single city could be found along the Littoral which would disobey that glorious sovereign.”389 As in the earlier version, the most extensive is the description of Vytautas’ authority among the Tatars. The hordes appeal to the Grand Duke for a khan and he sends one: “Like a river, which indefatigably waters people and herds but does not diminish, likewise Vytautas gives a khan to a horde and retains numerous khans by himself.”390 The Grand Duke’s image as projected by the Pokhvala is that of a powerful autocrat with enormous powers. One may infer the reasons that encouraged the panegyrist to further elaborate the Pokhvala. Given the author’s knowledge of the meeting at Lutsk, and the assembly’s main outcome, scholars view the panegyric in connection with the intended coronation.391 However, one may suppose that, in addition to the coronation project, the addressee favorably received the panegyric from 1428. Thus, later events only served as inspiration. As to the new Pokhvala, one may only guess whether the panegyric was read aloud at the court, or whether it remained on the parchment known only to the entourage of Bishop Gerasim. The elaborate style of the new version of the panegyric inclines towards more thorough comparisons within the genre. Generally, imperial and princely laudations were popular within the realms of Byzantine culture, including the Russian lands. The traditional Byzantine panegyric was based upon the requirements of rhetoric composed by Menander of Laodicea around the year A. D. 300. Briefly, Menander suggested that the imperial laudation should exalt a ruler’s majesty. For this purpose a panegyric should consider his origins, his country, his family, and his miraculous birth. Then the text proceeds with his distinguished education, military talents, and deeds to further peace and justice. A considerable section is devoted to a comparison between the praised ruler and prominent historical personalities. The theme of imperial wisdom

78

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

unites all the parts. Finally, a laudation emphasizes the prosperity of the subjects and ends with a prayer for the long and happy reign of the glorified ruler.392 These requirements were obeyed throughout the existence of the Byzantine Empire and shaped the literature of the countries under Byzantine legacy. However, even a brief glimpse at the Pokhvala shows its complete ignorance of Byzantine rhetoric. The few common features include the motifs of the ruler’s wisdom and the parallel with water resources used in Byzantine imperial laudations.393 Otherwise, neither the structure nor the content accords with Menander’s rules. The comparison with Russian laudations widens the gap between the Pokhvala and the lives of Russian princes. In addition to differences in content and structure, which in Russia followed Byzantine examples (not the theoretical rules), the Pokhvala differs in function as well. The Russian lives of princes were composed to commemorate the deceased potentates; 394 the Pokhvala glorified the living ruler. Although the structure and the motifs of the text show very vague knowledge of Byzantine rules of rhetoric, its function and pompous phrasing places the panegyric to Vytautas closer to Byzantium. Knowing the function of the Pokhvala is not sufficient to demonstrate its Byzantine connection, especially since the panegyric’s internal evidence hardly links it to Byzantine rhetoric. Moreover, laudations to chieftains were common practice in medieval Europe, and perhaps in Lithuania as well. However, I have not come across any contemporary analogue to the Pokhvala thus far. To my mind, the fact that the Pokhvala originated in the environment of an Orthodox bishop is informative. The bishop was likely to be aware of Byzantine laudatory practices and hence motivated to glorify the Lithuanian ruler. However, lack of prototypes made the panegyric an autonomous word of praise; nonetheless, the Pokhvala could have been composed with an aim to praise Vytautas as the Byzantines praised their emperors.

NOTES 1 2 3 4

PSRL, 28:81. CDPr, 4: no. 14, 15–16. On Butautas, see SRPr, 3:84, on Vaidotas, see ibid., 115. In 1413, Vytautas made a rich donation for the commemoration of Vaidotas, J. Kadlec, Das Augustinenkloster Sankt Thomas in Prag vom Grundigsjahr 1285 bis zu den Hussitenkreigen mit Edition seines Unrkundenbuches (Würzburg, 1985), 366;

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

5

6 7

8 9

10 11

12

13

14

79

quoted from Tęgowski, “Czy Kiejstut Giedyminowic był dwukrotnie żonaty?” (Was Kiejstut Giedyminowic Married Twice?), Przegląd Wschodni 5.3 (1998): n. 43, 408, also see p. 407. This donation supports the idea of Darius Baronas that blood relations within the grand ducal familiy were stronger than religious ones, Darius Baronas, Trys Vilniaus kankiniai: gyvenimas ir istorija (Istorinė studija ir šaltiniai) / Tres martyres Vilnenses vita et historia (Studio historicum et editio fontium), Fontes Ecclesiastici Historiæ Lithuaniæ 2 (Vilnius: aidai, 2000), 110. For brief but informative account on Vytautas’ years in refuge, see chapter “Der Orden und Witold,” in Hartmut Bookmann, Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik: Untersuchungen zur politischen Theorie des späteren Mittelalters. Mit einem Anhang: Die Satira des Johannes Falkenberg, Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 58–62 D, Konrad Zöllner von Rotenstein, grand master from 1382 to 1390. “Et magister ait: quare prius non venisti, cum haberes castrum Wille etc.; nec modo habes homines neque terras. Attamen magister suscepit eum as graciam sub spe bona,” SRPr, 2:621–22. On Vytautas’ incursions into Lithuania, see ibid., 622–23. While the grand ducal authority and possessions in Samogitia still requires a research, one may suppose that Vytautas relied on maternal family. On Vytautas’ mother see further, ch. III, a section entitled “The Lithuanian Hero or the Son of a Vestal and a Knight.” The Samogitian support to Vytautas is vividly revealed by their changing sides. They participated in joined invasions into Lithuania of Vytautas and the Prussian knights; however when Vytautas broke with the Order, they participated in devastation of Teutonic castles with him, Vytenis Almonaitis, “Lietuvos krikštas ir Žemaitija” (Lithuanian baptism and Samogitia), Lituanistica 2 (1996): 33 and ns. 22, 23, 36. SRPr, 2:622. Antoni Prochaska, “Nieznany akt homogenialny Witolda” (Unknown document of Vytautas’ submission), Kwartalnik Historyczny [hereafter, KH] 9 (1895): 233– 38, for the text of the document see ibid., 238. This is how Vytautas describes his situation, “dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln vnd Skirgaln,” in K. Alminauskis, “Vytauto skundas” (The complaint of Vytautas), Archivum philologicum 8 (1939): 214. For a detail analysis of this source see further a section entitled “Rights of Blood.” Lat., Markwarth de Szalczbac (d. 1410), Z. Ivinskis, “Salzbach, Marquard von,” in Lietuvių enciklopedija (The Lithuanian encyclopaedia), 37 vols. (Boston, MA: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1953–85) [hereafter, LE], 26:373–75. Ivinskis, Lietuvos istorija iki Vytauto Didžiojo mirties (Lithuanian history until the death of Vytautas the Great) (Rome: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija, 1978; reprint introduced and commented by Edvardas Gudavičius, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991), 303; Gudavičius, Lietuvos istorija (The history of Lithuania), vol. 1, Nuo seniausių laikų iki 1569 metų (From the most ancient times until the year 1569) (Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla, 1999), 172.

80

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

15 PSRL, 15:153. Sophia of Vytautas / Lt, Sofija Vytautaitė (b. ca. 1375 – d. 1453), in 1390 married to Grand Duke of Muscovy Basil / Vasilij Dimitrievich. 16 PSRL, 35:64. 17 Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:175–76. As to the Trojan parallel, it was first put forward by Ivinskis, Lietuvos istorija, 304. 18 SRPr, 2:639–40; 3:162. 19 The speech was first published in SRPr, 2: 712–14. However, this publication had a number of mistakes, therefore the text was transcribed, re-edited, and publised by Kazys Alminauskis as “dis ist witoldes sache.” 20 On the succession see Edvardas Gudavičius, “Lietuvos valstybės struktūra Gedimino laikais” (The structure of the Lithuanian state during the times of Gediminas), Metai 1 (1992): 125–9. 21 Alminauskis assumed that the speech could have served as a mean for gathering crusaders against Jogaila, K. Alminauskis, “Vytauto skundas” (The complaint of Vytautas), Archivum philologicum 8 (1939): 214. Jovaišas interpreted this as the justification of the Teutonic Order’s incursions into Lithuania, Albinas Jovaišas, “Trumpojo Lietuvos metraščių sąvado literatūrinės ypatybės ir paslaptys” (The literary characteristics and secrets of the short collection of Lithuanian annals), in Metraščiai ir kunigaikščių laiškai (Annals and the letters of the Dukes), ed. Donata Linčiuviene, SLL bk. 4 (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1996), 241. However, there are no evident traces that the Order either used the speech in this way, or had such a practice at all. 22 Alminauskis, 187. 23 “Summarium von Jagel und Wytaut,” ed. M. Töppen, in SRPr, 5:223–27. 24 The Samogitian cause opens the Summarium: “Dis nachgeschrieben register weysset mit kurtzen worttenn aus die geburt Jagels des koniges von Polan und herzogen Wythaws, und wie die lant Samayten und Littawen an den orden synt gekommen, und wie offte sich Jagel und Wythawt gewant und widder gewant hat, und von herzogen Wythauts tauffe und vorettnisse, das her dem ordenn zcugezogen hatt,” SRPr, 5:223. 25 “Item do der konick Wytenne gestarb, do wart uffgeworffen for einen konigk sein pferdemarschalk, Jedemen genant. Derselbe Jedemen ist gewest des konigs von von Polen, der do itzt konigk zeu Polen ist, Jagel, anders Wladislaus, und herzog Wytauts aldervater,” ibid. 26 Gudavičius noted that Herodotus behaved similarly with the kings of Lidia, Gudavičius, Lietuvos istorija, 1:239. 27 I have analyzed these texts in my artcile “From Pamphlet to Origin Theory: The Establishment of Lithuanian Dynastic Tradition,” in The Medieval Chronicle II. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Medieval Chronicle Driebergen/Utrecht 16–21 July 1999, ed. Erik Kooper, Costerus New Series 144 (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi), 156–65. 28 Johannes Falkenberg, OP (fl. first half of the 15th c.), on him see Bookmann, Johannes Falkenberg. 29 Johannes Falkinberg, “Liber de doctrina potestatis papae et imperatoris editas contra Paulum Vladimiri Polonorum in Sacro Constantiensi Consilio,” in Staro-

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

30 31

32

33 34 35 36

37 38 39

40 41

42

81

dawne prawa polskiego pomniki (The ancient monuments of the Polish law), vol. 5.1, Rerum publicarum scientia quae saeculo XV in Polonia viguit monumenta litteraria, ed. Michael Bobrzyński (Krakow: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1878), 195–232. “Vitoldus, cuius avus sutor erat, iam fere Polonis subacta, max in summam superbiam impie locutus est, sese in Reno equum suum adaquaturum,” ibid., 231. The fullest version of the Letopisets is considered the one which was included into the annals of Suprasl’: “Letopisets velikykh kniazei litovskikh” (The annals of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes), in PSRL, 35:61–67. The Letopisets also appears in five other compilations of the annals, Jovaišas, “Trumpojo,” 224. D. S. Likhachev, Russkie letopisi i ikh kulturno-istoricheskoe znachenie (Russian annals and their cultural and historical meaning) (Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1947), 215–47. Baronas, Trys Vilniaus kankiniai, 100. Mečislovas Jučas, Lietuvos metraščiai (The Lithuanian annals) (Vilnius: Vaga, 1968), 29. “Origo regis Jagyelo et Wytholdi ducum Lithuaniae,” in PSRL, 35:115–17. Jovaišas suggests that it was translated in the early 16th c., Jovaišas, “Trumpojo,” 231. Rowell assumes that this translantion was made for Długosz, i.e., before 1480, S. C. Rowell, “Piuos Princesses or the Daughters of Belial: Pagan Lithuanian Dynastic Diplomacy, 1279–1423,” Medieval Prosopography 15.1 (1994): 19. Jovaišas, “Trumpojo,” 244. It is assumed that the Lithuanian annals originated in Smolensk, Jučas, Lietuvos metraščiai, 39. Rowel convincingly demonstrates that Vaidila was a higly ranked boyar and hints at the Gediminid propaganda technique of denigrating an enemy by representing him as being of a low birth, Rowell, “Pious Princesses,” 20–25, esp. see pp. 21–22. PSRL, 35:61. E.g., “Vitoft Kestutevich, vnuk Gediminov,” PSRL, 12–13:162; “Oleg Ivanovich Riazanskii, vnuk Ivanov,” ibid., 166; “Ivan Mikhailovich, vnuk Aleksandrov,” ibid., etc. Rimvydas Pertauskas assumes that the name of grandfather was still important for the status of a family while within more than three generations it could significantly change, Rimvydas Petrauskas, Lietuvos diduomenė XIV a. pabaigoje – XV a.: Sudėtis—struktūra—valdžia (Lithuanian nobility at the end of the fourteenth and in the fifteenth century. Composition—structure—rule) (Vilnius: aidai, 2003), 110, 136–37. On the use of the patronym in among Lithuanian nobility, see ibid., 111–12. For the legend of the foundation of Vilnius, see Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai / Sources of Baltic Religion and Mythology / Quellen der baltischen Religion und Mythologie [hereafter, BRMŠ], vol. 2, XVI amžius / 16th Century / 16. Jahrhudert, comp. Norbertas Vėlius (Vilnius: The Science and Encyclopaedia Publishers, 2001), 374–75. For the analysis of the legend see Gintaras Beresnevičius, “Gediminas ir Lizdeika” (Gediminas and Lizdeika), in Miestelėnai (Townspeople), ed. A. Ališanka (Vilnius: Taura, 1991), 85–92.

82

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

43 For an in-depth study on the 14th c. Lithuania, see S.C. Rowell, Lithuania Ascending. 44 Gudavičius has expressed similar ideas; see E. Gudavichius, “Po povodu tak nazyvaemoi ‘diarkhii’ v Velikom Kniazhestve Litovskom” (Concerning the so-called ‘diarchy’ in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), in Feodālisms Baltijas regionā. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums / Feodalizm v baltjiskom regione. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov (Feudalism in the Baltic region: A collection of scholarly articles), ed. A. Rolova, et al. (Riga:P. Stučkas Latvijas Valsts universitāte, 1985), 37–40. 45 See Mickūnaitė, “From Pamphlet to Origin Theory.” 46 Geoffrey Koziol gives an informative story on the humiliation of Hugh of France at the court of Otto II in the 980s; Geoffrey Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1992), 124. 47 For an in-depth study on state ceremonials in Burgundy, see Peter Arnade, Realms of Ritual: Burgundian Ceremony and Civic Life in Late Medieval Ghent (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1996). 48 Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:151–54. In scholarly opinion, Długosz described Jogaila’s coronation according to that of Casimir the Jagiellonian, St. Gawęda, K. Pieradzko, J. Radziszewska, and K. Stachowska under the supervision of Jan Dąbrowski, Rozbiór krytyczny Annalium Poloniae Jana Dlugosza z lat 1385–1444 (The critical analysis of the Annalium Poloniae by Jan Dlugosz, the years 1385–1444), vol. 1 (Wrocław, Warsaw, and Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1961) [hereafter, Rozbiór], 11. 49 PSRL, 35:101. 50 “Vithawdus … Cruciferis et mercatoribus, qui aput illum in castro Ritherwerder morabantur comprehensis et ligatis, cum omnibus ducibus, boiaris, families et cuncta suppellectili, bombardis, balistis, Riterzwerder incenso, in Lithwaniam regressus, a Iaszkone de Olyeschnicza Lithwanico capitaneo, qui super hoc mandatum a rege acceperat, benigne acceptus et habitus est. Cognito autem, Cruciferi qui in relinquish duobus castris, videlicet Navgard et Metemburg morabantur, Vithawdi discessu, sibi armati occurrunt et castra accedens, ex quibus Cruciferi descenderant, facile capit et spoliata incendit,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:197. Naturally, Posilge is of different opinion concerning Vytautas’ exploits: “… Wytaut filius Kinstut secundario se avertit et univit se regi Polonie cum tota gente sua, cum tamen domini nostri ei multa bona fecissent et totam terram, quam habuit, acquisivissent, maximas pecunias et expensas cum eo et propter eum exposuissent. Hac jam Quarta vice idem Wytaut proditos factus est, bis Lituanis et bis dominis nostris. Idem eciam Wytot eodem tempore combussit nova castra per dominos sumptuose edificata, videlicet Ritterswederder et Novum Garten,” SRPr, 3:181. 51 Vostrava, By / Pl, Ostrów / Lt, Astravas a village near Lida in today’s Belarus. 52 “Wladislaus Polonie rex … aput Ostrow die septima mensis Augusti agente, dux Vithawdus cum primoribus sue partis illi occurit et frequenti ac lugubri prece, lacrimis etiam abortis humiliter sibi et sui omnibus deprecabatur ignosci. Wladislao autem rege plenam tribuente de transgressionibus suis veniam, in Vilnam itum est; … Vithawdo duci illius demandat regimen,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:197. For

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

53

54 55 56 57 58 59

60 61

62

63

83

the treaty of Vostrava (4 September 1392), see AU, no. 29, 26–27; confirmations of loyalty and obedience given by Vytautas’ wife Anna, ibid., nos. 30–31, 27–28. PSRL, 32:69; also see Albert Wiivk Koialowicz, Historiae Litvanea, pt. 2, Sev de rebus Litvanorum, a coniunctione Magni Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae ad Unionem eorum Dominiorum libri octo (Antwerp: Apud Iacobum Mevrsium, 1669), 34. Similarly in Maciej Stryjkowski, Kronika Polska, Litewska, Zmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi (The Polish, Lithuanian, Samogitian, and the Whole-Rus’ chronicle), vol. 2 (Warsaw: Nakład Gustawa Leona Glückberga, 1846; reprint, Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1985), 97. Vytautas “siadet na velikom kniazhenie Litovskom na Vilni. I byli radi usia zemlia Litovskaya i Russkaya,” PSRL, 35:101. Pficneris, 148. PSRL, 35:71. Ibid., 71–72. Vladimir son of Algirdas (ca. 1364–1392). “A kniaziu Volodimiru Olgirdovichu togda sushchu v Kieve ne voskhote pokory uchiniti i cholom’ udariti velikomu kniaziu Vitovtu. … Togo zhe leta kniaz’ veliki Vitovt vyvede ego s Kieva i dal emu Kopyl’, a na Kieve posadi Skirgaila,” PSRL, 35:72. “A sam [Vytautas] v grad Smolensk s kniazi i z boary vnide, a pred nim kryzh nosiakhu i svirelnitsi glasiakhu, po Litovskomu ikh obychiayu,” PSRL, 12–13:162. Cz, Jeroným Pražsky, one of the closest supporters of Jan Hus, on his trips to Lithuania see Jonas Beblavy, Lietuvių čekų santykiai Vytauto Didžiojo laikais (The Lithuanian–Czech relations in the times of Vytautas the Great), Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Evang. Teol. Fakulteto leidinys 2 (Kaunas: n.p., 1930), 15–18 and A. Šapoka, “Jeronimas Pragiškis ir jo kelionė Lietuvon” (Jerome of Prague and his trip to Lithuania), Praeitis 2 (1933): 252–90. “Item, quod fratres et religiosi christiani oppidi praedicti, … , secundum verum ritum fidelium Christianorum, cum processione et vexelis, et reliquis sacris dicto domino Duci obviam venerunt, et exiverunt. Item, quod tempore acessus, praedicti Rutheni sive schismatici, cum reliquiis eorum perversis et tabulis depictis, more ipsorum damnato, etiam damnata processione, prefato Domino Ducis obviam venerunt, et ipsum in praedicto adventu susceperunt. … Nec non ibidem in praesentia quasi quator vel quinque milium hominum sexus utriusque…, ” Herman von der Hardt, Magnum oecumenicum Constantiense consilium de unoversali ecclesiae reformatione et fide, vol. 4 (Francofurti et Lipsiae, 1699), 677–80; quoted from “Priedas” (Appendix), in Šapoka, “Jeronimo,” 282–83. “Cui primum Dux Withawdus cum suorum caterva ad unum milliare occurerunt, et eo excepto, Wladislaus Polonie Rex in vehuculum, quo Barbara Regina Romanorum vehebatur, ascendit et Luczsko in travit. Duce denique Withawdo praecedente, Sigismundus Romanorum Rex in equo, habens in uno latere Sbigneum episcopum Cracoviensem, ibat, tubis et variis instrumentis musicis clangore cenentibus immense. Completi errant campi turbis, catervisque hominum, pressus erat vir viro, equusque equo, unusquisque certabat splendore vestigium ormanme-

84

64 65 66 67 68

69 70

71 72

73

74

75

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA torum, equorum et insignium, alium vincere. … Conventionem tam magnificem et tam illustrum trium Principum, aetas linga neque vidit, neque visura est, utpote qui illa tempestate omnes Reges et Principes mundi, fama, divitiis, pompa, Gloria belli anteibant. … … processions civitatis occurrerunt, et primum catholicus episcopus Andreas cum suis, deinde Ruthenis cum suis, Armenus cum suis, Hebraeus cum suis, Regem Romanorum excipiunt,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:366–67. For 1409, see Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:44; for 1415, see Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:189. Ibid., 339. CEV, no. 1460, 949. Ibid., n. 443, 209. Kamenets, 1421: “Et me donna trios fois à disner, me assit à sa table où estoit assise la ducesse, sa femme, et la duc sarrasin de Tartarie, parqouy je vëy mengier char et poisson à sa table, par ung jour de vendredy,” Oeuvres de Ghillebert de Lannoy voyageur, diplomat et moraliste, ed. Ch. Potvin and J.-C. Houzeau (Louvain: Impremierie de P. et J. Lefever, 1878), 55. For the “menu,” see PSRL, 32:152. For the visits that Russian princes paid to Vytautas, see Ivan Mikhailovich of Tver’, PSRL, 12–13:166–67; Basil Dimitrievich of Moscow, ibid., 35:72; as well as Vytautas’ daughter Sophia, ibid, 12–13:172; and ibid., 6: col. 4. Oeuvres, 56. “Item, tient ledit Witholt, prince de Létau, ceste orde d’honneur parmy son pays que nulz estrangiers, venans et passans par icelui, riens n’y despendent, ains leur fait le prince dèlivrer vivres et les conduire sauvement partout où ilz veulent aller parmy ledit pais, sans coustz et sans frais,” ibid., 41. “Et me donna au partir deux robes de soye, nommées soubes, fourrées de martres sebelins, quatre draps de soye, quatre chevaulz, quatre chapeaux spichuolt de sa livrée, et dix coeuvrechiefz broudez, quatre paires de tasses de Russia, ung arcq, les flesches et le tarquois de Tartarie, trios tasses escarteleés et broudées, cent ducas d’or et vingt cincq keuchelles d’argent, vaillant cent ducas. Lequel or argent, je reffusay et luy rendy pour ce que à celui temps et heure s’estoit aliez avecq les Housses contre nostre foy,” ibid., 56–57. For the Hussite connection see further section entitled “Embracing the Heresy.” For the presents exchanged with the Teutonic Knights, see falcon: CEV, no. 367, 147–48; two falcons in exchange for a stallion: ibid., no. 348, 132; cap, and a pair of gloves: ibid., no. 386, 164; dwarfs: ibid., no. 901, 497 and no. 984, 541; meat of an auroch: ibid., no. 713, 375–77; Rhinevine: ibid., no. 702, 365 and no. 1069, 581. On the role of stallions and horses within the relations between Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights, see an enlightening essay by Sven Ekdahl, “Vokiečių ordino karo žygiai Prūsijoje” (Military campaigns of the Teutonic Order in Prussia), trans. Darius Baronas, in Žalgiris. Šiandienos žvilgsnis. Trys paskaitos Vilniuje (The battle of Grunwald in today’s perspective. Three lectures in Vilnius), comp. Vydas Dolinskas (Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1999), 44–63. CEV, no. 828, 442–3.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

85

76 “Dux Thartarorum Ediga, … , specialibus et notabilius nuntiis ad eum directis, tres camelos panno rubeo opertos et septem ac viginti equos cum ea legatione transmitittit,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:239. On lion and aurochs, see CEV, no. 1484, 972 and 974.Gifts and ceremonies at Vytautas’ court have been discussed by Rūta Čapaitė, “Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio Vytauto kasdienybė pagal jo ir amžininkų korespondenciją” (The everyday life of Grand Duke Vytautas as revealed through his and his contemporaries’ correspondence), in Alytaus miesto istorijos fragmentai (Fragments of the history of the city of Alytus), comp. Audronė Jakunskienė (Alytus: Alytaus kraštotyros muziejus ir Dzūkų kultūros draugė, 2001), 10–27. Also see: Rimvydas Pertauskas, “Vytauto dvaras: struktūra ir kasdienybė” (The court of Vytautas: structure and everyday life), NŽ 1–2 (2003): 39–44. 77 On heathen diplomatic procedure, see S.C. Rowell, “A Pagan’s Word: Lithuanian Diplomatic Procedure 1200–1385,” Journal of Medieval History 18 (1990): 145– 160. 78 Długosz has thoroughly described the Knights’ standards in his Banderia Prutenorum, in Ekdahl, Jono Dlugošo, 146–265. The Bykhoviets Chronicle mentions that half of the standards were brought to Vilnius and placed in the Cathedral, Lietuvos metraštis. Bychovco kronika (The Lithuanian annals: the Bykhoviets Chronicle), introduced, translated, and commented on by Rimantas Jasas. Lituanistinė Biblioteka [hereafter, LB] 10 (Vilnius: Vaga, 1971) [hereafter, BK], 110–11. 79 “... der koning von Polan und herzog Witaut am Pfingsten nehest vorgangen zur Wille mit enender sin gewest … . Und von dannen zogen sie ken Pleskouwe, dar ouch unser boten quemen und der Pleskouwer sendeboten. Und do dirfuren die unse, das sie mit Witaute irer sachen enes geworden sin, das doch nicht redelich en ist, wente Pleskouwe jo unsem orden zugetelet ist, so verne als her das gewinnen kan. Und van dar zogen die herre ken Smalentzek, dar ein herzoge Rosam genant quam mit herzoge Witouten tochter, der Witautes viand lange gewest was, und dirgab sich do in sine gnade, wante her gros besorget was, das en die heren beiden mit der grossin schar volkes, nemelich wal vunf tusent mannen, obirzihende worde,” LUB, 4: no. 1888, 779–80. 80 “… Polonie rex in Vilnam applicans aliquot diebus exactis in Poloczko, deinde Withewsko, Smolensko, post hec in Krzyczow et Zaslaw processit. Ex Zaslaw navibus per fluvium Dnyeper vectus in Kiyow descendit, Alexandro duce magno Lithuanie eum cum consorte sua Anna in locis predictis comitante et sue serenitati atque suis necessariorum et donorum procurante abundanciam. Ex Kijow Alexandro duce magno Lithuanico illic relicto processit Wladislaus Polonie rex per Dnyeper in Czyrkassy, Swinigroth, Sokolecz, Karawul, Braczslaw et tandem in Kamieniecz pervenit, ex Kamienicz Leopolim, inde in Gliniany accessit. Quo iam Alexander dux magnus Lithuanie, quemadmodum inter regem et eum tractatibus secretis convenerat, ad agendum severum de Nicolao Curowski Gnesnensi archiepiscopo (quasi in regiam maiestatem gravi offensa, sollicitando Annam reginam de stupro secundum eisudem regine assercionem deliquisset) iudicium advenit. Prefatus autem Nicolaus Curowski … obiit,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:184–85. 81 No other sources attest to the trial of the archbishop, Rozbiór, 136.

86

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

82 These dates are established in Jerzy Purc, “Itinerarium Witolda wielkiego ksiecia Litwy, 17 lutego 1370 roku - 27 pazdziernika 1430 roku” (The itinerary of Vytautas, the Grand Duke of Lithuania, 17 November 1370 – 27 October 1430), Zeszczyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Historia 11 (1971): 92. 83 In the words of Vytautas from 1427: “Kywen ein hepth ist von alders aller Russischen landen,” CEV, no. 1298, 780. For the place of Kiev within the historical consciousness, see Olena V. Rusyna, “On the Kyivan Princely Tradition from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 18 (1994): 175–90 and Omeljan Pritsak, “Kiev and All Rus’: The Fate of a Sacral Idea,” ibid. 10 (1986): 279–300. 84 Pficneris, 209. 85 CEV, no. 498, 242 and 23, 245. 86 On the early-modern interpretations of the story of the destruction of Porhkov, see further Ch. III, sections entitled “The Radvilas as Worthy Successors of Vytautas” and “Russia: Warrior of the Neighbors.” 87 “Dux autem Withawdus sentiens illorum adventum, locato throno, tectus a solis ardore umbraculo purpureo, in illo consedit, exercitu induto armis, in duas partes ordinato, sibi in longu, assistente et terrorem ingerente, illos expectit. … Dux Wuthawdus eorum precibus et verbis, nec tantam humilitatem contemnedam putat. … Habitisque cum episcopo et quotrodecem Senioribus Nowogrodensibus, mutuis tractatibus, correptis illis longo et honesto sermone, cessare se ab illorum invasione repromittit, si decem millia cyclorum argenti non signati, omnes homines et equos in castro Opoczka [i.e., Porkhov] consistentes, Schubas quinquginta sabellinas, et totidem de omnium pellium genere, tricentas purpuras, sibi tradant. Non facta aliqua resistentia aut difficultate, promittunt se postulata facturos, et post triduum omnia ante pedes Ducis afferunt,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:363– 64; brackets mine. 88 On the resettlement, see further, Ch. III, sub-sections “A Brief History of Lithuanian Tatars” and “A Brief History of the Lithuanian Karaites.” 89 “Poidem na tsaria Temir-Koutloua svoim dvorom, i az idou s mnogoyu siloyu i s mnogimi kniaz’mi bezchisleno, s mnoyu Litva, Liakhi, Nemtsi, Zhemot’, Volokhi, Podoliane; az tebe posazhou na tsarstve na vsei Orde, na Sarai, na Bolgarykh, i na Azatorkani, i na Azove, i na Zalitskoi Orde; a ty mene posadi na moskovskom velikom kniazhenii, i na vsei seminadtsati tem, i na Novgorode Velikom, i na Pskove, a Tfer’ i Riazan’moa i est’, a Nemtsy i sam vzmou,” PSRL, 27:338. 90 4 May 1399, Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lituaniae: gentiumque finitimarum historiam illustrantia maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta collecta ac serie chronologica disposita, ed. Augustin Theiner [hereafter, VMPL], vol. 1, Ab Honorio PP. III usque ad Gregorium PP. XII, 1217–1409 (Rome: n.p, 1860; reprint, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1969), 1: no. 1041, 769–71. 91 E.g., Ivinskis, Lietuvos istorija, 314–19; Pficneris, 201–06. 92 The “paternal” relations are also characteristic of legal texts, e.g., CEV, no. 107, 34–35.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

87

93 PSRL, 12–13:173. On the Tatar policy of money signing and countersigning, see Octavian Iliescu, “Génois et Tatars en Dobroudja au XIVe siècle: l’apport de la numismatique,” Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 3 (1997): 161–78. Lithuanian Grand Dukes also countersigned Tatar money; however, no piece from the times of Vytautas has been found so far; Eugenijus Ivanauskas and Mikelis Balčius, Lietuvos didžiosios kunigaikštystės lydiniai ir monetos nuo 1387 iki 1495 metų (The Bars and Coins of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since 1387 till the Year 1495) (Vilnius: n.p., 1997), 80–84. 94 Ibid. 95 All the principal narratives include the description of the battle at the Vorskla river and list the celebrated persons killed there. E.g., see PSRL, 27:90 and 263, 28:89. As to Lithuania after the catastrophe of Vorslkla, it is described as follows: “byst’ togda skorb’ veliya i pustota liudei v Litve,” PSRL, 12–13:185. 96 On the titles of Vytautas see Loreta Skurvydaitė, “Lietuvos valdovo titulatūra: kada Vytautas ima tituluotis Didžiuoju kunigaikščiu?” (Title of Lithuanian Ruler Vytautas: When Did Vytautas Start to Title Himself as the Grand Duke?), Lietuvos istorijos studijos 8 (2000): 9–19. 97 LC, 1:no. 85, 475–76. In 1407, Vytautas asked for the papal permission to organize a crusade against Russia, SRPr, 3:288. 98 On this period, see Robert Pletnia, “Działalność wielkiego księcia Witolda na północno–wschodnich obrzeżach państwa Litewskiego w latach 1404–1408” (The Policies of Grand Duke Vytautas (Witold) in Lithuania’s North-Eastern Frontier in 1404–1408), Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwessytetu Jagiellońskiego 1219, Prace Historyczne 125 (1998): 17–33. 99 On Vytautas’ role in the battle of Grunwald see Edvardas Gudavičius, “Žalgirio operacija ir Vytauto rizika” (The manoeuvre of Grunwald and the risk of Vytautas), NŽ 5 (1992): 24–28. The author’s position is summarized in id., Lietuvos istorija, 1:216–18. 100 Nearly contemporary with the events, written at the end of 1410 or in early 1411 is “Cronica Conflictus Wladislai regis Poloniae cum cruciferis anno Christi 1410,” in SRPr, 3:434–39. However this account does not contribute to the image of Vytautas, who is viewed only as Jogaila’s subject. 101 The famine war lasted from 18 July until 7 October 1414; in greater detail see Gudavičius, Lietuvos istorija, 1:240–41. 102 “Litvani … neque eo neophyti, neque veri sed falsi sunt Christiani,” Johannes Falkinberg, “Liber,” 216. 103 “Polonos Francigenis criminantibus, quod barbaris contra fideles opem ferrent, Polonis refellentibus sancte et pie agere, dum neophitos in fidei favorem defensaret contra perversos religiosos. Convertumque fuit inter utrosque, ut tam Poloni quam Francigene ad probandam sue accionis iustitiam in curia Wenczeslai, ea tempestate Romanorum et Bohemie regis, in equo quaternarii numero militarem pugnam et duellum pro die certa Prage inirent,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:187. 104 “Vitovt mnogobozhnyi pleni Riazan’,” PSRL, 15.1:458 [emphasis mine].

88

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

105 Note from the year 1412: “a eshche sverkh togo layali nam novgorodsty vashi, i poganami zvali,” ibid., 28:93. 106 “… poganyi kniaz’ litovskyi, otstupnik khristian’skyia very, Vitovt,” ibid., 5:40. 107 Reysa is a contemporary term for the incursions organized and led by the Teutonic Knights, e.g. Chaucer wrote: “In Lettow hadde he reysed and in Ruce – / No Cristen man so ofte of his degree,” Geoffrey Chaucer, the Canterbury Tales, selected and edited by Robert D. French, Crofts Classics (New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1948), ll. 54–55. 108 E.g., Philip de Mézièrs writes that Lithuania is the last outpost of Tartarland: “derniers confines de Tartarie, c’est assavoir ou royaume de Layco,” Philip de Mézièrs, Le Songe du vieil pelerin, ed. G. W. Coopland (London: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 1:235 (bk. 1, f. 49v2–20r1). 109 Sources are extensively referred by Andrzej Feliks Grabski, Polska w opiniach Europy Zachodniej XIV – XV w. (Poland within the Western European opinion, fourteenth–fifteenth century) (Warsaw: PWN, 1986), 183–84 and 194–95. 110 According to the correspondence between the grand master and Vytautas the campaign took place in early February 1400, CEV, no. 214, 64–66 and no. 220, 67. 111 On 12 October 1398, LUB, 4: nos. 1478–79, 218–27. 112 “le Duc de Vitaire, ung Duc Sarazin de Lytowe, que ferroit lesdits Prussiens pour sa route, … avoit ledit Duc de Vitaire en sa compaignie tres grand foisons de gens don Pays de Tartarie,” in “Preuves servant a l’Histoire de Lorraine: Chronique, ou Annales du Doyen de S. Thiébaut de Metz (1229–1445),” in SRPr, 3:454. 113 On Henry’s trips to Prussia, see [Richard Kyngeston], Expeditions to Prussia and the Holy Land made by Henry Earl of Derby (Afterwards King Henry IV.) In the Years 1390-1 and 1392-3 being the Accounts Kept by His Treasurer during Two Years, ed. Lucy Toulmin Smith, The Royal Historical Society. Camden ns. 52 ([Westminster]: Camden Society, 1894; reprint New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1965), 5–142. For various descriptions of Henry’s reysa see “Appendix A,” ibid., cvi–cx. 114 Christopher Tyerman, England and the Crusades, 1095–1588 (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 273. 115 Grabski, Polska w opiniach, 191–92. 116 Tyerman, 262. 117 Posilge includes a lengthy text in his chronicle, SRPr, 3:196–97. For the reaction of the grand master see CDPr, 6: no. 11, 10–11. 118 D, Konrad von Jungingen, grand master from 1393 to 1407. 119 CDPr, 5: no. 137, 186–92. 120 Bull from 17 January 1415, CEXV, 2: no. 57, 67–69. 121 Scriptores rerum Brunsvicensium, ed. G. G. Leibnitz, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1707–11), 2:1135; quoted from Grabski, Polska w opiniach, 203, n. 71, 203. 122 Ibid., 203. 123 “Nunciatum est siquidem regnum suum hostili terrore vacuatum, et quod Rex de Letto, commisso bello contra Bassak, filium Balthardan illustrem, quem ‘Admiratum’ appelant, eundem Bassak in bello preremerit, et destruxerit Ierusolem

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

124

125 126

127

128 129

130 131 132

89

et in circuitu regionem et quod idem Rex de Letto conversus sit ad Christianitatis ritum, propter tam gratiosam victoriam a coelo sibi datam, cum sexaginta millibus hominum sectae suae; qui, in signum suae fidei, jam utuntur albis vestibus supra armaturam suam, insertis crucibus rubri coloris in eisdem vestimentis,” Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. Johannis de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde, monachorum S. Albani, necon quorum anonymorum, chronica et annales, regnantibus Henrico Tertio, Edwardo Primo, Edwardo Secundo, Ricardo Secundo, et Henrico Quotro, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages [hereafter, RBrS] (London: Longmans, Green, reader, and Dyer, 1866), 336. The same story is less explicitly repeated by Thomas Walsinhgam, Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. Thomae Walsingham, quondam monachi S. Albani, Historia Anglicana, ed. Henry Thomas Riley, vol. 2, 1381–1422, RBrS (London: Longmans, Green, reader, and Dyer, 1864), 247 and id., Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. Ypodigma Neustriæ, A Thoma Walsingham, quondam monacho monasterii S. Albani conscriptum, ed. Henry Thomas Riley (London: Paternoster Row, etc, 1876), 392. On Tamerlane’s conversion see Felicitas Schmieder, Europa und die Fremden: die Mongolen im Urteil des Abendlandes vom 13. bis das 15. Jahrhundert, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Quellenkunde des Mittlelalaters 16, ed. Horst Fuhrmann (Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994), 186–87. These parallels are noted by Grabski, Polska w opiniach, 212–13. Ibid. Długosz on clothes: “largiente pio rege Wladislao singulis ex popularium numero post susceptum baptisma ex panno de Polonia adducto noves vestes, tunicas et indumenta,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:160–61. The fact that the neophytes received garments is also testified by the statement of the Teutonic Order presented at the Council of Constance: “et quia aliquibus baptizandis qui ceteris reputabantur meliores dabantur tunice, reperti fuerunt aliqui bis baptizati, ut duplices tunicas mererentur et alia donaria que eis tunc dabantur,” CEV, 1030. “Et les seigneurs de Prusse, aveques le roy de Layco, a toute leur puissance, passeront parmy le royaume de Russye et des pays d’entour, et venant vers Constaninoble,” de Mézières, 2:434 (Le Triers Livre fo. 228r1–338r2). On the acceptance of de Mézièr’s idea among the English royalty, see Tyerman, 263. Eugenijus Ivanauskas, “Krikščioniškieji simboliai Jogailos ir Vytauto monetose” (Christian Symbols on the Coins of Jogaila and Vytautas), Numizmatika 1 (2000): 51. SRPr, 3:222. VMPL, 1: no. 1041, 769–71. “Item in desim jare arbeite der herre koning und herczoge Wytot groslichin im hofe czu Rome an deme pabist … die durch got und der ere gweden ken Littowin czu betringen czu dem gelaubin die Russin und heydin, dy den landen gelegin werin czu bringen und uff die czu reysin glychir wys als her gegebin ist dem Dutschin ordin czu Pruszin und Lyffland; und sie kundin der gnaden von dem pabist nicht behaldin,” SRPr, 3:288.

90

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

133 On Vytautas’ politics towards Russia at the given period, see Robert Pletnia, “Działalność wielkiego księcia Witolda na północno-wschodnich obrzeżach państwa Litewskiego w latach 1404–1408” (The Policies of Grand Duke Vytautas (Witold) in Lithuania’s North-Eastern Frontier Region in 1404–1408), Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego 1219. Prace Historyczne 125 (1998): 17–33. 134 “Attulit nobis literam vestram Rudolfus Tyrol vester Erholdus, ex cuiuc contentis intelleximus, amiciciam vestram ad sepulchrum dominis et ad sanctam terram per siccum intendere et velle proficisci, desiderando, quatenus ad id vobis nostra concilia et auxilia prebamus etc.,” LC, 1: no. 85, 157. 135 Politically, the period is enframed by the first Samogitian uprising in 1401 and the Peace of Thorn in 1422. 136 For the detail analysis of the Samogitian revolts, see Almonaitis, Žemaitijos politinė padėtis, 132–40. 137 “Verum gratimus sue impietatis arcem vallo scrupulose societatis arcius muniret, cum Rege Polonie se suosque littwanos ac Ruthenos scismaticos, ymmo hereticos in malum Ordinis mei quinvero tocius christianitatis quasi in unum coeuntes net concencietes, christus et belial, Deus et ydolum contra racionem fidei perversius colligavit. Que liga tanto periculosior sancte matri Ecclesie extitit, quanto sub christiani nominis tytulo defensorem sibi (sic) advocat et patronum,” CDPr, 5: no. 122, 164 [emphasis mine]. 138 “… Witoldus non contentus in premissis traditorie peractis de die in diem amplius suis inopinatis machinacionibus et suggessionibus pervesris christianitatem in partibus ordinis nostri eandem perperam defraudendo cum presidio paganorum totis viribus ad ultimum exterminium multipliciter nititur,” ibid., no. 116, 156. 139 “… respondeat pro Witowdo duce ut pretendit sue gentis actore, dampnati sceleris prodicionis et apostasie, Sunt ne isti cristianos crudeliter trucudare, Ecclesias cristefidelium prophanare, ymagines crucifixi, beate virginis marie, aliorumque sanctorum transsagittare, contemptilibiliter in altum suspendere, et ostentui habere Fratres Ordinis sine diffidacione hostiliter captivare, fidem sollempniter stipulam irritare, castra Ordinis pro municione cristifidelium erecta solotenus concremare, Terras Ordinis auferre et contra iusticiam occupare, sacrificis infidelium et scismaticorum assentire, que omnia per Samaytenses facta sunt Anno preterito, cum alliis adiunctis, ut taceamus pesiimis christianis consilio et auxilio, dicti Witoldi qui modico tempore ante baptizati, execrabiliores facti sunt quam fuerunt,” ibid., no. 135, 183–84. 140 E.g., in a letter from 3 September 1401 Vytautas asks: “iam proterviter per ipsos ad defendam publicam iniuriam provocamur,” CEV, no. 238, 75. The letter was written during the very first days of the Samogitian revolt, i.e., prior to the news had reached Königsberg, Almonaitis, Žemaitijos, 135. 141 “Sed vere in fidei catholice milicia cum nostris absquete recidivi vomitis scrupulo auxiliante domino iugiter permanere,” CDPr, 5: no. 40, 114. 142 “… ad solitum prodicionis vomitum redeundo,” ibid., no. 135, 184. For an explanation of the metaphor, based on the example applied to King Jogaila by the Polish clergy, see Ekdahl, Jono Dlugošo, n. 51, 52–53.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

91

143 Jogaila and Vytautas “ac gentibus mea ac suae ditioni subiectis cum fortissimis scissmaticorum et barbarorum nationibus fides teneo ac ab eorum incursibus christianam fidem, professionem totis viribus sub gravissim is meis et suis ac nostrorum subditorum periculis defendo ipsius clementiam frequenter et suppliciter invocavi,” CEXV, 1.1: no. 37, 31. 144 20 May 1410, CEV, no. 440, 206–07. 145 On the revolt, see Almonaitis, Žemaitijos, 168–77. 146 SRPr, 3:300. 147 CEV, no. 437, 204–06. Prochaska has found 36 copies of this text; see ibid., editor’s note at the bottom of the page 205. 148 CEV, no. 426, 194–99. 149 “… et Samogitarum terris, quos ferre per quiennium accipare conatifuerunt, quos et quantos ad baptismi graciam promoverunt, cur non dicunt?” CEV, no. 427, 201. 150 Długosz gives a detail account on the Polish–Lithuanian preparations for the war; Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:57–58, passim. 151 The letter, as it was read to the Knights in Marienburg, is published in SRPr, 3:403–04. For a more throrough investigation of the emperor’s attitudes, see Józef Garbacik, “Zygmunt Luksemburczyk wobec Wielkiej Wojny PolskoKrzyżackiej (1403–1411)” (Sigismund of Luxembourg in relation to the Great Polish–Teutonic War (1403–1411),” Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3.1/2 (1960): 15–36 and particularly p. 24. 152 On various disputes and interpretations of Grunwald, see Grabski, Polska w opiniach, 237–301; for the western sources, see id., “Echa bitwy grunwaldzkiej w historiografii zachodnioeuropejskiej” (The echoes of the battle of Grunwald in Western European historiography), Zapiski Historyczne 1 (1967): 7–48. 153 On various judgments of the battle, see Krystyna Pieradzka, “Bitwa Grunwaldzka w obcych relacjach kronikarskich (Pruskich, Ślaskich i Zachodnioeuropejskich)” (The battle of Grunwald in general accounts of the chronicles [Prussian, Silesian, and Western European]), Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3.1/2 (1960): 51–65. 154 E.g., a scribe from Lübeck noted the following participants among the Polish– Lithuanian troops: “dat se mochten untellik wesen var worden vorgaddert Sarracenen, Turken, Tataren, de henden von Damasken, von Persen, von Meden of sprak men, dat se dar to quemen van Caspien, dar de roden joden wonet,” Die Chroniken der niedersächsischen Städte: Lübek, vol. 2, Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14 bis 16 Jahrhundert [hereafter ChDS] 26 (Leipzig: Verlag von S Hirzel, 1899), 150–51. The Tatar tsar was Tokhtamysh’s eldest son, Dzhalal-al-Din, known in Latin, mainly from Dlugosz, under the name of Saladin: “Soltan Zeladin, qui Wladislaum Poloniae Regem et Alexandrum Withawdum in singulis expeditionis Pruthenicis iuverat,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:221. 155 “… maxima strages facta est inter fratres Pruthenos ex parte una et Witoldo et rege Cracovie semichristianis parte ex altera”; “crucuferi de domo Teutonico … inierunt bellum cum rege Polonie et Bitoldo fratre eius pagano”; and “Wladislaus

92

156

157

158

159 160 161

162

163

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA rex Polonorum cum adiutorio Alexandri ducis Littwanie neophyti, …, qui in paganismo Witoldus est vocatus,” Andreas von Regensburg, Sämtliche Werke, ed. Georg Leidninger, Quellen und Erörterungen zur Bayerischenn und Deutschen Geschichte n.s. 1, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Munich, 1903; reprint, Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1969), 129, 152, and 165. Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys contenanat le règne de Charles VI de 1380 à 1422, published in Latin and translated into French by M. L. Bellaguet (Paris: L’imprimerie de Crapelet 1841; reprinted with an introduction by Bernard Guenée, Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1994), 2:334–37. The narrative of the battle is much more detailed than given herein; however, it does not contribute to Vytautas’ image. “Ce roy de Poulaine avoit jadis esté Sarrazin, et fut filz du roy de Lictuaire, qui par grant comoitise de régner et ambition, occisit son père, et pour ceste cause, fut-il chassé hors du pays, et s’en ala à refuge devers le roy de Poulaine,” La Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet en deux livres avec pièces justificatives 1400– 1444, ed. L. Douët-D’Arcq (Paris: Jules Renouard, 1858), 2:62. Calling Jogaila a patricide could be a distant echo of Kęstutis’ murder, of which he was accused at Constance, Lites ac res gesta inter polonos ordinemque cruciferorum, vol. 3, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska (Warsaw: Sumptibus Bibliothecae Cornicensis, 1935) [hereafter, Lites], 179. “Et y de mourérent bien vingt-six mille mors desdiz Sarrasins, entre lesquels furent les principaulx l’admirale de Lictuaire et le connestable de Sarmach,” La Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet, 2:75–76. Sigismund of Luxembourg acted as mediator in this dispute, the documents of these negotiations are published in Lites, vols. 2–3. For the Polish–Lithuanian appeal to the Council see Jogaila’s letter (written also in Vytautas’ name) from 9 November 1414, CEXV, 2: no. 56, 64–67. The advocate of the Polish–Lithuanian party was Paulus Vladimiri Lat / Pl, Paweł Włodkowicz (1370–1434); for the brief account of his position, see Eric Christiansen, The Northern Crusades: The Baltic and the Catholic Frontier, 1110–1525, New Studies in Medieval History, ed. Denis Bethell (London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press, 1980), 223–32; for an in-depth study, see Stanisław Frantiszek Belch, Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politics, 2 vols. (The Hague: Mouton, 1965). For a detailed presentation of the matter, see Walter Brandmüller, Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414–1418, vol. 2, Bis zum Konzilsende, Konziliengeschichte, ed. Walter Brandmüller (Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1997), 150–73. For an in-depth treatment of conciliar ideas in late medieval Poland, see Thomas Wünsch, Konziliarismus und Polen: Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in Zeit der mittelalterlichen Reformkonzilien, Konziliengeschichte, ed. Walter Brandmüller (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1998). “… cum tamen hoc ipsum difficalter credi poterit, per quemlibet probum et fidelem christianum, ut illum nos supplantare vellemus, pro quo parati sumus exponere vitam nostram. Ideo ad reclamandum hoc nuncios nostros direximus

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

164 165

166

167

168 169

170 171 172

93

ad Constanciam et ad alia loca, quibus circa expurgandam innocenciam nostram petivimus sinceram et exhibere dignemini voluntatem,” CEV, no. 651, 333. Also see B. Dundulis, Lietuvių kova dėl Žemaitijos ir Užnemunės XV amžiuje (Lithuanian struggle for Samogitia and Sudavia in the fifteenth century) (Vilnius: Valstybinė politinės ir mokslinės litertūros leidykla, 1960), 161–62. CMSD, 1: no. 3, 19. The Samogitian arrival to Constance is described as follows: “Die XVII Februarii … ambaxiatores regis Polonie et ducis Witaldi Lithuanie publice proposerunt in concilio eciam ex parte gencium Samaytarum, primo quod illa gens Samaytarum, que est magna regio, ut ferunt, sicut dimidia Ytalia, vult ad fidem christianam converti et petiverunt ex parte regis et ducis atque gentis predictorum mitti ad eos viros in fide doctos, zelum Dei et fidei habentes Christi ad baptizandum eos et instrumendum in fide Christi, erigendas ecclesias et loca et cetera pertinencia ad Dei cultum,” Acta Consiliii Constancienis, ed. Heinrich Finke [hereafter, ACC], vol. 2, Konzilstagebücher, Sermones, Reform- und Verfassungsakten (Münster: Regensbergsche Buchhandlung, 1923), 58. CEV, 1018–24. The date of the speech is obscure, Andziulytė-Ruginienė, on the basis of the date of the Order’s answer (23–24 February 1416, fragments are published in CEV, 1024–38) assumes that it was delivered in late January – early February 1416, Marija Andziulytė Ruginienė, Žemaičių christianizacijos pradžia / L’Intorduction du christianisme en Samogitie / Die Anfänge des Christentums in Žemaiten (Kaunas: n.p., 1937), 54. Jučas, without indicating his source, writes that the Propositio was read on 4 December 1415, Mečislovas Jučas, “Žemaičių byla Konstancos bažnytiniame susirinkime” (Samogitian Proceedings in the Church Meeting of Constanza), Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademijos metraštis 16 (2000): 25–26. On Teutonic injustice: “fratres ordini Theutonicorum de Prussia … non querentes lucrifacere animas nostras deo vero, sed hereditates et bona et terras nostras usurpare et occupare mollientes,” CEV, 1019. On the wish to commit to the Christian faith: “Sed quia sine adiutorio predictorum serenissimorum principum dominorum Wladislai regis Polonie et Allexandri alias Witoldi ducis Lithwanie hec sancta opera non bene possunt perfici,” ibid., 1023. Andziulytė-Ruginienė, 52. The internal evidence of the speech (the reference to the complaint from 1407 as well as details on the Order’s abuse of power) suggests that it emerged in Lithuania, most likely at the grand ducal chancellery. Jučas assumes that only Samogitians knew details of their maltreatment; however, they were incapable of producing a piece of scholastic prose, Jučas, “Žemaičių byla,” 28. CEV, 1038. Jučas gives the date of 11 March 1416, Jučas, “Žemaičių byla,” 25. There is no agreement on why the missionaries returned to Constance, the assumption that the Knights did not permit a crossing of their territory comes from the Chronicle of the Council, Augustinas Janulaitis, “Žemaičiai ir bažnytinis seimas Konstancijoj” (Samogitians and the Church Counclil of Constance), Lietuvių tautos praeitis / Lithuanian Historical Review 4.3/4 (1980): 310.

94

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

173 CMDS, 1: no. 18, 46–47. The description of the process of the Christianization is given by the commander of Ragnit in his letter to the Grand Master Michael Küchmeister from 15 October 1417, ibid., no. 12, 37–38. 174 The bishops wrote: “de voluntate et consensu serenissimi principis domini Allexandri alias Witowdi magni ducis … ad Samaytarum terras Deo duce intravimus,” below on the investment of the Samogitian bishop: “princeps Allexander magnus dux Lituanie huius sanctissimi operis inceptor et director,” ibid., no. 14, 40–41. 175 Ibid., no. 18, 47. 176 “Ille autem princeps devotissimus dominus Withowdus illustris magnus dux Lythwanie etc. omni recommendacione dignus, antequam ad intestina terrarum suarum descendimus, personaliter at per marschalcum suum aliosque nobiles et aulicolas suos cum magna veneracione nos suscepit et quantum debuit honoravit,” ibid., no. 19, 50. 177 Pope Martin V, confirming the establishment of the Samogitian Bishopric, wrote to Jogaila and Vytautas: “carissimi in Christo filii nostri Wladislai regis Polonie, illustris ac dilecti filii nobilis viri Wytholdi ducis Lythwanie, quibus ab hoc obligamini plurrimum, christiani sitis effecti ac vitae eterne capaces,” CEV, no. 965, 530. For imperial praise see CMSD, 1: no. 9, 32–34. 178 At that moment, the use of Christian symbolism and especially of a fish as symbol of conversion had a precedent during the conversion of Lithuania, then Jogaila minted coins with a fish on reverse, Ivanauskas, “Krikščioniškieji simboliai,” 50. 179 On 9 August 1421, Vitoldiana, no. 34, 42. 180 “Ecclesie filii humiles et devoti Wladislaus … necon Alexander alias Wythoudus … pisces magnos de mari oceano trahentes ad litus salutis attrahitis, nos nempe e diverso in mari magno et spacioso terrarum nostrarum versus orientem reptilia, gentem scilicet Samagiticam noviter infidelitatis cecitate frementem de profundo aquarum extrahentes ad hauriendum aquas in gaudio dconducimus salvatoris,” CMSD, 1: no. 11, 35–37; below this letter expresses the wish to unify the Church in the Polish Lithuanian territories, 181 For the admiration of Sigismund of Luxembourg, see CEXV, 2: no. 88, 108–09. 182 “necon Ruthenorum et alias gentes et partes septentrionables infidelium,” CDECV, 1: no. 68, 99. 183 H. Koeppen, Die Berichte der Generalprokuratoren des Deutschen Ordens an der Kurie, vol. 2, (1403–1419) (Göttingen, 1960), no. 136, 284–85; quoted from Jučas, “Žemaičių byla,” n. 20, 30. 184 Anna is quite a shadowy figure; for a more thorough discussion about her, see further ch. IV, the section entitled “The Sense of Byzantium.” 185 The extract from the sermon by Andreas Lascaris, Bishop of Poznań at the Council of Constance (13 December 1415): “Ad quod, principes prelati, rex et dux fidei zelatores se offerunt accomodos vestre sanctitati tum racione affinitatis, ex eo quod filius imperatoris Constantinopolitani filiam duxit in uxorem prefati d. ducis et sobolem ex ea procreavit, tum racione confinitatis, quoniam et propre est et sub eorum d. regis et ducis dominis tanta de dicto Grecorum degit numerositas Grecorum, ut nec per unius mensis spacium per terrarum ambitus poterit in longum vel latum pergirari,” ACC, 2:268. On Theodor’s mission, see ibid.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

95

186 On the metropolitanate during the reign of Gediminas, see Rowell, Lithuania Ascending, 157–59. On Algirdas’ efforts, see his letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, Marcelinas Ročka, “Algirdo laiškas Konstantinopolio patriarchui” (The letter of Algirdas to the patriarch of Constantinople), in Metraščiai ir kunigaikščių laiškai, 193–204. See also Rasa Mažeika, “Was Grand Prince Algirdas a Greek-Orthodox Christian?” Lituanus 30.4 (1987): 35–55. 187 Skarbiec diplomatów papiezkich, cesarskich, krolewskich, książęcych, uchwał narodowych, postanowień różnych władz i urzędów poslugujących do krytycznego wyjasnienia dziejów Litwy, Rusi Litewskiej i ościennych im krajów (A treasury of diplomatic materials issued by popes, emperors, kings, and Dukes, national resolutions as well as decisions of various rulers and districts collected for the critical analysis of the history of Lithuania and the Lithuanian Rus’ and the neighboring countries), ed. Ignacy Daniłowicz (Wilno: W drukarni A. H. Kirkora, 1862), 2: no. 1178, 44–45. 188 “… bogu popushcheshu, kniazyu velikomu Vitoftu tako izvol’sho, po svoemu khoteniyu sobrab episkopy khrestiyanskiya, izhe vo oblasti ego zhivuchy, …, i temi episkopypostavi Kievu mitropolita Grigoriya Bolgarina,” PSRL, 27: 98. 189 Grigorijus Camblakas, Lt / Pl, Grzegorz Camblak (1364–1451); for his biography, see Polski słownik biograficzny (The Polish dictionary of biographies) (Krakow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademiji Umiejiętności, 1935–) [hereafter, PSB], 3:193–94. 190 The issue of the Metropolitanate of Kiev is quite ambiguous; from the later 14th c. the title no longer coincided with a metropolitan’s residence. At that time the metropolitan seat was moved to Moscow; however, Lithuanian authorities did not appreciate Muscovite guidance of their Orthodox subjects and requested a Lithuanian metropolitan who would bear the Kievan title and reside in Vilnius. 191 “Die veneris [i.e., 25 February 1418] sequenti intravit Constanciam dominus Gregorius archiepiscopus … Rutenus de fide Grecorum veniens ad procurandam unionem Grecorum et Latinorum sub obediencia Romane ecclesie,” ACC, 2:164. 192 Ibid., 164–67. 193 “…d. regem Polonie ac. D. ducem Witoldum fratrem suum, devotissimos principes sacrorum pedum vetrorum, apud quos contigit me eo tempore reperiri et ut plurimum conversari, quorum eciam serenissimorum principum devocione et amplissima fide dudum ad hanc sanctam voluntatem sancte Romane ecclesie motus sum atque deductus, ut non solum ego ad hanc sanctam fidem ecclesie summa exarserim aviditate, set eciam omnibus meis viribus et omni mea cura et vigilia elaboraverim alios, quoscunque potui, ad hanc sanctam voluntatem inducere predicando et ammonendo in ydeomate illo Rutenico,” ibid., 165. 194 “Postea fuerunt lecte littere regis Polonie et d. Alexandri vel Witoldi magni ducis Lithuanie directe d. pape super hoc. Deinde idem Gregorius archiepiscopus fecit pape reverenciam et admissus ad osculum pedis, manus et oris et ita sui socii. Et ita recessum est,” ibid., 167. 195 “Allexandrum alias Witoldum consanguineum nostrum plantatam, spiritus sancti ymbre irrigatam, magis ac magis dilatare; circumdate eandem sepibus firmaturisque salubrium doctrinarum; erigite demum in ea turrim fortitudinis, perseverenciam scilicet fidei, contra faciem inimici; insistite preterea illud

96

196

197 198 199 200 201

202

203 204

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA fermentum veteris malicie et nequicie, ritum scilicet Graecorum, de quo nobis eciam vestra effectuose pridem scripsit dileccio,” CEXV, 2: no. 88, 108–09. The bull from 13 May 1417 reads: “Duci Lithwanie in Lithwania et ceteris partibus temporali domino tuo subiectis, ac in omnibus locis Samoitarum ac Russie, necon in Magnanowgaroda ac Rszykow civitatibus ac in dominis earundem in temporalibus pro nobis et Romana ecclesia generali vicario,” VMPL, 2: no. 26, 21–22. LUB, 5: no. 2127, 213. PSRL, 27:98. Ibid., 98–99. Among qualities attributed to a ruler, the Russian annals put emphasis on his military achievements rather than on faith, Baronas, Trys Vilniaus kankiniai, 49. “Velemus igitur quod fratres predicti domus Theutonicorum, qui famam nostram semper suis detraccionibus delacerant, iuxta professionem et constitucionem sui ordinis loca tam delicata et vitam ipsorum sordidancia relinqueret et finitima adirent et inhabiret in metis Thartharorum et Turcorum, insultus eorundem nobiscum viriliter deponendo. Non enim convenit ipsorum ordini tot domina terrarum conquirere, nec credimus ipsis fare hoc permissum, quod possent non sine gravississimo scandalo terras quorumqunque principum per obligaciones et impignoraciones, que utique usuram sapiunt, sibi et ordini suo infoedare et incorporare, prout et nobis fecerunt de terra nostra Dobrinensi de qua supra est descriptum; de quorum eciam vita et moribus sanctitatis vestra nerito deberet informari et efficere quod status ipsorum modo debito reformetur, CEV, 1017. When negotiating possible Lithuanian conversion, Algirdas suggested that the Teutonic Knights should be moved into the Rus’ian steppes and there protect Christendom against the Tatars; for a greater detail, see Jürgen Sarnowsky, “The Teutonic Order Confronts Mongols and Turks,” in The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick, ed. Malcolm Barber (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Variorum, 1994), 259–60. On 17 August 1415, CEXV, 2: no. 62, 75. The Lithuanian–Ottoman association is part of the general perception of a Lithuanian as a Saracen. E.g., Thomas Walsingham lists a king of Lithuania among other pagan rulers related to the warfare in Turkey in the year 1364: “in planis Turkeyæ … commissum est bellum atrocissimum inter Christicolos et Paganos, ubi Christiani, quamvis gravi clamo suo, fuere victores. … Et fuerunt principes Paganorum, Soldanus Babiloniæ, Rex Turkyæ, Rex Baldok, Rex Belmarinus, Rex Tartarorum, et Rex de Lettowe,” Chronica Monasterii S. Albani, 1:301. Several descriptions of the Battle of Grunwald write about it as a conflict between the Prussian Master and Turkey: “Magister Prucie de ordine militari sanctae Marie Theutonicorum hiis diebus regnum Turcorum inuasit, et regem eorum, cum quingentis milibus aliis in fugam populis, in bello deucit. Statim postmodum per regem Polonie, propter eius nimiam superbiam, deuictus est se ipse,” The Chronicle of Adam Usk, 1377–1421, ed. and trans. C. Given-Wilson, Oxford Medieval Texts, eds. D. E. Greenway, B. F. Harvey, and M. Lapidge (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1997), 216.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

97

205 E.g., in his letter to the grand master from 8 May 1427 Vytautas expressed his worries concerning the arrival of Turkish legates: der woywode us der cleine Walachaye schreibt, wie das czu uns us der Turkey botschafft kommet, mit dem wir hoch bekummert czeit czu uns kommet, went wir mit dem herren Romischen konige in guter fruntschafft sint und her mit den Turken kriget und in fintschafft ist,” CEV, no. 1286, 771. 206 E.g., in 1421 Lannoy considered Jogaila and Vytautas to have allied with the Turkish emperor against the king of Hungary: “… le roy de Poulane … me bailla lettres, que je demandoie de luy, adreschans à l’empereur de Turquie, avec lequel il estoit alyez contre le roy de Hongrie, pour moi faire avoir mes saufconduits parmy la Turquie,” Oeuvres, 53; “Et me bailla ledit duc, au partir, telles lettres qu’il me failloit pour passer par son moyen parmy la Turquie, escriptes en tartarie, en russie et en latin. … Et estoit aliez avecq le roy de Poulane et avecq le roy de Hongrie,” ibid., 56. For an analysis of the “Turkish” aspect of Lannoy’s embassy, see Maria Holban, “Du caractère de l’ambassade de Guillebert de Lannoy dans le nord et le sud-est de L’Europe en 1421 et de quelques incidents de son voyage,” Revue des ètudes sud-est europèennes 5.3/4 (1967): 419–34. 207 E.g., in Jogaila’s letter to the Council of Constance in 1415, Codex diplomaticvs regni Poloniae et Magnvs Dvcatvs Litvaniae, [ed. Mathias Dogiel] (Vilnius: Ex Typographia Regia & Reipublicae collegii C. C. R. R. Scholarum Piarum, 1758), 1: no. 12, 50–52. 208 E.g., in the letter to Sigismund of Luxembourg Jogaila writes: “Theurci hostes vestri et tocius religionis christiane generales inimici,” CEV, no. 887, 487; or “Theurci hostes nostri communes,” ibid., no. 888, 488. Also see Vytautas’ letters concerned with Turkish advancement, ibid., no. 145, 573; no. 1225, 723–24; no. 1330, 800–01; no. 1331, 801–02 and even offering military support, no. 1238, 735–36. 209 VMPL, 2: no. 38, 29. On 17 August 1415 the Council of Constance addressed Vytautas to help the Emperor against the Turks, CEXV, 2: no 62, 75–76. 210 Lithuanian–Hussite relations have been discussed in a number of studies; for this research the most important were the following: Beblavy, Lietuvių čekų, Dundulis, Lietuvių kova, 244–85; Stanisław Bylina, “Les influences hussites en Pologne et sur les territoires russes de Grand Duché de Lituanie,” Richerche Slavistiche 41 (1994): 163–77. 211 “Lequel or argent, je reffusay et luy rendy pour ce que à celui temps et heure s’estoit aliez avecq les Housses contre nostre foy,” Oeuvres, 57. 212 On the ideas of the Polish–Lithuanian–Czech alliance, see Mečislovas Jučas, “Vytautas ir čekų husitai” (Vytautas and Czech Hussites), in Vytautas Didysis ir Lietuva (Vytautas the Great and Lithuania) (Vilnius: Vilniaus Vytautų klubas and Žara, 1997), 43–53. 213 In January 1421, Vytautas and Jogaila met Hussite envoys in Varėna, Dundulis, Lietuvių kova, 243. 214 LC, 2: no. 52, 96–99 (10 June 1421). 215 “Alexander autem Withawdus, nullo certo tunc responso edito, anno integro Bohemicos nuntios in spe ambigua distinebat,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:271.

98

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

216 For Długosz’s account on Kaributas’ mission, see Dlugosz, Opera omnia, 13:290. Also see the monograph on Kaributas: Jerzy Grygiel, Życie i działalność Zygmunta Korybutowicza. Studium z dziejów polsko-czeskich w pierwszej polowie XV wieku (The life and activities of Sigismund Kaributas: a study of Polish– Czech relations during the first half of the fifteenth century) (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1988). 217 Ivinskis, Lietuvos istorija, 356. 218 For the summary of the document, see CEV, no. 1056, 576. 219 Today, Dorpart is Tartu in Estonia. 220 “Sigismundum ducem Lythwanie, sub cuius regni Bohemie et pro tuicione eorum inuitarumt, qui eosdem hereticos in sua malicia, quam fraternitatem nominant, confortando eorumque errores laudando et auctorisando, qui assumpta secum quam magna Polonorum copia iunctisque sibi Tartaris, quos dux Witoldus in succursum predictorum hereticorum destinat,” 1 May 1422, LC, 1: no. 56, 99. 221 For a general study on the Hussite movement in English, see Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967). 222 CEXV, 2: no. 108, 143–44. 223 Sigismund of Luxembourg reproaches Vytautas that he, a Christian prince, supports heretics: “et famam vestram per adhesionem Wiclefistarum et hostium fidei denigrare,” 9 July 1421, CEV, no. 950, 523. 224 Usually the pope addressed prominent churchmen asking them to prevent Jogaila and Vytautas from further actions in Bohemia, CEXV, 2: no. 109, 145; no. 165, 214–15. For the emperor’s activities, see CEV, nos. 952–55, 524–26. 225 CEXV, 2: no. 112, 147–49. 226 According to the summary of Pope Martin V’s letter to Jogaila, late 1422, CEV, no. 1056, 576. 227 CEXV, 2: no. 119, 157–58. 228 Pope Martin V praises Jogaila for rejection of the Czech crown, CEXV, 2: no. 98, 127; VMPL, 2: no. 45, 32; no. 46, 32–33. 229 The document was issued on 5 March 1422 in Trakai; for its summary, see CEV, no. 995, 546. 230 VMPL, 2: no. 38, 29; no. 46, 32–33. 231 Beblavy, no. 16, 87–89. 232 “Nam si facies id quod potes in hac cause, que fidelibus omnibus est communis, licet finitimos quadam magis specialitate contingat, celebrabitur tuum nomen cum singulari laude in ore populi Christiani,” 14 February 1424, LC, 1: no. 7, 35. “Nobilitatem ergo tuam, qui semper fidei catholice egregius propugnator et augmentor fuisti, .... Multa sunt opera que principes decorant, nullum est tamen ex onmibus maioris glorie, amioris premii apud dominum quam reprimere hereticos, defensare catholicam fidem et opressas erigere fideles,” 23 December 1424, LC, 1: no. 20, 54. 233 The prophecy is mentioned, but not analyzed, by Grabski, Polska w opiniach, 98–99.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

99

234 The German and Latin prophecies are in parallel published in Friedrich Lauchert, “Materialen zur Geschichte der Kaiserprophetie im Mittelalter,” Historishes Jahrbuch 19 (1898): 849–51. On the English aspect see Margaret Enid Griffiths, Early Vaticination in Welsh with English Parallels, ed. T. Gwynn Jones (Cardiff: Oxford University Press, 1937), 170–72 and Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science, vols. 3–4, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1934), 305–06. I am grateful to Dr. Felicitas Schmieder and Prof. Alexander Pachofsky for their help in placing the prophecy in a wider historical context. 235 For an outline of the prophetic aspect of the Hussite movement, see Bernard McGinn, “The Hussite Movement,” in Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), 259–69. 236 František Šmahel, “ Das zerbrochene Szepter des böhmischen Königs. Eine ikonographische Marginalie zu den Beziehungen des hussitischen Böhmens zum Reich,” in Zur politischen Präsentation und Allegorie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, Otto-von-Freising-Vorlesungen der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt 9, ed. Gesichts- und Gesellschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Katolischen Universität Eichstätt (München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994), 39–75. 237 In time the English prophecy was adapted to later events; thus it included the Son’s journey to the Holy Land, alluding to Henry IV’s expedition also mentioned above, Griffiths, 171. 238 English and Welsh parallels demonstrate that Christian symbols entered the vocabulary of political prophecies around the mid-14th c., ibid., 172. 239 Since 1409 Vytautas had predominantly resided in Trakai, Purc, 89–109. 240 For the defensive and urban development of the city, see Algirdas Baliulis, Stanislovas Mikulionis, and Algimantas Miškinis, Trakų miestas ir pilys. Istorija ir architektūra (The city and castles of Trakai: History and Architecture) (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991). 241 “Et y a deux chasteaulz dont l’un est moult viel, fait tout de bois et de cloyes de terre placquies, et est ce viel chastel assis sur ung costé d’un lacq, mais d’autre part siet en plaine terre. Et l’autre chastel est en la moyenne d’un autre lacq, au trait d’un canon près du viel chastel, lequel est tout neuf, fait de brique à la manière de France,” Oeuvres, 40. 242 “Item en ladite ville de Trancquenne y a ung parq enclos ouquel sont de toutes manieres de bestes sauvaiges et venoisons don’t on peut finer es forests et marches de par dela,” Oeuvres, 40. “Wladislaus Rex …. in Troki venit. Cui Dux Alexander Withawdus cum Magistro Livoniae … in castrum altum, in medio lacus situm, cum omnibus militibus suis recolligens, splendide tractavit,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:189. 243 That is, the wars between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Muscovy, and Sweden (1655–1661). 244 Archaeological research revealed that the entire palace including the donjon was decorated with murals: traces of painting were discovered everywhere the plaster survived, Tadas Adomonis and Klemensas Čerbulėnas, Lietuvos TSR

100

245

246

247

248

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA dailės ir architektūros istorija (The history of art and architecture of the Lithuanian SSR), vol. 1, Nuo seniausių laikų iki 1795 metų (From the most ancient times until the year 1795) (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987), 78. The supposition that the mural decoration followed the construction of the castle is based on the fact that such decorating was widespread in the 14th–15th century, Albinas Kuncevičius, “Pirmieji duomenys apie Vytauto laikų Vilniaus Žemutines pilies rūmus” (The first data about the Vilnius Lower Castle’s palace from the period of Vytautas reign), in Žalgirio laikų Lietuva ir jos kaimynai (Lithuania and her neighbors at the time of the battle of Grunwald), ed. Rūta Čepaitė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis, Acta historica Universitatis Klaipedensis 1 (Vilnius: Academia, 1993), 215–39. Starting with 1409 Vytautas predominantly resided in Trakai, Purc, 89–109. Moreover, in 1409 he founded the parish church there, Vitoldiana, no. 21, 27. This church has also been decorated with the murals painted in “Greek” style, [Symon Mankiewicz], Kośćiol farski trocki, cudami Przenasętey Bogarodzice Panny Maryey obideniony a prez xiędza Symona Mankiewicza Biskupstwa Zmudzkiego dyocesiana novo na świat wystawiony (The parish church of Trakai, gifted with the miracles of the Most Holy Mother of God Virgin Mary again taken into light by Priest Symon Mankiewicz, the diocesian of the Samogitian bishopric) (Wilno: W Drukarni Ojcow Bazylianow, 1645), A3/r and [Albert Wivvk Koialowicz], Miscellanea rervm, ad statum ecclesiasticum in Magno Litvaniae Dvcatv pertinentia. Collecta ab Alberto Wiivk Koiałowicz Societ Jesu S. Theol. Doct. Almae Universitatis Vilnensis procancellario et ordinario S. Theol. Professore vulgata superiorum permissu (Vilniae: Typis Academicis, 1650), 26. As to these descriptions of the murals, see my article “Bizantija ir Lietuvos Didžioji kunigaikštystė: įtakos, skoliniai, idėjos. Du pavyzdžiai: Trakų salos pilies rūmų sieninė tapyba ir ‘Vytauto pagyrimas’,” (Byzantium and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Influences, Borrowings, Ideas. Two Case Studies: The WallPaintings from the Palace of Trakai Island-Castle and the ‘Panegyric to Vytautas’), in Paveikslas ir knyga: LDK dailės tyrimai ir šaltiniai (Image and book: sources and research into the art of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), ed. Tojana Račiūnaitė, Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis / Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai [hereafter, AAAV] 25 (Vilnius: Dailės akademijos leidykla, 2002), 9–13. Ivinskis refers to water-colours from 1903 by Konstanty Zajkowski, Zenonas Ivinskis, “Trakų Galvės ežero salos pilis” (The island-castle of lake Galvė in Trakai), Vytauto Didžiojo kultūros muziejaus metraštis 1 (1941): n. 32, 198. Hoppen mentions colour drawings by Bolesław Rusiecki, Jerzy Hoppen, “Malowidła ścienne zamku trockiego na wyspie” (The wall-paintings of the Trakai island-castle), Prace i materiały sprawozdawcze sekcji historji sztuki / Recueil de travaux et comptes rendus de la section d’histoire de l’art 2.1-4 (1935): 235. W. Smokowski, “Wspomnienie Trok w 1822 r.” (A visit to Trakai in 1822), Atheneum: pismo poswiecone historyi, filozofii, literaturze, sztukom i krytyce 5 (1841): 157–83. Jan Nepomuk Glowacki, “Remnants of the wall-paintings in the palace of Trakai island castle,” pencil on paper, 204 x 324 mm, 1822; MNK-XV-Rr. 506, no 764,

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

249

250

251 252 253

254

255

256 257

258 259

260

101

in Zbiory Czartoryskich w Museum Narodowym w Krakowe / The Czartoryski Collection of the National Museum in Krakow, photograph of the museum, 1998. Their arguments are as follows: (1) there is no evidence that Głowacki had ever visited Lithuania; (2) the other drawings from Trakai correspond to Smokowski’s essay on the visit; and (3) the arrangement of the sketches is close in form and sequence of scenes to the litograph after Smokowski’s drawings, Stanislovas Mikulionis and Vytautas Levandauskas, “Trakų pilių ir miesto ikonografija Krokuvos Tautiniame muziejuje” (The iconography of the city and the castles of Trakai in the National Museum of Krakow), Architektūros paminklai 13 (1993): 68–70. These water-colors are presently kept in the Art Museum of Simbirsk (Russia), they are known to me from L. Žilevičius, “Ikonografinė medžiaga surinkta Uljanovsko dailės muziejuje” (The iconographic materials collected in the Art Museum of Ul’ianovsk) (Vilnius, 1987), Lietuvos vaizdo ir garso archyvas / Lithuanian Visual and Audio Archives, TMs F5-4210. Hoppen’s copies are preserved in Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas / Lithuanian State Historical Archives [hereafter, LVIA], fund 1135, file 12, nos. 555–74. For a detailed review of scholarship see Mickūnaitė, “Bizantija,” 9–11. Tadas Adomonis, “Trakų salos pilies sieninė tapyba” (The wall-paintings from the palace of Trakai island-castle), Lietuvos TSR Aukštųjų Mokyklų Moklslo Darbai. Menotyra 2 (1969): 135–60. Anna Różycka-Bryzek, “Niezachowane malowidła ‘Graeco opere’ z czasów Władysława Jagiełły” (The lost ‘Graeco opere’ paintings from the times of Ladislas Jogaila), Analecta Cracoviensia 19 (1989): 307–17. Różycka-Bryzek supposes that the castle was decorated with the murals in the late 1420s, since Vytautas initially wanted to held the assembly of the rulers at Trakai rather than Lutsk, ibid., 314. However, Vytautas’ intentions concerning Trakai are highly doubtful: in the very first letter concerning the assembly, the Grand Duke gave his preference to Lutsk: “nominantesque nobis loca certa in Hungaria aut Polonie regno, vel Troky et in Luczska. Ex quibus cum eisdem vestris ambassiatoribus in Luczkam tanquam locum Sti Vre proximiorem,” CEV, no. 1333, 804. E.g., scenes no. 6 and no. 8 in Smokowski’s lithograph (fig. 18) are interpreted as adoration of an image, Różycka-Bryzek, “Niezachowane malowidła,” fig. 21. The best-known example is the interiors of the Chapel of the Holy Trinity in the castle of Lublin; for a thorough study on its decoration, see Anna Różycka-Bryzek, Bizantyńsko-ruskie malowidla w kaplicy zamku lubelskiego (The ByzantineRussian Wall-Paintings in the Chapel of Lublin Castle) (Warsaw: PWN, 1983). See Adomonis and Čerbulėnas, pl. 1. E.g., see “The Palace of Trebizond,” in The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312– 1453, comp. Cyril Mango, Sources and Documents in the History of Art Series, ed. H. W. Janson (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 253. As to the issue of copies and distortions, lithographs depicting fragments of the Bayeux Tapestry as published in Montfaucon, Monuments, vol. 1 (Paris, 1729),

102

261

262 263 264 265

266

267

268 269

270

271

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA pls. xxxvi, xxxviii is a vivid example; see Francis Haskell, History and Its Images: Art and the Interpretation of the Past (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993), 141. Smokowski’s sketches do not localize the image of the female saint. However, its position within architecture is suggested by its place on the sketch (fig. 15, bottom row, beneath the scene marked with the letter b). This figure is located according to its place in Smokowski’s sketch (fig. 16, scenes on the bottom scenes, figure marked with the letter b). Smokowski, 173 [N. 13]. Ibid., 172. Smokowski writes that there is something strange in these heads, their faces resemble cats and they have large ears painted on both sides of the faces. They resemble painted images of Tatars and it is clear that these figures represent a non-Lithuanian tribe, Smokowski, 169. The identification of the costume is based on Elisabeth Piltz, Le costume officiel des dignitaires byzantins à l’époque Paléologue, Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Figura n.s. [hereafter, AUUF] 26 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994), nos. 1–5, 13–15; and id. “Costume in Life and Death in Byzantium,” in Byzans och Norden: Akta för Nordiska forskarkursen i bysantinsk konstvenskap 1986, ed. Elisabeth Piltz, AUUF 23 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989), 153–59. The ruler’s costume was well known to the masters through religious art, the best illustration being the representations of Sts Constantine and Helena, V. D. Belickij, “Zhivopis’ v khramakh XIV v. iz razkopok v Dovmontovom gorode Pskova” (Paintings in the churches of the fourteenth century from the excavations in the Dovmont town of Pskov), in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Monumental’naja zhivopis’ XI–XVII vv. (Old Russian art: Monumental painting, eleven–seventeenth century), ed. O. N. Podobedova (Moscow: Nauka, 1980), 235. One may also note the well-known sakkos of Metropolitan Photius with embroided figures of Muscovite and Byzantine rulers. For a detailed study of the sakkos, see Elizabeth Piltz, Trois sakkoi byzantines: analyze iconographigue, AUUF 17 (Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976). Adomonis, 149, 143. Antony Cutler, “Uses of Luxury: on the Functions of Consumption and Symbolic Capital in Byzantine Culture,” in Byzance et les images, ed. André Duillou and Jannic Durand, Louvre conférences et colloques (Paris: La docummentation Française, 1994), fig. 21, 316 and 317. Marceli Kosman, “Kancelaria wielkiego księcia Witolda” (The chancellery of Grand Duke Vytautas), Studia Źródloznawcze [hereafter, SŹ] 14 (1969): 103– 04. For a brief overview of offices at Vytautas’ court, see Petrauskas, “Vytauto dvaras,” 39. The shape of architecture in the background determines the indoor or outdoor location of the scene. If the background features the entire building, the event takes place outdoors; if the architecture is fragmented and joined with so-called curtains, the event is placed indoors.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

103

272 E.g., contemporary with the murals is the note of Lannoy: “Et est ledit Witholt moult puissant prince, sy a conquesté douse ou trèse que royaumes, que païs, à lespée,” Oeuvres, 41. 273 [“Pokhvala Vitovtu”] (The panegyric to Vytautas), in PSRL 17:cols. 64–67. For an analysis of the panegyric, see further the section entitled “The Final Word of Praise.” 274 “Sequuntur et viri mulieres nec se ferre posse novum cultum asserunt, relinquere potius terram et patrios lares quam religionem a maioribus acceptam dicunt,” SRPr, 4: 239. 275 “Hos Withawdus Alexander duabus rebus obedienter parentes habuit, sine quibus irritus est et precarius, umbreque similis aput illos omnis principatus,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:169. 276 “Plerique autem adeo illum venereum atque lubricum, proclivumque in libidinem fuisse ferunt, ut e medio victoriam cursu, frequentius exercitu in terra hostili relicto, multa terrarum spatia, equos permutando, conficiens, ad uxorem, pellicesque, pruritum voluptatum expleturus, redire consueverit,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:416. 277 E.g., Lannoy writes: “et trouvay en laditte ville de Wilne deux des seurs de la femme dudit dic Withold” and “en cedit chastel, trouvay le duc Withold, prince de Létau, sa femme et sa fille, femme au grant roy de Musco, et la fille de sa fille,” Oeuvres, 40 and 42. 278 Ljubica D. Popovich, “Personifications in Paleologan Painting (1261–1453),” Ph.D. dissertation, Bryn Mawr College (Washington, D. C., 1963), 181–82 and 442–52. 279 Smokowski, 168; Syrokomla, 94. 280 E.g., Byzantine Art and European Art, 9th Exhibition of the Council of Europe (Athens: Zappeion Exhibition Hall, 1964), fig. 371. 281 The arm of the Duke was raised too high and in the case he holds a sceptre this would be a denigration of the ensign. If he is holding a sword he would appear as if in a military portrait. 282 Richard Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art: The Use of Gestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage, Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 14 (New Haven: Connecticul Academy, 1963), fig.1.43, 31. 283 Early medieval art attributed the gesture of the leader/orator only to Christ Pantocrator, Sergio Bertelli, “Rex et sacerdos: The Holiness of the King in European Civilization,” in Iconography, Propaganda, fig. 34, 139 and Valentino Pace, “Immagini sacre nei programmi figurativi della Roma altomedievale (V–IX secolo): liveli di percezione e di fruizione,” in Les images dans les sociétés médievales: Pour une histoire comparée, ed. Jean-Claude Schmitt and Jean–Marie Sansterre, Bulletin de l’Institute Historique Belge du Rome 69 (Rome and Brussels: Brepols Publishers, 1999), fig. 2, 53 and fig. 6, 55. However, the increase of solemnity in Eastern Christian imagery limited the gesture of Christ, so that the blessing hand was seldom raised higher than the shoulder line and the elevated

104

284 285

286 287 288

289

290

291

292

293

294

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA hand became a sign of the Lord’s prophets, e.g., Vojislav J. Djurić, Vizantijske freske u Yougoslaviji (Byzantine frescoes in Yougoslavia) (Belgrade: Jugoslavija, 1974), 67. PSRL, 17:66–67. E.g., The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 246 and n. 10, 246. Also see depictions of Muslims in miniatures André Xyngopoulos, Les miniatures du Roman d’Alexandre le Grand dans le codex de l’Institut Hellénique de Venise, Bibliothéque de l’Intitut Hellénique d’Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines de Venise [hereafter, BIHEB] 2 (Athènes, Venise: n.p., 1966); and Ottomans in André Grabar and M. Manoussacos, L’Illustration du manuscrit de Skylitzès de la Bibliothéque National de Madrid, BIHEB 10 (Venise: n.p.,, 1979), fig. 240. Maria Gutowska-Rychlewska, Historia ubiorów (The history of clothing) (Wrocław, Warsaw, Krakow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968), 119. Hoppen, 235. E.g., see Annabel Jane Wharton, Art of Empire: Painting and Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery: A Comparative Study of Four Provinces (University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State UP, 1988), fig. 3.22, 85. Cf. scenes no. 6, no. 7, no. 9, and no. 11 of the lithograph (fig. 18) with their sketches figs. 53, 56, 19, and 27, respectively. Also note that representations of standing saints sketched by Smokowski (figs. 23, 29) did not reach his lithograph. For written accounts, see below, n. 291. “honorabilisque domino Jacobo castri minoris Trocensis altarista et capellario,” CDECV, 1:no. 340, 395, other documents, ibid., no. 348, 411; no. 369, 433, and no. 402, 464. T. Tripplin, Dziennik podróży po Litwie i Żmudzi, odbytej w 1856 roku (A diary of a trip through Lithuania and Samogitia undertaken in the year 1856), vol. 1, Litwa (Lithuania) (Wilno: Nakład Maurycego Orgelbranda, 1858), 114; Adomas Honoris Kirkoras, Lietuva nuo seniausių laikų iki 1882 metų (Lithuania from ancient times until the year 1882), ed. Perla Vitkuvienė, trans. Vytautas Visockas (Vilnius: Mintis, 1995), 138; Syrokomla, 94. Smokowski, [N. 11], 172. Small chapels with sculptures of saints inside are peculiar to Lithuanian popular art and are viewed as its specific feature. However, there are no data that such chapels were built in the Middle Ages. Most likely, this tradition was inspired by the architecture of Calvaries that spread together with the Catholic Reform. For a Byzantine image of a donor, see the so-called scene of Metochite, Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne, “Les themes iconographiques profanes dans la peinture monumentale byzantine du VIe au XVe siècle,” in Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio, eds. Antonio Iacobini and Enrico Zanini (Rome: Àrgos, 1995), fig. 13, 218, for an example from the region, see L.I. Lifshin, Monumental’naya zhivopis’ Novgoroda XIV-XV vekov (Mural painting in Novgorod in the fourteenthfifteenth century) (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1987), pl. 417. In the early 15th c., Theophan called the Greek decorated princely quarters of the Moscow’s Kremlin. These secular murals were perceived as a novelty; The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 246, 253. Later this invention did not taken root

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

295

296 297

298 299

300 301

302 303 304

105

in Muscovy. In a broader sense, an indirect but illuminating parallel can be found in the so-called intellectual silence of Medieval Russia. For a recent and thorough presentation of the issue, see Francis. J. Thompson, “The Intellectual Silence of Early Russia,” in The Reception of Byzantine Culture in Mediaeval Russia (Aldershot, Brookfield, Singapore, and Sydney: Ashgate Variorum, 1999), ix–xxii. Also see, id., “The Corpus of Slavonic Translations in Muscovy: The Cause of Old Russia’s Intellectual Silence and a Contributory Factor to Muscovite Cultural Autarky,” in Christianity and the Eastern Slavs, vol. 1, Slavic Cultures in The Middle Ages, ed. Boris Gasparov and Olga Raevsky-Hughes, California Slavic Studies 16 (Berkeley, LA, and Oxford: University of California Press, 1993), 179–214. The issue of contemporaneous portraits of Vytautas will be discussed further in Ch. III, section entitled “The ‘Portraits’ of Vytautas.” Marcin Kromer mentions the Grand Duke’s early (contemporary?) portrait in from the parish church of Trakai; see further Ch. III, n. 264. One should also note the depiction of Jogaila in the murals of the chapel in Lublin castle, Różycka-Bryzek, BizantyńskoRuskie, fig. 140 (top). Ivanauskas and Balčius, 45–46 and 65. “Gelich im ich en sah ni hern ader forsten rich. / Dem sin lude also wern undertan, / Wer im mit grifte unde mit gabe engangen gan mach / Der ist der frolichste man; / Und dartzu einen groschen sollen slan!” A. Prochaska, “Trefniś Henne u Witołda” (Fool Henne at Vytautas), Przewodnik Naukowy i Literacki 8.7 (1880): n. 2, 660. Ivanauskas and Balčius, 15–20. Ibid., 44 and 55–59. For the later political implications of this heraldic sign and its use in Muscovy, see Hieronim Grala, “K izucheniyu russkoi gosudarstvennoi sfragistiki XVI v. (Litovskie ‘koliumny’ na Bol’shoi gosudarstvennoi pechati Ivana IV Groznogo)” (To the study of Russian state sfragistics of the sixteenth century (The Lithuanian ‘columns’ on the great seal of Ivan IV the Terrible), in Russia Medievalis, ed. John Fennel, Edgar Hösch, Ludolf Müller, and Andrzej Poppe vol. 9.1 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1997), 78–101. Ivanauskas and Balčius, 40–46. Vytautas’ seals are analyzed by Władysław Semkowicz, Sfragistyka Witołda (The seals of Vytautas) (Krakow: n.p., 1931); offprint from Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne 13 (1930): 65–86; less detailed – Ignas Jonynas, “Vytauto ženklas” (The sign of Vytautas), in id., Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 170–204. For a study in English, see Loreta Skurvydaitė, “Political Analysis of the Seals of Grand Dukes During Vytautas’ Reign: Iconographical and Historical Research,” M.A. thesis in medieval studies, CEU (Budapest, 1994). Semkowicz, 4–5. Ibid., 5. While the bear does represent Samogitia, scholars are not unanimous whether it signifies this territory on Vytautas’ seals. For the first time the bear appears on the seal from 1401, that is, at the time when Vytautas transferred Samogitia to the Teutonic Knights. Legally, Vytautas could not use the sign of the territory

106

305 306

307

308

309

310

311 312 313 314

315

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA that he did not possess. Semkowicz assumed the bear could have meant Kiev, Semkowicz, 16–19. Ivanauskas and Balčius supposed that it could be a derivation of a lion and meant the territories of Smolensk or even the Kievan Rus’, Ivanauskas and Balčius, 61–62. Semkowicz, 21. On King Mindaugas, see Edvardas Gudavičius, Mindaugas (Mindaugas) Lietuvos istorijos institutas (Vilnius: Žara, 1998); also see Giedrė Mickūnaitė, “Features of Royalty at the Court of Mindaugas and His Successors” in Istorija ir elitinės kultūros teigtys (History and manifestations of elite culture), AAAV 14 (Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 1998), 5–29. The letters of Grand Duke Gediminas (r. 1316–1341) and Pope John XXII offer illuminating examples: in his letter to the pope the Grand Duke introduces himself as “Gedeminne, letwinorum et multorum ruthenorum rex,” Gedimino laiškai / Poslaniya Gedimina (The letters of Gediminas), ed. V. T. Pashuto and I. V. Shtal’ (Vilnius: Mintis, 1966), no. 2, 23. Refering to Gediminas’ letter, the pope writes to the king of France: “Gedemine, qui se regem Lethoviae et ruthenorum intitulat,” ibid., no. 10, 85. One may assume that the word “ Duke” indicated title, while that of “king” meant supreme authority within the country, e.g., “le duc Witholt, roy de Létau et de Samette et de Russie,” Oeuvres, 38. For the 13th c., see Alvydas Nikžentaitis, “Kunigaikščiai XII amžiaus Baltijos kraštų visuomenėse” (Die Fürsten in der Geselschaften Baltikums des 13. Jahrhunderts), in Lietuva ir jos kaimynai. Nuo normanų iki Napoleono. Prof. Broniaus Dundulio atminimui (Lithuania and her neighbors: From the Normans until Napoleon. To the memory of Prof. Bronius Dundulis) (Vilnius: Vaga, 2001), 67–81. Many scholars scrutinized Vytautas’ coronation; see Pfitcneris, 259–74; Ivinskis, Lietuvos istorija, 372–75; Mečislovas Jučas, “Neįvykusi Vytauto karūnacija” (The failed coronation of Vytautas), NŽ 12 (1994): 33–40. “… haben getragin von des gemainen landis wegen czu Samaiten, also, das wir vorgeschrebene, konige Withoud, dem obirsten marchalke und den herrin czu Prussin”; “… habe wir unsern konig Witowt gebetin, das her sin ingesigel an desin briff hat lasin hengen, wend wir selbir keine ingesegele habin,” 26 May 1390, CEV, no. 67, 24 [emphasis mine]. Salynas, Lt [i.e., many islands] / D, Sallin, Sallinwerder was an island at the confluence of the rivers Nemunas and Nevėžis. “Und uf die cziit worfin die Littowin und Russin Wytowten eynen koning uf czu Littowen und czu Russin, das vor ny gehort was,” SRPr, 3:224 [emphasis mine]. Ivinskis, Lietuvos istorija, 327; Gudavičius, Lietuvos istorija, 1:200. “Das behagete yn allen wol, und man wil, das der briff der konigynne von Polan, in deme sy czinszhaftig machin welde die Russin und Littowin den Polan, die groste sache sy, das sich Wytowt czu dem ordin weder hat geworfen und vorsunet,” SRPr, 3:220, also see ibid., 219. The letter from 26 February 1398 reads: “Item wy der herre Homeister hat vornomen heymelich, sunder noch nicht vorware, das der konig von Polan dornach stee und Wytawte, das sie die crone obir Littowerland und Ruscheland von unserm heyligen vater Pabiste dirwerben wellen, daz her die geruche czu lehnen

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

316 317

318

319 320 321 322 323

324 325

107

und czu eym konige bestetigen Wytawten obir die egeschreben lande,” CDPr, 6: no. 61, 66. Késmárk, Hu /Sk, Kežmarok / Pl, Kieżmark, a town in today’s Slovakia. Długosz tells the story as follows: “Sigismundus Hungarie rex letiferum virus, quo Vithavdum ducem magnum Lithuanie a fidelitate et obediencia Wladislai Polonie regis scinderet, comentari cepit. Tracto enim Alexandro duce Lithuanie in locum secretum omnibus arbitris eiectis … offerens se auctoritate Romanorum regis … Withawdum in Lithuanie regem creaturum et ab obediencia, fidelitate iureque iurando Wladislai Polonie regis absoluturum. … Alexander autem dux magnus Lithuanie etsi dolum in verbis Sigismundi regis adverteret, pro temporis tamen et loci condicione benigne respoindit. … Dicens itaque Vithawdus dux magnus ex Keszmark, ad Polonie regem Wladislaum in Novam Sandecz reversus singulos tractatus cum Sigismundo Hungarie rege habitos aperuit et universos dolos, quibus eum ad defeccionem et novi diadematia assumpcionem perlicere conatus est, detexit,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11: 55–56. “Promiserunt enim quibusdam fratribus nostris, quod ipsos ad sedem supremi principatus nostri voluerunt extollere et regnum de terris nostris erigere ac eos postmodum coronare,” CEV, appendix, no. 6, 1008. Ibid., no. 1358, 837. The instructions given to the Czech ambassadors are published in Beblavy, no. 2, 56–60. See above the section entitled “Embracing the Heresy.” “Postulati regis Bohemiae Vitoldi,” Ivinskis, Lietuvos istorija, 356. “Serenissime et invictissime princeps et domine … celsi regalis solii Boemorum honoris et oneris dignaremini suscipere nobilissimum dyadema pro tutela legis Christi eandem pye observancium, … vestre maturissime prouidencie ingeniis inprotracte properando vestro virtutis victoriosio, brachium nostrum in presidium et auxilium suscitantes, ne rex ille S(erenissimus?) Sigis(mundus) Vngarorum in regno seuiens velud Rampnus (?!) in lingo, cui omnes repugnant iusticia … in signum huiusmodi subieccionis ducem Sigismundum vestrum consangwineum nobis pro gubernatore regni ut ab eodem domino viscone accepimus dirigendum suscipere sibique omni subieccionis obediencia subesse, vestrum felicem et sincere desiderabilem vsque aduentum nullum alium preter vestre celsitudinis serenitatem pro domino et rege nostro accepetando,” 10 June 1421, LC, 2: no. 52, 96–98 [parenthesis as in original]. “In vestra namque totum consistit voluntate, vestrum naque velle aliorum est velle, vestrumque nolle aliorum est nolle,” CEV, no. 1133, 624. “Hoc enim exemplum solius Cesaris, aliis quampluribus pretermissis, vestre celsitudini enarrare curavi, ut eum eciam in hoc imitemini qui eius in quam plurimus gesta sequimini. Fuit enim Cesar predictus multis repletus virtulibus, ferus in bello, mansvetus in pace, amicis gratus, inimicis metuendus, in rebelles severus, in vbictos misericors, in subditos paciens ac magnificus, liberalis et iocundus communiter circa omnes et super omnes amator publice utilitatis. Unde de te, gloriosissime princeps, fama diffusa per orbem publice attestatur, quod tu quamplurimum eius in predictis sequeris vestigia,” ibid., no. 1133, 625.

108

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

326 “Pokhvala Vitovtu” (The panegyric to Vytautas), in PSRL, 17: cols. 417–19. 327 Michael Jones, “ ‘En son habit royal’: le duc de Bretagne et son image vers la fin du Moyen Âge,” in Représentation et pouvoir et royauté à la fin du Moyen Âge: Actes du colloque organize par l’Université du Naine les 24 et 26 mars 1994, ed. Joël Blanchard, postface by Philippe Contamine (Paris: Picard, 1995), 253–78. 328 “Sigismundus Romanorum Rex gloriatur se coram pluribus nationibus, guerram inter duos fratres concordes conflavisse, et quasi inter duos aliquos canes costam, …, iecisse,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:410. 329 D, Paul von Rusdorf, grand master from 1422 to 1441. 330 “Es ging auf nichts geringeres hinaus, als sich der ihm täglich lästiger werdenden Lebensabhängigkeit von Polen zu entschlagen, das immer lockerer gewordene Band zwischen Polen und Litthauen völlig zu zerreißen, aus seinen Landen, die sein Kriegsschwert seit einigen Jahren durch neue Grossoberungen wieder erweitert, ein eigenes Reich zu gründen und sich am Abende seines Lebens die Königskrone aufs Haupt zu setzen,” Johannes Voigt, Geschichte Preussens, von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens (Königsberg: im Verlage der Gebrüder Bornträger, 1836), 7:511. 331 According to Jučas, a note left by the Order’s legates to the meeting at Lutsk, which reads “von der cronunge des grosfursten” (CEV, no. 1340, 809), indicates that the coronation plan has been prepared in advance. Due to unknown reasons, Jučas dates the note to the end of 1428 (Jučas, “Neįvykusi,” 34), while Prochaska, the editor of the CEV, dated this document to the end of January 1429. Although, the brevity of the record concerning the coronation may raise doubts, such was the Order’s practice (cf., CEV, no. 1385, 869); thus, the note was written during the meeting. Nikodem argues that Vytautas did not contribute to the pre-arrangement of the coronotion, Jarosław Nikodem, “Spory o koronację wielkiego księcia Litwy Witolda w latach 1429–1430. Częcz II. Próba rekonstrukcji wydarzeń” (Disputes over the Coronation of Grand Duke of Lithuania Witold [Vytautas] in the Years 1429–1430. Part II. An Attempt at Reconstruction of Events), LSP.SH 7 (1997): 163–64. However, the author does not consider Voigt’s information. 332 In November 1428, Vytautas wrote to the Emperor: “si serenissimus princeps dominus rex Polonie etc. frater untriusque nostrum carissimus eandem Vram Stem non certificaret in eo, ut contra woiewodam Moldawanum vobiscum procedere vosque adiuvare velit, non conveniret neque velletis cum prefato domino rege Polonie pro hac vice convenire,” CEV, no. 1333, 804. For the interpretation in favor of the coronation see Pfitcneris, 259 and Jučas, “Neįvykusi,” 34. 333 The entire issue of the coronation as it went after the meeting at Lutsk has received a lot of scholarly attention, for a detailed and recent presentation see ibid., 33–40. 334 Władysław Oporowski (d. 1453), PSB, 24.1:142–44; Zbignew Oleśnicki (1389– 1455), ibid., 23.4:776–84. 335 “Quod etsi nobis multum placuit, tamen abinde discedentes et illud cum consiliaris nostris in armario secretorum nostrorum rimantes, consideramus, quod huiusmodi coronacio nihil boni posset conferre, immo timendum est, si fieret,

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

109

quod terre Polonie et Litwanie per hoc ad dissencionis icitamenta, gverras, lites et incommoda nvenire possent, que postea difficilime possent sopiri. Eciam inscripciones, unions et federa, que inter utrasque terras et nos sint inita per hoc dissolvi [possent] et rumpi, et ultra barones et inclole Litwanie de huiusmodi auctoritate et honore confisi, possent assumere audaciam, defuncto fratre nostro prefato, … . Habet eciam dictus frater noster magnus dux multas hereditarias terras nostras ad vite sue tempora, quas sibi invite vellemus subtrahere, que eciam contongenti huius modi coronacione a nobis et corona nostra Polonie alienatri possent,” end of January 1429, CEV, no. 1341, 810–11 [brackets as in original]. Concerning Oporowski’s authorship, see Jučas, “Neįvykusi,” 36. 336 “Idem dominus rex monet de corona, de qua nobiscum tractavit vestre serenitas, ad quam ipse dominus Polonie etc. rex consenserat et ecce aliter ad vestram intimat serenitatem etc. Unde si licuerit domino regi prefato aliter intimare aut non, ipse sciat, cum tamen verbum regium semper debeat habere firmum progressum. … Sed quia prefatus dominus rex Polonie frater noster has nostras terras Lithwanie hoc modo nititur inferiorare et posteriare, quasi easdem inequales suis reddendo, qui tamen ipsis sunt pares, quam fraters. Quam tamen prefatus dominus Polonie rex, in sua prefata legatione subiunxit; quod barones et incole terraraum Lithwanie non posent libere dominum sibi eligere, sine consensus et requisicione baronum regni sui Polonie. Quod verum est, nobis decedentibus, sed virtute altissimi nobis vita comite, inscriptiones super eo inter nos alternatim facte, quod hoc nobis non repugnant, cum iam simus in magnum ducem prefatarum terrarum et dominum dudum electi, et eisudem possesionem firmam realem et pacificam habeamus. … Sed primo per hanc legationem serenitati vestre factam ipse dominus rex Polonie frater noster inter cetera nobis molesciam intulit, immo nedum nobis, verum omnibus ducibus et baronibus terrarum nostrarum, ipsos quasi intendendo illibertare suosque et corone sue facere homagiales, qui hoc satis alte pensant, velut hii, qui semper liberi fuerunt et nullius terre homagiales,” CEV, no. 1344, 814–15 [emphasis mine]. 337 “… causa incepta fuisset de corona, de qua deo teste ante nihil scivimus nec cogitavimus, …. Sed quod dominus Romanorum rex dixit, se velle eadem causa cum Ste Vra loqui, cu respondimus: stet hoc in vestra voluntate. … misit nobis prefatus Romanorum rex copiam legationis vestre, … Reperimus eciam in eadem copia, quomodo in eadem legacione vestra subiungeris valde [serio]se et plurimum inferiorando, confuendo et quasi illibertando nos, has terras nostras et [procio]res nostros Litwanie, qui sibi hoc satis alte pensant et corda eorum per hoc non mediocriter [moven]tur. … nedum nos, verum terras et baiores nostros Litwanie taliter inferiorare et confundere, quasi eos illiberos faciendo per quod nobis vestrum non minus sperassemus, et quod ea que inter nos vicissim exponenda [essent] ad exteras divulgassetis regiones; … Sed ex quo gracia dei nobis vita comes est, non est necessaria nobis baronum vestrorum eleccio, nec hoc post obitum nostrorum prefatis inscripcionibus in aliquo preiudicabit, cum simus in dominum et ducem magnum harum terrarum dudum electi, ipsarumque firmam realem et pacificam [habemus] posessionem, …. in casu quo coronaremut, baiori

110

338

339

340

341 342

343

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA nostri Litwanie, auctoritate et honoribus huiusmodi co[n]fisi, nobis defunctis possent assumere audaciam etc. multum amaricavit mentem nostra[m] nec minus baiorum nostrorum, quibus per eandem clausulam quasi honorem non faventes [eos] inferioratis, in statuque eorum deprimitis, non faventes eis equalem honorem sicut b[aronibus] Polonie.” 17 February 1429, ibid., no. 1345, 815–817 [brackets as in original]. “… quomodo qu[ascunque] hereditates et terras vestras ad tempora dumtaxat vite nostre obtineamus, per hoc [dignitatem] nobis inferiorando et in statu nostro deprimendo, cum tamen hoc facere vobis [fuisset bene] oportunm, quia ista inter nos bene disponeremus et mutuo concluderemus,” ibid., 817–18 [brackets as in original]. On 13 February 1429, Skarbiec diplomatów papiezkich, cesarskich, krolewskich, książęcych, uchwał narodowych, postanowień różnych władz i urzędów poslugujących do krytycznego wyjasnienia dziejów Litwy, Rusi Litewskiej i ościennych im krajów (A treasury of diplomatic materials issued by popes, emperors, kings, and Dukes, national resolutions as well as decisions of various rulers and districts collected for the critical analysis of the history of Lithuania and the Lithuanian Rus’ and the neighboring countries), ed. Ignacy Daniłowicz (Wilno: W drukarni A. H. Kirkora, 1862), 2:1472. “Credimus vobis constare, quod magnus amicus corone sue regni Polonie semper fuimus, nec umquam quod esset contra honorem aut utilitatem eorundem [ali]quid facere attemptavimus, aut quidqam sine ipsorum consilio facere consveveramus, neque ecciam coronari umquam cogitavimus, prout non ignoratis quomodo in Kesmarkt, dum dominus Romanorum rex de coronacione nostri nobis sermonem movisset, nullo modo ad id voluimus consentire. Demum et in Luczska dum idem dominus Romanorum rex nos pro huiusmodi coronacione fuisset allocutus, nihil sibi penitus respondere volebamus sine consilio et consensus prefati domini regis Polonie. … sed postquam de Luczska abisset nosque primum apud dominum Romanorum regem per nuncios suos confundere cepit, similiter et apud sedem apostolicam certos articulos contra nos conscriptos destinavit, et alibi nos confundando scriptis suis hoc ipsum d[efamavit], cogitare primo incepimus et cum subditis nostris desuper tractare, quomodo confusionem et illibertatem quibus ipse dominus rex Polonie nos et terras nostras innodare et opprimere niteretur, evadere possemus, cum nunquam alias illiberi fuissemus, pro quo apud eundem dominum regem Polonie instetimus et laboravimus, ut sicut nos illiberos esse propalavit, quod nos ita liberos fore manifestare(et),” CEV, no. 1358, 837 [brackets and paranthesis as in original]. Jučas, “Neįvykusi,” 34–35. For the scope of the medieval notion of liberty see La notion de liberté au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident, Penn-Paris-Dumbarton Oaks Colloquia 4, organized by Georg Makdisi, Dominique Sourdel, and Janine Sourdel-Thomine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1985). Rowell, “Pious Princesses,” 21–22, id. “Gediminaičių dinastinė politika Žemaitijoje 1350–1430 m.” (The dynastic politics of the Gediminids in Samogitia in

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

344 345 346

347

348

349

350

111

1350–1430), Žemaičių praeitis 2, eds. A. Butrimas and V. Vaivada (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1994), 129. “… vff di cziet hat ich als vil nicht vriheit, … vnd bin bi jn gewest als eyn eige ner; ich hatte keine vryheit bi jn keinen dingen,” “dis ist witoldes,” 214. “… ad nullum articulum legacionis nostre a domino rege finale responsum habere potuimus,” CEV, no. 1364, 844. “Cui diximus: Serenissime rex, bene videmus, quai V. S. in hiis factis tamen facit dilaciones et frater vester dominus magnus dux vult esse certus et non potest tales vanas sufferer dilaciones, sed vult scire, an sit liber vel iliber; et si S. V. consentire velit vel non. … De Vra Ste dixit: frater noster est liber sicut et nos et ipsum pro alio non habemus, nisi pro fratre nostro carissimo, duces vero similiter et barones Lithwanie pro liberis habemus sicut et barones nostros et equales ipsis,”ibid., no. 1364, 844 [emphasis mine]. “Serenissime domine rex, audimus responsum super singulis punctis legationis nostre, sed non intelleximus si Stas Vra assentire vult in coronacionem domini nostri magni ducis etc. an non, ut sciamus mentem domini nostri clare informari. … Nuncii vero Ftis Vre non cognita voluntate nostra finali, an assentire vellemus aut non, hec verba vel hiis simila adiecerunt: ex quo Stas Vra assentire non vult in coronacionem domini nostri nec nobis finaliter respondere, ex tunc dominus noster magnus dux Sti Vre mandavit refere, quod sive placeat sive eciam displiceat Vre Sti ipse vult coronam recipere et habere,” ibid., no. 1362, 842 [emphasis mine]. E.g., the Polish procurator at the papal curia: “dominum Allexandrem alias Vitoldum in regem crearet et decerneret coronari, ipsaque terras eidem domino Allexandro alias Vitoldo tamquam regi creando et suis successoribus intitularet, in preludicium dicti domini Wladislai regis Polonie successorumque suorum ac dicte corone regni Polonie non modivum in gravamen,” CEXV, 2: no. 179, 239. “Ut igitur regio satieris honore, … , Wladislaus Polonie Rex suum diadema tibi dat et confert, et ne cogaris illud a communi vestro hoste Romanorum Rege petere, consentientibus ad id universes Praelatis et baronibus Regni sui, aequo animo de regio honore cedit, et ut illo fratris, coronamque Regni Polonie accipias, ultronee consenti: cum non dubitet te eiusdem Regni gubernationi iustus et commodius quam se, cum sit senio grandaevo confectus, pro regimine Regi imbecillis, et proles sua tenera sit, posse tam Regno quam Ducatui praesse, qui adhuc retines aetatem vegetiorem,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:382–83 [emphasis mine]. “So wellet wissen, das der erwirdige in gote vatir her Sbigneus bisschoff und der ersame her Johannes von Tharnow woywode von Crocaw des egenannten herrn koniges trefliche sendeboten nu czu Garthen bei uns sind gewest, und haben an uns von des selbigen herrn koniges wegen en sulche botschaft gebrocht und geworben, das wir die polensche krone an uns nemen welden [sic], und der herre konig der welde uns siene krone abetreten und die uns usgeben, und das wir sulden allir sachen in dem selben konigreiche gancz geweldich und mechtig sien; adir umb unsir krone hie im lande, haben sie uns nicht czugelibet. Sundir des vornemen wir nicht und is wundirt uns, wie mag gesein, das wir von

112

351

352

353 354

355 356 357 358

359

360

361

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA egenanten herrn konige bei sieme leben siene krone sulden apnemen,” CEV, no. 1383, 868 [emphasis mine]. For an investigation of the legal arguments surrounding Vytautas’ coronation, see Žydrūnas Mačiukas, “Teisinis Vytauto karūnacijos ginčas” (The Legal Conflict of the Coronation of Vytautas), in Lietuvos valstybė, XII–XVIII a., ed. Zigmantas Kiaupa and Arturas Mickevičius (Vilnius: Lietuvos Istorijos institutas, 1997), 271–83. “Suscipiat ergo V. F. ad tempus prefixum super caput vestum audacter coronam regiam, quam auctoritate imperiali sine hesitacione dare et regna creare possumus; … Nihilominus V. F. regiam dignitatem nomen et auctoritatem non debet respuere, cum multi christianorum reges existant eciam antiquissimi similiter et moderni qui non unccione sed sola coronacione fruuntur, prout est rex Castelle qui vocatur Hispanie, similiter reges Scocie et Cecilie seu Apulie et multi alii,” CEV, no. 1424, 913. “… mittimus ad eandem vestram fraternitatem wenerabilem et egregium utriusque iuris doctorem Baptistam Czigwalla,” CEXV, 2: no. 181, 244. “… assecuramus, quod coronas regias Vre Fti et illustri consorti vestre preparatas, quas aptas habemus, vobis super prefato festo nativitatis beate Marie virginis indubie et infallenter transmittemus,” CEV, no. 1424, 912–13. “denuo Vram Ftem certificantes et assecurantes, quemadmodum et per Bielunkam primo et demum per doctorem nostrum et Sigismundum Roth V. F. indub ie et indilate mittemus. … ut oratores nostros super festo cornacionis vestre ad Wilnam seu Troki transmittamus … et alii nostri nuncii tam in festo coronacionis quam differenciarum huiusmodi a nobis [mandatum] habentes, non per Alamaniam sed directe per Poloniam ad nos dirigent gressus suos, dummodo eis per dominum regem de salvo et securo provideatur conductu,” ibid., no. 1425, 917 [brackets as in original]. For a summary of the document, see ibid., no. 1434, 926. Ibid., no. 1433, 925–26. Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:404. Vytautas invites the Teutonic Knights to attend his coronation in the following letters: CEV, no. 1428, 920–21; nos. 1435–36, 926–28; no. 1439, 931–32; no. 1441, 933, passim; no. 1448, 938, passim. “… io fertigete und czurichte mit allen dingen czu czihen czum herren grosfursten uff den vorramenten tag seiner cronunge, sinddemole das der herre so groslich ist begerend,” ibid., no. 1436, 927. Vytautas writes: “inviteramus et convocaveramus magnam multitudinem populi signanter Mosquensem et Twerensem magnos duces, nec non magistrum Prussie generalem, marchalcum Lyuonie eciam certos prepotentes duces et ambasiatores domini Tartarorum aliosque de diversis Russie et longinquis partibus duces et maiores ac fraters et subditos nostros,” ibid., no. 1456, 945. Jučas also mentions representatives of the Byzantine Empire and Metropolite Photius, who have been present at Lutsk; however, sources do not record them among the guests of the coronation, Jučas, “Neįvykusi,” 39. On 13 September 1430, CEXV, 2: no. 186, 253.

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

113

362 “Quemadmodum V. S. nos certificaverat et assecuraverat pluribus scriptis vestris de missione coronarum, quod nullum impedimentum nulumque obstaculum abesse vel inervenire debuisset aut potuisset quoquomodo, sive eciam cuipiam placeret sive displaceret, quum utique S. V. obtulerat se nobis prefatas coronas ad festum nativitatis Marie proxime lapsum effectualiter des[tin]are, ita de huiusmodi V. S. oblacione et scriptis cercius confisi dispositi omnes fuimus et parati, huiusmodi coronas suscipere ipsisque magis S. V. complacenciam decorare,”CEV, no. 1456, 945. Długosz also knew the position of the Lithuanian embassy: “In eam insuper superbiam se erexerat, ut missis ad Wladislaum Regem et consiliarios Polonie nuntiis, videlicet Rumboldo marsalco et Gastoldo palatino Vilnensi, denuntiret se, sive placeret illis, sive displiceret, coronas sibi mittendas accepturum,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:375. 363 “… praesentes enim in Lithuania, Baptista Doctor et Sigismundus Roth aderant, qui monere et solicitate Ducem Withawdum non desistebant, ut coronis in Vilna fabricates coronari se permitterent, cum huiusmodi coronationem Romanorum Rex Sigismundus esset ratificaturus,” ibid., 405–06. 364 “Unde si adhuc placuerit V. S., potestas easdem nobis transmittere non tamen cum tanta comitiva et tantorum ac tot ambasiatorum ac signanter ducum et tali diwilgacione transitus eorum, sed secreciori modo per pausiores oratores poteris tantum efficere. … Verum quidem posset V. S. iam huiusmodi coronas nobis per Poloniam transmittere, securius tamen est ut per terras Prussie hoc ipsum fieri posset,” CEV, no. 1456, 946; on Jogaila’s consent: “domino regi Polonie … si ipse in nostram coronacionem consentire recusaret, vellemus ipso dissenciente liberi effici et coronari, et in eo proposito fixi stetimus et firmi,” ibid., 945; and “de consensus nostre huiusmodi coronacionis, quam ita cum fratre nostro domino rege speramus ad bonum finem et unionem devenire,” ibid., no. 1458, 948. 365 Pl, Szczecin, a town in today’s Poland. 366 “Und her Lamprecht von Wedele heft mi gesecht, wo di herrn und fforsten von unsern allirgnedigsteb herrn koniges von Ungarn etc. wegin umme der croninge willen der durfchluchtigsten herrn grosforsten hertoch Witods mit der crone tu dem Olden Berline am dunredage negist vorgangen nacht hebben gelegin, und weit anders nicht, wen dat si bereit sin in dem hertochdume thu Olden Stettin,” CEV, no. 1457, 947. 367 On 8 November 1430, Sigismund wrote: “Preterea in facto coronacionis vestre, …, vos non obtulistis nec offertis ad non recipiendum coronas huiusmodi, unde si nobis adhuc placuerit poterimus illas transmittere non cum tanto apparatu ambasiatorum sed secreciori modo,” ibid., no. 1462, 951. 368 Ibid., no. 1464, 953. 369 BK, n. 8, 272. 370 CEV, no. 139, 879–85, end of the year 1429. 371 I could not identify this person. 372 CEXV, 2: no. 182, 244–47. 373 Ibid., no. 183, 247–52. 374 “Amo equidem illam animi tui magnitudinem et exellenciam mirificam tui fastus, qua Alexander diceris, dux magnus. Profecto hoc tibi recte, competenter et

114

375 376

377

378

379

380 381 382 383

384 385 386

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA faventibus diis dignisque auspicuus, hoc prefixo celitus nomine predicaris: Alexander magnamimitate, dux magnus potencia et, ut omnes virtum dotes breviter includam, per omnia nostris seculis ei vivis,” CEV, no. 1394, 880. “… nisi in illo triumphali bello iam olim initio cum Pruthenis,” ibid., 881. “... tu Cesaro animo insuperactis tuis viribus tollerasti, ut iam exacto triennio omnes illas barbaras naciones ultra Littuanie fines circa metas Thartaricas sub tua dicione redigeres et ad nostram orthodoxam fidem catholicam pro viribus copulares. … Sed quid opus verbis est? Nonne, Cesar Thartaricus, immo omnis illa inculta barbaries te timent, horrent atque verentur et tue celsitudinis culmini didicerunt subire?” ibid. “O princeps, quid te tantis fortitorum casuum turbinibus miscuisti? Cur excelsiora titulorum fastigia per tot obrupta agendarum rerum precipicia, licet fortuna tuis plaudit ascensibus, optavisti? O moriture senex, cum tu siculi ceteri mortales ad extremum properas diem, et eum ob adventantem senectutem, ut Jeronimi verbo utar, iam in calce premas, quid te iuvit hanc ipsam evi nostri brevitatem rapacibus perplexarum occupacionum motibus facere breviorem?” ibid., 884. “… ad dei laudem et gloriam et fidei cristiane votum augmentum, gentes barbaras, precipue tamen gentem Litwanicam et Samagiticam, tamquam apostolus domini sua diligencia primus convertit,” CEXV, 2: no. 183, 246 [emphasis mine]. “… in regnum creavimus insignavimus elevavimus transtulimus erreximus et intitulavimus, creamus insignimus elevamus transferimus erigimus inititulamus et attolimus per presentes, sic videlicet, quod exnunc in antea vestra celsitudo et vestri successores reges Lithwanie serenissimi veri gloriosi et liberi reges per orbem universum scribi appellari et nominari debeatis at debeant,” ibid. See above, the section entitled “Within the System of Christian Values: From Saracen to a New Messiah.” Bishop Gerasim, a devoted supporter of Vytautas, burned at the stake upon the order of Švitrigaila in 1435. “Pokhvala Vitovtu” (The panegyric to Vytautas), in PSRL, 17:417–20. The most complete version is included into the Annals of Suprasl’, “Supral’skaja letopis’” (The annals of Suprasl’), in PSRL, 17:64–67. One of the later versions of the Pokhvala has been translated into English, “The West Russian Chronicle’s Panegyric on Vitovt, after 1430,” in A Source book for Russian History From Early Times to 1917, ed. George Vernadsky et al., vol. 1, Early Times to the Late Seventeenth Century (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972), 94–95. Note the dating of the English translation of the Pokhvala; see above n. 428. “Skazanie o velikom kniaze Vitofte” (The legend about Grand Duke Vytautas), in PSRL, 17:cols. 615–16. Most likely, the Skazanie as the Pokhvala appeared in the circles of Bishop Gerasim of Smolensk. Its writing was aborted due to the murder of the bishop. As to the transformations of panegyrics into funeral orations by adding lamenting parts, see Yu. A. Alissandratos, “Sledy patristicheskikh tipov pokhval v

VYTAUTAS CREATING HIS OWN IMAGE

387

388 389 390 391 392

393

394

115

zhitii Stefana Permskogo” (The traces of patristic type of panegyrics in the life of Stephen of Perm), in Drevnerusskaja literatura: istochnikovedenie. Sbornik nauchnych trudov (Old Russian literature: analyses of sources. A collection of scholarly works), ed. D. S. Likhachev (Leningrad: Nauka, 1984), 66. For a linguistic analysis of the both texts and their critical translation into Lithuanian, see “Didžiojo kunigaikščio Vytauto pagyrimas” (The panegyric to Grand Duke Vytautas), trans. Albinas Jovaišas, in Metraščiai and kunigaikščių laiškai (Annals and the letters of the Dukes), red. Mikas Vaicekauskas et al., SLL bk. 4 (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros and tautosakos institutas, 1996), 307–09; for a translation of the version from 1428, see ibid., 236–37. Quoted as translated in “The West Russian,” 94. Ibid., 95. Note that the original Pohkvala does not use the term Littoral for the sea coast. PSRL, 17: col. 67. BK, 342 [introduction above the notes]. For the requirements for imperial panegyric, see “Basilikos Logos / The Imperial Oration,” in Menander Rhetor, edited, translated, and commented by D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1981), 76–95. For the “amount of liquid” in Byzantine imperial panegyrics, see George T. Dennis, “Imperial Panegyric: Rhetoric and Reality,” in Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection and Harvard University Press, 1997), 135. On the genre of panegyric in medieval Russia, see D. S. Likhachev, Razvitie russkoy literatury X–XVII vekov. Epokhi i stili (The development of Russian literature: Epoques and styles) (Leningrad: Nauka, 1973), 83–84, passim; and Alissandratos, 65–66.

CHAPTER II

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

MEMORY AND MEMORIAL The Warrior’s Grave The scenario for the grand ducal funeral remains unknown. Długosz tells us of the circumstances of Vytautas’ death. According to him, the Grand Duke wished to be buried according to the Catholic liturgy.1 One may assume that the very first Lithuanian ruler to be buried in Vilnius Cathedral received all the appropriate Church services. Other details of the obsequies are as follows: the Grand Duke’s bed of state was arranged in Trakai; vigils continued for eight days with a change of mourners three times a day. Then the dead body was transported to Vilnius and buried there with ceremonials befitting one of his rank.2 The fact that the obsequies were held in two places has led Marceli Kosman to suggest that Vytautas’ burial rites in Trakai were held according to heathen practices while those in Vilnius followed Christian rituals.3 Although the first part of the statement lacks basis in the primary sources, it may be partially true. In 1430, heathen funerals for the Grand Duke could hardly be imagined. Nevertheless, certain elements from ancient customs of mourning the dead were surely alive after the four decades since the country’s conversion. A close reading of Długosz’s text encourages such a supposition. Describing the mourning in Trakai, he writes that everyone lamented over the Grand Duke as if over the father of the nation. One could hear the weeping of women. This was because of Duchess Julianne, who alternated between weeping and crying that she was bereaved. It was clear that Vytautas should be mourned not only by Lithuanians, but by other nations as well.4 At first glance, the description testifies to profound grief on Vytautas’ death. However, long and expressive lament over the dead is also peculiar to the pre-Christian customs of Baltic burial. Although lamentation has survived until today, immediately after the introduction of Christian-

118

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

ity, the Church considered such funeral rites as heathen and prohibited extensive mourning.5 As to the complaints of the grand duchess, her weeping falls within the framework of Lithuanian funeral practice. Lamenting as a form of conversation with the deceased could be found in Lithuania until the early twentieth century. Customarily, a lady from the family used to lead the lamenting in the form of a monologue addressed to the deceased.6 On the other hand, the information related by Długosz does not contradict Christian principles and could have been part of the Office of the Dead.7 As to the entombment, we also learn about it from Długosz’s account: Jogaila took the Grand Duke’s body to Vilnius and, after solemn ceremonies, he was buried in the Cathedral next to the body of his wife, Anna (d. 1418).8 No contemporary document concerning the burial of the Grand Duke of Lithuania survived. The location of Vytautas’ grave was changed, and finally lost; nonetheless, it is possible to speculate about Vytautas’ final resting place. As customary, Vytautas’ grave was secured while he was still alive. On October 21, 1430 (i.e., six days before death), he issued a privilege to the Cathedral. Predominantly, this document concerns the salvation of the soul.9 Hence, it has been labelled the last will of Vytautas. The privilege supplied the Altar of the Archangel Michael with income from the district of Ihumen.10 Moreover, it stated that the Grand Duke secured a place for his burial by the side of his deceased wife, Anna, and provided for the appropriate services to be carried out for the salvation of his soul.11 The puzzle is that very few documents mention the Altar of the Archangel Michael. Later tradition refers to the chapel of St. Michael as that of Vytautas.12 The altar re-emerges in chapter documents only in the eighteenth century. However, the connection to the Grand Duke is retained.13 Regrettably, mentions of the altar and the chapel are too scarce and too generalized to allow them to be localized within the Cathedral. Hence, the exact places of Vytautas’ original and later burials remain unknown. Little is known concerning the marking of Vytautas’ grave. It is commonly agreed that tomb sculpture appeared in Lithuania only in the sixteenth century. In the late fourteenth century the cathedral crypts were painted with murals.14 Although nothing is certain, one may guess that the body of the Lithuanian ruler was laid within a decorated crypt. According to the later tradition, a banner marked the Grand Duke’s burial.15 This banner as described by Marcin Bielski and in the Chronicle of Lithuania and Samogitia had an equestrian image of the Grand Duke painted according to the ancient manner in a Greek style. Władysław Pociecha adds that it was a military standard.16

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

119

This fragmentary information is worthy of more thorough analysis. Least puzzling of all is the Greek style. Although in the sixteenth century the term “Greek style” had no precise meaning, it usually concerned the composition of the image. Hence, it is likely that the image on the banner had been arranged as follows: the horse and the rider were features in profile, while the rider’s face turned towards the spectator.17 Such a composition was universally used in Byzantine equestrian portraits.18 In the periphery of the empire, it became quite widespread through the icons of St. George. The closest parallel to this portrait would be the equestrian image of Jogaila as depicted in the murals of the castle chapel in Lublin.19 Given the Lithuanian provenance of the Lublin mural paintings, this strengthens the supposition that some portrait existed featuring Vytautas on horseback.20 However, the question of whether such depiction would appear on a banner needs to be answered. Despite some certainty concerning the appearance of the equestrian image, the issue of the grand ducal portrait remains complicated. Three traditions, Byzantine military, and those of Orthodox, Latin, and heathen funerals, surround this inquiry. In the Byzantine Empire, images of emperors used to accompany soldiers into the battlefield.21 Sometimes imperial portraits were depicted on military standards.22 The so-called standard of Tsar Shuiski indicates that this tradition was revitalized in Muscovy in the early seventeenth century.23 As to the funerary aspect, funeral textiles with images of the deceased were popular in both confessions of medieval Christendom. The earliest Russian piece is a tomb cover for Sergius of Radoniezh embroidered in the 1420s.24 In the West, banners were part of funeral processions.25 Moreover, portraits of the deceased featured on such banners are more peculiar to Eastern Europe. It seems that such a commemoration practice, while highly popular in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth of the early-modern period, originated in Teutonic Prussia in the late fifteenth century.26 The time gap between Vytautas’ funerals and the Prussian examples is not too huge to preclude parallels being made between them. Moreover, Russian tradition may also have influenced the Grand Duke’s funeral portrait. Hence, one may suppose that a funerary banner was hung over the tomb of the Grand Duke. Be that as it may, the iconography of the hypothesized Vytautas’ banner contradicts medieval funerary customs. Tomb covers, veils, and banners that bore portraits of the deceased displayed them as devoted men and women praying for salvation. However, a portrait of an equestrian knight could hardly be said to depict a devoted deceased expecting salvation. As immature

120

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

as Christianity may have been in Lithuania, it would not have been thought appropriate to display the deceased in so explicitly militant a manner. Hence, one should reconsider the note concerning the banner’s military purpose. The Lithuanian army of the early fifteenth century did have military standards. However, these bore heraldic signs rather then portraits of rulers. At this point consideration of the heraldry may prove insightful. The Lithuanian coat of arms features an armed knight on horseback. Długosz mentions that such a standard distinguished Lithuanian troops at the battle of Grunwald.27 Although our knowledge about the ceremonial of Vytautas’ burial is fragmentary, the description of solemnities surrounding the funeral of Grand Duke Alexander (d. 1506) might provide some parallels. Among other features, Maciej Miechowita28 mentions eight flags solemnly carried by riders together with swords and garments of the deceased ruler.29 Sources are silent about any funerary banner for Alexander. It seems that they were not yet popular in the grand duchy at that time. The flags that the riders carried were likely to be heraldic standards. It is, of course, impossible to project Miechowita’s description onto Vytautas’ funeral with any certainty. Nevertheless, it appears likely that heraldic flags accompanied the body of the Grand Duke to the place of his burial. My hypothesis is as follows: after the entombment, the heraldic standard of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania remained in the Cathedral. Its connection to Vytautas’ grave, as well as the Grand Duke’s military persona, provided a strong association between the deceased ruler and the heraldic rider. Over time, the perception developed that the knight on horseback, painted or embroidered in an old-fashioned “Greek” manner, represented a portrait of Vytautas.30

Prayers for the Soul Two texts, the notes for memorial sermons written by St. John Cantius31 from Krakow, break the silence of the Lithuanian sources on the obsequies for Grand Duke Vytautas. The sermons are preserved in manuscript form, one in the library of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow32 (henceforth called the Jagiellonian copy), another in the Apostolic Library in Vatican City 33 (henceforth, the Vatican copy). Neither of these texts is dated.34 However, internal evidence suggests that they were prepared some time after the Grand Duke’s death, perhaps for its anniversary.35 A comparison between the two manuscripts suggests that the Vatican copy is more like a draft, while the Jagiellonian one could be the final version of the sermon.36 It is

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

121

unknown whether any sermon was preached. Hence, we know nothing of Cantius’ audience. Nonetheless, these texts at least reveal the preacher’s perception of the Grand Duke and, to some extent, reflect upon the position of the learned clergy at Krakow University. As is customary for memorial preaching,37 the two sermons are full of quotations and allusions to the Scripture. Quotes, references, and allusions to the Gospel of St. John, the Book of Job, and the Book of Morals by Gregory the Great provide necessary parallels to recollecting the Grand Duke’s memory. The Vatican copy relies more on the holy texts and matters of faith while the Jagiellonian one concentrates on the personality of the Grand Duke. Both texts contain themes of death, faith, remembrance, and resurrection. Otherwise the two sermons are quite independent as texts. With the focus on Vytautas, several points from the Vatican copy might be highlighted. First, discipline in holding the Dukedom and ability to resist temptations and restrain ordeals of life.38 The Grand Duke, “pacis auctor”39 entered war only to keep the peace.40 Finally, his greatest merit was fighting paganism and keeping pagans away from Christendom.41 As I have already mentioned, the Jagiellonian copy tells more about the person of the Grand Duke. The sermon begins with a free Biblical reference to the recognition of the body of Christ and builds the symbolism of the body parts of the Crucified. Jesus told his disciples that his hands, feet, and chest represented his works, paths, and love. Similarly, one might think of the invincible Grand Duke, a man who shared the common Catholic faith and was a special friend of Poland’s. His hands were trained for battle and his fingers for war. He defended not only his own realm, but also protected Poland from incursions by infidels. He expanded the borders of his state, maintaining peace within his country. The Scripture says: observe my feet. Similarly, the Duke traveled widely and accumulated great wealth such as was permitted only to Christian kings. These treasures served the welfare of his country and people. Wealth, however, cannot help the deceased; prayers can. The Scripture says: observe my chest, that is, the soul. One should remember that, upon his death, the Grand Duke transferred his wealth and authority to Poland. For all that, Vytautas deserved the help of the faithful to ease his way to salvation. He is not to blame for the collapse of his country, just as St. Wenceslas was not to blame for the heresy that flourished in his country, or as Moses was blameless for the troubles that befell his people after his death.

122

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

The Grand Duke was a prince of justice, generosity, and peace. The just deserve eternal memory, the Church embraced the almsgivers, and blessed are the peaceful, for they are called the sons of God. He was a magnanimous Duke famous all over the world. His virtues do not allow for him to be forgotten and he remains alive in the hearts of the faithful.42 Having enumerated Vytautas’ merits, the sermon, as was customary for that time, reminded one of the temporary nature of life and the inevitability of death, and urged its addressees to pray for the dead. To summarize Vytautas’ image as manifested in memorial preaching, his merits as a Christian defender stand out. Of course, this is the principal credit assuring resurrection. Nevertheless, formulating the motif of the defender of Christianity is important: the Grand Duke protected Christian countries from incursions by the pagans (scilicet Tatars). No source from Vytautas’ lifetime, save the letter of Count Francis,43 highlights this aspect of the Grand Duke’s Christianity: the stress is usually placed on conversion and apostolic mission. However, modern scholarship would agree with the Lithuania’s buffer role under Vytautas.

THE GOOD OLD TIMES OF VYTAUTAS IN LAW AND ANECDOTE Mourning for Vytautas could not last forever. This was all the more so because mundane struggles for power occupied the life of the grand duchy. Hence, very soon, the name of Vytautas became a synonym for the “good old days.” As with every cliché, the Grand Duke’s name also acquired a special form. He was referred to as a victorious prince.44 Besides remembering the Duke’s success on the field, his Christian merits were not forgotten.45 However, in addition to references to Vytautas’ virtues as a ruler, his name functioned as legal norm. Quite frequent references to Vytautas are made in documents issued by the state authorities, the most common being the mention of the Grand Duke’s name when denoting a long-lasting tradition or a well-established practice. The usual formula used in these cases is either “from the times of Vytautas” or “from the times of Vytautas and Sigismund” (i.e., Sigismund son of Kęstutis, d. 1440), Vytautas’ brother and successor.46 More explicit references occur in the documents regulating the internal matters of the grand duchy, the most illustrative being privileges and court cases. As was customary, privileges usually promised either to retain or to return to the

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

123

norms and practices introduced by Vytautas.47 Court cases recommended keeping to the decisions once made by Vytautas.48 All of these expressions were rather standard, traveling from one document to another. More sophisticated and enlightening are the allusions to Vytautas used in international documents. These can be grouped as follows: relations with Muscovy, with the Tatar khanates, and with other countries. Addressing their eastern neighbors, the rulers of the grand duchy perceived it to be self-evident that the name of Vytautas was an argument per se. Writing to the rulers of Muscovy, the Grand Dukes stressed that they (i.e., Muscovites) were the descendants of Vytautas’ daughter Sophia and, therefore, good relations between the two countries should be promoted especially because of family ties.49 The phrase, occurring in the documents as early as 1449, is significant: it reflected a regret that Lithuanian–Muscovite relations had deteriorated immediately after Vytautas’ death.50 This fact is noteworthy, as it is an early echo of the popular understanding of Lithuanian history, according to which everything in the grand duchy became worse after Vytautas reign. Both sides in the Lithuanian–Tatar relationship referred to the good years during Vytautas’ rule. A frequent formula used in the documents is the “good and brotherly” relations established among the predecessors of the contemporary rulers. Vytautas was always that predecessor in the Lithuanian case.51 In addition, because of the alliance that Vytautas once established with the Tatar rulers, it seemed self-evident that Tatars should be on the Lithuanian side.52 Such a reference to the long-lasting tradition of good relationships is also true in the Moldavian case: here Vytautas has as his counterpart Palatine Alexander.53 Among these examples a separate instance can be found in the relations between Poland and Lithuania, when memories of the “good old times” were evoked by the names of Wladislas Jogaila and Vytautas.54 Reviewing the relations between the grand duchy and her neighbors, it appears that the name of Vytautas was present in most cases, but not every one. The relations with Livonia are an exception. The lack of any mention of his name can be tentatively explained by the fact that Vytautas’ activities in Livonia actually were of little importance, although he had some contacts with Livonian authorities.55 To conclude, within a few decades after the Grand Duke’s death, his name assumed the meaning of “time immemorial.” At first glance, such signification sounds like a paradox. However, this is not entirely the case. In fact,

124

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

it was during Vytautas’ reign that Lithuanian law began becoming “literate.” Hence, most charters of daily importance were issued during his reign. Moreover, this was the time when commercial regulations became more established. All these were reasons to maintain the status of the “good old days of Vytautas,”56 perpetuating this formula in documents and legal thought. In addition to the perpetuation of Vytautas’ name in legal records, stories about the Grand Duke penetrated popular memory. The letter of Nicolaus Lasocki,57 an ambassador to the Council of Basel (1431–1445), addressed the rulers of Leon and Castille and was entitled the “Magna mendacia.”58 Scholars regard this text within the spirit of the Council of Basel and relate it to the death of King Jogaila (May 31, 1434) and the search for allies against the Ottoman menace (Spanish kings viewed as fighters against the Muslim world). In his address Lasocki gave a panorama of Poland and her history and also commented on Lithuania and her recently deceased governor, Vytautas. Already the transition from Polish to Lithuanian matters attracts attention: Lasocki says that many incredible things might be told about the Grand Duke. Among these, the author mentions his wonderful stature and power and his magnificence and generosity, but, being afraid to be considered a liar, refrains from indicating incredible features. Thus, the story concentrates on the unbelievable riches and largesse of Vytautas: Who could believe that the Duke kept ten thousand horses only for presents to foreign guests? Who could believe that no fewer than three hundred ladies dressed in silk and gold assisted the Duchess and no fewer than fifty gilded coaches served them? The Grand Duke kept at least three hundred tailors and furriers, who made robes only for him. Vytautas never put on the same vestment twice; he used to donate these clothes. Moreover, five hundred trumpeters, flutists, jugglers, fools, and heralds served at the Duke’s court. Having heard all this, the Emperor wished the Duke to visit him. The Duke replied that he would gladly receive the Emperor in his Dukedom. The Emperor, being greedy for presents, decided to visit Vytautas and stayed at his court for eight months.59 Being presented with presents worth around two hundred ducats, the Emperor wished to crown Vytautas a king of Lithuania. The Duke, however, resisted this offer for quite a while, but finally agreed. The coronation caused a disagreement between Poland and Lithuania. Fifty thousand knights went to meet the imperial legation with the crowns and succeeded in stopping it. Having heard the news, the King became very angry; the Duke fell into grief and soon died. The coronation thus caused lasting tensions between

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

125

the king and the Emperor, as each party felt offended: the Emperor because of the halted legation, and the King because of the attempt to destroy the Kingdom of Poland.60 Lasocki ascribes features of Vytautas that were also known to other authors of the period; however, the examples he provides are unique and close to the image of a fairy prince. As for the “coronation intrigue,” the fact that the Emperor is recognized as being at fault in his attempts to destroy the Polish–Lithuanian alliance is noteworthy. This explanation will survive throughout the fifteenth century, and be perpetuated by Długosz.

JAN DŁUGOSZ ON VYTAUTAS The figure of Jan Długosz occupies a firm position within any research on the Middle Ages in Eastern Europe. This study is no exception. The major difficulty in dealing with the Annales Regni Poloniae (henceforth called the Annales) is the huge volume and multiple layers of the opus, as well as the enormous amount of scholarship dedicated to it.61 Viewed from the perspective of the current inquiry, the Annales provide us with historical facts, as well as with many features of Vytautas’ image. In the following, I shall focus on the imagery, while information recounting Vytautas’ deeds is considered in the appropriate sections of this book. I select those passages in the Annales that put forward certain opinions as to the Grand Duke’s personality or his works.62

The Desirable Ruler Długosz begins mentioning Vytautas from the early 1370s, but only in the accounts of the young Duke’s military exploits.63 The earliest evaluation of Vytautas comes from the discussion of the marriage of Queen Hedwig. Having told about the process of the matchmaking and choice of Jogaila, Długosz comments on the bridegroom. He explains that, at those times, a Lithuanian candidate, even though a heathen, was the best option for Poland. As far as Jogaila is concerned, the commentary calls him the most suitable match, since Kęstutis had been murdered and Vytautas had fled to the Teutonic Knights. Expressing his profound regret that Vytautas did not assume the Polish throne, Długosz writes that, in contrast to Jogaila, “a person of simple manners better suitable for hunting rather than government,” Vytautas was a

126

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

magnanimous man whose glorious deeds likened him to Alexander of Macedonia.64 Given further Długosz’s comments on Vytautas, such a judgment is the most favorable view one could expect. Interestingly enough, at the time of Jogaila’s betrothal, Vytautas was in Lithuania. In fact, Jogaila was the Polish choice for king, although Długosz would have chosen Vytautas.65 Most importantly, this introduction of Vytautas sets the tone for the following discussion of the Grand Duke’s life and deeds. Depending, of course, on the course of events and Długosz’s own position, the Grand Duke is not left without negative features. Nonetheless, despite indicating certain shortcomings of the Grand Duke, Długosz seems to have had a generally favorable view of Vytautas. The positive characteristics of the Lithuanian ruler are then elaborated upon. Concluding the story of the Lithuanian conversion in 1387, Długosz extols the Polish contribution to the spread of Christianity. The preservation of the true faith, however, is credited to Vytautas. According to the Annales, Lithuanians, a simple and savage people, were afraid of the Grand Duke but without good reason. Of course, Vytautas was severe and rigorous and quick to punish; however, Długosz saw in him a careful ruler, prompt to help and support allies in war, attentive to the troubles of individual soldiers, magnanimous, and generous.66 Following these generalizations, Długosz proceeds with the achievements of the Lithuanian Alexander. These frequently illustrate the introductory features. Thus, the second flight to the Teutonic Knights took place because Skirgaila, a ferocious drunkard, threatened the life of Vytautas, who was always a sober, sensible, and modest man.67 The years in refuge were marked by significant devastation and bloodshed in Lithuania: Vytautas is even accused of torturing and poisoning members of the grand ducal family, as well as of infanticide.68 However, these actions are not condemned, and sometimes even justified. According to Długosz, Vytautas brought war upon Lithuania as revenge on Jogaila, who had deprived him of his inheritance.69 Hence, one may say that Vytautas waged a justifiable, if not a just, war. The course of events also supports the just cause theory. In 1392, Jogaila invites Vytautas to Vilnius. Entrusting the grand duchy to Vytautas, rather than to one of the sons of Algirdas, is explained by his exclusive suitability for government. In contrast to Jogaila’s brothers, who were good only for hunting and drinking, Vytautas was best able to rule the country and to rebuild it after the destruction of so many wars.70 Careful administration and resolution of conflicts among the

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

127

Gediminids mark the initial years of the Grand Duke’s government. Internal affairs being successful, Vytautas launches a war on the Tatars. The victorious expedition arouses a desire for fame among Catholic, as well as heathen, princes. Hence, the Grand Duke initiates a new campaign, ignoring the opposing advice of Queen Hedwig.71 This passage conveys a somewhat ambiguous message, since striving for glory and fame has no single meaning. On the one hand, such a desire corresponds to knightly ideals. On the other, it contradicts the principles of Christian humility. As to Długosz’s position, Vytautas’ ignoring the Queen’s warning disappoints the historian. Service and obedience to the Polish Crown are fundamental requirements for the Lithuanian ruler. The battle of Vorskla marks the first departure from this rule and its consequences make the moral of the story apparent: defeat is a punishment for disobedience. From this moment on, Vytautas’ actions are measured from the perspective of loyalty to the Kingdom of Poland to which the Grand Duke swore an oath of fidelity when he received the office.72

The Distinguished Warrior The theme of the Polish contribution to the enlargement of Lithuania’s wealth and territories runs throughout the Annales. The presence of Polish soldiers is frequently suggested to have been decisive in Vytautas’ victories.73 However, this does not diminish his reputation. The Grand Duke is recognized as an outstanding leader, and the emphasis on Polish troops is meant rather to enhance the military glory of Poland. As to his leadership, it is well known that Vytautas led his troops in person. All the major victories were achieved under his guidance. While there was no doubt as to the Grand Duke’s military skill, accounts of the warfare itself sometimes evoked negative commentary. The latter is not concerned with matters of war, but is related to Vytautas’ passion for women. For instance, after a successful campaign against Muscovy in 1408, the Grand Duke abandoned his troops as soon as peace was concluded. Frequently changing horses, he rushed to his wife. Meanwhile, the soldiers, left without their leader and his commands, experienced tremendous hardships and losses of men and horses.74 The message in this passage is somewhat ambiguous. Even though sexual passion and abandonment of his troops are far from praiseworthy features, they also reveal the Vytautas’ distinguished leadership: No one was able to replace the Grand

128

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Duke and guide the army homewards, while only he was skilful enough to bring the troops all the way from Lithuania. A similar story from 1428 strengthened the supposition concerning Vytautas’ leadership. It tells of the threat to Novgorod the Great. As with the Muscovite campaign, Vytautas rushed to his wife, leaving his army behind. However, the description of his long and skilful guidance of the army through impassable marshes and forests precedes the story of the rush to sexual pleasure. Importantly, in the Novgorodian case, the Duke is said to have appointed a leader to guide the troops home.75 Apparently, Vytautas learned from his mistakes and rectified them, although he gave way to carnal desires. Given his long reign, these two outbursts of sexual passion may appear marginal. Długosz, however, is of different opinion. Even after his extensive appraisal of the Grand Duke in his obituary, the sin of being a womanizer is mentioned as the one feature worthy of condemnation. To illustrate the point, the historian recalls the story of the troops abandoned deep in foreign lands.76 The description of the battle of Grunwald provides the most complete image of Vytautas as warrior and military leader. The information significant to this book’s inquiry is first revealed in a dialogue between the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order and Hungarian negotiators (i.e., representatives of Sigismund of Luxembourg). The envoys recount that the Grand Duke arrived with a numerous and excellently equipped army, crossed the Vistula River, and joined the Polish forces. To this, Ulrich of Jungingen replied that the envoys, one of them Polish by birth, had invented this picture. The master was of the opinion that the Grand Duke’s soldiers were good at wielding spoons, rather than weapons. Moreover, they would not have dared to cross the Narew River, much less the Vistula.77 The scene of Vytautas taking care of his soldiers contrasts with the arrogance of the Knights and illustrates Długosz’s statement about the attention the Grand Duke paid to his soldiers. He not only personally inspected his troops, but, following Lithuanian custom, organized them so that those on smaller horses and rather poorly armed were surrounded by the better equipped ones.78 The crimes of the Lithuanians and Tatars in looting a church, as described later, disturbed the picture of a solemn and wellthought-out movement by the united armies.79 Such infidel and neophyte atrocities, however, do not distort the image of their sovereign. It is rather the other way around. The scene of punishment of the criminals by self-hanging manifests the grand ducal authority among his

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

129

subjects and illustrates the feature of being a severe judge: According to the Annales, the two Lithuanians that were found most guilty of desecrating the church had to build their own gallows and put their heads into the nooses. The faster of the two incited the more hesitant one to hasten, lest the Grand Duke becomes even angrier.80 Długosz leaves the story of quick and severe punishment uncommented upon. However, the introductory passages, as referred to above, imply that these practices were looked upon favorably. An episode following the battle complements this interpretation. Telling of Vytautas’ vengeful beheading of the noble prisoners of war, Długosz reserves judgment as to whether such behavior could be justified.81 Thus, even an act so contradictory to the fundamental principles of the Christian faith does not arouse Długosz’s condemnation and cruelty is thus not ascribed to Vytautas. Details of the great battle provide ample information about Vytautas and reveal certain aspects of the Grand Duke’s image. The panorama of Grunwald is magnificent, as is the role of the Grand Duke. The description contrasts the behavior of the two leaders: King Jogaila prays and remains in his tent behind the battlefield, surrounded by numerous bodyguards (the king’s life is worth that of ten thousand knights). Hasty Vytautas cannot stand such delay. He orders an attack. The battle begins. The Grand Duke entrusts his life only to God. He inspects the army, and, frequently changing horses, rides from one squadron to another, arranging the ranks and issuing commands. Lithuanian forces are fully involved in the battle.82 However, they yield to the pressure of the Knights and turn to flee. Vytautas tries to stop his troops, alas, unsuccessfully.83 Observing the retreat, the Grand Duke fears that the Poles might follow the bad example. He thus urges the King to join the fight and encourages soldiers with his personal example.84 Victory attained on the field is followed by a description of the Grand Duke’s contribution to the success of the allies: Throughout the battle, Vytautas went from one standard to another, inspecting the course of the fight, and replacing the exhausted troops with fresh ones.85 However, even the Grand Duke is not prudent in glory. Victory and fame spoil Vytautas as he becomes inclined to abandon the benefits of Poland for the interests of Lithuania. From the moment when the promise was made to reunite Samogitia with the Grand Duchy, this becomes the sole concern of the Lithuanian ruler. What’s more, Polish success in Prussia annoys Vytautas. Should the Poles take control over the Order’s territories, he might be deprived of his Duke-

130

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

dom. With such thoughts in mind, Vytautas abandons the siege of Marienburg and returns home.86 Events that follow the great victory reveal the change in the Grand Duke’s personality. During the preparations for signing the peace treaty, Vytautas is characterized as one who is more skilful in diplomacy than in battle. The Grand Duke has only Samogitia on his mind and entirely neglects Polish interests. As a result, the terms of the peace of Thorn are unfavorable. To Długosz’s astonishment, both rulers are content with the fact that Lithuania is preserved, while Poland is mutilated, and both sign the shameful agreement with the Knights.87 The victory at Grunwald places another fundamental feature obligatory to the Lithuanian ruler in question, namely, his loyalty to the Kingdom of Poland. The course of subsequent events illustrates Długosz’s concerns.

The Perfidious Lithuanian The change in Vytautas’ behavior and, consequently, his estimation in the eyes of the historian are even reflected in the vocabulary of the Annales. Throughout the text, Vytautas is given his full title and the Christian name of Alexander. When telling the story of the two swords that the grand master sent to the King and the Grand Duke as signs of their future defeat, Długosz emphasizes the master’s disrespect to the latter: The envoys said they were giving the swords to the king and his brother Vytautas, mentioning neither his title nor his Christian name.88 When telling of the manner in which the Grand Duke turned away from Poland, the Annales tend to omit these honors as well.89 This bad state of affairs continues for the decade after the victory at Grunwald. Finally, the unjust terms of the Peace of Thorn are revised. However, the imperial investigation of the conflict with the Teutonic Knights concludes in ill will for Poland and Lithuania. Having learned of these results, the King and the Grand Duke fall into despair and weep like two lions. However, in the morning, Vytautas declares to the King that they should fight for the just judgment. In the Grand Duke’s words, wounds cannot be healed with sadness. Thus, only through soberness of mind and strength of hands could they achieve their goals.90 Hence, the flattery with Bohemia begins. Vytautas’ ability to get the Czech crown and his involvement in the Hussite wars threatens the interests and the position of Sigismund of Luxembourg. Finally, the Grand Duke achieves what he wants. The Polish–Lithuanian alliance gets, more or less, satisfacto-

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

131

ry results with the signing of Treaty of the Lake Mełno. But Vytautas, content with the eternal reunion of Lithuania and Samogitia, begins to openly disregard Polish rights. More than that, he reciprocates with the Teutonic Order, of which the story of the mill of Lubicz is a clear illustration. The Grand Duke insists that the mill be given to the Knights. If the Poles ignore this whim, he intends to compensate the Order’s loss by transferring the entire site of Palanga, worth hundred Lubicz mills, to them.91 Once again, Długosz notes that such behavior goes far beyond the scope of grand ducal authority and violates his obligations to the Crown of Poland.92 The accusation of adultery against Queen Sophia of Poland once again confirms the effectiveness of Vytautas’ actions. The fact that the Queen has given birth to two sons and was pregnant again, combined with the old age and decrepit body of the King, resulted in gossip that she had committed adultery. The Grand Duke supported these rumors, naming the suspects. Upon Vytautas suggestion, the guilty were punished and the Queen put in isolation. The entire story of Sophia’s defamation was not entirely without doubts. However, no one dared to oppose the highly reputable Grand Duke. According to Długosz, Poles feared Vytautas more than the King, since he was firm in his decisions and highly effective in achieving his goals.93

Between Ambition and Virtue The initiated coronation culminates the story of the Grand Duke’s disobedience to Poland and his highly tempered character.94 The story begins with the meeting at Lutsk. As usual, the picture of the meeting opens with a description of wealth and splendor. Długosz notes that the Grand Duke was inferior to the kings neither in riches nor in manners. However, the king of Poland surpassed all other participants.95 The description of wealth and showing off is an apt opening for the hidden purpose of the assembly. For twenty years Emperor Sigismund cherished the desire to break the Polish–Lithuanian union.96 The meeting offered fertile soil for this intrigue. Although flattered by the imperial offer, the Grand Duke admitted that he could not accept the crown without the consent of the King.97 The Duke’s loyalty annoys the emperor and pleases the author of the Annales. Sigismund asks the King whether, in his royal opinion, the Grand Duke is not worthy of a crown. To that the King answers that Vytautas deserves, not only the royal diadem, but also the imperial one. Moreover, Jogaila would have been glad to transfer the crown of Poland to his cousin.

132

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Regardless of these intentions and opinions, the King of Poland could not provide a definite answer without consulting the kingdom’s nobles.98 Despite the King’s answer, which was hesitant, the emperor insisted that Jogaila’s personal position towards Vytautas’ coronation was enough, and informed the Grand Duke of the royal consent. Having learned of the King’s position, Vytautas, a man of impatient nature, decided to quickly get the crown. Nobody would have known of further developments in the intrigue had it not been for the interference of the bishop of Krakow.99 The role of Długosz’s patron, Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki, is fundamental to this section of the Annales.100 Even more significantly, the entire story is viewed through the bishop’s eyes. As to the image, it was important that everyone agree that a ruler as great as Vytautas was worthy of a crown.101 However, the person holding the grand ducal office was subject to the Polish Kingdom by laws and agreements. Hence, all the initiatives towards the establishment of the Lithuanian Kingdom were illegal. By seeking the crown, Vytautas violated the law.102 However, the Grand Duke was not really at fault for this vainglorious wish: all was due to the intrigues of Emperor Sigismund.103 The entire story of the coronation adds some new features to Vytautas’ image. Words of praise confirm his greatness and effectiveness as a ruler. His insistence upon the crown illustrates the firmness of his decisions. The scene of the Grand Duke meeting Bishop Oleśnicki informs the reader of his capability to recognize and admire virtues in an opponent. This passage is as follows: Vytautas regards the bishop as his prime enemy and as the greatest obstacle to getting the crown.104 He attempts to win Oleśnicki’s favor by offering him a splendid career and enormous riches. The bishop rejects these offers and firmly protects Polish interests. In the face of such a strong will, the Grand Duke shows appreciation for the bishop’s courage.105 Hence, despite the highly unfavorable situation, Vytautas valued courage, even though it opposed his goals. The quest for the crown ends with a scene of reconciliation. Feeling that death is near, the Grand Duke reconciles with Jogaila. He regrets this mean desire for a kingly title and hands the Dukedom, as well as the keys to the castles, back to the King. Thus, loyalty to the King and the kingdom is restored. The subsequent events reveal that the Grand Duke has died a Christian death. During his last deathbed confession to Bishop Mathew, Vytautas acknowledges that he had doubts concerning the resurrection of the soul. These doubts dispelled, Vytautas expresses a wish to be buried according

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

133

to the Catholic rites. He receives the Holy Sacrament and extreme unction. Mundane worries left behind, the Grand Duke passes away at the moment when dawn lights the earth.106 The magnificent death of this truly Christian statesman, who passed away at dawn—an omen of resurrection and redemption—is followed by an elaborate obituary. The Grand Duke was modest, sensible, and sober. He loved hunting; however, affairs of state always had preference over entertainment. His only drawback was that he made love more often than was decent. Having accumulated great wealth, Vytautas demonstrated his generosity by distributing lavish presents. He was a careful judge, frequently harsh to subjects, but could be liberal as well. However, the Grand Duke’s efforts for his motherland shone above all his virtues. In those times, nobody could be compared to Vytautas. He took a miserable, dark, and ignoble motherland and, through the glory of his deeds, made it more famous than any other prince had been able to do. There is no doubt that Lithuania earned her reputation only because of Vytautas.107 In the following parts of the Annales, Długosz mentions Vytautas several times, the longest part being the illustration of the Grand Duke’s generosity and showing off. Briefly, the anecdote that somewhat reminds one of Lasocki’s “Magna mendacia” is the following: Vytautas paid a significant salary to his secretary, Nicolas Maldrzyk. The Grand Duchess, Julianne, was astonished at this large sum and expressed her opinion aloud. Immediately, Vytautas doubled the sum. The duchess became angry at her husband’s squandering the treasury. Vytautas tripled the sum. The more the Duchess expressed shock at the grand ducal generosity, the greater he made the amount. Vytautas stopped the increase only once Julianne grew quiet. In this way, Maldrzyk was enriched and remained thankful to the Duke for his generosity and to the Duchess for her anger.108 To conclude, despite numerous digressions in outlining Vytautas’ character, the Grand Duke is presented as a great, wise, and active ruler. Having given his opinion as to Vytautas in the entry for the year 1385, Długosz confirmed that position in the obituary. These words of praise entered early modern narratives, thus forming the basis for the Humanist perception of Vytautas. The Grand Duke’s loyalty to the Kingdom of Poland formed the principal measure of his actions. It is interesting to note that Długosz initially dignifies Vytautas, and is quite skeptical concerning Jogaila. However, from the moment when Jogaila begins fully exercising his royal office, the historian changes his stand and

134

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

views the King as a wise and effective monarch. Such a change might be explained by the historian’s belief in the ability of Poles to educate and cultivate even a simpleton, if his work benefits Poland. Thus, having assumed the Polish kingship, Jogaila fell under clever minds and into skilful hands and soon was transformed into a good, if not an exemplary, monarch,109 whom Długosz could no longer criticize. Meanwhile, Vytautas remained as he was. In time, authority, success, and glory began showing their bad sides, for which the Annales justly criticized the Grand Duke. Although angry at the facts surrounding his disobedience towards Poland, Długosz remits Vytautas’ sins, as the Grand Duke regrets and rectifies his mistakes. The last point is noteworthy. In his commemorative sermon on the Grand Duke, John Cantius also emphasized the return of the Dukedom and the castles. These must have been the greatest concern of the Poles, who were especially confused by the episode with the crown, to which Lasocki’s letter also testifies. Hence, they had to be reassured of Vytautas’ obedience. Writing half a century later, Długosz shared this viewpoint and stressed the transfer back of the grand ducal authority. This assurance of Vytautas’ loyalty consolidated the Grand Duke’s positive perception in Poland, and frequently served as a point of departure for early-modern authors.

NOTES 1 “… iuxta ritum catholicum,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:415. 2 “ … Omnes illum, velut parentem patriae, lamentabantur absumptum. Mulierum praesertim gemitus magi exaudiebantur, subministrante occasionem lacrimis Ducissa Iuliana, que se orbem pluribus querelis vociferebatur. Nec certe solum suis, imo et pluribus nationibus deflendus videbatur,” ibid., 415. 3 Marceli Kosman, “Pompa funebris w Wilnie doby przedrozbiorowej” (Pompa Funebris in Vilna [Vilnius] in the Pre-partition Period), LSP.SH 6 (1994): 138. 4 See above, Ch. II, n. 2. 5 Henricus de Lettis (1225–27): “Curones, ... , mortuos suos cremantes, fecerunt planctum suum super eos,” BRMŠ, 1:281; Philippe de Mézières (1389): “et lors les barons a grant devotion et a grans oroisons et regretz boutent le feu ou dit messangier de bois et ardent leur seigneyur roy et son bon amy,” ibid., 451; Michael Junge, bishop of Samland (1426?): “Item ut omnes abusus, abusiones seu ritus gentilium circa mortuos suos, quos quibusius modis exercent, penitus aboleant, postergant et dimittant; et presertim inuocacionem demonum in nemoribus et siluis uel domibus, ac victimas seu conuinia inibi nullo modo faciant, sub pena priuacionis ecclesiastice sepulture,” ibid., 481.

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

135

6 Angelė Vyšniauskaitė, Petras Kalnius, and Rasa Paukštytė, Lietuvių šeima ir papročiai (Lithuanian family and customs), Lietuvos istorijos institutas (Vilnius: Mintis, 1995), 452–53. It must be noted that women mourners were not a specific Lithuanian custom; for a broader description, see Diane Owen Hughes, “Mourning Rites, Memory, and Civilization in Premodern Italy,” in Riti e rituali nelle società medievali, ed. Jacques Chiffoleau, Lauro Martines, and Agostino ParaviciniBagliani, Collecta 5 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994), 23–38, on women see pp. 23–25. 7 Rowell notes that funerals and commemoration of the dead were among the first customs to be integrated within Christian practices; S. C. Rowell, “Custom, Rites and Power in Mediaeval and Early Modern Lithuanian Society,” in Kultūrų sankirtos. Skiriama doc. dr. Ingės Lukšaitės 60-mečiui (The intersections of cultures. Presented on the sixtieth anniversary of Ingė Lukšaitė), Lietuvos istorijos institutas (Vilnius: Diemedžio leidykla, 2000), 56–59. 8 “Funus Ducis Withawdi, Wladislao Rege Poloniae cum omni curia sua illud prosequente, ex Trokky Vilnam deductum est, et in ecclesia Sancti Stanislai Vilnensi, exequiis debitis cum magna solennitate peractis, traditum sepulture. ... Sepultusque est magno quidem omnium obsequio, sed non omnium [i.e., excluding Švitrigaila and his supporters] ...; solus Wladislaus Rex iuxta ei honorabiliter magnifice celebravit, ingentemque luctum super eum, quam quisquam ratus erat exposuit,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:418. 9 “Quomodo in spem retribucionis eterne et nostri memoriam sempiternam ac in remedium animarum nostre videlicet et coniugum nostratum, ... , ad laudem et gloriam sui ac Gloriose Genitricis Sanctae Mariae, sancti Michaelis archangeli, sancti Stanislai martiris et pontificis gloriosissimi ac omnium Sanctorum,” CDECV, no. 109, 134–35. 10 Ihumen Pl, By / Lat, Humyen / Lt, Igumenas, a place in today’s Belarus, ca. 60 km southeast of Minsk. 11 “... capellano vero seu altaristae, sive rectori pro tempore altaris sancti Michaelis archangeli siti penes sepulchrum consortis nostre Anne defuncte, ubi et nostri sepulturam corporis eligimus, … ... ita quod canonici ecclesie predicte singulis Quottuor Tempribus anni pro nostra ac nostrarum coniugum animarum salute tenebuntur racione huiusmodi nostre donacionis vigilias, missas et alia officia defunctorum perpetuoi solenniter celebrare,” CDECV, no. 109, 135–36. 12 Władysław Pociecha, Królowa Bona (1494–1557) (Queen Bona (1494–1557)), Czasy i ludzie Odrodzienia (Poznan: Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk, 1949–58), 3:87. 13 Jan Kurczewski, Kościoł zamkowy czyli katedra Wileńska w jej dziejowym, liturgicznym architektonucznym i ekonomicznym rozwoju (The castle church otherwise known as the Vilnius Cathedral in its historical, liturgical, architectural, and economic development), 3 vols. (Wilno: Nakładem i drukem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1908–15), 3:299. 14 Today, the only surviving mural in the crypt is the Crucifixion with Mary and St. John dated to the late 1390s, see Adomonis and Čerbulėnas, pl. 1.; also see Na-

136

15 16

17

18

19

20

21 22 23

24

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

palys Kitkauskas, Vilniaus Arkikatedros požemiai (The Crypts of the Vilnius Cathedral) (Vilnius: Kultūra, 1994), 46–49. Kurczewski, 1:30. “… iego własny obraz na koniu obyczajem Grzeckim po staroświecku malowany,” [Marcin Bielski], Kronika Polska Marcina Bielskiego nowo przez Ioach. Bielskiego syna iego wydana (The Polish chronicle by Marcin Bielski newly published by his son Ioach[im] Bielski) (W Krakowie: w drukarni Jakuba Sibeneychera, 1597), 335. “Est’ ego obraz i teper’ v Vilniu obychaem gretskim na koniu po starosvetsku malevanyi,” PSRL, 32:81; Pociecha, 3:185. For a more thorough analysis of the “Greek style”, see my article “Išrankioji atmintis arba prisiminimai apie Vytautą, ‘galingiausią ir žiauriausią valdovą, kurį Lietuva yra turėjusi” (Fastidious Memory or Reminiscenses about Vytautas, ‘the Most Prominent and the Cruellest Ruler Lithuania Ever Had’), in Tipas ir individas LDK kultūroje. Konferencijos darbai (Type and individual in the culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Conference proceedings), eds. Tojana Račiūnaitė and Jolita Liškevičienė (Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2002), 115–19. “The Emperor on Horseback,” in Philip Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whitemore Collection, vol. 5, Michael VIII to Constantine XI 1258–1453, pt. 1 (Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1999), 69–70. See Anna Różycka-Bryzek, Byzantińsko-ruskie malowidła w kaplicy zamku Lubelskiego (The Byzantine-Russian Wall-Paintings in the Chapel of the Lublin Castle) (Warsaw: PWN, 1983), fig. 140 (top). Šinkūnaitė supposes that the image on the banner in Vilnius Cathedral indeed portrayed Vytautas and compares it with the equestrian depiction of Jogaila in the murals of the Chapel of Holy Trinity in Lublin castle, Laima Šinkūnaitė, XVII a. Lietuvos portretas (The portrait in seventeenth-century Lithuania), AAAV 19 (Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2000), 24. However, the author does not consider the function of the ruler’s portraits on banners. E.g., Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180 (Cambridge: University Press, 1993), 473. George T. Dennis, “Byzantine Battle Flags,” Byzantinische Forschungen 8 (1982): 51, 52. The standard belonged to Dimitrii Shuiski, brother of Basil IV the Imposter, and was taken by the Polish–Lithuanian forces near Smolensk in July 1610, Zdisław Żygulski jun., Hetmani Rzeczypospolitej (Hetmans of the Republic), published as Dzieje narodu i państwa Polskiego 1–2 (1994): 31–32, 41. A. I. Svirin, Drevnerusskoe shit’e (Old Russian embroidery) (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1963), 44–47, passim; and I. Ya. Mayasova, Drevnerusskoe shit’e (Old Russian embroidery) (Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1971), 9–29, passim. The funerary veil of Maria Mangop (d. 1477) from Rumania is usually regarded as the oldest textile of this sort, “588. Funeral veil of Maria Mangop,” in Byzantine Art an European Art. 9th Exhibition of the Council of Europe, 2nd ed. (Athens: Zappeion Exhibition Hall, 1964), 479–80 and “Tomb Covers,” in Pauline Johnstone, The Byzantine Tradition in Church Embroidery (London: Alec Tiranti, 1967), 112–14. On the accuracy

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

25

26

27

28 29

30

31 32

33

34

35

137

of Sergius’ veil as a portrait, see N. A. Mayasova, “Obraz prepodobnogo Sergiya Radonezhzkogo v drevnerusskom shit’e (K voprosu ob ikonografii)” (The image of the blessed Sergius of Radonezh in old Russian embroidery (Concerning the issue of iconography)), in Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Sergii Radonezhskii i khudozhestvennaya kul’tura Moskvy XIV–XV vv. (Old Russian Art: Sergius of Radonezh and artistic culture of Moscow in the fourteenth–fifteenth centuries) (St Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1998), 40–53. E.g., the funerals of distinguished nobles in Valois Burgundy, Richard Vaugham, Philip the Bold: the Formation of the Burgundian State (London and New York: Longman, 1979), 32. Irma Kozina and Jan K. Ostrowski, “Chorągwie nagrobne” (Funeral banners), in Sarmatia semper viva. Zbiór studiów oferowany przez przyjaciół prof. D-rowi hab. Tadeuszowi Chrzanowskiemu (Sarmatia semper viva: A collection of studies presented to Prof. Tadeusz Chrzanowski by his friends) (Warsaw: SHS, 1995), 91–137. “... fere enim quodlibet armatum virum equo albo interdum nigro aut rufo vel vario insidentem et manum cum gladio vibratam extendentem habebat in campo rubeo pro insigni,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11, 93. On him see further, ch. III, section: “Historical Literature: Chronicles.” “Pro qua per eundem aduenientem duce[m] adoptata erant feretra præciole tecta triginta unum. Equi axamito, adamasco, & cæteris præciosis tecti, triginta duo. Vexilia octo, & quattuor equites singullatim hastam gladium & uestes regis ferentes,” [Miechowita], ccclxxii. Napalys Kitkauskas states without any argumentation that the banner of Vytautas was the heraldic standard of the Grand Dukes, Kitkauskas, Vilniaus Arkikatedros, 59. Jan Kanty, Jan z Kęt Pl / Lat, Ioannes Cantius (1390–1473; canonized in 1767). Priest and professor of theology at the University of Krakow. “In exequiis vitoldi,” BJ, ms. 2369, f. 180v-181v. This text has been transcribed and published by A. Raulinaitis, “Šv. Jono Kantijaus pamokslas Vytautui Didžiajam mirus” (The sermon of St. John Cantius upon the death of Vytautas the Great), Soter. Religijos mokslo laikraštis 7 (1930): 98–102. Vat. Lat. Ms. 14182, ff. 32v-34v: “In exequiis ducis Vitoldi. [incipit] Domine descende prieusquam moriatur, Johannis IIII. Fatetur hic regulas de Cristo, quia potest egrotum sanare … [end] … iustus enim quaqumque morte preocupatus fuerit in refrigerio erit.” I am grateful to Prof. János M. Bak for a copy of this manuscript. Codex containing the Vatican copy is dated to 1430–38, Roman Maria Zawadzki, Katałog Watykańskich rękopisów Św. Jana Kantego / Catalogus codicum manu S. Ioannis Cantii scriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana asservantur (Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1997), 17. The Jagiellonian copy reads: “non est ablata memoria domini propter hec quod eo mortuo scissum erat renum eius,” Raulinaitis, 102. The decay of the state most likely refers to the rivalry between Švitrigaila and Sigismund for the grand ducal seat in 1430–32.

138

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

36 The Vatican copy is nearly twice as long as the Jagiellonian one and has many corrections and inserts written on the margins of the manuscript. 37 For in-depth studies on medieval sermons on the dead, see Knud Ottosen, The Responsories and Versicles of the Latin Office of the Dead (Copenhagen: Aarhus University Press, 1993) and D. L. D’Avray, Death and the Prince: Memorial Preaching before 1350 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). 38 “… ma[gnus] dux … d[ixit] p[ro]ba me Domine et tempta me vita … et disciplina dare me que ma[gnus] dux tuis credidi,” Vat. Lat. 14182, 33r. 39 Ibid., 33v. 40 Ibid. 41 “… a paganis x[anos] protectus,” ibid., 34v. 42 “In exequiis,” in Raulinaitis, 99–102. 43 For the letter, see above Ch. II, the section entitled “Acta Volant, Verba Manent.” 44 In 1432: “victorioso principe duce magno Withowdo,” CEXV, 2: no. 204, 290. 45 On Vytautas’ attempts to overcome the schism, see ibid., no. 199, 273. 46 “… za velikogo kniazia Vitovta” and “za velikogo kniazia Vitovta i za Zhygimonta,” LM, 5: no. 184.1, 296; no. 70, 120. 47 LM, 4: no. 462, 374; LM, 5: no. 157, 272–75; no. 184.2, 297; LM, 8: no. 289, 240– 41; no. 614, 454–55; etc. 48 LM, 5: no. 78, 132; LM, 8: no. 391, 294–95. 49 LM, 5: no. 15.3, 69; no. 78, 133. 50 This is a document by Casimir Jagiellonian from 31 August 1449 addressed to Basil of Muscovy, LM, 5: no. 78.1, 133; and no. 136, 254. 51 LM, 5: no. 124.3, 232; LM, 8: no. 11, 53, no. 14.1, 54; no. 16, 56; no. 23, 59; no. 24, 59; no. 25, 60; no. 37, 73; no. 47, 83. 52 E.g., LM, 8: no. 25, 60. 53 LM, 5: no. 64.1, 116; no. 70, 120. 54 LM, 5: no. 60, 112. 55 Actually, despite the fact that the Teutonic Order was defeated at Grunwald, its Livonian branch remained unaffected by the results of the battle until it was defeated in the battle of Pabaiskas (also known as the battle of Ukmergė or that at the Šventoji (Pl. Swięta) River) (01/09/1435), for a more thorough description of the battle see ch.“Pabaisko mušis ir jo padariniai Livonijai” (The battle of Pabaiskas and its consequences to Livonia), in Rokas Varakauskas, Lietuvos ir Livonijos santykiai XIII - XVI a. (The relations between Lithuania and Livonia during the thirteenth–eighteenth centuries) (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982), 88–119. 56 Kiaupa has demonstrated the function of Vytautas’ name in Lithuanian–German trade; Zigmantas Kiaupa, “Šviesaus atminimo didžiojo kunigaikščio Vytauto laikai Lietuvos prekyboje” (The times of the blessed memory Vytautas in Lithuanian trade), in Žalgirio laikų Lietuva ir jos kaimynai (Lithuania and her neighbors at the time of the battle of Grunwald), ed. Rūta Čepaitė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis. Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis 1 (Vilnius: Academia, 1993), 178–86. 57 Nicolaus Lasocki, Lat / Pl, Mikołaj Łasocki (d. 1450), dean of the Krakow Cathedral and Polish ambassador to the Church Council in Basel.

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

139

58 [Nicolaus Lasocki], “Magna mendacia [data] per N. Lantsosky ambassiatorem Regni Polonie in consilio Basiliensi data amabassiatoribus serenissimi Regis Castele et Legionis,” in S.C. Rowell, “Du Europos pakraščiai: Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės ir ispanų karalysčių ryšiai 1411–1412 ir 1434 m. teksuose” (Two European peripheries: connections between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Spanish kingdoms in the texts from 1411–1412 and 1434), Lietuvos istorijos metraštis. 2003 metai 1 (2004): 173–185. 59 During the meeting in Lutsk, the Emperor stayed in Poland and Lithuania from January until September 1429, ibid. n. 88, p. 183. 60 Ibid., 182–84. 61 Hereafter, I shall refer only to studies directly concerned with the image of Vytautas. For a thorough critique and sources of Długosz, see Rozbiór. 62 Długosz’s views on Vytautas are discussed in Prochaska, “Długosz o Witołdzie” and more generally in Marceli Kosman, “Polacy o Litwinach (do połowy XVI wieku)” (Poles about Lithuanians (until the middle of the sixteenth century), in Społeczenstwo Polski średniowiecznej. Zbiór studiów (The society of medieval Poland. A collection of studies), vol. 3, ed. Stefan K. Kuczyński (Warsaw: PWN, 1985), 418–20. 63 Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:50–51, 59, 67, 68–69. 64 The Polish magnates “in Iagellonem Lithvanie ducem spes deliberacionesque consiliarurom converese. Is enim tunc aput Lituanos, Keystutho aput Krewam extincto et filio suo Vythawdo ducibus in Prussia aput Cruciferos exulante prestanciora a natura ultra omnes Lithwanie duces ingenia sortis, et summe rerum preerat, at ob multiplicitatem germanorum fratrum, licet ebetis ipse et simplicis ingenii vir, ad tractandum venaciones quam regendam rem publicam principatuum, celebris habebatur. Que quidem res et respectus moverunt Polonos, quod hunc pocius quam Vithawdum animo magnanimus et opere gloriosum Alexandro Macedoni persimilem, in regem sibi deposcerent,” ibid., 144. 65 The idea that Długosz hates Jogaila and only for this reason shows a preference for Vytautas dominates the scholarly literature; see Rozbiór, 1:4, passim. However, a closer reading of the Annales hardly support this idea. Of course, the heathen Jogaila is not worthy of the historian’s praise. However, when he becomes Wladislas II King of Poland, he is quite a positive ruler and a pious man. 66 “... timore quidem, quod esset ad penam pronus, atrox et immitis; diligencia quoque, quod in expedicionibus et in expediendis singulorum necessitatibus erat celer, munificus et magnanimus,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10: 169. 67 “Erat etenim Skirgallo Troczensis dux audax et ferox natura, arte, manu et lingua ad omnia promptus, expavescendus omnibus, nisi illum assidua ebrietas ad vilitatem et sui contemptum redigisset plerosque mortalium, et eos precipue qui secum una vel ut amici vel familiares obversabantur, in temulencia ferro violans; ... . Hunc Vuthawdus Troczensis dux magis modesti magisque vegeti et semper sobrii vir ingenii, et propter Ruthenorum assistenciam, qui illi propter ritus sui idemptitatem magnopere afficiebantur, ... , vite sua et suorum consulturus cum Anna coniuge sua et omnibus boyaris, militibus et familiis sue dicionis, ... , ex Lithwania effugit,” ibid., 174.

140

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

68 Ibid., 185, 188, and 195. 69 Ibid., 191. 70 “Noverit siquidem Wladislaus Polonie rex ex prisco et vetusto contubernio cum duce Vithawdo in adolescencia habito ducem Vithawdum virum solertis et tractabilis ingenii fore neque alium ad regendam Lithwaniam et ad instaurandas eius ruinas et desolaciones ex superioribus guerris causatas maliorem; quampropter illum, quator suis germanis, qui supererant, videlicet Skirgellone, Koributh, Lubarth et Switrigello neglectis, terre Lithwanie rectorem prefecit,” ibid., 197. 71 “Celebritatem sue fame et nominis aput katholicos et barbaros principes Alexader alias Withawdus Lithwanie magnus dux, .... , alteram in Thartaros expeditionem, felici successu prioris dentibus indicit. Dux tamen magnus Lithwanie Alexander revelacionem sui casus Hedwigi regine Polonie factam credens fantasticam, nullis precacionibus, nullis ingeniis a prosecucione illus poterat averti,” ibid., 226. 72 “... administarcionem plenarium terrarum predictarum sue tradidit dicioni obligante se duce Vithawdo tam iureiurando quam publicis literis terras prefatas pro rege et Regno Polonie fideliter tenere et reges atque Regnum Polonie nunquam deserere in prosperis et adversis,” ibid., 197. 73 E.g., capture of Smolensk in 1403, ibid., 250–51. 74 “Vix pace conclusa et firmata, Alexander Withawdus exercitu suo in terra Mosquensi relicto, cum in voluptates venereas esset nimium preceps et proclivis, ad uxorem suam equos permutando velocissime cucurrit. Propter quod exercitus suus nullo duce, nulla lege gubernatus plurimis incomodis in redeundo laborare cepit. Primum siquidem et in homines et in equos fames in regione suapte silvis et nemoribus obsita paucas villas et has ipsas aut ab hoste aut proprio milite spoliatas et afflictas habente,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:20. 75 “Tantae tamen factivitati suae et industriae habebat aliquid reprehensionis admixtum: nam ex omnibus expeditionibus, quas sive alienis, sive suis egit auspiciis, morae fuit fastidiosus et impatiens, stimulantibus eum ad reditum domesticus oblectantionibus; propter quod, bello confecto, aut per inducias suspenso, ex ipsis stativis, quibus bellum interceptum est, equis ascensis, quos ad id habebat praeparatos, quanto velociori poterat cursu, ad uxorem regrediebatur, omni exercitu sub ducatu aliorum derelicto. Quod et tunc quidem non intermisit,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:364. 76 “Plerique autem adeo illum venereum atque lubricum, proclivumque in libidinem fuisse ferunt, ut e medio victoriam cursu, frequentius exercitu in terra hostili relicto, multa terrarum spatia, equos permutando, conficiens, ad uxorem, pellicesque, pruritum voluptatum expleturus, redire consueverit,” ibid., 416. 77 “ ‘Ea – inquit – die, qua ego in castra regia veni, dux magnus Lithuanie Alexander in potenti, spelndido et numeroso exercitu advenit et potencias suas cum regiis coniuxit’. Tum magister: ‘In Withawdi exercitu maior posset reoeriri numerus cochleariorum quam armorum’. Magister: ‘Levia – inquit – ... Withavdus vero iam circa flumen Narew immoratur et transgredi non aude’,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:66. 78 “Alexander autem dux magnus Lithuanie die illo Lithuanicum ordinat exercitum et dividens illum vetusto patrie more per cuneos et turmas, in qualibet cuneo mi-

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

141

lites in equis humilioribus aut parum bene armis vestitos in medio constituit, quos alii in equitatu pociori et insigniter armati includebant,” ibid., 69. 79 Ibid., 69–70 and 72. 80 “... iussa ducis Alexandri complentes primum patibulum propriis manibus contextum ponunt, deinde illud nullo impellente conscendunt, ad extremum sibi ipsis iugulum iniciunt, premissa unius ad alterum qui cunctacior videbatur, correpcione, ut ceterius imperata, antequam ira ducis alcius axcandesceret, exequerentur,” ibid., 72. 81 “Culpatus a multis Marquardus, quod cui misericordia opus fuerat, iram et odium irritabat, dux vero Alexander Withaudus recte-ne id egerit an perperam seviendo in captivos et deditos expediendum mihi non assumo,” ibid., 117. 82 “Wladislaus Polonie rex ad nullam certam aciem cuiuccunque banderii ordinatus erat, sed cura precipuissima eius caput et vita magnopere fuit tunc custodia et providentissima ordinacione constitutum, ut in loco abstracto et securo rex ipse non solum ab hostibus sed a suis eciam ignoratus consisteret, turba et exercitu notabilium custodum et militum vallatus. ... velut is, qui solus pro decem milibus computabantur. ... . Alexander autem Withawdus dux magnus Lithuanie capitis sui et corporis custodiam soli Deo, dereliquens per universum tam Polonorum, quam Lithuanicum volabat disscurebatque, equos frequencius mutando, exercitum paucos habens comites corporis, custodes vero nullos, fractos ordines apud Lithuanicum restituens fugamque suorum magnopere usque ad extremum valido clamore et vociferacione nequiequam inhibens,” ibid., 104–05. 83 “... duce magno Alexandro nequicquam fugam verbere et clamore valido sistente coacta est,” ibid., 106. Concerning the Lithuanian flight from the battle, today this is considered as a military meneouvre rather than fleeing, see ibid., n. 396, 263. 84 “Fugam autem suorum Alexander Withavdus magnus dux Lithuanie molestius ferens, veritus quoque ex infelici suorum pugna animos omissa properaret rex, necquiquam deprecantibus, solus ipse et incomitatus concito cursu advennit, magnopere rogans regem, ut in prelium procederet presencia sua plurimum animositatis et audacie pugnantibus collaturus,” ibid., 107. 85 “Alexander magnus dux Lithuanie post relatam victoriam primum offendens, quippe qui sub omni pugne tempore inter Polonorum signa cuneos fessis et laborantibus, novos et recentes submittendo et que fortuna foret utriusque partis scrupulosius advertendo versabatur,” ibid., 116. 86 “Alexander Lithuanie magnus dux varias occasiones variaque ingenia quibus posset cum exercitu suo Lithuanico castri Mariemburgensis obsidione deserta in Lithuaniam reverti congerebat,” ibid., 141. “fiendam aversuri de restituenda Samagicia duci Alexandro Withavdo spem amxima aviditate ab eo expetitam et ab effectu non abhorrentem fecissent, alia mente, alio animo ea inescacione inductus obsidionem et bellum deserere et penates repetere in animum inducens alius Withaudus quam fuerat esse cepit. Statui insupern suo Withawdus dux vehementer timere cepit, ne rege universa Prussia pacificie potito ipse a Lithuanie ducatu deiceretur,” ibid., 142. 87 “... duce magno Alexandro in pacis artes magis quam belli proclivo...,” ibid., 176. “… Alexandro duce magno Lithuanie sibi ratus, si Ducatus Magnus Lithuanie inte-

142

88

89

90

91

92 93

94

95

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

gracionem acciperet, quamvis Regno Polonie, cuiuc prior et pocior habenda fuerat racio, mutilato,” ibid., 178. Legates “in hunc modum disserunt: ‘Illustrissime rex, magister Prussie generalis Ulricus mittit tibi et fratri tuo Withavdo (suppresso et Alexander et ducis nomine) per nos aroldos presentes duos gladios in pugne suffragium future, ...’,” ibid., 102. E.g., ibid., 142, also: “In ipsa autem paci perpetue tunc confeccione neque Wladislaum regem Polonie neque Withavdum ducem Lithuanie ...,” ibid., 177. Also see the story of the coronation, Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:398–416. “Adeo autem Regi et Duci erat sententiae praedictas pronintiatio molesta et acerba, ut eorum fletus et rugitus, non secus quam duorum leonum frementium, a longe exaudirentur. Nocte autem illa in moerore et mentis angustia transacta, Withawdus in cubiculum regium in diluculo introiens, monet blandis verbis Regem: ut animo aequiore sit, et passione amaritudinis depulsa, ad remedia potius, quam ad dolorem, vacet. Neque enim moerore, sed sano consilio, fortique manu, vulnus inflictum rescindi oporterte, astruebat,” ibid., 246. “Neque respectus per Alexandrum Withawdum iniectus, pendendus, quo se asserebat, molendino Lubicz negato, Polangam supra mare Samagitticum sitam, centum gradibus quam Lubicz utiliorem, ex pacti pollicitatione Cruciferis largiturum,” ibid., 337. “... Duc Alexander donationes in terris Lithuanicis, Rege Wladislao dissentiente, facere non potuerit,” ibid., 337. For the entire story of the Queen’s adultery, see, ibid., 347–48. Vytautas’ characteristic is shown in the following: “Omnis siquidem regia tam actio quam potestas, aut translata videbatur in Alexandrum Withawdum, aut secum communicata, propter virtutes et factivitates plurimas, praecipue tamen propter honestatem, liberalitatem et animi magnitudinem, ad quas ipsum natura ipsa magnum et excelsum Principem effinxerat: Duxque Withawdus, quam proprius Rex Wladislaus, Polonis meticulosior, quod et in ultionem transgressionis subito exigendam foret pronior, et impetrandi, que vellet, apud Regem, dandique et auferendi, potestatem geminatam apud illum magis, quam apud Regem, videbant consistere,” ibid., 348. For the analysis of Długosz’s position concerning the coronation of Vytautas see Jarosław Nikodem, “Spory o koronację wielkiego księcia Litwy Witolda w latach 1429–1430. Część I. ‘Burza koronacyjna’ w relacji Jana Długosza” (Disputes over the Coronation of Grand Duke of Lithuania Witold [Vytautas] in the Years 1429–1430. Part I. ‘The Coronation Storm’ as Reported by Jan Długosz), LSP.SH 6 (1994): 55–75. “Nec inter Reges ipsos et Duces Withawdum minor erat aemulatio: quilibet conabatur illic suam potentiam, magnificentiam et maiestatem demonstrare, et super alium multitudinem militum, splendore vestium et insignium, aliisque multiplicibus decoris alterum superare,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:366; “Si enim verum ingenue fatendum est, circumscriptis omni livore, invidia et assentatione, Wladislaus Rex Poloniae tum Praelatorum et Principum, tum militum splendissimo aparatu, tum multitudine nobilium, tam Sigismundum Romanorum Regem,

THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY: SHAPING OF THE IMAGE

96

97 98

99 100 101

102

103

104 105 106

143

quam Ducem Withawdum adeao vincebat, ut in comparatione, praesertim dum Reges convenire contingebat, tam Hungari, quam Lituani, a multitudine Polonorum absorberentur,” ibid., 367. “... Duci Alexandro Withawdo, ut se in Regem Lithuaniae creari permitteret, suasurus, graveque et periculosum malum, dudum illi ante annos viginti ingestum...,” ibid., 369. “... non liceat sibi, consensu Wladislai Regis frathris sui non petito aut obtento...,” ibid., 369. “Wladislaus Polonie Rex: ... Duci Alexandro Withawdo fratri meo de omni amplitudine et honore, nec regali solummodo, sed et imperiali illum dignor diademate, contentus etiam de Regno Poloniae sibi cedere diademate in illum conferre: non licet tamen mihi in rem tam arduam consentire, nisi Praelatorum et baronorum meorum ad id accesserit consilium at consensus,” ibid., 370. Ibid., 370–71. On the bishop’s influence on Długosz see Nikodem, “Part I,” 58; for additional bibliography on the issue see ibid., n. 13, 58. “Rex respondit: Placere sibi et cordi esse coronationem suam, et favisse, favereque ut fiat,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:410; “Sbigneus Cracoviensis episcopus respondet: Virtutem opera et mores Ducis Withawdi, coronae cuiuscunque splendore digna,” ibid., 411. “Rege at Regno Poloniae invito, concensit, iuramentorum et fidei datae, literarumque suarum factus immemor, quibus se perpetuo cum omnibus terris Lithuaniae et Russiae, acquisitis et acquirendis, Regno Poloniae inscripserat serviturum,” ibid., 375. E.g., “Sigismundus Romanorum Rex gloriatur se coram pluribus nationibus, guerram inter duos fratres concordes conclavisse,” ibid., 410; words of Bishop Oleśnicki: “Regem enim Romanorum Sigismundum ideo animum suum ad spem praefatae coronationis impulisse, ut liga Regni Poloniae et Ducatus Magni Lithuaniae rupta, amplitudo omnis et vigor untriusque Domini vel frangatur, vel senescat, et Cruciferis detur occasio, terras Lithuaniae, veteri gloria renovata, ut ethnicas et barbaras invadendi,” ibid., 411; the Emperor manifested his intentions already in 1410: “Withawdum in Lithuanie regem creaturum et ab obediencia, fidelitate iureque iurando Wladislai Polonie regis absoluturum,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:55. “Sbigneus episcopus Cracoviensis, ..., quantum sibi esset Dux Withawdus infestus, ire consentint in finem,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:406. “Dux Withawdus omnem spem exigendi consensus decidisse ratus, virtutem quoque Sbignei episcopi admiratus,” ibid., 412. “Itaque vicibus aliquot confessionem sanctam coram Mathia episcopo Vilnensi repetens, et Eucharistiae Sacramento et extrema Olei sancti unctione procuratus est. ... specialius tamen de resurrectione futura inquisitus, an illam crederet, cum in sermonibus suis collative solitus fuerit articulum de ressurectione, in dubium revocare. Credo, inquit, et firmissime credo ressurectionem futuram. ... paratus sum sinceriter et pure, iuxta ritum catholicum et informationem tuam pontificalem, omnia me impleturum. Itaque omnibus in vita rite perfectis, clavibus cas-

144

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

trorum Wladislao Regi traditis, feria sexta in vigilia Sanctorum Simonis et Iudae, que fuit vicessima septima Octobris, dum terris iam aurora illuceseret, spiritum Creatori reddidit,” ibid., 415. 107 Ibid., 415–16. 108 The passage is entitled “Exemplum liberalitatis in Withawdo,” ibid., 421–22. 109 For the Polish belief in re-education of the ruler and the issue’s relevance to Długosz and Jogaila, see Wiktor Weintraub, “Ivan the Terrible as the Gentry’s Candidate for the Polish Throne. A Study in Political Mentality,” in Cross Currents. A Yearbook of Central European Culture, ed. Ladislav Matejka and Benjamin Stalz, Michigan Slavic Materials 2 (Chicago, IL: University of Michigan and Ann Arbor, 1982), 45–54.

CHAPTER III

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

IN LITHUANIA AND IN POLAND The period from the early sixteenth to the late eighteenth century was a time of changes and ambiguity in Poland and Lithuania. The major political events were the following: the establishment of the Commonwealth by the Lublin Union in 1569, the de facto shift to elective kingship after the Jagiellonian dynasty died out in 1572, the increasing menace of and frequent wars with Muscovy, and the three partitions of the Commonwealth, leading to the loss of statehood in 1795. Culturally, the advancement of the Reformation and the spread of Humanist thought and Renaissance art shaped the entire panorama of the sixteenth century. This epoch also elaborated upon the legend of the Roman origins of Lithuania. The legend was that Lithuanian nobility descended from Roman patricians who, after fleeing Nero’s tyranny, settled on the banks of the Nemunas River. The victory of the Catholic Reformers, accompanied and strengthened by the Baroque taste and understanding, defined the spirit and outlook of the latter part of the early modern period. As for the relations between the two countries of the Commonwealth, legally the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were defined as two separate states with independent administrative, economic, and military institutions.1 People, however, and especially ideas, do not observe legal and institutional divisions. Nevertheless, the two countries did preserve autonomous outlooks and historical traditions, and the image of Vytautas was manifested differently in Lithuania and in Poland, even though the image builders were the same. Authors active in, or anxious about, matters of the Grand Duchy employed Vytautas’ name much more frequently than those whose interests pertained to Polish affairs. However, the fact that Poland and Lithuania had one ruler and shared a common history from the times of Vytautas complicates the “national” division. Therefore, I shall discuss vari-

146

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

ous manifestations of and references to the image of Vytautas as they jointly appeared in both countries. The early-modern tradition appropriated the Grand Duke’s image and introduced it into nearly every sphere of life and culture. During this period, the image acquired clear features and was associated with certain events. Of all its characteristics, the two most pronounced were: military leadership, corresponding to the struggles with the Tatars, Muscovy, and the Teutonic Order, and statesman’s skills, revealed through a just government, and acknowledged both at the meeting at Lutsk and by the intended coronation. The feature of the Grand Duke as an advocate of Christianity became bound to this image and to Vytautas’ personal piety. Moreover, churches sought to share the reflected glory of their prominent founder. The emphasis placed on the image was dependent on the intentions of the person or institution using it. This chapter is therefore arranged according to the numerous and diverse users of the image, rather than its features. Such an arrangement is, of course, equally arbitrary, as are many other perspectives of today when applied to the past.

Legal Evidence The union agreements concluded between Poland and Lithuania during Vytautas’ reign formed the legal basis for the further relations and integration of the two countries. The early-modern documents present Vytautas as the person who, through the agreement with Jogaila, established the union between the two countries. The union is defined in most of the agreements concluded or initiated between the two countries in this light.2 Prior to the Lublin Union, these documents refer to the so-called union of Horodle (1413) as an exemplary agreement needing to be maintained.3 Later references to Vytautas are rare and seem almost incidental.

The Pater Patriae: Vytautas at the Grand Ducal Court In contrast to the fragmentary legal evidence, the grand ducal court employed the image of Vytautas as a representation of an ideal ruler. Vytautas’ name was referred to when Grand Dukes presented themselves as his successors, or when they were encouraged to follow his example. Vytautas became the one to commence the history of the Grand Duchy. Moreover, in legislation his name signified time immemorial.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

147

Viewed in this light, Erasmus Ciołek’s speech4 addressed to Pope Alexander VI5 and aimed against the Ottomans is informative. Having introduced Lithuania, its geographical position, resources, and contacts with the neighbors (mainly Tatars and Muscovites), Ciołek comes to the sovereigns of the country. Vytautas is presented in extenso: he was the first [sic] Christian ruler, the one who established laws, founded churches, and defended the state. His excellence in exercising the grand ducal office earned him great renown at home and acknowledgement abroad. Most importantly, the Grand Duke’s deeds resulted in the great popularity of his name throughout the country. He is therefore called “the Great” in Lithuania.6 This speech can be regarded as a condensed official image of Vytautas. Other sources related to the court more thoroughly developed, or less emphasized, distinct features of this image. The role of Christianizer of Lithuania stands out from among the many characteristics ascribed to Vytautas: first, because historically it should have belonged to Jogaila and, second, because in the Middle Ages the Christian image of Vytautas had a pagan or semi-pagan counterpart. Nevertheless, the aura of the first Lithuanian apostle frequently shone over the Grand Duke. For instance, while praising the Christ-loving deeds of King Alexander (1492–1506), Jan Sacranus7 urged the King to follow in the footsteps of Vytautas, who was the first to establish the Church in Lithuania.8 Soon thereafter, Ciołek’s ideas were elaborated on. In 1518–22, the bishop was an envoy of King Sigismund the Old9 to the court of Pope Leo X.10 The Pope was known for his interests in bullfighting as well as hunting. Learning of the bison living in the north, Leo X asked for the animal’s hide, which he intended to have stuffed with hay and exhibited in Rome.11 Having ordered the hide, Ciołek asked Nicolaus Hussovianus,12 a poet whom he patronized, for a literary accompaniment to the present.13 Thus, De … bisontis carmen (1523) (henceforth called the Carmen) came into being. The Carmen is a poetic treatise on the bison and on bison hunting. However, the author relates the activity of hunting to the name of Vytautas. This comparison leads to an extensive excursus encompassing the traditional features of monarchy. Beginning with a description of the dangers of specific hunting traditions, Hussovianus explains them by saying that they would seem strange had Vytautas not introduced them.14 Then the author employs the ancient parallel between hunting and warfare. The image of Vytautas, however, departs from the usual scheme: the Grand Duke regarded the hunt not only as an exercise in arms, but also as an education for youth.

148

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

By hunting, horseback riding, and swimming, young men were prepared for the hardships of military service.15 Thereupon, the Grand Duke appears as a wise and militant monarch of enormous authority. He is the one to whom the world’s greatest aggressors—Tatars, Muscovites, and Turks—had submitted.16 Particular stress is placed on Vytautas’ severity in establishing justice. He was a just but pitiless judge. Thus, expecting no mercy, the guilty committed suicide even before they were judged.17 The poem ends Vytautas’ story in a distinguished way: In addition to his notable achievements in state government, the Duke is said to have earned such great glory primarily because he was a truly Christian ruler. He not only significantly contributed to the establishment of the Church, but also regretted his own heathen past and was a highly pious man. The picture of Vytautas praying to the Virgin culminates the entire passage on the Lithuanian ruler.18 In this way, the Grand Duke embodies an ideal monarch: he is a warrior, educator, judge, and a devoted Christian.

THE HERO’S ENSIGN The birth of Sigismund Augustus in 1520 was a long-awaited event. It meant that the successor to the throne would be from the Jagiellonian dynasty. The royal parents, in the opinion of scholars, and especially the mother, Queen Bona Sforza,19 spared no effort to integrate the child-heir into state politics.20 The path to the elective throne of Poland usually passed through the seat of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes. Hence, this was the first position that had to be secured. As early as 1522, the Lithuanian magnates swore that, after the death of Sigismund the Old, they would elect Sigismund Augustus as Grand Duke.21 However, the grand ducal elevation took place much earlier. The prince was inaugurated into the grand ducal office on October 18, 1529, in a ceremony that took place in Vilnius Cathedral. The young heir sat between his parents in all his majesty. In the presence of the dignitaries of the state, Bishop John,22 the illegitimate son of Sigismund the Old, placed the grand ducal cap on the head of his nine-year-old half-brother. The marshal of Lithuania presented the prince with a sword. Lithuanian magnates and boyars swore an oath.23 The plan had the desired results: within a year Sigismund Augustus was crowned king junior of Poland. The details of the ceremony would not concern this study except for one phrase circulating within the scholarly literature. It states that Sigismund Augustus was elevated by having the so-called cap of Vytautas placed on his

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

149

head. Regrettably, none of the scholars mentioning this fact refer to a primary source,24 and I have not come across one either. The earliest mention of Vytautas’ ensign that I know comes from Adam Mickiewicz’s poem Pan Tadeusz (1834): Ye woods! the last to hunt among you there Was the last king great Witold’s cap to wear, Last happy warrior of Jagiełło’s race, Last Lithuanian monarch of the chase.25 The question of whether the “cap of Vytautas” is a poetic invention that penetrated scholarship (chronologically this can be proven) requires separate research that goes beyond the inquiry of this book. Most likely, Mickiewicz relied on the nineteenth-century historical tradition, and the motif of “Vytautas’ cap” entered modern scholarship through a different channel. It is therefore possible to speculate about the inspirations for this motif. First, it should be noted that the grand ducal elevation is a rather poorly researched issue.26 The earliest, more or less thorough, description of the ceremony comes from the installation of Grand Duke Alexander in 1492. By that time, the name of Vytautas was established within the rhetoric of grand ducal elevation. During the acclamation, the marshal of the grand duchy desired the new ruler to follow the Lithuanian example of Vytautas and not introduce foreign customs.27 As far as the insignia are concerned, a record from the Lithuanian Metrica is informative. This is a message from the Council of Lords to King Sigismund the Old, delivered by Bishop John and George Radvila in the spring of 1526.28 Above all, the Lithuanian envoys were concerned with the papal embassy to Muscovy. The pope intended to offer a crown to the Grand Duke of Moscow, Basil III (1505–1533). In addition, the message asked the King to regain the crown designed for Vytautas and to crown his son, Sigismund Augustus, with it.29 Thus, there was an intention to use the assumed insignia of Vytautas for the young prince. Moreover, rumors about parts of Vytautas’ crown being kept in the treasury of the Wawel Cathedral must have been circulating within the Grand Duchy at that time.30 On the other hand, tradition maintains that Lithuanian Grand Dukes were inaugurated with the cap of Gediminas, symbolizing the continuity of the ruling dynasty.31 Reference to earlier rulers is a standard motif in the inauguration ceremonies. In the Lithuanian case, the names of the founder of the ruling dy-

150

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

nasty, Gediminas, as well as that of Vytautas, were related to the grand ducal elevation. Thus, it is likely that the ceremonial cap used during the elevation of Sigismund Augustus was assumed to have belonged to Vytautas. On the other hand, the cap of Vytautas might be a construct. That is, the mention of finding and using of Vytautas’ crown for the young prince from 1526 could have been extrapolated for the entire ceremony of the elevation that happened three years later. Be that as it may, the association of the grand ducal cap with the name of Vytautas informs us about the long life of the Duke’s image. Whether from the sixteenth century or from much later times, the entire story reveals the demand for and power of worthy and significant objects related to Vytautas and the grand ducal office.

THE PUBLIC DISPLAY Bona Sforza played an instrumental part in the consolidation of Vytautas’ image. During the Vilnius fire of 1530, the cathedral was burned and the so-called banner of Vytautas perished.32 According to tradition, it had hung there since the Grand Duke’s funeral. Consequently, for the hundred years since the Grand Duke’s death, his supposed portrait was on display in the cathedral. After the fire, Queen Bona commissioned a tombstone for Vytautas, to be placed in the newly rebuilt cathedral. The monument was sculpted from dark marble in Krakow and sent to Vilnius in 1535. Its building can be interpreted in several ways. On the one hand, such an initiative matches the fascination with the heroes of the past; it would be natural for Bona to turn to a practice so popular among the Milanese Sforzas.33 On the other hand, there may have been other reasons behind the respect shown to the Lithuanian hero. For example, the Queen may have been attempting to become more closely associated with Vytautas and thus to enhance her own prestige by appropriating the Grand Duke’s popularity. Most likely, both reasons were of importance. Bona did indeed demonstrate particular attention to Vytautas’ memory. Even prior the fire of 1530, she made certain moves. A significant example is the nomination of the Queen’s musician, Alessandro Pesseti, as altarist of the so-called altar of Vytautas.34 His nomination represented an association with, and respect for, historical memory. In addition, Vytautas’ popularity must have meant that his altar was also popular; consequently, being its altarist was a profitable position. In either case, the tomb sculpture was an important undertaking. Regrettably, the monument was destroyed in the fire of 1610. Hence, there is little

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

151

evidence concerning its appearance. It is supposed to have been the very first Renaissance tomb sculpture of the Grand Duchy.35 Written records and later examples suggest that it was a full-size frontal relief carved from a dark marble plaque.36 From today’s perspective, the fact that the monument began a tradition of tomb sculpture in the Grand Duchy is important: It is likely that later quests for sepulchral memorials were inspired by it. Later commissioners may have wished either to be commemorated in the same manner as Vytautas, or to be so commemorated in addition to being commemorated according to the then-popular Renaissance fashion. The story of the monument’s renewal may shed some light on the issue. Before 1556, Bishop Walerian Protasewicz37 endeavored to perpetuate his own memory in Vilnius Cathedral. For this reason the bishop commissioned his own tombstone to be made by the royal sculptor Giammaria Mosca, known as Padovano.38 In 1559 and later, the bishop commissioned the restoration of the Altar of the Holy Cross, also known as that of Vytautas,39 with the aim of being buried there.40 According to medieval tradition, the freestanding Altar of the Holy Cross was the most prestigious within a church. As a rule, founders of churches were buried beneath it.41 The memorial plaque to Vytautas reads that in 1573 Bishop Protasiewicz moved the Grand Duke’s remains to a more honorable place.42 Although the original burial place of the Grand Duke is unknown, it is likely that the celebrated founder and benefactor found his resting place beneath the privileged Altar of the Holy Cross.43 Historical records maintain that Queen Bona transferred the remains of the Grand Duke to the right side of the main altar.44 However, if earlier supposition is true, this was a transfer to a less prestigious place. Moreover, it is not clear who was the actor in this story, and it seems that Bishop Protasewicz removed the Grand Duke’s tomb for the sake of his own burial place.45 A poem of 1723 notes that the glorious Macedonian of Lithuania, Alexander Vytautas, lies under a marble buried beneath the altar.46 Be that as it may, the initiatives of Queen Bona left their imprint in the cathedral. Later, the chapter attempted to build a new monument for Vytautas; regrettably, these intentions never materialized.47 Finally, the painted likeness (fig. 71) replaced the carved one, while the story of the sculpture was inscribed on a plaque presently embedded in the eastern wall of the northern nave of the cathedral.48 It is difficult to assess the monument’s impact on portraits of Vytautas held in the churches of the grand duchy. However,

152

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

it is likely that events in Vilnius Cathedral inspired other churches to order pictures of their founder.49 Quite a different commemoration of the Grand Duke comes from the inventory of the Vilnius arsenal of 1565. Among the weapons sent to the border castles is listed a cannon named Vytautas. The register also repeats the inscription molded on the gun. It reads: “I am Vytautas, called after Vytautas’ name / Look, towers tremble and fortresses fall down.” 50 Seemingly, the militant image of Vytautas could empower weapons meant to destroy strongholds. Thus, Vytautas’ military power became an emblematic device constructed to ensure victory.

The Name of Vytautas as Political Argument APPEALS TO RULERS The poem Bellum Prutenum (1516) by Joannes Vislicensis 51 is dedicated to Sigismund the Old and written on the centenary of the battle of Grunwald. The poem consists of three parts: the first provides a panorama of Polish history, the second describes the battle of Grunwald, and the third is dedicated to the Jagiellonian dynasty. However, the battle is the central theme of the opus. According to the author, the Bellum Prutenum is based on codices, chronicles, and reminiscences.52 As to the battle, the events are told similarly to the Annales of Długosz: the two armies meet, the Teutonic Order sends two swords to the Polish– Lithuanian leaders, and the fight begins. Vytautas leads his troops and he is victorious, albeit temporarily. The Teutonic Knights break through Lithuanian lines and the Grand Duke rushes to Jogaila asking for support. The King is angry with Vytautas for interrupting his prayers and orders him to wait till the end of the Mass. During the service Saint Stanislas appears in the clouds and forecasts victory. Then the Polish troops join the battle, which is soon won.53 The principal difference between Długosz’s and Vislicensis’ descriptions of the battle is the role of King Jogaila.54 According to Długosz, Jogaila stayed behind the lines of battle; for Visliciensis, the King led the Polish forces in person.55 Vytautas is depicted as an energetic and militant leader, the “fulmen belli.”56 Energy and warrior’s spirit are absolutely dominant features of Vytautas’ image. Eugenija Ulčinaitė compares the portrayal of Vytautas and Jogaila in the poem. She concludes that Vytautas is much closer to the image

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

153

of a Renaissance man, active and decisive, while Jogaila remains within the scope of the medieval personality, pious and awaiting heavenly mercy.57 This interpretation is worth discussing. It is based on the scholarly antithesis between the Middle Ages and Renaissance, rather than on early-sixteenth-century perceptions. Therefore, the correspondence of the images of Vytautas and Jogaila to the ideals of Renaissance and the Middle Ages does not prove that the images oppose each other. Moreover, portraying Jogaila as active warrior makes his role similar to that of Vytautas, while prayer has been regarded as essential for victory far beyond the Middle Ages. To my mind, both leaders are characterized positively. In comparison with Długosz’s description, the roles of Jogaila and Vytautas in the battle are elevated. Acknowledging the glory of Vytautas, Humanists regarded it as fruitful to compare the Grand Duke with the rulers of their time. Such comparisons were drawn with the aim of praising and moralizing the rulers. Although, the “thesaurus” of facts and features for such comparisons was quite limited, their rhetoric was especially elaborated. The greatness of Vytautas, as referred to in Bernard Wapowski’s58 address to Sigismund the Old, is exceptional: the Grand Duke appears as an embodiment of military success and a person uniquely exerting a magnanimous spirit.59 Albert Goštautas’60 panegyric to Sigismund the Old (1529)61 aims at proving the greatness of the King by comparing him with the “great” rulers of Poland and Lithuania. King Casimir the Great (1333–1370) embodies the Polish example; Jogaila and Vytautas the Lithuanian model. In these parallels, the author says that Casimir was called “the Great” because he built brick towns and fortresses. In this manner, it became clear that King Sigismund had far surpassed his predecessor. As for Jogaila and Vytautas, their deeds are much more significant, as they were responsible for converting all of Lithuania to the Christian faith. However, these rulers left their actions incomplete: having introduced Christianity, they did not teach their subjects the rules of Christian life. Hence, King Sigismund went further by introducing Christian laws,62 that is, by adopting the First Lithuanian Statute. The Humanist political writers refer to Vytautas as statesman and warrior, though they exploit the image in a variety of ways. In 1550, an author disguised under the pseudonym of Michalonus Lituanus63 presented Sigismund Augustus with a treatise concerned with government and traditions. This text is known only from ten fragments published in 1615 in Basel under the title De moribus Moschorum, Tatarorum et Lithuanorum64 (henceforth

154

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

called the De moribus). Regrettably, there is no data concerning either of the reasons for writing the De moribus, or its reception at the court. Nonetheless, internal evidence from the opus is suggestive. Although the published fragments were selected to satisfy the readers’ curiosity about faraway countries,65 the text’s didactic concern with kingship is obvious. Given the combination of a moralizing style with the addressee of the opus, Sigismund Augustus, one may further speculate as to the genre of the De moribus. Of course, several coincidences in genre do not constitute proof. Yet, they suggest that the entire opus is close in spirit (and genre?) to a Humanistic “Mirror of Princes.”66 The published fragments are too brief to permit further development of the above supposition. However, what is known of Lithuanian intellectual life in the sixteenth century does indicate a strong awareness of similar treatises. Among the noteworthy examples are authors like Erasmus and Machiavelli, both widely read among the elites of the Grand Duchy.67 Therefore, placing the De moribus alongside the instructive literature for rulers could elucidate a number of its obscurities and allow us to better grasp the hypothetically real message of this treatise. The impression that Michalonus’ texts convey can be put into the words of Sverre Bagge on the “Mirrors of Princes”: “this is literature on political thought written by ‘non-specialists,’ which offers valuable evidence of ordinary, educated opinion on kingship.”68 The De moribus describes and contrasts the customs of Muscovites, Tatars, and Lithuanians, praising the former two and reproaching the latter for the decline in statehood and most spheres of life. Michalonus speaks for an authoritative and mighty monarch, its embodiment being Vytautas. The author not only lists Vytautas’ numerous epithets, but also presents him as a celebrated statesman, successful in all the essential spheres of well-established statehood: authority, expansion of territory and its defense, law, and commerce.69 The latter feature is quite detailed and unique (it does not appear in other texts of the period). Michalonus blamed Lithuania for rejecting Vytautas’ heritage, and opposed the success of Muscovy that had appropriated it. Given these characteristics of Vytautas together with the assumption about the “Mirror of Princes,” one may further speculate and view the image of Vytautas in the role of ideal ruler. A number of treatises as described below support such an idea. Joahim Bielski also refers to Vytautas in his address to the newly born prince Wladislas Vasa.70 The poem begins with an overview of the Jagiellonian might and the description of the vastness of their domains. At the

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

155

moment when the story reaches the banks of the Dnieper River and the Tatar Hordes, it becomes time to evoke Vytautas’ name. The Grand Duke is introduced as a skillful subjugator of the Tatar troublemakers, his authority being so great that even the Tatar tsars used to clean Vytautas’ paths. Tatar settlements by the Vokė River in Lithuania are the best testimony to the Grand Duke’s might. However, Vytautas’ personal qualities are even more important than his military achievements. His modest way of living, his non-fastidious attitude to food and drink, and his ability to bear severe trials in life are used as examples for the young prince to follow. The passage concludes by stating that no other ruler could be equaled in might to Vytautas.71

Stephan Bathory as a New Vytautas Of many comparisons between the Polish–Lithuanian rulers and the Grand Duke, Stephan Bathory72 (r. 1576–1586) is the one most frequently likened to Vytautas. This parallel is derived from Bathory’s significant achievements during the later years of the Livonian wars (1558–1583).73 One of the conditions of Bathory’s election was the regaining of the territories lost to Muscovy during the reign of the last Jagiellonians. The new King was quite successful on the field, not only recapturing some Ruthenian territories but also adding new lands to the Grand Duchy. Moreover, the war with Muscovy was generally perceived as a fight against the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible.74 The nobility greatly appreciated the king’s victories and artists elaborately praised the ruler’s success. Artistic interpretations varied. For example, Andrzej Patrycy Nidecki75 viewed the war as proving the supremacy of Catholics over Schismatics.76 Impressed by the capture of Polotsk in 1579 and that of Velikie Luki in 1580, Krzysztof Warszewicki,77 a celebrated master of laudations, wrote several panegyrics to the King. Although Bathory is the main hero of these works, Vytautas was the ideal, and the example a successful leader should follow.78 Initially, the poet equated Bathory’s victories to those of Vytautas.79 Later he addressed Vytautas himself, distinguished his skills, and, finally, assumed the voice of the Grand Duke. Then the concentrated story of Vytautas, the ruler skillful in “omnes denique artes, tam belli, quam pacis,” 80 is told.81 The passage concludes that Tatars frequently rose up to the sound of Vytautas’ trumpets, Muscovy realized he was a warrior, Poland saw, and Germany heard about, his deeds.82 At the very end, Warszewicki addresses Bathory, calls him not the King, but father, not the lord, but patron, and praises

156

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

him for the restitution of the country’s former pride and dignity.83 The panegyric is crowned with blessing on Bathory: “Vitoudus tecum.” 84 Warszewicki wrote another panegyric to Bathory in prose. Although it is rather reserved in the way it employs Vytautas’ name, comparisons between the two rulers are impressive. Once again the military theme dominates the opus. According to the author, Vytautas’ situation was better than that of Bathory, since the former fought in foreign lands, while the latter had to face the cruel intruder at home. Summing up this parallel, Warszewicki uses similar rhetorical tricks as in the previous poem. This time, he also writes about the King as if he was describing Vytautas, albeit in a less pompous manner.85 Elias Piligrimovius86 held his office at the grand ducal chancellery. He observed and participated in the intense political life of the turn of the sixteenth century. Directly taking part in politics, Piligrimovius tried to express his views and influence men of power by means of poetry. He anonymously published verses inspired by events actually transpiring within the grand duchy. The Dialogue of a Lithuanian Boyar87 describes Bathory’s victories in the wars with Muscovy. Impressed by the success of the King’s military campaigns, Piligrimovius says that Bathory surpassed previous kings and can be compared only to Vytautas.88 The panegyric by Basilius Hyacinthus89 stands out among the laudatory texts dedicated to Bathory. Although the poem’s title indicates the King as the addressee of the poem, the contribution of Nicholas Radvila and the Lithuanian soldiers overshadow Bathory’s achievements. Naturally, the memory of Vytautas’ deeds is as important as the role of the military of those days. According to the poet, the skill and achievements of the Lithuanian soldiers would have pleased the Grand Duke.90 After the recapture of Starodub,91 soldiers remember the victories of Vytautas and other grand dukes of the past.92 As mentioned above, the panegyric includes long excurses concerned with the military performance of Lithuanians. However, it concludes with Bathory’s triumph, where Vytautas and Jogaila occupy distinguished roles. The cousins emerge as ideal figures, to whom only Bathory could be compared.93 The ideas of Hyacinthus must have been quite widespread at the Jesuit Academy of Vilnius, where the poet was enrolled. Bathory’s entry into Vilnius celebrated on November 3, 1580 is a vivid illustration of this perception. The city greeted the victorious sovereign with triumphal arches and student performances. The Jesuit Academy contributed to the event by constructing a triumphal arch in the Academy’s Church of St. John. The arch

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

157

was adorned with figures. On its apex there was a representation of Victory as a male. Close to it stood the statues of Vytautas and Jogaila, both painted in the most beautiful colors. Children dressed in Muscovite fashion begged the magnanimous King Stephan for mercy.94 This brief description quite successfully conveys the hierarchy of the entire staging. Sculptures adorning the triumphal arch present Vytautas and Jogaila below the personification of Victory. Stephan Bathory (an adult person) is approached by Muscovites (small children). Hence, visual rhetoric clearly indicated the rank of every participant in the performance. Significantly for this book, the figure of Vytautas mediated between victorious King Stephan and the personification of victory. The unexpected death of Bathory caused him to be even more closely associated with Vytautas. Understandably, the deceased rulers were frequently referred to in disputes on government. For the purposes of this study, those references that draw parallels between Bathory and Vytautas prove important. Iozeph Wereszczynski, in his Regula designed for a Christian prince, describes the many qualities of ideal kingship.95 Having employed examples from the reign of celebrated rulers of the past, Wereszczynski rhetorically asks for a local example. Without any hesitation he refers to Bathory, “Rex celebris & sanctae recordacionis.” 96 The Regula enumerates the King’s deeds for peace and achievements in war. Understandably, the latter are more explicit and also relative to the image of Vytautas. According to the author, the King’s victories during the Livonian war can only be compared to those of Vytautas, the “fortissimus bellator.” 97 Vytautas is referred to rather differently by Kaspar Zebrzidowski.98 In his Chronicon, or memorandum addressed to Philip II of Spain, the author expresses doubts about Bathory’s actions. He does recognize King Stephan as a man of action. However, according to the author, the much-admired victories against Muscovites were too costly in terms of the lives of the gentry. Having described the siege and subsequent capture of Polotsk, Zebrzidowski ascribes a word to Vytautas: “Paucis te volo Vitulte, quondam rex amabilis et Magnanime!” In the eyes of the chronicler, Vytautas had subjugated Muscovite territories far more easily than his distant successor.99 In closing, it should be mentioned that besides parallels in actions, above all, military ones, Bathory could be compared to Vytautas according to the genre of literary opera. Vanda Zaborskaitė has shown that Jesuit schooldramas based upon historical subjects singled out two ruler-heroes: Vytautas and Bathory. Their glorious deeds were transformed into the plot of the

158

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

school plays.100 Given this, one may assume that, in the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the two rulers evoked similar emotions, thus occupying more or less the same rank in the historical consciousness.

Popular Appeal A bilingual, Latin and Polish, poem entitled Philopatris ad senatum ...101 was published anonymously. Today, it is attributed to the pen of Piligrimovius. The author associates Vytautas with the vastness of the country. The poem tells of the sorrows of mother-Lithuania, revealed through a dialogue with her children-provinces. One of the children is Perekop. Tatars living there remember the glorious past and their battles led by Vytautas and are willing to participate again in the Lithuanian campaigns.102 The book of parallels by Krzysztof Warszewicki103 stands out from the political treatises of the period. First, it does not concern some particular political event, but rather speculates upon kingship by examples from the reigns of the first and the last of the Jagiellonian kings. Obviously, Vytautas is not the principal hero of the opus; however, he appears in the background of the story of Jogaila’s reign. The Grand Duke’s name is employed to highlight Jogaila’s virtues. Consequently, Vytautas is quite a negative character. As to the plot, the entire story is almost exclusively based on Długosz. Quite unexpectedly, most information on Vytautas comes from the years before 1392. Already the first paragraphs label Vytautas as a prince of restless spirit.104 The following narration strengthens this view and, with a reference to the opinion of numerous authors, concludes that ambition was his driving force.105 Even after Vytautas’ recognition as Grand Duke, his character does not acquire positive features. The majority of his actions depict Vytautas as deceitful, selfish, cowardly, cruel, and voluptuous. Having finished drawing the parallel between Jogaila and Sigismund Augustus (the former embodies royal triumph, the latter, decline), the image of the Grand Duke is presented in quite a different light. This is a brief reference to the relations with Bohemia. Warszewicki tells that the Czech embassy to the Polish king was sent to Lithuania because Jogaila could not reach any decision without Vytautas’ counsel.106 These two examples from the same opus show Vytautas as an embodiment of evil and a ruler whose authority and influence exceed his own realm. Most importantly, Warzsewicki’s panegyrics to Stephan Bathory, as discussed earlier, reveal Vytautas as an exemplary and nearly deified fig-

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

159

ure.107 To my mind, these contradictions are symptomatic of the detachment of an image from the historical personality. In Warzewicki’s texts, the Grand Duke appears either in an absolutely positive, or in an exclusively negative, role. Hence, the skillful rhetorician arbitrarily used selected parts of the image in order to deliver his message and better persuade his audience.

DEBATING THE UNION AND RULERSHIP Augustinus Rotundus108 made a considerable contribution to Lithuanian historiography.109 However, he is better known as a publicist. The most celebrated piece to which Rotundus significantly contributed110 is the Conversation of a Pole and a Lithuanian (henceforth, the Conversation) published in 1564111 as a response to the Quinqunx by Stanisław Orzechowski (1564).112 The Conversation is arranged in the form of a dialogue between a Pole and a Lithuanian discussing the issues of history, statehood, authority, law, and tradition.113 The Conversation refers to Vytautas twice: once when discussing warfare and later in connection with the forthcoming union of the two countries. Reference to the Grand Duchy’s military success under Vytautas is traditional in political texts. The argument that the union was established by Vytautas and Jogaila is analogous to the statement used in treaties signed between the two countries.114 However, the second half of the argument is different: where the documents state that the reason to issue them was the strengthening of the union,115 the Conversation concludes that, since the union has already been concluded, there is no necessity to re-establish it.116 Another aspect of the Conversation is its presentation of an ideal ruler. Orzechowski has compared royal and ducal government as follows: kings reign from God’s grace; hence, royal subjects are also born from God’s grace. By contrast, dukes rule because of godly anger, and people in dukedoms are born from God’s anger.117 Understandably, such a declaration offended Lithuanians. Thus, the entire Polish concept of an elective kingship was opposed. The Conversation says that supreme power should belong to a hereditary monarch born and raised in the country he is going to rule, since only a person truly loving his country and subjects could hold such authority.118 As no exemplary person is named, this ideal ruler remains a subject of speculation. On the one hand, this characteristic closely matches the image of Vytautas; on the other, the definition of an ideal ruler borrows from Erasmus or Machiavelli.119 The largest amount of politically oriented literature appeared during

160

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the interregna and royal elections. For the most part, these are anonymous pamphlets addressed to patriotic feelings and expressing the ideal of rulership. Although Vytautas is referred to in several of these texts, he is not the principal figure. The Grand Duke becomes important when issues of territory and authority are concerned. Most political pamphlets come from the interregnum after the death of Sigismund Augustus, 1572–1573. The Conversation between Lech and Piast120 describes Vytautas as a warrior vigilant against Muscovy.121 The same idea is expressed in the Opinion on the Election of the New King.122 There, an anonymous author from Vilnius discusses three candidates: a Frenchman (Henry of Valois) and the old and the young Muscovites (Tsar Ivan IV and his son Theodore). Speculating about the Muscovite candidates, the author refers to Vytautas being shown as a ruler receiving gifts from Muscovy. However, this remains within the realm of wishful thinking, as the Muscovites no longer subdued the Polish–Lithuanian rulers.123 (The mentioning of the receipt of gifts seems marginal; however, one should consider the fact that throughout the sixteenth and later centuries Poland and Lithuania tried to improve relations with Muscovy, spending considerable amounts on gifts.124 ) Andreas Cieselski, addressing delegates of the Warsaw Diet,125 referred to Vytautas in relation to the Tatars, who had once been subjugated and colonized by the Grand Duke. Presently allied with the Ottomans, they had invaded and devastated the country.126 Discussing the elections, Cieselski makes an excursus into the past concerning the exemplary collaboration of Jogaila and Vytautas.127 But a rather different opinion on Vytautas is expressed in the Vote During the Interregnum after the Departure of Henry (1574).128 Here, Vytautas is presented as the first one who attempted to break his vows to Poland, by seeking the crown.129

Historical Writings THE POLISH PERSPECTIVE The early modern Polish chronicles are essentially based on Długosz; therefore, scholars have not deemed them valuable except for the so-called postDlugozian events. As to Vytautas, most of the chronicles do not present new facts from his life. It is rather the other way around: The Grand Duke’s life and reign are described briefly and predominantly concentrate on the following events: the conflict between Kęstutis and Jogaila, Vytautas’ flights to Prussia, his recognition as the Grand Duke, relations with the Tatars and defeat at

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

161

the Vorskla River, the battle of Grunwald, the meeting at Lutsk, the intended coronation and sudden death, and the obituaries for the Grand Duke. Concerning the events following Vytautas’ death, references to the Grand Duke appear only occasionally and in relation to the following: the establishment of the Polish–Lithuanian union, territorial disputes between the two countries (especially pertaining to the land of Podole), and Vytautas as a successful statesman and military leader. More important than the historical image of Vytautas is the fact that the references to the Grand Duke are directly related to Lithuania. Usually, when telling about the times of Vytautas, chroniclers also include information about Lithuania. Significantly, after the Grand Duke’s death, both references to the person and to the country become a rarity. It becomes even more a fact that, whenever Vytautas is mentioned, he is related to Lithuania. It may thus be assumed that the authors of the chronicles (and the readers?) firmly associated, or even considered as synonymous, the country and her ruler. In contrast to Lithuanian sources, the name of Vytautas did not function as an image detached from his personality. That is, the Polish chronicles tell a story from Vytautas’ life, while the Lithuanian ones refer to the invincible leader or great statesman, urging later generations to follow in his footsteps. Moreover, most of the details from Vytautas’ life, as well as the Grand Duke’s obituary, repeat Długosz’s statements. I shall therefore concentrate on those passages that depart from Długosz’s version, or provide it with a different interpretation. The chronicles are discussed in chronological order. Maciej of Miechow, known as Miechowita,130 is known as the first earlymodern Polish chronicler. His Chronica Polonorum131 was published in 1521 and became a very popular historical source. Miechowita describes Vytautas as ruler of unsurpassed largesse and power.132 Miechowita’s Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis (1517) (henceforth, the Tractatus)133 provides a more ample and, by the same token, more diffuse perception of Vytautas. The Asian part of the Tractatus for the most part gives information on the Tatars. Naturally, it mentions Vytautas’ relations with the Tatar hordes, including broad descriptions of Tatar assistance to the Polish–Lithuanian troops against the Teutonic Knights, or Vytautas’ assistance to certain Tatar khans in the wars within the hordes.134 The European part of the treatise contributes more to the image of the Grand Duke. Vytautas is first mentioned in connection with his imprisonment—or enchainment, in the words of Miechowita—in the castle of Kre-

162

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

va.135 Later in the text, the chronicler tells about Vytautas’ reign, characterizing him as an energetic person and brave warrior, and also tells about the subjugation of the neighboring territories and Vytautas’ achievements, as well as failures, in relations with the Tatars.136 Vytautas’ coronation is seen as an intrigue engineered by the Emperor Sigismund and the Grand Duke is said to have died from melancholy and a strange disease.137 Marcin Kromer 138 followed Miechowita’s chronicle. Kromer, a churchman and historian of German origin, studied law at the University of Bologna, worked as an officer of the royal chancellery, and was the secretary of Sigismund Augustus from 1545. His literary activities were not limited to Poland, as his close relations with Sigismund Herberstein139 testify. Besides the history entitled De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum140 (henceforth called the De origine), he wrote several political and theological treatises.141 Kromer’s historical texts were quite widespread and influential. What’s more, Lithuanians found his treatises offensive and accused the author of denigrating the grand duchy and her people. The offense was taken seriously, and Lithuanian legates at the Diet asked the king to ban the De origine.142 As to Vytautas’ image, the De origine provides explicit characteristics for the Grand Duke. His main features are authority and skillful exercise of the grand ducal office. He is noted to have been severe with his subjects, but generous to foreigners, and intolerant of bribery.143 Vytautas’ description is that of a statesman. Silence as to his military leadership is rather unique among examples of this genre. In his speech at the funeral of Sigismund the Old, Kromer dwelled upon the glory of the Jagiellonian dynasty. When talking about Jogaila’s reign, he emphasized that the King not only had to cope with rumors spread by the Emperor Sigismund, but also with intrigues among his closest relatives, Vytautas and Švitrigaila. Because of these activities, he had to overcome serious obstacles within the kingdom.144 Kromer’s two texts approach Vytautas differently. To my mind, this again indicates that the name of Vytautas was detached from the Grand Duke’s personality, and thus could be employed in opposite ways depending on the text and its audience. Bernard Wapowski is much better known for his contribution to cartography than to history. Moreover, his Chronicles are not considered an important historical source. This view, however, is true in relation to the facts, but not to their interpretation. In his obituary, Vytautas is characterized as an invincible military leader who surpassed both his predecessors and successors. He is also seen as a powerful statesman. Vytautas’ great wisdom and quick

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

163

reactions are contrasted to his small stature. The Grand Duke never drank wine and ate modestly. He hated drunkards and refused to have any contact with them. He had such authority among his people that those sentenced to death hanged themselves with their own hands because they did not expect mercy. In order to maintain justice, Vytautas frequently traveled across the country listening to cases and passing judgments.145 Concerning the reference to Vytautas in later events, Wapowski is not merely positive about him but actually glorifies the Grand Duke. Vytautas’ renown is connected to his military achievements. Thus, in relating the story of the loss of Smolensk in 1514, Wapowski describes the site as the one attached to Lithuania after the illustrious and invincible warrior Alexander Vytautas had defeated the Russians and subdued many of their dukes.146 Contrasting these achievements with his own time, the author regrets the loss of the countries’ military might and efficiency.147 As to Polish–Lithuanian relations, Wapowski keeps to the tradition of the union established by Jogaila and Vytautas.148 In contrast to these former authors whose works appeared in Latin, Marcin Bielski wrote his Chronicle of the Entire World149 in Polish. Moreover, the author favored Protestant ideas, and was not related to the court.150 Bielski’s opinion of Vytautas depends on the content of the events he is describing. When commenting on the Grand Duke’s attempts to obtain the crown, he calls Vytautas sly and perfidious.151 However, Vytautas’ obituary is positive, and his statesman-like features are emphasized. While most of the text repeats what earlier authors wrote, Bielski selectively but closely follows Długosz’s description. Jan Herburt152 dedicated his Chronicle153 to Sigismund the Old and Sigismund Augustus. Herburt emphasizes the Polish–Lithuanian union. Vytautas is a marginal character in the Chronicle, more elaborately presented only in relation to the intended coronation. He is accused of breaking up the union and forging an alliance with enemies, the Emperor Sigismund and the Teutonic Knights.154 According to the Grand Duke’s obituary, Vytautas was an energetic ruler, mighty in state government, abstinent and modest in his way of life, and quick in decision-making.155 Alessandro Guagnini (1538–1614) was an Italian who made a career in Poland. His Sarmatiae Europae Descriptio (henceforth, the Descriptio) was first published in 1578,156 causing great anger to Maciej Stryjkowski (on him, see below). The latter blamed Guagnini for stealing and plagiarizing his writings. Though this conflict received contemporary attention and has also been

164

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

scrutinized by present-day scholars,157 it has no impact on this inquiry. The image of Vytautas as presented by Guagnini expresses the Polish, rather than Lithuanian, tradition. That is, Vytautas is represented as an outstanding historical figure, although his deeds are not referred to as exemplary and are not related to Guagnini’s own time. The Descriptio has separate books dedicated to Polish and Lithuanian history; Vytautas appears in both. I shall consider the Polish section first. Vytautas’ activities constitute an integral part of Jogaila’s reign. Moreover, the personality of the Grand Duke integrates Lithuanian history into that of Poland. Nonetheless, the two countries are perceived as separate. This is no longer the case where later grand dukes are concerned. Among Vytautas’ deeds, most influential are his relations with the Tatars and Muscovy.158 His role in the description of the battle of Grunwald is significant.159 Vytautas appears as a marginal leader concerned only with organizing his own troops. The single fact that falls within the Dlugozian tradition is the punishment of Lithuanian soldiers for desecration of a church.160 Concerning the later years, Jogaila and Vytautas are described as acting hand in hand; the Treaty of Horodle (1413) is considered the most important fruit of this collaboration.161 Vytautas’ actions form an essential part of the Descriptio dedicated to the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. He appears on the political scene after Jogaila recognizes him as Grand Duke. The comparison between the cousins favors Vytautas. During the conflict between Jogaila and Kęstutis, Vytautas tends to look rather favorably on his cousin Jogaila, although the latter plans to kill him. Escaping death, Vytautas must flee to Prussia.162 Although Guagnini’s narrative is arranged according to the reigns of the grand dukes, the deeds of Vytautas are the main subject of Skirgaila’s government.163 This is explained in the very first lines of the description: despite the fact that Skirgaila was nominated to rule over the Grand Duchy, Vytautas, “a great-hearted man,” did not submit to the official, but powerless, leader.164 Vytautas’ reign is viewed entirely in light of warfare. Immediately after his recognition as Grand Duke, he consolidates his power, while eliminating his potential rivals, the brothers of Jogaila.165 After authority is established, Vytautas concentrates his activities in the East toward fighting the Tatars and Muscovites. His attempts to subjugate Pskov and Novgorod are also mentioned. Surprisingly, Guagnini is absolutely silent about the battle of Grunwald, and does not relate the battle to Lithuanian history. The description of Vytautas’ last years is a summarized version of Długosz’s opinion.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

165

In sum, Vytautas is undoubtedly an important figure to Guagnini; however, the Grand Duke is only a historic personality. Although his life is described at length during the time he had not yet assumed authority over the Grand Duchy, Vytautas’ political activities do not extend beyond his lifetime, and are not used in relation to sixteenth-century events. Moreover, the scope of his actions is limited to the realm of the politics of the Grand Duchy after the Lublin Union. This is especially evident from the fact that the Teutonic aspect of Vytautas’ activities is completely neglected. One may thus assume that Guagnini had not come across the living image of Vytautas and, therefore, described him only as a historic personality.

THE LITHUANIAN MAN OF VIRTUE The Lithuanian grand ducal genealogy, written by Augustinus Rotundus and entitled Epitome principum Lithuaniae166 (henceforth, the Epitome), can be considered the first historical account of Lithuania composed by a single author. The circulation of this text was rather limited: it was included into the Latin translation of the Second Lithuanian Statute,167 which never appeared in print. The Epitome aims at truthfully representing the glorious ancestry of the Lithuanian grand dukes in order to introduce King Stephan Bathory in light of the deeds of his predecessors. As to Vytautas, he holds a firm place within the context of the reigns. First mentioned among the sons of Kęstutis, Vytautas is singled out as most eminent for his valor.168 Rotundus describes Vytautas’ actions exclusively from a military perspective, commenting at length on the subjugation of the Tatars.169 The first published history of Lithuania was written by Maciej Stryjkowski170 (1547 – before 1593). Stryjkowski began his career as a soldier and diplomat, spent his later years at the residencies of Lithuanian magnates, and finally donned the cloth by becoming a canon of Samogitia and vicar in Jurbarkas.171 His works, compiled from numerous written records, annals, histories, and legends and shaped with inventive spirit, are seen today either as legend-making, or informative and reliable accounts. Despite divergent opinions about Stryjkowski, his influence on later historical literature is beyond doubt. Relative to the image of Vytautas, Stryjkowski’s works are of great value. Considered hereafter are the following texts: the Messenger of Virtue,172 On the Genesis … of the Lithuanian, Samogitian, and Ruthenian Peoples173 also known as the manuscript of Nesviezh (henceforth called the Genesis), and the Lithuanian, Samogitian, and the Whole-Rus’ Chronicle174 (hence-

166

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

forth, the Chronicle). The latter two pieces are nearly identical in content, but differ greatly in form and fate. Both are histories of the Grand Duchy; however, the Genesis is written in verse and the Chronicle partly in verse, partly in prose. The Chronicle was published in 1582, while the Genesis remained in manuscript form until 1978. Though their content is similar, and quite extensive parts of the Genesis are incorporated into the Chronicle, their individual political mood differs: the Genesis seems more pro-independent Lithuanian statehood than the Chronicle, which is more pro-union.175 The Messenger of Virtue is a much shorter piece that concentrates on the rulers of Poland and Lithuania. Hence, it will be discussed later. With regard to Vytautas’ image, these histories provide abundant and diverse information. He is a wise warrior possessing the inborn skills of a statesman. Following Humanist tradition, Stryjkowski compares Vytautas with celebrated figures of Antiquity. Thus, he is said to have been baptized with the name of Alexander the Great in order to fight more successfully.176 His strategy was likened to that of Ulysses, the magnificence of his soul comparable to Hannibal’s, and his adroitness to Scipio’s. He was as courageous as Leonidas and as rich as Croesus.177 In general, Vytautas was a Lithuanian Hercules.178 Biblical imagery is also employed. Thus, Vytautas’ return from his Teutonic refuge is equated with the return of David from the Philistines.179 Finally, the description of the meeting at Lutsk places Vytautas in an interior decorated with tapestries depicting scenes from the Lithuanian Roman past, the Old Testament, and the house of Gediminas.180 This passage in the Genesis is quite peculiar and worthy of a more thorough discussion. On the one hand, the work remained in manuscript form and was not widely known; thus, its mediating function was highly limited. On the other hand, placed against the background of the European ancestral quest and literary traditions,181 a description of the tapestries at Lutsk provides new insights. First, this is the only early-modern example that enlarges upon the Lithuanian ancestral myth by introducing Biblical patriarchs. Secondly, it provides a theory of Lithuanian origins with classical features and, by introducing representatives of the Gediminid house, adjusts the entire story to contemporary practices of ancestral propaganda.182 Vytautas appears amid prominent ancestors and his actions might be seen to be the culmination of the dynasty’s glory. In addition to the political implications of the described wall hangings at Lutsk, they implied that the interior was also exceptionally rich. The description of art works in heroic poetry has often been used for multiple purposes. However, the most popu-

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

167

lar was the classical approach,183 where, besides the moralizing message, the story emphasized luxury and the importance of the moment. By adopting the classical pattern, Stryjkowski shaped the knowledge of the meeting as transmitted by the annals according to the classical manner. By the same token, devices of classical poetry enhanced the dignity of the meeting and its host and presented the entire event in the spirit of the Renaissance.184 Vytautas is also portrayed as a highly patriotic character. This feature is best expressed in the passage where the Grand Duke is being offered the Bohemian crown. Vytautas refuses the crown, saying that he is not like a crane, which builds its nest in two trees.185 When describing various episodes from the Grand Duke’s life, Stryjkowski differentiates between Vytautas as a person, giving him a rather human character, Vytautas as a military leader, and Vytautas as a statesman, where he is identified with the state.186 Moreover, there are passages that hint at recognition of the existence of Vytautas’ image. For example, when introducing the genealogy of the Lithuanian grand dukes, Stryjkowski regrets that, despite the fact that many great heroes have lived among them, only Vytautas is remembered by posterity. However, the chronicler explains this by saying that this is so because Vytautas was to leave writings, in contrast to his forgotten predecessors.187 Stryjkowski’s historical works demonstrated that he had come across an already existing image of Vytautas, which he then accepted, explained, justified, and further developed. Stryjkowski’s poem entitled the Messenger of Virtue concerns the theme of origins. However, it mainly focuses on the deeds of the kings of Poland and grand dukes of Lithuania; understandably, Vytautas has a prominent place among them. The reader first meets Vytantas in a passage on the Lithuanian coat of arms. The grand duke is introduced as the conqueror of Russian and subjugator of the Tatars. Lithuanian territories from the reign of Vytautas are contrasted with the poor times Stryjkowski lived in.188 The poem’s section on Lithuanian origins follows the legendary chronology from the arrival of the Romans until the times of historical rulers. Vytautas’ deeds are described in extenso. The descriptions concentrate on the most outstanding facts of his life, sometimes exaggerating the Grand Duke’s achievements. Vytautas is introduced as the son of Kęstutis distinguished by military skills.189 Stryjkowski allots space for the description of the civil war of the 1380s, Vytautas’ escape from the prison in Kreva, and his years in the Prussian refuge.190 From the moment Vytautas is recognized as the Lithuanian ruler, he surpasses Hector in attaining his aim,191 and the scope and might of the Duke’s

168

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

activities increase greatly. The Grand Duke subjugates the Ruthenian territories, threatens Moscow, defeats the Tatars, and pays the Teutonic Knights back tit for tat.192 Russian, Tatar, and Prussian territories form the framework of the description. Naturally, the victory at Grunwald occupies a special place in the poem.193 Concerning the issue of territories, Stryjkowski notes that, in his time, people missed the might of Vytautas.194 The conversion of Samogitia and the tribute from Novgorod and Pskov, as well as the Czech crown itself, are minor issues in comparison to the meeting at Lutsk. In keeping with the spirit of the Lithuanian Annals, Stryjkowski describes the splendors of the meeting. The renowned guests and extravagance of feasting overshadow the “German intrigue,” that is, the idea of crowning Vytautas king of Lithuania. The intrigue fails with the death of Vytautas. The latter is followed by an elaborate obituary, which enumerates the Grand Duke’s virtues and achievements and compares him with celebrities from Antiquity. Naturally, Vytautas surpassed Roman leaders as well as Greek, Trojan, and Persian potentates. Fortune never allowed the Grand Duke to escape from her palms and he conquered numerous lands and Lithuania extended from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Most importantly, the Grand Duke always remained a just and chivalrous ruler of that glorious time.195 Therefore, having elected Casimir to the grand ducal seat, the marshal wished him only to follow in Vytautas’ footsteps, rather than having him copy foreign models.196 This acclamation repeats the one ascribed to Alexander the Jagiellonian. It is interestingly to point out that Stryjkowski diminishes the time period between Vytautas’ death and the entering of his name into the ceremony of grand ducal elevation. The fame of Stryjkowski’s Chronicle overshadowed the Messenger of Virtue and this was quite soon acknowledged. Thus, Samuel Dougird197 decided to bring the poem back to life in 1626, changing its title to the Genealogy of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes198 (henceforth, the Genealogy), and publishing it with a dedication to Christopher Radvila. The relation between the Genealogy and the Messenger of Virtue is a peculiar one. First of all, the Genealogy omits the Polish part of Stryjkowski’s poem, but encompasses a longer period, including the reigns of Stephan Bathory and Wladislas Vasa.199 Those parts of the poems that coincide in content are very close in words as well. However, scholars regard the Genealogy as a more pro-Lithuanian piece of writing. Moreover, sections describing the deeds of Vytautas promote the Grand Duke, rather than making him a partner of Jogaila.200

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

169

Opening the Genealogy with a panegyric to Radvila, Dougird explains the reason behind his remake: the decline of statehood and authority. Today, one may also suppose that Lithuanian success in relations with Muscovy, and a need to maintain them, might have added additional motives to writing the Genealogy. The stories of great exploits of past rulers aim at inspiring people of his time. The passage on Vytautas begins with “reminiscences” from the battle of Grunwald. Despite the arrogance of the Teutonic Knights, Vytautas and Jogaila manage to destroy the Order.201 The poet dwells upon the glory of bygone times and looks for its roots. The country flourished because of the courage and virtues of her rulers. It was the personal example of the Lithuanian grand dukes that inspired soldiers in the battle. Vytautas’ celebrated victories are vivid illustrations of how these personal examples worked. The Grand Duke made his name known as far as Asia, and his deeds became immortal.202 When describing the Lithuanian coat of arms, Dougird also enlarged upon Vytautas’ image. If Stryjkowski mentioned supremacy over Muscovy and Basil’s (i.e., Grand Duke Basil I Dimitrievich) obedience to Vytautas, Dougird provided a more detailed picture, saying that Basil was to Vytautas as a servant is to a lord.203 The following description of the grand ducal deeds is almost a repetition of the Messenger of Virtue; therefore, I shall omit them from this discussion. Comparison of the two poems reveals that, in the presence of a military threat, retrospective viewpoints emerged. Authors longed for strong and heroic leaders, and Vytautas embodied these desires.

THE SPIRIT OF THE BAROQUE Given that Stryjkowski’s poem underwent a remake, it is not surprising that his Chronicle was not only widely read, but also had its academic application. The latter was expressed by Albertus Viivk Koialowicz204 (1609–1677), a Jesuit professor of the Vilnius Academy. The two volumes of his Historiae Litvanea205 (henceforth, the Historiae) were published in 1650 and 1669, respectively. Though Koialowicz considered the Historiae to be only a remake of Stryjkowski’s Chronicle, his authoritative contributions are significant enough to establish this text as an autonomous work.206 The first distinction between the Chronicle and the Historiae is one of style: Stryjkowski’s outlook is one of a Renaissance man; Koialowicz’s derive from the Baroque. These two perceptions shaped the image of Vytautas: if Stryjkowski presents the Grand Duke as a mighty and self-willed sovereign, Koialowicz regards him as an ambitious and despotic ruler.207 Despite

170

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

this rather negative evaluation of the Grand Duke when describing his life, Koialowicz changes his position in the later sections of the Historiae. Writing about the events of the sixteenth century (the Historiae ends with 1572 and the death of the last Jagiellonian king, Sigismund Augustus), Koialowicz refers to Vytautas as an exemplary ruler and regrets that the last Jagiellonians did not or could not follow his example.208 Koialowicz’s Historiae reveals three parts of Vytautas’ image: Vytautas on his path to the throne, Vytautas as a ruler, and Vytautas as an example for subsequent grand dukes. In the first part Vytautas is introduced as determined to achieve power and glory, although he comes across as a clever and skillful personality.209 When writing about Jogaila’s revenge on Kęstutis and his family, Koialowicz says that it crashed into Vytautas like a wave crashes onto a rock.210 The portrait of Vytautas exercising the grand ducal office is presented as a success of state and nation.211 The posthumous exemplary image of Vytautas is a didactic creation, employed when reproaching later rulers for the decline of statehood.

Vytautas and the Magnates The rise of the noble clans and their participation in the affairs of state begins in the late fourteenth century and is predominantly associated with Vytautas’ reign. During the sixteenth century, a number of these families attained the status of magnates, replacing the dying-out representatives of early nobility.212 This period also marked the establishment of two ancestral fashions: the new nobles related their origins to the Gediminid dynasty, while the older ones found theirs in that Roman myth according to which Lithuanians were regarded as Romans who left the empire to escape Nero’s tyranny. As to Vytautas, he was not included within these lineages; however, his privileges were frequently referred to, and his reign was viewed as exemplary. The Radvila family displayed a special attitude towards the celebrated Grand Duke. Artists at their courts significantly contributed to perpetuating Vytautas’ deeds and shaping his image.

THE RADVILAS AS WORTHY FOLLOWERS OF VYTAUTAS The rise of the Radvilas began during Vytautas’ reign, beginning with Astikas and his son Radvila. Through marriages and the accumulation of landed property, the Radvilas entered the rank of princes (Sl, kniaz’). In 1547, their efforts were crowned by receiving of the princely title from the Holy Roman

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

171

Empire.213 Of all noble families whose careers could be connected with the name of Vytautas, the Radvilas demonstrated a special attitude towards the Grand Duke and his memory. This position was established and predominantly manifested in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The family viewed themselves as the followers of Vytautas. This idea was deeply rooted in the Radvilas’ self-perception and manifested itself in a variety of ways. The content of these manifestations falls into two parts: first, portrayal of the Radvilas and Vytautas as persons of approximately the same rank and, second, perception of the Radvilas as Vytautas’ followers. These features were expressed through textual and, to a lesser extent, visual means. Franciscus Gradovius214 wrote a panegyric on the occasion of Albert Radvila’s215 and Anna of Curonia’s marriage.216 The panegyric is noteworthy for its patriotism. Vytautas appears among legendary and actual rulers, and is presented as an invincible leader. The Radvilas are also among the great men.217 The same attitude is also expressed in Piligrimovius’ panegyric218 to Christopher Radvila, known as the Thunderer.219 There, the glory of the magnates is directly related to that of Vytautas and Jogaila, the greatest and the wisest of the country’s rulers. The scope and might of the Radvilas’ activities is revealed as stemming from the glory of their ancestral land, Lithuania. In the passage about the Lithuanian grand dukes, Vytautas is referred to as a great and wise ruler, his image illuminating the glory of the Lithuanian past.220 The idea of rank is also revealed in the family’s portrait galleries. The representations of Vytautas were included among the family portraits, both in Nesviezh (fig. 70)221 and in Biržai.222 These paintings were meant to add prestige to the Radvila lineage. By the same token, the inclusion of Vytautas’ portrait within the gallery demonstrated the power of the Grand Duke’s image. However, the allusions to rank were quite rare, as the most influential and glorified feature of the Grand Duke was his success on the battlefield. As in the panegyrics to Stephan Bathory, heroic poems relating to the Livonian wars reveal the influence of Vytautas’ image upon the Radvilas.223 224 Johannes Radvanus’ Radvilias (1592) tells about the victorious life of Nicholas Radvila, known as the Red.225 The poem concentrates on Radvila’s military achievements and his contributions to the welfare of the state. Most of the qualities of the prince are derived from his noble origin, as well as from his princely personality. The Radvilias is full of references to Lithuanian Roman ancestors and to historical rulers. Vytautas, however, plays a central role. He is introduced as victorious over the Tatars and as the host at Lutsk.226

172

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Further on in the poem, Radvanus tells a story of Vytautas’ soul appearing in Radvila’s dream, like the spirit of a hero in classical antiquity or a saint in a vision.227 The Grand Duke returns from the battle of Grunwald. He is exhausted but triumphant. Seeing the misfortunes of Lithuania, Vytautas reproaches the citizens for the decline of the state, hinting at his own militant spirit as he praises warfare and revenge. War is seen as goodness, even if the battle takes place for a mean reason.228 Thereupon the spirit of the legendary ruler entrusts Radvila to lead the army,229 predicts his victory, and anticipates with pleasure the forthcoming bloodshed. Finally, Vytautas shares a successful formula with Radvila and asks the military commander to honor Lithuania with victory: You must win! Only then will glory that cannot be closed in a tomb make you famous for centuries after your death. Go and perform what Virtue tells you needs to be done for the honor of your parents and for Lithuanian History.230 Inspired by this vision, Radvila leads his troops into battle and defeats the much more numerous Muscovite troops at the Ula River (on January 26, 1564). Nicholas’ son, Christopher Radvila the Thunderer, was one of the commanders of the battles of the early 1580s on the Lithuanian–Muscovite border. Celebrating the prince’s victories, Radvila’s soldier, Gradovius, wrote a heroic epos entitled Hodeoporicon Moschicum.231 In the Lithuanian context, this is an outstanding piece of Renaissance poetry, uniting Antique motifs with the realities of the recent war. Distinctively, references to the Lithuanian past are extremely rare. However, a reference to Vytautas cannot be omitted. The Grand Duke appears in an unusual way: deep in the Muscovite territories, Radvila the Thunderer comes across a church, the building of which he attributes to Vytautas, and makes a donation.232 Andrzei Rymsza,233 Gradovius’ follower and an eyewitness to the events,234 tells the story in a more detailed way. His poem, called Decretos akroama…,235 describes the last ten years of the prince’s life and his military successes. It concentrates exclusively on warfare, and presents Radvila as a skillful and highly respected leader. Rymsza says that the prince will become so famous that people will start singing songs about his life and deeds. In this way, princely glory will be comparable only with that of Vytautas.236 The poem also mentions Radvila’s discovery of traces of Vytautas’ activities on the Lithuanian–Muscovite border. This leads Radvila to understand the scope and might of the Grand Duke’s actions, and thus encourages him to follow Vytautas’ paths.237 Rymsza mentions that Radvila’s troops came across an Orthodox church in Dubina. The Lithuanian commander express-

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

173

es doubts as to whether Vytautas could have built that church. If he did, it should have been a Catholic church.238 Hence, the prince accuses Muscovites of having desecrated the building. The poet intends to return to these issues later;239 regrettably, he never does. The fact that the two poems, with their nearly identical content, were written in Latin as well as in Polish may be interpreted as a means of addressing wider social layers.240 As to the church presumably founded by Vytautas, a passage from a novel by Paulus Oderbornius,241 Ioannis Basilidis magni Moscoviae ducis vita,242 may be enlightening. Oderbornius243 mentions that, after a severe campaign in Smolensk, Radvila the Thunderer reached Porkhrov. The prince forbade his troops to invade the town, as it was founded by Vytautas. Moreover, Radvila was happy, because he not only had followed in the military glory of the Grand Duke, but also in his footsteps.244 The stories told by Gradovius, Rymsza, and Oderbornius have a common passage concerning the foundation. While the poets attribute it to churches, the novelist suggests that the Grand Duke had founded a city. Actually, Vytautas did indeed found the church of the Holy Trinity in Porhkov during his march towards Novgorod.245 The three stories indicate that the foundation entered historical memory, although the story lost its accuracy. Seemingly, the entire site was known as Vytautas’ church and was indicated as such in the contemporary theater of the Livonian war.246 The image of Vytautas also had a definite impact on the Radvilas and was cherished by the princely family. Poets at the Radvila court explicitly described their lord’s victories, while also attempting to broadcast his glory. On the basis of Gradovius’ and Rymsza’s poems,247 the Polish poet of the Renaissance, Jan Kochanowski,248 wrote a poem entitled the March to Moscow (1583).249 As to their content, these verses are compilations rather than original pieces. However, the name of Vytautas as the one appearing in the poem not only demonstrates the connections the prince had with the Grand Duke, but also broadly expresses Vytautas’ military image.

Exemplum Docet JESUIT SCHOOL DRAMAS School dramas, regarded as exercises in poetics, rhetoric, and oratorical skill, were written by pupils as well as their teachers. Jesuit theater was didactic, and usually explored moralizing stories. Frequently, local history

174

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

provided the plays with necessary motifs. According to Zaborskaitė, it was quite usual to employ themes from Lithuanian history in these dramas.250 I know of two plays that derive their plot from the Grand Duke’s life and deeds:251 Bellaria super mensas …Vitoldi 252 (henceforth called the Bellaria), based on his victory against the Teutonic Order, and Iter ambitionis…,253 presenting the entire panorama of Vytautas’ reign. Regrettably, there is no evidence concerning the staging of these dramas; thus research is limited to the texts of their programs. The authors of the Iter ambitionis review Vytautas reign, on the basis of Koialowicz’s Historiae. The play concentrates on the most significant moments of Vytautas’ life: his recognition as Grand Duke, the battle at the Vorskla River, the meeting at Salynas, the offer of the Bohemian crown, and the intended coronation. The leading theme is the Duke’s ambition. Having received the grand ducal office, Vytautas begins increasingly to strive for glory. Finally, he becomes determined to be crowned king of Lithuania. This decision appears to be strongly inspired by Master Russdorf and the Emperor Sigismund. However, the wheel of fortune turns, and luck abandons Vytautas as he reaches for the royal insignia. Without knowing that the crown is designated for Vytautas, Polish border guards force the imperial envoys to turn back. Thus, the arranged coronation comes to nothing. King Jogaila and the Polish magnates then decide to crown Vytautas themselves but, unfortunately, the Grand Duke’s death intervenes with this decision. “Ambitionem fugiendam svadet,”254 the epilogue suggests. The Bellaria is based on a great feast held by the grand master of the Teutonic Order, Conrad of Jungingen, before raiding Lithuania, as described in Koialowicz’s Historiae.255 After reveling, the Order was given to invade; however, the knights were slaughtered by Vytautas troops. The play contrasts the vicious Prussians, maneuvering through intrigues, duplicity, and feasting, and Vytautas, a mighty soldier and pious man. The first two acts are predominantly concerned with the feast, the third with the victory of Vytautas, who prays to the Virgin Mary in the final scene, thus making it clear which of the opposing parties is truly Christian.256 This prayer to the Virgin reminds one of the end of the passage on Vytautas in the Carmen by Hussovianus. It is impossible to tell whether the two pieces are related, or whether they simply reflect an age-old feature of the Grand Duke’s image, his devotion to the Mother of God.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

175

The “Portraits” of Vytautas No original portrait of Vytautas is known.257 I have already mentioned that tradition considered an image of a knight on horseback depicted on a banner in Vilnius Cathedral to be a portrait of Vytautas.258 There are no data to support the accuracy of the likeness of presently known images of Vytautas.259 Despite the lack of iconographic material, there are later texts describing the Grand Duke’s appearance. Długosz provided the earliest verbal portrait of Vytautas; Stryjkowski and Koialowicz added a few more features. The Grand Duke’s description, if combined, is of a man of rather short and slight stature, his right arm being noticeably longer than his left.260 His face is feminine261 and beardless.262 How accurate this verbal portrait is, we do not know. However, it is likely to be close, if not to the truth, then at least to the early portraits of Vytautas. Marcin Kromer,263 after repeating Długosz’s account of the Grand Duke’s appearance, asserts that a portrait in the parish church of New Trakai corresponds to this description.264 It is unknown whether the surviving portraits of Vytautas followed the visual or verbal pattern since the earliest examples come from the seventeenth century (fig. 71). Most likely, written sources constituted the basis for this imagined portraiture, since all but one depiction correspond to the descriptions. Most common are full-figure representations of Vytautas in armor, wearing a purple mantle and grand ducal cap both decorated with erminefur (figs. 71, 73). Sometimes he holds a scepter in his right hand and has a sword attached to his belt. His beardless face is surrounded by semi-long hair falling on his shoulders. The stature of the Grand Duke appears against a background of military tents or a conventional interior. Vytautas’ depictions were commissioned by magnates,265 churches, and illustrated historical literature. The churches founded by Vytautas sought to possess the portrait of their founder. Such portraits are known to have hung in the Augustinian church in Brest Litovsk (fig. 73), Vilnius Cathedral, and other shrines. The Benedictine church in Old Trakai also possessed a portrait of the founder,266 and commemorative Mass for his soul was regularly held there.267 Vytautas was known as the benefactor of Vilnius Cathedral and was buried there. As already mentioned, Queen Bona commissioned the tombstone for the Grand Duke. In 1728, the chapter decided to display Vytautas’ portrait during the commemorative Mass held for him.268 It is not clear whether the

176

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

cathedral possessed such a picture, as a year later the chapter decided to commission a portrait of Vytautas.269 Recently Alfredas Širmulis argued that a sculpture of a duke, traditionally thought to depict Jogaila’s son Wladislas III of Varna (1424–1444) in St. Casimir/Royal chapel of Vilnius Cathedral (fig. 74) actually represents Vytautas.270 The standard depictions of the ruler are less interesting, since little is known of their function within the space they were originally designed for. Thus, the portrait from the parish church of Trakai is worth a more thorough analysis. As mentioned above, Kromer wrote that there was a portrait corresponding to the usual descriptions of Vytautas’ appearance. The fate of this picture remains unknown.271 Today the parish church of Trakai actually has a portrait of its celebrated founder and benefactor. The problem is, however, that this picture has nothing in common with either the written or the pictorial representations of the Grand Duke. In fact, the picture features a seventeenth-century boyar, even though the inscription at its bottom identifies him as Vytautas (fig. 75).272 In addition, the grand ducal cap placed on a table, covered with a purple mantle, makes clear that the portrait represents the ruler. Since this picture is far from traditional representations of Vytautas, it is usually rejected as a poor invention from the seventeenth century.273 This “fantasy,” however, may nonetheless be informative. The painting has never been analyzed more thoroughly. Thus, analysis of paint layers is based on style, rather than on an x-ray examination. Most likely, the portrait was made from an existing representation of some boyar, with the grand ducal attributes and inscription added later.274 (A less credible version would suggest that this portrait was initially painted as that of Vytautas). Be that as it may, at least some spectators saw Vytautas in this curious depiction. Since this representation of the Grand Duke mirrored the usual features and fashions of a boyar, any boyar could easily identify himself with the celebrated hero of the past. Although this interpretation remains speculative, literary evidence supports it. As mentioned above, Dougird wrote that the personal example of rulers inspired the gentry to great deeds. According to the poets patronized by the Radvilas, the princes also regarded themselves as followers of Vytautas. Hence, one may infer some kind of self-identification on the part of the gentry with the Grand Duke, which the picture from the church of Trakai also confirms. The Chronicle by Alessandro Guagnini includes woodcuts of the rulers it refers to. Vytautas’ is featured as follows: the half-length figure of the Duke is

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

177

turned three quarters to the right. The face is young and beardless. The Duke wears armor and a helmet decorated with floral ornaments and feathers. A sable mantle covers his armor. The Duke’s right hand is slightly elevated and holds a stick, which might be a part of a lance. In his left hand, the Duke holds a scepter (fig. 76). This portrait also departs from the traditional representations of Vytautas. However, it falls within the scheme used for all other illustrations in Guagnini’s chronicle. Viewed from such a perspective, one might say that Vytautas’ image was composed with the aim of conforming to the widespread perception of the Grand Duke’s appearance. This discussion of Vytautas’ portraits reveals that the visual images of the Grand Duke functioned in parallel with the verbal ones. The posture of a warrior and the insignia of authority formed its basis. The beardless face surrounded by semi-long hair followed descriptions left by Długosz and later authors. Although this image was widespread, such visualization of Vytautas was not universal, and could be easily shaped according to the means and needs of the portrait’s commissioner.

Vytautas in Popular Piety

275

Apart from the portraits of Vytautas, there are several well-known objects closely connected to the Duke’s person. Two pictures,276 one representing the Mother of God as Queen of Heaven from Old Trakai277 (fig. 77), and another the Virgin Mary and Child, from New Trakai (fig. 78–79) (henceforth, called the Madonna of Trakai), have almost identical inscriptions on their back sides. These inscriptions read that the images were (individually) donated to the Grand Duke by the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (d. 1425) on the occasion of his (New Trakai),278 or Lithuania’s (Old Trakai),279 conversion. Moreover, the Madonna of Trakai is said to be the Nicopea that helped the Emperor John Komnenos break the Persian siege and return to Constantinople in 1123; this legend was more widely known.280 The inscription on the Madonna of Trakai has no date. However, the handwriting suggests it was written in the eighteen century.281 The one from the Old Trakai was made in 1859.282 A more popular, though less detailed, legend has been perpetuated in the song dedicated to the Madonna of Trakai, known by its publication of 1754. It says that this is a picture painted by St. Luke. The Byzantine emperor customarily took this image to the battlefield. Manuel II

178

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

presented it to Vytautas in recognition of the Grand Duke’s merits. Vytautas placed the image on the altar of the parish church of Trakai. From that time on, the Virgin’s grace was never lacking for anybody.283 The relation between the stories and the pictures are fictional: there is no basis for dating these images to the fifteenth century, as they were obviously painted later. Moreover, the Madonna of Trakai is an oil painting.284 Traces of tempera on the image from Old Trakai testify to the painting’s earlier date; however, its style indicates complete overpainting in the early eighteenth century. What’s more, there is no evidence that Vytautas ever received any image from Byzantium. Nevertheless, the fact that there are two pictures employing similar iconography and surrounded by the same origin stories implies that there could have been a historical precedent that evoked the stories reflected in these pictures. Hence, with an eye to Manuel II’s foreign policy, one might speculate about the “information” inscribed on the images. First, the emperor’s principal activities were aimed at attracting Western help to a Constantinople under Turkish siege. Vytautas was also contacted during this search for aid.285 Secondly, Manuel frequently made gifts of relics to smooth his negotiations with Latin Christendom.286 Thus, it may have been that Vytautas received a gift from the emperor, and this gift could have been an icon. In any case, this hypothetical icon has perished except for the story, or, rather, legends about it. As a consequence, the story was applied to another image, the Madonna of Trakai, which later was made even more Byzantine-like. The influence of the story is also demonstrated by the fact that the picture of Old Trakai reflected it. Despite close iconography and nearly identical “origin” stories, the images differ in quality and renown. The Queen of Heaven from Old Trakai is a provincial artifact and became more widely known only after it was placed in Vilnius Cathedral in 1859.287 The Madonna of Trakai is a piece of professional painting. Moreover, it is acknowledged as miraculous, and frequently visited by pilgrims. From 1603 onwards, the Church has held an annual festival on September 8 in the Name of the Virgin Mary, which later became known as the festival of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Trakai. During the occupation of 1655, the Madonna of Trakai was hidden from the Muscovite army, and later was placed in the Royal/St. Casimir chapel of Vilnius Cathedral. After the war, the procession lead by four bishops and the whole clergy carried the image back to Trakai. The procession left through the Aušra (i.e., Dawn) Gate of Vilnius288 and, passing by Old Trakai, reached the church of New Trakai and the altar to which the Madonna belonged. All

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

179

these events took place on September 8, 1667.289 During the festival held on September 3–12, 1718, crowns for the Virgin and for the Child Jesus given by Pope Clement XI were affixed to the painting.290 Concerning the image of Vytautas, the repeating date September 8 is significant. It must be remembered that September 8, 1430 was the date of Vytautas’ intended coronation. Of course, these dates could be merely coincidental; however, this is unlikely. The description of the procession of the coronation of the blessed image supports such a hypothesis. One of the gates erected for the ceremony featured Vytautas, while the inscription by the Grand Duke read: “Mihi subtracta tibi reservata.” These words clearly allude to the crown: Vytautas was deprived of it, however, the Virgin Mary received the royal wreath.291 Once again, the scene hints at the Grand Duke’s special devotion to the Mother of God, already known from poems and Jesuit drama. Knowledge of Vytautas’ deeds strongly influenced religious consciousness, as well as its reflections. Mathias Sarbievius292 (1595–1640) wrote a cycle of poems describing a procession from Vilnius to Trakai held in gratitude for the victory at Chocim (1621). Each poem describes a mile along the procession’s route past a Tatar settlement. Sarbievius, naturally, recalls Vytautas’ deeds. The poet regards Tatar villages as lasting testimonies to Vytautas’ triumph. By halting the expansion of the Hordes, the Grand Duke protected all of Europe. Obviously, all his victories on the field were dedicated to the Virgin Mary: Vytautas generously gave her the booty. Importantly, the poem concludes with a scene of descendants of the great Lithuanian rulers bringing gifts to the Virgin.293 Sarbievius’ poem alludes to another special feature of the holy image of the Madonna of Trakai, namely, its connection to Lithuanian statehood. At the moment of the coronation of the image, the Madonna of Trakai was declared a patroness of Lithuania. The facts mentioned above indicated that the association of the painting with statehood had a longer history. Recently, Laima Šinkūnaitė has shown that the Madonna of Trakai held an established place within the Lithuanian national consciousness.294 It seems that this linkage also relates to the legend of Vytautas. Stories and beliefs close the circle: the Emperor presents Vytautas with an image, already renowned for its miraculous powers. Being placed in Trakai, the Virgin protects the state and her people—that is, she maintains the functions traditionally ascribed to the Grand Duke. Regardless of the fact that this construction is fictional, beliefs rather than facts are significant at this point.

180

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

The other object related to the name of Vytautas is the crown of the Madonna of Trakai, mentioned in the church treasury since 1717. The golden crown is richly decorated with precious stones and dates to the early seventeenth century. Although it was Chancellor Leo Sapieha (d. 1633) who donated the crown to the image, the actual donor has sunk into oblivion, while the precious jewel was associated with Vytautas’ name.295 The wooden Crucifix from the Cathedral of Vilnius (late seventeenth century) is also called the Cross of Vytautas. These two pieces are distinctive in their artistic quality. Thus, one may assume that outstanding artifacts were related to the outstanding personality of Vytautas. In addition to portable objects, two churches, a chapel, and an altar founded by Vytautas were generally referred to by the name of the Grand Duke, rather than by their holy title. Such is the case with the Franciscan church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Kaunas296 and the already mentioned church in Porkhov. Ecclesiastical and secular documents from Vilnius Cathedral refer to the chapel of Saint Michael and the altar of the Holy Cross297 as being those of Vytautas. The Lithuanian Metrica includes a sentence for the administrator of Queen Bona, Szymka Mackiewicz.298 He is accused of misappropriating goods presented to the chapel of Vytautas.299 As mentioned earlier, Queen Bona’s musician, Alessandro Pesseti, became the altarist of the altar of Vytautas when he joined the chapter of Vilnius cathedral in the early 1530s.300 After Bishop Protasiewicz provided for the reconstruction of this altar, it sometimes was named after both the bishop and Vytautas.301 These cases suggest that, in daily memory, the connection of these constructions and their prominent founder was much stronger, and probably more indicative, than the names of their holy patrons.

FOLKLORE TRADITION Traditions are invented and maintained through various means and expressions. Although usually rendered in writing, traditions become “real” when they enter popular memory and are conveyed by word of mouth. The fact of the oral transmission of folk culture frequently connects such messages with a particular language. The issue of the language becomes especially apparent in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, a country composed of many peoples speaking different tongues and worshiping according to different rites. Thus, the inquiry into the image of Vytautas as maintained by popular culture is necessarily divided along the different peoples who cherished that

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

181

tradition. The image of Vytautas was deeply rooted in the memory of the major nations of the commonwealth: Poles, Lithuanians, and Ruthenians. However, the non-Christian minorities of Tatars, Karaites, and Jews also revealed themselves as powerful and rather original engineers and adherents of the Grand Duke’s image.

Popular Memory The earliest evidence that Vytautas’ deeds were echoed in folklore comes from the early-modern Polish chronicles. In 1581, Albert Sarnicki noted, “songs about Wladislas … killed at Varna, about Vytautas and the Prussian war, … testify to the Polish tradition of singing about the great deeds of prominent men.”302 The Prussian war here refers to the battle of Grunwald. The best-known episode of the battle mentioned in each chronicle is the sending of two swords to the Polish–Lithuanian party. This episode has survived in folksongs. Kromer comments on this, noting that, until his time, popular songs tell about two bare and bloody swords, one of which was sent to the King and the other to Vytautas.303 The recorded song relates that Vytautas is going along the street with the two swords carried behind him.304

The Lithuanian Hero or the Son of a Vestal and a Knight By the sixteenth century, the image of Vytautas corresponded to most of the requirements applied to a ruler-hero: he was a man of virtue, a skillful military leader, a protector of state and nation, and a just monarch. The image was successfully appropriated by various users and served numerous, sometimes even opposite, goals. However, viewed from a more general perspective of royal imagery, the perception of Vytautas’ life and deeds missed a prequel: fifteenth-century texts are almost completely silent as to his parents. Although sources recorded the deeds of Vytautas’ father, Kęstutis, quite extensively, the Grand Duke’s mother did not attract the attention of chroniclers. Contemporary sources regarded Duke Kęstutis as a chivalrous warrior, protector of the nation, and guardian of the ancient faith. Widespread knowledge of the Duke’s military exploits against the Teutonic Knights as well as adventurous escapes from captivity strengthened his knightly qualities. Długosz’s characterization illustrates the Duke’s merits vividly, it reads: “among all the sons of Duke Gediminas, [Kęstutis] was the wisest and the

182

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

most diligent, and shone above all with the virtues of being polite, human, and trustworthy.” 305 Obviously, such a virtuous knight needed an equally noble spouse. Regrettably, medieval scribes neither recorded her name, nor provided details of her life. The scarce references to Kęstutis’ wife, or the mother of Vytautas, usually concern her death, or rather how she died.306 Thus, Vytautas’ image missed one of its major parts: the characteristics of the hero’s family and birth. After a long period of silence, Vytautas’ mother emerges from oblivion and anonymity in the sixteenth century. The earliest records about her come from the so-called Bykhoviets Chronicle.307 Compiled under the patronage of Chancellor Albert Goštautas308 in the 1520s, the Bykhoviets Chronicle became the most complete collection among the Lithuanian Annals. In addition to extensive accounts of the Lithuanian past and grand ducal authority, this chronicle also includes several important historical legends: the story of the Roman origins of the Lithuanians, that of the foundation of Vilnius, and the narrative concerning the marriage of the Lithuanian Duke Kęstutis to Birutė. While the first two legends are fundamental for the Gediminid dynasty, the third seems like a romantic digression. However, the legend’s internal evidence explains the idyllic excursus: it connects the parents to their heroic son. The entire story goes as follows: Kęstutis, who governed in Trakai and in Samogitia, learned that there was a girl in Palanga, Birutė309 by name. Following heathen beliefs, she promised the gods to maintain her chastity and was venerated by people as if she were a goddess. Kęstutis came to this place and liked the girl very much as she was very beautiful and clever. He asked her to become his wife. She did not agree saying that she had promised the gods to stay a virgin until her death. Kęstutis then took her forcefully from Palanga and accompanied her with honor to his capital in Trakai. There he invited his brothers and celebrated a huge wedding honoring Birutė as his wife. Once as Kęstutis was riding a mile away from Trakai, he found a very beautiful place surrounded by lakes. He settled there, founded a city, named it New Trakai, and transferred his capital to there. His son, Vytautas, was born in Old Trakai. After his father’s death, Vytautas founded the Church of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary in the place where he was born, and settled monks of the Order of St Augustine—the same order that inhabits the monastery of St Augustine in Tyniec close to Krakow—there.310

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

183

The two paragraphs separate the two themes of the legend. The first is concerned with Birutė and her marriage, the second, with Vytautas. Henceforth, I shall consider them accordingly. The legend tells us that Birutė occupied a distinguished position within the system of heathen beliefs and was venerated by the local people. As to Kęstutis, he fell in love with the clever and beautiful virgin and decided to marry her. Thus, the legend emphasizes the exceptional qualities of the bride and a marriage based on love, even if only on the groom’s side. Given the context of medieval marriages, the story of such a wedding must have been exceptional and, thus, continued to be remembered. Although the evidence concerning Birutė is fragmentary, there are enough grounds to state that her status was noble and her kin influential.311 Thus, even if this union was based on love, politics also counted. Jan Tęgowski is of a different opinion, and finds the grounds for the coup d’état of 1345 in this marriage. Supposing that Birutė was a pagan priestess, he hypothesized that the marriage of Kęstutis (dated 1343–44) violated heathen customs and, thus, provoked the opposition of his brother, Grand Duke Jaunutis. Consequently, Kęstutis revolted and dethroned Jaunutis. Later, he transferred the grand ducal seat to Algirdas.312 Given the scarce primary evidence, it is impossible either to confirm or to deny this daring hypothesis. Nevertheless, it is informative as to today’s perception of the marriage story. Concerning the other part of the legend, it relates the foundation of New Trakai, indicates the birthplace of Vytautas, and specifies his Christ-loving deeds there. Significantly, the text singles out Vytautas from the numerous children of the ducal couple.313 Viewed from the perspective of Vytautas’ imagery, the legend expands it with a singular story of his parents. Since its first record in the Bykhoviets Chronicle, the story of Kęstutis and Birutė has firmly entered historical narratives. What’s more, the story also enlarged upon Birutė’s spiritual devotion. According to Stryjkowski, there was already a mound in Palanga named after Birutė in the mid-sixteenth century. People from Samogitia and Curonia believed that Birutė was a saint and traditionally carried out Christian rites there.314 Another legend told that she had been buried at the foot of the hill.315 Stanisław Sarnicki,316 although referring to Stryjkowski, expands the story of Birutė’s veneration. He mentions her idol on the hill in Palanga, saying that Samogitians as well as Curonians used to give offerings to it.317 Sarnicki was a Calvinist and, consequently, his tale of idolatry could be an exaggeration. However, it is also mentioned that, in order to absorb Birutė’s veneration into

184

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Christian practices, Bishop Melcher Giedraitis318 invited Jesuits to Samogitia, who erected a statue of the Virgin Mary at the foot of the hill. Common people venerated the statue, believing that it represented Birutė.319 Archaeological excavations have revealed remnants of a heathen shrine, which also appear to have functioned as a kind of observatory. The cultural layer in which it has been found dates to the early fifteenth century. The site was abandoned during the late fifteenth–early sixteenth century. In 1506, a chapel to Saint George was built on the assumed place of Birutė’s grave and/or heathen shrine. The cult of Birutė continued to be popular as late as the mid-eighteenth century. However, veneration of the Duchess acquired the traditional features of that of a Christian saint. Although the statue of the Virgin Mary has perished,320 the chapel has been rebuilt several times, and the one built in 1869 has stood on the mound until today.321 We do not, of course, know whether Birutė was associated with the excavated shrine. Stephen C. Rowell has convincingly argued, however, that her priesthood is likely to have been genuine.322 Consequently, a kind of pseudo-divine veneration of Birutė survived into the early-modern age, and far beyond it.323 For example, after the plague of 1710, people gathered there, asking the ancient gods for mercy and expressing regret that they abandoned their forefathers’ beliefs. As Birutė was shaped according to the patterns of Christian sainthood, people made vows to her, and the Church incorporated the mound as a holy site.324 By the mid-seventeenth century Birutė held an established place within Lithuanian history. Koialowicz added the next addendum to her biography. His Historiae Litvanea claims that Birutė was a vestal virgin.325 The role of a vestal, of course, could have been determined by the use of the Latin language and by Długosz’s parallel between heathen Lithuanians and ancient Romans.326 Since then, the vestal aura of Birutė has never abandoned her image, and was laboriously shaped by the authors of Romanticism. Thus, during the early-modern period, Birutė was humanistically fashioned into a vestal virgin,327 while the mound associated with her was domicile to Christian rites. It is hard to believe that the development of Birutė’s story began only in the sixteenth century; an oral tradition seemingly preceded the recording of the legend. In this respect, Długosz offers some curious information. Relating the story of the captives taken at Grunwald, the historian mentions an incident between Vytautas and Markward of Salzbach. This story appears

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

185

in both historical texts left by Długosz, the Banderia Prutenorum328 and the Annales.329 It may be briefly summarized as follows: According to the testimony of Długosz’s father, Vytautas condemned Markward to death because the knight had once publicly called the Grand Duke’s mother a harlot and a shameless woman. This episode clearly refers to the year 1405, when the Teutonic Knights, and Markward in particular, offended Vytautas, imputing various infamies to and casting maledictions on his mother.330 At first glance, the story seems convincing. However, other sources, although referring to some disagreement in 1405, do not mention the offense to Vytautas’ mother.331 Prochaska and other scholars demonstrated that no other source confirms that Markward was decapitated because of the insults addressed to Vytautas’ mother. Hence the entire story is considered to be Długosz’s invention.332 Ekdahl suggested that the Markward was decapitated in revenge for the murder of Jogaila’s brother in 1390.333 Scholarly arguments aside, I suggest looking to the motives that could have caused Długosz to explain the story as a result of the offense to the Grand Duke’s mother. On the one hand, it may well be that the historian related what he knew through the participants in the battle, for example, his father334 or Bishop Zbigniew Oleśnicki. In such a case, the episode suggests that the connection between Vytautas and his mother was so strong that the Grand Duke was not bothered by the transgression of fundamental Christian moral principles, and condemned the noble prisoner to death. On the other hand, the story may have been invented. In that case, a credible scenario would be the following: writing ex post facto, Długosz sought to convincingly explain the beheading of the prisoners of war. The reason for such a misdeed had to be convincing, and public offense and insult to the mother’s honor was such. Moreover, Vytautas’ mother was perceived as a half-deity and her cult was popular in Lithuania (and perhaps known in Poland). In addition, Długosz’s explanation can be viewed in the light of Vytautas’ image. I have demonstrated earlier in this book that the Polish historian was quite consistent in maintaining an overall positive image of the Grand Duke. Hence, the beheading of the Markward had to be additionally explained in order to fit Vytautas’ perception. Either scenario shows that the veneration of Birutė was continuous, rather than invented, in the sixteenth century. Records from the Council of Constance enhance the credibility of this hypothesis. At Constance, the Teutonic Knights accused Jogaila of murdering

186

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Vytautas’ father and drowning his mother.335 To this the Polish party replied that the mother had lived a long life and her grave was venerated at the time of the Church Council.336 A critical commentator would explain the Polish reply simply: the legates had to provide an answer to the accusation. However, a more sensitive eye would notice a reference to the veneration of Birutė’s grave. Traditional Christian formula would indicate the cherished memory of the esteemed deceased, rather than his/her grave. Hence, I assume that the venerated grave of Birutė coincides with the mound in Palanga named after her. Given all this, the myth of Birutė was a living memory, popular among the common people, who rendered it as part of an oral tradition and thus preserved it to be written down later. Viewed in such a light, Kęstutis and Birutė made a very Lithuanian couple: Kęstutis was associated with the state, her defense, and warfare, Birutė, with spirituality; both were faithful to the traditions and beliefs of their ancestors. The story of Vytautas’ parents, the vestal/priestly qualities of his mother, who was venerated by the common people, and the chivalrous virtues of the father, an outstanding personality among the Lithuanian rulers, could have served as a precondition for their son’s great deeds. Moreover, the extraordinary popularity of Vytautas in Lithuanian society is likely to have been “programmed” into his parents: the image of the mother enabled him to become a national hero, while that of the father predestined him to be a skillful and militant ruler in the eyes of the people.

The Everlasting Imprints of the Grand Duke’s Deeds Vytautas’ deeds were not only perpetuated in words and images. The heroic ventures of the Grand Duke also left their imprint on the ground. Given the fact that memory fades even in the soil, these traces were preserved on maps and in words. In 1613, Nicholas Christopher Radvila, called the Orphan (1549–1616), initiated the making of the map of the Grand Duchy. The entire enterprise was meant to demonstrate the vastness of the Lithuanian territory. However, as time passed, the territories shrank. Nevertheless, the Dnieper River appeared on the map separately. The legend accompanying the layout of the river reads that such a huge water source deserves special attention. These motives were supported by additional argument: the Dnieper reflects the boundaries of the country under Vytautas.337 This is not the only cartographic reference to the Grand Duke. The same

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

187

map indicates a place called balneum Vitoldi.338 This site must have been a significant stimulus for memories of the great ruler, since it is mentioned by both Michalonus Lituanus 339 and Guagnini (on the Dnieper River close to Tanais).340 Although the word balneum means “bath,” this building housed customs.341 For Lituanus it testified to the commercial success of Lithuania under the Grand Duke. A similar “bath” of Vytautas was built somewhere near the mouth of the River Bug. The question of whether the word “bath”, used to denote customs, meant that Vytautas “washed” tradesmen of their goods and money, or whether it had any other connotation, remains open. Ruins of a bridge were also found by the customs “bath” on the River Bug. According to local tradition, both constructions were attributed to Vytautas, “that most celebrated and bellicose leader.” 342 Similarly to the South, the northern territories also preserved memories of the paths taken by the Grand Duke. The theater of the Livonian war mapped by Thomas Makowski indicated a place called “Ecclesia Vitoldi” at the sources of the Daugava/Zapadnaya Dzvina River.343 As the poems discussed above reveal, this location and the building appealed to the troops of Radvila the Thunderer. The oral tradition mentions Vytautas’ bridge, “Vitoldi pons,” somewhere in that region. According to Reinold Heidenstein,344 royal secretary to Stephan Bathory, by the end of the sixteenth century Cossacks called a place at the source of Daugava River the bridge of Vytautas. They told that, after the Grand Duke had crossed the place with his troops, no one was able to repeat the same maneuver.345 Today, one can only conjecture as to whether this bridge crossed the same stream of Vytautas close to the church he had founded that is mentioned by Kochanowski,346 or whether this was some other creek than the one the Grand Duke crossed, giving the source his name. The ford of Vytautas on the River Boh offers another testimony to leaving one’s name to water sources. The legend says that, after the defeat at the Vorskla River, the Grand Duke retreated through this ford.347 The well of Vytautas found in the description of the Lithuanian forests made in 1559 by Gregory Bogdanovich Volovich (d. after 1576)348 was somewhere in the vicinity of Pinsk, although its location cannot be pinpointed with any certainty. Moreover, Volovich offers no information as to the origin of such a title. Nevertheless, a Tatar legend about the origins of the village Studzianka, to be discussed further, provides one parallel. In the case of Volovich’s survey, one can only speculate as to why the well bore the Grand Duke’s name. Vytautas must have had some connection with water reservoirs, since more than one spot bore the same name.349

188

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

The list of places associated with the Grand Duke might be extended further: for example, Lake Nevel in the Vitebsk region used to be named after Vytautas, and the footsteps of the Grand Duke must have been perpetuated by the road in his name. Regrettably, the motives for these attributions have been lost. Neither is it known why the two huge, unusually shaped, rocks are called Vytautas’ plate and fork (near the Lake Voronech and River Usachy).350 To my mind, fairy tales may offer insightful parallels. They hint at a widespread association between some outstanding natural object and a fairy hero, who either left his/her marks on it, or used it in some superhuman way.351 Hence, one may think that Vytautas’ “plate and fork” were meant to reflect the unusual might of the Lithuanian ruler. The fragmentary evidence connected with places, constructions, and objects that bore or used to bear Vytautas’ name testify to the popular perceptions of the Grand Duke’s deeds and his image. By the same token, these mentions of his name fill the gap in references to Vytautas in folklore. The sites associated with Vytautas functioned as the lieux de mémoire for local people. More than that, citizens of the Grand Duchy who came to these faraway places felt their historical appeal and viewed them as testimonies to the golden age under the pater patriae.

The Traditions of Lithuanian Tatars, Karaites, and Jews Tartars and Karaites are peoples of different religions, the former are Muslim,352 the latter, Mosaist or, rather, Karaite.353 However, common Turkic, or, more precisely, Kipchak, origins and, most importantly, their relation to Grand Duke Vytautas firmly associate these communities with each other. Tatars and Karaites find their roots in the Grand Duchy from the resettlements of 1397 and 1398, respectively. According to tradition, Vytautas brought Tatars from the steppes of Kipchak in 1397. A year later he repeated this practice in the Crimea. It seems that this time he not only brought Tatars but Karaites as well.354 This is the reason why Vytautas became Lithuanian patron of both communities.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITHUANIAN TATARS A brief glimpse at the resettlement story provides a quite clear picture of Vytautas’ place in the history of the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites; however, a closer look into the sources reveals a more complex image. Therefore, the historical background of Tatars and Karaites must be introduced separately.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

189

I begin with the Tatars. Their resettlement is documented in written sources and most explicitly told by Długosz. His entry from the year 1397 reads that Vytautas, in the hope of gaining recognition as a Christian prince, carried out his first campaign against the Tatars. Having assembled Polish, Lithuanian, and Ruthenian troops, he marched beyond the River Don, and even the Volga. Without any obstacles, the Grand Duke reached the land of the Tatars called the Horde. There he captured many thousands of Tatars together with their wives, children, and cattle, and brought all of them to Lithuania. He gave half of the prisoners to King Jogaila, while he settled the other half in the Lithuanian lands. Tatars that were sent to Poland adopted the Christian faith and gradually merged with the local people. The ones left in Lithuania worshipped Mohammed and lived according to their godless beliefs.355 Długosz’s reference to the division of the prisoners became a matter of dispute. In the sixteenth century, as the Chronicle of Marcin Bielski testifies, Lithuanian Tatars denied their “captive” descent, saying that they have been invited to assist the Grand Duke in wars with the Teutonic Knights.356 The motif of captives must have been quite popular. Naturally, it was echoed in the anti-Muslim texts of the seventeenth century. Actually, Rotundus already mentioned that Vytautas, having subjugated the Hordes, brought the cruelest Tatars to Lithuania to make it easier to control them.357 Rotundus’ texts do not provide further information concerning his attitudes towards the Lithuanian Tatars. He might either have considered them fierce people, or likewise regarded them favorably, assuming the cruel horsemen had been re-educated into good citizens. Whatever the Humanist position, the Baroque authors had no doubts concerning the Tatars’ captive origins.358 Among them, the author cloaked in the pseudonym of Czyzewski was most pronounced in this respect. Two anti-Tatar treatises appeared under Czyzewski’s name. As they are identical in content (actually the difference is only in the order of the sections), I shall consider here the better-known piece entitled Alfvrkan Tatarski ….359 The author says that having defeated the Hordes of Noghai and Tanais, Vytautas drove the Tatars (like cattle) to the Grand Duchy. As to the motives, the “driving” of the Tatars was intended to demonstrate the Grand Duke’s triumph. Soon after this, the author begins debating about the captive origins of the resettled people. He denies Tatar tradition, according to which Tatars came to Lithuania as free warriors to assist Vytautas in the wars with the Teutonic Knights. Were it that way, writes Czyzewski, the Grand Duke could not have donated a free people to King Jogaila. Moreover, the Tatars

190

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

could not offer any military assistance, because at that time they were naked, barefoot, and armed only with swords and arrows. Obviously, such weapons were useless against armored knights. Then, the Alfvrkan considers the celebrated battle of Grunwald, and the Tatar “merits” there. According to the pamphletist, the Tatars earned renown twice: for the first time on their way to the battlefield, robbing manor houses and churches (thus, the Grand Duke ordered the guilty to hang themselves). The second merit was the Tatar retreat from the battlefield. Having provided his interpretation, Czyzewski connects his opinion with the realities of his own time: Tatars continue the robberies, as their wealth and richly decorated sabers testify.360 Finally, the pamphlet reflects upon the geography of Tatar settlement, the fact that the Muslim villages surrounding Vilnius occupy his attention. The explanation is as follows: by settling Tatars around the grand ducal capital, Vytautas wanted them for gardeners, to ensure fresh vegetables on his table.361 Of course, Czyzewski went much too far in his interpretations; however, as a skillful and angry (the title page of the Alfvrkan indicates that the author’s mother was killed by a Tatar) pamphleteer, he addressed sensitive issues, such as Tatar descent and social status. Significantly for Vytautas’ image, the anti-Tatar polemicist never reproaches the Grand Duke for bringing the “evil Muslims” to his realm. The issue of free or captive Tatar origins did not lose its importance, even in the twentieth century. Stanisław Kryczyński, in discussing the beginnings of Tatar settlement, found it necessary to explain that Tatars who were left in Lithuania were free allies of Vytautas, while those sent to Poland were captives.362 In any case, the fact that the major part of the resettled Tatars were not forced to convert to Christianity reflects credit on Lithuania and her rulers. While the resettlement story told by Długosz and in other narratives363 explains the establishment of Tatar communities within the Grand Duchy, it is quite clear that some Tatars lived in Lithuania even prior to Vytautas’ reign.364 It seems that during the thirteenth century Tatars began settling in the southern parts of Ruthenia. The Tatar population increased in number during the reign of Algirdas.365 It has been suggested that quite a large group of Tatars led by Mamay’s son, Mansur Kitay, moved to Lithuania after the defeat on the Kulikovo Pole (1380).366 As to the reason for Tatar settlement in Lithuania, it had been explained by Vytautas himself: in 1427, the Grand Duke wrote that Tatars were fleeing

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

191

to his realm in search of peace and stability.367 From Vytautas’ words this reasoning passed into scholarship, gradually becoming “common knowledge.” Whatever the explanations, everyday life seems to have been much more prosaic.368 Some Lithuanian Tatars were forced to accept Christianity.369 What’s more, not all of them found Vytautas’ regime a paradise: Records from the year 1421 testify to a Tatar revolt. Grand ducal troops suppressed the uprising and executed its participants.370 The rebels must have learned obedience, since their life conditions did not improve. The Order’s letter of April 25, 1422 mentions that about eight thousand Tatars assembled near Lutsk asking Vytautas’ to permit an incursion because they were starving.371 Whatever the reality, and how significantly the conditions of the Lithuanian Tatars differed from those of the indigenous population and those of Tatars within the hordes, remain open questions. However, Lithuania did retain an aura of being a better place to live, and Tatars continued moving to the Grand Duchy throughout the fifteenth century.372

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LITHUANIAN KARAITES In contrast to the quite extensive sources mentioning the Tatar arrival, the story of Karaite settlement in the Grand Duchy is related only by their own tradition. One of its versions tells that Vytautas brought them from Crimea in the year 1218.373 Such a discrepancy in chronology encouraged scholars to question the entire issue of Karaite resettlement.374 Naturally, skeptical scholarly minds try to expose the image of Vytautas and search for other dates for the Karaite appearance in Lithuania. They also suggest a different hypothesis of their origins, as well as different scenarios of their arrival in Lithuania.375 Jacob Mann, who definitely rejected the date of 1218, was quite sure that Karaites were already living in Trakai in the mid-fourteenth century.376 The other source of scholarly inspiration contributing to the date of Karaite arrival is the privilege Vytautas’ granted to the Jews of Brest-Litovsk on June 2, 1388. Despite the fact that this privilege was meant for the Rabbinite Jews,377 it is frequently assumed that it concerned Karaites as well. A recent article by Jan Tyszkiewicz is the furthest step taken in this respect.378 The author argues that Karaites must have arrived in Lithuania earlier than 1398 because Vytautas issued the privilege to the Karaites of Trakai [sic] in 1388. To illustrate the Karaite service to the future Grand Duke, Tyszkiewicz tries to persuade his readers that Vytautas received Karaite assistance in rescuing Basil Dimitrievich from Tatar captivity and arranging the marriage between Basil

192

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

and Vytautas’ daughter, Sophia. The article concludes that Karaites settled in Trakai during Kęstutis’ reign in 1382.379 In addition to expressing doubts, many authors rely on Karaite tradition locating the resettlement of 383 (other texts mention 483) 380 families in the year 1398.381 Whatever the guesses concerning the exact date, Karaite settlement in Trakai must precede 1400—that is, the year when the earliest surviving Karaite document was issued.382 Concerning the circumstances of the Karaite arrival in Lithuania, the parallel from Galicia is enlightening. Among the manuscripts that once belonged to the Karaites of L’viv is a narrative written in Polish relating how the community appeared in Galicia. It includes the following story: in 1243, Khan Batu concluded the peace treaty with the Croatian383 [sic] king, Daniel.384 This agreement contained a clause according to which the Tatar king would permit one hundred Karaite families to leave Crimea for Galicia and settle in the king’s residential town. By resettling the Karaites, King Daniel aimed at intensifying commerce between the East and the lands of Russia, that is, Croatia.385 This story was created in the eighteenth century386 and its sources have not been defined. Some chronicles of the Galician Karaites (which perished in a fire in 1813) dated the appearance of their community to 1246.387 For the purpose of this study, however, the following two aspects are important: firstly, the Karaite arrival is connected with the celebrated rulers of the thirteenth century and, secondly, with settlement in Daniel’s royal possessions. Both facts make the story quite analogous to that of the appearance of Karaites in Trakai. Moreover, one version of the Karaite resettlement legends says that Vytautas founded Trakai in order to house the Karaites.388 The only difference from the stories of Karaite settlement in other counties389 is that the Karaites of Lithuania relate themselves primarily to the military profession.390 Topographical data confirm this assumption: Karaite settlements are located in the vicinity of strategically important strongholds and form densely inhabited quarters.391

THE UNIFYING MILITARY VIRTUES It has already been mentioned that according to Karaite tradition, they arrived in the Grand Duchy from the Crimea along with the Tatars. Having the reputation of being extremely mobile and skillful warriors, Tatars were both fierce enemies and desirable allies for the Lithuanian rulers. Naturally, Vytautas accepted Tatars in his lands with military purposes in mind. Ta-

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

193

tar virtues in the field became a focal point in their self-perception as well as their social status.392 During the early-modern period, Tatars occupied a specific place within the economy of the Grand Duchy, serving as carters, envoys, gardeners, and couriers. Nevertheless, they are overwhelmingly associated with military service. Like Tatars, Karaites also associate themselves with the military profession. The earliest reference that may allude to Karaite warriors comes from a description of the battle of Grunwald left by the anonymous chronicler of Bavaria. Enumerating the nations that composed the Polish–Lithuanian troops, the author also mentions Jews.393 While it was usual to include various non-Christian people among the forces of the allies, this record is noteworthy because of its certain precision. The chronicle names Tatars, Samogitians, Lithuanians, and Jews—that is, all the people, except for the Jews, whose participation in the battle has never been questioned. It would be too daring a decision to claim that this brief and only reference alludes to the Karaite warriors among Vytautas’ forces; nevertheless, attention must be paid even to this fragmentary entry.394 Moreover, known fragments of Karaite documents (the archives of the community perished in Smolensk in 1943) called them grand ducal warriors or colonels.395 Other testimonies ascribe to Karaites service in the personal guard of the grand duke.396 Although never demonstrated among contemporary evidence, this supposition is credible given the practice of medieval, especially eastern, rulers to surround themselves with foreign guards (as a rule, foreigners have less interest in murdering their lord).397 The military profession exercised by the Karaites of Trakai is noted in the privilege of 1665398 and is also testified to in the collection of arms and weapons of the Karaite museum in Trakai.399 It is said that, in the nineteenth century, the Karaites of Trakai used to gallop on their horses to the island castle, thus, remembering and being reminded of their service to the Lithuanian rulers.400 As for the legal sources, they provide only limited information:401 grand ducal jurisprudence usually employs the same word—“Jew”—to denote both Karaites and Rabbinite Jews. Recently, Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė has shed new light on the entire matter. Having analyzed records from the Lithuanian Metrica, she demonstrated that Jews appear either simply as Jews or as “our” (meaning, grand ducal) Jews in charters. Together with circumstantial evidence, these terms may be shown to allude to the Jews and Karaites, respectively402 and also to indicate grand ducal concern with “our Jews.” The

194

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

earliest document that clearly distinguishes between Karaites and Jews is the privilege of Wladislas IV Vasa, issued to the Karaites of Trakai in 1646.403 To briefly summarize the evidence and theories, it is rather clear that the establishment of Tatar and Karaite communities in Lithuania was the result of Vytautas’ actions, for the most part determined by the Grand Duke’s military interests.404 Despite numerous occupations that the resettled people got involved in, both communities traditionally regard their members primarily as warriors.

THE WARRIOR PATRON OF THE TATARS Let me now introduce sources pertaining to the Lithuanian Tatars. Tatar literature stands autonomously within the written tradition of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. This is due to their Muslim faith as well as their use of Arabic script for the Ruthenian language.405 In matters of daily life, Tatars had an established position within the society of the Grand Duchy.406 Therefore, Vytautas, the resettler and the warrantor of Tatar legal status, is an essential and unconditionally glorified figure. Texts that all studies on Lithuanian Tatars refer to vividly illustrate the power of the Grand Duke’s image. These are the letter to Sigismund the Old from 1519 and the account of an anonymous Tatar pilgrim from 1558. The letter reads: “We do not have the blessed memory Vytautas any more. He did not allow us to forget our prophet, thus, when looking towards the holy places we repeat his name as we repeat the names of our caliphs … and our children know about him …”407 The pilgrim’s text entitled Rissalei Tatari Leh408 was written for Sultan Sulejman.409 It recounts that Tatars in Lithuania worship the great Polish king Wattad410 who has resettled them in the Grand Duchy. This king is like a column supporting Islam in the northern countries. Therefore, one day annually is dedicated to his memory. Muslims living in the Grand Duchy visit their mosques and remember him in their prayers.411 Muchliński hypothesized that there may have been prayers commemorating Vytautas.412 Besides these texts, the Grand Duke also appears in Tatar folklore. One of the popular legends says that Vytautas permitted Tatar polygamy in order to increase the number of his favored subjects.413 This brief popular explanation of the Muslim lifestyle clearly illustrates the power of Vytautas’ image. The Grand Duke’s wish appears to be more important than practices pertaining to faith. Stories on the origins of Tatar settlements and families also contribute to Vytautas’ image. As a rule, the oral tradition tries to prove itself by referring

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

195

to a well-known object, a thing, a place, a moment in history, which serves as lieu de mémoire.414 These local memories associate with a particular object that serves as proof of their truth and, at the same time, provides a link to a larger past. The legend of the beginnings of Studzianka village (in Poland) goes as follows: Once upon a time, Grand Duke Vytautas passed through that region and admired a spot called Dolina (Pl., valley). Returning from the wars in the far-away countries, he used to visit that place. Most of all, he enjoyed drinking the clear and cool water from the local spring. Later, the spring was enclosed to form a little well (Pl., studnia). The Tatars, who settled there, called that place Studzianka.415 The Tatar village known as Sorok Tatary416 close to Vilnius has several origin stories. One of them concerns Vytautas: Once upon a time, the Grand Duke granted vast, although uninhabited, lands to Tatar warriors. In order to populate his possessions, one of these Tatars married four women at the same time. The four wives bore him forty sons. When the brothers grew up, they established a settlement, which became known as Sorok Tatary in the Belarusian tongue.417 As to family origins, these not only refer to Vytautas, but also incorporate another key event from Polish–Lithuanian history, the battle of Grunwald. Understandably, many Tatars claimed that their predecessors appeared in the Grand Duchy during Vytautas’ reign. A number of families indicated that their forefathers arrived in Lithuania with the troops of Dzhelal-al-Din (known in Latin as Saladin), who led Tatar forces to victory in Grunwald.418 Sometimes the military motif is exploited more thoroughly. For example, records from the nineteenth century told that the Bielak family associated their origins in Lithuania with an ancient bow, a relic from their ancestor Kara Mirza. The latter participated in numerous battles against Lithuania, but Vytautas overcame the Tatars. Badly wounded, Kara Mirza became the Grand Duke’s captive. Vytautas, a merciful ruler and brave knight, transformed these prisoners into his warriors, granting them lands within his realm. Kara Mirza received his share in the Losta region. The Grand Duke changed his name into Bielak (the white) as opposed to Kara, which means “black” in the Tatar tongue. Bielak faithfully served Vytautas, earning numerous favors from the Grand Duke.419 420 The nobility confirmation of the Dovgial family, issued in 1819, includes the following story: during the time of Vytautas, Lithuania was frequently at war with her neighbors. Vytautas invited the Crimean Tatars to assist him in warfare. This was the time when the forerunners of the Dzh-

196

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

alair Murza Dovgial family came to Lithuania. In acknowledgement of their heroism, Vytautas granted lands to the family.421

THE FAIRY PRINCE OF THE KARAITES Closely linked with the Tatars, the Lithuanian Karaites were less prominent in the public life of the Grand Duchy. As time passed, the military profession ceded its importance to trade and scholarly activity.422 In the sixteenth century, Trakai was renowned for its Karaite students of the Torah and their theological treatises.423 The works of Isaac ben Abraham of Trakai (ca. 1533 – ca. 1594) were widely acknowledged by the Karaites and also contributed to Lutheran scriptural studies.424 As to the image of Vytautas, the esteem with which Karaites regarded the Grand Duke is well illustrated by the fact that, whenever his name was mentioned, it was always followed by the blessing: “may peace be with him.”425 Moreover, in the Kipchak dialect, the mother tongue of Lithuanian Karaites, Vytautas is said to have been called Vatat Bij, that is, the king who routs the enemy.426 Understandably, Karaites as well as Tatars associated their origins with Vytautas’ name and actions. The Karaite memorial to the Grand Diet of 1790 describes the actual and desired situation of Karaites within the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, naturally emphasizing Vytautas’ resettlement and continuously stressing their distinctiveness from the Jews.427 Karaite oral history most vividly illustrates the glorious and everlasting deeds of the Grand Duke. It has already been mentioned that some legends ascribe the foundation of Trakai to Vytautas’ wish to provide the Karaites with their own town.428 Similarly, the community of Lutsk dated its establishment to Vytautas’ resettlement activities.429 A story recorded in the early twentieth century offers an interesting explanation of Vytautas’ reasons for bringing the Karaites to the Grand Duchy. It recounts that some 600 or 700 hundred years ago the Grand Duke was passing through the Crimea. There, he heard Karaite schoolchildren singing the prophecies of Isaiah. Vytautas liked the learned mode of praying, entered the school, and took the Karaites, of whom he settled about eighty families in Galicia, to Lithuania and Poland .430 In addition to origin stories, Vytautas appears in Karaite fairy tales. One of these legends relates that at some time, during the early stages of the Karaites’ arrival in Trakai, it was raining so heavily that the waters from the lake Galvė rose up over Karaite Street, endangering the survival of the community. Karaite men were fighting in far-away battles, and there was no

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

197

one to protect the women and households. In the face of such a disaster, the people realized that only Vytautas could help them. Thus, the Karaite women assembled and approached Vytautas in search of support and protection. The Grand Duke looked through the window of his castle and addressed the ladies in their own tongue. He assured them that he would find the means to prevent the troubles and, without the slightest hesitation, mounted his white horse and galloped to the place of disaster. There, Vytautas ordered his horse to drink the waters of the flood and the latter immediately obeyed the order. The horse drank, the waters receded, and the people prayed. Soon the flood was over and the Karaites returned home to tell everyone about the glory of the Duke and his horse. Meanwhile the horse rose up like a mountain and slowly marched to the Karaite fields. Lake Puvus (Lt., rotten) was formed in the place where it spat out the waters. Even today, the waters of the lake on the edge of the town have the smell of sweat, reminding the townspeople of the miraculous horse of Vytautas.431 The other story explains the specific architecture of the Karaites in Trakai. While Karaites living in other parts of the Grand Duchy adapted local building traditions, those of Trakai built their houses with three windows facing the street side. This shape, uncommon in Lithuania, was explained as a replica of Vytautas’ palace of the island-castle, which has three side windows. In this way, following the shape of the Grand Duke’s favorite residence, Karaites perpetuated his memory and emphasized their link with him.432 Karaites did not cease generating myths about Vytautas even in the twentieth century. The legend entitled “Alankasar” (i.e., the hero) offers a vivid illustration of such engineering and also shows the long life of Karaite adherence to Vytautas. The story is as follows: Alankasar was the son of Vytautas’ councilor Zarakh, whom the Grand Duke ordered to hand out presents and pass on his regards to the khan of Crimea. On the way south, robbers attacked the young man in an attempt to steal carriages full of precious furs. Alankasar began to fight with the chief of the robbers. When his father noticed that the son would soon be victorious, he warned Alankasar not to kill his opponent, but rather to cut off his ear. The son followed this suggestion. Moreover, he bandaged the chieftain’s wounds with a cloth torn from his own shirt. Impressed by the young man’s virtue, the chieftain gave Alankasar a ring, which protected the carts throughout their way to Solkhat. The messengers handed the khan the gifts from Vatat Bij and forwarded his regards. The young man was acknowledged for his excellence and was given the name of Alankasar, meaning the hero.433

198

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

The story would not seem extraordinary if Władysław Syrokomla had not recorded it without a single reference to Vytautas, but as a tale from the seventeenth century.434 To my mind, such late amendment of the legend with Vytautas’ name testifies to the longevity of, and reliance upon, the Grand Duke’s image. Probably the greatest portion of Karaite tales and sentiment is related to Trakai. Seeing the decay of the grand ducal castles, the community took on the role of guardians of its history and Vytautas’ memory.435 It is easy to understand the significance of Vytautas’ image for the community whose proverb says that tradition is half of religion.436 Clearly, the story of the resettlement played a significant role in their lives as late as 1920. Having returned from evacuation during the World War I, Karaites considered their road back to Trakai as a repetition of their arrival in Vytautas’ times.437 Moreover, the motif of the Tatar and Karaite appearance in Trakai has been exploited on various historical occasions438 and was impressively staged in 1997, during the events dedicated to the 600th anniversary of Tatar and Karaite settlement in Lithuania. *** To summarize, regardless of a number of opposing scholarly arguments, Tatar and Karaite tradition has the resettlement story as its source. Both communities had a very strong bond with the name, personality, and image of Grand Duke Vytautas. What’s more, Vytautas’ image in Tatar and Karaite folklore is unique: Lithuanian folk tradition proper left no myths about him. Thus, Tatar and Karaite minorities have not only successfully filled the gap in popular mythology, but also considered their patron quite differently. I refer to the fact that Vytautas is venerated as a resettler. Usually, the fact of resettlement implies negative connotations, Philip of Macedonia being the classical example, not to mention the Eastern European experience of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.439 In contrast to general practices, the Tatar and Karaite image of the Grand Duke, the resettler, is an entirely positive construction.

THE LEGISLATOR FOR THE JEWS The picture of non-Christian minorities of the Grand Duchy would remain incomplete if Jews were not considered.440 This is especially so given that, in the nineteenth century, the Lithuanian Jews regarded Vytautas as legal warrantor of Jewish status and welfare. Such a perception is grounded in the

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

199

fact that, as early as 1388, while still governor of the Ruthenian principalities, Vytautas issued a privilege to the Jews of Brest-Litovsk441 and, a year later, a privilege to the Jewish community in Grodna.442 In 1507, the privilege of 1388 was extended to all Jews living within the Grand Duchy.443 This privilege followed the one issued to Polish Jewry by Boleslas the Devout 444 in 1264. It is assumed that the Jews of Brest borrowed the privilege from the Jewish community in L’viv. Vytautas styled his charter after these contemporary models, but added some details more favorable to the Jews. For example, Jews were permitted to maintain their faith and perform their rituals openly, to practice usury, to swear oaths according to their customs, and punishment was promised for those accusing Jews of the ritual murder of children.445 This privilege of 1388 constituted the basis of the legal and economic situation of Lithuanian Jewry. Rulers reconfirmed it many times and its statements were shaped into the articles of the Lithuanian Statutes. Thus, in Jewish tradition, Vytautas’ role was that of legislator and guarantor of their rights. The Grand Duke’s name was evoked when the community sought renewal of the rights he once granted.

IN OTHER COUNTRIES Russia: Warrior of the Neighbors Russian446 sources fall into two major groups: annals and political treatises. The annals provide quite extensive information concerning Vytautas’ life and actions. On the other hand, this information is highly repetitive, and one and the same story appears in nearly each and every code of the annals. Concerning the general perception of the Grand Duke, his image is based on several viewpoints: First, there is respect for a ruler. Therefore, Vytautas is never treated in an exclusively negative manner. Even if the story might be interpreted in a negative way, the annalists reserved their judgment. The other two points counterbalance the ruler’s aura; these are: his Catholic faith and Lithuanian origin. Another aspect that influences the perception of Vytautas is the style of narration. Vytautas was a foreign ruler. Thus, the annalists rather loosely applied norms pertaining to his status. Consequently, the Grand Duke appears in some curious situations, which, from today’s perspective, are close to being adventure stories. As to the historical framework, the key moments are as follows: the civil war of the 1380s, Vytautas’ recognition as the Grand Duke,

200

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the battle by the Vorskla River, the appointment of Gregory Camblak as metropolitan, the capture of Smolensk, invasions into Pskov, Novgorod, and Muscovy, and the reception of guests in Vilnius while awaiting the crown. The fact that the annals are silent as to the crown, and regard the entire event as a feast, is important. For the most part, the annals concentrate on the Grand Duke’s military deeds in the Russian territories. Threatening Smolensk, the sack of Riazan’, and attempts to gain at least partial control over Novgorod were exploits that attracted the attention of the annalists.447 However, these actions are not judged and the vocabulary suggests they simply correspond to the rulerwarrior type of behavior. Nevertheless, the subjugation of Smolensk by deceit commanded historical attention. The story runs as follows: Vytautas declared that he was marching against Khan Temir-Kutlugh. He camped close to Smolensk and received Gleb Sviatoslavovich there. At the moment of parting, Vytautas told the young prince he had heard about the dispute concerning the division of patrimony between Gleb and his brother, and offered to solve the conflict peacefully.448 Having relied on the judgment of a third party, the brothers, accompanied by noblemen, came out to Vytautas’ camp. Vytautas captured all his guests and sent them to Lithuanian prisons. He occupied the town of Smolensk along with the entire principality and nominated his vice-governor there.449 This “just division of patrimony” must have impressed the locals, since reminiscences about Vytautas’ judgment survived in the oral tradition. When Vytautas declared he was marching against Temir-Kutlugh, the latter was about to invade Muscovy. Grand Prince Basil ordered the holy icon of the Mother of God to be brought from Vladimir to Moscow. The icon was transferred and Temir-Kutlugh had a dream predicting his defeat in Muscovy. Hence, the Tatar leader returned to the steppes. Meanwhile, Vytautas occupied Smolensk. There, the entire story resulted in a saying: “The Mother of God goes to others, Lithuania comes to us.”450 The description of the battle by the Vorskla River is much more explicit. Obviously, any collision with the Tatars was of special interest to the Russian annalists; hence, the preparations and the conflict are described at length. In comparison to Vytautas’ “manifesto,” known from medieval sources, the early-modern annals complemented the story with a moral: the one who aspired too much fell too deep. As far as the details are concerned, the Russian scribes concentrated on the shameful escape of Vytautas’ ally Tokhtamysh, rather than on the similar survival scenario of the Grand Duke.451

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

201

As to the years following 1400, the entries simply record Vytautas’ military incursions into Russian territories. As the annals do not comment upon the character of the warfare, it is hard to draw conclusions with respect to the Grand Duke’s image. It is evident that the name of Vytautas occurs much more frequently than do the names of the Russian princes. Thus, the annals create an impression that Vytautas has been an especially active and mobile warrior. The entries from the later years of the Grand Duke’s reign include several anecdotal episodes. These descriptions are noteworthy, as they provide us with different judgments regarding Vytautas at the peak of his power and glory. The annals give quite a detailed outline of the threat to Pskov and to Novgorod in 1426 and 1428, respectively. Vytautas assembled a huge force consisting of Lithuanians, Poles, Czechs, Vlachs, and Lithuanian Tatars, as well as Tatar mercenaries from the hordes, and headed for Pskov. The army reached the town of Opochko in the Pskovian principality. Local people took refuge behind the town walls, but prepared an ambush by placing sharpened poles under the bridge. As soon as the enemies marched onto the bridge, the citizens released it and the horsemen were impaled on the poles. Then the townsmen tortured the captives and skinned them alive. Being ashamed of such a disaster, Vytautas quickly abandoned the siege and marched to a town called Voronov. At night, there was a tremendous storm and Vytautas became frightened to death. He seized the pole of his tent and prayed for God’s mercy.452 In the morning an embassy arrived, reproaching Vytautas for sacking their lands. Later, the envoys from Pskov appeared and begged for mercy. They concluded a peace and promised to pay Vytautas a ransom of 3000 rubles. However, as the annals note, the Pskovians never paid that sum.453 Even more curious is the description of the campaign against Novgorod. This time, Vytautas not only assembled numerous troops but also had many cannons and attack weapons. One cannon, called Daw, was of an enormous size. Forty horses pulled it until noon, another forty in the afternoon, and the third group of forty horses pulled it until evening. The German gunmaster Nicolas was extremely proud of the Daw. Having reached the town called Porkhov, the master told Vytautas that he could ruin the town and the church of St. Nicolas. He fired the cannon and it exploded and tore the gunmaster into pieces, killing many soldiers. The story of the cannon resulted in a proverb: “Yan’s cannon kills his own people.”454 In fact, the cannon did ruin the town walls and shot a hole

202

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

through the church. Vytautas’ troops entered Porkhov, sacked the city, killed its palatine, and marched towards Novgorod. The posadnik and the archbishop came out to meet the army. The city paid 9000 rubles, the bishop added 2000 to this sum, and Vytautas returned home.455 During this campaign, Vytautas founded the church of the Holy Trinity in Porkhov.456 In the sixteenth century, Lithuanian troops found this church to be a symbol of the Grand Duke’s might,457 although the Russians remembered the event in quite a different light. A historical song recorded in the nineteenth century relates the story of the cannon to Vytautas’ march to Novgorod in 1428. The song concluded that not only did the gun explode, killing the Lithuanian army, but that the storm also demonstrated God’s anger with the Lithuanian attack.458 In addition to military deeds, the annals include several descriptions pertaining to other events. Most explicit is the description of the election of Gregory Camblak as metropolitan of Kiev. Obviously, Russian annalists are opposed to such behavior, although they acknowledge that Vytautas had acted by God’s permission. Commenting on Camblak’s consecration, the annals noted that it was performed against the rules of the Orthodox Church. Despite these rebukes, the person at fault was Camblak, rather than Vytautas.459 The final section referring to Vytautas’ lifetime describes the gathering of guests for the Grand Duke’s coronation. As mentioned above, the crown is not the subject of the story. The annals list only the prominent guests, and notably describe the visit of Metropolitan Photius to Lithuania. The story ends by mentioning that, three days after Photius left for Muscovy, the Grand Duke died in Trakai.460 The peak of Lithuanian–Muscovite tensions was reached during the Livonian Wars (1558–1583). The best-known example of an epistolary dispute from this period is the correspondence between Andrei Kurbski and Ivan the Terrible (1533–1584). However, these pamphlets prove to have little importance for the image of Vytautas. (Actually, most of the texts related to the Livonian matters are silent about the Grand Duke.) Ivan the Terrible refers to Vytautas only once, trying to demonstrate that the Livonian territories did not belong to Lithuania. He writes that Vytautas was frequently at war with the Teutonic masters; hence, he would not have needed to indulge in warfare had these territories belonged to Lithuania.461 Vytautas’ image, as revealed in Russian narratives, shows that the Grand Duke corresponds to the general perception of a ruler. He represents a dynasty and is an indefatigable warrior. His misfortunes are described with pleasure but always within respectful limits. It is interesting to note that

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

203

the annals describe Vytautas actions much more frequently than the deeds of the Russian princes. The question remains open whether this is a reflection of the Grand Duke’s way of life and government, or whether this reveals some special interest in his personality. A brief reference to Vytautas from the Annals of Vladimir may shed some light on this issue. This narrative confuses Vytautas with King Mindaugas (1253–1263).462 I would suggest that this mistake is symptomatic: the name of Vytautas was well known to the compilers of the annals, so they easily ascribed the deeds of his predecessors to Vytautas.

Western Europe: The Most Powerful Ruler or a Bloodthirsty Tyrant? In the sixteenth century, Lithuania did not attract any special interest from Western Europe. Usually, it was mentioned as a part of Poland or a region of Muscovy. A brief note by Paulus Iovius (1483–1552)463 reflects the standard opinion on Vytautas. The Grand Duke is praised for the Christianization of the hitherto heathen country.464 The travelogues of Sigismund Herberstein465 (1486–1566) thus became an important piece of information on Eastern Europe. Herberstein wrote an account of his ambassadorships to Muscovy entitled Rerum Moscovitarum Commentarii (henceforth, the Commentarii). While on diplomatic missions, he passed through the Grand Duchy twice, in 1517 and 1526. The diplomat composes the Commentarii out of what he has seen, read, and heard in, and about, Lithuania.466 As to the image of Vytautas, it is likely that Herberstein’s Commentarii reflected more of what he had encountered in Lithuania, than what he learned from other sources. His work appeared in numerous editions (first published in 1549) and was widely known in Europe.467 Introducing Lithuanian grand dukes, he calls Vytautas, “uir, quo maiorem Lithvuania non habuit.”468 He established a flourishing state and expanded territories through successful military campaigns.469 Contemporary events are viewed in the light of Vytautas’ activities: thus, the victory against the Tatars is said to be the first such success after Vytautas’ death;470 Mozhaisk is introduced from the times it was conquered by Vytautas and lost by his successors.471 The story of Vytautas’ exercise of justice stands out from the entire description of Lithuania. Herberstein writes that the juvenile king (i.e., sixyear-old Sigismund Augustus) related that, in the time of Vytautas, it was customary for capital punishment to be carried out by way of the sentenced

204

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

criminal’s committing suicide. If the criminal refused, he was executed in a particularly cruel manner.472 Although forced suicide should have evoked Christian condemnation, Herberstein failed to comment on this information. However, a detailed description of terror during Vytautas’ reign existed prior to Herberstein’s visits. As early as the mid-fifteenth century, Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (later Pope Pius II)473 presented the Grand Duke as a tyrant. The section on Lithuania in his De Europa474 is the most thorough account of the evil deeds of the Lithuanian ruler. In the remaining passages of this book, in letters, and in other writings, the Pope sometimes departs from this strict judgment of Vytautas and presents him in a more neutral light. Nevertheless, the great popularity of Piccolomini’s texts, strengthened by his papal authority, resulted in Vytautas becoming known as a tyrant. The description of Lithuania in the De Europa begins with an introduction to Vytautas, “viro facile sanguinario.” The Duke is said to have earned his epithet “the Great,” because of the violence with which he exercised his office. His path to the throne was paved with intrigue and assassination, his reign marked by bloodshed, and his commands used to satisfy sadistic caprices. His subjects lived in terror, while castellans of the country also adopted the violent measures of the Grand Duke’s government. During his reign, people summoned to court preferred suicide to being judged by Vytautas. Thus, by choosing a quick death, they escaped the tortures of being thrown to the wild bears that the Duke kept expressly for this purpose. Besides being cruel, Vytautas was described as being arrogant and capricious. If, for example, a boyar was seen marching in a different manner, Vytautas, as if playing a game, ordered him to be immediately shot with an arrow. In this way, many innocent people were killed. Later, the Duke is said to have wanted his countrymen to be distinguished from other peoples. He thus ordered Lithuanians to shave their beards. A Lithuanian would rather lose his neck than his beard; therefore, many people refused, and were beheaded. The rest, out of fear, shaved not only their chins, but their heads as well.475 In a further description of the Grand Duchy, Piccolomini returns to Vytautas several times; a longer passage contains the story of the Camaldolese monk, Jerome of Prague (ca. 1370–1440),476 as recorded during the Council of Basel (1431–1449). Jerome, a former confessor of King Jogaila, was invited to a mission in Lithuania. Initially, he was successful in extinguishing ancient beliefs and converting many of Vytautas’ subjects. Later, however, the converts protested against the missionary’s intentions to cut down the holy trees. As Jerome was firm in fighting paganism, the people approached

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

205

Vytautas, asking him to expel the monk. The Grand Duke agreed, considering it preferable for his subjects to abandon Christ than his own rule.477 Besides the evil he supposedly committed in his own country, Vytautas is seen as a bad influence in international affairs: he is mentioned as being to blame for the battle of Grunwald. The battle is the principal event set down in Piccolomini’s section on Jogaila in De viris illustribus. Jogaila, though Tatar [sic!] by birth,478 later became a pious man and wanted to sue for peace with the Teutonic Knights. Vytautas, however, was set on war. He gladly accepted the sword sent by the grand master, saying it made him believe in victory.479 At first the Knights were successful and the Poles began fleeing the field. However, Vytautas’ cruelty stopped them and forced the troops to return. The Teutonic Order lost the battle.480 It is said that, later, the Prussians recognized Vytautas as a skillful leader and wanted him as their ally.481 Finally, Piccolomini presents a few details concerning the intended crowning of Vytautas. The Duke was offered the Polish crown with a view to transforming the vast Lithuanian territories into a Polish province. Vytautas declined, since he wished to become king of Lithuanians; he died, however, before he could accomplish these plans.482 Despite occasional departures from the overall judgment, Piccolomini remained consistent in his negative opinion of Vytautas, and, whenever the issue of Grunwald came up, his readers were reminded that the Grand Duke was the severest and the slyest person of his time.483 Later texts more or less adhered to Piccolomini’s opinion. With the election of Henry of Valois (reigned in 1574) as king of Poland, French interest in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth increased. As a result, several histories of Poland were published in France. Although, Lithuania did not occupy a significant role in these publications, reference to Vytautas was considered a must. A summary of the Grand Duke’s reign given by Blaise of Vigenere is interesting. In the genealogical table of the Gediminid dynasty, Vytautas is described as follows: “Vitoldus, le plus renommé homme de son te[m]ps, mais fort cruel.”484 Further on, the author repeats this judgment more explicitly. In addition to Vytautas’ renown, he is said to have been a very brave man, but the motif of cruelty dominates the story.485 486 The Cosmographie universelle by André Thevet provides these French suppositions with more details. A Franciscan friar, Thevet (1502–1590), was an enthusiastic traveler and later became an acknowledged historian of the French royal family.487 His polyhistoric treatises were compiled from his own travel experiences, as well as from other records. The Muscovite part of

206

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the Cosmographie universelle is based on second-hand information.488 The section on Lithuania begins with a quite accurate geographic description of the country’s territory and political life in the early sixteenth century. The Grand Duchy is viewed in an explicitly negative light. The landscape is dark, the climate severe, and even wild beasts, in contrast to other Northern countries, are much smaller than usual.489 Furthermore, the life of the Lithuanian people is miserable, and Vytautas especially is to blame for these conditions. The Grand Duke is famous for spreading terror and initiating the cruelest customs and, thus, is labelled a “prince sanguinare.”490 Thevet dedicates a rather extensive passage to the discussion of religious practices in the country. Here, a decisive role is played by the story of the Camaldolese missionary, Jerome of Prague. This story is borrowed from earlier texts; however, it is enlarged with details of the killing of snakes undertaken by the monk. Obviously, the snake signifies paganism. Therefore, this information may have contributed to the monk’s mission. Thevet recounts that the missionary had to kill snakes in order to please the bloodthirsty ruler.491 He strengthens the image of Vytautas as tyrant by emphasizing signs of duplicity in the Grand Duke.492 This feature, common to all tyrants, becomes apparent because it is said that Vytautas first agreed to Jerome’s mission and later broke his word by expelling the monk.493 The texts discussed above convey the image of a tyrant. However, none of the authors stated this openly. The word “tyrant,” as opposed to “Christian prince,” has never been clearly defined, since evil has no limits. Nevertheless, a “classical” perception of tyranny494 finds clear correspondences to Vytautas’ characteristics. Furthermore, the Grand Duke’s image may also contribute to the perception of tyranny. Renaissance authors, however, were quick to pass judgment. Of course, the story of people committing suicide in fear of the Grand Duke’s judgment is worthy of indignation, although this was not universal. For example, Michel Montaigne (1533–1592) viewed Vytautas in quite a different light. Referring to the Grand Duke in the essay “On Profit and Honesty,”495 Montaigne wrote that “prince de Lituaniens” introduced the practice that the criminal condemned to death should commit suicide so that a third person would not be found guilty of homicide.496 Rehabilitated by Montaigne’s authority, Vytautas regained his aura as an invincible and skillful ruler, and thus entered the modern age.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

207

NOTES 1 See Jonas Lappo, 1588 metų Lietuvos Statutas (The Lithuanian Statute of 1588), vol. 2, Tekstai (The texts) (Kaunas: “Spindulio” bendrovės spaustuvė, 1938), 129– 30. 2 E.g., Sigismund Augustus’s instructions of 1563 made in preparation for the union read: “Poterint commemorare ab initio, quo tempore a serenissimis sacre maiestatis regiae maioribus, Wladislao Jegellone ac filius eius maiestatis Casimiro et Alexandro Vituldo et Sigismundo ducibus Lituaniae primum ac deinde Ioanne Alberto et Alexandro a maioribusque nostris Lituania regno Poloniae coniuncta, unita et consociata est,” AU, no. 88, pt. A.3, 161 and pt., B.3, 171. “Proinde rogamus, se a nobis missas dicant illarumque dominationum persuadeant, expetere nos expetivisseque semper eas unionis leges ac condiciones, quae serenissimis olim Wladislao rege et Alexandro Vituldo duce inchoacta,” ibid. pt. A.4, 162 and pt. B.4, 172. See also Sigismund Augustus’s confirmations from 1564, ibid., no. 91, 181; as well as his presentation of the Polish–Lithuanian relations at the Diet in Lublin in 1569, ibid., no. 115, 221. 3 Ibid., no. 73, 122; no. 76, 128; and no. 84, 150. 4 Erasmus Ciołek (1474–1522), secretary of Grand Duke Alexander, rector of Vilnius Cathedral, later bishop of Plock. Ciołek is known to have been a favorite diplomat of Alexander and later of Sigismund the Old in relations with Rome and Italy, PSB, 4:78–81. For his biography in English, see Halina Kowalska, “Erazm Ciołek,” in Contemporaries of Erasmus / A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation, 3 vols. (Toronto, Buffalo, and London: n.p., 1985–87) [hereafter COE], 1:304–05. 5 Rodrigo de Borja Pope Alexander VI (1430–1503); for his biography, see De Etta V. Thompsen, “Pope Alexander VI,” COE, 1:32–34. 6 “Vitoldus, … , sacro etiam baptismate tunc insignitus, in administranda republica doctissimus, severitatem pietate moderans, ducatum mira equitate et providentia regebat, ut suis semper nedum praesse, sed prodesse magis curavit. Hic primus illis leges condidit, et plurimas edes sacras pro amplianda fide construxit, in defendendo ab hostibus domino strenuus fuerat et invictissimus propugnator: unde per laudem et famam omnium vulgarissimam magnum nomen tempestate sua promeruerat. Que dum Cesar Sigismundus perfectius didicisset (provinciae etiam amplitudine motus), sibi coronam per oratores proprios duxerat transmiendam, et ut regia fulsisset maiestate, indulsit: voluit enim iustissimus ille princeps et verus augustus virtutem condigno premio decorare cunctis in exenplum. Sed antequam oratores sui venientes iter captum perfecissent, mors Vitoldum celerius quam debuerat oppressit,” 31 March 1501, VMPL, 2: no. 299, 279 [emphasis mine]. 7 Ioan Sacranus, Lat / Pl, Jan zwany Sakranem (1443–1527), PSB, 10.3:467–68. 8 “Elucidarivs errorvm ritvs Rvthenici, Ioannis Sacrani Cracoviensis Ecclesię Canonici, Anno D. 1500 scriptus,” in De Rvssorvm Moscovitavm et Tartarorvm religione, sacrificiis, nvptiarvm, funervm ritv e’ diversis scriptoribus, qvorvm nomina versa pagina indicat (Spirae Nemetum: ex officina typografica Bernardi Albini, 1582), 185.

208

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

9 Sigismund the Old (b. 1467–d. 1548, r. 1506–1544); for his biography in English, see Halina Kowalska, “Sigismund I,” in COE, 3:249–51. 10 Giovani de Medici, Pope Leo X (1475–1521), D. S. Chambers, “Pope Leo X,” in COE, 2:319–22. 11 On the Pope and his hunting habits, see Harold B. Segel, Renaissance Culture in Poland: The Rise of Humanism, 1470–1543 (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1989), 138–39. 12 Mikalojus Husovianas, Lt / Pl, Mikołaj Hussowski (before 1485–after 1533). For a more detailed outline of his biography and works, see Benediktas Kazlauskas, “Mikalojus Husovianas ir jo ‘Giesmė apie stumbrą’” (Nicolaus Hussovianus and his ‘Song about the bison’), in Nicolaus Hussovianus / Mikalojus Husovianas, De statura feritate ac venatione bisontis carmen / Giesmė apie stumbrą, trans. Benediktas Kazlauskas, LB 19 (Vilnius: Vaga, 1977), 5–21. 13 Ibid., 11. The hide was not sent to Rome as the pope and Ciołek died in 1522, ibid., 13. 14 Multa tamen talis uenatio possit haberi, / Interdum multis perniciosa uiris: / Ni culpam leuet ambiguam grauis ipsius author, / Qui nomen summae nunc quoque laudis habet. / Talibus inuentis duri mens alta Vitoldi / Attritas patriae constabiliuit opes,” Hussovianus, 70. 15 Hussovianus, 70–81. Considering the same passage of the Carmen, Gudavičius inerpreted it as representing courtly realities of the sixteenth century, Edvardas Gudavičius, “Kas buvo XVI amžiaus bajorija?” (Who were the sixteenth-century boyars?), in Lietuvos valstybė XII–XVIII a. (The Lithuanian state, twelfth–eighteenth centuries), ed. Zigmantas Kiaupa and Arturas Mickevičius (Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 1997), 141. 16 “Tres quibus in totum terror diffunditur orbem / Tunc humili quodam conticuere metu,” Hussovianus, 72. 17 “Quo duce lance pari uirtus aequata pependit / … / Quando diem dixit sceleri, plerosque nocentum / Ad mortem sese praecipitasse ferunt: / Conscia mox laqueos quaerbant colla tenaces, / Spes absoluendi nulla nocentis erat,” ibid., 76. 18 “Vixerat ille suo certe clarissimus aeuo, / Non quia nobilitent bellica facta uirum: / Praetulit humanis longe coelestia rebus / Et coluit summa religione Deum. / Primus enim Christi leges cum gente recepit, / Euerit populi sacra uetusta sui. / Summo templa Deo statuit, censusque ministris / Illorum magna cum pietate dedit / Omnia summouit ueterum portenta deorum / Et fuit erroris cognitor ipse sui,” ibid., 80. 19 Bona Sforza (b. 1494 – d. 1557), queen of Poland and grand duchess of Lithuania (from 1518, left for Italy in 1556); on her activities in the PLC, see an in-depth, albeit slightly conservative study: Władysław Pociecha, Królowa Bona (1494–1557) (Queen Bona (1494–1557)), 4 vols., Czasy i ludzie Odrodzienia (Poznań: Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk, 1949–58), see vol. 3 on her activities in the GDL. For her biography in English, see Halina Kowalska, “Bona Sforza, queen of Poland,” in COE, 1:165–66. 20 On the involvement of Queen Bona, see Anna Sucheni-Grabowska, Zygmunt August król Polski i wielki księżę litewski 1520–1576 (Sigismund Augustus king of

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 29

209

Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, 1520–1576) (Warsaw: Krupski i S-ka, 1996), n. 10, 25. The oath is published in I. Malinovskii, Sbornik materialov otnosiashchikhsia k istorii panov-rady Velikogo Kniazhestva Litovskogo (A collection of documents concerned with the history of the Council of Lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) (Tomsk: Parovaya Tipografiya P. I. Makunina, 1901), no. 65, 83. Jonas iš Lietuvos Kunigaikšcių, Lt / Pl, Jan (Janusz) z Książąt Litewskich (1499– 1538) illegitimate son of Sigismund the Old and Katarzyna Ochstat Telniczanka. From 1519 to 1537 he was the bishop of Vilnius. In the absence of the king, Bishop John exercised certain authority over the GDL, PSB, 10:439–41. Pociecha, without indicating primary source, describes the ceremony quite thoroughly, Pociecha, 3:85. Lithuanian Annals provide quite a detailed description of the staging of the ceremony, “Evreinovskaya letopis’” (The annals of Evreinov), in PSRL, 35:235–36. The note about Vytautas’ cap appears in the following studies: Juliusz NowakDłużewski, Okolicnościowa poezja polityczna w Polsce. Czasy Zygmuntowskie (The occasional political poetry in Poland: the Sigismundian times) (Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, 1966), 159; Juliusz Bardach, “Związek Polski z Litwą” (Poland’s union with Lithuania), in Polska w epoce Odrodzenia: państwo – społeczeństwo – kultura (Poland during the epoch of the Renaissance: state, society, culture), ed. Andrzej Wyczańskij, 2nd ed., Konfrontacje Historyczne (Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1986), 130; Sucheni-Grabowska, Zygmunt August, n. 10, 25. Adam Mickiewicz, Pan Tadeusz, or the Last Foray in Lithuania, trans. Kenneth Mackenzie (London, 1964), 75; quoted from Simon Schama, Landscape & Memory (London: Fontana Press, 1996), n. 22, 582. Thus far there is only one study on this issue: Marceli Kosman, “‘Podniesienie’ książąt Litewskich” (The elevation of Lithuanian Dukes), Acta Baltico-Slavica [hereafter, ABS] 10 (1976): 15–36, on the elevation of Sigismund Augustus, see ibid., 33–34. “ … atq[ue] demum uobis omnium rogatus nos non Italico Bohemico seu Germanico more, sed uero Lithuanico & Vitowdi exemplo gubernes, quod si feceris singulis certe Regibus comparandus eris, sin uero ab eo instituto discesseris, & tui & nostri interitus tu ipse causam præstabis,” [Jodocus Decius], “De Iagellonvm Familia,” in [Maciej Miechowita], Chronica Polonorv[m] (Impressum Craccouiaæ opera atq[ue] industria Hieronyni Vietoris Chalcographi Anno M.D.XXI. mense Decembri; reprint: Krakow: Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1986), xlix. This description was followed by Stryjkowski, Kronika, 2:293, and Koialowicz, Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius, Lietuvos istorija (The history of Lithuania), introduced and commented by Juozas Jurginis, LB 26 (Vilnius: Vaga, 1988), 543. Jurgis Radvila, Lt / Pl, Jerzy Radziwiłł (ca. 1480–1541), castellan of Vilnius and great hetman of the GDL, PSB, 30:225–29. The message was delivered before June 1526; it is published in Akty otnossiashchiesia k istorii Zapadnoi Rosii sobranyie i izdanyie Arkheograficheskoi Kommissieyu (Acts concerning the history of western Russia, collected and published

210

30

31

32 33

34

35

36

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

by the Archeographic Commission) [hereafter AOZR] (St. Petersburg: V Tipografii II Otdelenija Sobstvennoj E. I. B. Kantseliarii, 1848), vol. 2, 1506 –1544, no. 144, 175–76. Bardach presented this message as being an effort at secret negotiations between Bishop John, George Radvila, and the King carried out in an aim at restoring Lithuanian independence. However, he did not indicate any other document but the mentioned message, Juliusz Bardach, Studia z ustroju i prawa Wielkiego Księstva Litewskiego XIV – XVII w. (A study of institutions and law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the fourteenth–seventeenth centuries), Prace Białostockiego Towartzystwa Naukowego 13 (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970), 45. Following Bardach’s interpretation, the Lithuanian translation of the document was titled as initiatives to restore [sic] the Lithuanian Kingdom, “Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštystės Ponų tarybos laiškas karaliui Žygimantui dėl Lietuvos karalystės atkūrimo (1526)” (The letter of the Council of Lords to King Sigismund concerning the restoration of the Lithuanian Kingdom (1526)), trans. Albinas Jovaišas and introduced by Darius Kuolys, in Šešioliktojo amžiaus raštija (The writings of the sixteenth century), ed. Sigitas Narbutas, Senoji Lietuvos literatūra [hereafter, SLL] 5 (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas and Pradai, 2000), 65–74. On the basis of the text of this message, I consider this interpretation as going too far. The Bykhoviets Chronicle gives quite a confusing story of Vytautas’ coronation, in which the part concerned with the crown is noteworthy. It tells that Poles took over the crown designated for Vytautas, cut it into two parts, fixed them to the mitre of the bishop of Krakow, and kept it in the Cathedral of St Stanislas, BK, 117. Edvardas Gudavičius, “Valdovas” (A ruler), in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos kultūra. Tyrinėjimai ir vaizdai (The culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: investigations and images), comp. Vytautas Ališauskas et al. (Vilnius: aidai, 2001), 742. For the discussion on the banner, see above ch. II, the section entitled “Memory and Memorial.” In many respects the image of Vytautas can be compared to that of Francesco Sforza; thus the endeavors of Queen Bona might be viewed as following the Milanese example; on the making of the Sforza image see Gary Ianziti, Humanistic Historiography under the Sforzas: Politics and Propaganda in Fifteenth-century Milan (Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press, 1988). Pociecha, 2:65–66. As to the titling of the altar with the name of Vytautas, actually this was the altar of the Holy Cross. However, within historical memory and daily vocabulary it was known under Vytautas’ name. The monument is described very vaguely. The “Registrum rationis perceptorum et distributorum 1533–1536,” of the year 1535 reads: “Item vigesima sexta septembris cum mitterem imaginem ducis Vitoldi marmoream, tunc misi per ipsum tres pixidarios,” f. 120v; and “Item quando imago marmorea ducis Vitoldi missa fuit Vilnam tunc Garnkowski dedit pro tela, papyro, clavis ad dictam imaginem,” f. 153v, quoted from Pociecha, 3: n. 114, 255. Chapter records describe it as “Effigies Divi Vitoldi, Principis M. D. L. invictissimi, et munifici fundatoris ac patroni, in lapide expressa, ” “Acta Venerabilis Ca-

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

37 38

39 40 41

42

43

211

pituli Cathedralis Vilnensis, anno 1628, die 16 Maji,” f. 62 quoted from M. Homolicki, “Kilka uwag nad dziełem ‘Wilno od początków jego do roku 1750’ przez J.I. Kraszewskiego, tom I, 1840; tom II, 1841, w 8ce, z rycinami. Wydanie Adama Zawadzkiego. Wilno, nakładem i drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego” (Several remarks on the work ‘Vilnius from its beginnings until the year 1750’ …), in Wizerunki i roztrząsania naukowe. Poczet nowy drugi (Scholarly pictures and guesses: new series) (Wilno: Jozef Zawadzki, 1841), 22: n. 1, 170. The closest in time and probably in appearance is the tombstone of Albert Goštautas in Vilnius Cathedral executed ca. 1539–41, Marija Matušakaitė, “Antkapiai” (Tombstones), in Lietuvos TSR istorijos ir kultūros paminklų sąvadas (The code of the historical and cultural monuments of the Lithuanian SSR), vol. 1, Vilnius [hereafter, Sąvadas] (Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija, 1988), no. 83n, 167–68. Walerian Protasewicz-Szuszkowicz, Pl / Lt, Valerijonas Protasevičius (ca. 1505– 1579), PSB, 28.3:517–21. For an in-depth study of Padovano’s life and works, see Anne Markham Schulz, Giammaria Mosca called Padovano: a Renaissance Sculptor in Italy and Poland, 2 vols. (University Park, PN: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998). For the tomb of the bishop, see ibid., 1: no. 29, 222 (appendix) and no. 31, 297–99 (catalogue). Pociecha, 2:65–66. Schulz, 1:299. On the meaning of such altars and their connection to the founders’ burial, see Kornelia Imesch, “The Altar of the Holy Cross and the Ideal of Adam’s Progeny: ‘ut paradysiace loca possideat regionis’,” in Death and Dying in the Middle Ages, ed. Edelgard E. Dubruck and Barbara I. Gusick, Studies in the Humanities Literature – Politics – Society, ed. Guy Mermier, vol. 45 (New York, Washington, D.C., etc.: Peter Lang, 1999), 73–106. The story of the monument is inscribed on the plaque embedded in the wall of the Cathedral. The inscription reads: BONA SPHORTIA, REGINA POLONIAE, ETC. / INCLYTO PRINCIPI ALEXANDRO VITOLDO, MAGNO / DUCI LITHUANIAE, DE PATRIA SUA OPTIME MERITO, ET RERUM GESTARUM / GLORIA, PER UNIVERSUM ORBEM CLARO. / DUM VIVERET, LAPIDEM HUNC PARAVIT. VALERIANUS DEMUM EPISCOPUS / VILNENSIS, BENEFACTORI TEMPLI HUIUS, MONUMENTUM HOC ALTARI EIUS APPOSUIT. OSSAQUE EIUS ANTE NON PRO DIGNITATE SERVATA / IN EO CONCLUSIT, ANNO DOMINI M.D.LXXIII. // MONUMENTUM, NON PROCUL HOC LOCO, IN IPSO RECESSU / SEPTENTRIONALI HUIUS ECCLESIAE QUONDAM POSITUM. / SED IGNIS VORAGINE ANNO M.DCX IAM EXUSTUM, / AC TEMPORIS INIURIA DELETUM, ANNO MDCCCLIII, / PRISTINA INSCRIPTIONE RESTITUTA, MEMORIAE AEVITERNAE / POSTTIMINIO MANDATUR [emphasis mine]. There were many attempts to localize Vytautas’ grave within the cathedral. Thus far, none of them has been successful. Vitkauskienė has convincingly argued for its relation to the Altar of the Holy Cross, Birutė Rūta Vitkauskienė, “W sprawie łokalizacji grobu Witolda w Katedrze Wileńskiej” (Concerning the localisation of

212

44 45

46

47

48

49 50

51

52 53 54

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Vytautas’ tomb within Vilnius Cathedral), paper presented at the conference of art historians “Sztuka około 1500” (Art around 1500), Gdańsk, 28–30 November 1996, I am grateful to the author for the manuscript of her paper. Kojelavičius, 428. Schultz also came to such a conclusion, Schulz, 1:299. In 1852 a crypt with the remains of a bishop was discovered in the central part of the cathedral, Vitkauskienė, “W sprawie,” 1–2. Applaudit sepulchrali quamvis pressus / marmore, / Principe sub ara conditus, / Gloriosissimus Litvanus Macedo / Alexander Vitoldus, / paremque suae Fortunam, / pares triumphos et gloriam vovet,” “Septicollis Litvaniae caput Palaemoniarum urbium Vilna (Vilnius, 1723)” in Gratulatio Vilnae. Textus electi XVI– XVIII seaculi / Vilniaus pasveikinimas. XVI–XVIII amžiaus tekstų rinkinys, comp. Eugenija Ulčinaitė (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2001), 378, 380. E.g., in 1697, the chapter endevored to have a “Splendidum Mnemosynon” of Vytautas, “Acta V.C.C.V., a. 1697, die 8 Octobr,” f. 598, quoted from Homolicki, “Kilka uwag,” 22: n.1, 173. The plaque was commissioned and embeded there by Bishop Eustachij Tiszkiewicz, Pl / Lt Eustachijus Tiškevicius in 1852, Tadas Adomonis, “Vytauto paminklinė lenta” (The memorial plaque to Vytautas), in Sąvadas, no. 83.i, 169. On Vytautas’ portraits, see the section entitled “The ‘Portraits’ of Vytautas.” “Sum Vitoldus ego, Vitoldi ex nomine dictus / Concutio turres moenia sterno, caue,” “Strzelba y munitia wlasnym nakladem I. K. M. sprawowiona w Wilnie y na zamki po granicne rozeslana MDLXV” (Cannons and ammunition ordered by H[is] R[oyal] H[ighness] in Vilnius to be sent to the border-castles in 1565), in Biblioteka Zbiorów Czartoryskich w Museum Narodowym w Krakowie / The Library of the Czartoryski Collection of the National Museum in Krakow, Ms 1814, Mf. 16.588. Pl, Jan z Wislicy (ca. 1485/90 – ca. 1520) studied at the University of Krakow and later lectured there; Eugenija Ulčinaitė, “The Song of the Grunwald Battle,” trans. Vida Turoniene, in Joannes Vislicensis / Jonas Vislicietis, Bellum Prutenum / Prūsų karas, prepared and translated by Eugenija Ulčinaitė, BBL (Vilnius: Mintis, 1997), xxvii–viii. “partim ex inventis codicum, partim ex chronicorum, partim ex famae celebris memoria, qua tota Polonia redimita tumet,” Vislicensis, 10. Ibid., 56–74. In her introductory article Ulčinaitė argues that the two authors differently interpret Lithuanian retreat from the battlefield. According to this scholar, Viscilensis ascribes it to a change of fortune, while Długosz sees there an escape; Ulčinaitė, “The Song,” in Vislicensis, xxxiv. To my mind, both authors rely on the ‘wheel of fortune’: “Sed fortuna ferox, causus quae fertur iniquos / Sola rotare manu necon variare caduca / … / Lituanos, Vitolde, tuos, tum cetera gentis / Agmina multa tuae et te deserit illa, tuesque / Germanis acies vultu solatur amico,” Vislicensis, 58 and “pro victoria adnitente ambiguum erat, in quam partem inclinaret fortuna aut que pars prelio superior evasura foret,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:106.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

213

55 “Iamque ruunt primusque rex,” Vislicensis, 66. 56 One may recall here that the same epithet of “lightening”(Yildirim) was applied to Bayezet, John W. Barker, Manuel II Paleologus (1391–1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 217. 57 Ulčinaitė “The Song,” in Vislicensis, xli–xlii. The author reaffirms her position in id. Lietuvos Renesanso ir Baroko literatūra (Renaissance and Baroque Literature in Lithuania), (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2001), 55–56. 58 Bernardus Wapowski, Lat / Pl, Bernard Wapowski (ca. 1470–1535), cartographer and historian, from 1523 canon of Krakow, from 1515 secretary and historiographer to Sigismund the Old, contributed to Ptolemeus’ maps, “Vapovskis” (Wapowski), in LTE, 12:80–81. 59 “Illic conspicies celebrante moenia caphe / Et celebres cenis simbolesque sinus, / Fausto hanc magnanimus peragrauit Marte Vitoldus / Estque tuae potior pars ea Sarmatiea,” [Wapowski], Chronicorum, 351. 60 Albertas Goštautas, Lt / Pl, Wojciech Gasztolt (ca. 1480–1539), the palatine of Vilnius, the chancellor of the GDL, PSB, 7:299–303. 61 Originally, the panegyric was written in the Old Belorusian, but has been translated into Latin and Polish, Rimantas Jasas, “Alberto Goštauto pagyrimas Žygimantui Senajam (1529)” (Albert Goštautas’ panegyric to Sigismund the Old), in Šešioliktojo, 60. 62 [Albertas Goštautas], “Žygimanto, Lenkijos karaliaus ir Lietuvos, Rusios, Prūsijos, Žemaitijos, Mazovijos ir kitų didžiojo kunigaikščio ir pono bei tėvonio, pagyrimas” (The panegyric to Sigismund, king of Poland, Grand Duke, lord and heir of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Samogitia, Masovia etc.), translated and commented on by Albinas Jovaišas, ibid., 63–64. 63 Michalonus Lituanus is the pseudonym for an anonymous author, who, on the basis of Ochmański’s research, is identified with Venclovas Mikalonis/Mikalojaitis, Lt / Pl, Wencław Mikołaiewicz (ca. 1490–1560), scribe within the Latin section of the grand ducal chancellery, Jerzy Ochmański, “Michałon Litwin i jego traktat o zwyczajach Tatarów, Litwinów i Moskwicinów z połowy XVI wieku” (Michalonus Lituanus and his treatise on the habits of Tatars, Lithuanians, and Muscovites [dating] from the middle of the sixteenth century), KH 83.4 (1976): 765–83. 64 Michalonus Lituanus / Mykolas Lietuvis, De Moribus Tatarorum, Lituanorum et Moschorum: fragmina X, multiplici historia referata nunc primum per Iac. Grasserum, C.P. ex manuscripto Authentico edite / Apie totorių, lietuvių ir maskvėnų paprocius: dešimt įvairaus istorinio turinio fragmentų, LB (Vilnius: Vaga, 1966). 65 Actually, the De moribus has been published several times and its descriptions included in tracts on geography throughout the seventeenth century; Marcelinas Ročka, Mykolas Lietuvis (Michalonus Lituanus) (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988), 25–27. 66 For the scope and variety of the “Mirrors of Princes,” see Specula principum, ed. Angela De Benedicti and Annamaria Pisapua, Ius Communae: Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Europäische Rechtsgeschichte. Sonderhefte: Studien zur Europäischen Rechtsgeschichte (Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1999).

214

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

67 Concerning the libraries and books within the Grand Duchy during the early modern period, see Maria Barbara Topolska, Czytelnik i książka w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim w dobie Renesansu i Baroku (The book and the reader in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the period of the Renaissance and the Baroque) (Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984). 68 Sverre Bagge, The Political Thought of The King’s Mirror, Medieval Scandinavia Supplement 3 (Viborg: Odense University Press, 1987), 18–19. 69 “Vltimus vero ex Lituania Caesarum Aczkirei, hic apud Troki natus, & hinc a divo Withovvdo ad imperium illud missus,” Lituanus, 3; “appelantur enim ibi quibidam Gediminei ac Vitovvdini valli, colles, putei, pontes, viae, fossae, statiua & moenia tormentis indigetum illorum quassata, alia vero baculis etiam Lituanorum obruta fuisse memorantur,” ibid., 29; “… gentes suas in armis, munit arces perpetuis praesibidija pacem precariam non curat, vim vi repellit, continentiam Tartaicam continentia populi sui, sobrietatem sobrietate aequat, artem arte Vitoudum heroem nostrum imitatus elibidit,” ibid., 18; “… at Moscouitae gloriantur se a nobis leges sumpsisse Vitovdinas, quas nos iam conremsimus,” ibid., 23; and “Solent enim illac crebo proficisci exteri mercatores plerunq; mille numero, aggregati in cohortes Korouani appelatas, cum multis carpentis onustis & comelis clitellatis a quibus insigne telonium antiquitus pendebatur progenitoribus Sacrae Maiestatis Vestrae in tractu Borysthenis ad Touani. vbi etiam hodie extat camera lapibidea fornicata integra, quam & nostrares & tauriciani & Graeci, balneum Vitordinum vocant. aiuntque excubasse ibi publicamuam Magni Ducis Lituaniae qui telonium exigebat,” ibid. 35–36 [emphasis mine]. 70 Joahim Bielski, Genethiliacon naiasnieyszego Wladyslawa Krolewica Polskiego y Szweckiego (Genethiliacon of the most illustrious Ladislas, prince of Poland and Sweden), ed. Ludwik Zalęwski, Biblioteczka Lubelskiego Towarzystwa Miłośników Ksiąźki 1 (Krakow: w Druk. Jak. Sebencychera, 1595; reprint, Lublin: Kostem fransiszka Raczkowskiego, 1928). 71 “Taki Witułt Tatarskiej krwie potępca srogi, / Ktoremu Czarzykoie umitali progi: / Y w otowach po Litwie czestokroċ brzekali / Waka rzeka iest swiadkiem, gdźie tam zośiadali. / Witułta y on (w źyċiu zwłaßcza) naśladuie: / y przetoż mu tak woda, iak wino smakuie. / A chleb suchy, za owych sto pułmistowo stanie: / Wytrwa żimno, deßcz, pluty: nic mu niewysoanie / y nedza nie uczyni: bije gdzie nas zoczy: / Ani ste mojem o przeċ nigdziey iego mocy,” ibid., 19 [all characters as in original]. 72 Steponas Batoras, Lt / Pl, Stefan Batory / Hu, István Báthory. 73 For the documents pertaining to Bathory’s military actions, see Sprawy wojenne krola Stefana Batorego. Dyjaryjusze, relacje, listy i akta z lat 1576–1586 (Military deeds of King Stepham Bathory: Diaries, accounts, letters and acts from the years 1576–1586), ed. Ignacy Polkowski, Acta historica res gestas Poloniae ilustrantia ab anno 1507 – ad annum 1793, 11 (Krakow: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1887). 74 Titles of various texts, especially the Flügschriften illustrate this opinion; for their list, see Marshall Poe, Foreign Descriptions of Muscovy: An Analytical Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1995), 95–104.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

215

75 Andrzej Patrycy Nidecki, Pl / Lat, Andreas Patricius Nidecius (1522–1587), PSB, 22.4:713–17. 76 Andr[eas] Patricius Nidecius, Ad Stephanvm regem Poloniarvm inclytvm Gratulatio. Habita totius cleri Varsouiensis nomine ob victoriam Polocensem de Moscouitis (Cracoviæ: In officina Lazari, 1579); BN, mf. 54473. 77 Kristupas Varševickis, Lt / Pl, Krzysztof Warszewicki (1543–1608); Latin forms of his name vary. 78 “Reuxisse Vitoudum intuetur, qui non in suoru[m] tectis, ruinis & incendijs, sed in aliens agis, fortunis domicitijs, cum eo non dicam hoste, quod huius nomen est, sed cum authore in auditae crudelitatis, cum patrono nequiciae, cu[m] labe & decore pudicitię bella gerit. Quem quidem Vitoudem adessiam, & tecum sic loqui videre mihi videor,” Christophor Warseuicius, Panegyricvs ad Stephanum I Polonorvm Regem et Magnvm Litvanorvm Dvcem (Vilnae: Typis Illustris D. Domini Nicolai Christophori Radiuili & per Danielem Lancicium, 1580), Eij/r-v. 79 “Non deniq[ue] Christianorum regu[m] & principum alius, post Vitoudum, sua contra Moschum, arma, longius protulerat,” ibid., Ciij/v. 80 Ibid., Eiij/v. 81 “Gessi & ego res varietate sua magnas, locis diuersas, regionibus infinitas, rara celeritate admira[n]das: Moschi huius maiores, perdomui: Cruciferos in Prussia, & in Liuonia vici: cu[m] Scythis sępius cu[m] temeri an[n]o eoru[m] Duce semel (quo habuit maiores copias mortaliu[m] nemo) ad flumen Vorkla licet non Fęliciter, fortiter tamen signa co[n]tuli,” ibid. 82 “Exhortuit ad tubarum mearu[m] sonum, sępenumero Scythia, sensit me viru[m] esse Moschouia, vidit Polonia, audiuit Germania,” ibid. 83 “O fęliciam Lituaniam patriam, Samogitiam altricem, Russiam adiutricem meam: quae abs te non dicam Rege, sed patre, non domino, sed patrono gubernator. Per te est ciuibus meis pax data, per te calamitas detracta, per te dignitas restituta,” ibid., Eiiij/v. 84 Ibid., Eiiiij/r. 85 “Postremo praeterlapsa illa tempora cernit in quibus no[n] bello, sed belli metu calamatitatem reipub. afferebat, & quib. maximas clades & spoliationes oppidorum, vastitates agrorum, interitum legum, caede[m] ciuium apparabat: reuixisse Vitoudum intuetur, qui non in suorum tectis, ruinis & incendijs, sed in aliens agris, fortunis, domicilijs, cum eo non dicam hoste quod leuis nomen est, sed cum violatore fidei, cum complemtore pacis, cum auctore inauditae crudelitatis, cum patrono nequitiae, cum labe & dedecore pudicitiae bella perit. Quem quidem Vitoudu[m] adresse iam, & tecum sic loqui violere mihi videor, Salue heroum praestantissime, decus & praesidium istius reipub. Bathorei generis & nominis gloriae, cuius eximiam virtutem & in perendis bellis felicitatem, quam ante laudari audiebamus, nunc re ipsa experimur,” Christophor Warsevicius, “Panegyricus, ad Stephanum I. Polonorvm regem potentissimum,” in Rervm polonicarvm tomi tres: quorvm primvs omnivm Polonię regvm, a Lecho primo gentis dvce, ad Stephani Bathorevm, etiamnum Regem: tum Principum Lituanię, chronologicam receusionem, ac singulorum res gestas comlectitur (Fraencofvrti: Excudebat Iann. Wechelus, impresis Sigis. Feyerabendij, 1584), 1:41–42.

216

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

86 Elijas/Helias Piligrimovijus/Pelgrimovskis/Piligrimas Lt / Pl, Eliasz/Heliasz Pielgrzymowski/Pildrzymowski (1564–1605) for his detailed biography, see E. Rimša, “Venclovas Agripa ir jo giminė (1. Kilmė ir pirmtakai)” (Venclovas Agrippa and his family (1. The origin and predecessors)),” Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A [hereafter, MADA] 1 (1986): 68–70 and id., “Venclovas Agripa ir jo giminė (2. Agripų giminė)” (Venclovas Agrippa and his family (2. The Agrippa family)), MADA 2 (1986): 80. 87 Dialog slachcica Litewskiego o prawdziwy woyny Inflantskiej krola Jego M. Stephana świętej y drogej pamięci Pana naszego z księdzem Moskiewskim od początku do konca krotko zebrany (Roku 1594) (The Dialog of the Lithuanian boyar about the just Livonian war between His M[ight] King Stephan, our lord of the blessed and dear memory, and the Duke of Moscow presented from the beginning to the end (the year 1594)), [by Elias Piligrimovius ?] (W Wilnie: z Drukanicy Jakuba Martowicza, 1594). 88 “Bo żaden z Krolow Polskich daley nie zachodzil / Sam tylko po Witolcie Krol ten wto ugodzil,” ibid., p. after p. 226. 89 [Basilius Hyacinthus], Panegyricvs in excidivm Polocense atq[ue] in memorabilem Victoriam Stephani inuictissimi Poloniarum Regis Magnisq[ue] Ducis Lituanie ex potentissimo Moschorum Principe III. Cal. Septemb. MDLXXIX. reportatam (Patavii: Apud Laurentium Pasquatum, 1580). Bazilijus Hiacintas, Lt (fl. late 16th c.) 90 “Vobiscum mihi res Litaui, nam uestra priorum / Res agitur, uobis rapuit preclara Smolensci / Huius castra parens Seuerensiaq[ue] arua Tyranni. / Iste suis titulis erepta Liuonica uobis / Addidit imperia, & cum castris gaudet adempta / Vrbe Poloscorum, Russisq[ue] exsultat opimus / Latro bonis, uos hec mala uestra miserrima tanga[n]t, / Sic tangent alios, grauis est mihi credite causa. / Vitoldo placuit uestris cum patribus olim / De lauibus rapto ablatis (iniuria pluris / Quam damnum magnis animis) hostiter hostis,” [Hyacinthus], A2/v. 91 Starodub, a town in Russia in the region of Briansk. From 1368 it belonged to the GDL but was lost to Muscovy during the war of 1499–1503. 92 “Commemorant alij Vitoldi insignia gesta, / Olgerdumq[ue], alij laudant, aliq[ue] Iagellum,” [Hyacinthus], A3/v. 93 “Rege, uiris cæsis, ereptis urbibus, hoste / … / Atq[ue] triumphator Litauis in oris. / Quis te Vitoldum quis te nobis Iagellum / Affictis bone Rex cælo demisit ab alio? / ... / Regna triumphator, Christum uisurus in æuum,” ibid., E2/v. 94 “REX Poloniæ, cum iam victor ouans spolijsq[ue] animosus opimis, III. Nouemb. Vilnam ingrederetur, lætißimis congratulationibus per compita et plateas acceptus est. Iesuitæ quidam arcum triumphalem ex elegantißimo serico erexerant in delubro D. Iohannis, carmine heroico res gestas regis per totam horam decantantes. Depicta etiam hic erat Victoria, habitu virili & decoro, ense minans hastaque, & ahene luce corusca, galeamq[ue] deauratam in capite gestans. Prope hanc D. Vitoldus & Vladislaus pulcerrimis coloribus depicti stabant. Præterea pueri aliquot habitu Moschico ornati, & tanquam captiui producti, magnanimi Regis Stephani suppliciter tristes inclamabant clementiam. Poterat et te grauem et excellentem virum eiusmodi exercitium delectare,” Stephani Poloniæ regis literæ, quibus res

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

95 96 97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

217

a se in bello Moschico, post captum Vielico Lukum, gestas: … (Np.: np., 1581), B/v–B2/r. Iozeph Wereszczynski, Regvla id est: institvtio sev cvrsvs vitę civsqve regis christiani (Krakow: In Officina Andreę Petricouij, 1588). Ibid., 21v. “Ita ciuitates, vicos, munitiones & arces liuonicae ditionis, a Duce Moscorum pridem captas, receperunt, Regique suo reddiderunt rectigales ac tributatias. Terramque Moscoviticam multo latius longiusq[ue] pernageti sunt, quam Vitoldus ille celebris quondam & fortissimus bellator, excursus & impressiones in hostico facientes, non sine magne verae gloriae accessione, gestorum suorum splendore, inimicorum & gentium omniu[m] oculos perstingentes,” ibid., 22r. Pl, Kasper Zebrzydowski (fl. end 16th C.); for assumptions concerning the author, see “Wstęp” (Introduction), in Caspar Zebrzidovius / Kasper Zebrzydowski, Chronicon seu vera historiae tabula rerum polonicarum, prepared and edited by Zofia Kowalska-Urbankowa, Anna Kozłowska, and Zdisław Pietrzyk (Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1990), 15–16. “Paucis te volo Vitulte, quondam rex amabilis et magnanime! Dic, quibus in terris, ni fallor in Persiae finitimis, Bachum holocaustis solitis exepisti, arcanaque Mosci viscera lustratsi, validissima tentoria penetrasti, dum te in sede regia pascha manducantem praevenire caesar Moscoviticus per legatum superbe pollicetur. Tuo quisque principum ducitur, exemplo est mihi magnus Apollo. Suapte tibi haec sese offerunt, Stephane Bathori, sed ultra a te negliguntur. Non desunt humanissima et ad omnia facilia ingenia Polonica, sed torva facies et difficilis tuae intentionis accessus, omnia opaca reddebat,” ibid., 70–71. V. Zaborskaitė, Prie Lietuvos teatro ištakų: XVI–XVIII a. mokyklinis teatras (On the beginnings of theater in Lithuania: school-theater of the sixteenth– eighteenth centuries) (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981), 83. Philopatris ad senatvm populumquae Lituanum, [by Elias Piligrimovius?] (N.p.: n.p., 1597). The authorship of this poem is not clearly established; here I follow the attribution made by Ingė Lukšaitė, Reformacija Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje ir Mažojoje Lietuvoje. XVI a. trečiasis dešimtmetis – XVII a. pirmasis dešimtšmetis (The reformation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Lesser Lithuania: third decade of the sixteenth – first decade of the seventeenth century) (Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1999), 545. “Sumebat Scythici moderamina dantibus illis, / Soluendo Litauo certa tributa Duci. / Argebto solido carchesia ducta Vitold. / Olgerdoque dabat, nunc ubi Vilna iacet, / … / Quod si nos poscis, victricia signa videbis, / Ibimus in Moschum, & qui tuus hostis erit,” Philopatris, 190; for the Polish text see ibid., 196. Christophorus Varsevicius, Speculum Analogiae et methamorphosis aliquot Magnatum. Hoc est: Caesarum, regvm et maximorvm principvm, vnuvs et eivsdem partim generis & nominis; partim etiam imperii ac dominationis Vitarum Parallelarum libri dvo (Frankfurt: Apud Wolffgangum Richterum, sumptibus Nicolai Steinii, 1607). “Vitoudus irrequieto animo Principis,” ibid., 133.

218

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

105 “Vitoudus quidem, vel quod Crucigerorum concilia haberet apud se suspectissima, vel quod ita nature perpetuo esse mobilis & inconstans videbatur, Vladislaum Regem sibi clam reconciliauit, & rursus in Lithuaniam a Crucigeris profugit, …, & bennio amplius eorum auspiciis contra Regem & patriam militauit. Sic nullum insaniendi modum praeceps & lubrica statuit ambitio, qua auctores ad extremam ruinam ipsi tandem & non raro deducuntur,” ibid., 135–36. 106 “Parte igitur Legatoru[m] Bohemicorum ad Vitoudum profecta, sine cuius consilio nihil se facturum Iagello dixerat,” ibid., 238. 107 For the panegyrics, see above the section entitled “Stephan Bathory as New Vytautas.” 108 Augustinas Rotundas, Lt / Pl, Augustyn Rotundus Mieleski (1520–1582), lawyer, publicist, major of Vilnius, PSB, 32:315–18. 109 Rotundus assisted Maciej Stryjkowski providing him with sources, wrote “Cronica sive historia Lithuana.” Unfortunately this manuscript has been lost and is known only from a mention by J. F. Rivius, PSB, 32:315–18. However, Rivius’ authorship is highly doubtful: “the so called Rivius’ (J. F. R.) Chronicle is a counterfeit contrived in 1833–1842. Narbutas [i.e., Theodor Narbutt] contributes to the creation of this falsification,” Artūras Dubonis, “Rivijaus kronikos byla” (The Case of the Rivius’ Chronicle), Lituanistica (1997): 12. The only historical text of Rotundus that survived is the “Epitome principum Lituanie,” which served as an introduction to the Latin translation of the Second Lithuanian Statute presented to Stephan Bathory in 1576. 110 It is assumed that Rotundas was the principal author of this opus; however, the contribution of other Protestant authors is highly credible, Lukšaitė, Reformacija, 532–33. 111 Rozmowa Polaka z Litwinem. 1564 (The conversation of a Pole with a Lithuanian, 1564), [by Augustinus Rotundus?], ed. Józef Korzeniowski (Krakow: W Drukarni C. K. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1890). 112 Kuolys, “Tautinės valstybės idėja Lietuvos Renesanso raštuose” (The idea of a national state in the Renaissance texts from Lithuania), Sietynas 5 (1989): 100. Stanisław Orzechowski, Pl / Lat, Stanislaus Orichovus (1513–1566), an extremely contradictious person; for his biography and literary activities see PSB, 24.2:287–92. 113 For a more thorough and contextual analysis of Rotundus’ works, see Albinas Jovaišas “Augustino Rotundo Lietuvos valstybės vizija” (Augustinus Rotundus’ vision of the Lithuanian statehood), in Šešioliktojo, 75–88. 114 Rozmowa, 30. 115 E.g., AU, no. 73, 122; no. 76, 128, no. 88, pt. A, 161–62 and pt. B, 171–72; and no. 91, 181. 116 Rozmowa, 76. 117 Stanisław Orzechowski, “Qvincvnx, Tho iest Wzor korony Polskiey na Cynku wystawiony,” (Qvincvnx, that is, a public view on the Polish Crown), in Stanisława Orzechowskiego polskie dialogi polityczne (Rosmowa około egzekucyjej i Quincunx) 1563–1564, (Polish political dialogues written by Stanisław Orzechowski [A dialogue about execution and Quincunx] 1563–1564), ed. Jan Łoś, historical

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

118 119

120

121 122 123 124 125 126

127

128 129 130 131

219

explanations by Stanisław Kot, Biblioteka Pisarzów Polskich 74 (Krakow: Nakład Akademji Umijętności, 1919), 244–45. Rozmowa, 61–65. Machiavelli’s works were known in the GDL and especially valued among the Protestants; Raimonda Ragauskienė, “Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis XVI amžiaus panegirinėje literatūroje” (Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis in the Occasional Literature of the 16th Century), Lituanistica 2 (1996): 43 and n. 35, 51. Also see Rasa Jurgelėnaitė, “The Impact of the Italian Poetic Tradition in Lithuania,” in Acta conventus Neo-Latini Bariensis. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, Bari 29 August to 3 September 1994, ed. Rhoda Schnur, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 184 (Temple, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1998), 349. “Rozmowa Lecha z Piastem, napominające swych obywatełów, jakiego pana mają sobie i królestwu temu obrać” (A conversation between Lech and Piast reminding their inhabitants whom they have to elect for themselves and the kingdom), in Pisma polityczne z czasów pierwszego bezkrólewia (Political texts from the time of the first interregnum), ed. Jan Czubek [henceforth PP] (Krakow: Nakładem Akademii Umejętności, 1906), 37–68. Ibid., 53–54. “Zdanie o obieraniu nowego króla” (Opinion on the election of a new king), in PP, 349–55. “Zdanie o obieraniu,” 354. Banionis, 77–85. Also see Birutė Rūta Vitkauskienė, “Taurieji metalai” (Precious metals), in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos, 697–98. [Andreas Cieselski], “Ad equites legatos, … Andrea Cieselski, equitię Polonio, oratio,” in PP, 7–140. “Nam et Vitholdus, dux Lithuaniae, ut extingueret illos, et lapideas pontes extruxisse et ut moraretur ibi, et balnea sibi parasse memeoratur, locupletatumque, nec immerito, a regno fuisse, certis illi adiecti provinciis propter onus belli facilius sustinendum. Nec spe sua frustratus fuisset, sed ad prutenica revocatus bella per Jagiellonem regem conficienda, eam Tatarorum colluviem secum ambo traxerant et non solum in occupato solo illas morari et ad tantam multitudinem redumdantem excerscere sunt passi, sed etiam in Lithuaniam agris assignatis ad incolendum induxerunt,” ibid., 109. “… ut si stirpe virili deficiente decederat, ad regnum pars illa residua pleno iure deveniret et in omni adversutate pro maximis suis facultatibus et viribus, quemadmodum olim Vitholdus dux, regnum iuvare, perpetuam, foedera inita et fidem servare esset obligatus et obstrictus,” ibid., 137. “Wotum w interregnum po Henrykowym z Polski odjeżdzie” (Vote during the interregnum after the departure of Henry), in PP, 630–43. Ibid., 637. Pl, Maciej z Miechowa zwanny Miechowitą (ca. 1457–1523), on him see PSB, 19:28–33. [Maciej Miechowita], Chronica Polonorum (Krakow: Industria Hieronymi Vietoris Cholcographi, 1521; reprint Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1986).

220

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

132 “Profecto nullus in illa aetate princeps Vitowdo comparandus fuit, quia liberalitate & factiuitate nullus eo praestantior erat, ” ibid., CCLXXXVIII. 133 Matvei Mekhovski, Traktat o dvukh Sarmatiyakh / Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, Asiana et Europiana, et de contentis in eis, introduces, translated and commented on by S. A. Annintskii, Izvestija inostrantsev o narodakh SSSR (Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1936). For the place of the Tractatus within contemporary treatesis on geography see Henryk Barycz, “Wstęp,” (Introduction), in Maciej z Miechowa, Opis Sarmacji azjatyckiej i europejskiej (The description of two Sarmatias, Asian and European), introduced by Henryk Barycz, translated and commented on by Tadeusz Bieńkowski, afterword by Waldemar Voisé, Źródła do dziejów nauki i techniki 14 (Wrocław, etc.: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo PAN, 1972), 5–16. 134 Mekhovski, 145 and 170. 135 “Iagello autem, qui postea et Vladislaus, sub treugis pacis captivando Keystuth et filium eius Vitawdum Keystuth in carcere occidit, Vitawdum vero in vincula coniecit,” ibid., 177. 136 Ibid., 181. 137 “Praetera Sigismundus, rex Romanorum, iacendo inter Vitoldum et Vladislaum, fratrem eius regem Poloniae, fomitem discordiam, coronam Vitoldo promisit et in regem Lithuanorum sublimari persuasit. Verum cum affarretur corona per loca tutiora Marchiae et Prussiae, nobiles Maioris Poloniae sese opposuerunt et cum exploratoribus in custodia permanendo in loco, qui Turzagora vocatur, legatos imperatoris Romanorum operiebatur et expectaunt.Vitoldus autem de hoc certior factus prae tristica ab antrace inter scapulas orto vitam cum principatu finivit anno domini 1430,” ibid., 181. 138 Lat, Martinus Cromerus (ca. 1512–1589), on him see PSB, 15.2–3:319–21. 139 On Herberstein, see the section entitled “Western Countries: the Most Powerful Ruler or a Bloodthristy Tyrant.” 140 Martinus Cromerus, De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX (Basel: Per Ioannem Opporinum, 1555). Henceforth quoted according to the Polish translation [Marcin Kromer], Kronika Polska Marcina Kromera biskupa warmińskiego ksiąg XXX (Thirty books of the Polish chronicle by Martinus Kromer, the bishop of Warmia), trans. Marcin of Błażow Błażowski (Krakow: Sanok; Nakład i druk Karola Pollaka, Drukarnia M. Loba, 1857). 141 Marcin Kromer, Polska czyli o położeniu, ludności, obyczajach królewstwa Polskiego księgi dwie (Polonia sive de situ, populi, moribus, magistratibus et republica regni Polonici libri duo), translated by Stefan Kozikowski, introduced and edited by Roman Marchwiński, Literatura Warmii i Mazur w dawnych wiekach (Olsztyn: Pojezerie, 1984); and id., Rozmowa dworzanina z mnichem (Conversation between a courtier and a monk), ed. J. Loś (Krakow: Akademija Umejętności, 1915). Biographical details are presented on the basis of Marchwiński’s introductory article in Kromer, Polska, i–xiv. 142 B. Dundulis, Lietuvos užsienio politika, 213–14. 143 [Kromer], Kronika, 891–92.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

221

144 “Quo magis obnoxius, & opportumus fuit dalis, & iniurijs cum Sigismundi Caesaris, tum Vitoldi, & Suitrigellonis proximorum suorum, de quibus erat bene meritus: per quos factum est, ut in administrando regno plusculum haberet negocij,” [Marcin Kromer], “Martini Cromeri oratio in funere optimi et maximi principis, Sigismundi … in Poloniae historiae corpus: … Ex bibliotheca Ioan. Pistorii Nidani (Basilea: per Sebastianvm Henriceptari, 1582), 3:18. 145 [Bernard Wapowski], Dzieje Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego od roku 1380 do 1535 przez Bernarda z Rachtamowic Wapowskiego (The history of the Polish Crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from 1380 to 1535 by Bernardus of Rachtamowic Wapowski), ed. Mikołaj Malinowski, 2 vols. (Wilno: Nakładem i czcionakami Teofila Glücksberga, 1847), 2:97–106. 146 “… que loca Alexander Vitoldus preclarus et invictus bellator, Roxanis debellatoris ac multis subactis ducibus imperio olim lituanica adiecerent,” [id.,], Chronicorum Bernardi Vapovii partem postriorem 1480–1535 / Kroniki Bernarda Wapowskiego z Radochoniec kantora katedr. krakowskiego. Część ostatnia czasy podługoszowskie obymująca (1480–1535), ed. J. Szujski, Scriptores rerum Polonicarum, vol. 2 (Krakow: Sumptibus Acad. Litter. Cracov. Typis Universitatis, 1874), 39, also see ibid., 116. 147 “… ad hodie armorum desuentudinem ne ignaviam dicam, bellicosa alioquin olim natio refluxit, ut militaris discipline gloria cum Alexandro Vitoldo apud eam gentem esse videatur,” ibid., 39. 148 “Magni Lituanie ad regum Poloniae unionem et incorporatione perpetuam per Alexandrum Vitoldum et Vladislaum Jegellonem olim factam,” ibid., 45, also see ibid., 46. 149 Marcin Bielski, Kronika Wssythyego swyata na ssesc wiekow a na cztery ksiegi takież monarchie rozdzielona, … do tego roku ktory sye pisse 1554 (The chronicle of the entire world divided into six ages and into four books according to monarchies, … until the year in which it is written 1554) (Krakow: Przez Hieronima Scharffenberga, 1554), henceforth quoted according to [Marcin Bielski], Kronika Marcina Bielskiego (Chronicle of Marcin Bielski), ed. Józef Turowski (Krakow: Sanok; Nakład i druk Karola Pollaka, 1856). 150 For a detailed biography of Marcin Bielski (1495–1575), see PSB, 2:64–66. 151 [Bielski], Kronika Marcina, 601. 152 Jan Herburt (after 1524–1577); on him, see PSB, 9.3/42:440–42. 153 Ioan Herbvrt, Chronica, sive Historiae Polonicae compendiosa, ac per certa librorum capita ad facilem memoriam recens facta descriptio (Basel: ex officina Oporiana, 1571). 154 Ibid., 128, should be p. 238. 155 “Princeps impiger, & uegeto ingenio abstremius in omni uita, nihil praeter aquam bibere solitus, in uictu temperans, temporis ita perparcus, ut supra mensam iudicaret, & responsa legatis daret,” ibid., 139, should be p. 239. 156 [Alessandro Guagnini], Sarmatiae Europae descriptio, quae Regnum Poloniae, Lituaniam, Samogitiam, Russiam, Masouiam, Prussiam, Pomeraniam, Livoniam et Moschouiae, Tartariaque partem complecitur, Alexandri GwagniniVeronensis, equiti aurati, preditumque praefecti, diligenta conscriptae ([Cra-

222

157

158 159 160 161 162 163 164

165 166

167 168

169

170 171

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA couiae]: Typis Matthiae Wirzbięte, 1578). Henceforth it is referred to according to [Alessandro Guagnini], Kronika Sarmacyey europeyskey … (The Chronicle of the European Sarmatia …) bk., 1: pt. 1, W którey sie zamyka opisanie samey Sarmacyey Europeyskiey w granicach y okolicznościach iey (Which holds the description of the Sarmatia proper within its borders and surroundings), bk., 1: pt. 2, Krótkie zebranie kroniki Polskiey … (A short summary of the Polish chronicles), bk. 2, Kronika W. X. Litewskiego (The chronicle of the G[rand] D[uchy] of Lithuania) (Krakow: w Drukarnie Mikołaja Loba, 1611). See Guagnini’s biography in PSB, 9:204 and Daiva Narbutienė, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos lotyniškoji knyga, XV–XVII a. (Latin books in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the fifteenth–seventeenth century), Senosios literatūros studijos (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004), n. 2, 85. [Guagnini], bk. 1:90. Ibid., 93–95. Ibid., 92. Ibid., 95–97. Ibid., bk. 2:27–29. Ibid., 33–35. “Skirgielo skoro został na państwe Litewskim: natychmiast Witołd mąż serca wielkiego / maiac to sobie przykre / gdyby podleżemu y nie walecznemu Wodzowi Litewskiemu podlegał,” ibid., 33. Ibid., 36–37. [Augustinus Rotundus], “Epitome principum Lituaniae a migratione Italorum P. Libone vel, ut Lituanica historica scribit, Palemone duce usque ad Jagellones,” in Šešioliktojo, 296–305. The Second Lithuanian Statute was approved in 1566. All the three Lithuanian Statutes (1526, 1566, qnd 1588) were codified in the Old Belorusian. “Keistutus vero sex habuit filios: Sigismundum, Totvilum, Voidatum, Patricium, Dongutum, et, qui inter ceteros eminebat virtute, Vitoldum,” [Rotundus], “Epitome,” 303. “Vitoldus, Jagellonis patruelis frater, cui dum baptisaretur Alexandri nomen inditum erat, vir bello fortis fuit, Lithuaniam strenue a Moschis et Scythis non solum defendit, sed ipse bellum utrisq. his hostibus intulit, eorumq[ue] exercitus numerosos profligavit. Nohaiensibus, Tauricanis, Transrhananis Scythis, arms suis perdomitis, leges tulit, et arbitrio suo regulos praeficit; qui vero ferociores videbantur, ne rebellarent, in Lithuaniam migrare, et mediterranea, ad amnem Vacam, incolere coėgit, qui aequis legibus cum indigenis vivunt, religionem tamen Machumetanam hactenus colunt,” ibid., 304. Motiejus Strijkovskis, Lt Stryjkowski began his career as a historian at the court of Jurgis Olelkaitis, Lt / Pl, Jerzy Olelkowicz (ca. 1531–1578), the Duke of Slutsk, PSB, 23:743–45. After Olelkaitis’ death Stryjkowski was under the patronage of Merkelis Giedraitis, Lt / Pl, Melchior Giedroyc (ca.1536–1608), the bishop of Samogitia, PSB, 7:430– 31. For an in-depth study of Stryjkowski’s biography, see Zbysław Wojtkowiak, Maciej Stryjkowski – dziejopis Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Kalendarium

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

172

173

174 175

176

177

178 179 180 181

182

223

życia i dzialności (Maciej Stryjkowski – historiographer of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the diary of life and deeds) (Poznań: UAM, 1990). For a detailed investigation of Stryjkowski’s works, see Julia Radziszewska, Maciej Stryjkowski. Historyk-poeta z epoki Odrodzienia (Maciej Stryjkowski: historian and poet of the Renaissance), Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach 208 (Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 1978). Maciej Stryjkowski, “Goniec cnothy, do prawych szlachciczów, …” (The messenger of virtue to the rightful gentry...) (Krakow: u Macieja Wirzbięty, 1574); reprinted in Stryjkowski, Kronika, 2:467–557. Maciej Stryjkowski, O począthach, wywodach, dzielnościach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sławnego narodu Litewskiego, Żemojdzkiego i Ruskiego, … (On the genesis, descent and courage, chivalrous and local deeds of the honorable Lithuanian, Samogintian and Ruthenian peoples …), ed. Julia Radziszewska (Warsaw: Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1978). Stryjkowski, Kronika. This statement is not elaborated upon at that point, thus repeating the traditional the Lithuanian point of view that the union of Lublin (1569) was beneficial for Poland rather than Lithuania. Stryjkowski’s attitude is illustrated by his changing view on Vytautas’ coronation: in the Genesis, he regrets its failure (Stryjkowski, O początkach, 72) as is negative about it in the Chronicle, id., Kronika, 2:174–76. “Ochrzcił go arcybiskup rzymskiej wiary torem. / Sam Władysławem ochrzczon, by sławę miłował, / A Witołt Aleksandrem, by mężnie wojował,” Stryjkowski, O początkach, 306; and [Vytautas] “Alexandri Magni nomine Christianus donatus, & gesta eiusdem expressit,” id. Kronika, 1:X. “Ulissem strategmatibus, Annibalem magnitudine animi, Scipiones dexteritate, Leonidem audacia, Cressum thesauris, & quosvis alius Heroas insigni splendore ac liberalitate (cum bis denos principes & monarchas, tresque Reges & Cesarem Sigismundum Ungariae & Bohemiae Regem in Lucica Volhiniae lautissimis conviviis per bimestre spatium splendissime excepisset) facile superavit,” Stryjkowski, Kronika, 1:X. Ibid., 2:151. Ibid., 85. Stryjkowski, O początkach, 385. The passage about the tapestries has been discussed in an article by Julia Radziszewska, “Nieznany opis arrasów z wieku XVI” (Unknown description of tapestries from the sixteenth century), Rocznik Krakowski 49 (1978): 27–36. I have further elaborated this point in my article “Motiejus Stryjkowskis apie Lucko suvažiavimą. Tekstas, vaizdas, kontekstas” (Maciej Stryjkowski on the meeting in Lutsk: Text, image, context), in Vaizdas ir pasakojimas (Image and narrative), ed. Ieva Pleikienė, AAAV 26 (Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2003), 7–23. For an in-depth study on origin tradition and its use within the Habsburg propaganda, see Marie Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas: The Hapsburgs and the Mythic Image of the Emperor (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1993).

224

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

183 Here I refer to Aeneas wandering in the temple of Juno at Carthage (Virgil, Anaeid, I:447; for an English translation, see Virgil, The Aeneid, translated into English prose with an introduction by W. F. Jackson Knight, The Penguin Classics (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1960), 41) or those woven during the contest between Pallas and Arachne, P. Ovidius Naso, Opera, vol. 2, Metamorphoses, ed. Rudolf Ehwald (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1922), bk. VI: ll. 1–130. 184 In the literature of the GDL, the motif of a woven story appears in a panegyric to Nicholas Christopher Radvila; there the tapestry is meant to display the genealogy of the Radvilas, Mathias Nevius, “Auleam Rdzivilaeum, praevio aparatu, prosapiam Radzivilorum continens,” in Panegyrica, illustrisimo domino d. Nicolao Christophoro Radzivilio S.R.I. …(Vilnius: Thomas Leuiczki, 1604), in Gratulatio Vilnae, 198, 200. 185 “Iz niechcę byc żórawem, co na dwu drzewach chciał gniazdo swoje budować,” Stryjkowski, Kronika, 2:160. 186 E.g., commenting on the failed coronation, Stryjkowki exclaims: “Biedna Litwa!” Stryjkowski, O początkach, 72. Reporting about the death of Bishop Zbygniew, Oleśnicki characterizes him as a great enemy of Lithuania as he was against Vytautas’ coronation, id., Kronika, 2:492. 187 “Tkaże i oni, wielcy litewscy księdzowe / W prochu leśą, ledwo się s nich Witołd ozowie. / A ono takich Witołdów tysiąc w Litwie było! / … / Oni to pryzwłaszczają wszystko Witołdowi, / Bo żaden spraw swych pismen nie dał potomnkowi,” id., O początkach, 42. 188 “Wspomni cnego Jagieła, wspomni Witułtowe / Sprawy ony przesławne i zwyczenstwa zdrowe, / Pomści się granic swoich za Uhrę pomknionych / I z Nowgorda, Pskowa zwyklych dni onych / … / Granice twoje były, dziś z nich wielka szkoda. / … / Wiesz iż Witułt Oczaków trzymał s krześciany, / Gdzie dziś Tatarzyn płuży strasąc Podolany,” id., “Goniec,” 534–35. 189 “Witołd syn jego Tajnów, Insterborg wziął, / Gdy go Krzyżacy gonili las podciął, / Tamże ich pobił, gdzie marszałek Godfryd, / Leży z Niemcy bit,” ibid., 547. 190 Ibid., 547–49. 191 “Witułt Hektora w swym męstwie celując, / Na księstwo wstąpił,” ibid., 549. 192 “Smoleńsk potem wziął Witułdt, ... / ... / W ten czas Basili kniasz Moskiewski k niemu / Przyjechał, w Smoleńsku bił czołem jemu, Tatarów wielkość zbił, trzech czarów poimał, / Swym dank męstwa dał. /... / Wszystko Podole wziął, Prussom zaś dał met, / Oddał wet za wet,” ibid., 549. 193 Ibid., 551. 194 “… o Witułtcie miły / Trzeba twej siły,” ibid., 551. 195 Ibid., 551–52. 196 “Temu [to Casimir] dając miecz Litowar winszował / By nie inaczej niż Witułt sprawował, Nie Włoskim prawem, nie cudzym przykładem, Lecz przodków śladem,” ibid., 553. 197 Samuelis Daugirdas, Lt / Pl, Samuel Dougird/Dowgird (fl. first half of the 17th c.), on him, see Kęstutis Gudmantas, “Daugirdas, kur eiles rašo (Samuelis Daugirdas iš Pagaujo ir jo Genealogija)” (Daugirdas, who writes verse (Samuel Daugirdas from Pogow and his Geneaology)), in Samuelis Daugirdas, Genealogija,

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

225

arba Trumpas didžiųjų Lietuvos kunigaikščių ir jų didžių bei narsių žygių aprašymas, … (Genealogy or a brief description of great and curageous deeds of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes ...), trans. Regina Koženauskienė, ed. Sigitas Narbutas, introduced and commented on by Kęstutis Gudmantas, Ištakos (Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2001), 9–49. 198 [Samuel Dougird], “Genealogia albo Krótke opisanie Wielkich Książąt Litewskich i ich wielkich i miężnych spraw wojennych uczynione …” (Genealogy or a brief description of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes and their great and manly military deeds …) (W Lubczu: w Drukarni Piotra Blatusa Kmity, 1626), reprinted in Daugirdas, Genealogija, 51–103. 199 Vladislovas Vaza, Lt / Pl, Władysław Waza (1595–1648, r. 1632–1648), the prince of Sweden, king of Poland, and Grand Duke of Lithuania. 200 For a more detailed comparison of the poems see Regina Koženauskienė, “Tekstologinės pastabos” (Textological remarks), in Daugirdas, Genealogija, 181–87. 201 “Slawny Witold z Jagieyłem dokonał ostatków, / Zbił piędziesiąt tysięcy, łupółw nabrał, statków. / Nie pomogło, choć krwawe miecze im przysłali, / Zwycięstwem przegrażając na harda kazali,” [Dougird], 59 202 Ibid., 60. 203 “Moskiewski kniaż Wasilej będąc zwycieżony / Od Witułta, przyjachał sam w siewerskie strony / Do Smoleńska, tam pokłony, dary oddawał, / Jako sługa przed panem, tak on przed nim stawał,” ibid., 66. 204 Albertas Vijūkas Kojelavičius, Lt / Pl, Wojciech Wijuk Koiałowicz. 205 Albertus Wiivk Koialowicz, Historiae Litvanea, pt. 1, De rebus Litvanorum ante susceptum Christianam Religionem, contiunctioemque Magni Lituaniae Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae libri novem (Danzig: Svmptibvs Georgii Forsteri, 1650); pt. 2, Sev de rebus Litvanorum, a coniunctione Magni Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae ad Unionem eorum Dominiorum libri octo (Antwerp: Apud Iacobum Mevrsium, 1669). The Historiae hereafter is referred to according to its Lithuanian translation: Albertas Vijūkas-Kojelavicius, Lietuvos istorija (The history of Lithuania), introduced and commented on by Juozas Jurginis, LB 26 (Vilnius: Vaga, 1988). 206 An in-depth comparison of the both authors was made by Darius Kuolys, Asmuo, tauta, valstybė Lietuvos istorinėje literatūroje. Renesansas, Barokas (Personality, nation, and state in the Lithuanian historical literature: Renaissance and Baroque) (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1992). 207 On Vytautas’ despotism, see the section entitled “Roots and Fruits of Tyranny.” 208 When regretting the loss of Novgorod the Great in 1478, Koialowicz states that it was after this event that Vytautas’ decline began, Kojelavičius, 530. 209 Ibid., 258, 260, 308. 210 Ibid, 273. 211 Introducing the reign of Vytautas, Koialowicz writes that when Alexander Vytautas was declared the Grand Duke of Lithuania, the state began flourishing; actually the state was also flourishing before and after him, but never was it more magnificent either in the glory of its actions or in the vastness of its lands as it was under Vytautas’ reign, ibid., 332.

226

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

212 On Lithuanian nobility in the Middle Ages, see Rimvydas Petrauskas, Lietuvos diduomenė XIV a. pabaigoje – XV a. Sudėtis – struktūra – valdžia (Lithuanian nobility in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: constitution, structure, authority) (Vilnius: aidai, 2003). 213 Concerning the title, the Radvilas used both of the Latin forms, “dux” and “princeps.” Henceforth they will be referred to as princes. 214 Pranciškus Gradauskas, Lt / Pl, Frantiszek Gradowski (ca. 1545 – after 1599). 215 Albertas Radvila, Lt / Pl, Albert Radziwiłł (1558–1592). 216 Franciscus Gradovius, In nvptias illustrissimorum spnosorum, D. Alberti Radivilonis Olycae & Niesuesij Ducis, & Generossisime virginis, dominae Annae, Curlandiae Ducissae panegyrica oratio (N.p.: n.p., n.d.). 217 “... quid Vitoldum & Gediminum inuictissimos illas bellatores, quas in armis versantes aliquando Tanais ripę timuerunt & quorum alter ante trecentos fere annos illustrissimam Radiuillonum domum condidit,” ibid., C/r. – C/v. 218 “Etenim patria primu[m] Lithuania illa est, que sola toties peperit & maximos & sapeintissimos Principes, Vitoldos & Iagellones, vt vel hoc vno ea prouincia non tam cum tota Sarmatia certare voluisse veideatur, quam sola eam illustrate, vt iam nomen Lithuanicum his fortissimus Principibus, ambodus in hac gente genitis, toti terrarum orbi innotuerit. Ex parente autem eo, qui & rebus gestis & pietate clarissimus euasit, progenitus es. Ab hoc etaim vno, quicquid militaris disciplinae, quicquid nobilitatis Ducum, aut defensorum patriae nostrae effulsit, originem accepit,” Helius Piligrimovius, Panegyrica apostrophe ad illvstrissimvm dominvm D. Christophorvm Radvilonem, … (Cracoviae: Typis Andreae Petricouij, 1583), Biij/r-v. 219 Kristupas Radvila Perkūnas, Lt / Pl, Krysztof Radziwiłł Piorun (1547–1603), field palatine and vice-chancellor of the GDL, PSB, 30:264–76. 220 Lukšaitė, 541–42. 221 This portrait is lost; it is known only from Ozębłowski’s lithograph (see fig. 72), Marija Matušakaitė, Portretas XVI–XVIII a. Lietuvoje (The portrait in the sixteenth–eighteenth-century Lithuania) (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1984), 40. 222 This portrait is known only from a 17th-century inventory, ibid., 40. 223 The poems I am going to discuss further have received diverse scholarly attention. On the one hand they have been interpreted as pieces written under the patronage of the Radvilas; emphasizing the personal relations between the family and the authors, Alojzy Sajkowski, Od Sierotki do Rybeńki: w kręgu Radziwiłłowskiego mecenatu (From the Orphan to the Fish: in the circle of Radvilas’ patronage) (Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 1965), 6–24. On the other hand they have also been viewed as expressing Lithuanian statehood and independence in the union with Poland, Lukšaitė, 537–44. 224 Johan Radvanus / Jonas Radvanas, Radvilias / Radviliada, introduced, commented on, and translated by Sigitas Narbutas, Bibiliotheca Baltica Lithvania [hereafter, BBL] (Vilnius: Vaga, 1997). Jonas Radvanas, Lt / Pl, Jan Radwan (fl. 2d half of the 16th century), PSB, 30:3–4. 225 Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis, Lt / Pl, Mikołaj Radziwiłł Rudy (1512–1584), palatine of Trakai, later that of Vilnius, the supreme hetman and the chancellor of the GDL, PSB, 30:321–35.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

227

226 Radvanus, 144, 146. 227 Nikžentaitis interprets the appearence of Vytautas in Radvila’s dream as a saintly feature, Nikžentaitis, “LDK kultūrinės tradicijos, 325 and id., Vytauto ir Jogailos, 22. However, as I have indicated, this is also an ancient topos known already in the heroic epos of Antiquity. 228 “Pro tunicis aliquot, totidemque securibus olim / Gessimus in Moschos ingentia bella, nec unquam / DESIDIA in bellum me distulit IMPROBA SIREN,” Radvanus, 152, 154. 229 This is how Vytautas addresses Radvila: “At tv spes litauum, lux o didissima nostri / Imperii, qui res fluxas, sublasaque prompte / restituis, quantumque potes tam noxia secla / Diffingis: succurre tuis, & strene ruina / Imbelles Moschos: Solus qui vincere posis / Et reor, & si quid certti mens augurat, opto,” ibid., 154. 230 “… crastine lux cernet Moschorum funera campo. / O mihi quam blande, quam molliter ossa quiescat, / Vastra meos olim cum sustentabit honores Virtus, egregiasque animas, laudesque parentum / … / Nunc vine, haec summa est: at te post vltima fata / Fama sepulchri expers longo dignabitur aeuo, / Perge libens, quo te VITVS agit ALMA, iubetque / Consulere Historiae Litauum, decorique parentum,” ibid. 231 Franciscus Gradovius, Hodeoporicon Moschicvm illvstrissimi principis ac domini, domini Christophori Radiwilonis, … (Vilnae: In Officina Ioannis Kartzani, 1582). Generally on the genre see Hodoeporica: Studien zur neulateinischen Reisedichtung des deutschen Kulturraum im 16. Jahrhundert, ed. Herman Wiegand, Saecular Spiritalia 12, ed. Dieter Wuttke (Baden-Baden: Verlag Valentin Koerner, 1984). 232 “… prisco Vitholdus in aeuo / Condidit hic templum antiquum, memeorabile, magnum. / Fons vbi perpetuas gelidus simul expuit vndas. / Relligione loci tactus Radiuilo, sacratis / Aris thura dedit, patrio & bona munera Diuo,” Gradovius, Diiij/v-E/r. 233 Andrius Rimša, Lt / Pl, Andrzej Rymsza (before 1550 – ca. 1595), for the reconstruction of his biography, see Sajkowsky, 21–22. 234 Bronisław Nadolski, “Łacińska poezja dworska Jana Kochanowskiego związana ze Stefanem Batorym,” (Jan Kochanowski’s Latin court poetry related to Stephan Batory), in Studia porównacze o literaturze staropolskiej (Comparative studies in old Polish literature), ed. Teresa Michałowska and Jan Śaski (Wrocław, etc.: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1980), 160–61. In contrast to Gradovius, who, at that time, served as a scribe of Stephan Bathory, Rymsza was by the side of Radvila the Thunderer, Sajkowski, 11. 235 Andrzei Rymsza, Dekretos akroama to iest diesięcoroczna powiesct woiennych spraw oswieconnego ksiązecia y Pana Pana Krysztofa Radzwila … ( Decretos akroama: that is, the ten-year-long story concerning the military affairs of the enlightened Duke and lord, lord Christopher Radvila…) (Wilno: Przez Daniela Lanzyckiego, 1585). 236 Ibid., 46 237 Ibid., 55–56.

228

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

238 Sajkowski interprets Rymsza’s doubts concerning the church as doubts about Vytautas’ legend, Sajkowski, 21. 239 Rymsza, 55–56. 240 Sajkowski, 20. 241 Paulius Oderbornas, Lt / Pl, Paweł Oderborn (ca. 1555–1604); for a more detailed biography, see PSB, 23:533–35. 242 Pavllus Oderbornius, Ioannis Basilidis Magni Moscoviae ducis vita (Witebergae: Excudebant Haeredes Ioannis Cratonis, 1585). Also see critical translation into Lithuanian Paulius Oderbornas, Didžiojo Maskvos kunigaikščio Ivano Vasiljevičiaus gyvenimas (The life of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan Vasil’evich), trans. Sigitas Narbutas, Ištakos (Vilnius: Lietuvių lieratūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1999). 243 Oderbornius served as an army chaplain in 1579; a year later he was working as a Lutheran priest in Kaunas; thus, he was not an eyewitness to the event. However, it is likely that Oderbornius heard the story from other war participants, Sigitas Narbutas, “Paulius Oderbornas ir jo ‘Didžiojo Maskvos kunigaikščio Ivano Vasiljevičiaus gyvenimas’ ” (Paulus Oderbornius and his “Life of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan Vasil’evich”), in Odebornas, 12, passim. 244 “Delatus postea inter infestas & irritatus gentes ad Procuum, incolis non repugnantibus, fiducia relligionis diui Vitoldi a quo conditum oppidum erat, parei iußit; lęctus non militiam tantum, verumetiam vestigia se tanti Principis secutum,” Oderbornius, R8/r-v. 245 The foundation privilege dates from 15 August 1428, Vitoldiana, no. 38, 47. I do not know why the comment in the Lithuanian translation of Oderbornius’ text says that there is no evidence of any church foundation there, Oderbornas, n. 328, 231. 246 “Ecclesia Vitoldi” on the map designed by Thomas Makowski, Karol Buczek, The History of Polish Cartography from the 15th to the 18th Century, trans. Andrzej Potocki, Monografie z dziejów nauki i techniki 24 (Wrocław, Warsaw, and Krakow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1966), 61. 247 It is highly credible that Radvila personally sent Gradovius’ and Rymsza’s poems to Kochanowski, who at that time was the most popular Polish poet, Sajkowski, 6–7. 248 Jan Kochanowski (1530–1584); for his detailed biography, see Jana Kochanskiego dzieła wszystkie (Complete works of Jan Kochanowski), vol. 4, Jan Kochanowski, jego ród, żywot i dzieła (Jan Kochanowski, his origins, life, and works) (Warsaw: W Drukarnie Józefa Ungra, 1884). 249 Jan Kochanowski, “Iezda do Moskwy …” (The march to Moscow …), ibid., 2: 302–36. 250 Zaborskaitė, 83–85. 251 Vytautas appears in many of these plays, but only as one of the characters, e.g., Via appia ad celsissimos honorum apices . . . (Vilnius: n.p., 1712), Vilnae - sedes ducum Lithuaniae . . .(Vilnius: n.p., 1683), etc. 252 Bellaria svper mensas debellatoris Litvaniae Alexandri Vitoldi, [by Stanislaw Chrzanowski] (Pinsk: n.p., 1717).

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

229

253 Iter ambitionis olim a Vitoldo magno dvce Litvaniae cum Morte non tam terminantum, quam desertum (Riesel: n.p., 1694). 254 Ibid., v. 255 The play is based on Koialowicz’s description of the incursion from 1394, Kojelavičius, 336–37. This play is noteworthy as demonstrating the longevity of the association of Vytautas and Grunwald. Although the battle is not mentioned in the program of the play, Zaborskaitė describes it as preparations for the celebrated fight, Zaborskaitė, 80. Šidlauskas not only relates it with the battle of Grunwald, but also ‘corrects’ the authors saying that they had mixed up the masters of the Order writing Conrad (the master in 1394) instead of Ulrich (the brother of Conrad and the one in 1410), Rimantas Šidlauskas, “Lietuvių kovos su kryžiuočiais jėzuitų teatre” (The battles between Lithuanians and the crusaders in the Jesuit theater), in Žalgirio laikų, 158. 256 “Vitoldus caeso triginta millium milite gestiens, explicato illo: Plenum cruore &c. Divae Virgini perfolven gratias, super prostrata capita pium triumphum agens, deducere jubet in cantico Divam Virginem,” Bellaria, A2/r. 257 The issue was discussed by Paulius Galaunė, “Vytauto portretai. Kelios pastabos del Vytauto Didžiojo vaizdavimo prototipų autentiškumo” (The portraits of Vytautas’: several remarks concerning the authenticity of the prototypes of the represenatations of Vytautas the Great), Lietuvių tautos praeitis 4.3/4 (1930; reprint, 1980): 157–84. 258 Kurczewski, 1:30. On the banner, see above Ch. II, the section entitled “Memory and Memorial.” 259 Širmulis hypothesizes that an authentic portrait of Vytautas was followed, Alfredas Širmulis, “Vytauto Didžiojo portretai” (The portraits of Vytautas the Great), in Europos dailė: lietuviškieji variantai (European art: the Lithuanian versions), AAAV (Vilnius: Leidybos centras, 1994), 55–64. 260 “In corpore suo et tenuitas notabatur et brevitas: quippe quem natura rerum eximia specie et statura donare dignata non fuerat, dum caetera abunde donasset. Liberalis autem et magnificus tute notatus est vix tanta comparatione facta, redonans, quanta exhibita acceperat, cuius dextera notabatur quam laeva protensior,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:416. 261 Stryjkowski, Kronika, 2:176. 262 Kojelavičius, 429. 263 On Kromer, see above the section entitled “Poland: the Noteworthy Ruler,” subsection “Historical Literature.” 264 “… statura fuit mediocri, gracili corpore, radere barbam, & genas solitus, qualem apud Trocos in templo depictum vidimus” Martinus Cromerus, “De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX,” in Pistorius, Polonicae historiae corpus, 2:687 [emphasis mine]. 265 For the ones in Radvilas’ galleries, see above the section entiled “Vytautas and the Magnates: the Radvilas.” 266 On the portraits of Vytautas in Old and New Trakai, see Stanislovas Mikulionis, “Dėl Vytauto portretų Trakų bažnyčiose” (About Vytautas’ portraits in the Churches of [Old and New] Trakai), KB 2 (1989): 55–6.

230

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

267 Tadeusz M. Trajdos, “Fundacja opactwa Benedyktynów w Starych Trokach” (The foundation of the Benedictine abbey in Old Trakai), Analecta Cracoviensia 19 (1987): 245. 268 The name of Vytautas was kept alive by the psalterists who used to sing it during everyday Mass; M. Homolicki, “Katedra Wileńska” (Vilnius Cathedral), in Wizerunki i roztrąsania naukowe, 14:17–18. 269 From the acts of the cathedral published by Kurczewski, 3: act from 11 June 1728, p. 299 and from 11 May 1729, p. 301. 270 Širmulis, 62–63. 271 The parish church of Trakai was decorated with murals. These are still mentioned in 1645: “i sam Kosciol byl wßytel z staroswiecta po Grecku malowany / teraz Babiniec robiac polowa malowania ważnem zatarta/ a chor sam starim ze malowaniem zostal,” [Mankiewicz], A3/r. Today, no wall paintings are visible. Most likely they were destroyed during the subsequent reconstructions of the church; however, some fragments could have survived beneath the plaster. 272 Matušakaitė, 47–48. 273 For the first time, this portrait of Vytautas appears in the inventory of the church only in 1893, Mikulionis, “Dėl Vytauto portretų,” 55–56; however, the mention in the inventory is not the date of the execution of the portrait, as the painting itself testifies. 274 Matušakaitė supposes that originally the portrait featured some benefactor of the church from the 17th c. Its transformation into Vytautas happened in the 18th c., when the inscription, grand ducal cap, and mantle were added. The dating is based upon the fact that the boyar is dressed according to fashions of the early 17th c. and the mantle is displayed as a drapery in the manner of the 18th c., Matušakaitė, 47–48 and n. 15, 145. 275 Hereafter, I use the term popular “as different from the religion of the learned,” Rosalind and Christopher Brooke, Popular Religion in the Middle Ages: Western Europe 1000–1300 (N.p.: Thames and Hudson, 1985), 61. For an in-depth study on popular religion during the late Middle Ages and early-modern period, see Margaret Aston, Faith and Fire: Popular and Unpopular Religion 1350–1600 (London and Rio Grande: The Hambledon Press, 1993). 276 The veneration of representations of the Mother of God is characteristic of Lithuania: the images belong to the Catholic Church and are executed following Western iconography; however, their veneration resembles that of icons in the Orthodox Church. 277 Today this image is kept in the southern nave of the Vilnius Cathedral. 278 The inscription on the other side of the “Madonna of Trakai,” (painting tempera on lime panel, 16th c., inscription made by brush in black oil paints) reads: “Imago haec B.V. Mariae, miraculis in Li / tuania in civitate Troki celebris ab Emmanuele II imperatore orientis Alexandro Vitoldo Magno Duci Li / tuaniae nuper ad sanctam fidem catholicam converso / et circa annum domini 1382 baptizato donatu est. / Ferunt hanc esse ipsam imaginem cuius ope. Joannes onaeus imperator orientis hunnos et persus vicit, obtentisque hisce victoriis vehiculo argentes

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

231

tracto a quator equis albi Constantinopolim solemniter invexit in proprioque loco posuit,” I am grateful to Dr. Birutė Rūta Vitkauskienė for giving the exact text of the inscription. 279 “Obraz starozytny Matki Boskiej, Szkoly Bizantynskiey przyslany przerz Cezarza wschodniego Manuela Paloeloga, wielkiemu Xieciu Witoldowi, po przyjeciu chrztu swietego razem z calym Narodem Litewskim,” quoted from a photograph kept in Perto Gudyno Paminklų Restauravimo dirbtuvės / Petras Gudynas Center of the Monument Restauration, Vilnius, file no. 24680 [all characters as in original]. 280 Alexander Kurschat, “Die Ruinen von Troki,” Altpreussische Monatschrift 41 (1904): 572. This legend is well known, sometimes even scholars credit its being true, e.g., Karol Górski relies on the most explicit version of the legend according to which the Madonna of Trakai is not only of Byzantine origin but even painted on a tin-plate, Karol Górski, “Litewskie powiązania ‘Banderia Prutenorum’ Jana Długosza. Na marginese książki Svena Ekdahla” (Jan Długosz’s ‘Banderia Prutenorum’ and its Lithuanian Connections. On the Margin of Sven Ekdahl’s Book), in Dlugossiana sudie historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza / Dlugossiana studia historica in honorem Długossii ante hos 500 annos mortui oblata, ed. Stanisław Gawęda, Zeszyty Naukowe Universytetu Jagiellońskiego DLXI, Prace Historyczne 65, ed. Stanisław Cynarski (Warszawa: Sumptibus Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1980), 172. 281 Šinkūnaitė relates the inscription to the coronation of the image celebrated in 1718, Laima Šinkūnaitė, “Garbingasis Trakų Dievo Motinos paveikslas ir jo sekimai” (The Honorable Image of the Mother of God in Trakai and its Imitations), Logos 26 (2001): 149–50. However, it appears strange that the inscription is silent on the coronation. 282 The date is mentioned in the inscription. 283 Pieśn Nayświętszey Pannie w Obrazie Trockim Boskiemi Łaskami y Cudami tym mieyscu Słynącey (The song dedicated to the Most Holy Virgin from the image of Trakai celebrating its location with graces and miracles) (W Wilnie: w Drukarni J. K. M. Akademickiey Societatis JESU, 1754), A/v-A2/v; I am thankful to Prof. Jūratė Trilupaitienė for the reference to this song. 284 Šinkūnaitė argues for the credibility of the gift story and offers the following scenario: Manuel II donated the image to Vytautas; however, it was painted not in Byzantium, but rather in Bohemia, Šinkūnaitė, “Garbingasis,” 150–52. To my mind this hypothesis is too daring and too vaguely grounded to be credible. Vitkauskienė’s suppositions seem more likely. She suggests that the story of Nicopea could have been true; however, if the icon ever existed it has perished, and the new oil painting was executed in the 16th century; this was a Latin type of Nicopea. The picture was cut and overpainted in the 17th century. The x-ray examination revealed then the Virgin Mary was made more Byzantine-like by changing her white veil into a maphorion. However, Child Jesus was moved from his more Byzantine central position (the idea that the child was originally placed in the center is derived from the fact that all the central part of the earlier image is scratched out), see Birutė Rūta Vitkauskienė “Marijos kultas” (The Marian cult), in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos kultūra, 334–36.

232

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

285 In 1420, the Emperor’s envoy Philantropenos visited Jogaila and Vytautas, John W. Barker, Manuel II Palaeologus (1391–1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969), 338. 286 Ibid., 176, 265. 287 The style of the Queen of Heaven speaks for the early 18th century; however, this is a result of an overpainting. The function of this image in the church of Old Trakai remains obscure. The history of the abbots of the Benedictine monastery in Old Trakai is absolutely silent on any picture of the Mother of God, not to speak of a venerated one, Stephanus Kobierzycki, Series et nototia Trocensivm abbatvm, ordinis S. Benedicti (Krakow: Apud Heredes Christophori Scedel, 1668). The manuscript continuation of the lives of the abbots up to the year 1806 written by Stanisław Sczygielski is appended to the book today kept in the library of Wyszszy Seminarium Duchowny w Tarnowe (Higher Spiritual Seminary in Tarnów), BWSDT 2428. However, the Benedictines in Pivašiūnai, the filia of the Benedictines of Old Trakai, has a venerable image of the Queen of Heaven dating from the early 17th century and, according to the legend, brought by some nobleman from Turkey. I regard the image and the story of Pivašiūnai as distant echoes of those of the image Old Trakai also testifying to the earlier origin of the Queen of Heaven of Old Trakai; see Aušra Baniulytė, “The Cult of the Virgin Mary and Its Images from the Middle Ages until the Seventeenth Century,” in Paveikslas ir knyga, Catalogue no. 1, p. 172–73 [Old Trakai] and no. 18, p. 180–81 [Pivašiūnai]. 288 The Aušra Gate is renowned for the miraculous image of the Virgin Mary Mother of Mercy; for greater detail, see Aušros vartų Švč. Marijos Gailestingum Motinos paveikslas (The image of the Virgin Mary Mother of Mercy from Aušra Gate), comp. Alfredas Širmulis, AAAV 10 (Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 1997) and Maria Kalamajska-Saeed, Ostra Brama w Wilnie (The Aušra Gate of Vilnius) (Warsaw: PWN, 1990). 289 “Acta V. Capituli Vilnensis, 2 September 1667,” f. 6, quoted from Homolicki, 13:93–94, n.1, 94. 290 On the coroantion see Solemnitas Coronationis Beatissime Virginis Mariae in antiquissima sua Ad Praepositalem Palatino Trocensis Civitatis Basilicam, à temporibus Alexandri, Vitoldi Magni Litvaniae Ducis, gratijs & miraculis … (Vilnae: Typis Universitatis Societatis Jesu, 1719). 291 Ibid., 7–8. 292 Motiejus Kazimieras Sarbievius, Lt / Pl, Maciej Kazimierz Sarbiewski (1595– 1640), perhaps the most celebrated Baroque poet of the PLC. 293 “Ila que circum geminis Getarum / Rura sederunt opulenta clivis, / Sunt tibi bello monumenta parti, / Diva triumphi. // Qua lyra, vel quo satis ore dicam / Isse captivos Litalis Gelonos, / Inclitum praedae decus, et tropaeum / Nobilas irae? // Cum ferox belli, duce te, Vitoldus / Bis ter exegit gladium per omnem / Victor Auroram, tumidique fregit / Cornua ponti, // Quantus ingentem clipei sub umbra / Texit Europen, Aiaeque qua se- / cumque tempestas daret, atque ab omni ef- / funderet Istro| // ... // Quantus hinc lato metuendus atque hinc / Limitem ferro secat, et decora / Caede formosus, mediaque laudum / Pulcher in ira // ... // Ille

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

233

seu pictis equitata Bessis / Arva permesus, gelidumque Volgam, / Sive Pellaeas bibit insolentem / Phasin ad aras, / Barbaros templis tibi victor arcus, / Virgo, suspendit; Scythicosque cinctus, / At tibi sacro clipeorum acervos / Ussit in igni // ... // Sic ames nostris, bona Virgo, saepe / Hostibus nosci; tibi sic per omnes / Villae ripas Litali reponant / Signa nepotes,” Mathias Casimirus Sarbievius / Motiejus Kazimieras Sarbievijus, “Tercia Leuca, seu vicus Galli,” in Ludi Fortunae: Lyrica selecta / Lemties žaidimai: poezijos rinktinė, BBL (Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1995), 464–68. 294 Šinkūnaitė, “Garbingasis,” 156–57. 295 Birutė Rūta Vitkauskienė, “Trakų Marijos paveikslo aptaisai” (The Settings of the Painting “Blessed Virgin Mary” in Trakai), in Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės barokas: formos, įtakos, kryptys (The Baroque of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: forms, influences, and tendencies), comp. R. Butvilaitė, AAAV 21 (Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2001), 155 and 162. 296 No foundation charter has survived. The church was first mentioned in 1439, CDECV, no. 159, 180. I have not traced yet the time when the foundation story appeared. Today, the plaque embedded in the northern transept of the church is inscribed with two texts. The first text reads: A. 1400 / VITOLDUS IN LITUANIAM REVERSUS MEMOR ACCEPTI / NUPER AB OPTIMO NUMINE BENEFICIJ, QUO EX ANNI SUPERIORIS / CLADE (pavorsklyje mūšyje su totoriais [in the battle with the Tatars by the Vorskla River) INCOLUMIS EVASERAT, / AD ARGUMENTUM GRATAE VOLUNTATIS SACERDOTIBUS ORDINIS D. FRANCISCI KAUNAE PRIMUM, DEINDE OSMIANAE TEMPLUM / CUM ASCETERIO MUNIFICE EREXIT AC DONAVIT (A. Wiiuk Koialowicz “Historiae Litvanae” p. II LII p. 66) [text in paranthesis as in the original]. The second text reads: SITA BAŽNYČIA 1400 M. PAMŪRIJO DIDYSIS LIETUVOS / KUNIGAIKŠTIS ALEKSANDRAS-VYTAUTAS / ATMINTI KAIP LADISLOVAS-JOGAILA GAVO PRIPAŽINTI IKI / GYVOS GALVOS NEPRIKLAUSOMU LIETUVOS VIEŠPAČIU / Vyskupas Motiejus III Valančius “Pastabos” (In 1400 Grand Duke of Lithuania Alexander-Vytautas had built this church to commemorate [the fact] that Ladislas-Jogaila was made to recognize him sovereign of Lithuania for his lifetime, Bishop Motiejus III Valančius “Remarks”). 297 Kurczewski, 2:344. Homolicki writes that the chapel of the Saviour and the altar of the Ten Thousand Martyrs were associated with Vytautas, Homolicki, 1:23, 13:86. 298 Pociecha, 3:87. 299 This is the sentence from 5 December 1528 to the villicus of Vilnius Shimkov (Šimka, Lt) and to the assistant cupbearer who kept Markov, for the misappropriation of heifers, wild boars, and rams given by the people of Markov and Kurenets to the chapel of Vytautas (“kaplitsa Vitoltova”), LM, 4: no. 329, 272– 73. 300 Pociecha, 2:65–66. Homolicki refers to the document from 1542 in which Pesseti is called the altarist of the altar of the blessed memory Vytautas, “Archivum V. Capituli Vilnen. Liber Dogielii,” f. 109–16; “Codex pergamenus,” f. 147–49, and “Visit. Gener. Eccl. Cath. Vilnen. A. 1743,” f. 104–08, quoted from Homolicki, “Kilka uwag,” 23: n.1, 182. Later Sigismund Augustus also confirmed this nomination, Kurczewski, 2:68–69.

234

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Generally, Pesseti must have been favored by Queen Bona as she ordered him a medal. This was cast by the court artist Giovanni Giacomo Caraglio (1505– 1565). For the medal, see Die italienischen Medaillen der Renaissance und des Barock (1450 bis 1750), comp. Lore Börner, Berliner Numismatische Forschungen, n.s. 5 (Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1997), no. 934, 211 and A. V. Cavallerino, Milano. Civiche raccolte numismatiche. Catalogo delle medaglie, vol. 2, Secolo XVI, Bollettino di Numismatica. Monografia 4.II.1 (N.p.: n.p., 1988), no. 1104, 155, plate 1104. 301 Kurczewski, 3:112. 302 “Mos decantandi laude virorum illustrium adhibita lyra hactenus apud Polonos retenus fuit, quod testantur cantilenae illae de Vladislao Jagellonide, qui ad Varnam periit, de Witoldo et bello Prutenico,” Albert Sarnicki, Triumphus, bk. 12, quoted from Juliusz Nowak-Dłużewski, Okolicnościowa poezja polityczna w Polsce. Średniowiecze (Occasional political poetry in Poland: the Middle Ages) (Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, 1963), n. 11, 123, see also p. 16. 303 “Hortabantur autem ii regem Magistri nomine, ne tam cunstander et meticulose pugnem iniret: et quo incumstantis id faceret, duos gladios stictos et cruentos (quem admodum carmen vulgare de proelio hoc compositum, quod in hanc usque diem extat, habet) ei et Vitoudo obtulere, ut vel ijs adversus Crucigeros uterentur,” Martinus Kromer, De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum (Basel, 1545), quoted from Nowak-Dłużewski, Średniowiecze, n. 19, 129 also see p. 51. 304 “Witołt idzie po ulicy, / Za nim niesą dwie szablicy,” Nowak-Dłużewski, Średniowiecze, 51. For a possible meaning of the word “ulica” (literary, street), see ibid. n. 18, 129. 305 “Inter omnes Gedimini ducis filios [Kęstutis] magis prudens, magisque industrius, et quod illum primum honestabat, civilis et humanus et verax in sermone,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:99. 306 In the speech to the Teutonic Knights Vytautas said: “vff der truwe nomen sy unßn fatir vnd vorterbten jn, vnd mine mutir ouch also vorterbten,” “dis ist witoldes,” 210. Wygand of Marburg wrote: “Kynstut in captivitate strangulatur, Wytaut vinculatur; matrem autem submergunt,” SRPr, 2:614. 307 “Khronika Bykhovtsa” (The Bykhoviets chronicle), in PSRL, 32:15–127. Also see critical translation into Lithuanian, BK. 308 Rimantas Jasas, “Bychovco kronika ir jos kilmė” (The Bykhoviets Chronicle and its origins), in BK, 38. 309 Birutė, Lt / Pl, Rus, Biruta. Her biography is an issue under discussion. Assumptions vary from an opinion that she is a legendary figure (PSB, 1:108) to an argument that she was not only a real historical personality, but also influential in politics, S. C. Rowell, “Piuos Princesses,” 17–19; id. “Gediminaičių,” 127–28. Assumptions about Birutė’s political influence can be strengthened by the note from the formulars of the Royal Library in Königsberg. They tell that Kęstutis was supported by his own mother when he captured Vilnius in 1345: “Regressus (scil. Kynstutus) – versus Litwaniam castrum Wille dictum, fugatis suis patruis de eodem, cum matre cepit et a Litwanis dictorum patruorum suorum vasallis congregatis in unum fidelitatis extorsit,” “Bericht über die Einnahme Wilnas durch Kinstutte im J. 1345,” in BRMŠ, 1:400. Stating that Birutė was murdered around

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

235

the time of Kęstutis’ death, Rowell argues for her political importance and draws parallels with Duchess Euthymia of Galicia-Volhynia, Rowell, “Gediminaičių,” 128. 310 PSRL, 32:138. As to the monastic foundation, Vytautas invited Benedictines, not the Augustinians, Vitoldiana, no. 18, 24. 311 Rowell, “Piuos Princesses,” 19; id., “Gediminaičių,” 127–28. 312 Jan Tęgowski, “Czy Kiejstut,” 404–05, 412. 313 All in all sources name eight children of Kęstutis; thus it has been supposed that the Duke was married twice. Tęgowski argues for one marriage, ibid., 399–412. Also see Rowell, “Pious princesses,” 16 (one marriage); id. “Gediminaičių,” 127 (two marriages), and Ignas Jonynas, “Birutė,” in Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 125–26 (two marriages). Długosz writes of six sons of Kęstutis born by single wife: “Dux vero Keÿstuth s filios ex una coniuge generans,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:93. 314 Stryjkowski, Kronika, 2:44. 315 “Birutė,” in Lietuviškoji tarybinė emciklopedija (Lithuanian Soviet encyclopaedia), 13 vols. (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976–85) [hereafter, LTE], 1:256. 316 Stanisław Sarnicki (1532–1579), PSB, 35.2:217–23. 317 “Fuit autem Mater Vitodi Biruta nomine foemina adeo honesta, vt etiam pro sancta a gentibus illis, dum virginitatis voto obstricta viueret, haberetur. Non temere igitur tantopere iratus est Vitoldus iis, qui eam probro afficiebat. Testatur D. Striconius, se in Samogitia Polondae ad mare vidisse eius idolum; quod Suietos Byrutos a Samogitis & Curlandis vocatur. Narrataque, illuc, questus causa, statis temporibus, Sacrificulos confluere in eiusque honorem cereos & alia hactenus offere, & sacrificare. cum tamen illa ethnica fuerit, & ritu ethnico virginitatis votum vouisset. Huius patrem nomine similiter Birutum Iagello pro Voidilone Kiestuto strangulato ira feruens in monte ante Vilnam suspendit,” Annales Polonorvm, quibus avgmenta et decrementa redni: mvtationes item et progressiones gentis explicantur, [by Stanisław Sarnicki], ([Krakow: n.p., 1578?]), 346–47. 318 Merkelis Giedraitis, Lt / Pl Melchior Giedroyc (ca. 1536–1608), PSB, 7:430–31. 319 Vykintas Vaitkevičius , “Birutės kalnas” (The Birutė’s mound), in Senosios Lietuvos šventvietės: Žemaitija (The Sacred Sites of Lithuania, bk. 1, Samogitia), Lietuvos istorijos institutas (Vilnius: Diemedžio leidykla, 1998), 107. 320 During 1898–1900 a Cave (the so-called Lourde) of the Virgin Mary was built at the foot of the hill, ibid., 107. 321 In 1665 at the latest, a chapel was founded on the hill; it existed until the mid20th century, Vytautas Gudelis, “Birutės kalnas” (The Birutė’s mound), in LTE, 1:256. It is also mentioned that a chapel was founded there in 1504 by Anna Jagiellonian. This was supposed to force the local people to abandon heathen beliefs and practices, “Birutės kalnas” (The Birutė’s mound), in LE, 3:15-16. At the present stage of research I cannot rely on this information. At least the name of Anna is an error. There are two Annas in the Jagiellonian dynasty. The first, queen of Bohemia and Hungary (b. 1503 – d. 1547) (PSB, 1:126–28), was too young at the time under question. The second Anna, spouse of Stephan Bathory (b. 1523 – d. 1596) (PSB, 1:128–32), was unborn. Nonetheless, the fact of an earlier foundation of the chapel could be true.

236

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

322 Rowell, “Pious Princesses,” 17–18; id. “Gediminaičių,” 128. 323 The synthesis of heathen beliefs and Christianity is a characteristic feature of Lithuanian popular piety; therefore, the veneration of Birutė may be true. On Lithuanian syncretism in 14th–16th centuries, see Saulė Urbanavičienė, “Survivals of Paganism in 14th –17th -century Graves in Lithuania,”in Rom und Byzanz im Norden: Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8. – 14. Jahrhunderts, vol 1, ed. Michael Müler-Wille, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1997, no. 3.2 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998), 131–42. 324 Vaitkevičius, 107. 325 “Litvanos vero Victoria fructum praedam omnem, salvo milite domum secure deportavit. Reverso in Litvaniam Kieystuto, & connubialibus cum Biruta Vestali convivis militarium laborum reliquias detergenti non diuturna quies,” Koialowicz, Historiae Litvanea, 1:340. 326 “… deos, eosdem sacrorum ritus, easdem cerimonias, que et qui Romanis gentilibus erant, ante susceptam fidem coluisse, videlicet sacrum ignem et qui falsa credulitate ab illis perpetuus habitus est, et in illo Iovem tonantem, per virgines vestales Rome custoditum, cuius neglectam extinctionem capite expiabant,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:165. 327 Cf., Rowell, “Pious Princesses,” 18. 328 “Allexander Vithawdus, magnus dux Lithwanie, dum sibi per patrem meum iuxta iussionem Wladislai, regis Polonie, representaretur, exhilaratus eo viso walde – cupiebat enim magnopere supplicium ex eo sumere propterea, quod genitricem suam audiente Vithawdo in quodam conventu comuniter habito scortum et impudicam matronam appellaverat,” [Długosz], “Banderia Prutenorum,” 228. 329 “Alexander dux magnus Lithuanie … Marquardam videlicet de Szalczbach comendatorem Brnadeburgensem et Szunborg, qui convencionis tempore inter prefatum Alexandrum ducem magnum Lithianie et magistrum atque Ordinem supra flumen Nyemyen propre Kowno habite duci predicto Alexandro et eius genitrici, quod parum pudica fuerit, sermone contumelioso et illoto improperaverant inprelio captos esse subinferens se in eis debitam vindictam per capitis truncacionem accipere statuisse,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:116. 330 “Post multos siquidem tractatus pro pace et terre Samagitarum per Vuthawdum ducem Ordini fiende cessione habitos, non sine animorum irritatione dicessum est, exprobantibus duci Vithawdo nonullis Cruciferis crimen perfidie, et qui tam ipsum quam genitricem suam variis probes et maledictis incessere,” Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:263. 331 The Order’s documents date this meeting to 1403. Naturally, they are silent on any offenses, but agree that the meeting was not a success, SRPr, 3:266; CDPr, 6: no. 146, 155–59. 332 Antoni Prochaska, “Markward Salzbach. Z dziejów Litwy 1384–1410” (Markward of Salzbach: from the Lithuanian history of 1384–1410), Przegląd Historyczny 9 (1909): 12–28, 121–32. The critical analysis of the Annales calls the mothercause Dlugosz’s mistification, Rozbiór, 116–17.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

237

333 Ekdahl, Jono Dlugošo, 114–15. However, Ekdahl’s arguments are rather complicated and thus not entirely convincing; for the discussion, see Górski, “Litewskie powiązania,” 175–76. 334 One may also assume that Długosz’s father had learned something about the Markward and later told that story to his son, Rozbiór, 1:117. 335 “Jagel nunc rex Polonie vinctum habuit Kynstot, patrem Wytowdi quem eciam in carceribus iugulavit et uxorem eius matrem videlicet Wytowdi submersit,” CEV, 1026. 336 Birutė “longe post displicencias vixit in statu suo gloriose et postea morte laudabili finem vitae suae consummavit et sepulchrum ipsius pro nunc apparet gloriosum,” Lites, 3:179 [emphasis mine]. 337 “... ut antiqous M(agni) D(ucatus) Lithuaniae terminos Vitoldi M(agni) Ducis praesertim temporibus exponamus, hic multa praelia secunda cum Tataris faciens, arces nonulas, quarum nunc ruinae extant, extruxerat ac muniverat, quo facilius dominium suum protendere hostemque longius depellere possit,” Algirdas Gustaitis, Dniepro upė ir aplinka nuo prieš-Kristinių laikų (The Dnieper River and Its Surroundings from BC) (N.p.: Raštija, 1991), 6. 338 Ibid., 10. 339 Lituanus, 63 and 36. 340 Guagnini, Sarmatiae europeae descriptio, 1:26, quoted from Żdan, “Stosunki,” n. 52, 585. 341 “Witoldowa Łażnia” (The bath of Vytautas), in Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów slowiańskich (The geographic dictionary of the Kingdom of Poland and other Slavic countries) (Warsaw: Wiek, 1893), 13:672. 342 “Demum in Bogo pons lapideus et balneum, quod Vitoldi magni Ducis celeberrimi ac bellicosissimi Principis Lithuaniae quondam fuisse perhibetur, ruinar lapidae,” Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum, ed. M. Broniowski (Vindob., 1768), 3:116, quoted from Żdan, “Stosunki,” n. 50, 585. 343 Buczek, The History of Polish Cartography, 61. 344 Reinhold Heidenstein (1553–1620), PSB, 9.3/42:342–44. 345 Reinod Heidenstein, De bello Moscouitico quod Stephanvs Rex Poloniae gessit commentariorvm libri VI (Basel: Per Conrad. Valdkirchivm, 1588), 74. 346 “Na brzegu prędkiey Dzwiny Cerkiew byla blisku / Witułtowym rąk pamięć: w gaiu sosnowym / Zdróy możny bije, który także Witułtowym / Kluczem po dziś dzień zową,” Jana Kochanowskiego, 4:322. 347 “Witoldowy Bród” (The Ford of Vytautas), in Słownik geograficzny, 13:672. 348 “Revizija pushch i perekhodov zverinykh v byvshem Velikom Kniazhestve Litovskom …” (The revision of forests and animal-routs in the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania compiled by Grigorij Bogdanovich Volovich …) (Vilnae: V tipografii Gubernskago Pravlenija, 1867) reprinted as “Priedas C / Appendix C,” in Pietinė Lietuva Grigaliaus Valaviciaus 1559 metų Lietuvos girių aprašyme 400 (1559– 1959) sukakciai pamineti / Southern Lithuania in the Description of Lithuanian Forests by Grigalius Valavicius Commemorating its 400 years (1559–1959) Anniversary, ed. Vincas Zemaitis (Chicago, IL: Lithuanian Foresters Associationin Exile, 1964), 205 [all characters as in the original].

238

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

349 “Witoldowa,” in Słownik geograficzny, 13:672. 350 Zigmas Zinkevičius, The History of the Lithuanian Language, translated by Ramutė Plioplys with a foreword by William R. Schmalstieg, 2nd ed. (Vilnius: Mokslo ir encikopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998), 70. 351 In the Lithuanian folklore the hero of such legends usually is a devil, see the section “Unusual Rocks,” in Lithuanian Historical Legends, comp. Norbertas Vėlius, trans. Birutė Kiškytė (Vilnius: Vaga, 2000), 44–56. 352 For the outline of the sources and scholarship see, Jan Tyszkiewicz “Uwagi o źródłach i materiałach”(Remarks concerning sources and other materials) ch. 1 in id., Tatarzy na Litwie i w Polsce. Studia z dziejów XII – XVIII w. (Tatars in Lithuania and Poland: A study from the history of twelfth–eighteenth century) (Warszawa: PWN, 1989), 15–27. For a history of Lithuanian Tatars, see Stanisław Kryczyński, “Tatarzy litewscy. Próba monografji historyczno-etnograficznej” (Lithuanian Tatars: an attempt at a historical-ethnographical monograph,” Rocznik Tatarski 8 (1938); henceforth quoted according to the recent translation into Lithuanian: Stanislovas Kričinskis, Lietuvos totoriai. Istorinės ir etnografinės monografijos bandymas (Lithuanian Tatars: an attempt at historical and ethnographical monograph), trans. Tamara Bairašauskaitė (Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993). 353 In Eastern Europe, Karaites are frequently called Karaim, both terms being equal; I prefer to use the Karaite as being more common in English. Karaism as religion is based exclusively on the Torah, rejecting all its commentaries and interpretations, and emphasizes the principles of the Decalogue. In addition to its Judaic origins, Karaism was formed under the strong influence of Islam. As to the liturgy, in Lithuania, it is influenced by Catholicism and consists of psalms and religious cantoes. Liturgical language is Hebrew; however, national tongues are also widely used. Religious holidays are determined according to the Lunar calendar. Summarized from Halina Kobeckaitė, Lietuvos Karaimai (Lithuanian Karaites) (Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1997), 10–31. For the general studies on Karaites, also see Simon Szyszman, Les Karaïtes d’Europe, Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis: Studia Multiethnica Upsaliensia 7, ed. Harald Runblom (Uppsala: Center d’études multiethniques de l’Université de Upsal, 1989); Ananiasz Zajączkowski, Karaims in Poland: History, Language, Folklore, Science (Warsaw: PWN; Paris: Mouton, 1961). 354 The details of settlement of the Karaites in Lithuania are quite shadowy; for an in-depth analysis of various theories, see Mikhail Kizilov, “The Arrival of the Karaites (Karaims) to Poland and Lithuania: a Survey of Sources and Critical Analysis of Existing Theories,” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 12 (2002–2003): 29–45. I am grateful to the author for sending me an offprint of his study. 355 Długosz, Annales, bk. 10:221. 356 “Ale się oni przą tego, aby byli więźniami Witułtowymi tylko że z dobrej wolej przywiódł je ku pomocy przeciw Prusom,” [Marcin Bielski], Kronika Marcina Bielskiego (Chronicle of Marcin Bielski), ed. Józef Turowski (Krakow: Sanok; Nakład i druk Karola Pollaka, 1856), 495. 357 “Nohaiensibus, Tauricanis, Transrhananis Scythis, armis suis perdomitis, leges tulit, et arbitrio suo regulos praeficit; qui vero ferociores videbantur, ne rebelar-

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

239

ent, in Lithuaniam migrare, et mediterranea, ad amnem Vacam, incolere coėgit, qui aequis legibus cum indigenis vivunt, religionem tamen Machumetanam hactenus colunt,” [Rotundus], “Epitome,” 304. 358 See Sarbievius’ poem as quoted above, Ch. III, n. 293. 359 Piotr Czyzewski, Alfvrkan Tatarski prawdziwy na czterdesci csesci rozdelony (The truthful Tatar alfurkan divided into fourteen sections) (Wilno: Józ. Karcan, 1616); the other treatise has been published under the title Matiasz Czyzewski, Alkoran, to iest zakon abo wiara Sekty Machometanskiej: wedlug ktorego Tatarowe zywot swoy prowadza (Alkoran, that is, the law or the faith of the Mahomethan sect, according to which the Tatars live) (N.p.: n.p., 1616). 360 Czyzewski, Alfvrkan, 1–3. 361 Ibid., 52. 362 Kričinskis, 20. 363 “In deme sulren jare do leet de kaiser der Tatheren grothe vorvolghinghe van sinen mannen, wente se wolden ene van der herscag vordriven. Des toch he in Lettowen to enen corsten der Lettowen, de heet Alexander, een mechtich unde clok here; de besamelde ute Lettowen unde uthe Tathern, de noch erme heren gunstich weren, een grot heer unde toch mit dem volke al Thateren dore lette vor Capha, unde venk unde stock doct unde bedwank se to male. Also makede he vele Tatheren underdonich den Lettowen,” SRPr, 3:216. 364 In the 19th C. Muchlinski wrote that Tatars were already living in Vilnius during the reign of Gediminas. This idea was based on the evidence of the Franciscan missionaries, who in 1324 noticed Scythian people in Vilnius: “Fratres nostri mittuntur ad praedicandam religionem Christianam in terris Litavis (Lithuanis), ubi invenerunt totam gentem adhuc immersam in erroribus gentilium et cultui ignis addictam, atque in ejus medio Scythas, advenas ex regionibus cujusdam Chani, qui in suis precibus Asiatica lingua utuntur,” Lucae Wadingi Annales ordinis Minorum ab anno 1208 ad an. 1540 (Lugduni, 1672), 1:459; quoted from “Primechanie IV” (Appendix 5), in A. Mukhlinski, Izledovamie o proiskhozhdenii i sostoyanii Litovskikh tatar (Research on the origins and the current state of the Lithuanian Tatars) (St Petersburg: v tipografii Eduarda Veimara, 1857; reprint, Minsk: Adradzhen’ne, 1993), 54. In 1938 Królikowski noted that the second edition of Annales Minorum (Rome, 1731–36): 7:34 tells about Gediminas; however, this text is absolutely silent on Tatars, Scythians, and the Asian language, Tadeusz Królikowski, “[Recenzja] Kryczyński Stanisław Tatarzy litewscy. Próba monografji historyczno-etnograficznej. Rocznik Tatarski t. III. Warszawa 1938. Str. XVI+318) ([Review] Kryczyński Satnisław …), AW 13.2 (1938): 300. The same was repeated by Kosman in 1971 (Marceli Kosman, “Dokumenty wielkiego ksiecia Witolda” (The documents of Grand Duke Vytautas), SŹ 16 (1971): 151) and explicitly stated in Romas Batūra, Lietuva tautų kovoje prieš Aukso Ordą. Nuo Batijaus antplūdžio iki mūšio prie Mėlynųjų Vandenų (Lithuania in the peoples struggle against the Golden Horde: from the invasion of Batu until the battle by the Blue Waters) (Vilnius: Mintis, 1975), 176. Nevertheless, the assumed record still serves as evidence, e.g, Tyszkiewicz, Tatarzy na Litwie, 18, Egidijus Banionis, Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės pasiuntinių tarnyba XV – XVI amžiais (The envoys’ office of the grand Duchy of Lithuania in the fifteenth – sixteenth

240

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

centuries), comp. Zigmantas Kiaupa and Žydrūnas Mačiukas (Vilnius: Diemedžio leidykla, 1998), 242. Although one may safely discard Muchliński’s evidence, other sources testify to a Tatar presence in Vilnius during the reign of Gediminas. This is a report of papal envoys, which reads: “Et die sequenti rex [i.e., Gediminas] misit eundem aduocatum suum cum quibusdem aliis de concilio suo, … , quia rex ad partem non poterat loqui nobiscum; nam cum tartaris erat impeditus,” Gedimino laiškai, no. 14, 137. 365 Banionis, 242. 366 Tyszkiewicz, Tatarzy na Litwie, 147. 367 The letter from 17 March 1427 reads: “Auch so sint iczunt unczellich fil Thattarn in unser landt [gekommen] als umblang Kywen, dem meresstrande und in di Podolia, di do iczunt kriges vordrossen sint und sich mit pherden vorczolt habin und suchen en frede und fredliche wonunge in unsern laanden,” CEV, no. 1270, 759. 368 For a historical account on the Lithuanian–Tatar relations during Vytautas’ reign, see Żdan, 529–601. 369 In 1414, Peter von Wormedith wrote to the grand master that Tatars are baptized en masse in Lithuania, Piotr Borawski and Aleksander Dubiński, Tatarzy polscy. Dzieje, obrzędy, legendy, tradycje (The Polish Tatars: history, rites, legends, and traditions) (Warsaw: Iskry, 1986), 230. 370 The letter of the commander of Dünaburg to the master of the Livonian Order from 31 March 1421, LUB, 5: no. 2538, 724–25. 371 “… her meister, so spreken se, dat Vyttowere hebbe liggende do Luszeke achte dusend Tatheren, und de hebben Vyttoweten hoch gebeden, dat he se teen lete in ein lant, eme tor hant to winnende, wente se sik beclagen dat se nicht to xorterende en hadden,” CEV, no. 999, 548. 372 Banionis, 241–62; Kričinskis, 19–23 and 27. 373 Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, reprint of 1931–35 ed., introduced by Gerson D. Cohen, vol. 2, Karaitica (New York: Ktav, 1972), 556. 374 Esp., Mann, 2:556. 375 See Kizilov. 376 Mann., 2:558 and n. 11, 558. 377 For an in-depth analysis of the privilege, see Stanislovas Lazutka and Edwardas Gudavichus, Privilegija evrejam Vitautasa Velikogo 1388 goda / Privilege to Jews Granted by Vytautas the Great in 1388 (Moscow and Jerusalem: Jewish University in Moscow, 1993). 378 Jan Tyszkiewicz, “Karaimy litewscy w czasach Witolda i sprawa przywilieju datowanego rokiem 1388” (Lithuanian Karaites at the Time of Witold the Great and the Problem of the Privilege Dated on 1388), SŹ 36 (1997): 45–64. 379 On the privilege given to the Karaites of Trakai on 24 June 1388, Tyszkiewicz, “Karaimy litewscy,” 47, passim. On Karaite involvement in the matters between Vytautas and Basil, ibid. 57 and 60. On Kęstutis’ reign, ibid., 60.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

241

380 Majer Bałaban, “Karaici w Polsce: studjum historyczne” (Karaites in Poland: a historical study), in Studja historyczne (Historical studies) (Warsaw: Księgarnia M. J. Freid i s-ka, 1927), 11. 381 A. Szyszman, “Osadnictwo karaimskie i tatarskie na ziemiach W. Księstwa Litewskiego” (Tatar and Karaite settlement in the lands of the G[rand] Duchy of Lithuania), Myśl karaimska 10 (1932/34): 29–37, id. “Osadnictwo karaimskie w Trokach za Wielkich Książąt Litewskich” (Karaite settlement in Trakai during the reigns of the Lithuanian Grand Dukes), ibid. 11 (1935/36): 40–69. S. Szyszman, Les Karaïtes, 38–46, passim., Kobeckaitė, Lietuvos Karaimai, 42–53. 382 This is a marriage contract concluded between the Karaites of Trakai, Mann, 2:558. 383 The mentioning of Croats could be either a discrepancy, or a reference to the White Croats (Ru, Belye Khorvaty), a tribe living in the Kievan Rus’. I am grateful for this explanation to Andrei Prokhorov. 384 Daniel / Danylo Romanovych (1201–1264), the prince and king of Galicia-Volhynia. 385 The original Polish text with the French translation is published in Jaroslav Stepaniv, “L’époque de Danylo Romanovyć (mileu du XIIIe siécle) d’apres une source Karaïte,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 2.3 (1978): 334–36. I am grateful to Mikhail Kizilov for drawing my attention to this publication. 386 Concerning the dating of the narrative, see Stepaniv’s argumentation, ibid., 334–73. 387 Tyszkiewicz, “Karaimy litewscy,” 46. 388 Bałaban, 11. 389 For other stories on Karaite settlement, see Kizilov, 45. 390 Kizilov assumes that Karaites were for the most part concerned with crafts and commerce and supports the theory relating Karaite settlement to the GDL with that of Kipchak Armenians, ibid., 43, 45. 391 See the map attached to A. Szyszman, “Osadnictwo karaimskie i tatarskie,” after p. 36. 392 For an outline of Tatar military history, see Jan Tyszkiewicz, “Stanisław Kryczyński i jego ‘Kronika wojenna tatarów litewskich’ ” (Stanisław Kryczyński and his “Military chronicle of the Lithuanian Tatars”), Przegląd Humanistyczny 2 (1984): 117–49. As to the social status, it is commonly assumed that the Lithuanian Tatars were gradually ennobled. Such a view is supported by the number of noble families of Tatar origin, Stanisław Dziadulewicz, Herbarz rodzin tatarskich w Polsce (Coats of arms of Tatar families in Poland) (Wilno: Nakładem autora z zasiłkiem Komitetu Funduszu Kultury Narodowej, 1929; reprint, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1986). However, the entire situation was not so simple. Most of the Tatars remained Muslem and only a Christian could be ennobled. On the other hand, the so-called “hospodar’,” otherwise, the landed Tatars possessed all, but the political rights of a boyar. Thus, at first glance there was no vivid difference between them. In addition to landed Tatars there were a huge number of commoners, who had no military duties; these, even if baptized, had no practical chances to enter the higher strata of society,

242

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

summarized from Andzej B. Zakrzewski, “Położenie prawnie tatarów w Wielkiem Księstwie Litewskim (XVI–XVIII w.)” (Legal Position of the Tatars in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 16th–18th Centuries), in Kipčakų tiurkų orientas Lietuvoje: istorija ir tyrimų perspektyvos. … (The Kipchak-Turkish orient in Lithuania: history and research perspectives. …), ed. Tamara Bairašauskaitė and Halina Kobeckaitė (Vilnius: Danielius, 1994), 118–29. For an in-depth study on the issue, see Jacek Sobczak, Położenie prawnie ludności tatarskiej w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim (Legal situation of the Tatar people in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Wydział Historii I Nauk Społecznych, Prace Komisji Hystorycznej 38 (Warsaw and Poznań: PWN, 1984). Actually, the issue of Tatar ennoblement received a great deal of scholarly attention; for a discussion of the issue, see Piotr Borawski, “Położenie prawne Tatarów w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim” (The Legal Situation of the Tatars in the Great Duchy of Lithuania), LSP.SH 2 (1987): 187–211 and Jacek Sobczak, “Z problemtyki położenia prawnego ludności tatarskiej w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim” (Some Problems of Legal Situation of the Tatar Population in the Great Duchy of Lithuania), ibid., 212–26. 393 “… scilicet Tartarorum, Samagitarum, Litoviensium, et etiam Judaeorum quasi totam Prussiam devicit,” SRPr, 3:418. 394 The desirable Karaite participation in the battle of Grunwald has been mentioned by A. Szyszman, “Osadnictwo karaimskie w Trokach,” 56. 395 V. Raudeliūnas and R. Firkovičius, “Teisinė karaimų padėtis Lietuvoje (XIV– XVIII a.)” (Karaite legal situation in Lithuania (fourteenth–eighteenth century)), Socialistinė teisė 4 (1975): 48–49. 396 There is no evidence that Karaites served as Vytautas’ bodyguards. Nevertheless, there is a story about the interference of a Karaite garrison trying to prevent the murder of Grand Duke Sigismund in 1440. The bodyguard image has been elaborated by Szyszman, who based his evidence on Syrokomla, while the latter referred to Stryjkowski: “die bewaffnente Intervention zur Verteidigung des Großfürsten Sigismund Kiejstutowicz bei der durch den Fürsten Czartoryski organisierten Verschwörung,” Simon Szyszman, “Die Karäer in Ost-Mitteleuropa,” ZfO 6 (1957): n. 56, 41; and id. Les Karaïtes d’Europe, n. 94, 42. Syrokomla writes that soldiers occupied the castle, meeting no opposition since Christian people were at church. And when Karaites rushed to the castle they found the gates closed, Syrokomla, 116. As far as Stryjkowski is concerned he tells the same story: “Ale Żydowie co w mieście mieszkali usłyszawszy onę trwogę, naprzód się do zamku jako na gwałt rzucili, bo inszy mieszczanie wszyscy jako chrześcianie tej godziny nabożeństwem się bawili,” Stryjkowski, Kronika, 2:204. Thus, none of Szyszman’s references refer to the Karaites in the capacity of grand ducal body-guards. 397 A. Szyszman, 49–50. For a discussion on foreign guards, see ch. IV, the section entitled “Roots and Fruits of Tyranny.” 398 Syrokomla, who is believed to have visited Karaite archives in Trakai, refers to the privilege issued by John Casimir Vasa on 26 November 1665. It permitted Karaites of Trakai to build a school and a new synagogue for their meritorious service-at-arms performed at the king’s side, Syrokomla, 1:82.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

243

399 Today the collection is divided between the Karaite Museum in Trakai and the National Museum in Vilnius; for the collections of the former, see Romualdas Firkovičius, “Karaimika Lietuvoje” (The Karaimica in Lithuania), Muziejai ir paminklai (December 1968): 24–28; for the latter see Lietuvos istorijos paminklai / Monuments of Lithuanian History, comp. Birutė Kulnytė (Vilnius: Mintis, 1990), figs. 109, 110, 112. 400 Syrokomla, 73. 401 On Karaite legal situation see Raudeliūnas and Firkovičius, 48–53. 402 Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, “Ką rado Trakuose Žiliberas de Lanua, arba kas yra Trakų žydai” (Whom did Ghillebert of Lannoy discover in Trakai and who were the Jews of Trakai?), Lietuvos istorijos studijos 7 (1999): 28–37. E.g., the 1441 privilege for Karaites in Trakai indicates its addressee as “nostrorum judaeorum in Troki,” Sbornik starinnykh gramot, 1. Sometimes the Jews were referred to as Rabbanites and Karaites as Karaim, e.g., AOZR, 2: no. 5, 4. 403 For “judaeorum Trocensium, ritus Karaimici,” isued on 3 December 1646, Sbornik starinnykh gramot, [Polish text] 20–21, [Latin text] 24–27. 404 On Tatar settlement see Piotr Borawski, “Etapy kolonizacji tatarskiej w państwe polsko-litewskim XIV–XVIII w.” (The periods of Tatar colonization in the Polish-Lithuanian state, fourteenth–eighteenth centuries), Nowum 8/9 (1978): 123–50. 405 For a description of Tatar texts, see A. K. Antonovich, Belorusskie teksty, pisannye arabskim pis’mom, i ikh grafiko-ortograficheskaya sistema (Belorus’ian texts written in Arabic script and their graphico-ortohrapic system) (Vilnius:Vilnyuskii Gosudarstvennyj Universitet im. V. Kapsukasa, Kafedra russkogo yazyka, 1968). For an analysis of a text see Czesław Łapicz, Kitab tatarów litewsko-polskich (Paleografia. Grafika. Język) (Khitab of Lithuanian–Polish Tartars. Paleography. Graphics. Language) (Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, 1986); Galina Miškinienė, Seniausi Lietuvos Totorių rankraščiai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys / Drevneishye rukopisi litovskikh tatar (Grafika. Transliteratsiya. Perevod. Struktura i soderzhanie tekstov (The oldest manuscripts of the Lithuanian Tatars: Graphics, transliteration, translation, the structure and content of texts) (Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2001). 406 Banionis, 241–62. 407 The Lithuanian Metrica (unpublished vol.), translated from Polish as quoted in Dzieła Tadeusza Czackiego (Works of Tadeusz Czacki), collected and edited by Edward Raczyński, vol. 3 (Poznań: w Drukarni J. Łukaszewicza, 1844), 311. 408 Rowell doubts the authenticity of this text. His arguments are the following: (1) this is the sole historiographical text of the Lithuanian Tatars; (2) it is written in good Turkish; however, stylistically, it is more European than Asian; (3) it frequently repeats inscriptions from the Lithuanian Metrica; these have been published by Muchliński; however, not all the originals have been found; (4) the account calls Lithuania Poland and avoids the name “Lipka/Libka,” which was generally used to refer to the Lithuanian Tatars; and (5) it expresses ideas of Sarmatism, not yet popular in the mid-16th c., Stephen C. Rowell, “Lietuva,

244

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

tėvyne mūsų? Tam tikrų XVI a. LDK raštijų pavyzdžiai” (Lithuania Our Ancestral Home? Variations on a Theme from Certain 16th-Century Literary Traditions), in Senosios raštijos, 132. Rowell’s arguments are well based, however, the majority of his questions could be answered by a linguist. As to the historical and circumstantial arguments, some of Muchliński’s evidene is not accurate enough (e.g., on the Tatar presence in Vilnius during the reign of Gediminas, see above Ch. III, n. 364). However, an accusation of forgery is a very serious one. Hence, the motives for such a step should be explained in greater detail (Romantic spirit is not enough). Moreover, the argument on “Lipka/Libka” is not strong enough especially if applied to the mid-16th c. Having analyzed various usages of this term, Łapicz concluded that it is most certain that the denomination Lipka refers to Tatar rebels, who abandoned the PLC for the Ottoman Empire in 1672, Łapicz, 24. 409 “Zdanie sprawy o Tatarach Litewskich prez jednego z tych Tatarów zlozone sultanowe Sulejmanowi w r. 1558” (Account of the situation of the Lithuanian Tatars written by one of these Tatars for Sultan Suleiman in 1558), trans. A. Muchliński, Teka Wileńska 4 (1858): 241–72. This article was published as a book together with the Turkish text. 410 Muchliński suggested that originally the name could have been “Witud,” but was changed while copying into “Wattad,” a word meaning “column,” Muchliński, n. 1, 253. 411 “Zdanie sprawy,” 252–53. 412 This hypothesis is based on the analogy with a prayer for Tadeusz Kosciuszka (d. 1818), A. Muchliński, “O Tatarach Litewskich,” (About the Lithuanian Tatars), Teka Wileńska 5 (1858): 129. 413 Kričinskis, 120. 414 The term lieu de mémoire comes from French scholarship, see Les lieux de mémoire, under the direction of Pierre Nora, 3 vols. in 3 parts ([Paris]: Gallimard, 1984–86); also see the English translation Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past, under the direction of Pierre Nora, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996–98); for a brief definition of the concept and its application, see Pierre Nora, “ La notion de ‘lieu de mémoire’ estelle exportable,” in Lieux de mémoire et identités nationales, ed. Pim den Boer and Willem Frijhoff (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1993), 3–10. 415 Piotr Borawski and Aleksander Dubiński, Tatarzy polscy. Dzieje, obrzędy, legendy, tradycje (The Polish Tatars: history, rites, legends, and traditions) (Warsaw: Iskry, 1986), 231. 416 Keturiasdešimt Totorių, Lt / Pl, Czterdzieśce Tatarów / Kirkalary in Tatar. 417 Borawski and Dubiński, 232–33. 418 Ibid., 241–42. Długosz writes that the troops of Dzhelal-al-Din arrived with families and households nearly a year before the battle: “Tartarorum imperatore, quem pro toto hiemis tempore et usque prope festum sancti Ioannis Baptiste in terris cum gente sua et uxoribus tenuit in Lithuaniam divertente,” Długosz, Annales, bks. 10–11:44. As to the numbers of Tatar soldiers at Grunwald, Długosz indicates it as 300 riders: “Tartarorum iperatore trecentos tantummodo Tartaros habente,” ibid., 64.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

245

419 Borawski and Dubiński, 242. 420 In 1795, the GDL became part of the Russian empire, the tsarists authorities reconfirmed the noble status of many representatives of the gentry. The nobility confirmation to the Dovgial family is exactly such a case. 421 Tamara Bairašauskaitė, Lietuvos totoriai XIX amžiuje (Lithuanian Tatars in the nineteenth century) (Vilnius: Mintis, 1996), 52. 422 For a more complete outline of Karaite occupations in the 19th c., see Syrokomla, 1:81–87. 423 For a description of the texts of Lithuanian Karaites, see Romualdas Firkovičius, “Lietuvos karaimų rankraščiai” (The manuscripts of the Lithuanian Karaites), in Orientas’1 (Orient’1), comp. Bronius Genzelis (Vilnius: Vaga, 1992), 228–35. 424 Abraomas Trakiškis, Lt / Pl, Aavraam Trocki for the biographies of famous Karaites (including Vytautas and the Empress Mary Theresa) visit http://www.turkiye.net/sota/karaiwho.htm (2004/10/15). 425 Mukhlinski, Izsledovanie, 14. 426 Kobeckaitė, Lietuvos karaimai, 43. 427 The text of the memorial is published in Bałaban, 51–53. The date is established according to Zajączkowski, Karaims, 65. 428 Bałaban, 11. 429 Ibid., 37. 430 G. Smólski, “U Karaimów w Haliczu,” Naokolo Świata 35 (1903): 546; also see Kizilov, 32. 431 Kobeckaitė, Lietuvos karaimai, 81–82, for the rhymed version of the legend, see Simon Firkovič / Simonas Firkovičius, “Batyr bijniń tamaša aty / Stebuklingas didžiojo kunigaikščio žirgas (The miraculous horse of the Grand Duke), ibid, 115–18. A slightly different version of the legend (the horse spits the waters and forms the lake Galvė) is given by Grzegorz Pełczyński, Najmniejsza mniejszość. Rzecz o Karaimach polskich (The smallest minority: A study of Polish Karaites) (Warsaw: Stanisław Kryciński and Towarzystwo Karpackie, 1995), 45. For a critical evaluation of this legend, see Kizilov, 39. 432 Kobeckaitė, Lietuvos karaimai, 50. 433 Ibid., 80–81. 434 Syrokomla, 82; for a more thorough critique of the legend, see Kizilov, 41. 435 Kobeckaitė, Lietuvos karaimai, 80. Also see Čypčychlej učma Trochka: Lietuva karajlarnyn jyrlary / Į Trakus paukščiu plasnosiu: Lietuvos karaimų poezija (I Will Fly to Trakai Like a Bird: Poetry of Lithuanian Karaims), comp., Karina Firkavičiūtė (Vilnius: Danielius, 1997), 113. 436 “Ad’et’ – yarļmļ dinnin,” in Alexander Dubiński, “Poslovitsy i pogovorki trakaiskikh karaimov” (The proverbs and sayings of the Karaites from Trakai), in Caraimica: prace karaimoznawcze (Caraimica: materials in Karaite studies) (Warsaw: Dialog, 1994), no. 7, 236. 437 Čypčychlej učma, 119–23. 438 For the 1920s, see ibid., 56; for the staging of arrival, see photograph from 1935, ibid., 119.

246

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

439 Ancient tradition equated the resettlements undertaken by Philip of Macedonia to tyranny; Mario Turchetti, Tyrannie et tyrannicide de l’Antiquité à nos jours, Fondements de la politique, ed. Yves Charles Zarka (Paris: Presses Univarsitaires de France, 2001), 351. 440 Pre-modern history of Lithuanian Jewry still awaits more profound studies; for the time being some aspects of Jewish life and culture have been treated in the following publications: S. A. Bershadskij, Litovskie evrei. Istoriya ikh yuridicheskogo i obshchestvennogo polozheniya v Litve ot Vitovta do Lyublinskoi unii, 1388–1569 g. (The Lithuanian Jews: the history of their legal and social status in Lithuania from the reign of Vytautas until the Lublin Union, 1388– 1569), 2 vols. (St Petersburg: v tupografii M. M. Samsonovicha, 1882); id., Dokumenty i regestry k istorii litovskikh evreev (1550–1569) (Documents and registrars contributing to the history of the Lithuanian Jews), Materialy dlya istorii evreev v Rossii (St Petersburg: A. S. Bershadskij, 1882); Augustinas Janulaitis, Žydai Lietuvoje. Bruožai iš Lietuvos visuomenės istorijos XIV–XIX amž. (Jews in Lithuania: traits of Lithuanian social history in the fourteenth-nineteenth centuries) (Kaunas: A. Janulaitis, 1923). The most complete study on Lithuania’s Jews is the dissertation of Jurgita Verbickienė, “Žydai Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės visuomenėje: sugyvenimo aspektai” (Jews in the society of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: aspects of cohabitation) Ph.D. diss. Vilnius University (Vilnius, 2004). 441 On the privilege see Lazutka and Gudavichus. 442 S.A. Bershadskii, Russko-evreiskii arkhiv: dokumenty i materially dlia istorii evreev v Rossii (Russian-Jewish archives: documents and materials for the history of Jews in Russia) vol. 1 (St.Petersburg: Izdanie pasprostaraneniya prosveshchenstva mezhdu evreyami v Rossii, 1882), no. 2; quoted from Verbickienė, “Žydai,” n. 3, p. 97. 443 Ibid., 14. 444 Pl, Bolesław Pobożny (b. 1221–d. 1279). 445 Verbickiene, “Žydai,” 57. 446 Henceforth the terms Russia and Russian are used in today’s rather than in their early-modern meaning. 447 PSRL, 28:88. 448 Ibid., 27:88. 449 Ibid., 88, 258–59. 450 “K komy Bogoroditsa, a k nam Litva,” Yurij Novikov, “Epicheskaya pamiat’ o Velikom Kniazhestve Litovskom: Litva i litovtsy v russkom fol’klore” (The epic memory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Lithuania and Lithuanians in Russian folklore), in Senosios raštijos, 45. 451 “a Vitovt v male oybezha; a tsar’ Takhtamysh bezhati, mnogo Litovskie zemli pograbil; togdy kniezei litovskikh mnogo pobili, a siloyu ukh vsyu prisekli,” PSRL, 27:338. 452 “a on sam za stolp shaternyi khvativsia, nachat vopiti: ‘gospodi pomilui’,” ibid., 28:97. 453 Ibid., 28:97; 26:185; 27:101.

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS 454 455 456 457 458

247

“Yagnova pushka svoikh pobivaet,” Novikov, 45. PSRL, 26:185; 27:101–02; 28:97. The charter was issued on 15 August 1428, Vitoldiana, no. 38, 47. See above, the section entiled “The Radvilas as Worthy Successors of Vytautas.” “Byliny starago vremeni / Nashestvie Kniazia Vitol’da na Velikii Novgorod v 1428 gody” (Songs from ancient times / The attack of Duke Vytautas on Novgorod the Great in 1428), Natsionalna biblioteka Ukraini im. V.Vernadskogo, Institut rykopisy (The Ukrainian National Library of V.Vernadski, Institute of manuscripts), fund VIII, “Rukopisi Kiivskogo imperatorskogo universitetu im. Sv. Volodimira” (Manusripts from the St Vladimir Imperial University of Kiev), od.zb.83m/153, p. 1–8. I am grateful to Katerina Kyrichenko for a transcription of this manuscript. 459 PSRL, 28:94–95; 27:98–99, 267. 460 Ibid., 26:186; 28:98; 30:132. 461 Skazaniya kniazia Kurbskogo (Legends of Prince Kurbski), 2d ed. corrected and enlarged, ed. N. Ustrialov (St Petersburg: v tipografii Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1842), 74–75. 462 PSRL, 30:93. 463 On him, see T. C. Zimmermann, Paolo Giovio: The Historian and the Crisis of Sixteenth Century Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995). 464 “Ultimi in Europa qui Gentilium ritus exuerint fuere Lituani, tempestate Vitoldi ducis tunc primum Christianorum sacris initiati,” Pavlus Iovius, Historiarvm svi temporis, ed. Dante Visconti, vol. 1 (Rome: Insituto Poligrafico Stato, Liberia dello Stato, 1957), 258. 465 [Sigismund Herberstein], Rerum Moscovitarum Commentarii, Sigismvndo Libero Barone in Herberstain, Neyperg & Guetenhag, auctore (Basel: Ex officina Oporini, 1551). 466 Referrence to the Polish annals, ibid., 23; the mention of information provided by Albert Goštautas, ibid., 110; or Sigismund Augustus (named “Regis iunior”), ibid., 115. 467 For the publications, translations, and applications of the Comentarii, see Marshall Poe, Foreign descriptions of Muscovy: An Analytical Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources (Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1995), 61–65, passim. 468 [Herberstein], 23. 469 “Huius gentis res ad Vuitoldi usq[ue] tempora, semper florebant. Si bellum aliunde ipsis immineat, suaq[ue] adversus hostium uim defendere debea[n]t, uocati quidem ad ostentaione[m] magis quam ad bellum instructi, magno apparatu uenimunt: uerim delectu habito, cito dihabuntur,” ibid., 111. 470 “Tartaros, Alexandro Rege imperante insigni clade profligauerat: neq[ue] a Vuitoldi morte, Lithuani tam praeclaram a Tartaris uictoria unquam reportarunt,” ibid., 114. 471 “Porro imperium Principum Moscovuiae, tempore Vuitoldi, quinq[ue] aut sex miliaribus ultra Mosaisko protendebatur,” ibid., 73; or “Ab eo tempore omnes tere Russiae Principes, a Tartaris inaugurabantur, illis que parebant, usque ad Vuitoldum magnum Lithvaniae Ducem, qui prouincias suas, & quae in Russia

248

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

occupauerat, a Tartarorum armis fartiter defendit, uicinis[que] omnibus terrori fuit,” ibid., 91–92. 472 “Tam dura porro seruitute a Vuitoldi tempore in hunc usq[ue] diem destinentur, ut si quis forte capite damnatus fuit, de se ipso, iubente domino, suplicium sumere suisq[ue] manibus se suspendere cogatur, quod si forte facere refusauerit, tum crudeliter caesus, atq[ue] immaniter excarnificatus, nihilominus suspenditur,” ibid., 115. 473 Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (1405 – 1464), for his biography see John F. D’Amico, “Pope Pius II,” in COE, 3:97–98. 474 The De Europa was first published in 1477, however it became popular only from the 1530s onwards, see Poe, 56. 475 “Vitoldus huic praefuit Vladislai frater, qui relicto Deorum cultu cum regno Poloniae Christi sacramentum acceppit. Magnum Vitoldi nomen sua temestate fuit, quem subditi adeo timuerunt, ut iussi laqueo se suspendere parere potius quam in principis indignationem incidere voluerint; detrectantes imperium insutos ursina pelle viventibus ursis, quos eam ob causam nutriebat, dilaniandos obiectavit crudelibusque aliis affecit suppliciis. Equitans acrum semper tensum gestavit. Si quem conspicatus est aliter incidere quam voluit, confestim sagitta confodit, multos quoque per ludum interemit. Sanginarius carnifex, ut esset inter populares et ipsium principem certum faciei discrimen, radere barbam omnibus imperavit. Id ubi non successit - facilius enim cervicis quam barbae iacturam Lituani ferebant - tonsus ipse mentum et caput prodiit, capitale interminatus, is quis provincialium pilos faciei capiti suo deponeret,” “V. Aeneas Sylvius Preussen betreffende Schriften,” ed. Th. Hirsh, in SRPr, 4:237 [emphasis mine]. As to the shaving of heads, one may recall the so-called oriental appearance of Eastern Europeans during the early-modern period. In this respect it is important that Vytautas be credited with the introduction of this distinctive fashion. 476 Lat, Hieronymus Johannes Silvanus Pragensis, is a historical, although shadowy personality, on him, see Jan Stejskal, “Jerome of Prague and the End of the Old World,” M.A. Thesis in Medieval Studies, Central European University (Budapest, 1994). The most extensive source on Jerome is J. Mittareli and B. Costadoni, Annales Camaldulenses ordinis sancti Benedicti (Venice, 1755–73). 477 “Motus ea re Vitoldus veritusque populorum tumultum Christo potius quam sibi deesse plebam voiluit,” SRPr, 4:239. 478 “Ladislaus Rex Poloniae, natione Tartarus, infidelis (nam gentilis erat),” [Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini], Enee Silvii Piccolominei postea Pii PP. II De viris illustribus, ed. Adrianus van Heck (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1991), 93. Naming Jogaila and Vytautas as Tatars comes from the Teutonic Order’s propaganda after the defeat in Grunwald. E.g., see above, ch. I, the section entitled “Within the System of Christian Values: from Saracen to a New Messiah.” 479 “Accipio, inquit, libens munera Pruternorum; nam et hunc gladium pariturum mihi hodie uictoriam spero,” [Piccolomini], De viris, 94. 480 “… committitur prelium. jam Poloni in fugam uersi erant magnaque cede stenebantur. sed Vitoldus hortatus suos prelium instaurat redireque Polonos in pre-

THE EARLY-MODERN IMAGE OF VYTAUTAS

249

lium jubet tantumque uiriliter instat, ut fugatis Polonis suos uictos uictores fecerit,” ibid., 94. 481 “Ad hec Pruteni dicunt se non uelle tantum principem uestire habitu; sed quamdiu apud eos manere uoluerit, daturos se sibi uictum et prouinsionem rege dignam. nam et alii apud eos principes fuerunt (Vitoldumque Lituanie ducem commemorant) offeruntque sibi in regnum compescendum auxilia,” ibid., 97. 482 “Exin cum Poloni sibi essent infesti, Vitoldum magnum ducem Lituaniae sibi concilavit, quem suis dominis visitavit obtulitque sibi coronam; nam Lituaniam, cum esset amplissima patria, in regnum erigere volebat, ut a jugo Polonorum reduceret. Iamque invitis Polonis Vitoldus cum Lituanis rem aggrediebatur, sed ante mortuus est, quam res perfici posset,” SRPr, 4:241. Similarly in De Europa: “Rex a Sigismundo caesare Lituanorum appellatus prius obiit quam legati diadema ferentes se convenirent,” ibid., 237 483 E.g., “Vladislao … prelium struit Vitoldumque fratrem suum, magnum Lithuanie ducem, in auxilium vocat, virum sui temporis severissimum et aetutiarum plenum,” [Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini], Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini, ed. Rudolf Wolkan, vol. 3, Briefe als Bischof von Siena, pt. 1, Briefe von seiner Erhebung zum Bischof von Siena bis zum Ausgang des Regensburger Reichstages (23. September 1450 – 1. Juni 1454), Fontes rerum austriaticum / Österreichische Geschichtsquellen, vol. 2, Diplomataria et acta, pt. 68 (Vienna: In Kommission bei Alfred Hölder, 1918), no. 291, 516. 484 La description dv Royavme de Poloigne, et pays adiacens: avec les status, constitutions, mśurs, & façons de faire d’iceaux, par Blaise de Vigenere, secretaire de Feu monseigneur le duc de Niuernois (Paris: Chez Iean Richer Libraire, 1573), genealogical table. 485 Ibid., 23r. 486 André Thevet, Cosmographie universelle (Paris, 1575); henceforth quoted from André Thevet, Cosmographie Moscovite, published by Augustin Galitzin (Paris: J. Techener, 1858). 487 For a detailed monograph on Thevet, see Frank Lestringant, André Thevet, Cosmographe des derniers Valois (Genève: Libraire Droz, 1991). 488 Thevet copied from Herberstein (Poe, 95) and critically used Münster’s Cosmographia, Frank Lestringant, “Introduction,” in Cosmography de Levant, critical edition by Frank Lestringant, Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 203 (Genève: Libraire Droz, 1985), xxxi. 489 “L’air est rude et mal plaisant en Lithuani: tous les animaux y sont petits contre la naturel des païs septerntionaux,” Thevet, 81. Such a negative attitude could be related with the abdication of Henry of Valois from the Polish–Lithuanian throne in 1574. 490 “Encore vous ie vne cruelle façon de faure usee en celle region des temps que Vuitolde, le plus cruel des hommes, y regnoit, lequel estoit is terrible en ses façons de faire que s’il eut commandé à quelqu’vn de se pendre, il aimoit mieux estre le bourreau de sa vie, que tomber ès mains de ce prince sanguinare,” Thevet, 82–83.

250

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

491 “Et par le moyen et faueur du prince le plus cruel qui regna onc, il feit tuer tous les serpens que on adoroit et leur monstra l’abuz de leurs prestres sur la pyromance,” ibid., 89. 492 Duplicity and suspicion as key features of a tyrant are profoundly used in St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship to the King of Cyprus, trans. Gratald B. Phelan, revised with introduction and notes I. Th. Eschmann, Mediaeval Sources in Translation 2 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1982), 13–18. 493 “Ce bon homme voyant le venin espandu par son païs, s’en vint en Polongne où il eut lettres du roy, adressantes à Vvitolde, duc et seigneur du païs, pour auoir licence de prescher Iesus-Christ en sa terre: ce qu’il accorda. ... Vvitolde iaçoit qu’il se moquast de la rudesse et sottise de ce peuple, si ast-ce que craignent quelque esmeute, et de perdre sa terre, il feit cesser Hierome,” Thevet, 88–89. 494 Treatises on tyranny became popular in the 14th –15th centuries in Italian citystates; for an introduction to the subject and English translations of the principal pieces, see Ephraim Emerton, Humanism and Tyranny: Studies in the Italian Trecento (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925). 495 Dates and English translation are taken from The Essays of Michel Eyquem de Montaigne, trans. Charles Cotton, ed. W. Carew Hazlitt, Great Books of the Western World, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, vol. 25, Montaigne (Chicago, London, and Toronto: Encyclopaedia Britannica and William Benton, 1952). For the passage on Vytautas, see ibid., 386. 496 “On dict que Vuitolde, prince des Lituaniens, fit autrefois cette loy que les criminels condamnez eussent à executer eux mesmes de leurs mains la sentence capitale contre eux donnée, trouvant estrange qu’un tiers, innocent de la faute, fust employé et chargé d’un homicide,” Michele de Montaigne, Les essais, edited by Pierre Villey with an introduction by V.-L. Saulnier (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965), 799.

CHAPTER IV

IMAGE AND IMAGE

In the previous chapters I analyzed various manifestations of the image of Vytautas across centuries and countries. This chapter aims at comparing these hitherto presented materials. The comparison is made with a view to indicating those features of the image that have acquired a definite place within historical memory and those that have sunk into oblivion. Emphasis is placed on transformations of certain qualities of the image and changes in the way these qualities are used. Moreover, I shall discuss the image from the perspective of the patterns of good and bad kingship. In addition to looking at traditional patterns, I shall examine Vytautas’ image in the light of the major events of his time and shall try to find the Duke’s place within Eastern and Western cultural traditions of the late Middle Ages.

MEMORY AND OBLIVION: MEDIEVAL EARLY-MODERN IMAGES COMPARED

AND

Various phases and stages in the building and use of the image have resulted in an uneven treatment of its different features. During the early-modern period, Vytautas emerged as a victorious warrior and defender of the state. If compared to the Grand Duke’s efforts to fashion himself into a victor and the success of these initiatives, the outcome is remarkable. Of course, victory is a universal motif of authority;1 however, Vytautas’ endeavors, as well as his accomplishments on the field, are minor in comparison to the military glory attributed to him by posterity. Grand ducal propaganda was rather reserved in the measures taken to reveal Vytautas as a victor. Besides the “manifesto” before the battle by the Vorskla River and the Russian campaigns of the late 1420s, contemporary sources are rather silent about Vytautas’ martial deeds. Moreover, the failed parade of 1411 shows that not all of the initiatives in military advertising

252

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

were crowned with success. Paradoxically, in the sixteenth century the victory at Grunwald became a nearly universal embodiment of Vytautas’ martial skill and power. At its proper moment, only the opponents of the Polish–Lithuanian alliance described the victory against the Teutonic Knights as an example of Vytautas’ unlimited warlike aims (I refer to the watering of the horses in the Rhine).2 Hence, the image of warrior was extensively developed after the Grand Duke’s death and became dominant, and most appealing, during the early-modern period. Significantly, the Grand Duke’s military appearance was perpetuated not only in writing, but also through visual expressions. Another recurrent motif is that of the Grand Duke’s Christianity. Vytautas’ adherence to the Catholic faith as pronounced in the Sache was maintained throughout his lifetime. Already during the Council of Constance, the recent neophyte was recognized as a Christian ruler, and the conversion of Samogitia earned him the glory of an apostle. The prophetic epithet of the Son of Man marks the apex of Vytautas’ appraisal in matters of faith. However, this triumph of Christian rhetoric sank into oblivion before it could be noticeably echoed. In the sixteenth century, the aura of establisher of the Christian faith became firmly associated with the personality of Vytautas. Nevertheless, the Church emphasized the Grand Duke’s foundations and privileges, rather than his apostolic mission. In parallel to official Church doctrine, popular memory, learned literature, and Jesuit drama emphasized Vytautas’ devotion to the Virgin Mary. Given the exclusive popularity of the Virgin in Lithuania, the relation between the Mother of God and the glorified statesman is important testimony to the shaping of the image in early-modern piety. Vytautas’ interest in matters of the Orthodox Church had only ad hoc influence on his image, and sank into oblivion during the Grand Duke’s lifetime. Although attempts to end the schism within the Church were more or less constantly “in the air,” neither the union of Florence (1438), nor the one of Brest-Litovsk (1596) evoked Vytautas’ name. Similarly, relations with the Czechs lost their linkage to issues of Christian faith. For posterity, Vytautas’ “flirtation” with the Hussites was remembered as a rejected offer to assume Bohemian kingship. Of all the Grand Duke’s deeds, the story of the crown became most firmly embedded within his image. Moreover, the issue of the coronation continued generating opposing opinions throughout, and beyond, the period in question. Most importantly, the entire situation of Vytautas’ royal elevation trans-

IMAGE AND IMAGE

253

gressed the Grand Duke’s image and acquired strong political and national connotations, frequently evoking ambiguous reactions within the Polish– Lithuanian Commonwealth. What Poles considered a betrayal of the union, Lithuanians regarded as a manifestation of sovereignty. By the same token, “the fundamental issue of Vytautas’ liberty” gradually was transformed into a question of Lithuania’s independence, or equal rights, within the union with Poland. As to his image in the narrow sense, the Grand Duke’s desire to receive the crown and his ultimate failure to do so was used for didactic purposes: On the one hand, it testified to the strong will and consistency shown in persisting in his cause; on the other hand, it was transformed into a metaphor for unsatisfied ambition and vainglory. The fifteenth century, being an intermediary period in image-making, introduced a new feature of Vytautas: that of legislator. Sources from the Grand Duke’s lifetime do not place any special emphasis on his issuance of various documents. However, since these charters were literally the first in the Grand Duchy to result in a legal tradition,3 they acquired special importance for posterity. Since then, many international and domestic matters have been based on the “laws of Vytautas,” while Humanists referred to the Grand Duke as the founder of a legal tradition. In retrospect, privileges granted (or not granted) to the Church and to nobility noted an individual status and frequently marked the beginnings of personal or institutional establishment in the Grand Duchy. What’s more, the reign of Vytautas marked a shift from oral to written legislation, and, in Stryjkowski’s opinion, guaranteed the preservation of Vytautas’ memory. As this fundamental transition was rather recent, those referring to the new norms of social life automatically invoked the Grand Duke’s name. In summary, during various time periods the image of Vytautas acquired different expressions. Some of these manifestations were continuous, others episodic, yet others haphazard. With time, many features acquired some special association with a particular historical moment. Hence, deeds and qualities established the framework within which the image functioned. Moreover, the invention of print and the rise of national historiography resulted in a certain rigidity and repetition of the image. By the same token, despite the rather disparate qualities attributed to Vytautas, various perceptions of the Grand Duke still constitute a single image, rather than many. The reason is that, regardless of the detachment of individual features from Vytautas’ personality, they still remained interrelated and interdependent within the Grand Duke’s image.

254

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

FOLLOWING THE PATTERNS OF KINGSHIP Theoretical minds of the past defined good as well as bad kingship in terms of clear concepts. Moreover, the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were especially intense in generating notions of supreme authority and indicating its limits. Although it is unknown to what extent these theories were known in the Grand Duchy, placing Vytautas’ image within general European perspectives on authority is viewed as enlightening, above all because it allows a comparison between the image of Vytautas and those of other rulers in the past.

An Ideal Prince A ruler’s success and ability in government were judged according to particular features. Requirements for a good prince were as follows: prestigious ancestry, legitimate succession, defense of the country and enlargement of its welfare, establishment of justice, guardianship of the laws, support of the Church, protection of the poor, true Christian piety, generosity, and excellence in arms. In addition to deeds and conditions, a prince also had to possess numerous moral qualities. He should be kind, modest, independent, magnanimous, continent, in control of his passions, wise, just, sober, attentive to council, and infallible.4 Most of these qualities appear in Vytautas’ image. To be precise, the Sache and its versions from the annals revealed his distinguished origins and rightful acceptance of the grand ducal office; the battle of Grunwald proclaimed Vytautas a defender of the country from foreign invaders; the Russian campaigns resulted in the acquisition of larger territories and rich booty. Maintenance of justice and establishment of laws became recurrent motifs of Humanist rhetoric on rulership. Themes of combating infidels (i.e., Tatars), patronage over the Catholic Church, and personal piety are embedded within the image from its earliest manifestations. Generosity and lavish gifts are noted by many sources throughout the period under inquiry. Hence, of all the requirements, the motif of protection of the poor has found least place within the image: only a few lines from Cantius’ sermon mention this feature. As to morals, most of the requirements, aside from continence, are mentioned more than once, while the obituary composed by Długosz appears as an accumulation of the Grand Duke’s numerous virtues. Hence, one might say that the image of the Lithuanian ruler is far from unique. It follows well-known schemes of pre-modern rulership. It is highly

IMAGE AND IMAGE

255

questionable whether Vytautas and his entourage were familiar with these theoretical requirements of kingship. However, from what has been said thus far, one may observe that he built his image in correspondence with those notions, and that his efforts were crowned with success. What’s more, educated historians whose works perpetuated the Grand Duke’s deeds and memory must have been aware of these theoretical requirements, and either purposefully or accidentally applied them to Vytautas.

Roots and Fruits of Tyranny The perception of Vytautas as a tyrant constitutes rather a marginal part of the Grand Duke’s image. Moreover, this view is limited in time, and to foreign countries. However, the Grand Duke’s tyrannical portrait reveals the broadness of his image as such and, by including the extremely opposite notions of rulership, singles Vytautas out from other medieval rulers renowned for their imagery.5 These reasons moved me to return to the tyrannical characteristics and to investigate them more thoroughly.

THE POLITICAL THEORY Good kingship has a negative polarity: tyranny. A tyrant is defined by qualities opposite to those of an ideal prince. However, in contrast to the definitions of a good monarchy, tyranny lacks a more elaborate outline. While the list of features attributed to an ideal prince was long, that of a tyrant could be endless. Although the figure of King David symbolized ideal kingship, parallels between the Biblical ruler and historical kings were quite sophisticated and frequently disguised. Quite to the contrary, Herod, the symbol of tyrannical government, was usually evoked to indicate a tyrant, and texts rather openly ascribed this name to rulers of their time.6 The Politics of Aristotle defined “tyranny as monarchy ruling in the interest of the monarch.”7 As in the entire Aristotelian philosophy as “Christianized” by St. Thomas Aquinas, this concept offered the basis for further definitions of tyranny.8 A cumulative portrait of a tyrant reveals itself as follows: he usurps the throne, governs by force and violence, and neglects the laws. He is inclined towards conspiracy and is afraid of plotters; thus, his guard is made up of 9 foreign mercenaries. He abuses public wealth, favors foreigners over his own subjects,10 prefers the company of beasts to humans, is a slave to his pleasures, and driven by sexual passions.11 He is full of ambition,12 always surrounded by women,13 bad tempered, capricious, and moody. Generally, a

256

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

tyrant accumulates all possible negative features, beginning with his physical appearance and ending with some revolting manner of death.14 I shall further describe historic events and opinions that might be used as evidence of tyranny in Vytautas’ actions, as well as in his image. To establish parallels to these features, the motif of usurpation does not directly apply to Vytautas; however, the Summarium, which told of Gediminas’ usurpation of the grand ducal throne, was aimed at Vytautas and Jogaila. As for authority held by force and violence, some of Vytautas’ orders seem to exceed even medieval norms of cruelty.15 Perhaps the most famous of such excesses would be the Duke’s order of 1422: boyars, who had no horses for military service, were told to sell their wives and children and thus buy the horses.16 Such a decision not only violated boyars’ rights, but also broke the law according to which a prince could not order parents to misbehave towards their children.17 Posilge wrote that Vytautas gave the order for the toes of a gun-master to be cut off so that he could not escape to Prussia.18 The Grand Duke’s actions, as well as his invitations to citizens to observe the executions of rebellious Samogitians or Tatars,19 were nothing exceptional.20 Russian sources make it plain that Vytautas shed blood as if it were water.21 While sources are silent concerning Vytautas’ concerns with conspiracies against him, the Grand Duke’s Tatar and, perhaps, Karaite retinue might easily be considered guards of foreign mercenaries. As far as foreigners are concerned, Lannoy wrote of the ruler’s favors towards foreign visitors,22 while Długosz simply stated that Vytautas was harsh toward his subjects, but tender and polite with foreigners.23 As for the animals, Piccolomini’s remark concerning the throwing of suspected enemies to wild bears might serve as an apt illustration.24 Moreover, a phenomenon that can be termed as “ursofilia” is a distinguishing feature of foreign perceptions of Lithuania, going far beyond the image of Vytautas and the scope of this book.25 The presence of women in Vytautas’ court, his heeding of female advice, and his uncontrolled sexual passion are explicitly described by Długosz, who also emphasized the Grand Duke’s ambition, a feature exploited even in Jesuit school-dramas. As for moodiness and various other caprices, Piccolomini provides a detailed account. To summarize, Vytautas’ characteristics in the works of classically educated historians, as well as those contained in various other documents and accounts, correspond to most of the conventional features of a tyrant. More-

IMAGE AND IMAGE

257

over, descriptions of the reign and the murder of Vytautas’ brother Sigismund (d. 1440) easily complement any missing evidence.

TERROR IN PRACTICE The Bykhoviets Chronicle tells Sigismund’s story as follows: He kept the country under terror. Actually, he governed like Antioch of Syria or Herod of Jerusalem. Being afraid of conspiracy, the Duke killed many prominent nobles. Furthermore, he was about to betray the interests of Lithuanian magnates. Indeed, he degraded boyars and began promoting peasants, that is, “dog’s blood.”26 The people could not stand such government and decided to kill their evil ruler. They came to the castle, knowing that the Grand Duke was celebrating the Mass in his bedchamber. Being aware that Sigismund kept a bear he loved dearly (clearly alluding to friendship with animals rather than humans),27 the plotters scratched the door of the grand ducal quarters. Thinking that the beloved bear had returned, the Duke ordered the doors to be opened. Then, Alexander Czartoryski,28 together with his servant entered, the room and slaughtered the Grand Duke during the Holy Mass at the moment when the priest elevated the Holy Sacrament. The Duke’s blood gushed onto the wall and the mark is visible even today (i.e., the 1520s),29 says the story. While the Bykhoviets Chronicle draws parallels between Sigismund and Antioch and Herod and calls him an evil ruler, Długosz puts it plainly: Sigismund’s murder was a tyrannicide.30 Although none of these narratives link Sigismund to Vytautas, a remark concerning the election of Grand Duke Casimir as King of Poland contributes additional evidence to our knowledge of tyranny in Lithuania. Długosz says that Lithuanians did not want Casimir to leave for Poland for fear that the bad days of Vytautas and his brother Sigismund might return if Sigismund’s son Michael (ca. 1390–1452)31 took over.32 Moreover, one should bear in mind that Michael, the last male in Vytautas’ family, was murdered in Moscow, where he sought refuge. The Bykhoviets Chronicle says that Michael was poisoned by a priest who put poison into the Eucharist cup.33 Interestingly enough, the two stories indicate that the murder took place during the Holy Mass. Hence, one may infer that the killing of the bad ruler and his son received a kind of godly sanction, and thus was conceived of as a just action. Given the European polemics on the right to kill a tyrant, the Lithuanian solution appears simple and persuasive.34 To summarize, the evidence on Vytautas’ government and the features of his image, especially when combined with the fate of his family, aptly fit

258

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the scheme of tyrannical government. However, only a few of these traits and stories come from the authors who viewed the Grand Duke in a negative light. That is, many texts that attributed tyrannical characteristics to Vytautas did not consider the Grand Duke to be a tyrant. Thus, one may suppose that the identification of tyranny depended on the background of the authors, and most likely indicated a gap between Eastern and Western notions of supreme authority. The descriptions of punishment by self-hanging illustrate divergences in the understanding of tyranny. These stories are a central element of the tyrannical deeds of Vytautas. The fact of the forced suicide reinforced the image of tyranny with a Christian dimension. One can hardly imagine something more contradictory to Christian morality than committing suicide.35 Thus, ordering someone to commit suicide became a double sin, and a person doing so manifested him/herself as a heretic and tyrant. Furthermore, if other parts of the tyrannical image could be created by applying pre-existing definitions, the hanging stories can be acknowledged to convey not only a negative, but also by a positive, opinion about Vytautas. Neither Długosz nor Hussovianus nor early-modern Polish chronicles view self-hanging as an extraordinary practice; rather the reverse: such punishment testifies to the Grand Duke’s authority. In contrast, Western authors, save for Montaigne, regard this punishment as an abuse of justice and a violation of fundamental Christian postulates. Such a contradiction urges us to look closer at Lithuanian customs and mentality in the Middle Ages. Punishment in the form of forced suicide seems to have been a reality among medieval Baltic tribes. For example, the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle (ca. 1290) tells of the Lithuanian practice of concluding treaties: if a Lithuanian breaks an oath he would not escape the gallows.36 Peter of Dusburg says that suicide was a quite common practice among the ancient Balts.37 Similarly, in 1428, a Carthusian monk, Heinrich Beringer (d. 1444), complained of a Prussian custom for taking a vow: instead of swearing upon the Bible or a cross, Prussians swore by putting their hands to their throat.38 Although, it is unknown how long this practice survived in Lithuania, it is clear why local authors would not have been astonished by such a manner of self-execution.

JULIUS CAESAR OR IVAN THE TERRIBLE In closing the discussion on the tyranny of Vytautas, a parallel from discussions on the murder of Caesar may be enlightening. Roman philosophers

IMAGE AND IMAGE

259

used to question whether the killing of Caesar was tyrannicide or murder. Conclusions favored the latter interpretation. The arguments were as follows: while Brutus claimed he killed a tyrant, the reaction of the people to the emperor’s death, as well as his deeds for the country, reveal him to have been a good ruler.39 Długosz’s evaluation of Vytautas’ government appears as a somewhat similar judgment. It says that Lithuanians were wrong to be afraid of the Grand Duke, since he was to elevate their hitherto obscure country. Another parallel that could shed light on the ambiguity of Vytautas’ image is closer in time and geography. To my mind, Vytautas’ reign resembled the government of Ivan the Terrible: During the Grand Duke’s lifetime, the policy of the “strong hand” was a fully accepted custom. While in union with Poland, the Lithuanian nobility began enjoying more privileges and acquired an increasing share of state government. Hence, the reign of Sigismund, who is likely to have continued with Vytautas’ style of government, could already be interpreted as one of terror. In Lithuania, the tyrannical image was not extended backwards to Vytautas’ reign; however, the Grand Duke was perceived in this light by foreigners. Hence, the style of Vytautas’ government was close to what in the sixteenth century became known as “Muscovite despotism.” Michalonus Lithuanus confirmed this supposition. Writing about Muscovy under Ivan the Terrible, the Lithuanian author clearly stated that the Muscovites had appropriated Vytautas’ inheritance.40 Hence, autocracy that terrified the Western world appeared to Lithuanians as a quite natural and acceptable form of government. In a broader perspective, the Muscovite parallel is not a single comparison to the way Vytautas held grand ducal authority. Threatened by the growth of Muscovy, Lithuanians regarded the times of Vytautas as an age of stability and security. If these are the greatest values of statehood, than Vytautas’ autocracy appears to be a minor evil, or perhaps not an evil at all.

The Sense of Byzantium The Byzantine dimension of Vytautas’ authority has been noted by several scholars, above all, by Josef Pfitzner. Concluding his monograph on Vytautas, Pfitzner writes an extensive chapter on the Byzantine impact in shaping Vytautas’ politics. On the one hand, the lack of sources makes the Byzantine parallel quite hypothetical; on the other hand, there are many hints that the topic needs to be more thoroughly explored. Henceforth, I shall consider

260

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

the facts of Lithuanian relations with Byzantium during Vytautas’ reign, and then indicate the Byzantine-like aspects of Vytautas’ image. Lithuanian–Byzantine contacts were never numerous. Constantinople regarded Lithuania as a country of fire worshipers and, thus, paid little attention to it. In 1354, Grand Duke Algirdas succeeded in establishing the Orthodox metropolitanate in Lithuania. Although this success was temporal, it did encourage later rulers to continue Algirdas’ effort. As to the relations between the ruling families, the betrothal of Vytautas’ granddaughter Anna (d. 1417) to the imperial heir John Palaeologus (later the Emperor John VIII) is the single example. Moreover, the bride represented Muscovy, not Lithuania, and the role of the grandfather in this marriage is obscure. However, it seems the Grand Duke kept an eye on the young princess. Anna’s betrothal and marriage is a shadowy issue and even the dates have been established with some uncertainty. The Russian annals tell us that she left for Constantinople as early as 1409.41 However, the comparison of available evidence suggests the following dating: the betrothal took place in 1411, the marriage in 1414, and Anna died in 1417.42 A note from Lannoy’s travelogues has already attracted scholarly attention. It mentions the presence of Vytautas’ daughter Sophia and her daughter in Lithuania in 1414.43 If the daughter’s daughter could be identified with Anna, Vytautas’ influence on the Muscovite–Byzantine alliance would have increased. Depending on the sources they refer to, scholars either accept Anna’s identity, or deny it.44 One thing is clear: the information about family members did reach Vytautas. The only dated document concerning Anna’s death also came from Vilnius.45 With her death, the family alliance ended. However, Vytautas’ interest in Byzantium did not fade. Rowell has noted that the blood relation between Jogaila and the Byzantine Emperor could also be based on Anna’s marriage.46 While this interpretation seems too far-fetched,47 other evidence suggests that either Vytautas’ was interested in the “Second Rome,” or he was merely thought to have been interested in the city. The so-called membrana maxima, the detailed map of Constantinople designed by Cristoforo dei Buondelmonti (ca. 1380 – after 1430), offers a curious example.48 At least one of the surviving codices of Buondelmonti’s major work, Liber insularum Archipelagi (henceforth, the Liber), mentions that the author had sent the membrana maxima of Constantinople to Vytautas, the Duke of Russia.49 We know neither his reason for sending the map, nor anything about the map itself. There were attempts to connect Vytautas’ interest in Constantinople with Anna’s marriage.50 However, the Liber had

IMAGE AND IMAGE

261

been composed in the early 1420s.51 Thus, the relation through Anna is an impossibility. Lannoy appears as another possible mediator between the Grand Duke and the grand map. In 1421, the Burgundian nobleman visited Vytautas for the second time and left Lithuania for Byzantium. The traveler’s records are silent as to any contacts maintained on Vytautas’ behalf in Constantinople, or between Buondelmonti and Vytautas;52 nothing, aside from the fact of the contact itself, can be stated for sure concerning the connection between Buondelmonti and Vytautas. It is certain that Vytautas had contacts with Byzantium and received Greek envoys.53 When attempting to establish a Lithuanian province of the Orthodox Church, Vytautas sent delegates to the patriarch in Constantinople.54 Byzantine representatives attended the meeting at Lutsk. However, all these facts are insufficient to allow us to speak of a Lithuanian–Byzantine relationship. Nonetheless, one may speak of a Lithuanian sense of Byzantium. This sense is manifest through a number of efforts to copy the Byzantines. Although contracted to Constantinople, the Empire still maintained its allure. In the words of Barker: “In spite of a long process of decline through which Byzantium had been passing by … the glory of the successors of Constantine had not been forgotten. Indeed, Byzantium to the West had always appeared as a realm of almost fairy-tale splendor and grandeur, a reputation that the ordeal of the Crusades, tragic decay, and a degradation before the Turkish advance had not entirely dimmed.”55 As the Ottoman advance made the fall of Byzantium inevitable, the sense of the last days of the empire must also have been felt in the eastern parts of Europe. Hence, there was competition as to who would take the place of the imperial capital. History has shown that the laurels of the “Third Rome” were appropriated by Moscow.56 However, in the early fifteenth century Muscovy was not the only candidate for the Byzantine legacy: imperial ideas were popular in the Balkans57 and, via Kiev, in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as well. Echoes of Byzantine splendors were known to Vytautas and one might observe the Basileus-like features in the shaping of the Grand Duke’s authority. It seems that this understanding was quite widespread, and close to the Muscovite autocracy of the sixteenth century. However, authoritarian reign and the attempt to create a “centralized” state58 not only indicate Vytautas’ Byzantine inclinations, but also the means of his presentation. Of all the evidence, the panegyric to Vytautas described

262

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

above as Pokhvala,59 as well as the mural decoration of Trakai island-castle,60 testifies to a certain sense, even though imaginary, of Byzantine authority. Moreover, the venerated images of the Mother of God in Old and New Trakai and their legends of Byzantine origin61 indicate that the association between Vytautas and Byzantium survived far beyond the Middle Ages. Although in this context associations do not mean relations, I suggest considering the above-noted “senses of Byzantium” as a longing for the once-lost opportunity of a closer bond with the Byzantine world.

The Making of a National Hero I have discussed the image of Vytautas as a more or less independent construction and tried to place it against the broader background of European notions of kingship. Actually, such a method is implicit in the Grand Duke’s image: Parallels with Alexander of Macedonia and Julius Caesar were first pronounced during the Grand Duke’s lifetime, and continued to appear in the texts of the Humanists. Moreover, the name of Vytautas quickly became invoked in comparisons with his successors on the grand ducal seat. In this respect, the acclamation of Alexander as Grand Duke of Lithuania appears insightful. The acclaim presented Vytautas as the embodiment of Lithuanian values of rulership.62 With time, the national charge in the image increased. Already, authors of the Renaissance and Baroque periods appealed to keeping national sentiment in Vytautas’ name. This nationality, defined as the political nationhood of the Grand Duchy, is closer to our own notion of citizenship. Thus, the formation of a national consciousness on the part of Lithuanians proper caused the “rediscovery” of the Grand Duke’s image and made him a national hero. From a broader perspective, the national bent given to the image does not appear to be a unique development. Many countries across the world select one ruler, or even several rulers as symbols of their nation. For example, Casimir the Great is viewed as the most prominent ruler of Poland, Saint Louis embodies French virtues, Dimitrii Donskoi expressed Russian sentiment, and Mathias Corvinus is a truly Hungarian king. What’s more, the national ruler-heroes were derived, not from their biographies, but rather from their images. That is, certain deeds or facts from a ruler’s life, plus some general moral qualities, were assembled into a single image of the national hero. This process went in parallel with the development of historiography, which was arranged by the rulers and the consolidation of states within more or less

IMAGE AND IMAGE

263

defined territories. All these factors contributed to the formation of national sentiment.63 To return to Vytautas’ image, a certain unique moment can again be observed. The point is that, in Lithuania, all the above-mentioned processes arrived with significant delay and, by the same token, were much speedier. The formation of the sense of the nation (or, rather, of being a citizen of the Grand Duchy) occurred in the sixteenth century. With regard to the pace of history, a period of a hundred years still counts as recent time. Thus, the appropriation of Vytautas’ image for nationalistic ends confronted the dilemma of living memory and the still-widespread knowledge of the “true” image of the Grand Duke. This could be one reason the image did not acquire certain features and expressions that would have made Vytautas a more complex symbol of the nation.

Paths not Pursued ST. VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA? The Middle Ages was the period of the formation of Christian nationhood. Most of these nations had their Christianizer, as a ruler at the time of conversion. With time, that ruler was declared a saint and usually recognized as a holy patron of his/her country. To offer a few examples from the neighborhood: Saint Vladimir of Kievan Rus’, Saint Stephan of Hungary, and Saint Olaf of Norway. At first glance, it is quite strange that there is no Saint Vytautas of Lithuania. The Grand Duke’s Christian merits were already widely proclaimed and consolidated during his lifetime. Moreover, the Church also maintained his image as founder and Christianizer. Nonetheless, there are no traces of attempts at Vytautas’ canonization. Today one may only speculate on the reasons for such passivity. Considering other national saints, several centuries separate the life of a saintly ruler and recognition of his/her sanctity. This is particularly true because, at the moment of canonization, often little was known of that hero aside from the glory of the conversion. It was therefore much easier to build a legend out of nearly nothing than to construct one from abundant, and sometimes controversial, memories. What’s more, political fashion seems to have been more important than ambiguous testimonies. The saint kings of the European periphery reigned around the year 1000. Vytautas came to the political scene four centuries later. Living when he did, the Grand Duke of Lithuania simply missed the train towards sainthood.

264

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA THE SPIRIT OF ADVENTURE

The image of Vytautas was limited to that of a ruler-hero, and never fully exhausted the Grand Duke’s biography. Neither during the Middle Ages nor in the early-modern era did Vytautas’ life serve as a plot for some chivalrous story or didactic novel. This is surprising, as the Grand Duke’s biography has the necessary potential for entertainment and teaching: tricking the guards by dressing in his wife’s clothing to escape to Prussia, hiding troops in carriages in an attempt to seize Vilnius, numerous military campaigns, hunting customs, caring for his soldiers, prestige among Tatars and other “wild but exotic” people, and a passion for his wife—all these features have the power to be transformed into an adventure story. The image of Vytautas, however, was never developed that far. Why did Vytautas not inspire fiction? Today one can hardly answer this question with certainty. My theories fall into two groups: On the one hand, Lithuania had no tradition either of heroic or historical fiction. On the other hand, it could well have been that Vytautas was too highly honored to be made into a hero of a “lower” genre of literature. Hence, there was no attempt to make the Lithuanian Alexander emulate the romance of the true Alexander. Interestingly enough, it was foreigners who broke the silence of fiction. In 1796, Ludwig von Baczko published a novel entitled Vitold Grosfürst von Lithauen. Based on the opposition between Vytautas and Jogaila, the novel praises the Grand Duke and features him as a fighter against idolatry. In 1809, Ludwig Rheza (Lt, Rėza) wrote a poem, “Anna und Vitold,” which took the mutual love and sacrifice of the grand ducal couple as its main theme. Other fictional texts that referred more extensively to Vytautas for the most part were concerned with the history of the Teutonic Knights. These pieces featured Vytautas as a marginal character. Even though a few texts ascribed the Grand Duke with a more significant role, lack of artistic skill caused them to remain unnoticed.64 Even those pieces that considered Vytautas to be their main hero remained peripheral cases and did not affect users of the Grand Duke’s image. In Lithuania, a poem by Józef Ignacy Kraszewski entitled “Vytautas’ battles” (1845) appeared in a sequence of poems based on the “Lithuanian legends.”65 Inspired and shaped by pseudo-mythology and the Romantic spirit, the poem’s Vytautas does not significantly transgress the image of the warrior. Among Lithuanians proper, the name of Vytautas was frequently evoked by poets of the national revival. One of the most celebrated figures of this

IMAGE AND IMAGE

265

period, priest and poet Jonas Mačiulis-Maironis (1862–1932), is recognized for his eloquent and patriotic verse. Quite naturally, Maironis appeals to Vytautas, who bears the traditional aura of the national hero and serves as an example for the poet’s time. The interwar period exploited Vytautas’ imagery most profoundly. Moreover, this was the time when Vytautas became generally recognized as a national hero, and his image was shaped to fit the appropriate requirements. Quite naturally, one may expect some kind of major opus glorifying the Lithuanian hero. Strangely enough, however, there is no opera based on the life and deeds of Vytautas, nor could I trace any attempt to write one. In any event, the Lithuanian Republic of the interwar period did not produce a substantial piece of literature on the Grand Duke. On the other hand, there are quite a few paintings recalling the stories of Grunwald, of reaching the Black Sea, or the escape to the Teutonic Knights.66 As to the years under the Soviet regime, they did not favor the national hero. Thus, the three plays by Justinas Marcinkevičius that most profoundly reflected Lithuanian national history entitled Mindaugas, Mažvydas, and the Cathedral, were dedicated to the establishment of statehood, the formation of the Lithuanian literary language, and the building of a religious and national shrine.67 The national revival of the late 1980s tried to restore the past rather than entertain with it. Hence, besides a few pieces of quite poor quality, nothing more artistically mature has been published. It is only recently that a poem and a novel have appeared in print.68 Although based on Vytautas’ life and deeds, the plots of these pieces are constructed upon the inner drama of a personality forced to compromise between personal happiness and higher ideals.69 Nevertheless, the notion of the national hero is present throughout the text of both pieces. Hence, one may conclude that at the turn of the twentieth century the image of Vytautas began providing entertainment, although retaining the aura of national and even supra-national heroism. To sum up the process of image sum building, figures of the past still play their roles, and Vytautas’ is no exception. In the Grand Duke’s case (and, I believe, many other instances) these roles are shaped by the image of the figures, rather than by their biographies. Hence, the fact that a portrait of Vytautas recently appeared on playing cards is both symptomatic and enlightening. The Grand Duke is featured as the jack of spades in the set entitled the “Jagielonian Pack,” together with Jogaila as the king of spades and Hedwig as a queen (figs. 80–83). The connotation of spades is broader

266

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

than that of the other card suits. The role of a jack also evokes a number of associations. Hence, Vytautas as the jack of spades seems to unite the most distant and the most current ways of appropriating history.

NOTES 1 At this point one may remember earlier traditions as presented by Michael McCormick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1990). 2 See above, Ch. I, n. 30. 3 I consider neither the letters nor privileges issued by King Mindaugas and Grand Duke Gediminas important for the development of Lithuanian jurisprudence since these documents were aimed at foreign addressees and did not become part of the Lithuanian written tradition. 4 For various definitions of good kingship, see Jacques Krynen, Idéal du prince et pouvoir royal en France a la fin du Moyen Age (1380 – 1440). Étude de la literature politique du temps (Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard, 1981), 54, passim. 5 Vytautas is not the only ruler to whom extremely positive and negative features are attributed; for other cases, see Gábor Klaniczay, “Representations of the Evil Ruler in the Middle Ages,” in European Monarchy: Its Evolution and Practice from Roman Antiquity to Modern Times, ed. Heinz Duchhardt, Richard A. Jackson, and David Sturdy (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992), 78–79. 6 Ruth Morse, Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages: Rhetoric, Representation, and Reality (Cambridge, NY, etc.: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 165–66. 7 Aristotle in Twenty Three Volumes, vol. 21, Politics, with an English translation by H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library 264, ed. G.P. Goold (Cambridge, Mass. and London, UK: Harvard University Press, 1990), 207. 8 See St. Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship to the King of Cyprus, translated by Gerald B. Phelan, revised with introduction and notes by I. Th. Eschmann (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1982). Besides St. Thomas, John of Salisbury further developed Aristotelian thought on tyranny; see Cary J. Nederman, “The Changing Face of Tyranny: The Reign of King Stephen in John of Salisbury’s Political Thought,” Nottingham Medieval Studies 33 (1989); reprinted in id., Medieval Aristotelianism and its Limits: Classical Traditions in Moral and Political Philosophy 12th – 15th Centuries (Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1997), V:1–20. 9 Turchetti, 76 (Plato) and 422 (Hotman). 10 Ibid., 91 (Aristotle). 11 Ibid., 339 (Erasmus). 12 Ibid., 342 (More). 13 Ibid., 92 (Aristotle).

IMAGE AND IMAGE

267

14 Klaniczay, 72–79. For example, Louis of Orléans was even accused of gluttony; Jean-Claude Mühlethaler, “Le tyrant à table: Intertextualité et reference dans l’invective politique à l’époque de Charles VI,” in Représentations pouvoir et royauté à la fin du Moyen Âge. Actes du Colloque organizé par l’Université du Main les 25 et 26 mars 1994, ed. Joël Blanchard with a preface by Philippe Contamine (Paris: Picard, 1995), 49–62. 15 For various manifestations and perceptions of violence in the Middle Ages, mostly as expressed in literature, see the collection of studies La violence dans le monde medieval, published by Centre Universitaire d’Etudes et de Recherches Médiévales d’Aix, Senefiance 36 (Aix-en-Provence: CUER MA Université de Provence, 1994). For a king’s anger and its place within royal imagery, see Gerd Althoff, “Ira regis: Prolegomena to a History of Royal Anger,” in Anger’s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein (Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1998), 59–74. 16 “Ve nicht en helft, dar he perde mede kope, de schal vorkopen wif und kindere, dat se sunder perde nicht en bliven,” CEV, no. 999, 548. 17 Kenneth Pennington, The Prince and the Law, 1200 – 1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition (Berkeley, LA, and Oxford: University of California Press, 1993), 209. 18 SRPr, 3:322. 19 CEV, no. 781, 411–12; no. 788, 414–15. 20 LUB, 5: no. 2538, 724–25. 21 “… krov’ proliav, aki vodu,” PSRL, 12–13:166. 22 See above, Lannoy’s account on foreign travelers in the GDL, Ch. I, n. 72. 23 “Severus in proprios, nullum scelus eorum impunitum relinquens, cuius illum latere non poterant quacumque arte celata conditio: in hospites vero comis et benignus,” Długosz, Opera Omnia, 13:416. 24 For Piccolomini’s description see above, Ch. III, n. 475. 25 The best-known example is, of course, the short story by Prosper Mérimée, Le Manuscrit du Professeur Wittenbach “Lokys,” (Fribourg, 1946). On the scholarly examination of the early manifestations of the bear motif, see S.C. Rowell, “Bears and Traitors, or: Political Tensions in the Grand Duchy, ca. 1440 – 1481,” Lithuanian Historical Studies 2 (1997): 45–53 (appendix “The Image of the Bad Grand Duke: Žygimantas Kęstutaitis”). 26 “... on że okajannik kniaź welikij Żygimont ne nasytyłsia złosty swoey y mislił w sercu swoiem po diawołu nauczeniju, kako by weś rożay szlachecki pohubity y krow ich rozlity, a podnesty rożay chłopski, psiu krow,” PSRL, 32:155. 27 As to the bear, another attribute of a tyrant, the entire story echoes Piccolomini. What is more, the De Europa seems to be the earliest text mentioning the bear within the context of the Duke’s murder. In his own turn, Miechowita accuses Piccolomini by saying that this was the end of Vytautas: “Aeneas de Piccolominibus scripsit non hunc Sigismundum, sed Vitoldum, sicut praemissum est, per suos in forma ursae delusum interfectum, sed insciis relatoribus credidit et errore scripsit,” Mekhovskii, Traktat, 182. It is interesting to note that by the early 16th c. Polish Humanists, including Miechowita, corresponded on erroneous in-

268

28

29 30

31

32

33 34

35

36

37

38

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

terpretations of Piccolomini; see Materiały do dziejów dyplomacji Polskiej z lat 1486 – 1516 (Kodeks Zagrebski) (Materials concerning Polish diplomacy of the years 1486 – 1516 (Codex of Zagreb)), ed. Józef Garbacik, Polska Akademia Nauk – Oddział w Krakowie. Materiały Komisji Nauk Historycznych 11 (Wrocław, etc.: Zakład narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1966), no. 57, 185–93, on Vytautas, see p. 93. However, Piccolomini says that thus was killed Duke Švitrigaila. Whatever the misunderstandings between the Humanists, it is likely that Piccolomini did not invent the stories with bears but continued the existing tradition; Rowell, “Bears and Traitors,” 50–52. Having killed Grand Duke Sigismund, Czartoryski fled to Muscovy, where he held a number of significant offices; in 1460 he returned to the GDL, d. 1480, BK, n. 13, 283. PSRL, 32:155–56. “Dux Iwan Czartorysky ritus et generis Ruthenici, cum nonulis Lithuanis et Ruthenis conspirationem contra Sigismundum Magnum Ducem Lithuaniae facit; … festo Pasche transacto suam in illis executurus tyrannidem,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 13:619. For the critique of this perception see Rowell, “Bears and Traitors,” 45–53. For the biographical study on Michael, see Arian Kopytiański, Michał Zygmuntowicz książe Litewski. Monografia historyczna (Lithuanian Duke Michael, son of Sigismund. A historical monograph) (Lwów: Czionkami drukarni Ludowej, 1906; offprint from KH 20 (1906)); also see PSB, 20:609–11. “… redire Withawdi aut Sigismundi fratris sui horrienda tempora, quibus in capita eorum pro libito saevitum est, et transmingrare simul cum Kazimiro partam libertatem rebantur. Veniebatque in mentem filius Sigismundi, Michael Dux, ne is Kazimiro succederet, patris necem multiplici nece ulturus,” Długosz, Opera omnia, 14:10. PSRL, 32:159–60. For a political analysis of murdering Sigismund and Michael, see Rimvydas Petrauskas, “Giminaičiai ir pavaldiniai: Lietuvos bajorų grupės XIV a. pabaigoje – XV a. I pusėje” (Relatives and subjects: the groups of Lithuanian boyars at the end of the fourteenth – first half of the fifteenth century), in Lietuva ir jos kaimynai, 116–20. For the position of the Church on suicide, see Alexander Murray, Suicide in the Middle Ages, vol. 2, A Curse on Self-Murder (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 218–41, especially see pp. 235–41. “Sie taten ire hande / Dem meistere vnd waren vro. / Des landes site stet also: / Wer dem anderen tut die hant, / Wer er uber das dritte lant, / Der hette getruwelichen vride / Vie dem halse vnd der wide,” “Livländische Reimchronik,” in BRMŠ, 1:298. “Quando ex inopinato rerum eventu aliquam immoderatam incurerunt turbacionem, se ipsos occidere consueverunt,” Peter von Dusburg, “Chronicon Terae Prussiae,” in ibid., 335; “Extunc fratres cum suis insequentes, percusserunt eos palga magna, sic quod rex cum paucis vix evasit, alii gladio trucidati sunt, quidam submersit, ceteri in solitudine consumpti inedia vel pre dolore se suspendentes perierunt,” ibid., 340. “… das were meer gotlicher, wan also sy nu sweren, das sy eyne hant ober den hals legen,” ibid., 491.

IMAGE AND IMAGE

269

39 Turchetti, 302–03. 40 See above, Ch. III, n. 69. 41 “V leto 6917 kniaz’ velikii Vasilei Dmitrievich otdast’ dshcher’ svoyu kniaginyu Annu vo Tsar’gorod za tsarevicha Ivana Manuilovicha,” PSRL, 26:151. 42 Obolensky, “Some Notes.” 43 “Et là, en cedit chastel, trouvay le duc Withold, prince de Létau, sa femme et sa fille, femme au grant roy de Musco, et la fille de sa fille,” Oeuvres, 42. 44 Accept: Klimas, 34; Oscar Halecki, “Gilbert de Lannoy and His Discovery of East Central Europe,” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 2.2 (1944): 320. Deny: Ignas Jonynas, Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai, 164. 45 Marchal of Asterode to the Livonian Master, 14 December 1417: “Ok is des koninges wiff von Constantinopilum, de is doet, Wytovten seiner dochter dochter,” CEV, no. 754, 398. 46 At the end of 1420 Jogaila addressed Manuel II: “Wladislaus preclarissimo principi domino manueli imperatori consangwineo nostro carissimo,” LC, 2: no. 137, 213. 47 Rowell builds his hypothesis on the fact that Francisco Filelfo (1398 – 1481) came to the wedding of Jogaila and Sophia and, thus, represented the Byzantine Empire; Rowell, “Pious Princesses,” 71. Filelfus was invited to this wedding by a Polish legate when he stayed in Buda; Carlo de’ Rosmini, Vita di Francesco Filelfo da Tolentino (Milano: Presso Luigi Mussi, 1808), 12–13. To my mind, Filelfo went to Krakow quite by accident: at the time of the marriage he was in Buda staying with the Emperor Sigismund and thus Poles used the opportunity to invite the Byzantine envoy to the king’s marriage. Whatever the circumstances, nothing is certain about blood relations being considered at that event; L. A. Sheppard, A Fifteenth-Century Humanist Francesco Filelfo (London: The Biographical Society, 1935), 2. Although arguments based on the silence of sources are always doubtful, the fact that Filelfo never refers to the Polish trip in his numerous letters seems noteworthy. For the letters, see Franciscus Philelphus, Epistolae (Venice: Vindelinus de Spira, 1473). 48 Giuseppe Ragone, “Membrana Maxima: Cristophoro dei Buondelmonti, Vytautas of Lithuania and the First Modern Map of Constantinople,” trans. Stephen C. Rowell, in Lietuva ir jos kaimynai, 150–87. 49 “Quamvis hec civitas insulla non sit et ponere eam in numero harum insullarum condecens non foret, actamen ut aliqua de urbe Constantinopoli videntes comprehendere possint, ideo quam brevius potui hic de ruinis eius scripsi, licet in membrana maxima Bittoldo duci Russie miserim ad videndum suis omnibus extra atque infra attinentiis,” ibid., 156. 50 Ragone dates this marriage to 1413, ibid., 158. 51 Ibid., 157. 52 Ibid., 159. 53 From Vytautas letter to Sigismund of Luxembourg, without date and place of sending: “verum est, ex scriptis imperatoris Grecorum paulo ante accepimus ipsum ad nos velle suam mittere solempnem ambasiatam, si et quando eadem aduenerit et quod de occurenciis et illarum regionum disposicionibus discere potuerimus,” LC, 1: no. 90, 165. 54 See above, Ch. I, the section entitled “Within the System of Christian Values: From Saracen to a New Messiah.”

270

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

55 Barker, 166. 56 The issue of the “Third Rome” has been studied abundantly; I refer a rather recent study pointing to the late appropriation of the imperial idea in Muscovy: John Meyendorff, “Was There Ever a ‘Third Rome’? Remarks on the Byzantine Legacy in Russia,” in The Byzantine Tradition after the Fall of Constantinople, ed. John J. Yiannias (Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1991), 45–60. 57 For imperial ideas and succession to Constantinople, see a collection of studies The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe, ed. Lowell Clucas, East European Monographs 230 (New York: Boulder and Columbia University Press, 1988). For Muscovy, see George P. Majeska, “Russia’s Perception of Byzantium after the Fall,” ibid., 19–31; on Romania, see Dimitri Nastase, “Imperial Claims in the Romanian Principalities from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries. New Contributions,” ibid., 185–224. 58 The issue of centralization of Byzantium is rather an impression conveyed through Byzantine texts, rather than reality; Alexander Kazhdan and Giles Constable, People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982), 149, passim. 59 See Ch. I, section entitled “The Final Word of Praise.” 60 See Ch. I, section entitled “The Visual Expression of Lordship.” 61 See Ch. II, section entitled “Vytautas in Popular Piety.” 62 The acclamation is quoted above, Ch. III, n. 27. 63 For the role of historiography in the formation of national consciousness, see Bernard Guené, L’Occident aux XIVe et XVe siècles: Les Etats, Nouvelle Clio l’Histoire et ses problèmes (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971), 123–30. For the images of French rulers in relation to national spirit, see Krynen, 241–58. 64 Ig. Skrupskelis, “Vytautas Didysis vokiečių literatūroje” (Vytautas the Great in German literature), Atheneum 1 (1930): 86–106. 65 Józef Ignacy Kraszewski, Anafielos: pieśni z podań Litwy. Pieśń 3: Witoldowe boji (Anafielos: songs on Lithuanian legends. Song 3: Vytautas’ battles) (Wilno: J. Zawadski, 1845). 66 The best account of Lithuania’s policy in the visual arts is Giedrė Jankevičiūtė, Dailė ir valstybė: dailės gyvenimas Lietuvos Respublikoje 1918 – 1940 (Art and state: artistic life in the Lithuanian Republic, 1918 – 1940) (Kaunas: Nacionalinis M.K. Čiurlionio muziejus, 2003). 67 Justinas Marcinkevičius, Mindaugas. Mažvydas. Katedra. Draminė trilogija (Mindaugas. Mažvydas. The cathedral. A dramatic trilogy) (Vilnius: Vaga, 1978). 68 Gediminas Isokas, Vytautas Didysis. Poema (Vytautas the Great. A poem) (Vilnius: Vaga, 1999) and Jonas Laucė, Mirštančių dievų kerštas. Istorinis romanas (The vengeance of dying gods. A historical novel) (Vilnius: Vaga, 2002). 69 I view such inner drama as a natural continuity of the Soviet mentality: most of the artistically mature literature in Soviet Lithuania exploited the dilemma between personal aspirations and the common good and thus responded to a daily situation of a Soviet person attempting to express oneself and succumbing to Soviet policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Historical tradition provides us with values and guidelines for today by offering a linkage between past and present. The image of Vytautas entered the tradition of the Grand Duchy and found a definite place within the Lithuanian national consciousness. The preceding chapters have investigated the genesis, growth, formation, purification, and many other aspects of the Grand Duke’s image. My basic question was: how did it happen that Vytautas became “the Great.” At this point, it is time to answer this question. I imply that there were alternatives among Lithuanian rulers. Vytautas’ status as a ruler made him an event-making rather than eventful personality, to borrow a term from Sidney Hook;1 hence a comparison with other distinguished actors of history of any other rank would be “unfair.” However, several of the Lithuanian rulers were significant enough to become heroes of the state and nation. King Mindaugas and Grand Duke Gediminas might have had the necessary heroic potential and their merits are undoubted. Mindaugas is credited with the establishment of the Lithuanian state. Gediminas was the founder of Vilnius and became the ancestor of the ruling dynasty. As to their accomplishments, both the King and the Grand Duke were successful in exercising their office and authority. During their reigns, Lithuania underwent significant transformations in government and expanded her territories. Historical narratives retained enough legendary material necessary to create a heroic aura. Nevertheless, in terms of historical imagery, neither of them was as successful as Vytautas. Conversely, there is no question that Vytautas’ own propaganda efforts were decisive in the establishment of his image. It must be noted, however, that it was not merely Vytautas’ self-publicity, but also the retrospective view of the early-modern and modern periods, that selected him from among other rulers. Historical thinking requires heroes, and Vytautas seems to have corresponded best to this demand. I believe Christianity played an important role in making Vytautas the Great. It would have been difficult for a sixteenth-century mind to acknowledge the great-

272

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

ness of a pagan. Of course, Renaissance thought skillfully solved problems posed by heroes belonging to the “wrong” faith, such as Alexander, Aeneas, or Augustus. These celebrated heroes had an “alibi”: they lived before the birth of Christ and thus had no possibility of becoming Christians. Hence, it was assumed that had, for example, Augustus lived in a “proper” period, he would have been a Christian. Theoretically, a similarly sophisticated argument could be applied to Gediminas. However, the Grand Duke of Lithuania lived thirteen hundred years later than Christ and—what a shame!—ruled over a heathen enclave within Christian lands. As to Mindaugas, the King’s apostasy damaged his laurels. Tradition maintains that the King yielded to pressure exerted by his heathen subjects and abandoned Christianity. Humanists had already established the grounds for selection of Vytautas as the main hero of Lithuanian history. Having discussed numerous achievements of the Grand Duke, Renaissance authors underlined their contention that the maintenance of the Christian faith was Vytautas’ main merit. After the conversion, the Grand Duke’s situation was somewhat similar to that of King Mindaugas. However, in contrast to his predecessor, Vytautas’ faith was strong enough not to yield to heathen pressure. Additionally, Stryjkowski suggested the way Vytautas perpetuated his glory: he was the first to use writing and, thus, to leave a record of his reign to posterity. Today, being sensitive to the notion of “literalization,” we can very much appreciate this insight. Reconsidering the twisted paths of this image-making, it becomes clear that a set of purposeful actions, as well as the flow of historical events, added up in making a hero of Vytautas. Among the deeds clearly aimed at the image, the Sache stands out. Moreover, besides its direct message of the just ruler, the Sache marks the earliest planned attempt at building the image. At that point, Vytautas was still in an ambivalent position and, what is more, was labeled a traitor on both sides of the border. However, in retrospect, this judgment came to be overshadowed in Lithuania, and was gradually forgotten by the Teutonic Knights. Vytautas’ subsequent rise to the position of Grand Duke gave new impetus to the building of the image. Still, Teutonic opposition to Vytautas was quite strong, and its proponents were better trained in politics and diplomacy, as post-Grunwaldian disputes show. Yet the Grand Duke won these international debates. The long and extensive quarrels with the Teutonic Order and appeals to international authorities in search of “justice” finally led to the recognition of Vytautas as a Christian prince. The pagan counterpart of the image sank into oblivion, and even the makers of the tyrannical image did not exploit this

CONCLUSIONS

273

rich aspect of its negative possibilities. Whatever the fate of the numerous political arguments raised during Vytautas’ lifetime, they offered opposing topics that survived for quite a long time thereafter. The positive potential of the image, however, was significantly stronger. It is hard to say what the outcome of diplomatic, as well as armed, struggle would have been had Vytautas not consolidated his authority in the Grand Duchy. Thus, the fact that the Grand Duke was indeed a successful ruler (regardless of the means employed) assured his positive image a long life. Of the many examples of image-making, the story of the intended coronation stands out: it produced important texts and established parallels between Vytautas and celebrated rulers of Antiquity, including Alexander of Macedonia and Julius Caesar. Later, Humanists frequently employed these parallels, even though it is highly doubtful that their rhetoric derived from the coronation texts. In addition to its rhetorical legacy, the coronation was the event that became a source of inspiration for makers and users of the image. In fact, Vytautas’ desire for the crown became a fertile motif, generating opposing interpretations. Similarly, the Grand Duke’s martial skills and courage proffered many inspiring associations that appealed to soldiers as well as politicians. Clearly, Vytautas’ image profited not only from his and his courtiers’ purposeful actions. The historical context contributed extensively to the perception of Vytautas as a powerful statesman. The fact that the Grand Duke’s reign was preceded and followed by civil wars in Lithuania caused Vytautas’ government to be seen as a period of peace and stability. The loss of Lithuanian territories in the sixteenth century engendered the high value ascribed to his conquests. The active exercise of the grand ducal office over several decades resulted in seeing Vytautas as successful statesman. Hence, it was easy for the Lithuanian Humanists to date the “golden age” of the country to Vytautas’ reign. As for other factors that affected the image, fashion, changes in mentality, and technological progress are noteworthy. Until the Renaissance, we know little of the Lithuanian understanding of a ruler’s duties. From the sixteenth century onwards, poets, lawyers, historians, and politicians thought it necessary to rely upon “national” heroes or to find local counterparts for “universal celebrities.” It is not clear whether the idea of Vytautas being the unsurpassed ruler of the country had any rivals during that period. What we do know is the outcome: excursions into the past nearly unanimously selected the Grand Duke as being the best of the best. Lithuania rapidly adopted European culture. Hence, the prestige of law and administration increased significantly. The codification of the laws once again pointed

274

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

to Vytautas, the establisher of legal records. Finally, the discovery and spread of the printed word helped the dissemination of historical knowledge and offered a stable point of reference for those interested in history. Printing summed up the long-standing but dispersed traditions making them standard. The power of print helped to fashion the Grand Duke’s image. Perpetuated in a form as arranged by the image-makers, the image retained its legendary appeal and was not reduced to a mere story from the past. Hence, it was easier to employ the legend for didactic purposes and present its hero as an example to follow. All in all, Vytautas was still the main engineer and chief sponsor of his image. Initially, the image was part of the means of gaining the grand ducal seat. This goal achieved, Vytautas acquired not only the authority, but also the staff and resources, to further develop his image. The Grand Duke’s inclination towards the theatrical and ceremonial expression of his authority maintained his image as the “most glorious sovereign,” while his grand ducal persona must have been flattered by the efforts of panegyrists. The subsequent periods had to make their choices, and indeed made them. While these choices could be diametrically opposed, both the proponents of the tyrannical image as well as the advocates of the Lithuanian Alexander agreed that Vytautas deserved to be called the Great. Most noteworthy is that Piccolomini, the maker of the image of the tyrant, was the first to call Vytautas “the Great.” This epithet was soon picked up and elaborately applied to changing times and circumstances. In the late sixteenth century, Vytautas “guided” the troops of Stephan Bathory against Muscovy. In the early twentieth century, the Grand Duke’s effigy stepped on a figure of a Pole encouraging Lithuanians to take back Vilnius, the historical capital of the Grand Duchy. Today, the image lives on in textbooks and historical memory, and manifests itself in patriotic fiction and on a card table. Each of these manifestations, I believe, has a historical charge that can be filled with different contents that the image of Vytautas the Great accumulated across the centuries.

NOTES 1 Sidney Hook, The Hero in History: A Study in Limitation and Possibility (Boston: Beacon Press, 1955), 151–83.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES Unpublished Materials “Byliny starago vremeni / Nashestvie Kniazia Vitol’da na Velikii Novgorod b 1428 gody” (Songs from ancient times / The attack of Duke Vytautas on Novgorod the Great in 1428). In Natsionalna biblioteka Ukraini im. V.Vernadskogo, Institut rukopisy (The Ukrainian National Library of V.Vernadski, Institute of Manuscripts), fund VIII, “Rukopisi Kiivskogo imperatorskogo universitetu im. Sv. Volodimira” (Manuscripts from the St. Vladimir Imperial University of Kiev), od.zb. 83m/153, f. 1-8. [Cantius, John St]. “In exequiis vitoldi.” Biblioteka Jagiellońska (Library of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow). Manuscript Collections, BJ ms. 2369, ff. 180v-181v. [Cantius, John St]. “In exequiis ducis Vitoldi.” Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Manuscript Collections. Vat. Lat. ms. 14182, ff. 32v-34v. Glowacki, Jan Nepomuk. [“Murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle,” pencil on paper, 1822]. Zbiory Czartoryskich w Museum Narodowym w Krakowe (The Czartoryski Collection of the National Museum in Krakow). Collection of Drawings, MNK-XV-Rr. 506, no 764, photograph of the museum, 1998. Hoppen, Jerzy. [“Copies of the murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle,” water-color on paper, 1932]. Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archives), fund 1135, file 12, nos. 555-74. Sczygielski, Stanisław. “Continuatio.” Appended to Stephanus Kobierzycki, Series et notitia Trocensivm abbatvm, ordinis S. Benedicti (Krakow: Apud Heredes Christophori Scedel, 1668). Wyszszy Seminarium Duchowny w Tarnowe (Higher Spiritual Seminary in Tarnów), BWSDT 2428. Smokowski, Wincenty. [“Murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle,” pencil on paper, 1821]. Lietuvos Valstybės Istorijos archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archives), fund 1135, file 19, no. 74, ff. 12r/v-13.

276

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Smokowski, Wincenty. [“Murals from the palace of Trakai island-castle,” indian ink on paper, before 1841]. Lietuvos Valstybės Istorijos archyvas (Lithuanian State Historical Archives), fund 1135, file 19, no. 74, f. 1. “Strzelba y munitia wlasnym nakladem I. K. M. sprawowiona w Wilnie y na zamki po granicne rozeslana MDLXV” (Cannons and ammunition ordered by H[is] R[oyal] H[ighness] in Vilnius to be sent to the border-castles in 1565). Biblioteka Zbiorów Czartoryskich w Museum Narodowym w Krakowie (Library of the Czartoryski Collection of the National Museum in Krakow). Manuscript Collections, ms. 1814, mf. 16.588. Žilevičius, L. “Ikonografinė medžiaga surinkta Uljanovsko dailės muziejuje” (The iconographic material collected in the Art Museum of Ul’ianovsk). Vilnius, 1987. Lietuvos vaizdo ir garso archyvas (Lithuanian Visual and Audio Archives), TMs F5-4210.

Published Sources Acta Consiliii Constancienis. Ed. Heinrich Finke. Vol. 2, Konzilstagebücher, Sermones, Reform- und Verfassungsakten. Münster: Regensbergsche Buchhandlung, 1923. Akta unji Polski z Litwą, 1358-1791 (The acts of the Polish-Lithuanian union, 1358-1791). Ed. Stanisław Kutrzeba and Władysław Semkowicz. Krakow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umejętnośći i Towarzystwa Naukowego Warszawskiego, 1932. Akty otnossiashchiesia k istorii Zapadnoi Rosii sobranyie i izdanyie Arkheograficheskoi Kommisssieyu (Acts concerning the history of western Russia, collected and published by the Archeographic Commission). Vol. 2, 1506–1544. St. Petersburg: V Tipografii II Otdelenija Sobstvennoj E. I. B. Kantseliarii, 1848. Aquinas, St. Thomas. On Kingship to the King of Cyprus. Trans. Gratald B. Phelan, revised with introduction and notes I. Th. Eschmann. Mediaeval Sources in Translation 2. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1982. Aristotle in Twenty-Three Volumes. Vol. 21, Politics, with an English translation by H. Rackham. Loeb Classical Library 264, ed. G.P. Goold. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: Harvard University Press, 1990. Baltų religijos ir mitologijos šaltiniai / Sources of Baltic Religion and Mythology / Quellen der baltischen Religion und Mythologie. Vol. 1, Nuo seniausių laikų iki XV amžiaus pabaigos / From the Oldest times to the

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

End of the 15th Century / Von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts. Vol. 2, XVI amžius / 16th Century / 16. Jahrhudert. Comp. Norbertas Vėlius. Vilnius: The Science and Encyclopaedia Publishers, 1996-2001. Bellaria svper mensas debellatoris Litvaniae Alexandri Vitoldi. [By Stanislaw Chrzanowski?]. Pinsk: n.p., 1717. Bershadskij, S. A. Dokumenty i regestry k istorii litovskikh evreev (1550 – 1569) (Documets and registers contributing to the history of the Lithuanian Jews), Materialy dlia istorii evreev v Rossii. St Petersburg: A. S. Bershadskij, 1882. Bielski, Joahim. Genethiliacon naiasnieyszego Wladyslawa Krolewica Polskiego y Szweckiego (Genethiliacon of the most illustrious Ladislas, prince of Poland and Sweden). Ed. Ludwik Zalęwski. Biblioteczka Lubelskiego Towarzystwa Miłośników Ksiąźki 1. Lublin: Kostem Fransiszka Raczkowskiego, 1928. Bielski, Marcin. Kronika Wssythyego swyata na ssesc wiekow a na cztery ksiegi takież monarchie rozdzielona, … do tego roku ktory sye pisse 1554 (The chronicle of the entire world divided into six ages and into four books according to monarchies, … until the year in which it is written 1554). Krakow: Przer Hieronima Scharffenberga, 1554. [———]. Kronika Marcina Bielskiego (Chronicle of Marcin Bielski). Ed. Józef Turowski. Krakow: Sanok; Nakład i druk Karola Pollaka, 1856. [———]. Kronika Polska Marcina Bielskiego nowo przez Ioach. Bielskiego syna iego wydana (The Polish chronicle by Marcin Bielski newly published by his son Ioach[im] Bielski). Krakow: w drukarni Jakuba Sibeneychera, 1597. Chaucer, Geofrey. Canterbury Tales. Selected and edited by Robert D. French. Crofts Classics. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1948. Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. Johannis de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde, monachorum S. Albani, necon quorum anonymorum, chronica et annales, regnantibus Henrico Tertio, Edwardo Primo, Edwardo Secundo, Ricardo Secundo, et Henrico Quotro. Ed. Henry Thomas Riley. Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages. London: Longmans, Green, reader, and Dyer, 1866. Chronique du Religieux de Saint-Denys contenanat le règne de Charles VI de 1380 à 1422. Published in Latin and translated into French by M. L. Bellaguet. Paris: L’imprimerie de Crapelet 1841. Reprint introduced by

278

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Bernard Guenée. Paris: Éditions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1994. [Cieselski, Andreas]. “Ad equites legatos, ad conventionem varsoviensem publice designetos et declaratos de regni defensione, iustitiae administratione Andrea Cieselski, equitię Polonio, oratio.” In Pisma polityczne z czasów pierwszego bezkrólewia (Political texts from the time of the first interregnum), ed. Jan Czubek, 7-140. Krakow: Nakładem Akademii Umejętności, 1906. Codex diplomaticus Ecclesiae Cathedralis necnon dioeceseos Vilnensis / Kodeks dyplomatyczny Katedry i diecezji Wileńskiej. Vol. 1, 1387 - 1507, ed. Jan Fijałek and Władysław Semkowicz. Krakow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 1948. Codex diplomaticus Prussicus. 6 vols., ed. Johannes Voigt. Königsberg: Koch, 1842-61. Codex diplomaticvs regni Poloniae et Magnvs Dvcatvs Litvaniae. [Ed. Mathias Dogiel]. Vilnius: Ex Typographia Regia & Reipublicae collegii C. C. R. R. Scholarum Piarum, 1758. Codex epistolaris saeculi decimi quinti ex antiquis libris formularum, corpore Naruszeviciano. Vol. 2, ed. Augustin Sokołowski and Joseph Szujski. Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 12. Krakow: Typis impressorum Colegii Historici Academiae Literarum Cracoviensis, 1891. Codex epistolaris seaculi decimi quinti. Vol. 3. Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 14. Krakow: Typis impressorum Colegii Historici Academiae Literarum Cracoviensis, 1894. Codex epistolaris seaculi decimi quinti: Ab anno 1384 ad annum 1492. Vol. 1, pts. 1-2, ed. Augustin Sokolowski. Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 2. Krakow: Typis impressorum Colegii Historici Academiae Literarum Cracoviensis, 1874-1876. Codex epistolaris Vitoldi, Magni Ducis Lithuaniae, 1376 – 1430. Ed. Antoni Prochaska. Monumenta medii aevi historica res gestas Poloniae illustrantia 6. Krakow: Academiae Literarum Cracoviensis, 1882. Codex Mednicensis seu Samogitiae diocesis. Pt. 1, ed. Paulus Jatulis. Fontes Historiae Lituaniae 3. Rome: Academia Lituana Catholica Scientiarum, 1984. Cosmography de Levant. Critical edition by Frank Lestringant. Travaux d’Humanisme et Renaissance 203. Genève: Libraire Droz, 1985.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

279

Cromerus, Martinus. De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX. Basel: Per Ioannem Opporium, 1555. Čypčychlej učma Trochka: Lietuva karajlarnyn jyrlary / Į Trakus paukščiu plasnosiu: Lietuvos karaimų poezija (I Will Fly to Trakai Like a Bird: Poetry of Lithuanian Karaims). Comp. Karina Firkavičiūtė. Vilnius: Danielius, 1997. Czyzewski, Matiasz. Alkoran, to iest zakon abo wiara Sekty Machometanskiej: wedlug ktorego Tatarowe zywot swoy prowadza (Alkoran, that is the law or the faith of the Mahomethan sect, according to which the Tatars live). N.p.: n.p., 1616. Czyzewski, Piotr. Alfvrkan Tatarski prawdziwy na czterdesci csesci rozdelony (The truthful Tatar alfurkan divided into fourteen sections). Wilno: Józ. Karcan, 1616 Daugirdas, Samuelis. Genealogija, arba Trumpas didžiųjų Lietuvos kunigaikščių ir jų didžių bei narsių žygių aprašymas, kadaise Motiejaus Strijkovskio sukurtas, o dabar atnaujintas ir vėl išleistas Samuelio Daugirdo iš Pagaujo (Genealogy or a brief description of great and curageous deeds of the Lithuanian grand dukes ...). Trans. Regina Koženauskienė, ed. Sigitas Narbutas, introduced and commented on by Kęstutis Gudmantas. Ištakos. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2001. [Decius, Jodocus]. “De Iagellonvm Familia.” In [Maciej Miechowita], Chronica Polonorv[m], xxxiii-liii. Krakow: opera atq[ue] industria Hieronyni Vietoris Chalcographi, 1521. Reprint, Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1986. Dialog slachcica Litewskiego o prawdziwy woyny Inflantskiej krola Jego M. Stephana świętej y drogej pamięci Pana naszego z księdzem Moskiewskim od początku do konca krotko zebrany (Roku 1594) (The Dialog of the Lithuanian boyar about the just Livonian war between His M[ight] King Stephan, our lord of the blessed and dear memory, and the duke of Moscow presented from the beginning to the end (the year 1594)). [By Piligrimovius, Helias ?]. Wilno: z Drukanicy Jakuba Martowicza, 1594. “Didžiojo kunigaikščio Vytauto pagyrimas” (The panegyric to Grand Duke Vytautas), trans. Albinas Jovaišas. In Metraščiai and kunigaikščių laiškai (Annals and the letters of the dukes), red. Mikas Vaicekauskas et al., 307-09. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 4. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros and tautosakos institutas, 1996. Didžiojo Lietuvos Kunigaikščio Vytauto jubiliejinių 1930 m. paveikslo kelionės po Lietuvą ir Lietuvos miestų, miestelių vaizdai su trumpais

280

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

jų aprašymais: albomas (The journey of the portrait of Grand Duke Vytautas throughout Lithuania during the jubilee year of 1930 and images from Lithuanian cities and towns together with their brief descriptions: an album). Kaunas: Joselevičiaus spaustuvė, 1931. Die Chroniken der niedersächsischen Städte: Lübek. Vol. 2. Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14 bis 16 Jahrhundert 26. Leipzig: Verlag von S Hirzel, 1899. “dis ist witoldes sache wedir jagaln vnd Skirgaln.” In K. Alminauskis, “Vytauto skundas” (The complaint of Vytautas). Archivum philologicum 8 (1939): 204-15. [Długosz, Jan]. “Banderia Prutenorum.” In Sven Ekdahl. Jono Dlugošo “Prūsų vėliavos” Žalgirio mūšio šaltinis (Die “Banderia Prutenorum” des Jan Dlugosz - eine Quelle zur Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410), trans. Jūrate Kibirkštytė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis, 141-265. Vilnius: “Vilties” spaustuvė, 1992. [Dougird, Samuel]. “Genealogia albo Krótke opisanie Wielkich Książąt Litewskich i ich wielkich i miężnych spraw wojennych uczynione niegdy przez Matysa Strykowskiego teraz odnowione i znowu na świat wydane przez Samuela Dougirda z Pogowia” (Genealogy or a brief description of the Lithuanian grand dukes and their great and manly military deeds once [described] by Maciej Stryjkowski and now revised and published by Samuel Dougird from Pogow). W Lubczu: w Drukarni Piotra Blatusa Kmity, 1626. Reprint, Samuelis Daugirdas. Genealogija, arba Trumpas didžiųjų Lietuvos kunigaikščių ir jų didžių bei narsių žygių aprašymas, kadaise Motiejaus Strijkovskio sukurtas, o dabar atnaujintas ir vėl išleistas Samuelio Daugirdo iš Pagaujo (Genealogy or a brief description of great and courageous deeds of the Lithuanian grand dukes ...), trans. Regina Koženauskienė, ed. Sigitas Narbutas, introduced and commented on by Kęstutis Gudmantas. Ištakos, 51-103. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2001. Dubiński, Alexander. “Poslovitsy i pogovorki trakaiskikh karaimov” (The proverbs and sayings of the Karaites from Trakai). In Caraimica: prace karaimoznawcze (Caraimica: materials in Karaite studies), 235-48. Warsaw: Dialog, 1994. Dusburg, Petrus de / Peter von Dusburg. Chronica terre Prussie. published after the edition of Max Toeppen by Klaus Scholz and Dieter Wojtecki / Chronik des Preussenlandes. Translated and commented on by Klaus Scholz and Dieter Wojtecki. Ausdewählte Quellen zur deutschen Ges-

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

281

chichte des Mittelalters: Freiher vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe 25. Darmstadt: Wissenchaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984. Falkinberg, Johannes. “Liber de doctrina potestatis papae et imperatoris editas contra Paulum Vladimiri Polonorum in Sacro Constantiensi Consilio.” In Starodawne prawa polskiego pomniki (The ancient monuments of the Polish law). Vol. 5.1, 195-232. Rerum publicarum scientia quae saeculo XV in Polonia viguit monumenta litteraria, ed. Michael Bobrzyński. Krakow: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1878. Gedimino laiškai / Poslaniya Gedimina (The letters of Gediminas). Ed. V. T. Pashuto and I. V. Shtal’. Vilnius: Mintis, 1966. [Goštautas, Albertas]. “Žygimanto, Lenkijos karaliaus ir Lietuvos, Rusios, Prūsijos, Žemaitijos, Mazovijos ir kitų didžiojo kunigaikščio ir pono bei tėvonio, pagyrimas” (The panegyric to Sigismund, king of Poland, grand duke, lord and heir of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Samogitia, Masovia etc.), translated and commented on by Albinas Jovaišas. In Šešioliktojo amžiaus raštija, ed. Sigitas Narbutas. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 5, 61-64. Vilnius: pradai, 2000. Gradovius, Franciscus. Hodeoporicon Moschicvm illvstrissimi principis ac domini, domini Christophori Radiwilonis, dvcis in Birza & Dubinga, Castellani Trocensis, Vicecavcelarij & Campiductoris in Magno Ducatu Lituaniae, Capitanei Borissouiensis & Solecensis, &c. Vilnae: In Officina Ioannis Kartzani, 1582. Gradovius, Franciscus. In nvptias illustrissimorum spnosorum, D. Alberti Radivilonis Olycae & Niesuesij Ducis, & Generossisime virginis, dominae Annae, Curlandiae Ducissae panegyrica oratio. N.p.: n.p., n.d. [Guagnini, Alessandro]. Kronika Sarmacyey europeyskey w którey się zamyka królestwo Polskie, ze wszystkiemi państwy, xięstwy y prowincyami swemi tudzież Wielkie Xięstwo Litew. Ruskie, Żmudzkie, Inlańtskie, Moskiewskiw y częć Tatarów przez Alexanda Gwagnina z Werony … pierwey r. 1579 po lacinie wydana, a teraz zaś z przyczynieniem tych królów. Których w lacińskiej niemasz … A przez Marcina Paszkowskiego za staraniem autorowym z lacińskiego na polskie przełożona (The Chronicle of the European Sarmatia to which belong the Kingdom of Poland together with all its lands, duchies, and provinces as well as the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia, Samogitia, Livonia, Muscovy and part of the Tatars, by Alexander Guagnini from Verona …). Krakow: w Drukarnie Mikołaja Loba, 1611.

282

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Heidenstein, Reinod. De bello Moscouitico quod Stephanvs Rex Poloniae gessit commentariorvm libri VI. Basel: Per Conrad. Valdkirchivm, 1588. [Herberstein, Sigismund]. Rerum Moscovitarum Commentarii, Sigismvndo Libero Barone in Herberstain, Neyperg & Guetenhag, auctore. Basel: Ex officina Oporini, 1551. Herbvrt, Ioan. Chronica, sive Historiae Polonicae compendiosa, ac per certa librorum capita ad facilem memoriam recens facta descriptio. Basel: ex officina Oporiana, 1571. Hussovianus, Nicolaus / Mikalojus Husovianas. De statura feritate ac venatione bisontis carmen / Giesmė apie stumbrą. Trans. Benediktas Kazlauskas. Lituanistinė biblioteka 19. Vilnius: Vaga, 1977. [Hyacinthus, Basilius]. Panegyricvs in excidivm Polocense atq[ue] in memorabilem Victoriam Stephani inuictissimi Poloniarum Regis Magnisq[ue] Ducis Lituaniæ ex potentissimo Moschorum Principe III. Cal. Septemb. MDLXXIX. reportatam. Basilij Hyacinthij Vilnensis ad Inclytvm Nicolavm Georgii Radiuillum Ducem Dubingæ & Bierzæ in Lituania. Padua: Apud Laurentium Pasquatum, 1580. Iovius, Pavlus. Historiarvm svi temporis. Ed. Dante Visconti. Vol. 1. Rome: Insituto Poligrafico Stato, Liberia dello Stato, 1957. Isokas, Gediminas. Vytautas Didysis. Poema (Vytautas the Great. A poem). Vilnius: Vaga, 1999. Iter ambitionis olim a Vitoldo magno dvce Litvaniae cum Morte non tam terminantum, quam desertum. Riesel: n.p., 1694. Jana Kochanskiego dzieła wszystkie (Complete works of Jan Kochanowski). 4 vols. Warsaw: W Drukarnie Józefa Ungra, 1884. Joannis Dlugossii annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae. Bk. 10, 1370 – 1405, ed. Stanisław Gawęda et al. Bks. 10-11, 1406 – 1412, ed. Marian Plezia et al. Warsaw: PWN, 1985-97. Joannis Długosz Senioris Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia. Ed. Alexander Przezdziecki, Vol. 13, Joannis Długossii seu Longini Canonici Cracoviensi Historiae Poloniae libri XII. Vol. 14, Libri XI. XII. Krakow: Czas, 1877. Kirkoras, Adomas Honoris. Lietuva nuo seniausių laikų iki 1882 metų (Lithuania from ancient times until the year 1882). Ed. Perla Vitkuvienė, trans. Vytautas Visockas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1995. Kobierzycki, Stephanus. Series et nototia Trocensivm abbatvm, ordinis S. Benedicti. Krakow: Apud Heredes Christophori Scedel, 1668. [Koialowicz, Albert Wiivk]. Miscellanea rervm, ad statum ecclesiasticum in Magno Litvaniae Dvcatv pertinentia. Collecta ab Alberto Wiivk

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

283

Koiałowicz Societ Jesu S. Theol. Doct. Almae Universitatis Vilnensis procancellario et ordinario S. Theol. Professore vulgata superiorum permissu. Vilniae: Typis Academicis, 1650. ———. Historiae Litvanea. Pt. 1, De rebus Litvanorum ante susceptum Christianam Religionem, contiunctioemque Magni Lituaniae Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae libri novem. Danzig: Svmptibvs Georgii Forsteri, 1650. Pt. 2, Sev de rebus Litvanorum, a coniunctione Magni Ducatus cum Regno Poloniae ad Unionem eorum Dominiorum libri octo. Antwerp: Apud Iacobum Mevrsium, 1669. Kojelavičius, Albertas Vijūkas. Lietuvos istorija (The history of Lithuania). Introduced and commented on by Juozas Jurginis. Lituanistinė Biblioteka 26. Vilnius: Vaga, 1988. Kraszewski, Józef Ignacy. Anafielos: pieśni z podań Litwy. Pieśń 3: Witoldowe boji (Anafielos: songs on Lithuanian legends. Song 3: Vytautas’ battles). Wilno: J. Zawadski, 1845. Kromer, Marcin. Polska czyli o położeniu, ludności, obyczajach królewstwa Polskiego księgi dwie (Polonia sive de situ, populi, moribus, magistratibus et republica regni Polonici libri duo), translated by Stefan Kozikowski, introduced and edited by Roman Marchwiński. Literatura Warmii i Mazur w dawnych wiekach. Olsztyn: Pojezerie, 1984. ———. Rozmowa dworzanina z mnichem (Conversation between a courtier and a monk). Ed. J. Loś. Krakow: Akademija Umejętności, 1915. [———]. “Martini Cromeri oratio in funere optimi et maximi principis, Sigismundi, eius nomini primi, Polonorum, Lithuanorum, Russorum, Prussorum, Masouiorum Regia, & c.An. M.D.XLVIII. Calend. April. defuncti.” In Poloniae historiae corpus: hoc est, polonicarum rervm latini recentiores & ueteres scriptores, quot quot extant, uno volumine compraehendi omnes, & in aliquot distributi tomos. Ex bibliotheca Ioan. Pistorii Nidani. Vol. 3. Basel: per Sebastianvm Henriceptari, 1582. [———]. “Martini Cromeri, de origine et rebvs gestis polonorum libri xxx.” In Poloniae historiae corpus: hoc est, polonicarum rervm latini recentiores & ueteres scriptores, quot quot extant, uno volumine compraehendi omnes, & in aliquot distributi tomos. Ex bibliotheca Ioan. Pistorii Nidani. Basel: per Sebastianvm Henriceptari, 1582 [———]. Kronika Polska Marcina Kromera biskupa warmińskiego ksiąg XXX (Thirty books of the Polish chronicle by Marcin Kromer, the bishop of Warmia), trans. Marcin of Błażow Błażowski. Krakow: Sanok; Nakład i druk Karola Pollaka, Drukarnia M. Loba, 1857.

284

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Kurczewski, Jan. Kościoł zamkowy czyli katedra Wileńska w jej dziejowym, liturgicznym architektonucznym i ekonomicznym rozwoju (The castle church otherwise known as the Vilnius Cathedral in its historical, liturgical, architectural, and economic development). 3 vols. Wilno: Nakładem i drukem Józefa Zawadzkiego, 1908-15. [Kyngeston, Richard]. Expeditions to Prussia and the Holy Land made by Henry Earl of Derby (Afterwards King Henry IV.) In the Years 1390-1 and 1392-3 being the Accounts Kept by His Tresurer during Two Years. Ed. Lucy Toulmin Smith, The Royal Historical Society, Camden ns. 52. [Westminster]: Camden Society, 1894. Reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1965. La Chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet en deux livres avec pièces justificatives 1400-1444. Ed. L. Douët-D’Arcq. Paris: Jules Renouard, 1858. La description dv Royavme de Poloigne, et pays adiacens: avec les status, constitutions, mśurs, & façons de faire d’iceaux, par Blaise de Vigenere, secretaire de Feu monseigneur le duc de Niuernois. Paris: Chez Iean Richer Libraire, 1573. [Lasocki, Nicolaus]. “Magna mendacia [data] per N. Lantsosky ambassiatorem Regni Polonie in consilio Basiliensi data amabassiatoribus serenissimi Regis Castele et Legionis.” In S.C. Rowell, “Du Europos pakraščiai: Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės ir ispanų karalysčių ryšiai 1411 – 1412 ir 1434 m. teksuose” (Two European peripheries: connections between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Spanish kingdoms in the texts from 1411 – 1412 and 1434). Lietuvos istorijos metraštis. 2003 metai 1 (2004): 173-185. Laucė, Jonas. Mirštančių dievų kerštas. Istorinis romanas (The vengeance of dying gods. A historical novel). Vilnius: Vaga, 2002. Liber Cancellariae Stanislai Ciołek: Ein Formelsbuch der polnischen Köningskanzlei aus der Zeit der husitischen Bewegung. 2 vols., ed J. Caro. Vienna: In Comission bei Karl Gerold’s Sohn, 1871-74. “Lietuvos Didžiosios kunigaikštystės Ponų tarybos laiškas karaliui Žygimantui dėl Lietuvos karalystės atkūrimo (1526)” (The letter of the Council of Lords to King Sigismund concerning the restoration of the Lithuanian Kingdom (1526)). Trans. Albinas Jovaišas introduced by Darius Kuolys. In Šešioliktojo amžiaus raštija (The writings of the sixteenth century), ed. Sigitas Narbutas, 65-74. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 5. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas and Pradai, 2000.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

285

Lietuvos metraštis. Bychovco kronika (The Lithuanian annals: the Bykhoviets Chronicle). Introduced, translated, and commented on by Rimantas Jasas. Lituanistinė Biblioteka 10. Vilnius: Vaga, 1971. Lietuvos metrika (1522 – 1530). 4-oji Teismų bylų knyga (XVI a. pabaigos kopija) / Lithuanian metrica (1522 – 1530). 4th Court Record Book (the copy of the end of the XVI c.) / Litovskaya metrika (1522 – 1530). 4-aya kniga sudebnykh del (kopiya kontsa XVI v.). Vilnius: Vilniaus Universiteto leidykla, 1997. Lietuvos metrika. Knyga nr. 5 (1427 – 1506). Užrašymų knyga / Lithuanian Metrica. Book of Inscriptions 5 (1427 – 1506) / Litovskaya metrika. Kniga zapisei 5 (1427 – 1506). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. Lietuvos metrika. Knyga nr. 8 (1499 – 1514). Užrašymų knyga / Lithuanian Metrica. Book of Inscriptions 8 (1499 – 1514) / Litovskaya metrika. Kniga zapisei 8 (1499 – 1514). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1995. Lites ac res gesta inter polonos ordinemque cruciferorum. Vol. 3, ed. Jadwiga Karwasińska. Warsaw: Sumptibus Bibliothecae Cornicensis, 1935. Lithuanian Historical Legends. Comp. Norbertas Vėlius, trans. Birutė Kiškytė. Vilnius: Vaga, 2000. Lituanus, Michalonus / Mykolas Lietuvis. De Moribus Tatarorum, Lituanorum et Moschorum: fragmina X, multiplici historia referata nunc primum per Iac. Grasserum, C.P. ex manuscripto Authentico edite / Apie totorių, lietuvių ir maskvėnų paprocius: dešimt įvairaus istorinio turinio fragmentų. Lituanistinė Biblioteka. Vilnius: Vaga, 1966. Liv-, Esth- und Curländishes Urkundenbuch nebst Regesten. 10 vols., ed. Friedrich Georg von Bunge. Reval: In Commission bei Kluge und Ströhm, 1853; Riga: Kymmel, 1896. Malinovskii, I. Sbornik materialov otnosiashchikhsia k istorii panov-rady Velikogo Kniazhestva Litovskogo (A collection of documents concerned with the history of the Council of the Lords of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). Tomsk: Parovaya Tipografiya P. I. Makunina, 1901. [Mankiewicz, Symon]. Kośćiol farski trocki, cudami Przenasętey Bogarodzice Panny Maryey obideniony a prez xiędza Symona Mankiewicza Biskupstwa Zmudzkiego dyocesiana novo na świat wystawiony (The parish church of Trakai, blessed with the miracles of the Most Holy Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, again brought to light by Priest Symon Mankiewicz, the diocesian of the Samogitian bishopric). Wilno: W Drukarni Ojcow Bazylianow, 1645.

286

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Mann, Jacob. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, reprint of 1931-35 ed., introduced by Gerson D. Cohen. Vol. 2, Karaitica. New York: Ktav, 1972. Marcinkevičius, Justinas. Mindaugas. Mažvydas. Katedra. Draminė trilogija (Mindaugas. Mažvydas. The cathedral. A dramatic trilogy). Vilnius: Vaga, 1978. Materiały do dziejów dyplomacji Polskiej z lat 1486 – 1516 (Kodeks Zagrebski) (Materials concerning Polish diplomacy of the years 1486 – 1516 (Codex of Zagreb)). Ed. Józef Garbacik. Polska Akademia Nauk – Oddział w Krakowie. Materiały Komisji Nauk Historycznych 11. Wrocław, Warsaw, and Krakow: Zakład narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1966. Mekhovski, Matvei. Traktat o dvukh Sarmatiyakh / Tractatus de duabus Sarmatiis, Asiana et Europiana, et de contentis in eis. Introduced, translated, and commented on by S. A. Anninckii. Izvestija inostransev o narodakh SSSR. Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1936. Menander Rhetor. Edited, translated, and commented on by D. A. Russell and N. G. Wilson. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1981. Mézièrs, Philip de. Le Songe du vieil pelerin. Ed. G. W. Coopland. London: Cambridge University Press, 1969. [Miechowita, Maciej]. Chronica Polonorum. Krakow: Industria Hieronymi Vietoris Cholcographi, 1521. Reprint, Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza, 1986. Montaigne, Michele de. Les essais. Edited by Pierre Villey, introduced by V.L. Saulnier. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965. Nevius, Mathias. “Auleam Rdzivilaeum, praevio aparatu, prosapiam Radzivilorum continens,” in Panegyrica, illustrisimo domino d. Nicolao Christophoro Radzivilio S.R.I. …(Vilnae: Thomas Leuiczki, 1604). In Gratulatio Vilnae. Textus electi XVI-XVIII seaculi / Vilniaus pasveikinimas. XVI – XVIII amžiaus tekstų rinkinys. Comp. Eugenija Ulčinaitė, 194-201. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2001. Nidecius, Andr[eas] Patricius. Ad Stephanvm regem Poloniarvm inclytvm Gratulatio. Habita totius cleri Varsouiensis nomine ob victoriam Polocensem de Moscouitis. Krakow: In officina Lazari, 1579. Nototia karęorum ex Mardochęi, karęi recentioris, tractatu haurienda, quem ex Ms. cum versione latina notis et pręfatione de karaęorum rebus scriptisque editit Johannes Christophorus Wolfius accedit in calce Jacobi Triglandii. Hamburg and Leipzig: Impensis Christiani Liebenzeit, 1714.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

287

Oderbornas, Paulius. Didžiojo Maskvos kunigaikščio Ivano Vasiljevičiaus gyvenimas (The life of the Grand Duke of Moscow Ivan Vasil’evich). Trans. Sigitas Natbutas. Ištakos. Vilnius: Lietuvių lieratūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1999. Oderbornius, Pavllus. Ioannis Basilidis Magni Moscoviae ducis vita. Witenberg: Excudebant Haeredes Ioannis Cratonis, 1585. Oeuvres de Ghillebert de Lannoy voyageur, diplomat et moraliste. Ed. Ch. Potvin and J.-C. Houzeau. Louvain: Impremierie de P. et J. Lefever, 1878. Orzechowski, Stanisław. “Qvincvnx, Tho iest Wzor korony Polskiey na Cynku wystawiony.” (Quincunx, that is a public view on the Polish Crown). In Stanisława Orzechowskiego polskie dialogi polityczne (Rosmowa około egzekucyjej i Quincunx) 1563 – 1564 (Polish political dialogs written by Stanisław Orzechowski (A dialog about execution and Quincunx) 1563 – 1564), ed. Jan Łoś, historical explanations by Stanisław Kot. Biblioteka Pisarzów Polskich 74, 140-288. Krakow: Nakład Akademji Umijętności, 1919. Ovidius, Naso P. Opera. Vol. 2, Metamorphoses, ed. Rudolf Ehwald. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1922. Philelphus, Franciscus. Epistolae. Venice: Vindelimus de Spira, 1473. Philopatris ad senatvm populumquae Lituanum. [By Elias Piligrimovius ?]. N.p.: n.p., 1597. [Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius]. Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Silvius Piccolomini. Ed. Rudolf Wolkan. Vol. 3, Briefe als Bischof von Siena, pt. 1, Briefe von seiner Erhebung zum Bischof von Siena bis zum Ausganag des Regensburger Reichstages (23. September 1450 – 1. Juni 1454). Fontes rerum austriaticum / Österreichische Geschichtsquellen. Vol. 2, Diplomataria et acta, pt. 68. Vienna: In Kommission bei Alfred Hölder, 1918. [———]. Enee Silvii Piccolominei postea Pii PP. II De viris illustribus. Ed. Adrianus van Heck. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1991. Pieśn Nayświętszey Pannie w Obrazie Trockim Boskiemi Łaskami y Cudami tym mieyscu Słynącey (The song dedicated to the Most Holy Virgin from the image of Trakai celebrating its location with graces and miracles). Wilno: w Drukarni J. K. M. Akademickiey Societatis JESU, 1754. Piligrimovius, Helias. Panegyrica apostrophe ad illvstrissimvm dominvm D. Christophorvm Radvilonem, in Dubingi & Bize deucem, casltellanum Trocenem, Magni Ducatus Lituaniae vicecancellarium & campiductorem, capiteneum Solecensem Vrendouien[sem] Borissouien[sem] &c. &c. Krakow: Typis Andreae Petricouij, 1583.

288

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 12-13, Patriarshaya ili Nikonovskaya letopis’ (The annals of the Patriarch otherwise called of Nikonov), ed. M. I. Tikhomirov. Moscow: Nauka, 1965. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 15, pt. 1, Tverskoi sbornik (The code of Tver’), ed. M. I. Tikhomirov. Moscow: Nauka, 1965. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 17, Zapadnorusskie letopisi (The annals of western Russia). St. Petersburg: Tipografija M. A. Aleksandrova, 1907. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 26, Volgogradsko-permskaya letopis’ (The annals of Volgograd and Perm’), ed. M. I. Tikhomirov. Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1959. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 27, Sokrashchennye letopisnyje svody kontsa XV veka (Abridged codes of the annals from the end of the fifteenth century), ed. A. N. Nasonov. Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1962. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 28, Letopisnyi svod 1497 g. Letopisnyi svod 1518 g. (The code of annals from the year 1497. The code of annals from the year 1518), ed. M. N. Tikhomirov. Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1963. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 4, Novgorodskaia chetvertaya letopis’ (The fourth annals of Novgorod), ed. M. N. Tikhomirov. 2nd ed. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000. Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 5, Pskovskie letopisi (The annals of Pskov), ed. A. N. Nasonov. 2nd ed. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 2000. Polnoe sobranije russkikh letopisej (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 35, Letopisi belorussko-litovskie (The Belorus’ian-Lithuanian annals), ed. N. N. Ulashchik. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. Polnoe sobranije russkikh letopisei (The full collection of Russian annals). Vol. 32, Khroniki: Litovskaya i zhomojtskaya, i Bykhovtsa. Letopisi: Barkulabovskaya, Averki i Pantsyrnogo (Chronicles: Lithuanian and Samogitian, and of Bykhoviets. Annals of: Barkulabov, Averka, and Pantsyrnyj), ed. N. N. Ulashchik. Moscow: Nauka, 1975.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

289

Radvanus, Johan / Jonas Radvanas. Radvilias / Radviliada. Bibliotheca Baltica Lithvania. Vilnius: Vaga, 1997. Raulinaitis, A. “Šv. Jono Kantijaus pamokslas Vytautui Didžiajam mirus” (The sermon of St. John Cantius upon the death of Vytautas the Great). Soter. Religijos mokslo laikraštis 7 (1930): 93-103. Regensburg, Andreas von. Sämtliche Werke. Ed. Georg Leidninger. Quellen und Erörterungen zur Bayerischenn und Deutschen Geschichte n.s. 1, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Munich, 1903. Reprint, Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1969. [Rotundus, Augustinus]. “Epitome principum Lituaniae a migratione Italorum P. Libone vel, ut Lituanica historica scribit, Palemone duce usque ad Jagellones.” In Šešioliktojo amžiaus raštija, ed. Sigitas Narbutas. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 5, 296-305. Vilnius: pradai, 2000. [———]. “Serenissimo Principi ac Domino, Domino Stephano Dei gratia Poloniae Regi, Magno Dvci Litvaniae, Rusiiae, Prussiae, Samagitiae, Mascouiae, Livoniae, Volhiniae, Podlachiae atc. Transilavniae Principi, Domino clementissimo.” In Archiwum Komisyi prawniczej: Pomniki prawa litewskiego z XVI wieku, ed. Frantiszek Piekosiński 7 (1900): xv-xxii. “Rozmowa Lecha z Piastem, napominające swych obywatełów, jakiego pana mają sobie i królestwu temu obrać” (A conversation between Lech and Piast reminding their inhabitants whom they have to elect for themselves and the kingdom). In Pisma polityczne z czasów pierwszego bezkrólewia (Political texts from the time of the first interregnum), ed. Jan Czubek, 37-68. Krakow: Nakładem Akademii Umejętności, 1906. Rozmowa Polaka z Litwinem. 1564 (The conversation of a Pole with a Lithuanian, 1564). [By Augustinus Rotundus ?], ed. Józef Korzeniowski. Krakow: W Drukarni C. K. Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 1890. Rymsza, Andrzei. Dekretos akroama to iest diesięcoroczna powiesct woiennych spraw oswieconnego ksiązecia y Pana Pana Krysztofa Radzwila ksiązecia na Birzach y Dubinet Pana Trockiego Podkanclezego Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego y hetmana Polnego Borysowskiego Solieckiego az Starosty. Rutemu po rugi niesstorych Rotmistrzow y ludzi Rycerskich pod sprawa Jego Mci bedących są przypominione ymiona napisane. Kthora sie poczyna od Roku po narodzeniu Panu Chrystusowym 1572 az do roku pisano 1582 (Decretos akroama: that is, the ten-year-long story concerning the military affairs of the enlightened duke and lord, lord Christopher Radvila …). Wilno: Przez Daniela Lanzyckiego, 1585.

290

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

[Sacranus, Jan]. “Elucidarivs errorvm ritvs Rvthenici, Ioannis Sacrani Cracoviensis Ecclesię Canonici, Anno D. 1500 scriptus.” In De Rvssorvm Moscovitavm et Tartarorvm religione, sacrificiis, nvptiarvm, funervm ritv e’ diversis scriptoribus, qvorvm nomina versa pagina indicat, 18487. Spayer: ex officina typografica Bernardi Albini, 1582. Sarbievius, Mathias Casimirus / Motiejus Kazimieras Sarbievijus. Ludi Fortunae: Lyrica selecta / Lemties žaidimai: poezijos rinktinė, Bibliotheca Baltica Lithvania. Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1995. [Sarnicki, Stanisław]. Annales Polonorvm, quibus avgmenta et decrementa redni: mvtationes item et progressiones gentis explicantur. [Krakow: n.p., 1578?]. “Septicollis Litvaniae caput Palaemoniarum urbium Vilna (Vilnius, 1723).” In Gratulatio Vilnae. Textus electi XVI-XVIII seaculi / Vilniaus pasveikinimas. XVI – XVIII amžiaus tekstų rinkinys. Comp. Eugenija Ulčinaitė, 368-81. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2001. Sbornik starinnykh gramot i uzakonnenij Rossijskoj imperii kasatel’no prav i sostojanija russko-poddannych karaimov. Ed. Z. A. Firkovich. St Petersburg: Leshtukovskaya Parovaya Skoropechatnaya P. O. Yablonskogo, 1890. Scriptores rerum Prussicarum. Die Geschichtsquellen der Preussischen Vorzeit bis zum Untergange der Ordensherrschaft. 5 vols., ed. Theodor Hirsch, Max Töppen, and Ernst Strehlke. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1861-74. Reprint, Frankfurt a. M.: Minerva, 1965. Skarbiec diplomatów papiezkich, cesarskich, krolewskich, książęcych, uchwał narodowych, postanowień różnych władz i urzędów poslugujących do krytycznego wyjasnienia dziejów Litwy, Rusi Litewskiej i ościennych im krajów (A treasury of diplomatic materials issued by popes, emperors, kings, and dukes, national resolutions as well as decisions of various rulers and districts collected for the critical analysis of the history of Lithuania and the Lithuanian Rus’ and the neighboring countries). Ed. Ignacy Daniłowicz. Wilno: W drukarni A. H. Kirkora, 1862. Skazaniya kniazia Kurbskogo (Legends of Prince Kurbski). 2nd ed. corrected and enlarged, ed. N. Ustrialov. St. Petersburg: v tipografii Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1842. Smokowski, W. “Wspomnienie Trok w 1822 r.” (A visit to Trakai in 1822). Atheneum: pismo poswiecone historyi, filozofii, literaturze, sztukom i krytyce 5 (1841): 157-83.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

Solemnitas Coronationis Beatissime Virginis Mariae in antiquissima sua Ad Praepositalem Palatino Trocensis Civitatis Basilicam, à temporibus Alexandri, Vitoldi Magni Litvaniae Ducis, gratijs & miraculis, clare Icone, è Clementissimo Sanctissimi Domini Nostri Clementis XI placito, cum Indulgentia Plenaria per decensum octo dierum, ab Illustrisimo Excellentissimo ac Reverendissimo Domino, Domino Constantino Brzostowski … .Vilnae: Typis Universitatis Societatis Jesu, 1719. Sprawy wojenne krola Stefana Batorego. Dyjaryjusze, relacje, listy i akta z lat 1576 – 1586 (Military deeds of King Stephan Bathory: Diaries, accounts, letters and acts from the years 1576 – 1586). Ed. Ignacy Polkowski. Acta historica res gestas Poloniae ilustrantia ab anno 1507 – ad annum 1793 11. Krakow: Sumptibus Academiae Litterarum, 1887. Stephani Poloniæ regis literæ, quibus res a se in bello Moschico, post captum Vielico Lukum, gestas: & Consilia rerum deinceps gerendarum explicat: & Comitia Vvarsoviensia indicit. Item De Legatione Turcicj & Tartaricij Imp. Mense Nouembri, Vilnæ audita. Et alia lectu non iniucunda. Np.: np., 1581. Stryjkowski, Maciej. “Goniec cnothy, do prawych szlachciczów, przez Matysa Strykowiusa uczyniony w którym są przykłady piękne spraw miężów zacnych, postępki Sarmatów i królów Polskich, książąt Litewskich i ich narodu sławnego wywod, i sprawy skuteczne z dawna w prochu zakryte, a od żadnego przedtym nie wydane, od początku ich aż do dziszajszego s łaski Bożej Króla Henryka” (The messenger of virtue to the rightful gentry...). Krakow: u Macieja Wirzbięty, 1574. Reprint, Maciej Stryjkowski, Kronika Polska, Litewska, Zmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi (The Polish, Lithuanian, Samogitian, and the Whole-Rus’ chronicle). Vol. 2, 467-557. Warsaw: Naklad Gustawa Leona Glückberga, 1846. Reprint, Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1985. ———. Kronika Polska, Litewska, Zmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi (The Polish, Lithuanian, Samogitian, and the Whole-Rus’ chronicle). 2 vols. Warsaw: Naklad Gustawa Leona Glückberga, 1846. Reprint, Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1985. ———. O począthach, wywodach, dzielnościach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sławnego narodu Litewskiego, Żemojdzkiego i Ruskiego, przedtym nigdy od żadnego ani kuszone, ani opisane, z natchnienia Bożego a uprzejmie pilnego doświadzienia (On the genesis, descent and courage, chivalrous and local deeds of the honorable Lithuanian, Samogintian and Ruthenian peoples …). Ed. Julia Radziszewska. Warsaw: Panstwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1978.

292

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Syrokomla, Władysław. Wycieczki po Litwie w promieniach od Wilna (Trips in Lithuania around Vilnius). Vol.1, (Troki, Stokliszki, Jezno, Funie, Niemiez, Miedninki etc.) (Trakai, Stakliškės, Jieznas, Punia, Nemėžis, Medininkai, etc.). Wilno: Nakładem księgarza A. Assa, 1857. The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453. Comp. Cyril Mango. Sources and Documents in the History of Art Series, ed. H. W. Janson. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972. The Chronicle of Adam Usk, 1377 – 1421. Ed. and trans. C. Given-Wilson. Oxford Medieval Texts, eds. D. E. Greenway, B. F. Harvey, and M. Lapidge. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1997. The Essays of Michel Eyquem de Montaigne. Trans. Charles Cotton, ed. W. Carew Hazlitt. Great Books of the Western World 25, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Montaigne. Chicago, London, and Toronto: Encyclopaedia Britannica and William Benton, 1952. “The West Russian Chronicle’s Panegyric on Vitovt, after 1430.” In A Sourcebook for Russian History From Early Times to 1917, ed. George Vernadsky et al. Vol. 1, Early Times to the Late Seventeenth Century, 94-95. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972. Thevet, André. Cosmographie Moscovite. Published by Augustin Galitzin. Paris: J. Techener, 1858. Tripplin, T. Dziennik podróży po Litwie i Żmudzi, odbytej w 1856 roku (A diary of a trip through Lithuania and Samogitia undertaken in the year 1856). Vol. 1, Litwa (Lithuania). Wilno: Nakład Maurycego Orgelbranda, 1858. Varsevicius, Christophorus. Speculum Analogiae et methamorphosis aliquot Magnatum. Hoc est: Caesarum, regvm et maximorvm principvm, vnuvs et eivsdem partim generis & nominis; partim etiam imperii ac dominationis Vitarum Parallelarum libri dvo. Francoforti: Apud Wolffgangum Richterum, sumptibus Nicolai Steinii, 1607. Vetera monumenta Poloniae et Lituaniae: gentiumque finitimarum historiam illustrantia maximam partem nondum edita ex tabulariis Vaticanis deprompta collecta ac serie chronologica disposita. Ed. Augustin Theiner. Vol. 1, Ab Honorio PP. III usque ad Gregorium PP. XII, 1217-1409. Vol. 2, Ab Ionne pp. XXII. Usque ad Pium pp. V., 1410-1572. Rome: n.p, 1860-61. Reprint, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1969. Virgil. The Aeneid. Translated into English prose with an introduction by W. F. Jackson Knight, The Penguin Classics. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1960.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Vislicensis, Joannes / Jonas Vislicietis. Bellum Prutenum / Prūsų karas. Prepared and translated by Eugenija Ulčinaitė, Bibliotheca Baltica Litvania, xxvii-viii. Vilnius: Mintis, 1997. Vitoldiana: Codex privilegiorum Vitoldi Magni Ducis Lithuaniae, 13861430. Ed. Jerzy Ochmański. Warsaw and Poznań: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1986. [Volovich, Grigorii]. “Revizija pushch i perekhodov zverinykh v byvshem Velikom Kniazhestve Litovskom, s prisovokupleniem gramot i privilegij na vkhody v pushchi i na zemli, sostavlennaja Starostoju Mstibogovskim Grigoriem Bogdanovichem Volovichem v 1559 godu” (The revision of forests and animal-routs in the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania compiled by Grigorij Bogdanovich Volovich and supplemented with letters and privileges for entering forests and lands). Vilna: V tipografii Gubernskago Pravlenija, 1867. Reprint, “Priedas C / Appendix C,” in Pietinė Lietuva Grigaliaus Valaviciaus 1559 metų Lietuvos girių aprašyme 400 (1559-1959) sukakciai pamineti / Southern Lithuania in the Description of Lithuanian Forests by Grigalius Valavicius Commemorating its 400 years (1559-1959) Anniversary, ed. Vincas Zemaitis. Chicago, IL: Lithuanian Foresters Association in Exile, 1964. Walsinhgam, Thomas. Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. Thomae Walsingham, quondam monachi S. Albani, Historia Anglicana. Ed. Henry Thomas Riley. Vol. 2, 1381 – 1422. Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages. London: Longmans, Green, reader, and Dyer, 1864. ———. Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. Ypodigma Neustriæ, A Thoma Walsingham, quondam monacho monasterii S. Albani conscriptum. Ed. Henry Thomas Riley. London: Paternoster Row, etc, 1876. [Wapowski, Bernard]. Chronicorum Bernardi Vapovii partem postriorem 1480 – 1535 / Kroniki Bernarda Wapowskiego z Radochoniec kantora katedr. krakowskiego. Część ostatnia czasy podługoszowskie obymująca (1480-1535). Ed. J. Szujski. Scriptores rerum Polonicarum 2. Krakow: Sumptibus Acad. Litter. Cracov. Typis Universitatis, 1874. [———]. Dzieje Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego od roku 1380 do 1535 przez Bernarda z Rachtamowic Wapowskiego (The history of the Polish crown and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from 1380 to 1535 by Bernardus of Rachtamowic Wapowski). Ed. Mikołaj Malinowski. 2 vols. Wilno: Nakładem i czcionakami Teofila Glücksberga, 1847.

294

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Warsevicius, Christophor. “Panegyricus, ad Stephanum I. Polonorvm regem potentissimum.” In Rervm polonicarvm tomi tres: quorvm primvs omnivm Polonię regvm, a Lecho primo gentis dvce, ad Stephani Bathorevm, etiamnum Regem: tum Principum Lituanię, chronologicam receusionem, ac singulorum res gestas comlectitur. Vol. 1, 1-48. Frankfurt: Excudebat Iann. Wechelus, impresis Sigis. Feyerabendij, 1584. Wereszczynski, Iozeph. Regvla id est: institvtio sev cvrsvs vitę cvivsqve regis christiani. Cracoviae: In Officina Andreę Petricouij, 1588. “Wotum w interregnum po Henrykowym z Polski odjeżdzie” (Vote during the interregnum after the departure of Henry). In Pisma polityczne z czasów pierwszego bezkrólewia (Political texts from the time of the first interregnum), ed. Jan Czubek, 630-43. Krakow: Nakładem Akademii Umejętności, 1906. “Zdanie o obieraniu nowego króla” (Opinion on the election of a new king). In Pisma polityczne z czasów pierwszego bezkrólewia (Political texts from the time of the first interregnum), ed. Jan Czubek, 349-55. Krakow: Nakładem Akademii Umejętności, 1906. “Zdanie sprawy o Tatarach Litewskich prez jednego z tych Tatarów zlozone sultanowe Sulejmanowi w r. 1558” (Account of the situation of the Lithuanian Tatars written by one of these Tatars for Sultan Suleiman in 1558). Trans. A. Muchliński. Teka Wileńska 4 (1858): 241-72. Zebrzidovius, Caspar / Kasper Zebrzydowski. Chronicon seu vera historiae tabula rerum polonicarum. Prepared and edited by Zofia Kowalska-Urbankowa, Anna Kozłowska, and Zdisław Pietrzyk. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, 1990.

SECONDARY LITERATURE Adomonis, Tadas and Klemensas Čerbulėnas. Lietuvos TSR dailės ir architektūros istorija (The history of art and architecture of the Lithuanian SSR). Vol. 1, Nuo seniausių laikų iki 1795 metų (From the most ancient times until the year 1795). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1987. Adomonis, Tadas. “Trakų salos pilies sieninė tapyba” (The wall-paintings from the palace of Trakai island-castle). Lietuvos TSR Aukštųjų Mokyklų Moklslo Darbai. Menotyra 2 (1969): 135-60. Alissandratos, Yu. A. “Sledy patristicheskikh tipov pokhval v zhitii Stefana Permskogo” (The traces of patristic type of panegyrics in the life of Stephen of Perm). In Drevnerusskaja literatura: istochnikovedenie.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Sbornik nauchnych trudov (Old Russian literature: analyses of sources. A collection of scholarly works), ed. D. S. Likhachev, 64-74. Leningrad: Nauka, 1984. Almonaitis, Vytenis. “Lietuvos krikštas ir Žemaitija” (Lithuanian conversion and Samogitia). Lituanistica 2 (1996): 31-38. ———. Žemaitijos politinė padėtis 1380 – 1410 metais (The political situation of Samogitia in the years 1380 – 1410). Kaunas: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 1998. Althoff, Gerd. “Ira regis: Prolegomena to a History of Royal Anger.” In Anger’s Past: The Social Uses of an Emotion in the Middle Ages, ed. Barbara H. Rosenwein, 59-74. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 1998. Andziulytė Ruginienė, Marija. Žemaičių christianizacijos pradžia / L’Intorduction du christianisme en Samogitie / Die Anfänge des Christentums in Žemaiten. Kaunas: n.p., 1937. Aničas, Jonas. “Paminklai Vytautui Didžiajam” (Monuments to Vytautas the Great). Statyba ir architektūra 6, 7, and 8 (1990): 17-19, 13-15, and 13-14. Antonovich, A. K. Belorusskie teksty, pisannye arabskim pis’mom, i ikh grafiko-ortograficheskaya sistema (Byelorus’ian texts written in Arabic script and their graphico-ortographic system). Vilnius:Vilnyuskii Gosudarstvennyj Universitet im. V. Kapsukasa, Kafedra russkogo yazyka, 1968. Arnade, Peter. Realms of Ritual: Burgundian Ceremony and Civic Life in Late Medieval Ghent. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1996. Aston, Margaret. Faith and Fire: Popular and Unpopular Religion 1350 – 1600. London and Rio Grande: The Hambledon Press, 1993. Aušros vartų Švč. Marijos Gailestingum Motinos paveikslas (The image of the Virgin Mary Mother of Mercy from Aušra Gate), comp. Alfredas Širmulis, Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai / Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 10. Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 1997. Bagge, Sverre. The Political Thought of The King’s Mirror. Medieval Scandinavia Supplement 3. Viborg: Odense University Press, 1987. Bairašauskaitė, Tamara. Lietuvos totoriai XIX amžiuje (Lithuanian Tatars in the nineteenth century). Vilnius: Mintis, 1996. Bałaban, Majer. “Karaici w Polsce: studjum historyczne” (Karaites in Poland: a historical study). In Studja historyczne (Historical studies), 1-92. Warsaw: Księgarnia M. J. Freid i s-ka, 1927.

296

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Balcewicz, Jacek. “Kolekcionerskie rarytasy: Jagiellonowie / Card Rarities: The Jagellonians / Sammlerstüke: Jagiellonen Spielkarten.” Casino 2 (2001): 14-17. Baliulis, Algirdas, Stanislovas Mikulionis, and Algimantas Miškinis. Trakų miestas ir pilys. Istorija ir architektūra (The city and castles of Trakai: history and architecture). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991. Banionis, Egidijus. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės pasiuntinių tarnyba XV – XVI amžiais (The envoys’ office of the grand Duchy of Lithuania in the fifteenth – sixteenth centuries), comp. Zigmantas Kiaupa and Žydrūnas Mačiukas. Vilnius: Diemedžio leidykla, 1998. Baniulytė, Aušra. “The Cult of the Virgin Mary and Its Images from the Middle Ages until the Seventeenth Century.” In Paveikslas ir knyga: LDK dailės tyrimai ir šaltiniai (Image and book: sources and research into the art of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), ed. Tojana Račiūnaitė, Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 25, 157-193. Vilnius: Dailės akademijos leidykla, 2002. Barbashev, A. Vitovt i jego politika do Griunvaldskoj bitvy, 1410 (Vytautas and his policy prior to the battle of Grunwald, 1410). St. Petersburg: Tipografiya I. N. Skorokhodova, 1885. ———. Vitovt. Poslednie dvadtsat’ let kniazhenija (1410 - 1430) (Vytautas: the last twenty years of his reign, 1410 – 1430). Ocherki litovsko-russkoi istorii XV v. St. Petersburg: n.p., 1891. Bardach, Juliusz. “Związek Polski z Litwą” (Poland’s union with Lithuania). In Polska w epoce Odrodzenia: państwo – społeczeństwo – kultura (Poland during the epoch of the Renaissance: state, society, culture), ed. Andrzej Wyczańskij, 2nd ed., Konfrontacje Historyczne, 108-61. Warsaw: Wiedza Powszechna, 1986). ———. Studia z ustroju i prawa Wielkiego Księstva Litewskiego XIV - XVII w. (A study of institutions and law of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the fourteenth-seventeenth centuries). Prace Białostockiego Towartzystwa Naukowego 13. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1970. Barycz, Henryk. “Wstęp,” (Introduction). In Maciej z Miechowa. Opis Sarmacji azjatyckiej i europejskiej (The description of two Sarmatias, Asian and European), introduced by Henryk Barycz, translated and commented on by Tadeusz Bieńkowski, afterword by Waldemar Voisé. Źródła do dziejów nauki i techniki 14, 5-16. Wrocław, Warsaw, Krakow, Gdańsk: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1972.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

297

Barker, John W. Manuel II Palaeologus (1391 – 1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1969. Baronas, Darius. Trys Vilniaus kankiniai: gyvenimas ir istorija (Istorinė studija ir šaltiniai) / Tres martyres Vilnenses vita et historia (Studio historicum et editio fontium). Fontes Ecclesiastici Historiæ Lithuaniæ 2. Vilnius: aidai, 2000. ———. “Kęstučio pabėgimas iš Marienburgo” (The flight of prince Kęstutis from captivity in Marienburg). Lietuvos istorijos studijos 11 (2003): 23-33 Batūra, Romas. Lietuva tautų kovoje prieš Aukso Ordą. Nuo Batijaus antplūdžio iki mūšio prie Mėlynųjų Vandenų (Lithuania in the peoples struggle against the Golden Horde: from the invasion of Batu until the battle by the Blue Waters). Vilnius: Mintis, 1975. Beblavy, Jonas. Lietuvių čekų santykiai Vytauto Didžiojo laikais (The Lithuanian-Czech relations in the time of Vytautas the Great). Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto Evang. Teol. Fakulteto leidinys 2. Kaunas: n.p., 1930. Belch, Stanisław Frantiszek. Paulus Vladimiri and His Doctrine Concerning International Law and Politics. 2 vols. The Hague: Mouton & Co, 1965. Beresnevičius, Gintaras. “Gediminas ir Lizdeika” (Gediminas and Lizdeika). In Miestelėnai (Townspeople), ed. A. Ališanka, 85-92. Vilnius: Taura, 1991. Bershadskij, S. A. Litovskie evrei. Istoriya ikh yuridicheskogo i obshchestvennogo polozheniya v Litve ot Vitovta do Lyublinskoi unii, 1388 – 1569 g. (The Lithuanian Jews: the history of their legal and social status in Lithuania from the reign of Vytautas until the Lublin Union, 1388 – 1569). 2 vols. St Petersburg: v tupografii M. M. Samsonovicha, 1882. Bietenholz, Peter G. Historia and Fabula: Myths and Legends in Historical Thought from Antiquity to the Modern Age. Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 59, ed. E. J. Wanderjagt. Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1994. Bushkovitch, Peter. Peter the Great: the Struggle for Power, 1671-1725. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Bylina, Stanisław. “Les influences hussites en Pologne et sur les territoires russes de Grand Duché de Lituanie.” Richerche Slavistiche 41 (1994): 163-77. Byzance et les images. Ed. André Duillou and Jannic Durand. Louvre conférences et colloques. Paris: La docummentation Française, 1994.

298

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Byzantine Art an European Art. 9th Exhibition of the Council of Europe. 2nd ed. Athens: Zappeion Exhibition Hall, 1964. Bookmann, Hartmut. Johannes Falkenberg, der Deutsche Orden und die polnische Politik: Untersuchungen zur politischen Theorie des späteren Mittelalters. Mit einem Anhang: Die Satira des Johannes Falkenberg. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 45. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975. Borawski, Piotr and Aleksander Dubiński. Tatarzy polscy. Dzieje, obrzędy, legendy, tradycje (The Polish Tatars: history, rites, legends, and traditions). Warsaw: Iskry, 1986. Borawski, Piotr. “Etapy kolonizacji tatarskiej w państwe polsko-litewskim XIV – XVIII w.” (The periods of Tatar colonization in the Polish-Lithuanian state, fourteenth – eighteenth centuries). Nowum 8/9 (1978): 12350. ———. “Położenie prawne Tatarów w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim” (The Legal Situation of the Tatars in the Great Duchy of Lithuania). LituanoSlavica Poznaniensia. Studia Historica 2 (1987): 187-211. Brandmüller, Walter. Das Konzil von Konstanz 1414 – 1418. Vol. 2, Bis zum Konzilsende. Konziliengeschichte, ed. Walter Brandmüller. Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1997. Brilliant, Richard. Gesture and Rank in Roman Art: The Use of Gestures to Denote Status in Roman Sculpture and Coinage. Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 14. New Haven: Connecticul Academy, 1963. Brooke, Rosalind and Christopher. Popular Religion in the Middle Ages: Western Europe 1000 – 1300. N.p.: Thames and Hudson, 1985. Buczek, Karol. The History of Polish Cartography from the 15th to the 18th Century. Trans. Andrzej Potocki. Monografie z dziejów nauki i techniki 24. Wrocław, Warsaw, and Krakow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1966. Burke, Peter. The Fabrication of Louis XIV. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Carruthers, Mary. The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making of Images, 400 – 1200. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Cavallerino, A. V. Milano. Civiche raccolte numismatiche. Catalogo delle medaglie. Vol. 2, Secolo XVI. Bollettino di Numismatica. Monografia 4.II.1. N.p.: n.p., 1988.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

299

Christiansen, Eric. The Northern Crusades: The Baltic and the Catholic Frontier, 1110 – 1525. New Studies in Medieval History, ed. Denis Bethell. London and Basingstoke: The Macmillan Press, 1980. Contemporaries of Erasmus: A Biographical Register of the Renaissance and Reformation. 3 vols. Toronto, Buffalo, and London: n.p., 1985-87. Čapaitė, Rūta. “Lietuvos didžiojo kunigaikščio Vytauto kasdienybė pagal jo ir amžininkų korespondenciją” (The everyday life of Grand Duke Vytautas as revealed through his and his contemporaries’ correspondence). In Alytaus miesto istorijos fragmentai (Fragments of the history of the city of Alytus), comp. Audronė Jakunskienė, 10-27. Alytus: Alytaus kraštotyros muziejus ir Dzūkų kultūros draugė, 2001. D’Avray, D. L. Death and the Prince: Memorial Preaching before 1350. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Demus, Otto. Byzantine Art and the West. The Wrightsman Lectures. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970. Dennis, George T. “Byzantine Battle Flags.” Byzantinische Forschungen 8 (1982): 51-59 and plates 1-2. ———. “Imperial Panegyric: Rhetoric and Reality.” In Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire, 131-140. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection and Harvard University Press, 1997. Die italienischen Medaillen der Renaissance und des Barock (1450 bis 1750). Comp. Lore Börner, Berliner Numismatische Forschungen, n.s. 5. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag, 1997. Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Monumental’naia zhživopis’ XI – XVII vv. (Old Russian art: Monumental painting of the eleven – seventeenth century). Ed. O. N. Podobedova. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. Dubonis, Artūras. “Rivijaus kronikos byla” (The Case of the Rivius’ Chronicle). Lituanistica (1997): 3-12. Dundulis, B. Lietuvos užsienio politika XVI a. (Lithuanian foreign policy in the sixteenth century). Vilnius: Mintis, 1971. ———. Lietuvių kova dėl Žemaitijos ir Užnemunės XV amžiuje (The Lithuanian struggle for Samogitia and Sudavia in the the fifteenth century). Vilnius: Valstybinė Politinės ir Mokslinės literatūros leidykla, 1960. ———. Lietuvos kova dėl valstybinio savarankiškumo XV amžiuje (Lithuania’s struggle for independant statehood in the fifteenth century). Vilnius, 1968. 2nd revised edition: Mokslo ir Enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993.

300

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Dziadulewicz, Stanisław. Herbarz rodzin tatarskich w Polsce (Coats of arms of Tatar families in Poland). Wilno: Nakładem autora z zasiłkiem Komitetu Funduszu Kultury Narodowej, 1929. Reprint Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1986. Dzieła Tadeusza Czackiego (Works of Tadeusz Czacki). Collected and edited by Edward Raczyński. vol. 3. Poznań: w Drukarni J. Łukaszewicza, 1844. Ekdahl, Sven. “Die Flucht der Litauer in der Schlacht bei Tannenberg.” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 12 (1963): 11-19. ———. “Vokiečių ordino karo žygiai Prūsijoje” (Military campaigns of the Teutonic Order in Prussia), trans. Darius Baronas. In Žalgiris. Šiandienos žvilgsnis. Trys paskaitos Vilniuje (The battle of Grunwald in today’s perspective. Three lectures in Vilnius), comp. Vydas Dolinskas, 44-63. Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1999. ———. Die Schlacht bei Tannenberg, 1410: Quellenkritische Untersuchungen. Vol. 1, Einführung und Quellenlage, ed. Jürgen Vietig. Berliner historische Studien, Friedrich-Meinecke-Institut der Freien Universität Berlin 8. Einzelstudien 1. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1982. ———. Jono Dlugošo “Prūsų vėliavos” Žalgirio mūšio šaltinis (Die “Banderia Prutenorum” des Jan Długosz – eine Quelle zur Schlacht bei Tannenberg 1410). Trans. Jūratė Kibirkštytė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis, ed. Alvydas Nikžentaitis. Vilnius: “Vilties” spaustuvė, 1992. Emerton, Ephraim. Humanism and Tyranny: Studies in the Italian Trecento. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925. Firkovičius, Romualdas. “Karaimika Lietuvoje” (The Karaimica in Lithuania). Muziejai ir paminklai (December 1968): 24-28. ———. “Lietuvos karaimų rankraščiai” (The manuscripts of the Lithuanian Karaites). In Orientas’1 (Orient’1), comp. Bronius Genzelis, 228-35. Vilnius: Vaga, 1992. Galaunė, Paulius. “Vytauto portretai. Kelios pastabos del Vytauto Didžiojo vaizdavimo prototipų autentiškumo” (The portraits of Vytautas: several remarks concerning the authenticity of the prototypes of the representations of Vytautas the Great). Lietuvių tautos praeitis 4.3/4 (1930; reprint, 1980): 157-84. Garbacik, Józef. “Zygmunt Luksemburczyk wobec Wielkiej Wojny PolskoKrzyżackiej (1403 – 1411)” (Sigismund of Luxembourg in relation to the Great Polish-Teutonic War (1403 – 1411). Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3.1/2 (1960): 15-36.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

301

Gawęda, St., K. Pieradzko, J. Radziszewska, and K. Stachowska under the supervision of Jan Dabrowski. Rozbiór krytyczny Annalium Poloniae Jana Dlugosza z lat 1385 - 1444 (The critical analysis of the Annalium Poloniae by Jan Dlugosz, the years 1385–1444). Vol. 1. Wrocław, Warsaw, and Krakow: Zaklad Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1961. Górski, Karol. “Litewskie powiązania ‘Banderia Prutenorum’ Jana Długosza. Na marginese książki Svena Ekdahla” (Jan Długosz’s ‘Banderia Prutenorum’ and its Lithuanian Connections. On the Margin of Sven Ekdahl’s Book). In Dlugossiana sudie historyczne w pięćsetlecie śmierci Jana Długosza / Dlugossiana studia historica in honorem Długossii ante hos 500 annos mortui oblata, ed. Stanisław Gawęda. Zeszyty Naukowe Universytetu Jagiellońskiego DLXI, Prace Historyczne 65, ed. Stanisław Cynarski, 168-80. Warsaw: Sumptibus Universitatis Jagellonicae, 1980. Grabar, André and M. Manoussacos. L’Illustration du manuscrit de Skylitzès de la Bibliothéque National de Madrid. Bibliothéque de l’Institut Hellénique d’Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines de Venise 10. Venise: n.p., 1979. Grabski, Andrzej Feliks. “Echa bitwy grunwaldzkiej w historiografii zachodnioeuropejskiej” (The echoes of the battle of Grunwald in Western European historiography). Zapiski Historyczne 1 (1967): 7-48. ———. Polska w opiniach Europy Zachodniej XIV – XV w. (Poland within Western European opinion, fourteenth – fifteenth century). Warsaw: PWN, 1968. Grala, Hieronim. “K izucheniyu russkoi gosudarstvennoi sfragistiki XVI v. (Litovskie ‘koliumny’ na Bol’shoi gosudarstvennoi pechati Ivana IV Groznogo)” (To the study of Russian state sfragistics of the sixteenth century (The Lithuanian ‘columns’ on the great seal of Ivan IV the Terrible). In Russia Medievalis, ed. John Fennel, Edgar Hösch, Ludolf Müller, and Andrzej Poppe. Vol. 9.1, 78-101. Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1997. Grekov, I. B. Vostochnaya Evropa i upadok Zolotoi Ordy (na rubezhe XIV – XV vv.) (Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Golden Horde). Moscow: Nauka, 1975. Grierson, Philip. Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whitemore Collection. Vol. 5, Michael VIII to Constantine XI 1258 – 1453. Pt. 1. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1999.

302

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Griffiths, Margaret Enid. Early Vaticination in Welsh with English Parallels. Ed. T. Gwynn Jones. Cardiff: Oxford University Press, 1937. Grygiel, Jerzy. Życie i działalność Zygmunta Korybutowicza. Studium z dziejów polsko-czeskich w pierwszej polowie XV wieku (The life and activities of Sigismund Kaributas: a study of Polish–Czech relations during the first half of the fifteenth century). Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1988. Gudavichius, E. “Po povodu tak nazyvaemoi ‘diarkhii’ v Velikom Kniazhestve Litovskom” (Concerning the so-called ‘diarchy’ in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania). In Feodālisms Baltijas regionā. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums / Feodalizm v baltjiskom regione. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov (Feudalism in the Baltic region: A collection of scholarly articles), ed. A. Rolova, et al., 35-44. Riga:P. Stučkas Latvijas Valsts universitāte, 1985. Gudavičius, Edvardas. “Kas buvo XVI amžiaus bajorija?” (Who were the sixteenth-century boyars?). In Lietuvos valstybė XII – XVIII a. (The Lithuanian state, twelfth – eighteenth centuries), ed. Zigmantas Kiaupa and Arturas Mickevičius, 133-45. Vilnius: Lietuvos istorijos institutas, 1997. ———. “Lietuvos valstybės struktūra Gedimino laikais” (The structure of the Lithuanian state during the times of Gediminas). Metai 1 (1992): 125-9. ———. “Valdovas” (A ruler). In Lietuvos didžiosios kunigaikštijos kultūra. Tyrinėjimai ir vaizdai (The culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: investigations and images), comp. Vytautas Ališauskas, Liudas Jovaiša, Mindaugas Paknys, Rimvydas Petrauskas, and Eligijus Raila, 734-52. Vilnius: aidai, 2001. ———. “Žalgirio operacija ir Vytauto rizika” (The manoeuvre of Grunwald and the risk of Vytautas). Naujasis židinys 5 (1992): 24-28. ———. Lietuvos istorija (The history of Lithuania). Vol. 1, Nuo seniausių laikų iki 1569 metų (From the most ancient times until the year 1569). Vilnius: Lietuvos rašytojų sąjungos leidykla, 1999. ———. Mindaugas (Mindaugas). Lietuvos istorijos institutas. Vilnius: Žara, 1998. Guené, Bernard. L’Occident aux XIVe et XVe siècles: Les Etats. Nouvelle Clio l’Histoire et ses problèmes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1971. Gustaitis, Algirdas. Dniepro upė ir aplinka nuo prieš-Kristinių laikų (The Dnieper River and Its Surroundings from BC). N.p.: Raštija, 1991. Gutowska-Rychlewska, Maria. Historia ubiorów (The history of clothing). Wrocław, Warsaw, Krakow: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1968.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

303

Halecki, Oscar. “Gilbert de Lannoy and His Discovery of East Central Europe.” Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America 2.2 (1944): 314-31. Haskell, Francis. History and Its Images: Art and the Interpretation of the Past. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993. Hellmann, Manfred. Grundzüge der Geschichte Litauens und des litauischen Volkes. Grundzüge 5. Darmstadt: Buhges, 1976. Hodoeporica: Studien zur neulateinischen Reisedichtung des deutschen Kulturraus im 16. Jahrhundert. Ed. Herman Wiegand, Saecular Spiritalia 12, ed. Dieter Wuttke. Baden-Baden: Verlag Valentin Koerner, 1984. Holban, Maria. “Du caractère de l’ambassade de Guillebert de Lannoy dans le nord et le sud-est de L’Europe en 1421 et de quelques incidents de son voyage.” Revue des ètudes sud-est europèennes 5.3/4 (1967): 419-34. Homolicki, M. “Katedra Wileńska” (Vilnius Cathedral). In Wizerunki i roztrąsania naukowe. Poczet nowy drugi (Scholarly pictures and guesses: new series). Vol. 14. Vilnius: Józef Zawadski Własnym Nakładem, 1840. ———. “Kilka uwag nad dziełem ‘Wilno od początków jego do roku 1750’ przez J.I. Kraszewskiego, tom I, 1840; tom II, 1841, w 8ce, z rycinami. Wydanie Adama Zawadzkiego. Wilno, nakładem i drukiem Józefa Zawadzkiego” (Several remarks on the work ‘Vilnius from its beginnings until the year 1750’ …). In Wizerunki i roztrząsania naukowe. Poczet nowy drugi (Scholarly pictures and guesses: new series). Vilnius: Jozef Zawadzki, 1841. Hook, Sidney. The Hero in History: A Study in Limitation and Possibility. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955. Hoppen, Jerzy. “Malowidła ścienne zamku trockiego na wyspie” (The wallpaintings of the Trakai island-castle). Prace i materiały sprawozdawcze sekcji historji sztuki / Recueil de travaux et comptes rendus de la section d’histoire de l’art 2.1-4 (1935): 228-39. Hughes, Diane Owen. “Mourning Rites, Memory, and Civilization in Premodern Italy.” In Riti e rituali nelle società medievali, ed. Jacques Chiffoleau, Lauro Martines, and Agostino Paravicini-Bagliani, 23-38. Collecta 5. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994. Ianziti, Gary. Humanistic Historiography under the Sforzas: Politics and Propaganda in Fifteenth-century Milan. Oxford, NY: Clarendon Press, 1988. Iconography, Propaganda, and Legitimation. Ed. Allan Ellenius. European Science Foundation Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

304

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Iliescu, Octavian. “Génois et Tatars en Dobroudja au XIVe siècle: l’apport de la numismatique.” Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines 3 (1997): 16178. Imesch, Kornelia. “The Altar of the Holy Cross and the Ideal of Adam’s Progeny: ‘ut paradysiace loca possideat regionis’.” In Death and Dying in the Middle Ages, ed. Edelgard E. DuBruck and Barbara I. Gusick, Studies in the Humanities Literature – Politics – Society, ed. Guy Mermier, vol. 45, 73-106. New York, Washington, D.C., etc.: Peter Lang, 1999. Ivanauskas, Eugenijus and Mikelis Balčius. Lietuvos didžiosios kunigaikštystės lydiniai ir monetos nuo 1387 iki 1495 metų (The Bars and Coins of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania since 1387 till the Year 1495). Vilnius: n.p., 1997. ———. “Krikščioniškieji simboliai Jogailos ir Vytauto monetose” (Christian Symbols on the Coins of Jogaila and Vytautas). Numizmatika 1 (2000): 47-52. Ivinskis, Zenonas. “Trakų Galvės ežero salos pilis” (The island-castle of lake Galvė in Trakai). Vytauto Didžiojo kultūros muziejaus metraštis 1 (1941): 162-99 ———. “Vytautas Didysis istorinėje literatūroje” (Vytautas the Great in historiography). Atheneum 1.2 (1930): 190-212. ———. “Vytauto Didžiojo darbų ir jo periodo bibliografija” (The bibliography of the deeds and the period of Vytautas the Great). Atheneum 2.1 (1931): 89-141. ———. Lietuvos istorija iki Vytauto Didžiojo mirties (Lithuanian history until the death of Vytautas the Great). Rome: Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademija, 1978. Reprint introduced and commented on by Edvardas Gudavičius, Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991. Jankevičiūtė, Giedrė. Dailė ir valstybė: dailės gyvenimas Lietuvos Respublikoje 1918 – 1940 (Art and state: artistic life in the Lithuanian Republic, 1918 – 1940). Kaunas: Nacionalinis M.K. Čiurlionio muziejus, 2003. Janulaitis, Augustinas. “Žemaičiai ir bažnytinis seimas Konstancijoj” (Samogitians and the Church Council in Constance). Lietuvių tautos praeitis / Lithuanian Historical Review 4.3/4 (1980): 261-321. ———. Žydai Lietuvoje. Bruožai iš Lietuvos visuomenės istorijos XIV – XIX amž. (Jews in Lithuania: traits of Lithuanian social history in the fourteenth-nineteenth centuries). Kaunas: A. Janulaitis, 1923. Jasas, Rimantas. “Alberto Goštauto pagyrimas Žygimantui Senajam (1529)” (Albertas Goštautas’ panegyric to Sigismund the Old). In Šešioliktojo

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

305

amžiaus raštija, ed. Sigitas Narbutas. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 5, 59-60. Vilnius: pradai, 2000. Johnstone, Pauline. The Byzantine Tradition in Church Embroidery. London: Alec Tiranti, 1967. Jones, Michael. “ ‘En son habit royal’: le duc de Bretagne et son image vers la fin du Moyen Âge.” In Représentation et pouvoir et royauté à la fin du Moyen Âge: Actes du colloque organizé par l’Université du Naine les 24 et 26 mars 1994, ed. Joël Blanchard, postface by Philippe Contamine, 253-78. Paris: Picard, 1995. Jonynas, Ignas. Lietuvos didieji kunigaikščiai (The grand dukes of Lithuania). Comp. Vytautas Merkys. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1996. Jovaišas, Albinas. “Augustino Rotundo Lietuvos valstybės vizija” (Augustinus Rotundus’ vision of Lithuanian statehood). In Šešioliktojo amžiaus raštija, ed. Sigitas Narbutas. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 5, 75-88. Vilnius: pradai, 2000. ———. “Trumpojo Lietuvos metraščių sąvado literatūrinės ypatybės ir paslaptys” (The literary characteristics and secrets of the short collection of Lithuanian annals). In Metraščiai ir kunigaikščių laiškai (Annals and the letters of the dukes), ed. Donata Linčiuvienė. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 4, 222-61. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1996. Jučas, Mečislovas. “Neįvykusi Vytauto karūnacija” (The failed coronation of Vytautas). Naujasis židinys 12 (1994): 33-40. ———. “Vytautas ir čekų husitai” (Vytautas and Czech Hussites). In Vytautas Didysis ir Lietuva (Vytautas the Great and Lithuania), 43-53. Vilnius: Vilniaus Vytautų klubas and Žara, 1997. ———. “Žemaičių byla Konstancos bažnytiniame susirinkime” (Samogitian Proceedings in the Church Meeting of Constanza). Lietuvių Katalikų Mokslo Akademijos metraštis 16 (2000): 21-34. ———. Lietuvos ir Lenkijos unija (XIV a. vid. – XIX a. pr.) (The PolishLithuanian Union (from the mid-fourteenth until the beginning of the nineteenth century). Vilnius: aidai, 2000. ———. Lietuvos metraščiai (The Lithuanian annals). Vilnius: Vaga, 1968. ———. Žalgirio mūšis (The battle of Grunwald). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1990. Jurgelėnaitė, Rasa. “The Impact of the Italian Poetic Tradition in Lithuania.” In Acta conventus Neo-Latini Bariensis. Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Neo-Latin Studies, Bari 29 August to 3 September

306

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

1994, ed. Rhoda Schnur, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies 184, 347-52. Temple, AZ: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1998. Kalamajska-Saeed, Maria. Ostra Brama w Wilnie (The Aušra Gate in Vilnius). Warsaw: PWN, 1990. Kaminsky, Howard. A History of the Hussite Revolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967. Kazhdan, Alexander and Giles Constable. People and Power in Byzantium: An Introduction to Modern Byzantine Studies. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1982. Kiaupa, Zigmantas. “Šviesaus atminimo didžiojo kunigaikščio Vytauto laikai Lietuvos prekyboje” (The times of the blessed memory Vytautas in the Lithuanian trade). In Žalgirio laikų Lietuva ir jos kaimynai (Lithuania and her neighbors at the time of the battle of Grunwald), ed. Rūta Čepaitė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis. Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis 1, 178-86. Vilnius: Academia, 1993. Kitkauskas, Napalys. Vilniaus Arkikatedros požemiai (The Crypts of the Vilnius Cathedral). Vilnius: Kultūra, 1994. Kizilov, Mikhail. “The Arrival of the Karaites (Karaims) to Poland and Lithuania: a Survey of Sources and Critical Analysis of Existing Theories.” Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 12 (2002-2003): 29-45. Klaniczay, Gábor. “Representations of the Evil Ruler in the Middle Ages.” In European Monarchy: Its Evolution and Practice from Roman Antiquity to Modern Times, ed. Heinz Duchhardt, Richard A. Jackson, and David Sturdy, 69-79. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992. Kobeckaitė, Halina. Lietuvos Karaimai (Lithuanian Karaites). Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1997. Kochanowski, J. K. Witold wielki książę Litewski. Studium historyczne (Vytautas the grand duke of Lithuania. A historical study). Lwów: Gubrinowicz i Schmidt, 1900. Kołankowski, Ludwik. Dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego za Jagiellonów (The history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania under the Jagiellonians). Vol. 1, 1377 – 1492. Warsaw: n.p., 1930. Koncius, Joseph B. Vytautas the Great Grand Duke of Lithuania. Miami, FL: The Franklin Press, 1964. Kopytiański, Arian. Michał Zygmuntowicz książe Litewski. Monografia historyczna (Lithuanian Duke Michael, son of Sigismund. A historical monograph). Lwów: Czionkami drukarni Ludowej, 1906. Offprint from Kwartalnik Historyczny 20 (1906).

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

307

Kosman, Marceli. “ ‘Podniesienie’ książąt Litewskich” (The elevation of Lithuanian dukes). Acta Baltico-Slavica 10 (1976): 15-36. ———. “Dokumenty wielkiego ksiecia Witolda” (The documents of Grand Duke Vytautas). Studia Źródloznawcze 16 (1971): 139-69. ———. “Kancelaria wielkiego księcia Witolda” (The chancellery of Grand Duke Vytautas). Studia Źródłoznawcze 14 (1969): 91-119. ———. “Polacy o Litwinach (do połowy XVI wieku)” (Poles about Lithuanians (until the middle of the sixteenth century). In Społeczenstwo Polski średniowiecznej. Zbiór studiów (The society of medieval Poland. A collection of studies). Vol. 3, ed. Stefan K. Kuczyński, 387-428. Warsaw: PWN, 1985. ———. “Pompa funebris w Wilnie doby przedrozbiorowej” (Pompa Funebris in Vilna [Vilnius] in the Pre-partition Period). Lituano-Slavica Poznaniensia. Studia Historica 6 (1994): 131-58. ———. Wielki Książę Witold (Grand Duke Vytautas). Warsaw: Książka i wiedza, 1967. Kowalska-Urbankowa, Zofia. “Unia Polski i Litwy w Latach 1385 – 1413 w najnowszej historiografii Polskiej” (The Polish-Lithuanian Union of the years 1385 – 1413 in the most recent Polish historiography). Analecta Cracoviensia 19 (1987): 207-21. Kozina, Irma and Jan K. Ostrowski, “Chorągwie nagrobne” (Funeral banners). In Sarmatia semper viva. Zbiór studiów oferowany przez przyjaciół prof. D-rowi hab. Tadeuszowi Chrzanowskiemu (Sarmatia semper viva: A collection of studies presented to Prof. Tadeusz Chrzanowski by his friends), 91-137. Warsaw: SHS, 1995. Koziol, Geoffrey. Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1992. Kričinskis, Stanislovas. Lietuvos totoriai. Istorinės ir etnografinės monografijos bandymas (Lithuanian Tatars: an attempt at a historical and ethnographical monograph), trans. Tamara Bairašauskaitė. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1993. Krynen, Jacques. Idéal du prince et pouvoir royal en France à la fin du Moyen Age (1380 – 1440). Étude de la literature politique du temps. Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard, 1981. Królikowski, Tadeusz. “[Recenzja] Kryczyński Stanisław Tatarzy litewscy. Próba monografji historyczno-etnograficznej. Rocznik Tatarski t. III. Warszawa 1938. Str. XVI+318) ([Review] Kryczyński Satnisław …). Ateneum Wileński 13.2 (1938): 299-303.

308

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Kuczyński, Stefan M. Wielka wojna z Zakonem Krzyżackim w latach 1409 – 1411 (The great war with the Teutonic Order in the years 1409 – 1411). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Min. Obrony Narodowej, 1960. Kučinskas, Antanas. Kęstutis. Marijampolė: Sakalas, 1938. Reprint Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988. Kuncevičius, Albinas. “Pirmieji duomenys apie Vytauto laikų Vilniaus Žemutines pilies rūmus” (The first data about the Vilnius Lower Castle’s palace from the period of Vytautas’ reign). In Žalgirio laikų Lietuva ir jos kaimynai (Lithuania and her neighbors at the time of the battle of Grunwald), ed. Rūta Čepaitė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis, 215-39. Acta historica Universitatis Klaipedensis 1. Vilnius: Academia, 1993. Kuolys, Darius. “Tautinės valstybės idėja Lietuvos Renesanso raštuose” (The idea of a national state in the Renaissance texts from Lithuania). Sietynas 5 (1989): 94-112. ———. Asmuo, tauta, valstybė Lietuvos istorinėje literatūroje. Renesansas, Barokas (Personality, nation, and state in the Lithuanian historical literature: Renaissance and Baroque). Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1992. Kurschat, Alexander. “Die Ruinen von Troki.” Altpreussische Monatschrift 41 (1904): 572. La notion de liberté au Moyen Age: Islam, Byzance, Occident. Penn-ParisDumbarton Oaks Colloquia 4, organized by Georg Makdisi, Dominique Sourdel, and Janine Sourdel-Thomine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1985. La violence dans le monde medieval. Published by Centre Universitaire d’Études et de Recherches Médiévales d’Aix, Senefiance 36. Aix-en-Provence: CUER MA Université de Provence, 1994. Ladner, Gerhart B. “I Mosaici e gli affreschi ecclesiastico-politici nell’antico palazzo Lateranense.” Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 12 (1935): 27792. Reprinted in Images and Ideas in the Middle Ages: Selected Studies in History and Art, 346-66. Storia e letteratura, Raccolta di Studie e Testi 155. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letterature, 1983. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline. “Les themes iconographiques profanes dans la peinture monumentale byzantine du VIe au XVe siècle.” In Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio, eds. Antonio Iacobini and Enrico Zanini, 189-219. Rome: Àrgos, 1995. Łapicz, Czesław. Kitab tatarów litewsko-polskich (Paleografia. Grafika. Język) (Khitab of Lithuanian-Polish Tartars. Paleography. Graphy. Language). Toruń: Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika, 1986.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

309

Lappo, Jonas. 1588 metų Lietuvos Statutas (The Lithuanian Statute of 1588). Vol. 2, Tekstai (The texts). Kaunas: “Spindulio” bendrovės spaustuvė, 1938. Lauchert, Friedrich. “Materialen zur Geschichte der Kaiserprophetie im Mittelalter.” Historishes Jahrbuch 19 (1898): 844-72. Lazutka, Stanislovas and Edwardas Gudavichus. Privilegija evrejam Vitautasa Velikogo 1388 goda / Privilege to Jews Granted by Vytautas the Great in 1388. Moscow and Jerusalem: Jewish University in Moscow, 1993. Lazutka, Stanislovas. Lietuvos statutai, jų kūrėjai ir epocha (The Lithuanian Statutes: their authors and epoque). Kaunas: n.p., 1994. Le Goff, Jacques. Saint Louis. Paris: Gallimard, 1996. Les lieux de mémoire. Under direction of Pierre Nora, 3 vols. in 3 parts. [Paris]: Gallimard, 1984-86. Lestringant, Frank. André Thevet, Cosmographe des derniers Valois. Genève: Libraire Droz, 1991. Lietuviškoji tarybinė emciklopedija (Lithuanian Soviet encyclopaedia). 13 vols. Vilnius: Mokslas, 1976-85. Lietuvių enciklopedija (The Lithuanian encyclopaedia). 37 vols. Boston, MA: Lietuvių enciklopedijos leidykla, 1953-85. Lietuvos istorijos paminklai / Monuments of Lithuanian History. Comp. Birutė Kulnytė Vilnius: Mintis, 1990. Lietuvos TSR istorijos ir kultūros paminklų sąvadas (The code of the historical and cultural monuments of the Lithuanian SSR). Vol. 1, Vilnius. Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija, 1988. Lifshin, L.I. Monumental’naya zhivopis’ Novgoroda XIV-XV vekov (Mural painting in Novgorod in the fourteenth-fifteenth century). Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1987. Likhachev, D. S. Razvitie russkoy literatury X – XVII vekov. Epokhi i stili (The development of Russian literature: Epoques and styles). Leningrad: Nauka, 1973. ———. Russkie letopisi i ikh kulturno-istoricheskoe znachenie (Russian annals and their cultural and historical meaning). Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1947. Lowmiański, Henryk. Witold Wielki Książę Litewski (Vytautas the grand duke of Lithuania). Wilno: Wydawnictwo komitetu obchodu pięćsetnej rocznicy zgonu wielkiego księcia Witolda, 1930. Reprint, Lituano-Slavica Poznaniensia. Studia Historica 7 (1995): 19-71.

310

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Lukšaitė, Ingė. Reformacija Lietuvos Didžiojoje Kunigaikštystėje ir Mažojoje Lietuvoje. XVI a. trečiasis dešimtmetis – XVII a. pirmasis dešimtšmetis (The reformation in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Lesser Lithuania: third decade of the sixteenth – first decade of the seventeenth century). Vilnius: baltos lankos, 1999. Mačiukas, Žydrūnas. “Teisinis Vytauto karūnacijos ginčas” (The Legal Conflict of the Coronation of Vytautas). In Lietuvos valstybė, XII – XVIII a., ed. Zigmantas Kiaupa and Arturas Mickevičius, 271-83. Vilnius: Lietuvos Istorijos institutas, 1997. Mačiulis, Dangiras. “Vytauto Didžiojo metų (1930) kampanijos prasmė” (The Reasons for Vytautas the Great to Be Made a National Hero). Lituanistica 2 (2001): 54-75. Magdalino, Paul. The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143 – 1180. Cambridge: University Press, 1993. Mayasova, I. Ya. Drevnerusskoe shit’e (Old Russian textiles). Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1971. Mayasova, N. A. “Obraz prepodobnogo Sergiya Radonezhzkogo v drevnerusskom shit’e (K voprosu ob ikonografii)” (Image of the blessed Sergius of Radonezh in old Russian embroidery (Concerning the issue of iconography)). In Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Sergii Radonezhskii i khudozhestvennaya kul’tura Moskvy XIV – XV vv. (Old Russian Art: Sergius of Radonezh and the artistic culture of Moscow in the fourteenth – fifteenth centuries), 40-53. St. Petersburg: Dmitrii Bulanin, 1998. Majeska, George P. “Russia’s Perception of Byzantium after the Fall.” In The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe, ed. Lowell Clucas. East European Monographs 230, 19-31. New York: Boulder and Columbia University Press, 1988. Matušakaitė, Marija. Portretas XVI-XVIII a. Lietuvoje (The portrait in the sixteenth-eighteenth-century Lithuania). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1984. Mažeika, Rasa. “Was Grand Prince Algirdas a Greek-Orthodox Christian?” Lituanus 30.4 (1987): 35-55. McCormick, Michael. Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Paris: Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, 1990. McGinn, Bernard. “The Hussite Movement.” In Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages, 259-69. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

311

Meyendorff, John. “Was There Ever a ‘Third Rome’? Remarks on the Byzantine Legacy in Russia.” In The Byzantine Tradition after the Fall of Constantinople, ed. John J. Yiannias, 45-60. Charlottesville and London: University Press of Virginia, 1991. Mickūnaitė, Giedrė. “A Medieval Parade ?” In … The Man of Many Devices, Who Wandered Full many Ways … Festschrift in Honour of János M. Bak, ed. Balázs Nagy and Marcell Sebők, 277-80. Budapest: CEU Press, 1999. ———. “Bizantija ir Lietuvos Didžioji kunigaikštystė: įtakos, skoliniai, idėjos. Du pavyzdžiai: Trakų salos pilies rūmų sieninė tapyba ir ‘Vytauto pagyrimas’,” (Byzantium and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Influences, Borrowings, Ideas. Two Case Studies: The Wall-Paintings from the Palace of Trakai Island-Castle and the ‘Panegyric to Vytautas’). In Paveikslas ir knyga: LDK dailės tyrimai ir šaltiniai (Image and book: sources and research into the art of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), ed. Tojana Račiūnaitė, Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 25, 9-36. Vilnius: Dailės akademijos leidykla, 2002. ———. “Features of Royalty at the Court of Mindaugas and His Successors.” In Istorija ir elitinės kultūros teigtys (History and manifestations of élite culture), 5-29. Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai / Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 14. Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 1998. ———. “From Pamphlet to Origin Theory: The Establishment of the Lithuanian Dynastic Tradition.” In The Medieval Chronicle II. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Medieval Chronicle Driebergen/ Utrecht 16-21 July 1999, ed. Erik Kooper, Costerus New Series 144, 15665. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2002. ———. “Išrankioji atmintis arba prisiminimai apie Vytautą, ‘galingiausią ir žiauriausią valdovą, kurį Lietuva yra turėjusi” (The selective memory or reminiscenses about Vytautas, ‘the most powerful and the cruelest ruler that Lithuania ever had’). In Tipas ir individas LDK kultūroje (Type and individual in the culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), eds. Tojana Račiūnaitė and Jolita Liškevičienė, 109-26 Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai / Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 24. Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2002. ———. “Motiejus Stryjkowskis apie Lucko suvažiavimą. Tekstas, vaizdas, kontekstas” (Maciej Stryjkowski on the meeting in Lutsk: Text, image, context), in Vaizdas ir pasakojimas (Image and narrative), ed. Ieva Pleikienė, Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai / Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 26, 7-23. Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2002.

312

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

———. “Ruler, Protector, and a Fairy Prince: The Everlasting Deeds of Grand Duke Vytautas as Related by the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites.” In Oral History of the Middle Ages: The Spoken Word in Context, ed. Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter, 79-87. Krems and Budapest: Medium Aevum Quotidianum and CEU Medievalia, 2001. Mikulionis, Stanislovas and Vytautas Levandauskas. “Trakų pilių ir miesto ikonografija Krokuvos Tautiniame muziejuje” (The iconography of the city and the castles of Trakai in the National Museum of Krakow). Architektūros paminklai 13 (1993): 61-73. Mikulionis, Stanislovas. “Dėl Vytauto portretų Trakų bažnyčiose” (Concerning the portraits of Vytautas in the churches of [Old and New] Trakai). Kultūros barai 2 (1989): 55-6. Miškinienė, Galina. Seniausi Lietuvos Totorių rankraščiai. Grafika. Transliteracija. Vertimas. Tekstų struktūra ir turinys / Drevneishye rukopisi litovskikh tatar (Grafika. Transliteratsiya. Perevod. Struktura i soderzhanie tekstov (The oldest manuscripts of the Lithuanian Tatars: Graphics, transliteration, translation, the structure and content of texts). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2001. Myth and Mythmaking. Ed. Henry A. Murray. Boston: Beacon Press, 1960. Möbius, Helga. Passion und Auferstehung in Kultur und Kunst des Mittelalters. Vienna: Edition Tusch, 1979. Morse, Ruth. Truth and Convention in the Middle Ages: Rhetoric, Representation, and Reality. Cambridge, NY, Port Chester, Melbourne, and Sydney: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Muchliński, A. “O Tatarach Litewskich” (About the Lithuanian Tatars). Teka Wileńska 5 (1858): 241-72. Mühlethaler, Jean-Claude. “Le tyrant à table: Intertextualité et reference dans l’invective politique à l’époque de Charles VI.” In Représentations pouvoir et royauté à la fin du Moyen Âge. Actes du Colloque organise par l’Université du Main les 25 et 26 mars 1994, ed. Joël Blanchard with a preface by Philippe Contamine, 49-62. Paris: Picard, 1995. Mukhlinski, A. Izledovamie o proiskhozhdenii i sostoyanii Litovskikh tatar (A study of the origins and the current state of the Lithuanian Tatars. St. Petersburg: v tipografii Eduarda Veimara, 1857. Reprint Minsk: Adradzhen’ne, 1993. Murray, Alexander. Suicide in the Middle Ages. Vol. 2, A Curse on Self-Murder. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

313

Narbutienė, Daiva. Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos lotyniškoji knyga, XV – XVII a. (Latin books in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the fifteenth–seventeenth century). Senosios literatūros studijos. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 2004. Nastase, Dimitri. “Imperial Claims in the Romanian Principalities from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries. New Contributions.” In The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe. Ed. Lowell Clucas. East European Monographs 230, 185-224. New York: Boulder and Columbia University Press, 1988. Nederman, Cary J. “The Changing Face of Tyranny: The Reign of King Stephen in John of Salisbury’s Political Thought.” Nottingham Medieval Studies 33 (1989): 1-20. Reprint, Nederman, Cary J. Medieval Aristotelianism and its Limits: Classical Traditions in Moral and Political Philosophy 12th – 15th Centuries, V. Aldershot, UK: Variorum, 1997. Nikodem, Jarosław. “Spory o koronację wielkiego księcia Litwy Witolda w latach 1429 – 1430. Częcz II. Próba rekonstrukcji wydarzeń” (Disputes over the Coronation of Grand Duke of Lithuania Witold [Vytautas] in the Years 1429 – 1430. Part II. An Attempt at a Reconstruction of Events). Lituano-Slavica Poznaniensia. Studia Historica 7 (1997): 155-77. ———. “Spory o koronację wielkiego księcia Litwy Witolda w latach 1429–1430. Część I. ‘Burza koronacyjna’ w relacji Jana Długosza” (Disputes over the Coronation of Grand Duke of Lithuania Witold [Vytautas] in the Years 1429–1430. Part I. ‘The Coronation Storm’ as Reported by Jan Długosz). Lituano-Slavica Poznaniensia. Studia Historica 6 (1994): 55-75. Nikžentaitis, Alvydas. “Kunigaikščiai XII amžiaus Baltijos kraštų visuomenėse” (Die Fürsten in der Geselschaften Baltikums des 13. Jahrhunderts). In Lietuva ir jos kaimynai. Nuo normanų iki Napoleono. Prof. Broniaus Dundulio atminimui (Lithuania and her neighbors: From the Normans until Napoleon. To the memory of Prof. Bronius Dundulis), eds. Irena Valikonytė, Elmantas Meilus, and Arturas Mickevičius, 67-81. Vilnius: Vaga, 2001. ———. “LDK kultūrinės tradicijos praradimas: Vytauto Didžiojo kultas Lietuvoje XV-XX a.” (The Loss of a Cultural Tradition from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: The Vytautas Cult in Lithuania XV-XX Centuries). In Senosios raštijos ir tautosakos sąveika: kultūrinė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės patirtis (The Interaction of Old Literature and Folklore: Cultural Experience of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), 324-34, ed. Rita

314

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Repšiene, Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 6. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998. ———. Vytauto ir Jogailos įvaizdis Lietuvos ir Lenkijos visuomenėse (The image of Vytautas and Jogaila in the societies of Lithuania and Poland). Vilnius: aidai, 2002. ———. Witold i Jagiełło: Polacy i Litwini we wzajemnej stereotype (Vytautas and Jagiełło [Jogaila]: Poles and Lithuanians in Mutual Stereotypes). Poznań: Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk, 2000. Nora, Pierre. “ La notion de ‘lieu de mémoire’ est-elle exportable.” In Lieux de mémoire et identités nationales, ed. Pim den Boer and Willem Frijhoff, 3-10. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1993. Novikov, Yurii. “Epicheskaya pamiat’ o Velikom Kniazhestve Litovskom: Litva i litovtsy v russkom fol’klore” (The epic memory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: Lithuania and Lithuanians in Russian folklore). Senosios raštijos ir tautosakos sąveika: kultūrinė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės patirtis (The Interaction of Old Literature and Folklore: Cultural Experience of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), 28-50, ed. Rita Repšiene, Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 6. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998. Nowak-Dłużewski, Juliusz. Okolicnościowa poezja polityczna w Polsce. Czasy Zygmuntowskie (Occasional political poetry in Poland: the Sigismundian times). Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, 1966. ———. Okolicnościowa poezja polityczna w Polsce. Średniowiecze (The occasional political poetry in Poland: the Middle Ages). Warsaw: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax, 1963. Obolensky, Dimitri. “A Philorhomaios anthropos: Metropolitan Cyprian of Kiev and All Russia (1375-1406).” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 32 (1978): 79-98. Reprint, The Byzantine Inheritance of Eastern Europe, XI. London: Variorum Reprints, 1982. ———. “Some Notes Concerning a Byzantine Portrait of John VIII Palaeologus.” Eastern Churches Review 4 (1972): 141-146. Reprint, The Byzantine Inheritance of Eastern Europe, X. London: Variorum Reprints, 1982. Ochmański, Jerzy. “Michałon Litwin i jego traktat o zwyczajach Tatarów, Litwinów i Moskwicinów z połowy XVI wieku” (Michalonus Lituanus and his treatise on the habits of Tatars, Lithuanians, and Muscovites [dating] from the middle of the sixteenth century). Kwartalnik Historyczny 83.4 (1976): 765-83.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

315

———. Biskupstwo wileńskie w średniowieciu. Ustrój i uposazenie (The bishopric of Vilnius in the Middle Ages: structure and functioning). Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Wydzial Flozoficzno-historyczny. Seria historia 55. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 1972. ———. Powstanie i rozwój latyfundium biskupstwa wileńskiego (1387-1550) (The establishment and development of latifundium of the bishopric of Vilnius, 1387-1550). Ze studiów nad rozwojem wielkiej wlasności na Litwie i Bialorusi w średniowieczu. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 1963. Ottosen, Knud. The Responsories and Versicles of the Latin Office of the Dead. Copenhagen: Aarhus University Press, 1993. Pacaut, Marcel. Frédéric Barberousse. London: Collins, 1970. Pace, Valentino. “Immagini sacre nei programmi figurativi della Roma altomedievale (V – IX secolo): liveli di percezione e di fruizione.” In Les images dans les sociétés médievales: Pour une histoire comparée, ed. Jean-Claude Schmitt and Jean–Marie Sansterre, Bulletin de l’Institute Historique Belge du Rome 69, 41-59. Rome and Brussels: Brepols Publishers, 1999. Pełczyński, Grzegorz. Najmniejsza mniejszość. Rzecz o Karaimach polskich (The smallest minority: A study of Polish Karaites). Warsaw: Stanisław Kryciński and Towarzystwo Karpackie, 1995. Pennington, Kenneth. The Prince and the Law, 1200 – 1600: Sovereignty and Rights in the Western Legal Tradition. Berkeley, Los Angeles, and Oxford: University of California Press, 1993. Peter the Great and the West: New Perspectives, ed. Lindsley Hughes. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001. Petrauskas, Rimvydas. “Giminaičiai ir pavaldiniai: Lietuvos bajorų grupės XIV a. pabaigoje – XV a. I pusėje” (Relatives and subjects: the groups of Lithuanian boyars at the end of the fourteenth – first half of the fifteenth century). In Lietuva ir jos kaimynai: Nuo Normanų iki Napoleono. Prof. Broniaus Dundulio atminimui (Lithuania and Her Neighbors: From the Normans until Napoleon. In memory of Prof. Bronius Dundulis), ed. Irena Valikonytė et al., 107-26. Vilnius: Vaga, 2001. ———. Lietuvos diduomenė XIV a. pabaigoje – XV a. Sudėtis – struktūra – valdžia (Lithuanian nobility at the end of the fourteenth and in the fifteenth century. Composition – structure – rule). Vilnius: aidai, 2003.

316

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

———. “Vytauto dvaras: struktūra ir kasdienybė” (The court of Vytautas: structure and everyday life). Naujasis židinys 1-2 (2003): 39-44. Pfitcneris, Jozefas. Didysis Lietuvos kunigaikštis Vytautas kaip politikas (Grand Duke Vytautas as a politician). Ed. Jonas Yčas, trans. J. Talmantas. Kaunas: n.p., 1930. Reprint introduced by Mečislovas Jučas, Vilnius: Mintis, 1989. Pfitzner, Josef. Grosfürst Witold von Litauen als Staatsmann. Schriften der Philosophischen Fakultät der Deutschen Universität in Prag 6. Brno, Prague, Leipzig, Vienna: Roher, 1930. Pieradzka, Krystyna. “Bitwa Grunwaldzka w obcych relacjach kronikarskich (Pruskich, Ślaskich i Zachodnioeuropejskich)” (The battle of Grunwald in general accounts of the chronicles (Prussian, Silesian, and Western European). Małopolskie Studia Historyczne 3.1/2 (1960): 51-65. Piltz, Elisabeth. “Costume in Life and Death in Byzantium.” In Byzans och Norden: Akta för Nordiska forskarkursen i bysantinsk konstvenskap 1986, ed. Elisabeth Piltz, 153-59. Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Figura n.s. 23. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1989. ———. Le costume officiel des dignitaires byzantins à l’époque Paléologue. Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Figura n.s. 26. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994. ———. Trois sakkoi byzantines: analyse iconographigue. Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Figura n.s. 17. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1976. Pletnia, Robert. “Działalność wielkiego księcia Witolda na północno-wschodnich obrzeżach państwa Litewskiego w latach 1404-1408” (The Policies of Grand Duke Vytautas (Witold) in Lithuania’s North-Eastern Frontier in 1404-1408). Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwessytetu Jagiellońskiego 1219, Prace Historyczne 125 (1998): 17-33. Pociecha, Władysław. Królowa Bona (1494 – 1557) (Queen Bona (1494 – 1557)). 4 vols. Czasy i ludzie Odrodzienia. Poznań: Towarzystwo Przyjaciól Nauk, 1949-58. Poe, Marshall. Foreign Descriptions of Muscovy: An Analytical Bibliography of Primary and Secondary Sources. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, 1995. Polski słownik biograficzny (The Polish dictionary of biographies). Vol. 1- . Krakow: Nakładem Polskiej Akademiji Umiejiętności, 1935 - . Popovich, Ljubica D. “Personifications in Paleologan Painting (1261 – 1453).” Ph.D. dissertation Bryn Mawr College. Washington, D. C., 1963.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

317

Pritsak, Omeljan. “Kiev and All Rus’: The Fate of a Sacral Idea.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 10 (1986): 279-300. Prochaska, A. “Trefniś Henne u Witołda” (Fool Henne at Vytautas). Przewodnik Naukowy i Literacki 8.7 (1880): 653-64. ———. “Długosz o Witołdzie” (Długosz about Vytautas). Przewodnik Naukowy i Litercki 8 (1880): 860-80. ———. “Markward Salzbach. Z dziejów Litwy 1384 – 1410” (Margrave of Salzbach: from the Lithuanian history of 1384 – 1410). Przegląd Historyczny 9 (1909): 12-28, 121-32. ———. “Nieznany akt homogenialny Witolda” (Unknown document of Vytautas’ submission). Kwartalnik Historyczny 9 (1895): 233-38. ———. “Zjazd monarchów w Lucku” (The meeting of the monarchs at Lutsk), Przewodnik Naukowy i Literacki 1 (1873); 2 (1874): 187-201; 57-68 ———. “Znaczenie niedoszlej koronacji Witolda” (The meaning of the failed coronation of Vytautas). Ateneum Wileńskie 1 (1923): 337-51. ———. Dzieje Witolda, w. ks. Litwy (The deeds of Vytautas, the grand duke of Lithuania). Wilno: Rutkowski, 1914. ———. Ostatnie lata Witolda. Studium z intrygi dyplomatycznej (The last years of Vytautas. A study of diplomatic intrigue). Warsaw: Nakład Gebethnera i Wolffa, 1882. Purc, Jerzy. “Itinerarium Witolda wielkiego ksiecia Litwy, 17 lutego 1370 roku – 27 pazdziernika 1430 roku” (The itinerary of Vytautas, the grand duke of Lithuania, 17 November 1370 – 27 October 1430). Zeszczyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu. Historia 11 (1971): 71-115. Radziszewska, Julia. “Nieznany opis arrasów z wieku XVI” (Unknown description of tapestries from the sixteenth century). Rocznik Krakowski 49 (1978): 27-36. ———. Maciej Stryjkowski. Historyk-poeta z epoki Odrodzienia (Maciej Stryjkowski: historian and poet of the Renaissance). Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Śląskiego w Katowicach 208. Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski, 1978. Ragauskienė, Raimonda. “Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis XVI amžiaus panegirinėje literatūroje” (Mikalojus Radvila Rudasis in the Occasional Literature of the 16th Century). Lituanistica 2 (1996): 38-54. Ragone, Giuseppe. “Membrana Maxima: Cristophoro dei Buondelmonti, Vytautas of Lithuania and the First Modern Map of Constantinople,”

318

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

trans. Stephen C. Rowell. In Lietuva ir jos kaimynai: Nuo Normanų iki Napoleono. Prof. Broniaus Dundulio atminimui (Lithuania and her Neighbours: From the Normans until Napoleon. In memory of Prof. Bronius Dundulis), ed. Irena Valikonytė et al., 150-87. Vilnius: Vaga, 2001. Raudeliūnas, V. and R. Firkovičius. “Teisinė karaimų padėtis Lietuvoje (XIV – XVIII a.)” (Karaite legal situation in Lithuania (fourteenth – eighteenth century)). Socialistinė teisė 4 (1975): 48-53. Realms of Memory: Rethinking the French Past. Under direction of Pierre Nora, trans. Arthur Goldhammer. 3 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996-98. Rimša, E. “Venclovas Agripa ir jo giminė (1. Kilmė ir pirmtakai)” (Venclovas Agrippa and his family (1. The origin and predecessors)).” Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A 1 (1986): 68-70. ———. “Venclovas Agripa ir jo giminė (2. Agripų giminė)” (Venclovas Agrippa and his family (2. The Agrippa family)). Lietuvos TSR Mokslų Akademijos darbai. Serija A 2 (1986): 42-54. Ročka, Marcelinas. “Algirdo laiškas Konstantinopolio patriarchui” (The letter of Algirdas to the patriarch of Constantinople). In Metraščiai ir kunigaikščių laiškai (Annals and the letters of the dukes), ed. Donata Linčiuvienė, 193-204. Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 4. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1996). ———. Mykolas Lietuvis (Michalonus Lituanus). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1988. Rosmini, Carlo de’. Vita di Francesco Filelfo da Tolentino. Milan: Presso Luigi Mussi, 1808. Rowell, S. C. “A Pagan’s Word: Lithuanian Diplomatic Procedure 1200 – 1385.” Journal of Medieval History 18 (1990): 145-160. ———. “Bears and Traitors, or: Political Tensions in the Grand Duchy, ca. 1440 – 1481.” Lithuanian Historical Studies 2 (1997): 28-55. ———. “Custom, Rites and Power in Mediaeval and Early Modern Lithuanian Society.” In Kultūrų sankirtos. Skiriama doc. dr. Ingės Lukšaitės 60mečiui (The intersections of cultures. Presented on the sixtieth birthday Ingė Lukšaitė), comp. Zigmantas Kiaupa, Jūratė Kiaupienė, Edmundas Rimša, and Jolita Sarcevičienė, 46-65. Lietuvos istorijos institutas. Vilnius: Diemedžio leidykla, 2000. ———. “Gediminaičių dinastinė politika Žemaitijoje 1350 – 1430 m.” (The dynastic politics of the Gediminids in Samogitia in 1350 – 1430). Žemaičių praeitis 2, eds. A. Butrimas and V. Vaivada, 125-36. Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidykla, 1994.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

———. Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295 – 1345, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought 4.25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. ———. “Lietuva, tėvyne mūsų? Tam tikrų XVI a. LDK raštijų pavyzdžiai” (Lithuania Our Ancestral Home? Variations on a Theme from Certain 16th-Century Literary Traditions). In Senosios raštijos ir tautosakos sąveika: kultūrinė Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės patirtis (The Interaction of Old Literature and Folklore: Cultural Experience of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), ed. Rita Repšiene, Senoji Lietuvos literatūra 6, 123-37. Vilnius: Lietuvių literatūros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998. ———. “Piuos Princesses or the Daughters of Belial: Pagan Lithuanian Dynastic Diplomacy, 1279 – 1423.” Medieval Prosopography 15.1 (1994): 3-80. Różycka-Bryzek, Anna. “Niezachowane malowidła ‘Graeco opere’ z czasów Władysława Jagiełły” (The lost ‘Graeco opere’ paintings from the times of Ladislas Jogaila). Analecta Cracoviensia 19 (1989): 307-17. ———. Bizantyńsko-ruskie malowidla w kaplicy zamku lubelskiego (The Byzantine-Russian Wall-Paintings in the Chapel of Lublin Castle) (Warsaw: PWN, 1983). Rusyna, Olena V. “On the Kyivan Princely Tradition from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Centuries.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 18 (1994): 175-90. Safragaliev, M. G. Raspad Zolotoi Ordy (The collapse of the Golden Horde). Saransk: Mordovskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1960. Reprint, Na styke kontinentov i tsivilizatsii… Iz opyta obrazovaniya i rasspada imperii X – XVI vv. (At the intersection of continents and civilizations… From the experience of formation and collapse of empires of the tenth – sixteenth centuries), comp. I. B. Muslinov, 277-526. Moscow: Isnan, 1996. Sajkowski, Alojzy. Od Sierotki do Rybeńki: w kręgu Radziwiłłowskiego mecenatu (From the Orphan to the Fish: in the circle of Radvilas’ patronage). Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie, 1965. Samuel, Raphael. Theatres of Memory. Vol. 1, Past and Present in Contemporary Culture. London and New York: Verso, 1999. Sarnowsky, Jürgen. “The Teutonic Order Confronts Mongols and Turks.” In The Military Orders: Fighting for the Faith and Caring for the Sick, ed. Malcolm Barber, 253-62. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Variorum, 1994. Schama, Simon. Landscape & Memory. London: Fontana Press, 1996. Schmieder, Felicitas. Europa und die Fremden: die Mongolen im Urteil des Abendlandes vom 13. bis das 15. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zur Geschichte

320

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

und Quellenkunde des Mittlelalaters 16, ed. Horst Fuhrmann. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1994. Schramm, Percy Ernst. Die deutschen Kaiser un Könige im Bildern ihrer Zeit, 751 – 1190. Ed. Florentine Mütherich, new edition with collaboration of Peter Berghaus, Nikolaus Gussone, and Florentine Mütherich. Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1983. Schulz, Anne Markham. Giammaria Mosca called Padovano: a Renaissance Sculptor in Italy and Poland. 2 vols. University Park, PN: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. Segel, Harold B. Renaissance Culture in Poland: The Rise of Humanism, 1470-1543. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1989. Semkowicz, Władysław. Sfragistyka Witołda. Krakow: n.p., 1931. Offprint from Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne 13 (1930): 65-86. Sheppard, L. A. A Fifteenth-Century Humanist Francesco Filelfo. London: The Biographical Society, 1935. Skrupskelis, Ig. “Vytautas Didysis vokiečių literatūroje” (Vytautas the Great in the German literature). Atheneum 1 (1930): 86-106. Skurvydaitė, Loreta. “Lietuvos valdovo titulatūra: kada Vytautas ima tituluotis Didžiuoju kunigaikščiu?” (Title of Lithuanian Ruler Vytautas: When Did Vytautas Start to Title Himself as the Grand Duke?). Lietuvos istorijos studijos 8 (2000): 9-19. ———. “Political Analysis of the Seals of Grand Dukes’ During Vytautas’ Reign: Iconographical and Historical Research.” M.A. thesis in Medieval Studies, Central European University. Budapest, 1994. Słownik geograficzny królestwa Polskiego i innych krajów slowiańskich (The geographic dictionary of the Kingdom of Poland and other Slavic countries). Warsaw: Wiek, 1893. Sobczak, Jacek. “Z problemtyki położenia prawnego ludności tatarskiej w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim” (Some Problems of the Legal Situation of the Tatar Population in the Great Duchy of Lithuania). Lituano-Slavica Poznaniensia. Studia Historica 2 (1987): 212-26. ———. Położenie prawnie ludności tatarskiej w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim (Legal situation of the Tatar people in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) Poznańskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk. Wydział Historii I Nauk Społecznych, Prace Komisji Hystorycznej 38. Warsaw and Poznań: PWN, 1984. Specula principum. Ed. Angela De Benedicti and Annamaria Pisapua. Ius Communae: Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Eu-

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

321

ropäisched Rechtsgeschichte. Sonderhefte: Studien zur Europäischen Rechtsgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 1999. Spiegel, Gabrielle M. The Past as Text: The Theory of Medieval Historiography. Parallax: Re-Visions of Culture and Society, ed. Stephan G. Nichols, Gerald Prince, and Wendy Steiner. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Stejskal, Jan. “Jerome of Prague and the End of the Old World,” M.A. Thesis in Medieval Studies, Central European University. Budapest, 1994. Stepaniv, Jaroslav. “L’époque de Danylo Romanovyć (mileu du XIIIe siécle) d’apres une source Karaïte.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 2.3 (1978): 33473. Studia porównacze o literaturze staropolskiej (Comparative studies in old Polish literature), ed. Teresa Michałowska and Jan Śaski. Wrocław, Warsaw, Krakow, and Gdańsk: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 1980. Sucheni-Grabowska, Anna. Zygmunt August król Polski i wielki księżę litewski 1520 – 1576 (Sigismund Augustus king of Poland and grand duke of Lithuania, 1520 – 1576). Warsaw: Krupski i S-ka, 1996. Svirin, A. I. Drevnerusskoe shit’e (Old Russian textiles). Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1963 Szyszman, A. “Osadnictwo karaimskie i tatarskie na ziemiach W. Księstwa Litewskiego” (Tatar and Karaite settlement in the lands of the G[rand] Duchy of Lithuania). Myśl karaimska 10 (1932/34): 29-37. ———. “Osadnictwo karaimskie w Trokach za Wielkich Książąt Litewskich” (Karaite settlement in Trakai during the reigns of the Lithuanian grand dukes) . Myśl karaimska 11 (1935/36): 40-69. Szyszman, Simon. “Die Karäer in Ost-Mitteleuropa.” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung 6 (1957): 24-54. ———. “Gustaf Peringers Mission bei den Karäen.” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen gesellschaft 27 (1952): 215-28. ———. Les Karaïtes d’Europe. Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis: Studia Multiethnica Upsaliensia 7, ed. Harald Runblom. Uppsala: Centre d’études multiethniques de l’Université de Upsal, 1989. Šapoka, A. “Jeronimas Pragiškis ir jo kelionė Lietuvon” (Jerome of Prague and his trip to Lithuania). Praeitis 2 (1933): 252-90. ———. “Vytauto vieta mūsų istorijoj” (The place of Vytautas in our history). In Vytautas Didysis (Vytautas the Great), ed. P. Šležas, 267-93. Kaunas: “Sakalo” bendrovė, 1930. Reprint, Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija, 1988.

322

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

Šiaučiūnaitė, Jurgita. “Stereotipų siena: žydai nežydiškoje LDK visuomenėje” (The wall of stereotypes: Jews in non-Jewish society of the GDL). Naujasis židinys 9/10 (2000): 468-72. ———. “Žydai” (The Jews). In Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštijos kultūra. Tyrinėjimai ir vaizdai (The culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: investigations and images), comp. Vytautas Ališauskas, Liudas Jovaiša, Mindaugas Paknys, Rimvydas Petrauskas, and Eligijus Raila, 796-809. Vilnius: aidai, 2001. Šiaučiūnaitė-Verbickienė, Jurgita. “Ką rado Trakuose Žiliberas de Lanua, arba kas yra Trakų žydai” (Whom did Ghillebert of Lannoy discover in Trakai and who were the Jews of Trakai?).” Lietuvos istorijos studijos 7 (1999): 28-37. Šidlauskas, Rimantas. “Lietuvių kovos su kryžiuočiais jėzuitų teatre” (The battles between Lithuanians and the crusaders in the Jesuit theater). In Žalgirio laikų Lietuva ir jos kaimynai (Lithuania and her neighbours at the time of the battle of Grunwald), ed. Rūta Čepaitė and Alvydas Nikžentaitis. Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis 1, 152-62. Vilnius: Academia, 1993. Šinkūnaitė, Laima. “Garbingasis Trakų Dievo Motinos paveikslas ir jo sekimai” (The Honorable Image of the Mother of God in Trakai and its Immitations). Logos 26 (2001): 149-158. ———. Lietuva – Marijos žemė (Lithuania the land of Virgin Mary). Marijampolė: Ardor, 1993. ———. XVII a. Lietuvos portretas (The portrait in seventeenth-century Lithuania), Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai / Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 19. Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2000. Širmulis, Alfredas. “Vytauto Didžiojo portretai” (The portraits of Vytautas the Great). In Europos dailė: lietuviškieji variantai (European art: the Lithuanian versions), comp. A. Aleksandravičiūtė. Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis / Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai, 55-64. Vilnius: Leidybos centras, 1994. Šmahel, František. “Das zerbrochene Szepter des böhmischen Königs. Eine ikonographische Marginalie zu den Beziehungen des hussitischen Böhmens zum Reich.” In Zur politischen Präsentation und Allegorie im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Otto-von-Freising-Vorlesungen der Katholischen Universität Eichstätt 9, published by Gesichts- und Gesellschaftswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Katolischen Universität Eichstätt, 39-75 München: R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1994.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

323

Tanner, Marie. The Last Descendant of Aeneas: The Hapsburgs and the Mythic Image of the Emperor. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1993. Tęgowski, Jan. “Czy Kiejstut Giedyminowic był dwukrotnie żonaty?” (Was Kiejstut [Kęstutis] Giedyminowic Married Twice?). Przegląd Wschodni 5.3 (1998): 399-412. ———. Pierwsze pokolenia Giedyminowiczów (The first generations of the Gediminids). Biblioteka Genealogiczna, ed. Marek Górny, vol. 2. Poznań and Wrocław: Wydawnictwo historyczne, 1999. The Byzantine Legacy in Eastern Europe. Ed. Lowell Clucas. East European Monographs 230. New York: Boulder and Columbia University Press, 1988. The Historical Imagination in Early Modern Britain: History, Rhetoric, and Fiction 1500 – 1800. Ed. Donald R. Kelley and David Harris Sacks. Woodrow Wilson Center Series Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. The Invention of Tradition. Ed. Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. The Myths We Live By. Ed. Ralph Samuel and Paul Thompson. London and New York: Routledge, 1993. Thompson, Francis. J. “The Corpus of Slavonic Translations in Muscovy: The Cause of Old Russia’s Intellectual Silence and a Contributory Factor to Muscovite Cultural Autarky.” In Christianity and the Eastern Slavs. Vol. 1, Slavic Cultures in The Middle Ages, ed. Boris Gasparov and Olga Raevsky-Hughes, 179-214. California Slavic Studies 16. Berkeley, LA, and Oxford: University of California Press, 1993. ———. “The Intellectual Silence of Early Russia.” In Christianity and the Eastern Slavs I: Slavic Cultures in the Middle Ages, eds. B Gasparov and O. Raevsky Hughes, California Slavic Studies 16, 179-214. Berkeley, CA, 1993. Reprint, The Reception of Byzantine Culture in Mediaeval Russia, VI. Aldershot, Brookfield, Singapore, and Sydney: Ashgate Variorum, 1999. Thorndike, Lynn. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vols. 3-4, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934. Tyerman, Christopher. England and the Crusades, 1095 – 1588. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Tyszkiewicz, Jan. “Karaimy litewscy w czasach Witolda i sprawa przywilieju datowanego rokiem 1388” (Lithuanian Karaites at the Time of Wi-

324

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

told the Great and the Problem of the Privilege Dated on 1388). Studia Źródloznawcze 36 (1997): 45-64. ———. “Stanisław Kryczyński i jego ‘Kronika wojenna tatarów litewskich” (Stanisław Kryczyński and his “Military chronicle of the Lithuanian Tatars). Przegląd Humanistyczny 2 (1984): 117-49. ———. Tatarzy na Litwie i w Polsce. Studia z dziejów XII – XVIII w. (Tatars in Lithuania and Poland: A study from the history of twelfth-eighteenth century). Warszawa: PWN, 1989. Topolska, Maria Barbara. Czytelnik i książka w Wielkim Księstwe Litewskim w dobie Renesansu i Baroku (The book and the reader in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the period of the Renaissance and the Baroque). Wrocław: Ossolineum, 1984. Trajdos, Tadeusz M. “Fundacja opactwa Benedyktynów w Starych Trokach” (The foundation of the Benedictine abbey in Old Trakai). Analecta Cracoviensia 19 (1987): 245-54. Turchetti, Mario. Tyrannie et tyrannicide de l’Antiquité à nos jours. Fondements de la politique, ed. Yves Charles Zarka. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2001. Ulčinaitė, Eugenija. “The Song of the Grunwald Battle,” trans. Vida Turoniene. In Joannes Vislicensis / Jonas Vislicietis, Bellum Prutenum / Prūsų karas, prepared and translated by Eugenija Ulčinaitė, Bibliotheca Baltica Litvania, xxvii-viii. Vilnius: Mintis, 1997. ———. Lietuvos Renesanso ir Baroko literatūra (Renaissance and Baroque Literature in Lithuania). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2001. Urbanavičienė, Saulė. “Survivals of Paganism in 14th –17th -Century Graves in Lithuania.” In Rom und Byzanz im Norden: Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8. – 14. Jahrhunderts. Vol 1, ed. Michael Müler-Wille, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Abhandungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Jahrgang 1997, no. 3.2, 131-42. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998. Vaitkevičius, Vykintas. Senosios Lietuvos šventvietės: Žemaitija (The Sacred Sites of Lithuania, bk. 1, Samogitia), Lietuvos istorijos institutas. Vilnius: Diemedžio leidykla, 1998. Varakauskas, Rokas. Lietuvos ir Livonijos santykiai XIII - XVI a. (The relations between Lithuania and Livonia during the thirteenth - eighteenth centuries). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1982. Vaughan, Richard. Philip the Bold: the Formation of the Burgundian State. London and New York: Longman, 1979.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

Velmans, Tania. “Le portrait dans l’art des Paléologues.” In Art et Société a Byzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du Colloque Organisé par l’Association Internationale des Études Byzantines à Venise en septembre 1968. Venise: n.p., 1971. Verbickienė, Jurgita. “Žydai Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės visuomenėje: sugyvenimo aspektai” (Jews in the society of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: aspects of cohabitation). Ph.D. dissertation Vilnius University. Vilnius, 2004. Vernadsky, Georges. The Mongols and Russia. Vol. 3 of A History of Russia by George Vernadsky and Michael Karpovich. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Vikhnovich, V. L. Karaim Avraam Firkovich. Evreyskie rukopisi. Istoriya. Puteshestviya (Karaite Abraham Firkowicz: Jewish manuscripts, history, travels). St. Petersburg: Jewish University in Moscow, 1997. Viliūnas, Giedrius. “Vytauto mitas moderniojoje Lietuvoje” (The myth of Vytautas in modern Lithuania). Kultūros barai 6 (1995): 63-67. Vyšniauskaitė, Angelė, Petras Kalnius and Rasa Paukštytė. Lietuvių šeima ir papročiai (Lithuanian family and customs). Lietuvos istorijos institutas. Vilnius: Mintis, 1995. Vytautas Didysis (Vytautas the Great). Ed. P. Šležas. Kaunas: “Sakalo” bendrovė, 1930. Reprint, Vilnius: Vyriausioji enciklopedijų redakcija, 1988. Vitkauskienė, Birutė Rūta. “Marijos kultas” (The Marian cult). In Lietuvos didžiosios kunigaikštijos kultūra. Tyrinėjimai ir vaizdai (The culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: investigations and images), comp. Vytautas Ališauskas, Liudas Jovaiša, Mindaugas Paknys, Rimvydas Petrauskas, and Eligijus Raila, 329-41. Vilnius: aidai, 2001. ———. “Taurieji metalai” (Precious metals). In Lietuvos didžiosios kunigaikštijos kultūra. Tyrinėjimai ir vaizdai (The culture of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: investigations and images), comp. Vytautas Ališauskas, Liudas Jovaiša, Mindaugas Paknys, Rimvydas Petrauskas, and Eligijus Raila, 690-99. Vilnius: aidai, 2001. ———. “Trakų Marijos paveikslo aptaisai” (The Settings of the Painting “Blessed Virgin Mary” in Trakai). In Lietuvos Didžiosios Kunigaikštystės barokas: formos, įtakos, kryptys (The Baroque of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: forms, influences, and tendencies), comp. R. Butvilaitė. Vilniaus dailės akademijos darbai / Acta Academiae Artium Vilnensis 21, 153-166. Vilnius: VDA leidykla, 2001.

326

GRAND DUKE VYTAUTAS OF LITHUANIA

———. “W sprawie łokalizacji grobu Witolda w Katedrze Wileńskiej” (Concerning the localization of Vytautas’ tomb within Vilnius Cathedral), paper presented at the conference of art historians “Sztuka około 1500” (Art around 1500), Gdańsk, 28-30 November 1996. Voevodskii, V. F. Velikii kniaz’ litovskii Vitovt i ego vremia (Lithuanian Grand Duke Vytautas and his time). St. Petersburg: Gubernskaya Tipografiya, 1907. Voigt, Johannes. Geschichte Preussens, von den ältesten Zeiten bis zum Untergange der Herrschaft des Deutschen Ordens. Königsberg: im Verlage der Gebrüder Bornträger, 1836. Walter, Christopher. “Papal Political Imagery in the Medieval Lateran Palace.” Cahiers Archéologiques 20, 21 (1970, 1971): 155-76, 109-36. Reprint, Prayer and Power in Byzantine and Papal Imagery, VIIa and VIIb. Ashgate: Variorum, 1993. Weintraub, Wiktor. “Ivan the Terrible as the Gentry’s Candidate for the Polish Throne. A Study in Political Mentality.” In Cross Currents. A Yearbook of Central European Culture, ed. Ladislav Matejka and Benjamin Stalz, , 45-54. Michigan Slavic Materials 2. Chicago, IL: University of Michigan and Ann Arbor, 1982. Wharton, Annabel Jane. Art of Empire: Painting and Architecture of the Byzantine Periphery. A Comparative Study of Four Provinces. University Park and London: The Pennsylvania State UP, 1988. Wojtkowiak, Zbyslaw. Maciej Stryjkowski – dziejopis Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. Kalendarium życia i dzialności (Maciej Stryjkowski – historiographer of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania: the diary of life and activity). Poznań: UAM, 1990. Wünsch, Thomas. Konziliarismus und Polen: Personen, Politik und Programme aus Polen zur Verfassungsfrage der Kirche in Zeit der mittelalterliche Reformkonzilien. Konziliengeschichte, ed. Walter Brandmüller. Paderborn, München, Wien, Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1998. Xyngopoulos, André. Les miniatures du Roman d’Alexandre le Grand dans le codex de l’Institut Hellénique de Venise. Bibliothéque de l’Institut Hellénique d’Études Byzantines et Post-Byzantines de Venise 2. Athènes, Venise: n.p., 1966. Yates, Frances A. Astraea: the Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century. Boston and London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1975. Zaborskaitė, V. Prie Lietuvos teatro ištakų: XVI – XVIII a. mokyklinis teatras (At the sources of the Lithuanian theater: school-theater of the sixteenth – eighteenth centuries). Vilnius: Mokslas, 1981.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

327

Zajączkowski, Ananiasz. Karaims in Poland: History, Language, Folklore, Science. Warsaw: PWN and Paris: Mouton & Co, 1961. Zajączkowski, Stanisław. “Witold Wielki Książe Litewski, 1430 – 1930” (Vytautas the grand duke of Lithuania, 1430 – 1930). Ateneum Wileńskie 7.3/4 (1930): 455-68. Zakrzewski, Andzej B. “Położenie prawnie tatarów w Wielkiem Księstwie Litewskim (XVI – XVIII w.)” (Legal Position of the Tatars in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, 16th – 18th Centuries). In Kipčakų tiurkų orientas Lietuvoje: istorija ir tyrimų perspektyvos. Tarptautinės mokslinės konferencijos skirtos profesoriaus dr. Ananiaszo Zajączkowskio 90-osioms gimimo metinėms, medžiaga. Vilnius, 1993m. spalio 14-15 d. (The Kipchak-Turkish orient in Lithuania: history and research perspectives. Proceedings of the international scholarly conference dedicated to the 90th birthday Prof. Ananiasz Zajączkowski, Vilnius 14-15 October 1993), ed. Tamara Bairašauskaitė and Halina Kobeckaitė, 118-29. Vilnius: Danielius, 1994. Zawadzki, Roman Maria. Katałog Watykańskich rękopisów Św. Jana Kantego / Catalogus codicum manu S. Ioannis Cantii scriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana asservantur. Krakow: Księgarnia Akademicka, 1997. Zimmermann, T. C. Paolo Giovio: The Historian and the Crisis of Sixteenth Century Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Zinkevičius, Zigmas. The History of the Lithuanian Language. Translated by Ramutė Plioplys with a foreword by William R. Schmalstieg, 2nd ed. Vilnius: Mokslo ir encikopedijų leidybos institutas, 1998. Żdan, Michał. “Stosunki litewsko-tatarskie za czasów Witolda, w. ks. Litwy” (The Lithuanian-Tartar relations during the times of Vytautas, the grand duke of Lithuania). Ateneum Wileńskie 7.3/4 (1930): 529-601. Żygulski, Zdisław jun. Hetmani Rzeczypospolitej (Hetmans of the Republic), published as Dzieje Narodu i Państwa Polskiego 1-2 (1994).

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES

Abraham, Isaac ben of Trakai, 196 Achilles, 73 Adomonis, Tadas, 53, 99 Aeneas, 223, 272 Alexander, see Vytautas Alexander of Macedonia, 73, 75, 126, 262, 264, 273 Alexander VI, Pope Rodrigo de Borja, 147 Alexander, Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland, 120, 147, 149 Alexander, Martyr, 44 Alexander, Palatine of Moldavia, 123 Algirdas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 4, 5, 22, 25, 27, 45, 63, 95, 96, 126, 183, 190, 260 Andreas of Regensburg, 42 Anna of Curonia, 171 Anna, spouse of John VIII Paleologus, 45, 260, 261 Anna, spouse of Vytautas, 32, 83, 118 Antioch of Syria, 257 Aquinas, Thomas Saint, 255, Aristotle, 255 Astikas, 170 Athis, 73 Augustus, Roman Emperor, 272 Baczko, Ludwig von, 264 Bagge, Sverre, 154 Basil I Dimitrievich, Grand Duke of Moscow, 21, 80, 169, 191, 200 Basil III, Grand Duke of Moscow, 149, Bathory, Stephan, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, 155–57, 158, 165, 168, 171, 187, 274 Bayezet, 38, 39

Belial, 40 Beringer, Heinrich, 258 Bielak family, 195 Bielski, Marcin, 118, 163, 189 Birutė, spouse of Duke Kęstutis, 182– 84, 185, 186, 234, 235 Blaise of Vigenere, 205 Boleslas Švitrigaila, 8 Boleslas the Devout, King of Poland, 199 Bona Sforza, Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania, 148, 150, 151, 175, 180, 208, 210, 233 Boniface IX, Pope, 37 Brutus, 259 Butautas, brother of Vytautas, 19 Caesar, Julius, Roman Emperor, 67, 73, 77, 217, 258–59, 262, 273 Camblak, Gregory, metropolitan, 46, 47, 200, 202 Cantius, John Saint, 120, 121, 134, 254 Casimir of Jogaila, 8, 82, 168, 257, 262 Casimir the Great, King of Poland, 153 Christ, Jesus, 36, 40, 49, 51, 56, 66, 75, 103, 121, 179, 183, 205, 272 Cieselski, Andreas, 160 Cigala, Jean Batiste, 71 Ciołek, Erasmus, 147, 207 Clement XI, Pope, 179 Clovis, 38 Conrad of Jungingen, Grand Master, 37, 174 Conrad Zöllner, Grand Master, 20 Constantine, Emperor and Saint, 38, 102, 261 Corvinus, Mathias King of Hungary, 262 Cress, 73

330

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES

Cristoforo dei Buondelmonti, 260, 261 Croesus, 166 Czartoryski, Alexander, 257, 268 Czyzewski, Piotr or Matiasz (pseudonym), 189, 190 Daniel, Croatian king (i.e., Danylo Romanovych), 192 David, Biblical King, 166, 255, de Mézièrs, Philip 39, 88 Dimitrii Donskoi, 262 Długosz, Jan, 9, 12, 31, 32, 33, 38, 48, 58, 66, 69, 72, 82, 117, 118, 120, 125– 34, 152, 153, 15, 160, 161, 163, 164, 175, 177, 181, 184, 185, 189, 190, 212, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259 Dougird, Samuel, 168, 169, 176 Dovgial family, 195, 196, 245 Dovgial, Dzhalair Murza, 195 Dzhelal-al-Din, 195, 244 Edigey, Tatar Khan, 7, 31, 34 Edward III, King of England, 51 Ekdahl, Sven, 13, 185, 236, Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 14 Engelhus, Theodoric, 38 Erasmus of Rotterdam, 154, 159 Falkenberg, Johannes, 23 Francis of the Counts of Aque Vive, 73, 75, 122 Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 4, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 45, 63, 64, 76, 149, 150, 166, 181, 256, 266, 270, 271, 272 George, Saint, 39, 119, 184, 270 Gerasim, Bishop of Smolensk, 76, 77, 114 Ghillebert of Lannoy, 30, 48, 52 Giedraitis, Melcher, Bishop of Samogitia, 184 Gleb, Duke of Smolensk, 20, 200 Głowacki, Jan Nepomuk, 53, 56, 60 Goštautas, Albert, 153, 182, 211 Grabski, Andrzej F., 38 Gradovius, Franciscus, 171, 172, 173 Gregory the Great, Church Father, 121 Griaznov, Vasilii, 53, 56, 61 Guagnini, Alessandro, 163, 164, 165, 176, 177, 187

Hannibal, 166 Hector, 73, 167 Hedwig of Anjou, Queen of Poland, 6, 38, 67, 125, 127, 265 Heidenstein, Reinhold, 187 Henne, 63 Henry of Valois, King of Poland, 160, 249 Henry, the earl of Derby and King of England, 37 Herberstein, Sigismund, 162, 203, 204 Herburt, Jan, 163 Hercules, 166 Herod of Jerusalem, 255, 257 Hobsbawm, Eric, 13 Hook, Sidney, 271 Hoppen, Jerzy, 53 Hussovianus, Nicolaus, 147, 174, 258 Hyacinthus, Basilius, 156 Iovius, Paulus, 203 Ivan IV, Tsar of Russia, 155, 160, 202, 258, 259 Jaunutis, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 4, 183 Jerome of Prague, Camaldolese monk, 58, 204, 206 Jerome of Prague, Hussite leader, 28, 29 Job, 121 Jogaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania and King of Poland, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 32, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 53, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 94, 97, 98, 118, 119, 124, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 139, 144, 146, 147, 152, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 168, 169, 171, 174, 185, 189, 204, 205, 248, 256, 260, 264, 265 John VIII Paleaologus, Byzantine Emperor, 45, 260 John XXIII, Pope, 37, 106 John, Bishop of Vilnius, 148, 149 Joseph, son of Jacob, 53 Jučas, Mečislovas, 69, 108 Julianne, spouse of Vytautas, 71, 117, 133

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES Kara Mirza, 195 Kęstutis, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 4, 5, 19, 22, 25, 27, 63, 64, 122, 125, 160, 164, 165, 167, 170, 181, 182, 183, 186, 192, 234 Kochanowski, Jan, 173, 187, 228 Koialowicz, Albertus Viivk, 169, 170, 174, 175, 184 Komnenos, John Byzantine Emperor, 177 Kosman, Marceli, 117 Kraszewski, Józef Ignacy, 264 Kromer, Marcin, 162, 175, 176, 181 Kryczyński, Stanisław, 190 Kurbski, Andrei, 202 Kurowski, Nicholas, Archbishop of Gniezno, 32 Lasocki, Nicolaus, 124, 125, 133, 134 Leo X, Pope, 147 Leonidas, 166 Lituanus, Michalonus, 153, 187, 213 Louis XIV, King of France, 14 Louis, Saint, 262 Machiavelli, 154, 159 Mačiulis, Dangiras, 13 Mackiewicz, Szymka, 180 Maironis, Jonas Mačiulis, 265 Maldrzyk, Nicolas, 133 Mamay, Khan, 190 Mann, Jacob, 191 Mansur Kitay, son of Khan Mamay, 190 Manuel II, Byzantine Emperor, 38, 177, 178 Marcinkevičius, Justinas, 265 Marquard of Salzbach, 20 Martin V, Pope, 46, 49, 72 Mary, Virgin, 39, 44, 60, 61, 174, 177, 178, 179, 180, 182, 184, 200, 252, 262 Mathew, Bishop of Vilnius, 29, 132 Menander of Laodicea, 77, 78 Michael, Archangel, 118 Michael, son of Sigismund, 257 Mickiewicz, Adam, 149 Miechowita, Maciej of Miechow, 120, 161, 162 Mindaugas, King of Lithuania, 64, 203, 265, 266, 271, 272

331

Mohammed, prophet, 189 Monstrelet, Enquerran de, 42 Montaigne, Michel, 206, 258 Mosca, Giammaria called Padovano, 151 Muchliński, Antoni, 194, 239, Nero, Roman Emperor, 145, 170 Nicholas, Saint, 60 Nidecki, Andrzej Patrycy, 155 Nikžentaitis, Alvydas, 12 Oderbornius, Paulus, 173 Olaf, Saint, King of Norway, 263 Oleśnicki, Zbignew, Bishop of Krakow, 68, 132, 185 Oporowski, Władysław, 68 Orzechowski, Stanisław, 159 Paul, Apostle, 44 Pesseti, Alessandro, 150, 180, 233 Peter of Dusburg, 258 Peter the Great, Tsar of Russia, 14 Peter, Apostle, 44 Pfitzner, Josef, 13, 28, 32, 259 Philip II, King of Spain, 157 Philip of Macedonia, 198 Photius, Metropolitan, 45, 47, 202 Piccolomini, Aeneas Sylvius, 204, 205, 256, 274 Piligrimovius, Elias, 56, 158, 171, 216, 217, 226, 279, 287 Pius II, Pope (see Piccolomini) Pociecha, Władysław, 118 Prochaska, Antoni, 185 Protasewicz, Walerian Bishop of Vilnius, 151 Radvanus, Johannes, 171, 172 Radvila, Albert, 171 Radvila, Christopher called the Thunderer, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 187 Radvila, George, 149 Radvila, Nicholas called the Red, 171, 172 Radvila, Nicholas Christopher called the Orphan, 186 Radvila, son of Astikas, 170, Radvilas, family of, 170, 171, 173, 176

332

INDEX OF PERSONAL NAMES

Ranger, Terence, 13 Rheza, Ludwig von, 264 Rotundus, Augustinus, 159, 165, 189, 218 Rowell, Stephen C., 184, 243 Różycka-Bryzek, Anna, 53, 54 Russdorf, Paul of Grand Master, 174 Rymsza, Andrzei, 172, 173

Temir-Kutlugh, Khan, 34, 200 Theodore, Dominican friar, 45 Theodore, son of Ivan IV, 160 Thevet, André, 205, 206 Timofey, scribe, 76 Tokhtamysh, Khan, 34, 91, 200 Tyszkiewicz, Jan, 191 Ulysses, 21, 166

Sacranus, Jan, 147 Saladin, see Dzhelal-al-Din Sapieha, Leo, 180 Sarbievius, Mathias, 179 Sarnicki, Albert, 181 Sarnicki, Stanisław, 183 Scipio, 73, 166 Sergius of Radoniezh, 119 Shuiski, Tsar, 119 Sigismund Augustus, Grand Duke of Lithunia and King of Poland, 148, 149, 150, 153, 154, 158, 160, 162, 163, 170, 203 Sigismund of Kaributas, 49 Sigismund of Luxemburg, Holy Roman Emperor, 7, 29, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 66, 68, 71, 75, 128, 130, 131, 132, 162, 163, 174, Sigismund son of Kęstutis, Grand Duke of Lithunia, 8, 122, 257, 259 Sigismund the Old, Grand Duke of Lithunia and King of Poland, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 162, 163, 194, Skirgaila, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 5, 6, 21, 22, 126, 164 Smokowski, Wincenty, 53, 55, 56, 60 Sophia, daughter of Vytautas, 21, 123, 192, 260 Sophia, Queen of Poland, 131 Stanislas, Saint, 152 Stephan, Saint, King of Hungary, 263 Stryjkowski, Maciej, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 175, 183, 222, 223, 242, 253, 272 Sulejman, Sultan, 194 Syrokomla, Władysław, 198, 242 Širmulis, Alfredas, 176 Tamerlane, 38 Tęgowski, Jan, 183

Vaidila, 25 Vaidotas, son of Butautas, 19 Vasa, Wladislas, King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania, 154, 168, 194 Vatat Bij, see Vytautas Verbickienė, Jurgita Šiaučiūnaitė, 193 Viliūnas, Giedrius, 13 Vislicensis, Joannes, 152 Vladimir, Saint, 263 Vladimir, son of Algirdas, 28 Voevodskii, V.F., 13 Volovich, Gregory Bogdanovich, 187 Vytautas, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 1–14, 19–53, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 63, 64–78, 79, 86, 97, 98, 100, 101, 105, 117–34, 142, 145–206, 210, 214, 225, 230, 248, 251–66, 271–74 Vytenis, Grand Duke of Lithuania, 23 Walsingham, Thomas, 37 Wapowski, Bernard, 153, 162, 163, Warszewicki, Krzysztof, 155, 156, 158 Wattad, see Vytautas Wenceslas, Holy Roman Emperor, 37 Wenceslas, Saint, 121 Wereszczynski, Iozeph, 157 Wigand of Marburg, 5, 20 Wigand, see Vytautas Wladislas II, King of Poland see Jogaila Wladislas III, King of Poland, 176 Wünfchelberg, Johannes, Dominican friar, 50 Xerxes, 73 Zaborskaitė, Vanda, 157, 174 Zebrzidowski, Kasper, 157 Zöllner, Konrad of Rotenstein, Grand Master, 20

INDEX OF GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES AND PEOPLES

Amberg, 50 Ankara, battle of, 38 Balkans, 261 Baltic region, 36, 37, 42, 57, 117, 258 Baltic Sea, 168 Baltic States, 1 Basel, 153 Basel, Church Council of (1431–1445), 124, 138, 204, Bavaria, 50, 193 Biržai, 171 Black Sea, 168, 265 Boh river, 187 Bohemia, 7, 48, 49, 50, 51, 66, 67, 75, 98, 130, 158, 167, 174, 231, 235, 252 Bologna, University of, 162 Brest-Litovsk, 175, 191, 199 Brest-Litovsk, Church union of (1596), 252 Bretagne, 67, 108, 305 Britain, 18, 38, 89, 277, 293, 323 Bug river, 187 Burgundy, 11, 26, 40, 82, 137 Byzantium, 4, 11, 45, 54, 58, 60, 78, 94, 100, 102, 178, 231, 259, 260, 261, 262, 266, 270 Carthage, 73, 223 Castille, 124 Chocim, battle of (1621), 179 Constance, Church Council of (1414– 1418), 7, 37, 43–47, 49, 51, 66, 89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 185, 252 Constantinople, 38, 39, 45, 95, 177, 178, 260, 261, 269, 270

Crete, 73 Crimea, 188, 191, 192, 196, 197 Croatia (i.e., Galicia), 192 Croatian (i.e., Galician), 192 Curonia, 183 Czechs, 7, 48, 49, 50, 52, 66, 252 Daugava River, 187 Denmark, 67 Dnieper River, 16, 32, 39, 155, 186, 237 Dolina, 195 Don River, 88, 189 Dorpart, 98 Drutsk, 28 Dubina, 172 England, 14, 37, 39 Flanders, 51 Florence, Church Union of (1438), 252 France, 14, 32, 40, 52, 67, 106, 205, 246, 250 Galicia, 192, 196 Galvė Lake, 52, 196 Germans, 19, 34 Germany, 155 Greek, 38, 100, 104, 118, 120, 136, 168, 261 Grodna, 6, 16, 199 Grunwald/Tannenberg, battle of (1410), 7, 13, 23, 31, 32, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 66, 73, 75, 96, 120, 128, 129, 130, 152, 161, 164, 168, 169, 172, 181, 184, 190, 193, 195, 205, 229, 252, 254, 265, 272

334

INDEX OF GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES AND PEOPLES

Holy Land, 37, 40, 99 Holy Roman Empire, 11, 170 Holy Sepulcher, 40 Holy Trinity, 44 Horodle, Union of (1413), 146, 164 Hungary, 50, 75, 77, 97, 235, 263 Ihumen, 118 Jedlna, 71 Jerusalem, 73, 257 Jews, 10, 181, 188, 191, 193, 194, 196, 198, 199 Kamenets, 30 Karaites, 7, 10, 34, 181, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 238, 242 Kaunas, 1, 2, 180, 228 Kežmarok, 66, 68, 69 Kiev, 28, 32, 34, 45, 46, 57, 95, 106, 202, 261 Kievan Rus, 4, 106, 241, 263 Kipchak, 188, 196, 241 Königsberg, 65, 90 Krakow, 6, 21, 22, 27, 31, 39, 42, 71, 72, 120, 121, 132, 150, 182, 269 Kreva, 5, 167 Kulikovo, 190 L’viv, 43, 44, 192, 199 Leon, 124 Lithuania, Grand Duchy of, 3, 6, 7, 8, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 34, 45, 46, 47, 52, 62, 63, 64, 69, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 171, 172, 174, 179, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 252, 253, 254, 257, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 271, 273, 274 Lithuania, Republic of, 1, 2, 8, 265 Livonia, 4, 16, 20, 46, 123, 155, 157, 171, 173, 187, 202 Lublin, Union of (1569), 145, 165, 223, 246 Lutsk, 7, 29, 30, 67, 68, 69, 76, 77, 101, 131, 139, 146, 161, 166, 168, 171, 191, 196, 261

Marathon, 73 Marienburg, 41, 91, 130 Mełno Lake, Treaty of (1422), 50, 131 Moldavia, 123 Moscow, 29, 31, 33, 34, 45, 95, 149, 168, 173, 200, 257, 261 Mozhaisk, 203 Muscovites, 39, 123, 147, 148, 154, 157, 160, 164, 173, 259 Muscovy, 7, 21, 105, 119, 123, 127, 145, 146, 149, 154, 155, 156, 160, 164, 169, 200, 202, 203, 259, 260, 261, 274 Naples, Kingdon of, 73 Nemunas River, 106, 145 Nesviezh, 165, 171 Nevel Lake, 188 Noghai, Tatar Horde of, 189 Novgorod, 7, 30, 33, 34, 36, 46, 63, 67, 128, 164, 168, 173, 200, 201, 202, 225, Novgorudek, 46 Oder, 71 Opochko (also see Porkhov), 201 Palanga, 131, 182, 183, 186 Perekop, 158 Persians, 168, 177 Philistines, 166 Poland, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 23, 27, 31, 34, 42, 43, 46, 48, 54, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 88, 121, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 145, 146, 148, 153, 155, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 185, 189, 190, 195, 196, 203, 205, 223, 226, 253, 257, 259, 262 Poles, 36, 42, 50, 69, 70, 71, 72, 129, 131, 134, 181, 201, 205, 210, 253, 269 Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, 10, 99, 119, 145, 180, 181, 196, 205, 253 Polotsk, 155, 157 Porkhov (also see Opochko), 33, 86, 180, 201, 202 Prussia, 5, 6, 16, 19, 20, 22, 37, 42, 44, 47, 119, 129, 160, 164, 256, 264 Pskov, 7, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 46, 164, 168, 201 Puvus Lake, 197

INDEX OF GEOGRAPHICAL NAMES AND PEOPLES

335

Riazan’, 29, 34, 36, 200 Ritterswerder, 27 Rome, 45, 46, 77, 147, 260, 261 Russia, 4, 14, 39, 62, 63, 65, 77, 78, 192, 199, 201, 209, 260 Russians, 2, 25, 41, 42, 51, 163, 202 Ruthenia, 5, 7, 20, 21, 22, 25, 29, 32, 45, 63, 65, 70, 155, 168, 190 Ruthenians, 29, 40, 45, 46, 181

179, 180, 182, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 202, 262 Troy, 73 Turkey, 47, 96 Turks, 38, 39, 47, 48, 52, 73, 148 Tver’, 29, 34, 36

Salynas, 65, 66, 174 Samogitia, 4, 6, 7, 20, 23, 27, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 63, 64, 75, 118, 129, 130, 131, 165, 168, 182, 183, 184, 252 Sandomierz, 70 Sarmatia, 42 Smolensk, 20, 28, 31, 76, 163, 173, 193, 200 Sorok Tatary, 195 Starodub, 156 Studzianka, 187, 195

Vatican City, 120 Velikie Luki, 155 Veliuona, 44 Vienna, University of, 71, 74 Vilnius, 3, 4, 5, 6, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 44, 52, 54, 62, 63, 64, 117, 118, 126, 148, 150, 152, 156, 160, 169, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 182, 190, 195, 200, 260, 264, 271, 274 Vitebsk, 28, 188 Vlachs, 201 Vladimir, 45, 200 Vohynia, 7 Vokė River, 155 Volga River, 189 Voronech Lake, 188 Voronov, 201 Vorskla River, battle of (1399), 7, 34, 39, 62, 65, 87, 127, 161, 174, 187, 200, 251 Vostrava, 27

Tanais, Tatar Horde of, 187, 189 Tannenberg, see Grunwald Tatars, 7, 10, 34, 39, 41, 42, 47, 48, 56, 59, 60, 63, 73, 77, 122, 123, 127, 128, 147, 154, 155, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 167, 168, 171, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 200, 201, 203, 254, 256, 264 Thorn, 7, 41, 130 Trakai, New, 175, 177, 178, 182, 183, 262, Trakai, Old, 4, 10, 11, 29, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 64, 67, 72, 117, 176, 177, 178,

Ula River, battle of (1564), 172 Usachy River, 188

Warsaw, 160 Wawel Hill, 72 Zaslavl’, 32

SUBJECT INDEX

antiquity, 73, 166, 168, 172, 273 apostle, 36, 38, 44, 51, 75, 147, 252 Art Deco, 3

coup d’état, 5, 183 cremation, 15 crusade, 34–40, 49, 87, 261

baroque, 12, 145, 169, 189, 262 Basileus, 261 boyars, 19, 27, 28, 29, 33, 46, 65, 148, 256, 257 Byzantine/Russian style of painting, 53, 54

desecration, 164 diet, 160, 162, 196, 207 diplomacy, 31, 47, 70, 130, 272 dynasty, 23, 26, 63, 145, 148, 149, 152, 162, 166, 170, 182, 202, 205, 235, 271

Calvinist, 183 Canon law, 71 cartography, 162 Catholic, 6, 15, 21, 29, 46, 51, 104, 117, 121, 127, 133, 145, 199, 252 Catholic church, 3, 173, 230, 254 Catholic reform, 104 ceremonials, 5, 19, 31, 33, 75, 117, 120 Christianity, 13, 36, 37, 40, 46, 74, 75, 120, 122, 126, 146, 153, 190, 252, 271, 272 church, 36, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 57, 60, 61, 71, 75, 117, 118, 122, 128, 129, 147, 148, 151, 156, 164, 172, 173, 175, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 187, 201, 202, 252, 253, 254, 263 church union, 7 civil war, 5, 167, 199, 273 coinage, 63 Columns of Gediminas, 63 conversion, 7, 36, 38, 39, 43, 44, 45, 74, 75, 117, 122, 126, 168, 177, 252, 263 coronation, 8, 9, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77, 124, 131, 132, 146, 161, 162, 163, 174, 179, 202, 252, 273 correspondence, 12, 30, 49, 67, 69, 73, 88, 153, 202, 206, 255

folklore, 10, 12, 180, 181, 188, 194, 198, 238 funerals, 15, 117–120, 135, 137, 150, 162 Gediminid house, 26, 70, 127, 166, 170, 182, 205 God, 34, 40, 42, 46, 60, 64, 122, 129, 159, 179, 182, 184, 201, 252 Greek style, 100, 118–19, 136 heathenism, 4, 36 heresy, 47, 49, 50, 121 historiography, 5, 13, 25, 159, 253, 262, 270 Holy Mass, 257 homicide, 206 humanism, 8, 10, 12, 66, 133, 146, 153, 154, 166, 189, 253, 254, 262, 267, 268, 272, 273 Hussites, 7, 28, 30, 47–50, 52, 66, 130, 252 iconography, 10, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60–63, 119, 175, 178 idol, 40, 183, 264 inauguration, 27, 71, 74, 148, 149 insignia, 58, 59, 72, 149, 174, 177

SUBJECT INDEX Jagiellonian dynasty (see also Gediminid, house of), 145, 148, 152, 154, 155, 158, 162, 168, 170, 235 Jesuit, 156, 157, 169, 173, 179, 252, 256 judge, 32, 129, 133, 148 justice, 77, 122, 148, 163, 203, 254, 258, 272 kingship, 11, 27, 64, 65, 67, 71, 74, 134, 145, 154, 157, 158, 159, 251, 252, 254, 255, 262 law, 43, 59, 71, 122, 124, 132, 153, 154, 159, 162, 253–56, 273 liberty, 69, 70, 253 lieux de mémoire, 188 loyalty, 66, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 magnates, 69, 148, 165, 170, 171, 174, 175, 257 medievalism, 12 Middle Ages, 1, 2, 10, 12, 26, 54, 57, 61, 63, 70, 75, 125, 139, 147, 153, 251, 258, 262, 263, 264 monument, 1, 2, 3, 150, 151 Muslim, 124, 188, 190, 194 myth, 13, 17, 18, 166, 170, 186, 197, 198 narrative, 12, 26, 42, 53, 61, 164, 182, 192, 203 nation, 3, 13, 117, 170, 181, 262, 263, 271 neophyte, 3, 36, 39, 42, 128, 252 Old Testament, 166 origins, 9, 22, 23, 57, 62, 73, 77, 145, 166, 167, 170, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 196, 228, 234, 238, 239, 254, 312 orthodox, 13, 15, 16, 20, 25, 29, 45, 46, 53, 78, 119, 260 orthodox church, 7, 45, 47, 172, 202, 230, 252, 261

337

pagan, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 51, 96, 121, 122, 147, 183, 204, 206, 272 papacy, 4, 39, 41, 49, 50, 65, 66, 67, 72 patricide, 42, 92 piety, 146, 177, 235, 252, 254 portrait, 2, 14, 27, 60, 63, 103, 105, 119, 120, 136, 137, 150, 170, 171, 175–77, 226, 229, 230, 255, 265 propaganda, 8, 9, 19, 23, 35, 36, 48, 49, 63, 69, 70, 76, 81, 166, 223, 248, 251, 271 prophecy, 50–1, 98, 99 reformation, 145 renaissance, 8, 9, 145, 151, 153, 167, 169, 172, 173, 206, 262, 272, 273 Reysae, 36, 39, 40 Roman law, 71 Saracen, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 51, 96 schism, 43, 45, 252 sermon, 120, 121, 122, 134, 254 Soviet, 1, 265, 270 standard, 29, 31, 85, 118, 119, 120, 123, 129, 136, 137 statehood, 63, 145, 154, 159, 166, 169, 170, 179, 226, 259, 265 succession, 22, 25, 254 Teutonic Order, 2, 5, 6, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 29, 31, 35, 37, 43, 44, 47, 48, 51, 65, 74, 80, 88, 89, 128, 131, 138, 146, 152, 174, 205, 248, 272 Third Rome, 261, 270 Torah, 196, 238 tyranny, 10, 145, 155, 170, 206, 245, 250, 255, 256, 257, 258, 266 vestal virgin, 181, 184, 186 warfare, 5, 35, 96, 127, 147, 159, 164, 172, 186, 195, 201, 202

FIGURES

Figure 1

Figure 3

Figure 2

Figure 4

Figure 5

FIGURES

Figure 6

Figure 8

Figure 7

FIGURES

Figure 9

Figure 10

FIGURES

Figure 11 Figure 13 Figure 12

FIGURES

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

FIGURES

Figure 19

Figure 21

Figure 20

Figure 22 Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

FIGURES

Figure 26

Figure 28

Figure 31

Figure 32

Figure 27

Figure 29

Figure 30

FIGURES

Figure 33

Figure 37

Figure 35

Figure 38 Figure 35

Figure 36

Figure 39

FIGURES

Figure 40

Figure 41

Figure 42

Figure 43

Figure 44

Figure 45

FIGURES

Figure 47

Figure 46

Figure 50

Figure 48

Figure 49

Figure 51

FIGURES

Figure 52

Figure 53

Figure 54

Figure 56

Figure 55

Figure 57

Figure 58

FIGURES

Figure 59

Figure 60

Figure 61

Figure 62

Figure 63

Figure 64

FIGURES

Figure 65

Figure 67

Figure 69

Figure 66

Figure 68

Figure 70

FIGURES

Figure 71

Figure 72

Figure 73

Figure 75

FIGURES

Figure 76

Figure 74

FIGURES

Figure 78

Figure 77

Figure 80

Figure 79

Figure 81

Figure 82