Jeszcze o zbrodni rogozińskiej i granicy między Polską a Brandenburgią na Noteci w XIII–XIV wieku

Edward Rymar
{"title":"Jeszcze o zbrodni rogozińskiej i granicy między Polską a Brandenburgią na Noteci w XIII–XIV wieku","authors":"Edward Rymar","doi":"10.26881/sds.2020.24.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Janusz Bieniak’s study Zarębowie i Nałęcze a królobójstwo w Rogoźnie (The Zaręba and Nalęcz Families and the Regicide in Rogoźno – 2018), alongside important discoveries and interesting proposals of a prosopographic and genealogical nature, has as its main aim to discredit information in the sources concerning the participation (possibly even direct participation) of those families in the crime committed in 1296 in Rogoźno. The crime occurred through the agency of the Margraves of Brandenburg, of the older (Johannine) line of the House of Ascania/ Anhalt. This article takes issue with several aspects of Bieniak’s argument. Bieniak questions my earlier view of the probable recognition of the Nałęcz family of the suzerainty of the Margraves over their Greater Polish possessions situated to the north of the middle and lower stream of the River Noteć, that is on formerly Pomeranian territory (centred on Człopa), which could of course lay them open to the charge of treachery, since in Poland there was no consciousness or understanding of German claims (essentially rights) to the region of Pomerania. At the same time, in terms of German law, from 1231 Pomerania, including, of course, the territory of Nadnotecie still remaining in the thirteenth­ ‑century and – from a Polish perspective – of the former Pomeranian Zanotecie, remained within the gift of the German Empire within the fief of the Margraves of Brandenburg. Bieniak decisively rejects any reckoning in Poland in the thirteenth century with any kind of claim of the (in any case weakened) German state as a whole (Bieniak calls this the Empire), and even more of Brandenburg, the rulers of which as conquerors had no interest in the historical borders of Pomerania and did not even know them, but were driven only by brutal force and not by any legal titles. Of course, they ignored these, and the Nałęcz and Zaręba families did not see themselves as subordinate to anyone, just like everyone in Poland. Thus, they must be exonerated from participation in the crime of 1296. \nIn this controversy, I wish to point out even more forcibly than previously (and, indeed, quite frequently) that the Nałęcz family, just like the Greater Poland princes (an example from 1253 is cited) and the knightly families settled in Pomerania (the Wedlow, Liebenow, Güntersberg, and Borkow families, 1296–1297, and the Święc family, 1307) knew the suzerain competences of the Margraves and recognized them – of course, under military pressure – over the castles and towns held by the Poles on the left bank of the Noteć (Santok–Drżeń–Wieleń– Czarnków–Ujście) along with their hinterlands, thus becoming Brandenburg and Polish subjects. In fact, the few sources do not permit such a maximum treatment of all the Brandenburg claims at the end of the thirteenth century, but that becomes obvious in subsequent decades of the fourteenth century, when it is by the intervention of the Margraves with support of the Nałęcz, Güntersberg, and Wedlow families that the territories and castles and towns of the eastern lands of Nadnotęcie are seized. That is why reference was made even to the rights raised by the Nałęcz family (of Ostroróg) to several villages in Puszcza Notecka near Drezdenko, most obviously because of those brought in the dowry of Małgorzata Nałęczówna of Szamotuły around 1330 to the German von der Osten lords in Drezdenko, when in 1408 they sold them along with their castle to the Teutonic Knights. \nOn the margins of the article, I also offer a “gentle” defence of my position (also criticized by Bieniak) in the matter of the identification – in a contemporary entry in the annals of the Cistercians of Kołbacz – of Jakub “Kaszuby”, the principle perpetrator (and the only one known by name) of the regicide, with the German knight Jakub Güntersberg, who did, indeed, come from Kaszubia, since in 1296 he had left the service of the Dukes of Western Pomerania (from 1295, the Wołogoski dukedom), having up till then a fief in the lands near Stargard. In this case, “Kasube” was not an ethnic description, but only a geographical­­­‑political one.","PeriodicalId":120293,"journal":{"name":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","volume":"313 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia z Dziejów Średniowiecza","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26881/sds.2020.24.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Janusz Bieniak’s study Zarębowie i Nałęcze a królobójstwo w Rogoźnie (The Zaręba and Nalęcz Families and the Regicide in Rogoźno – 2018), alongside important discoveries and interesting proposals of a prosopographic and genealogical nature, has as its main aim to discredit information in the sources concerning the participation (possibly even direct participation) of those families in the crime committed in 1296 in Rogoźno. The crime occurred through the agency of the Margraves of Brandenburg, of the older (Johannine) line of the House of Ascania/ Anhalt. This article takes issue with several aspects of Bieniak’s argument. Bieniak questions my earlier view of the probable recognition of the Nałęcz family of the suzerainty of the Margraves over their Greater Polish possessions situated to the north of the middle and lower stream of the River Noteć, that is on formerly Pomeranian territory (centred on Człopa), which could of course lay them open to the charge of treachery, since in Poland there was no consciousness or understanding of German claims (essentially rights) to the region of Pomerania. At the same time, in terms of German law, from 1231 Pomerania, including, of course, the territory of Nadnotecie still remaining in the thirteenth­ ‑century and – from a Polish perspective – of the former Pomeranian Zanotecie, remained within the gift of the German Empire within the fief of the Margraves of Brandenburg. Bieniak decisively rejects any reckoning in Poland in the thirteenth century with any kind of claim of the (in any case weakened) German state as a whole (Bieniak calls this the Empire), and even more of Brandenburg, the rulers of which as conquerors had no interest in the historical borders of Pomerania and did not even know them, but were driven only by brutal force and not by any legal titles. Of course, they ignored these, and the Nałęcz and Zaręba families did not see themselves as subordinate to anyone, just like everyone in Poland. Thus, they must be exonerated from participation in the crime of 1296. In this controversy, I wish to point out even more forcibly than previously (and, indeed, quite frequently) that the Nałęcz family, just like the Greater Poland princes (an example from 1253 is cited) and the knightly families settled in Pomerania (the Wedlow, Liebenow, Güntersberg, and Borkow families, 1296–1297, and the Święc family, 1307) knew the suzerain competences of the Margraves and recognized them – of course, under military pressure – over the castles and towns held by the Poles on the left bank of the Noteć (Santok–Drżeń–Wieleń– Czarnków–Ujście) along with their hinterlands, thus becoming Brandenburg and Polish subjects. In fact, the few sources do not permit such a maximum treatment of all the Brandenburg claims at the end of the thirteenth century, but that becomes obvious in subsequent decades of the fourteenth century, when it is by the intervention of the Margraves with support of the Nałęcz, Güntersberg, and Wedlow families that the territories and castles and towns of the eastern lands of Nadnotęcie are seized. That is why reference was made even to the rights raised by the Nałęcz family (of Ostroróg) to several villages in Puszcza Notecka near Drezdenko, most obviously because of those brought in the dowry of Małgorzata Nałęczówna of Szamotuły around 1330 to the German von der Osten lords in Drezdenko, when in 1408 they sold them along with their castle to the Teutonic Knights. On the margins of the article, I also offer a “gentle” defence of my position (also criticized by Bieniak) in the matter of the identification – in a contemporary entry in the annals of the Cistercians of Kołbacz – of Jakub “Kaszuby”, the principle perpetrator (and the only one known by name) of the regicide, with the German knight Jakub Güntersberg, who did, indeed, come from Kaszubia, since in 1296 he had left the service of the Dukes of Western Pomerania (from 1295, the Wołogoski dukedom), having up till then a fief in the lands near Stargard. In this case, “Kasube” was not an ethnic description, but only a geographical­­­‑political one.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Janusz Bieniak的研究Zarębowie i Nałęcze a królobójstwo w Rogoźnie (Zaręba和Nalęcz Families and The Regicide in Rogoźno - 2018),除了重要的发现和有趣的人类学和宗谱性质的建议外,其主要目的是质疑有关这些家庭参与(甚至可能直接参与)1296年在Rogoźno犯下的罪行的信息来源。犯罪是通过勃兰登堡侯爵的代理发生的,他是阿斯卡尼亚/安哈尔特家族的老(约翰内)系。本文对Bieniak观点的几个方面提出了质疑。Bieniak质疑我之前的观点,即Nałęcz家族可能承认马尔格拉夫对其位于诺特奇河中下游以北的大波兰领土的宗主权,这是在原波美拉尼亚领土上(以Człopa为中心),这当然会使他们面临背叛的指控,因为在波兰,没有意识到或理解德国对波美拉尼亚地区的要求(本质上是权利)。与此同时,根据德国法律,从1231年起,波美拉尼亚,当然包括Nadnotecie的领土,仍然保留在13世纪,从波兰的角度来看,前波美拉尼亚的扎诺tecie,仍然在勃兰登堡侯爵的封地内,属于德意志帝国的礼物。Bieniak果断地拒绝了13世纪波兰对德意志国家(无论如何被削弱了)作为一个整体(Bieniak称之为帝国)的任何主张的任何计算,甚至更拒绝了勃兰登堡,作为征服者的统治者对波美拉尼亚的历史边界没有兴趣,甚至不知道它们,而是被野蛮的武力所驱使,而不是任何法律上的权利。当然,他们忽略了这些,Nałęcz和Zaręba家族并不认为自己是任何人的下属,就像波兰的每个人一样。因此,他们必须被免除参与1296年的罪行。在这场争论中,我希望比以前更有力地指出(事实上,经常指出)Nałęcz家族,就像大波兰王子(引用1253年的一个例子)和定居在波美拉尼亚的骑士家族(1296-1297年的Wedlow, Liebenow, g ntersberg和Borkow家族,以及Święc家族,1307年)一样,知道Margraves的宗主权能力,当然,在军事压力下-占领了波兰人在诺特奇河左岸的城堡和城镇(Santok-Drżeń-Wieleń - Czarnków-Ujście)及其腹地,从而成为勃兰登堡和波兰的臣民。事实上,在13世纪末,很少的资料来源不允许这样最大程度地处理所有勃兰登堡的主张,但在14世纪随后的几十年里,这一点变得很明显,当马尔格雷夫斯在Nałęcz、gtersberg和Wedlow家族的支持下进行干预时,Nadnotęcie东部土地的领土、城堡和城镇被占领了。这就是为什么提到Nałęcz家族(Ostroróg)在德列日登科附近的Puszcza Notecka的几个村庄中提出的权利,最明显的原因是,在1330年左右,Małgorzata Nałęczówna家族(Szamotuły)把嫁妆带给了德列日登科的德国冯·德·奥斯滕领主,1408年,他们把这些嫁妆连同城堡一起卖给了条顿骑士团。利润率的文章中,我还提供了一个“温和的”防御位置(由Bieniak还批评)识别的问题——在当代条目上的西多会的修士Kołbacz——Jakub“Kaszuby”原则犯罪者(唯一的名称)的弑君,与德国骑士Jakub Guntersberg,是谁干的,的确,来自Kaszubia,自从1296年他离开西波美拉尼亚公爵的服务(从1295年开始,我们łogoski公爵的爵位),在那之前,他在星加德附近有一块封地。在这种情况下,“Kasube”不是一个种族描述,而只是一个地理-政治描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Przyczynek do biografii Wawrzyńca Kaszuby Krokowskiego (zm. 1497) Документ і влада на Галицькій Русі пізнього середньовіччя (У зв’язку з монографією Sven Jaros, Integrationen im Grenzraum. Akteure und Felder multikonfessioneller Herrschaftsaushandlung in Kronruthenien (1340–1434), Berlin–Boston 2021 Rejestr listów wypowiednich rycerzy księcia opolskiego Bernarda do wielkiego mistrza zakonu krzyżackiego Michała Küchmeistera z 1414 r. Mistrz Jan – architekt Pałacu Wielkich Mistrzów na zamku malborskim. "Oeuvre" i oryginalny styl wybitnego mistrza budowlanego działającego między 1375 a 1406 r. Kultura materialna w XIV­‑wiecznych testamentach kobiet z hrabstwa Yorkshire
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1