Bolesław III Wrymouth

Bolesław III Wrymouth Monument in Płock

Poland during the rule of Bolesław III Wrymouth

Bolesław III Wrymouth (also known as Boleslaus IIIthe Wry-mouthed, Polish: Bolesław III Krzywousty) (20August 1086[1][2] – 28 October 1138), was a Prince ofLesser Poland, Silesia and Sandomierz between 1102-1107 and over the whole Poland between 1107-1138. Hewas the only child of PrinceWładysław I Herman and hisfirst wife Judith, daughter of Vratislaus II of Bohemia.Bolesław began to rule in the last decade of the 11th cen-tury, when the central government in Poland was signif-icantly weakened. Władysław I Herman fell under the

political dependence of the Count palatine Sieciech, whobecame the real ruler of the country. Backed by theirfather, Boleslaw and his half-brother Zbigniew finally ex-pelled Sieciech from the country in 1101, after severalyears of fighting. After the death of Władysław I Her-man in 1102, two independent states were created ruledby Bolesław and Zbigniew.Bolesław sought to gain Pomerania which caused anarmed conflict between the brothers, and forced Zbigniewto flee the country and seek military help from Germany.Bolesław effectively stopped the intervention of the Ger-man King Henry V in 1109 and punished Zbigniew byblinding him. This action caused outrage among support-ers of Zbigniew, resulting in a political crisis in Poland.Bolesław once again gained the favor of his subjects withpublic penance, and made a pilgrimage to the monasteryof his patron, Saint Giles, in Hungary.Bolesław, like Bolesław II the Generous, based his for-eign policy on maintaining good relations with neighbor-ing Hungary andKievan Rus, with whom he forged stronglinks through marriage and military cooperation in orderto break the political dependence on Germany and hisvassal, the King of Bohemia, who in moments of weak-ness of Polish policy was forced to pay tribute in Silesia.These alliances have allowed Bolesław to effectively de-fend the country from invasion by Henry V 1109. Severalyears later, Bolesław skillfully took advantage of the dy-nastic disputes in Bohemia to ensure peace on the south-west border.Bolesław devoted the second half of his rule to the con-quest of Pomerania. In 1113 he conquered the north-ern strongholds along Noteć, which strengthened the bor-der with the Pomeranians. In subsequent years, he tooksteps toward the conquest of Pomerania. The resolu-tion of the conflict with the Holy Roman Empire allowedBolesław the subordinate Western Pomerania and incor-porate Gdańsk Pomerania. The military expeditions, car-ried out in three stages, ended in the 1120s with mili-tary and political successes. Integration of the newly an-nexed lands enabled Bolesław to build churches and be-gan the process of conversion of Pomerania. Bishop Ottoof Bamberg confirmed Christianization from 1123 on-ward.In the 1130s Bolesław participated in the dynastic disputein Hungary. After an unexpected defeat, he was forcedto make an agreement with Germany. In the Congress ofMerseburg of 1135, was addresses the issue of Pomera-nia, Silesia (probably also Poland) sovereignty and then

1

2 1 CHILDHOOD

the supremacy of the Archbishopric of Magdeburg overthe Polish Church.Bolesław was married twice. His first marriage with theKievan princess Zbyslava, gave him an excuse to inter-vene militarily in the internal affairs of Russia. Afterher death, Bolesław married to a German noblewoman,Salomea of Berg, which in some way was the cause ofchanges in Polish foreign policy: in the second half ofhis rule, the Prince sought to restore diplomatic relationswith his western neighbor.[3] His last, and perhaps themost momentous act, was his will and testament known as“The Succession Statute” in which he divided the coun-try among his sons, leading to almost 200 years of feudalfragmentation of the Polish Kingdom.Bolesław III Wrymouth has been recognized by histori-ography as a symbol of Polish political aspirations un-til well into the 19th century.[4] He also upheld the in-dependence of the Polish archbishopric of Gniezno, de-spite a temporary failure in the 1130s. Despite undoubtedsuccesses, he committed serious political errors, mostnotably against Zbigniew of Poland, his half-brother.The crime against Zbigniew and his penance for it showBolesław’s great ambition as well as his ability to find po-litical compromise.[5]

1 Childhood

1.1 Situation of Poland during the 1080s

In 1086 the coronation of Vratislav II as King ofBohemia, and his alignment with László I, King ofHungary, threatened the position of the Polish ruler,Prince Władysław I Herman.[6][7] Therefore, that sameyear Władysław I was forced to recall from Hungarianbanishment the only son of Bolesław II the Bold and arightful heir to the Polish throne, Mieszko Bolesławowic.Upon his return young Bolesławowic accepted the over-lordship of his uncle and gave up his hereditary claimto the crown of Poland in exchange for becoming firstin line to succeed him.[8] In return, Władysław I Her-man granted his nephew the district of Kraków.[9] Thesituation was further complicated for Władysław I Her-man by a lack of a legitimate male heir, as his first-bornson Zbigniew came from a union not recognized by thechurch.[10][11] With the return of Mieszko Bolesławowicto Poland, Władysław I normalized his relations with thekingdom of Hungary as well as Kievan Rus (the mar-riage of Mieszko Bolesławowic to a Kievan princess wasarranged in 1088).[12] These actions allowed Herman tostrengthen his authority and alleviate further tensions ininternational affairs.[13]

1.2 Birth of Bolesław. Name and nick-name

The lack of a legitimate heir, however, remained a con-cern for Władysław I and in 1085 he and his wife Judithof Bohemia sent rich gifts, among which was a life sizestatue of a child made of gold, to the Benedictine Sanc-tuary of Saint Giles[14] in Saint-Gilles, Provence beggingfor offspring.[15][16] The Polish envoys were led by thepersonal chaplain of Duchess Judith, Piotr.[17]

The date of birth of Bolesław is closely linked with thedeath of his mother Judith. This fact is evidenced by con-temporary sources:

• Gallus Anonymus in the Cronicae et gesta ducumsive principum Polonorum reported that Duchess Ju-dith gave birth to Bolesław on the day of King SaintStephen of Hungary[18] (whose feast since the 11thcentury was celebrated on 20 August). However, theDuchess’ health never recovered from childbirth anddied on the night of Nativity[18] (i.e. 24–25 Decem-ber). Gallus didn't put in his chronicle any date year.

• Cosmas of Prague wrote in Latin in his Chron-ica Boëmorum (“Chronicle of Bohemians”) thatBolesław was born three days before the death ofJudith, who died in VIII Calends of January (25 De-cember) of the year 1085.[19]

• The Kalendarz krakowski said that Duchess Judithdied on 24 December 1086,[20] and only indicatedthat the birth of Bolesław was in the same year.[21]

• The Obituary of the Abbey of Saint-Gilles reportedthe death of Judith on 24 December 1086.[22]

• The Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej (closely related tothe Kalendarz krakowski) placed the death of Judithon 24 December 1086.[23]

Historian August Bielowski established Bolesław’s birthon 26 December 1085 and the death of his mother twodays later, on 28 December. According to him GallusAnonymus committed two errors. First, instead of theSunday after the Nativity of the Lord wrote incorrectly inthe Sunday of the Nativity. Secondly, he mistaken the dayof Saint Stephen (26 December) with the festivities ofKing Stephen of Hungary (20 August). Both correctionslead to the birth date of Bolesław on 26 December. Thistheory was supported by the fact that in 1085 28 Decem-ber fell on a Sunday.[24]

Oswald Balzer refuted Bielowski’s theory and pointedthat Judith’s death was on the night between 24–25 De-cember 1086, and the birth of Bolesław was four monthsbefore, on 20 August. According to him, if Judith diedon the night between 24–24 December, are possible dis-crepancies in determining the exact date of the event. All

1.2 Birth of Bolesław. Name and nickname 3

known sources who placed the death of Judith, wouldthen right. Gallus wrote that Judith died shortly after giv-ing birth to a son. Later sources interpret this as a deathin childbirth and Cosmas of Prague followed this fact,despite he didn't received the information at first hand.Hence, his mistake would result in this point. In contrast,the right -indicated by Gallus- date of birth of Bolesławwould be 20 August. In the medieval tradition the yearbegan on 25 December. In that case, the reports of Cos-mas must be concluded that Bolesław was born yet in1085. This information, however, was in contradictionwith the reports of the Kalendarz krakowski, who gavethe year 1086. Judith was styled by the authors of theKalendarz as “regina Polonia” (Queen of Poland in Latin),and this title could be associated with her father’s coro-nation as King of Bohemia and Poland on 15 June 1086(according to Cosmas).[25][26] Karol Maleczyński refutedthe arguments of Balzer, who accepted the date of thecoronation of Vratislav II given by Cosmas.[19] However,most researchers indicates that the coronation took placeon 15 June 1085, so Judith could be called Queen a yearearlier.[6][7]

Karol Maleczyński determined that the death of Judithtook place on the night between 24–25 December 1085,and Bolesław was born four months before, on 20 Au-gust. Researchers found that the date given by theRocznikkapituły krakowskiej (24 December 1086) was the sameestablished by Cosmas (25 December 1085). The dif-ference in the year could be explained in the different ofstyle dating followed by Cosmas, who began the year ac-cording to the Julian calendar on 1 January and Christmas(Nativitate in Latin) on 25 December. For Maleczyński,Kazimierz Jasiński not consider this calendar differencewho occurs only during the period 25–31 December.[27]

Archaeologist Wojciech Szafrański reasumed the theoryof Bielowski: Judith of Bohemia died on 28 December1085, and Bolesław was born two days before, on 26 De-cember. According to Szafrański Cosmas used the termVIII Calends of January, with no specific date. However,in the Chronicle of Gallus should read that Judith diedon Christmas Day, but on Sunday in the Octave of Christ-mas.[24] Using such a broadened range of days, the in-vestigator determined the birth of Boleslaw in the feastof Saint Stephen (26 December).[28] For this reasons, thedate of 1085 given by Bielowski is correct according tohim. However, Jasiński pointed the weaknesses of theargument of Szafrański because Gallus has written aboutthe Octave, but specifically about Christmas night, butthe investigator didn't consider all other sources, as wellas the achievements of research in genealogy.[24]

Marian Plezia argued that Bolesław was born on 2September 1085 or 1086.[29] According to Gallus, theday of King Stephen of Hungary was also celebratedon 2 September.[30] Jasiński considered this theory un-founded. In Poland the feast of King Stephen of Hungaryis pointed by the Kalendarz krakowski and the kalendarzKodeksu Gertrudy on 20August. Besides, if Bolesławwas

born on 2 September, Gallus probably would be notedthat this was the day after the celebration of Saint Giles(1 September), which was attributed to be the intercessorof his birth.[29]

Kazimierz Jasiński placed the death of Judith in thenight between 24–25 December 1086[31] and the birthof Bolesław four months before, on 20 August.[32] Inthis point he agrees with the findings of Balzer. He sup-ported his views with additional arguments: All sourcesare based in the missing Rocznika kapituły krakowskiej,and the next known text of this source refers to eventsin the year 1086.[33] Cosmas, writing his chronicle a fewdecades later, probably benefited from oral tradition andcould make a mistake when he placed the year. His re-ports who placed the birth of Bolesław three days beforethe death of his mother denoted a quite short time.[34]

Today is widely recognized the view of both Jasiński andBalzer, that Bolesław most likely was born in the day ofKing Stephen of Hungary, 20 August 1086.[35]

Bolesław III Wrymouth, by J.B. Jacobi (1828).

According to Cosmas of Prague, Bolesław was named af-ter his uncle, Bolesław II the Generous. Władysław I Her-man had no reason to named his first-born legitimate sonafter his brother, but probably in this way tried to placatethe former allies of his predecessor.[36]

Bolesław’s nickname “Wrymouth” (pl: Krzywousty) ap-peared in Polish and Latin sources of the 13th century:Genealogii płockiej (Criwousti)[37] and the Roczniku świę-tokrzyskim młodszym (Crzyvousti). Probably the originof this nickname dates back on the 12th century and is

4 1 CHILDHOOD

relationed with some physical characteristics of the Pol-ish ruler, who were noticed at the time of his reign.[36]Probably he began to be named in this way after 1114,because Gallus Anonymus in his Chronicle never men-tioned it.[38] In the Kronice książąt polskich and Kronicepolsko-śląskiej Bolesław was qualified by the Latin ad-jective curvus, whose significance remains unclear. Ac-cording to the 14th century Kroniki o Piotrze Włostow-icu the Prince was hunchbacked (Latin: gibbosus) or hada crooked mouth.[36][39] The 15th century chronicler JanDługosz wrote:

He had a mouth on one side slightlybent, and for this he was calledWrymouth; however, this is notmarred his face, and even added tohim some charm.[40]

In 1974, in the Masovian Blessed Virgin Mary Cathe-dral of Płock, where according to tradition Bolesław wasburied, an archaeological research project was conducted.A coffin was discovered containing the bones of 16 menand women. One of the skulls, of a man who died aged50, had a deformed mandible.[41] There is a hypothesisthat these remains belonged to Bolesław. Opponents ofthis theory suggest that the Prince was named in this waymany years after his death, and his contemporary Gal-lus did not mention any physical defect in the hero of hisChronicles. The defenders of the hypothesis argue thatthe work of Gallus has the characteristics of a panegyricin honor of Bolesław, because the chronicler did not men-tion his physical infirmities. It is also speculated that thebone damage occurred as a result of childbirth complica-tions, which led to the death of his mother a few monthslater.[42]

The nickname of Boleslaw was also explained in otherways. According to a legend, Boleslaw slammed his faceagainst a wall after watching his father’s subservience to-wards the Germans and Czechs.[43] According to JanDłu-gosz, the Prince in his youth suffered from an ulcer, whichcaused the deformity of his face.[44] According to olderhistoriography, he received the nickname Wrymouth forhis perjury.[45][46]

1.3 Early Years

Following Bolesław’s birth the political climate in thecountry changed. The position of Bolesław as an heirto the throne was threatened by the presence of MieszkoBolesławowic, who was already seventeen at the time andwas furthermore, by agreement with Władysław I Her-man himself, the first in line to succeed. In all like-lihood it was this situation that precipitated the youngprince Mieszko’s demise in 1089.[47] In that same yearWladyslaw I Herman’s first-born son Zbigniew was sentto a monastery in Quedlinburg, Saxony.[48] This suggeststhat Wladyslaw I Herman intended to be rid of Zbigniew

by making him a monk, and therefore depriving him ofany chance of succession.[49][50] This eliminated two pre-tenders to the Polish throne, secured young Bolesław’s in-heritance as well as diminished the growing opposition toWladyslaw I Herman among the nobility.[51] Shortly afterhis ascension, however, Władysław I Herman was forcedby the barons to give up the de facto reins of governmentto Count Palatine Sieciech. This turn of events was likelydue to the fact that Herman owed the throne to the barons,the most powerful of whom was Sieciech.[52][53]

Around this time Władysław I Herman married again.The chosen bride was Judith-Maria, daughter of EmperorHenry III and widow of King Solomon of Hungary, whoafter her wedding took the name Sophia in order to dis-tinguish herself from Władysław I Herman’s first wife.Through this marriage Bolesław gained three or four half-sisters, and as a consequence he remained the only legiti-mate son and heir. It’s believed that the new Duchess wasactively aiding Sieciech in his schemes to take over thecountry and that she became his mistress.[52][54]

1.4 Position of Sieciech in Poland

In 1090 Polish forces under Sieciech’s command, man-aged to gain control of Gdańsk Pomerania, albeit fora short time. Major towns were garrisoned by Polishtroops, and the rest were burned in order to thwart fu-ture resistance. Several months later, however, a rebel-lion of native elites led to the restoration of the region’sindependence from Poland.[55] The following year a puni-tive expedition was organized, in order to recover GdańskPomerania. The campaign was decided at the battle of theWda River, where the Polish knights suffered a defeat de-spite the assistance of Bohemian troops.[56]

Reception of Jews in Poland in 1096, Painting by Jan Matejko.

Prince Bolesław’s childhood happened at a time whena massive political migration out of Poland was takingplace,[57] due to Sieciech’s political repressions.[58][59]Most of the elites who became political refugees foundsafe haven in Bohemia. Another consequence ofSieciech’s political persecution was the kidnapping of

2.2 Fight against Sieciech 5

Zbigniew by Sieciech’s enemies and his return fromabroad in 1093.[59] Zbigniew took refuge in Silesia, astronghold of negative sentiment for both Sieciech as wellas his nominal patron Władysław I Herman.[59][60] In theabsence of Sieciech and Bolesław, who were captured byHungarians and kept captive, Prince Władysław I thenundertook a penal expedition to Silesia, which was unsuc-cessful and subsequently obliged him to recognize Zbig-niew as a legitimate heir.[59] In 1093 Władysław I signedan Act of Legitimization which granted Zbigniew therights of descent from his line. Zbigniew was also grantedthe right to succeed to the throne. Following Sieciech andBolesław’s escape from Hungary, an expedition againstZbigniewwasmounted by the Count Palatine. Its aimwasto nullify the Act of Legitimization. The contestants metat the battle of Goplo in 1096, where Sieciech’s forces an-nihilated the supporters of Zbigniew. Zbigniew himselfwas taken prisoner, but regained his freedom a year later,inMay 1097, due to the intervention of the bishops.[61][62]At the same time his rights, guaranteed by the Act of Le-gitimization, were reinstated.[63]

Simultaneously a great migration of Jews from West-ern Europe to Poland began circa 1096, around the timeof the First Crusade. The tolerant rule of Władysław IHerman attracted the Jews who were permitted to settlethroughout the entire kingdom without restrictions. ThePolish prince, took great care of the Hebrew Diaspora,as he understood its positive influence on the growth ofthe country’s economy.[64] The new Jewish citizens soongained trust of the gentiles during the rule of BolesławIII.

2 Youth

2.1 Division of the country

In view of his father’s disapproval, and after discoveringthe plans of Sieciech and Duchess Judith-Sophia to takeover the country Zbigniew gained an ally in the youngprince Bolesław. Both brothers demanded that the reinsof government should be handed over to them. It isdifficult to believe, however, that Bolesław was makingindependent decisions at this point as he was only 12years of age. It is postulated that at this stage he wasmerely a pawn of the Baron’s power struggle. WładysławI Herman, however, agreed to divide the realm betweenthe brothers,[65] each to be granted his own provincewhile the Prince – Władysław I himself – kept controlof Mazovia and its capital at Płock. Władysław also re-tained control of the most important cities i.e. Wrocław,Kraków and Sandomierz.[66][67] Zbigniew’s province en-compassed Greater Poland including Gniezno, Kuyavia,Łęczyca Land and Sieradz Land. Bolesław’s territory in-cluded Lesser Poland, Silesia and Lubusz Land.[68]

The division of the country and the allowance of Bolesławand Zbigniew to co-rule greatly alarmed Sieciech, who

Prince Zbigniew

then began preparing to dispose of the brothers alto-gether. Sieciech understood that the division of the coun-try would undermine his position.[69] He initiated a mil-itary settlement of the issue and he gained the Prince’ssupport for it.[70] The position of Władysław I is seen asambiguous as he chose to support Sieciech’s cause insteadof his sons’.[71]

2.2 Fight against Sieciech

In response to Sieciech’s preparations Bolesław and Zbig-niew entered into an alliance. This took place at a pop-ular assembly or Wiec organized in Wrocław by a mag-nate named Skarbimir of the Awdaniec family. There itwas decided to remove the current guardian of Bolesław,a noble named Wojslaw who was a relative of Sieciech,and arrange for an expedition against the Palatine. Sub-sequently, in 1099, the armies of Count Palatine andPrince Herman encountered the forces of Zbigniew andBolesław near Żarnowiec by the river Pilica. Therethe forces of Bolesław and Zbigniew defeated Sieciech’sarmy, and Władysław I Herman was obliged to perma-nently remove Sieciech from the position of Count Pala-tine.[69] In the same year, at Christmas, Bolesław con-cluded to short-lived peace with Bohemia. The agree-ment was concluded in Žatec.[72] According to Cosmas,

6 3 FIRST YEARS OF GOVERNMENT

Bolesław was appointed Miecznik (en: Sword-bearer) ofhis uncle Bretislaus II, Duke of Bohemia. In addition, theyoung prince would be paid the amount of 100 pieces offine silver and 10 talents of gold annually as a tribute toBohemia (it was about the land of Silesia, for which hepaid tribute to Władysław I).[73]

The rebel forces were then further directed towardsSieciechów,[74] where the Palatine took refuge. Unex-pectedly, Prince Władysław came to the aid of his be-sieged favorite with a small force. At this point, thePrinces decided to depose their father. The opposi-tion sent Zbigniew with an armed contingent to Masovia,where hewas to take control of Płock, while Bolesławwasdirected to the South. The intention was the encirclementof their father, Prince Władysław I. The Prince predictedthis maneuver and sent his forces back to Masovia. Inthe environs of Płock the battle was finally joined andthe forces of Władysław I were defeated. The Prince wasthereafter forced to exile Sieciech from the country.[75]The Palatine left Poland around 1100/1101.[69] He wasknown to sojourn in the German lands. However, heeventually returned to Poland but did not play any po-litical role again. He may have been blinded.[53]

3 First Years of Government

3.1 Struggle for the supremacy (1102–1106)

Division of Poland between Bolesław (red) and Zbigniew (green)

Władysław I Herman died on 4 June 1102.[76] The coun-try was divided into two provinces, each administered byone of the late prince’s sons. The extent of each provinceclosely resembled the provinces that the princes weregranted by their father three years earlier, the only differ-ence being that Zbigniew also controlled Mazovia with itscapital at Płock, effectively ruling the northern part of thekingdom, while his younger half-brother Bolesław ruled

its southern portion.[77] In this way two virtually sepa-rate states were created.[78] According to some historians,Zbigniew tried to play the role of princeps or overlord,[79]because at that time Bolesław was only 16 years-old. Be-cause he was still too inexperienced to independently di-rect his domains, the local nobility gathered around himtook great influence in the political affairs, included histeacher, Skarbimir from the Awdaniec family.[80]

They conducted separate policies internally as well as ex-ternally. They each sought alliances, and sometimes theywere enemies of one another. Such was the case withPomerania, towards which Bolesław aimed his ambitions.Zbigniew, whose country bordered Pomerania, wishedto maintain good relations with his northern neighbor.Bolesław, eager to expand his dominion, organized sev-eral raids into Pomerania and Prussia.[76] In Autumn of1102 Bolesław organized a war party into Pomerania dur-ing which his forces sacked Białogard.[81]

As reprisal the Pomeranians sent retaliatory war partiesinto Polish territory, but as Pomerania bordered Zbig-niew’s territory these raids ravaged the lands of the princewho was not at fault. Therefore, in order to put pres-sure on Bolesław, Zbigniew allied himself with Bořivoj IIof Bohemia, to whom he promised to pay tribute in re-turn for his help.[80] By aligning himself with Bolesław’ssouthern neighbor Zbigniew wished to compel Bolesławto cease his raids into Pomerania. Bolesław, on theother hand, allied himself with Kievan Rus and Hungary.His marriage to Zbyslava, the daughter of Sviatopolk IIIziaslavich in 1103, was to seal the alliance between him-self and the prince of Kiev.[82] However, Bolesław’s firstdiplomatic move was to recognize Pope Paschal II, whichput him in strong opposition to the Holy Roman Empire.A later visit of papal legate Gwalo, Bishop of Beauvaisbrought the church matters into order, it also increasedBolesław’s influence.[83]

Zbigniew declined to attend the marriage of Bolesławand Zbyslava. He saw this union and the alliance withKiev as a serious threat. Thanks to bribery,[84] he there-fore prevailed upon his ally, Bořivoj II of Bohemia toinvade Bolesław’s province, ostensibly to claim the Pol-ish crown.[85] Bolesław retaliated with expeditions intoMoravia in 1104–1105, which brought the young princenot only loot, but also effectively disintegrated the al-liance of Pomeranians and Zbigniew.[86] During the re-turn of the army, one part commanded by Żelisław weredefeated by the Bohemians. Bolesław, who commandedthe other part of the army, couldn't defeated them. Skar-bimir, thanks to bribery, could stopped Bořivoj II. Witha vast amount of money, the Bohemian ruler returnedto his homeland and was concluded a short-lived peacewith Bohemia. Then Bořivoj II ended his alliance withZbigniew.[84] In order to paralyze the alliance of Pomera-nia and his older brother, Bolesław carried out multi-ple attacks on northern land in the year 1103 (the battleof Kołobrzeg, where was defeated[87]), and in the years1104-1105, ended with success.[88]

3.2 Sole Ruler of Poland 7

The intervention of Bolesław in the dynastic dispute inHungary led him in a difficul political situation. At first,he supported the pretender Álmos,and marched to Hun-gary to help him. However, during the siege of Abaújvárin 1104, Álmos changed his mind and made peace con-versations with his brother and rival King Coloman, atthat point Zbigniew’s ally. Bolesław then retired histroops from Hungary and in 1105 made a treaty withColoman. It was decided then that Bolesław didn'tsupport Álmos against the alliance Coloman-Zbigniew.In addition, the Hungarian King broke his agreementswith the Bohemian Kingdom.[89] The dynastic disputein Prague between Bořivoj II and his cousin Svatoplukcaused the intervention of Bolesław and his ally KingColoman in support of Svatopluk, with the main objec-tive to placed him in the Bohemian throne.[90] However, anew rebellion of Álmos forced Coloman and his army toreturn Hungary. Bolesław also decided to retreat. Svato-pluk tried to master the city alone, but suffered a com-plete defeat; his attempt to seize power in Bohemia wasunsuccessful.[91]

Also in 1105, Bolesław entered into an agreement withhis half-brother, in the same way like just a few yearsbefore entered with their stepmother Judith-Sophia (whoin exchange of an abundant Oprawa wdowia (dowerlands), secured her neutrality in Bolesław’s political con-test with Zbigniew[88]). The treaty, signed in Tyniec, wasa compromise of both brothers in foreign policy; how-ever, no agreement about Pomerania was settled there.[92]One year later, the treaty ended when Zbigniew refusedto help his half-brother in his fight against Pomerania.While hunting, Bolesław was unexpectedly attacked bythem. In the battle, the young prince almost lost hislife. Bohemia, using the involvement of Bolesław in thePomeranian affairs as an excuse, attacked Silesia. Theprince tried to re-established the alliance with his half-brother, without success.[93] The effect of this refusal wasthe rapprochement to the Bohemian Kingdom in 1106.Bolesław managed to bribe Bořivoj II and have him joinhis side in the contest against Zbigniew and shortly afterformally allied himself with Coloman of Hungary. Withthe help of his Kievan and Hungarian allies Bolesław at-tacked Zbigniew’s territory, and began a civil war forthe supreme power in Poland.[94] The allied forces ofBolesław easily took control of most important cities in-cluding Kalisz, Gniezno, Spycimierz and Łęczyca,[95] ineffect taking half of Zbigniew’s lands. Through a medi-ation of Baldwin, Bishop of Kraków, a peace treaty wassigned at Łęczyca,[96] in which Zbigniew officially rec-ognized Bolesław as the Supreme Prince of all Poland.However, he was allowed to retain Masovia as a fief.[97]

3.2 Sole Ruler of Poland

3.2.1 First Expedition to Bohemia and exile ofZbigniew

In 1107 Bolesław III along with his ally King Colomanof Hungary, invaded Bohemia in order to aid Svatoplukin gaining the Czech throne. The intervention in theCzech succession was meant to secure Polish intereststo the south.[98] The expedition was a full success: on14 May 1107 Svatopluk was made Duke of Bohemia inPrague.[99]

Later that year Bolesław undertook a punitive expeditionagainst his brother Zbigniew. The reason for this wasthat Zbigniew didn't follow his orders and refused to burndown one of the fortresses of Kurów near Puławy.[100]Another reason was that Zbigniew not followed his dutiesas a vassal and didn't provide military aid to Bolesławfor a campaign against the Pomeranians. In the win-ter of 1107–1108 with the help of Kievan and Hungar-ian allies, Bolesław began a final campaign to rid him-self of Zbigniew. His forces attacked Mazovia, andquickly forced Zbigniew to surrender. Following thisZbigniew was banished from the country and with his fol-lowers, took refuge in Prague, where he found support inSvatopluk.[101] From then Bolesław was the sole lord ofthe Polish lands,[95][102] though in fact his over-lordshipbegan in 1107 when Zbigniew paid him homage as hisfeudal lord.[96]

In 1108 the balance of power in Europe changed. Svato-pluk decided to paid homage to Emperor Henry V andin exchange, received from him the formal investidure ofBohemia. At the same time, King Coloman of Hungarywas under attack by the combined forces of the Holy Ro-man Empire and Bohemia. Svatopluk also directed an at-tack to Poland; in this expedition took part Zbigniew andhis followers. Bolesław avoided a direct confrontation be-cause was busy again in his fight against Pomerania. Now,the Polish-Hungarian coalition decided to give help andshelter to Bořivoj II.[101] Later that year, Bolesław andColoman made an new expedition against Bohemia. Thisexpedition was prompted by the invasion of the German-Bohemian coalition to Hungary (siege to Pozsony Cas-tle)[103] and the fact that Svatopluk, who owed Bolesławhis throne, didn't honor his promise in which he returnedSilesian cities seized from Poland (Racibórz, Kamieniec,Koźle among others) by his predecessors.[104] Bolesławthen decided to restore Bořivoj II in the Bohemian throne.This attempt was unsuccessful[96] as a result of the at-tack of the Pomeranians. Bolesław was forced to bringhis army to the north, where could repelled the invasion.Thanks to this situation, Bořivoj II failed to regain thethrone.[103]

3.2.2 Polish-German War of 1109

In response to Bolesław’s aggressive foreign policy, Ger-man king and Holy Roman Emperor Henry V undertooka punitive expedition against Poland in 1109 (the later

8 3 FIRST YEARS OF GOVERNMENT

called Polish-German War).[105] In this fight, Henry Vwas assisted by Czech warriors provided by Svatopluk ofBohemia. The alleged reason for the war was the exileof Zbigniew and his restoration. Bolesław received anultimatum from the German King: he abandoned the ex-pedition against him only if Zbigniew was restored withhalf of Poland as a rule, the formal recognition of theHoly Roman Empire as overlord and the payment of 300pieces of fine silver as a regular tribute.[106] Bolesław re-jected. During the negotiations between Germany andPoland, the Polish ruler was in the middle of a war againstPomerania. On the west side of the Oder river, HenryV hurriedly gathered knights for his expedition againstPoland.[106] Before the fight ended in Pomerania, the Ger-man troops have been able to approach Głogów.[107]

Battle of Hundsfeld, from The Polish Chronicle of Marcin Biel-ski (1597)

The military operations mainly taken place in southwest-ern Poland, in Silesia, where Henry V’s army laid siegeto major strongholds of Głogów, Wrocław and BytomOdrzański. At this time along with the defense of towns,Bolesław was conducting a highly effective guerrilla waragainst the Holy Roman Emperor and his allies, and even-tually he defeated the German Imperial forces at the leg-endary Battle of Hundsfeld on 24 August 1109,[106][108]who received that name because the dogs devoured themany corpses left in the battlefield. In the end HenryV was forced to withdraw from Silesia and Poland alto-gether. The heroic defense of towns by villagers, wherePolish children were used as human shields by the Ger-mans, in large measure contributed to the German inabil-ity to succeed and gave the battle a national character.[109]

3.2.3 Second Expedition to Bohemia

In 1110 Bolesław undertook an unsuccessful military ex-pedition against Bohemia. His intention was to install yetanother pretender on the Czech throne, Soběslav I,[110]who sought refuge in Poland. During the campaign won adecisive victory against the Czechs at the Battle of Trutinaon 8 October 1110;[111] however, following this battle heordered his forces to withdraw further attack against Bo-

hemia. The reason for this is speculated to be the unpop-ularity of Soběslav I among Czechs as well as Bolesław’sunwillingness to further deteriorate his relations with theHoly Roman Empire. In 1111 a truce between Polandand the Holy Roman Empire was signed which stipulatedthat Soběslav I would be able to return to Bohemia whileZbigniew would be able to return Poland.[112] Bolesławprobably also agreed with the return of his half-brother asa result of pressure from themany supporters of the exiledprince in 1108, who according to the reports of GallusAnonymus was surrounded to bad advisers (in this groupunfavorable to Bolesław was probably Martin I, Arch-bishop of Gniezno[113]). Once in Poland, Zbigniew couldclaim the sovereignty over his previous domains at theinstigation of this group. The first step towards this washis presence in the Advent ceremonial (which was forbid-den to him by Bolesław after recognizing him as his over-lord in Łęczyca in 1107),[114] which is reserved only forrulers. Zbigniew arrived surrounded by attendants, beingcarried before him a sword. This could be perceived byBoleslaw as an act of treason[115] and caused a definitivebreach in their relationship, under which Zbigniew wasthe vassal and Boleslaw the ruler.[116] Probably these fac-tors influenced Bolesław’s decision of a terrible punish-ment to Zbigniew: a year later, in 1112, he was blindedon Bolesław’s orders.[117]

3.2.4 Excommunication

Martin I, Archbishop of Gniezno.

The blinding of Zbigniew caused a strong negative re-action among Bolesław’s subjects. It should be notedthat unlike for instance in the east, blinding in medievalPolandwas not accomplished by burning the eyes out witha red hot iron rod or knife, but a much more brutal tech-nique was employed. The condemned man’s eyes werepried out using special pliers. The convict was made toopen his eyes and if he did not do so, his eyelids were torn

9

out along with his eyeballs.Contemporary sources don't provide clear informationif Bolesław was indeed excluded from the communityof the Church.[118] Is generally believed that ArchbishopMartin I of Gniezno (who was a strong supporter ofZbigniew) excommunicated Bolesław for committing thiscrime against his half-brother.[119] The excommunicationexempted all Bolesław’s subjects from his oath to obedi-ence. The prince was faced with a real possibility of up-rising, of the sort that deposed Bolesław the Bold. Seeinghis precarious situation Bolesław sought the customarypenance that would reconcile the high priesthood. Ac-cording to Gallus Anonymus, Bolesław first fasted forforty days and made gifts to the poors:

(...)He slept in ashes and sackcloth,among the streams of tears and sobs,as he renounced communion andconversation with people.[120]

It’s possible that Bolesław decided to celebrated a publicpenance as a result of the negative public response to theblinding of Zbigniew. His intention with this was to re-build his weakened authority and gain the favor of Zbig-niew’s supportets.[121] Punishment of blinding was usedin medieval Europe to the rebellious nobles. This act ofBolesław against his half-brother could be received by thePolish society as a breach of the principle of solidarityamong the members of the ruling dynasty, accepting thefoundation of public order.[122]

Ruins of the Abbey of Saint Giles in Somogyvár, Hungary.

According to Gallus, Bolesław also sought and receivedforgiveness from his half-brother. In the next part ofhis penance, the prince made a pilgrimage to Hungary tothe Abbeys of Saint Giles in Somogyvár and King SaintStephen I in Székesfehérvár. The pilgrimage to the Abbeyof Saint Giles also had a political goal; Bolesław strength-ened his ties of friendship and alliance with the Arpad dy-nasty.[123] Following his return to Poland, Bolesław eventraveled to Gniezno to pay further penance at the tombof Saint Adalbert of Prague, were poor people and clergyreceived numerous costly gifts from the prince.[124] Only

after this the excommunication was finally lifted.[125] Fol-lowing his repentance the Polish prince made a vaguecommitment to the Church.[126]

About Zbigniew’s death there are not preserved informa-tion. In the obituary of the Benedictine monastery inLubiń dated 8 July 1113was reported the death of amonkin Tyniec called brother Zbigniew. Historians believedthat he could be Bolesław’s half-brother. The informa-tion marked that his burial place was in the Benedictinemonastery of Tyniec.[127]

4 Conquest and conversion ofPomerania

Main articles: Pomerania during the High Middle Ages,Duchy of Pomerania and Conversion of PomeraniaThe separation of Pomerania during the reign of Casimir

Map of Pomerania including the island of Rugia (17th century).

I the Restorer contributed to the weakening of the Pol-ish state, and subsequent rulers during the second half ofthe 11th century weren't able to unite all the lands thatonce belonged to Mieszko I and Bolesław I the Brave.All attempts made to reconquer this area failed. Only af-ter defeating Zbigniew and repelling the claims of Bo-hemia against Silesia during the Polis-German War of1109, Bolesław III Wrymouth was able to directed theexpansion to the West, which he intended to return toPoland.[128]

4.1 Strengthening the Polish-Pomeranianborders

The issue of conquest of Pomerania had been a lifelongpursuit for Bolesław III Wrymouth. His political goalswere twofold; first – to strengthen the Polish border onthe Noteć river line, second – to subjugate Pomeraniawith Polish political overlordship but without actuallyincorporating[129] it into the country with the exception

10 4 CONQUEST AND CONVERSION OF POMERANIA

of Gdansk Pomerania and a southern belt north of riverNoteć which were to be absorbed by Poland. By 1113 thenorthern border has been strengthened. The fortified bor-der cities included: Santok, Wieleń, Nakło, Czarnków,Ujście andWyszogród. Some sources report that the bor-der began at the mouth of river Warta and Oder in thewest, ran along the river Noteć all the way to the Vistulariver.[130]

Before Bolesław III began to expand in Gdańsk Pomera-nia (Pomerelia), he normalized his political relations withBohemia. This took place in 1114 at a great conventionon the border of the Nysa Kłodzka river.[104] In additionto Bolesław also assisted Bohemian princes of the Pre-myslid line: Vladislaus I, Otto II the Black and SoběslavI. The pact was sealed by the marriage of Bolesław (awidower since his wife Zbyslava’s death[131]) with Vladis-laus I andOtto II’s sister-in-law, the German noblewomanSalomea of Berg.[132]

4.2 The conquest of Gdańsk Pomerania

After being normalized his relations with Bohemia,Bolesław directed his efforts against Prussia, and in 1115he made a victorious expedition, ravaging their triballands. As a result, the north-east border was at peace,which allowed to freely prepare the invasion to GdańskPomerania.[133] The conquest of this part of the Pomera-nian lands (made during the years 1115-1119), crowneda long-time struggle of previous Polish rulers. The re-sult was the complete incorporation of the territories onthe Vistula River, including the castellany of Nakło, toPoland.[134][135] Northern borders were established Pol-ish Duchy probably on the line along the rivers Gwda andUniesta (in later times currents of these rivers were theboundary between Pomerania and the Oder Slavic). It’salso possible that the border ran along the Łeba.The local rulers of the conquered Gdańsk and Słupskwere removed from power and replaced by Polish no-bles. Bolesław also introduced Polish clerical organiza-tion, which was made in order to protect his interestsin that territory. However, these areas refused to followthe church organization. The incorporation to the PolishChurch occurred only during 1125-1126 at the time ofthe visit of Papal Legate Gilles, Cardinal-Bishop of Tus-culum.

4.2.1 Rebellion of Skarbimir

During Bolesław’s Pomeranian campaign a formidablerebellion led by Count Palatine Skarbimir from theAwdaniec family began. The rebellion was quelled bythe prince in 1117[136] and the mutinous nobleman wereblinded as punishment. The conflict between Bolesławand the Awdaniec family is difficult to explained dueto the lack of sources. The cause was probably thegrowing influence of the family, the ambition and jeal-

ousy of Skarbimir against Bolesław and his increasedpopularity.[137] Another probable factor was the desire toput Władysław II, Bolesław’s first-born son, as the soleruler after his death or also Boleslaw’s fears to lose hisposition, as it was in the conflict with Sieciech.[137] Itwas also suggested that Skarbimir entered in contacts withPomeranians and Vladimir II Monomakh, Grand Princeof Kievan Rus’.[138] Medieval historiography also asso-ciated the rebellion with the Law of Succession issuedby Boleslaw. The problem with the principle of inheri-tance appeared between 1115-1116 (after the birth of hissecond son Leszek, first-born from his second marriage).According to one hypothesis Skarbimir objected theadoption of the statute who changed the traditional Polishsuccession customs.[139] In the suppression of the rebel-lion played a major role Piotr Włostowic of the Labedzfamily, who replaced Skarbimir as Count Palatine.[137]Defeated, Skarbimir received a minor punishment fromBolesław.[140] The rebellion of Skarbimir also rested im-portance to the conquest of Gdańsk Pomerania.[141]

4.2.2 Intervention of Kievan Rus’

Probably in the rebellion of Skarbimir intervened theRurikid ruler Vladimir II Monomakh and his sons. In1118 Monomakh incorporated Volhynia to his domainsand expelled his ruler, Yaroslav Sviatopolkovich,[141]who sought refuge firstly in Hungary,[142][143] then inPoland.[144] In Yaroslav’s place, Monomakh put his sonRoman as a ruler of Volhynia, and after his early deathin 1119, replaced him with another son, Andrew, whoin 1120 invaded Polish territory with the support of theKipchaks tribe. A year later, Bolesław with the exiledYaroslav (who was his brother-in-law),[145] organized aretaliatory expedition to Czermno.[142][146] After this, forseveral years Bolesław intervened in the dynastic disputesof the House of Rurik.[141]

During the 1120s the Kievan princes continue their expe-ditions against Poland. The neutrality of the neighboringPrincipality of Peremyshl was attributed to Count Pala-tine Piotr Włostowic,[147] who in 1122 captured PrinceVolodar.[148] A year later Bolesław intervened again inVolhynia, where he wanted to restore Yaroslav. The ex-pedition (aided by the Bohemian, Hungarian, Peremyshland Terebovl forces) failed due to the death of Yaroslavand the stubborn resistance of the besieged Volodymyr-Volynskyi, aided by Skarbimir’s supporters. This failedmilitary expedition led to disturbances in the Polish-Hungarian-Halych alliance.[141][146][149]

4.3 Conquest of Western Pomerania

In 1121 (or 1119[150]) Pomeranian Dukes Wartislaw Iand Swietopelk I were defeated by Bolesław’s army atthe battle of Niekładź near Gryfice.[151] Polish troops rav-aged Pomerania, destroyed native strongholds, and forced

4.4 Christianization of Western Pomerania 11

thousands of Pomeranians to resettle deep into Polishterritory.[152] Bolesław’s further expansion was directedto Szczecin (1121-1122). He knew that this city was welldefended by both the natural barrier of the Oder river andhis well-built fortifications, like Kołobrzeg. The only wayto approach the walls was through the frozen waters of anearby swamp. Taking advantage of this element of sur-prise, Bolesław launched his assault from precisely thatdirection, and took control of the city. Much of the pop-ulation was slaughtered and the survivors were forced topaid homage to the Polish ruler.[153]

A further step is probably fought battles on the west-ern side of the Oder River, where Boleslaw had ad-dressed areas to the Lake Morzyce (now the GermanMüritz). These areas were outside the territorial scopeof Pomeranians. In parallel with the expansion of thePolish ruler to the west continued the conquest of theselands by Lothair, Duke of Saxony (and future Holy Ro-man Emperor). According to contemporary sources, aSaxon army approaching from above the Elbe River inthe direction of today’s Rostock. They conquered theWarinis, Circipanes, Kessinians and part of the Tollenserstribes.[154] The expansion led by the two rulers was prob-ably the result of earlier unknown agreements. This wasthe first step for the later Christianization of Pomeranianlands.[155]

In 1122 Bolesław finally conquered Western Pomera-nia, who became a Polish fief. Duke Wartislaw I wasforced to paid homage to the Polish ruler, paying anannual tribute of 500 marks of fine silver[156] and theobligation to give military aid to Poland at Bolesław’srequest.[157][158] In subsequent years the tribute was re-duced to 300 marks.[159] This success enabled Bolesławto made further conquests. In 1123 his troops evenreached to Rügen, but didn't mastered these areas.[153]

According to modern historiography, Bolesław began topay tribute to Emperor Henry V, at least from 1135. Isbelieved that the amount was 500 marks of fine silver an-nually. It’s unknown why Bolesław began to paid homageto Henry V, as the sources do not mention any referenceabout the Polish ruler being tributary of the Holy RomanEmpire in the period 1121-1135.[160]

4.4 Christianization of Western Pomera-nia

In order to make Polish and Pomeranian ties stronger,Bolesław organized a mission to Christianize the newlyacquired territory. The Polish monarch understood thatthe Christianization of the conquered territory would bean effective means of strengthening his authority there.At the same time he wished to subordinate Pomerania tothe Gniezno Archbishopric. Unfortunately first attemptsmade by unknown missionaries did not make the de-sired progress.[161] Another attempt, officially sponsoredby Bolesław and led by Bernard the Spaniard, who trav-

Saint Otto of Bamberg.

eled to Wolin during 1122-1123, has ended in anotherfailure.[162] The next two missions were carried out in1124–1125 and 1128 by Bishop Otto of Bamberg (calledthe Apostle of Pomerania). After appropriate consulta-tion with Bolesław, Bishop Otto set out on a first stage ofChristianization of the region in 1124. In hismissionOttostayed firstly at Bolesław’s court, where he was providedwith appropriate equipment, fire and several clergymenfor his trip to Pomerania.The Bishop was accompanied throughout his mission bythe Pomeranian ruler Wartislaw I, who greeted him onthe border of his domains, in the environs of the city ofSanok.[163] In Stargard the pagan prince promised Ottohis assistance in the Pomeranian cities as well as help dur-ing the journey. He also assigned 500 armored knightsto act as guards for the bishop’s protection,[158] and ob-tain the baptism of the elders tribal leaders.[164] Primarymissionary activities were directed to Pyrzyce,[158] thenthe towns of Kamień, Wolin, Szczecin and once againWolin.[153][165] In the first two towns the Christianizationwent without resistance. In Kamień the task was facili-tated by the intercession of Wartislaw I’s own wife anddignitaries.[164] At Szczecin and Wolin, which were im-portant centers of Slavic paganism, opposition to conver-sion was particularly strong among the pagan priests andlocal population. The conversion was finally acceptedonly after Bolesław lowered the annual tribute imposedon the Pomeranians.[159] Four great pagan temples weretorn down and churches were built in their places.[153]Otto’s mission of 1124 ended with the erection of bish-oprics in Lubusz forWestern Pomerania and inKruszwicafor Eastern Pomerania (Gdańsk), which was subordinatedto the Archbishopric of Gniezno.[166]

12 5 CONGRESS OF MERSEBURG

In 1127 the first pagan rebellions began to take place.These were due to both the large tribute imposed byPoland as well as a plague that descended on Pomera-nia and which was blamed on Christianity.[159] The re-bellions were largely instigated by the old pagan priests,who had not come to terms with their new circumstances.Wartislaw I confronted these uprisings with some suc-cess, but was unable to prevent several insurgent raids intoPolish territory. Because of this Bolesław was prepar-ing a massive punitive expedition that may have spoiledall the earlier accomplishments of missionary work byBishop Otto.[167] Thanks to Otto’s diplomacy direct con-frontation was avoided and in 1128 he embarked on an-other mission to Pomerania. Wartislaw I greeted Otto atDemmin with some Polish knights. This time more stresswas applied to the territories west of the Oder River, i.e.Usedom, Wolgast and Gützkow,[168] which weren't un-der Polish suzerainty.[169][170] The final stage of the mis-sion returned to Szczecin, Wolin and Kamień.[153] TheChristianization of Pomerania is considered one of thegreatest accomplishments of Bolesław’s Pomeranian pol-icy.In 1129 Bolesław concluded with Niels, King of Den-mark an alliance directed against Wartislaw I and the at-tempts of Lothair III, King of Germany to subordinateWestern Pomerania. In retaliation for the sack of Płockby Wartislaw I in 1128, Polish-Danish troops taken theWestern Pomeranian islands of Wolin and Usedom.[171]

At end of the 1120s Bolesław began to implement an ec-clesiastical organization of Pomerania. Gdańsk Pomera-nia was added to the Diocese of Włocławek, known atthe time as the Kujavian Diocese. A strip of border-land north of Noteć was split between the Diocese ofGniezno and Diocese of Poznan. The bulk of Pomeraniawas however made an independent Pomeranian bishopric(whose first Bishop was one of the participants in themissionary expedition and former Polish royal chaplain,Adalbert[172][173]), set up in the territory of the Duchy ofPomerania in 1140, and after Bolesław had died in 1138the duchy became independent from Poland.[169]

4.5 The project of Archbishop Norbert ofMagdeburg

During the 1130s a project was designed by Norbert,Archbishop of Magdeburg, under which Pomeraniawould be divided between two dioceses subordinated tothe Archbishopric of Magdeburg. At the same, he re-vivied the old claims about Magdeburg’s ecclesiasticalsovereignty over all Poland. A first Bull was prepared al-ready in 1131, but never entered into force.[174] Despiteadversity, Norbert continued his actions to subdue thePolish Church during 1132-1133. For the Polish bishops,a call was made in the Curia.[175]

The Polish bishops didn't appear before Pope InnocentII, which resulted in the issuing of the Bull Sacrosancta

Romana[176] in 1133, which confirmed the sovereigntyof the Archbishopric of Magdeburg over the PolishChurch and the projected Pomeranian dioceses. The for-mal privilegium maius was the culmination of Norbert’sefforts.[177] Bolesław, trying to save his past efforts inPomeranian politics, opted for his submission at Merse-burg in 1135.[178]

4.6 Conquest of Rügen and alliance withWartislaw I

To consolidate his power over Pomerania Bolesław con-ducted in 1130 an expedition to the island of Rügen. Forthis purpose, he concluded an alliance with the Danishduke Magnus Nilsson (his son-in-law[179]) who providedhim with a fleet in exchange for support in his efforts toobtain the Swedish throne. The fleet of Magnus trans-ported Polish troops to the shores of the island of Rügen.However, the intended battle on the island doesn't hap-pen, because the Rani at the sight of the Polish-Danishcombined forces recognize Bolesław 's overlordship.[180]

After the successful invasion to the Danish capital,Roskilde in 1134 Bolesław formed an alliance withWartislaw I of Pomerania against King Eric II of Den-mark (an ally of Emperor Lothair III). The role of the Pol-ish prince was limited only to aid the House of Griffins,not due while the real interest in Danish affairs. The Dan-ish, after repelling the first attack, in retaliation led anexpedition who led to their expansion into the lands ofPomerania.

5 Congress of Merseburg

5.1 Political Background

In 1125 Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor and King ofGermany, died. His successor, Lothair of Supplinburg,has been embroiled in disputes over his inheritance. Forthe Imperial crown, he became involved in the affairsof the Papacy. In 1130 there was a double electionto the Apostolic See. Lothair supported Pope InnocentII, hoping in this way to secure his own coronation.[181]Contrary to was expected, Lothair’s Imperial coronationdidn't end his disputes against the contenders for the Ger-man throne.[182]

In 1130 Bolesław controlled the areas situated on the leftbank of the Oder river on the island of Rügen. Germanyalso wanted to control these lands, but the internal politi-cal situation and the involvement in the civil war in Hun-gary, however, didn't allow an armed conflict. The BullSacrosancta Romana of 1133 give the Archbishopric ofMagdeburg sovereign rights over the Pomeranian dioce-ses instituted by Bolesław.The death of King Stephen II of Hungary in 1131 led

13

the country into civil war between two claimaints to thethrone: Béla the Blind (son of Álmos, Duke of Croa-tia) and Boris (the alleged son of King Coloman). Borissought the help of the Polish ruler, who hoped for a closeralliance with Hungary and cooperation with the KievanRus’ princes (Boris was a son of a daughter of VladimirII Monomakh). However, Bolesław overestimated hisstrength against Béla, who counted with the support ofalmost all his country. The Polish army faced the com-bined forces of Hungary, Bohemia, Austria and Germanyin the Battle of the Sajó river (22 July 1132), where thecoalition had a complete victory over the Polish prince,who was forced to retreat.[181]

The success in Hungary was used by the Bohemian rulerSoběslav I, an Imperial vassal, who during the years 1132-1134 repeatedly led invasions to Silesia.[148] The issueover the property of Silesia was subjected to the decisionof Lothair III.

5.2 Preparations for the Congress

In February 1134 Soběslav I of Bohemia and dignitariesof King Béla II of Hungary, together with Bishop Peter ofSzékesfehérvár went to Altenburg, where they presentedtheir allegations against the Polish ruler. They asked theintervention of the Holy Roman Empire (preliminary re-quests occurred two years earlier). Lothair III acceptedthe request, acting as an arbitrator in the dynastic disputesin Central Europe.[183]

At the same time Béla II and Prince Volodymyrkoof Peremyshl undertook a military expedition againstPoland. The combined forces occupied Lesser Poland,reaching to Wiślica. Shortly after, Bolesław received asummons to the Imperial court at Magdeburg on 26 June1135. Playing for time, however, he only send deputies.The emperor sent another delegation and requested a per-sonal appearance of the Polish ruler, setting a new date on15 August 1135, this time in Merseburg.[184] Bolesławrealized that without an agreement with Lothair III hecouldn't maintain the control over the newly conqueredlands on the west side of the Oder and the island ofRügen.[181]

Even before the Congress of Merseburg was performed,Bolesław persuaded one of ruling princes of WesternPomerania, Ratibor I to made an expedition against Den-mark. It was a clear expression of ostentation to EmperorLothair III because the King of Denmark was a Germanvassal. The fleet formed by 650 boats (with 44 knightsand 2 horses) attacked the rich Norwegian port city ofKungahälla (now Kungälv in Sweden).[185]

5.3 Provisions of the Congress

The Congress took place on 15 August 1135. During theceremony, Emperor Lothair III recognized the rights of

the Polish ruler over Pomerania. In retribution, Bolesławagreed to paid homage for the Pomeranian lands andthe Principality of Rügen,[186] with the payment of 6000pieces of fine silver from these lands to the Holy RomanEmpire; however he remained fully independent rulerof his main realm, Poland. With Bolesław’s death in1138, Polish authority over Pomerania ended,[187] trigger-ing competition of the Holy Roman Empire andDenmarkfor the area.[169] The conflict with Hungary also ended,with Bolesław recognizing Béla II’s rule. The agree-ment was sealed with the betrothal of Bolesław’s daugh-ter Judith with Béla II’s Géza (this marriage never tookplace). In case of the Bohemian-Polish dispute the Impe-rial mediation failed. Bolesław argued he must be treatedas a sovereign ruler, who wasn't the case of Soběslav I, animperial vassal. Lothair III, unable to come to an agree-ment with the Polish ruler, proposed to discuss the matterin subsequent negotiations.The Congress ended with church ceremonies, duringwhich Bolesław carried the imperial sword. This wasan honor granted only to sovereign rulers.[185] An indi-rect goal of Polish diplomacy was the successful invali-dation of the Papal Bull of 1133 and the recognition ofmetropolitan rights of the Archbishopric of Gniezno atthe Synod in Pisa in 1135. On 7 July 1136 was issued theprotectionist Bull[188] Ex commisso nobis a Deo[189] un-der which Pope Innocent II confirmed the unquestionedsovereignty of the Archbishopric of Gniezno over the Pol-ish dioceses.[190][191]

6 Last years and death

6.1 Normalization of relations with hisneighbors

After entering in the imperial sphere of influence,Poland normalized his relations with Bohemia at theCongress of Kłodzko on 30 May 1137 (the so-calledPeace of Kłodzko), but the details of this agreementare unknown.[192] This treaty was confirmed in thetown of Niemcza, where Władysław, the eldest sonof Bolesław, stood as godfather in the baptism ofWenceslaus, Soběslav I’s son.[193]

In the last years of his life, Bolesław’s main concern wasto arranged political marriages for his children in orderto strengthening his relations with neighboring countries.In 1137 Bolesław reinforced his relations with the KievanRus’ with the marriage of his son Bolesław with PrincessViacheslava, daughter of Vsevolod, Prince of Pskov. Inthe year of his death, by contrast, finally normalized hisrelations with Hungary through the marriage of his sonMieszko with Princess Elizabeth, daughter of King BélaII.[192]

14 7 MARRIAGES AND ISSUE

Sarcophagus of Bolesław III in Płock Cathedral.

6.2 Death

Bolesław III Wrymouth died on 28 October 1138, prob-ably in the town of Sochaczew.[194] There are no recordsabout the circumstances of his death. 12th centurysources didn't provide information about his place ofburial. It was only in the 15th century, when Jan Dłu-gosz recorded that the Prince’s tomb was in the MasovianBlessed Virgin Mary Cathedral in Płock. However, hedidn't showed fromwhere took this information. Presum-ably the chronicler took this report from the lost Rocznikmazowiecki. WawrzyniecWszerecz, Canon of Płock dur-ing the 16th-17th century, wrote that Bolesław was in acommon coffin at the Cathedral, where the remains ofhis father Władysław I Herman and several other PiastMasovian rulers were also placed.[195]

7 Marriages and Issue

Bolesław was married twice:Zbyslava (b. ca. 1085/90 – d. ca. 1114[196]), hisfirst wife, was a member of the Rurikid dynasty. Shewas the daughter of Sviatopolk II Michael, Prince ofPolotsk (1069–1071), of Novgorod (1078–1088), ofTurov (1088–1093) and Grand Prince of Kiev (1093–1113). Themarriage was probably concluded in 1103[197]with the purpose to obtain future military help from Kievin the fight against Zbigniew. This union also notori-ously limited the attacks of the Princes of Galicia and

Terebovlia against Poland. Until Zbyslava’s death the re-lations between Poland and the Principality of Galicia–Volhynia remained friendly.[198]

Salomea (b. ca. 1093/1101 – d. 27 July 1144), hissecond wife, was a German noblewoman. She wasthe daughter of Henry of Berg-Schelklingen, Count ofBerg. The marriage took place in January or February1115.[199] This union was motivated by the current po-litical situation, on the occasion of the signing of a peacetreaty between Poland and Bohemia. Salomea came froma powerful and influential family, who, after the death ofEmperor Henry V in 1125, as a result of the support ofthe opposition in Germany, lost their political influenceat the court of Lothair III.[200]

In older historiography Adelaide, daughter of EmperorHenry IV, was erroneously considered as another wifeof Bolesław. The information about this stated that afterthe death of Zbyslava, Bolesław married her in Bambergin 1110. This report is provided by Jan Długosz andArchdiacon Sulger. This view was challenged by OswaldBalzer.[201]

7.1 Issue of Zbyslava of Kiev

1. Władysław II the Exile (b. 1105 – d. 30 May1159), the only son of Bolesław and Zbyslava,was Prince of Kraków, Silesia, Sandomierz, east-ern Greater Poland, Kuyavia, Western Pomera-nia and Gdańsk Pomerania (1138-1146).[202] Gal-lus Anonymous wrote that the heir of the Pol-ish throne was born in the winter of 1107-1108,but omitted the gender and name of the child.The Rocznik świętokrzyski and Rocznik kapitulnyrecorded Władysław’s birth in 1105.[203][204]

2. A daughter [Judith?][205] (b. ca. 1112 – d.aft. 1124), married in 1124 to Vsevolod Davi-dovich, Prince of Murom. Her filiation is doubt-ful, because in Russian chroniclers was only notedthat Vsevolod’s wife came from Poland;[206][207] sheprobably could be either Bolesław and Zbyslava’sdaughter or a member of the Awdaniec family asdaughter of Skarbimir.[208]

Older historiography attributed another child born fromthe marriage of Bolesław and Zbyslava. In addition toWładysław II and the unnamed daughter was also addedan unnamed second son. Gallus Anonymous wrote thatthis son was born around 1107-1108.[209] According toOswald Balzer, he died shortly after birth.[210] However,KarolMaleczyński believed that he never existed, pointedthat probably the sources who provided the year of 1105asWładysław II’s date of birth (Rocznik świętokrzyski andRocznik kapitulny) could be made a mistake.[211]

15

7.2 Issue of Salomea of Berg

1. Leszek (b. 1115/16 – d. 26 August bef. 1131), theeldest son of Bolesław and Salomea. He probablydied in infancy.[211][212]

2. Ryksa (b. 1116 – d. aft. 25 December 1156), el-dest daughter of Bolesław and Salomea, in 1127 shemarried with to Danish prince Magnus Nilsson, fu-ture King of Västergötland. This union was made toobtain Danish support for Poland in the war againstGermany, but in 1134 Denmark took the side ofGermany in the conflict. After Magnus’ death in1134, Ryksa returned to Poland. Later she mar-ried with Volodar Glebovich, Prince of Minsk andHrodno; this marriage was concluded in order toobtain an ally in the Polish war against Hungary.Her third marriage was with King Sverker I of Swe-den.[213][214]

3. A daughter (b. bef. 1117/22 – d. aft. 1131),[215]betrothed or married[216] in 1131 to Conrad, Countof Plötzkau and Margrave of Nordmark.[217]

4. Casimir, known in historiography as the Older (b. 9August 1122 – d. 19 October 1131), according tosources (like Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej), he diedaged 9.[213][218] Jan Długosz in his chronicle wrotethat he was born from the marriage of Bolesław andAdelaide,[219] the Prince’s supposed second wife.

5. Gertruda (b. 1123/24 – d. 7 May 1160), a nun atZwiefalten (1139).[220]

6. Bolesław IV the Curly (b. ca. 1125 – d. 5 Jan-uary 1173), Prince of Masovia and Kuyavia (1138-1146), of Kraków, Gniezno and Kalisz (1146-1173), of Sandomierz (1166-1173),[221] marriedaged 12 with Viacheslava, daughter of Vsevolod,Prince of Pskov.[222][223] Jan Długosz reported hisbirth in 1127 as the second son born from Bolesławand Adelaide.[224]

7. Mieszko III the Old (b. 1126/27 – d. Kalisz,13 March 1202), Prince of Greater Poland (1138-1202), of Kraków (1173-1177, 1190, 1199-1202),of Kalisz (1173-1202), of Upper Gdańsk Pomerania(1173-1202) and Kuyavia (1195-1198),[225] around1136 married to Elizabeth, daughter of King Béla IIof Hungary. The marriage was concluded as one ofthe provisions of the Congress of Merseburg.[223]

8. Dobroniega (b. 1129 – d. by 1160), afterher father’s death she was married by her motherSalomea[226] around 1141-1142 to Theodoric I,Margrave of Lusatia,[227] who later repudiatedher.[223]

9. Judith (b. 1130 – d. 8 July 1175), betrothed in1136 to Prince Géza, son of King Béla II of Hun-gary; however the marriage never took place and in

1148 she married to Otto I, Margrave of Branden-burg.[228][229]

10. Henry (b. 1131 – d. 18 October 1166), Princeof Sandomierz (1146-1166),[230] according to JanDługosz he was born in 1132. Further mention ofhim was made in his chronicle by 1139, describ-ing the division of the country in districts.[231] KarolMaleczyński placed his birth between 1127 and1131. During his father’s lifetime Henry didn't playan important political role. He died in 1166 in battleagainst the Prussians, unmarried and childless.[223]

11. Agnes (b. 1137 – d. aft. 1182), around 1140-1141 she was a proposed bride to one of the sonsof Grand Prince Vsevolod II of Kiev. This unionwas to ensure the support of Kiev in the dispute be-tween Salomea’s sons and Władysław II, their half-brother.[232] At the end, the marriage never tookplace and shemarried around 1149-1151 toMstislavII, Prince of Pereyaslavl and Grand Prince of Kievsince 1168.[233][234]

12. Casimir II the Just (b. 1138 – d. 5 May 1194),Prince of Wiślica (1166-1173), of Sandomierz(1173-1194) of Kraków (1177-1194), of Masoviaand Kuyavia (1186-1194),[235] for a long time con-sidered a posthumous child, and for this reason notincluded in his father’s testament.[228]

Older historiography attributed another two daughtersfrom the marriage of Bolesław and Salomea: Ade-laide and Sophia.[236] Adelaide (b. ca. 1114 - d. 25March bef. 1132), was the first wife of Adalbert IIthe Pious, eldest son of Leopold III, Margrave of Aus-tria. Modern historians denies that she was a daugh-ter of Bolesław.[212][237][238] Sophia (d. 10 October1136), was probably the mother of Mateusz, Bishop ofKraków.[239][240]

8 Ancestry

9 Statute of Succession (Testamentof Bolesław III Wrymouth)

9.1 The Senioral Principle

Main article: Bolesław Wrymouth’s testament

His own experiences during his youth probably moti-vated Bolesław to made a division of his domains be-tween his surviving sons. At the trustee of his provisionswas appointed the faithful Count Palatine Piotr Włos-towic. In his testament, also known as the “Statute ofSuccession”, Bolesław introduced in Poland the Senio-ral Principle, in an effort to keep the unity of the state

16 9 STATUTE OF SUCCESSION (TESTAMENT OF BOLESŁAW III WRYMOUTH)

and to prevent the struggle for power among his sons.[241]This regulation about the succession came into force afterBolesław’s death, although is unknown the exact date ofhis establishment.[242] It’s believed that his creation couldhappen in 1115 or 1116, after the birth of a son Leszek,or after the suppression of the rebellion of Skarbimir (in1117).[243] Sources indicate that the original documentabout the succession was established in 1137. The Statutewas nullified in 1180 but restored by Pope Innocent IIIin 1210 after a petition of the Silesian rulers;[244] how-ever, historians challenge the approval of the Statute bythe Pope in the absence of any other information.[241]

The “Senioral Principle” established that the eldest mem-ber of the dynasty was to have supreme power over therest and was also to control an indivisible “senioral part":a vast strip of land running north-south down the mid-dle of Poland, with Kraków its chief city.[245] The Se-nior’s prerogatives also included control over Pomerania,a fief of the Holy Roman Empire. Sources showed adiscrepancy in terms of the power exercised by the Se-nior Prince. Pope Innocent III talked about Primogeni-ture, while Wincenty Kadłubek refers to both Seniorityand Primogeniture. Kadłubek combined in one sentencethe two systems, i.e. inheritance of supreme power inindividual districts, where Primogeniture was in force.Among historians, there is a view that Bolesław not es-tablished Seniority, but Primogeniture that belongs ex-clusively to Władysław II and his descendants.[246] A factwho supported this hypothesis was the coverage and na-ture of power exercised by Bolesław IV the Curly in1146.[247]

9.2 Division of the Polish state

Bolesław divided his domains into the followingprovinces:The Seniorate Province (with his capital Kraków) wassupposed to be non-inherited and indivisible.[245][248] Itconsisted of Lesser Poland, Sieradz and Łęczyca, thewestern part of Kruszwica and Kuyavia,[249][250] the east-ern part of Greater Poland, Kalisz, Gniezno and GdańskPomerania.[251] Western Pomerania as a fief would re-main under the control of the Princeps.[252]

• Władysław II received the Silesian Province, com-prising Silesia, with his capital Wrocław and theLubusz land.[253] He probably received this domainalready between 1124-1125 after his marriage withAgnes of Babenberg.[254] As the eldest son, he be-came in the first Senior Prince (or Princeps).[255]

• Bolesław IV received the Masovian Province, withhis capital in Płock and eastern Kuyavia.

• Mieszko III received the Greater Poland Province,composed of the remaining western parts of GreaterPoland, with his capital in Poznań.

Division of the Polish state in 1138:Seniorate Province.Pomeranian vassals under the rule of the Seniorate Province.Silesian Province of Władysław II.Masovian Province of Bolesław IV.Greater Poland Province of Mieszko III.Sandomierz Province of Henry.Łęczyca Province of Salomea of Berg.

• Henry received the Sandomierz Province, com-posed of eastern Lesser Polish territories centeredaround the city of Sandomierz and the Bug River tothe north, with his capital in Lublin.[253][256]

• Salomea of Berg, Bolesław’s widow, receivedŁęczyca or Sieradz-Łęczyca[257] as her Oprawawdowia or widow’s seat. After her death, these landswere to be included in the Seniorate Province.

Casimir II, Bolesław’s youngest son, wasn't included inthe Testament, because he was born after his father’sdeath or shortly before.[253]

Among medievalists there is a view that the Statuteonly provide the inheritance of Bolesław’s descendantsin the first generation (i.e. his sons). After theirdeaths, their lands were to be included in the SeniorateProvince. However, the later fights between them madethe provinces transformed into a hereditary domains.[258]

9.3 Feudal division of Poland

Main article: Fragmentation of Poland

The “Senioral Principle” was soon broken, leading to aperiod of nearly 200 years of Poland’s disintegration,[259]also known as feudal fragmentation, a phenomenon com-mon in medieval Europe.[260] Among others countrieswho were affected by this are Russia, Hungary andGermany. This was a time of internal struggles thatcaused the weakening of the Polish state and the enor-

17

mous growth of internal development, culture, and im-proving the situation of the broad masses of the popu-lation. Distribution of the then princely rights by con-temporary historiography also had a good side, which in-clude: the reconstruction of the political system in thenew economic fundamentals and increasing responsibil-ity for the fate of the country placed upon its upperechelons.[261]

10 Organization of the Polish stateduring Bolesław’s rule

Representation of the tripartite social order of the Middle Ages:oratores “those who pray” (cleric), bellatores “those who fight”(knight), and laboratories “those who work” (workman: peas-ant, worker, member of the lower middle class); miniature byAldobrandino di Siena in the Li Livres dou Santé, France, 13thcentury.[262]

A detailed knowledge of the internal organization of the12th century Polish state is impossible. There are no doc-uments from this period and the reports of chroniclersshowed problems about a real knowledge of the princi-pality’s management.Bolesław divided his domains into provinces, districtsand grods (a type of fortified village or castellany).Within them remained the Opole.[263] Territorial scopeof the province corresponded to the laters Dzielnica.It’s believed that 6-7 provinces were created: Masovia,Silesia, Greater Poland, Kraków, Sandomierz, Kalisz-Łęczyca[264] and Pomerania (from the lands of GdańskPomerania).[265] During Bolesław’s reign attempts weremade to organize the borders areas marches followingthe German model. Among the marches corroboratedin the available sources are: Głogów, Gdańsk and proba-bly Lubusz.[266] Probably Bolesław had a number of well-maintained castles that served in the political, economic

Awarrior preparing his crossbow. At the end of the 11th century,the army began to make crossbows.

and administrative spheres.The State’s nature during the Piast dynasty was patrimo-nial. The Ducal court (Latin: curia ducis) was a centerof power, which belonged to the reigning family (alongwith a separate court by the Duchess), after them camethe secular and Church dignitaries and subjects, next tolower officials, chivalry and courtly princely membersand chaplains.[267] The most important office at the courtof Władysław I Herman and Bolesław was the CountPalatine (also known as Voivode).[268] The Count pala-tine (Latin: comes palatinus) included major commandof the military expeditions (in place of the ruler), defenseof the State, supervision of the administration (as head ofthe Ducal court), control and appointment of the heads ofthe castellanies and the exercise of the courts. The CountPalatine Office was abolished in 1180.[264] Already dur-ing the reign of Mieszko II Lambert saw the developmentof Polish bureaucratic apparatus. The Collector (Latin:

18 11 SEALS AND COINAGE

camerarius), managed the economy of the ducal court.Another specific offices in the Ducal court the Cześnik(cup-bearer), the Stolnik (esquire), the Strażnik (guard),the Miecznik (Sword-bearer), the Koniuszy (Master ofthe Horse) and the Łowczy (Master of the Hunt). DuringBolesław’s reign appeared the office of the Chancellor,who directed the work of the court offices and the Ducalchapel[269] (Latin: capella), which consisted of a bunchof secular and religious duties.[270] Also belonged to thecentral government the Treasurer, the Mint Master andothers.[265] Also during the rule of Bolesław the structureof the state was closely linked to the organization of thePolish Church. The church was subject to the ruler, whichhad the right of Investiture.[271]

The Ducal court was in contact with the subjects viathe castellanies, who were managed by the Naczelnik orTown Chief (Latin: princeps terrae). He had sovereigntyover the castellanies or Grods (Latin: comes),[264] whilethe castellans (Grod rulers) should exercise the local civilauthority, getting benefits from the public, organizing thedefense and probably exercising the courts. Under thedirect obligation of the ruler are the Bailiff, the Żupan(Gastald), the Minters, the Celnik (Tax collector) andcollectors.[265] All important functions in the principal-ity are held by the nobility.[272] The Castellan belongedto the group of nobles, officials and ministerialis. Somehad served directly to the ruler, others held the offices,while the role of others are of food shortages.[270] TheMargraves (who are in charge of the border areas) weredirectly subordinate to the Polish ruler and had greaterpower than the Provincial chiefs.[266]

At the end of the 11th century waned this princely or-ganization. Was replaced with the Western Europeanmodel of troops consisting of chivalry. The Latin termmilites, which previously was used to determine the sol-diers came to be called the category of Knights and war-riors who could afford to keep a horse.[273] Polish armedforces in Bolesław’s times are composed of three typesof forces: the Princely army (Oddziału nadwornego), theLords army (Drużyny możnowładców) and the militia(Pospolite ruszenie), composed of branches of small feu-dal lords and peasants[274] (according to other views themilitia adjutant troops were powerful and also composedby clergy and laity[275]).The Princely army consisting of his nobles -at the end ofthe 11th century, the so-called “New People” (pl: NowiLudzie): tribal chiefs, local leaders and opolne rulers whoaspired to participate in government, sent their sons to thePrince’s court, where he was accompanied the ruler-.[276]Bolesław’s personal guard was probably chosen by him-self, using an invocation which was written in the Chron-icles of Gallus Anonymous:

A young people, with great mannersand high birth, by at my side con-stantly in battle, with me accustomedto hardships![277]

The nobles maintained their own army, which consistedof poor knights supported by peasants. They also areresponsible for their armament. Among the equipmentused by them was a wooden weapons (like spear), bluntweapons (like club), cutting weapons (like sword) andbelching weapons (like crossbow, bow and arrow, sling),and the so-called protective equipment (shield, helmet,armor).[278] These armies over time become larger thanthe princely one, the most notorious example from thiswas Sieciech.[279] During the constant conflicts at the be-ginning of the 12th century, the nobles invoked the mili-tia, particularly of endangered lands. The whole militiawas divided into branches, which were given the namesof their native districts (for example, the Kruszwiczanhordes[280]). In the case of an armed conflict to a greaterweapon are invoked independent branches composed bypeasants (for example, during the Polish-German war of1109).[275]

In addition to the nobles (who were tied to the ruler andhis court) and warriors the Polish society in Bolesław’stimes also consisted of free peasants and servants (at-tached to his place of residence). A distinct social groupwere the free people, the so-called guests (Latin: hospites)-who do not own property-, the warriors (Latin: militesgregarii) who had farms and are counted into the com-mon people. At the end of the social scale are the slaves(brańcy of war, or their descendants). There are littledifference between them and the free peasants, but theirduty to their master was higher.[281] Non-free populationwas also used for personal services or to work on the landin favor of the ruler.[282]

All aspects of life in the State were regulated by the DucalJudge (Latin: ius ducale). He covered all the rights of thePrince, in relation to the subjects or property, the enforce-ment of a variety of benefits, dues and ministries.[283] Theexpanded state apparatus and the church maintained bybenefits from the population producing material goods.The main burden of the tax rests on the lowest socialclass: the peasantry (Latin: heredes, rustici ducis, poss-esores).[284] Up to them to submit certain levies, tithes,and other forms of taxes like the Podworowe (in the formof a cow, which consisted of the entire village), Podymne(for every house), Poradlne (for each piece of land),Narzazu (for grazing pigs in the woods), the Stacji orStanu (who allow the maintenance of the Prince’s court)and the posług komunikacyjnych, who regulated the trans-port ways in the country and was divided in three maintaxes: Przewód (“the cable”), Powóz (“the carriage”) andPodwód (“the wagon”). Other minor taxes involved hunt-ing, military, guards (who custodied the Grods), taxes onregalia and criminal penalties. In addition, subjects wererequired to repair roads, bridges, construction and main-tenance of castles.[265][283]

19

Bulla discovered in Głębokie (2002).

Bulla discovered in Ostrów Tumski (2005).

11 Seals and Coinage

Of the five oldest preserved seals from Polish rulers fourwere discovered in various places during the years 2002-2006, while one of more than 100 years ago.[285] Pol-ish archaeologists made further discoveries in Głębokie(2002), in Ostrów Tumski (2005), in Gniezno (2005)and in an undisclosed location in the village of Susk nearSierpc, 32 km. from Płock (2006).[286][287] The first pre-liminary studies suggested that the seals could belongedto Bolesław III Wrymouth. They are made of lead, a

durable material, with a diameter of 36–40 mm.[286] Thelead seals are used at that time in European courts andare from the Bulla tipe.[288] Seals are known in municipaland military orders. Occasionally, in the most importantdocuments (acts) were used golden bullas.[289]

The discovered bullas from Bolesław’s reign fall into twomajor types, differing in the form of writing:

• Type I: extended stored on the obverse in the geni-tive, with the Latin word sigillum.

• Type II: short and around the bulla.

One example from both type of seals came from the rela-tionship with St. Adalbert, where he emphasizes his pon-tifical recognition (in type I) and in the crosier, with thegesture of the imposition of hands, clearly visible in theseals after restoration (in type II).[287] The use of the gen-itive seals in Poland came from the 12th century, a phe-nomenon (unprecedented), with its only then monetaryequivalent in the denarius with the Latin legend: Denar-ivs ducis Bolezlai.[290][291] At the end of Bolesław’s reignreturned to the staid mold inscriptions with the Latin leg-end: Dvx Bolezlavus. According to S. Suchodolski thebullas were used for the authentication of princely docu-ments like letters, privileges, judgments, etc.,[292] and byT. Jurek, they could also be used to secure the businessarrangements (like buy of doors, chests, reliquaries).[287]

In October 2006, the Poznań Society of Friends of Learn-ing has confirmed that the discovered bullas during 2002-2005 belonged to Bolesław III Wrymouth.[289]

Boleslaw’s protective bracteate.

During Bolesław’s reign appeared a two-sided denarius,which was denominated the foreign coin (Polish: mon-etą obcą). The first known denarius from this time bearsthe Latin legend Bolezlav. For the others most com-monly used coins bears the Latin inscription Bolezlavs,denarivus, dicis Bolezlai with St. Adalbert in the reverse.

20 12 CHURCH FOUNDATIONS

Denarius with the legend ADALBIBVS.

Denarius with “cavalry” cross of Sieciech.

Another type of coins didn't have legends. They differmostly came from the weight: they were much lighter,punched for purely economic purposes.[293]

In this time was also modeled mainly on the Magdeburgtechnique a bracteate, who was one of the oldest in Eu-rope. There are two types of bracteates who dated fromBolesław’s reign:

• The type II shows in both sides before Bolesław andSt. Adalbert, who put his hand over the ruler in agesture of protection. The legend shows the Latininscription Bolezlaus Adalbertus. This bracteateinitially was considered a way of penance fromBolesław for Zbigniew’s blinding.[294] Was probablyminted in Kraków around 1127.[295]

• The type I is less frequent. Showed St. Adalbert inepiscopal robes, holding a crozier and Gospel. Leg-end of the coin determines the form of the Arch-bishop of Gniezno.[296] Further studies have shownthat the coin was minted between the period of theCongress ofMerseburg (1135) and Bolesław’s death(1138). It’s now called the protective, since illus-trates the protection of St. Adalbert to the Polishruler, who after the his homage to the Holy RomanEmpire in 1135 only recognizes the saint as his pro-tector. It’s one of the few examples of political pro-paganda in the coin’s legend.[297] According to A.Schmidt this was an Archbishop’s coin which wasminted in Gniezno, probably in 1135.[297]

In addition to the two presented bracteates fromBolesław’s there is one, which is now counted among the

oldest known in numismatics. This bracteate was foundin Brzeg (in Gmina Pęczniew) and preserved almost the2/3 part of the whole weight of 0.61 g and a diameterof 27 mm. The coin shows the figure of the ruler withcrown, sword in hand and an outstretched hand. Ini-tially, was believed that showed Władysław II the Ex-ile. Further studies, included by A. Mikolajczyk, identi-fied this image with Bolesław III Wrymouth. Among re-searchers, however, today, there are discrepancies aboutwhat ruler showed the coin, because the inscription pre-served is incomplete.[297]

Princely mints are mostly located in Wrocław, Płock,Gniezno and Kraków. In that time also existed privatemints, such as Palatine Sieciech, who placed them inSieciechów and near Kraków.[293]

12 Church foundations

It was customary between the 12th century ruling familiesa wide-ranging religious activities like donations in thebenefit of the Church. The main objective was to spreadChristianity. This was to include show religious rulersin the face of God, church hierarchs, clergy and society.Bolesław wasn't the exception, and he wasn't not only apredatory warrior, a cunning politician and a diplomat; hewas also a patron of cultural developments in his realm.Like most medieval monarchs, he founded severalchurches and monasteries. Among the most importantof which are:

Benedictine Abbey of the Holy Cross (Święty Krzyż).

• The Benedictine monastery of Holy Cross atop theŁysa Góra which was founded in place of an ancientpagan temple. The first Abbot of this monastery,Boguchwał, wrote about the foundation and theprince:

The pious Prince Bolesław foundedin Łysa Góra an Abbey dedicated tothe Holy Trinity with monks of theOrder of St. Benedict.

21

Stored documents from about 1427 (called the świę-tokrzyskie dokumenty pergaminowe) confirm the his-tory of the Bishop, adding that the co-founder of themonastery was the knight Wojsław.[298]

St. Giles-Church in Inowłódz, founded in 1138.

• The St. Giles-Church in Inowłódz was built in theRomanesque style. According to a modern plate in-scription (presumably from the 17th century) thistemple was built in 1082 by Władysław I Herman.However, modern research revealed that the foun-dation of the Church was probably during the 12thcentury (at the latest from 1138) and the founder wasBolesław.[299]

• The Collegiate Church of the Assumption of theBlessed VirginMary in Ostrów Tumski was foundedthanks to the donations of Haymo, Bishop ofWrocław and comes Wojsław in 1120, follow-ing the reports of the 15th century Rocznika gło-gowskiego.[300] Modern scholars believed that thefounder was Bolesław (T. Lalik), or the foundationwas made by Bishop Haymo and Wojsław with theconsent of the Prince (H. Gerlic) or was a foundationmade by Bishop Haymo and Bolesław (T. Jurek). Inearlier studies of the history of Silesia existed theopinion that Bolesław founded the Collegiate as agesture of gratitude for the loyalty and bravery of thepeople of Głogów during the Polish-GermanWar of1109 and also a as a way of penance for Zbigniew’sblinding.[301]

• The Benedictine Abbey in Tyniec according to some

hypotheses was also founded by Bolesław. In 1124the Papal legate issued the confirmation of the goodsreceived from the Abbey’s estates.[302]

• The Abbey of Lubiń was restored during 1137-1138by Bolesław and the Awdaniec family.[303]

• The Wawel Cathedral was completed duringBolesław’s reign. In 1118 Bishop Maurus wasburied there.[304]

• The Canons regular of St. Augustine in Trzemesznowas probably founded by Bolesław. Evidence of thiswas in a document issued by Mieszko III the Old in1145.[305]

Abbey of Zwiefalten, Germany.

The connection of Bolesław and his second wife Sa-lomea with the Swabian monastery of Zwiefalten waswell-known. The detailed description of Berthold ofZwiefalten was the only evidence of the cultural, artis-tic and religious development of the 12th century Polishcourt:[306]

The Polish prince Bolesław sent theblack cover choirs black, sewn whiteoxen [...] the gold, the silver, andthe tablecloths, and especially in themost numerous of any kind of valu-able furs to this monastery morethan seventy grzywna. Salomea, hiswife, sent gold woven stole, two albknitted silk and silver pitcher withfour grzywna on the box of ivorystudded with gold, to draw up thechoir covers his red coat decoratedwith gold stripes, and another coat

22 13 POLISH HISTORIOGRAPHY DURING BOLESŁAW’S REIGN

on the for the Mass all interwovengold, dissuaded gold stripes and bot-tom trimmed with red frames, whichaccording to the custom of the peo-ple is decorated with golden stars,curtain wall, one with a silk frames,the other adorned with white lionsand the third red in the white list,[...] a hand from Saint Stephenthe Martyr [...], a large piece ofthe Holy Cross, a tooth from SaintJohn the Baptist, a tooth from SaintPancras, a tooth of Saint Cecilia,some of the blood of Christ, milkof the Virgin Mary and a chain ofSaint Peter. In addition, one hun-dred pounds of silver, one gold ap-pliqué alb, a cross gold weighingmore than four fine gold, a silvergilt chalice, a silver plated pitcher ofnearly six fines, a stole embroideredwith gold, together with a scarf, abelt, a dalmatic all woven of gold,with the value of fifty and morebrands, one black tunic with goldappliqué, a scarf and a cloth inter-woven with gold, which together canhave a value of twenty grzywna, acurtain wall, knitted silk, one box ofivory, one beautiful crystal vessel,three horses, two ounces of gold, twocoats, one of which [...] ermine, abishop’s miter with gloves, on fourfine and three coats of other good-ies.

The same source mentioned that the golden cross do-nated to themonastery wasmade bymaster Leopard, whoworked for the Polish ruler during 1129-1137.[307]

The Reliquary of 1113 is an example of the artistic devel-opment during Bolesław’s rule; was made during the pen-itential journey to the tomb of Saint Adalbert in GnieznoCathedral after the blinding of Zbigniew, according to thereports the Gallus Anonymous:[124]

The evidence of the great work ofgoldsmiths, Bolesław had made ona relic of the Saint, as a testimony tohis devotion and penance. Half cof-fin contains in itself 80 grzywna, thepurest gold, not counting the pearlsand precious stones that probablymatched the value of the gold.

The Reliquary contained the head of Saint Adalbert. Atthe end of the 15th century was melted in order to made anew one. According to the notes of 1494 had the form ofoctagonal shrine. The side walls have the shape of squares

Gniezno Cathedral.

and were separated by small columns, which were basedon the figures of saints or prophets. The monument wasdecorated with 8 pearls and 40 sapphires.[308]

13 Polish historiography duringBolesław’s reign

Stone in honor of Gallus Anonymous in Wrocław.

During his rule, Bolesław wanted the history of thePiast dynasty to be written. This task was assigned toan unnamed Benedictine monk (who previously was in-correctly named as Gallus Anonymous[309][310]). Mod-

23

ern research, however, suggests that the monk was aVenetian.[311][312]

His Chronica Polonorum, written in Latin, was made be-tween 1112-1116.[313] The history of the State (Latin:gesta ducum) was made describing the fate of the rulers.The Chronicle covers the history from legendary timesuntil 1114.[314] Composed of three parts, this unfin-ished literary work justified the right of the Piasts torule over Poland. The Chronicle also explain many con-troversial events that were placed under the responsibil-ity of the rulers, and give a full explanation about theirpolicy.[315][316]

14 See also• Piast dynasty

• History of Poland (966–1385)

15 External links• Map of the feudal dissolution

• http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00020809&tree=LEO

16 Notes[1] Oswald Balzer was in favor of 1086 as the year of

birth, in bases of the records of the oldest Polish source:Roczniki Świętokrzyskie and Rocznik kapitulny krakowski;O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, p. 119.

[2] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, Poznań: 2004,pp. 185–187. ISBN 83-7063-409-5.

[3] M. Plezia: Wstęp, [in:] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae etgesta ducum sive principum Polonorum, pp. 27-31.

[4] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 65; S. Trawkowski:Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A. Garlicki (ed.): Poczetkrólów i książąt polskich, p. 80; R. Grodecki, S. Za-chorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznej,vol. I, p. 158.

[5] S. Trawkowski: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A. Garlicki(ed.): Poczet królów i książąt polskich, p. 89.

[6] O. Balzer’s genealogy doesn't mention the coronation ofVratislav II, but he places the traditional date given bythe chronicles of Cosmas of Prague (15 June 1086) tothe coronation of the first King of Bohemia; O. Balzer:Genealogia Piastów, p. 108. V. Novotny indicates thatthe Synod of Mainz took place in late April or May 1085;V. Novotny: Ceske dejiny. Diiu I cast 2. Od BretislavaI do Premysla I, Prague 1912, p. 245. He believes thatVratislav II’s coronation as King of Bohemia and Poland

took place on 15 June 1085, after the synod, and not in1086, as reported by O. Balzer and Cosmas of Prague.Compare to W. Mischke: Poland Czech kings crown (inPolish) [available 24 August 2009], pp. 11–12, 27–29.

[7] Cosmas of Prague affirmation about the coronation ofPrince Vratislav II as King of Poland is disputed by manyhistorians. Medievalists consider it a mistake of the chron-icler; G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii dopoliarchii, Kraków: 1996, p. 13. ISBN 83-03-03659-9. A detailed argument over the supposed coronation ofVratislav II was presented by W. Mischke: Poland Czechkings crown (in Polish) [available 24 August 2009], pp.11–29. M. Spórna and P.Wierzbicki believe that messageof Cosmas is authentic. As King of Poland, Vratislav IIstemmed from the emperor’s claim to sovereignty over thePolish homage (fief indirect, second-degree); M. Spórna,P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pretendentów dotronu polskiego, p.496.

[8] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 127–128.

[9] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 353; M. K. Barański:Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 175.

[10] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 130.

[11] O. Blazer didn't include the mother of Zbigniew in thelist of Władysław I Herman’s wives. Jan Wagilewicznamed her Krystyna; O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, p.107. T. Grudziński believes that by 1080, WładysławI Herman was still unmarried. In contrast, many histo-rians stated the Zbigniew’s mother was the first wife ofPrince Władysław I; K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Pi-astów, Poznań 2004, p. 164. ISBN 83-7063-409-5. To-day it is widely accepted that the mother of Zbigniewwas Przecława, a member of the Prawdzic family; seeA. Nawrot (ed.): Encyklopedia Historia, Kraków 2007,p. 738. ISBN 978-83-7327-782-3.

[12] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 178.

[13] Strengthening the Polish situation in the first years of therule of Władysław I, he could refuse to pay tribute to Bo-hemia for Silesia. M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów wPolsce, p. 179.

[14] The cult of Saint Giles began to expand rapidly in Europeduring the first half of the 11th century. Polish lands wentthrough the clergy, or pilgrims going to Saint-Gilles andSantiago de Compostella; K. Maleczyński: Bolesław IIIKrzywousty, pp. 14–15.

[15] Władysław, by the grace of God Prince of the Polans, andJudith, his legitimate wife, send to Odilon, the venerableAbbot of Saint Giles, and all his brothers humble words ofprofound reverence. Learned that Saint Giles was superiorto others in dignity, devotion, and that willingly assisted [thefaithful] with power from heaven, we offer it with devotionthese gifts for the intentions of had children and humbly begfor your holy prayers for our request. Gallus Anonymus:Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum, vol. I,cap. XXX, pp. 57–58.

24 16 NOTES

[16] 12th century chronicles mentions that at the coffin of St.Giles was a golden image of some form. J. ed. Vielard:La guide du pèlerin de Saint-Jacques de Compostelle, XII-wieczny przewodnik pielgrzymów ST. Gilles, St. Giles1938; M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 179.

[17] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 13.

[18] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principumPolonorum, vol. II. cap. I. p. 62.

[19] Kosmasa Kronika Czechów., vol. II, cap. XXXVI, pp. 77-78.

[20] In 1637, on the tombstone of Judith at Kraków Cathedralwas placed the date of her death as 24 December 1082, inclear contradiction to all known sources. O. Balzer: Ge-nealogia Piastów., p. 104.

[21] O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów., p. 119.

[22] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., p. 165, foot-note 59, p. 172.

[23] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., p. 167.

[24] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., p. 166.

[25] O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów., p. 103.

[26] Wincenty Kadłubek in his writings gave to Judith andWładysław I Herman the titles of Queen and King. W.Kadłubek: Kronika polska., vol. II, cap 22, pp. 81-82.

[27] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., p. 166.Compared with K. Maleczyński: W sprawie datyurodzin Bolesława Krzywoustego., “Kwartalnik Histo-ryczny”, nº50, pp. 442-445.

[28] The date was widely supported by the investigator, forwhich he advocated to A. Bielowski against K. Jasiński.Pros: K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., p. 166.

[29] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., p. 186.

[30] From 1686 to 1939 the day of King Stephen of Hun-gary was celebrated on 2 Septemberafter which was trans-ferred on 16 August. Official website of the Parish ofSt. Stephen in Warsaw: Święty Stefan, Król, 969-1038(in Polish) [retrieved 13 July 2014].

[31] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., pp. 164-165,168.

[32] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., pp. 185-187.

[33] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., p. 167, 185.

[34] Cosmas often uses the Latin term tertio die to determine ashort period. K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów.,pp. 186-187.

[35] O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów., p. 119; K. Jasiński:Rodowód pierwszych Piastów., pp. 185-187.

[36] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 184.

[37] K. Jasiński: Przydomek Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] Ge-nealogia. Studia i materiały historyczne, vol. VI, p. 143.

[38] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 342-343.

[39] Monumenta Poloniae Historica (Pomniki dziejowe Polski),vol. III, p. 68, 457, 626, 765.

[40] Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiegoDziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście, vol I, p. 422. (in Pol-ish) [retrieved 23 July 2014].

[41] According to the researchers there was a pathological mal-formation, called Mandibular Condylar Hyperplasia. M.Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 66.

[42] R. Jaworski: Bolesław Krzywousty, w: Władcy Polski (do-datek do Rzeczpospolitej), p. 11.

[43] J. Machnicki: Przewrotna historia Polski - do 1795 roku,p. 30.

[44] Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiegoDziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście, vol I, p. 537. (in Pol-ish) [retrieved 23 July 2014].

[45] E. Kowalczyk: Krzywousty - skaza moralna czy fizyczna,“Kwartalnik Historyczny”, nr 101, pp. 3-14.

[46] Another view is showed by K. Jasiński, who argued thatis more likely he received this nickname for a physicaldefects than inmoral conduct. K. Jasiński: PrzydomekBolesława Krzywoustego [in:] Genealogia. Studia i ma-teriały historyczne, vol. VI, pp. 138-146.

[47] The poisoning of Miesko Bolesławowic is attributed toSieciech. M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władcówPolski i pretendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 353; Ł.Piernikarczyk: Palatyn Sieciech (1080-1100) (in Polish)[retrieved 13 July 2014].

[48] Zbigniew, after the birth of Bolesław, was sent to learningfor a future clerical post in Kraków Cathedral. Behind hisremoval from court was probably Duchess Judith, motherof Bolesław. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty.,pp. 22-23.

[49] P. Ksyk-Gąsiorowska: Zbigniew, [in]: Piastowie.Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 72. ISBN83-08-02829-2.

[50] R. Grodecki believes that the banishment of Zbigniew toQuedlinburg Abbey was thanks to Count Palatine SieciechandDuchess Judith-Sophia; R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski,J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 129.

[51] The opposition, who supported the rights of MieszkoBolesławowic and Zbigniew, demanded the legal recog-nition of the two princes as pretenders to the throne. S.Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 117.

[52] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 128.

[53] Ł. Piernikarczyk: Palatyn Sieciech (1080-1100) (in Pol-ish) [retrieved 13 July 2014].

[54] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 30.

25

[55] S. Szczur believes that the plans of Sieciech to imposethe Polish administration by force allowed the rapid in-tegration with Poland; S. Szczur: Historia Polski – śred-niowiecze, pp. 117–118.

[56] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 445.

[57] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 182.

[58] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 26.

[59] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 129.

[60] In the return of Zbigniew to Poland also involvedBretislaus II, Duke of Bohemia; M. K. Barański: DynastiaPiastów w Polsce, pp. 182–183.

[61] L. Korczak: Władysław I Herman [in]: Piastowie.Leksykon biograficzny, Kraków 1999, p. 65. ISBN 83-08-02829-2.

[62] The release of Zbigniew took place during the consecra-tion of Gniezno Cathedral; M. K. Barański: Dynastia Pi-astów w Polsce, p. 183.

[63] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 131.

[64] M. Bałaban: Historia i literatura żydowska ze szczególnymuwzględnieniem historii Żydów w Polsce, vol. I-III, Lwów1925, p. 72.

[65] According to K. Maleczyński, Bolesław and Zbigniew re-ceived separated districts already in 1093, and the first ac-tual division of the Principality took in a few years later;K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 34–35. In1093, Władysław I admitted, inter alia, to give Kłodzko toBolesław (hypothesis presented by G. Labuda). R. Gład-kiewicz (ed.): Kłodzko: dzieje miasta. Kłodzko 1998, p.34. ISBN 83-904888-0-9.

[66] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 119.

[67] Zbigniew he should rule over Mazovia after the death ofhis father. This district, along with the towns inheritedby Bolesław (Wroclaw, Krakow and Sandomierz) had toensure the future control and full authority over the state.R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 131–132.

[68] Historians presented different views on the division of thecountry. R. Grodecki think that first division took placeduring the reign of Władysław I (in the years 1097–1098)and the second after his death in 1102, under the arbitra-tion of Archbishop Martin I of Gniezno. R. Grodecki, S.Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznej,vol. I, pp- 131–135. G. Labuda believes that the divisionoccurred around 1097, but only when Bolesław had com-pleted 12 years. G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monar-chii do poliarchii, Kraków:1996, pp. 16–69. ISBN 83-03-03659-9. K. Maleczyński placed the date of the firstdivision around 1099. J. Wyrozumski: Historia Polski doroku 1505, Warszaw 1984, p. 101. ISBN 83-01-03732-6.

[69] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 120.

[70] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 184.

[71] These events are described, inter alia, in the publicationof Zdzisław S. Pietras, "Bolesław Krzywousty". See Z. S.Pietras: Bolesław Krzywousty, Cieszyn 1978, pp. 45–60.

[72] The excuse for this conflict by Władysław I was the ab-sence of regulation in the payment of tribute to Bohemia.For Bretislaus II, was the lost of Kamień and Barda. K.Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 28.

[73] Kosmasa Kronika Czechów, vol. III, cap. IX, p. 97.

[74] P. Jasienica: Polska Piastów, p. 116.

[75] Z. S. Pietras: Bolesław Krzywousty, p. 58.

[76] P. Jasienica: Polska Piastów, Warsaw 2007, p. 117.

[77] Stanisław Szczur: Historia Polski: Średniowiecze –Krakow, 2008, pp.121

[78] K. Maleczyński:Bolesław Krzywousty: Zarys Panowania,Krakow: 1947, pp. 53–56.

[79] T. Manteuffel believed that Zbigniew tried to play the roleof tutor of his younger half-brother. See T. Manteuffel:Polska wśród nowych państw Europy [in:] T. Manteuffel(ed.), Polska pierwszych Piastów. Państwo, społeczeństwo,kultura., p. 34. S. Szczur felt that the issue was a matter ofoverlordship. S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze.,p. 121. R. Grodecki thought that the principle of Senio-rate was most accepted. The equality of both rulers cameonly in 1106. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski:Dzieje Polski średniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 135-136. Adifferent view is presented by G. Labuda, who pointedout that Zbigniew maintained the equality of rule betweenboth districts since the division of 1102. G. Labuda: Ko-rona i infuła. Od monarchii do poliarchii, pp. 16-17.

[80] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, Warsaw2008, p. 193.

[81] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, Warsaw2008, p. 194.

[82] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 121.

[83] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, Warsaw2008, pp. 193–194.

[84] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, Warsaw,2008, p. 195.

[85] R. Drogi: Państwo Czeskie Przemyślidów (historia Czech,cap. III, t. 1) (in Polish) [retrieved 13 July 2014].

[86] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego. Krakow, 2003, pp. 62.

[87] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, pp. 195-196.

[88] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 62.

[89] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 196.

[90] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, pp. 196-197.

[91] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 197.

26 16 NOTES

[92] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 59-60.

[93] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, pp. 198-199.

[94] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 199.

[95] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 137.

[96] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 122.

[97] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 65.

[98] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 136-137.

[99] The date was given by Cosmas of Prague. At the newsof the rebellion Bořivoj II (who was in the Congress ofMerseburg) complained to Emperor Henry V and requesthis intervention. Z. S. Pietras: Bolesław Krzywousty.Cieszyn, 1978, pp. 90–91

[100] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 68.

[101] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 201.

[102] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 63.

[103] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 202.

[104] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I , p. 141.

[105] Wincenty Kadłubek: Kronika polska, vol. III, cap. 18,pp. 133-138. See also K. Kmąk: Wojna polsko-niemiecka1109 (in Polish) [retrieved 15 July 2014].

[106] K. Kmąk: Wojna polsko-niemiecka 1109 (in Polish) [re-trieved 15 July 2014].

[107] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, pp. 203-204.

[108] Wincenty Kadłubek describes this battle following the re-ports of Gallus Anonymus. However, at the end of the19th century, historians recognized Kadłubek’s relate asunreliable, as reflected, inter alia, [in:] S. Orgelbrand: En-cyklopedia Powszechna, vol. XII, Od Polska do Rohan, p.406.

[109] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol I, p. 139.

[110] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 207.

[111] Tomasz Ga̜sowski, Jerzy Ronikier, Zdzisław Zblewski:Bitwy polskie. Leksykon, Editorial Znak, 1999.

[112] Probably in this treaty was stipulated that Zbigniew re-ceived Sieradz as a fief. P. Ksyk-Gąsiorowska: Zbigniew,[in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie. Leksykon bi-ograficzny, p. 75.

[113] Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima okonflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem, p. 25.

[114] Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonimao konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem, pp.39-40.

[115] Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima okonflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem, p. 13,46.

[116] Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima okonflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem, p. 38.

[117] The date of Zbigniew’s blinding is disputed. Cosmas ofPrague favored the year 1110 (Kosmasa Kronika Czechów,vol. III, cap. XXXIV. p. 115); for the year 1111 are in fa-vor L. Giesebrecht: Wendische Geschichte aus den Jahren780-1182, p. 176 and M. Gumblowicz: Zur GeschichtePolens im Mittelalter. Zwei kritische Untersuchunden überdie Chronik Baldwin Gallus. Aus dem Nachlass des Ver-fassers herausgegeben, p. 94; for the year 1112 are in fa-vor O. Balzer: , p. 117, S. Szczur: Historia Polski – śred-niowiecze, p. 124 and T. Tyc: Zbigniew i Bolesław [in:]Arcybiskup Marcin i Gniezno, p. 23; for a time between1112-1113 are in favor R. Grodecki, [in:] Gallus Anony-mous: Kronika polska, pp. 28-29, M. Plezia, [in:] GallusAnonymous: Kronika polska, p. 38; and for the year 1113is in favor K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp.70-75.

[118] Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima okonflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem, p. 144.

[119] T. Tyc: Zbigniew i Bolesław [in:] Arcybiskup Marcin iGniezno, pp. 30-40.

[120] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principumPolonorum, vol. III, cap. XXV, p. 158.

[121] Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima okonflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem, p. 145;K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 76-77.

[122] Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść Galla Anonima okonflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego ze Zbigniewem, p. 183.

[123] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Pol-ski średniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 142. According toMaleczyński, any agreement between Bolesław and KingColoman was signed during this trip. Witnessing this wasBolesław’s later pilgrimage to the tomb of Saint Adalbertof Prague, where he gave numerous gifts to the clergy andmint commemorative coins. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław IIIKrzywousty, p. 77.

[124] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principumPolonorum, p. 161.

[125] During the Hungarian pilgrimage, according to GallusAnonymous in his Chronicle: (...)despite the fact that heruled over some no principality, but over a great Kingdom(in terms of Bolesław III Wrymouth) and that he was inuncertain peace, from various hostile Christian and paganpeoples, they entrusted themselves and their Kingdom in de-fense of the power of God(...). This piece, which focuseson devotion to the care of the Apostolic See of lands be-longing to the Prince (following the rerms of the previ-ous Dagome iudex), has not been approved by Polish me-dievalists. Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum siveprincipum Polonorum, p. 159.

[126] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 77.

27

[127] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 501; B. Snoch: Proto-plasta książąt śląskich, p. 13.

[128] S. Arnold: Historia Polski do połowy XV wieku, p. 29.

[129] Western Pomerania, rich principality ruled byWartislaw I.The confluence of theOder river and the lands of the lowerand upper areas were also a matter of interest to GermanandDanishmargraves, so Bolesławmust be also interestedin them. S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p.124.

[130] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 143-144.

[131] According to O. Balzer, Zbyslava of Kiev died betweenthe years 1109-1112. O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, p.121.

[132] Richeza and Sophia of Berg, Salomea’s sisters, are thewives of Vladislaus I and Otto II the Black, respectively.S. Trawkowski: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A. Garlicki(ed.) Poczet królów i książąt polskich, pp. 80-89.

[133] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 141-142.

[134] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 158.

[135] In 1116 there was another great expedition to East-ern Pomerania. Bolesław had a difficult victory, butdidn't join this area to Poland. A. Marzec: Bolesław IIIKrzywousty, [in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie.Leksykon biograficzny, p. 81.

[136] The Rocznik kapituły krakowskiej indicates in the year1117 that voivode Skarbimir rebelled against Bolesław andwas blinded.

[137] B. Snoch: Protoplasta książąt śląskich, p. 17.

[138] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 157-158.

[139] This theory is supported, among others, by M. K.Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 202; J. Bi-eniak: Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (Część II. Wróżdai zgoda), [in:] Kuczyński K. (ed.), Społeczeństwo Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. III, pp. 51-52. Others historians,however, believed that the origin of Skarbimir’s rebellionas a result of an Act of Succession as only speculative.S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, pp. 127-128.The theory of J. Bieniak is further criticized by M. Dwor-satschek: Władysław II Wygnaniec, p. 37.

[140] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 64.

[141] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 212-214;A. Jóźwik: Grodzisko w Czermnie (in Polish) [retrieved17 July 2014].

[142] Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, vol. 2:Ипатiевская лѣтопись, p. 8.

[143] Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, vol. 7:Лѣтопись по Воскресенскому списку, p. 24.

[144] Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, vol. 1:Лаврентiевская и Троицкая лѣтописи, p. 128.

[145] In his second marriage, Yaroslav married with Sophia,Bolesław’s half-sister.

[146] Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, vol. 7:Лѣтопись по Воскресенскому списку, p. 25.

[147] Members of the Rostislavich branch of the Rurikid dy-nasty, Princes Volodar and Vasilko gained political au-tonomy at the end of the 11th century and beginning ofthe 12th century and fought for their independence fromKiev, but, unable to stopped the combined forces of GrandPrince Sviatopolk II of Kiev and King Coloman of Hun-gary, finally were defeated and Vasilko was captured andblinded. J. Ochmański: Dzieje Rosji do roku 1861, p. 50.

[148] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 125.Jan Długosz placed this event in 1122 and again in1134, where his reports about the kidnapping storyappears Volodar captured by Piotr Włostowic. Thechronicler mistaken the name of the kidnapped Volodarwith Yaropolk. Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonikakrakowskiego Dziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście, vol. I, p.499, 521-523. (in Polish) [retrieved 17 July 2014].

[149] Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, vol. 2:Ипатiевская лѣтопись, p. 9.

[150] For this date is in favor J. Spors [in:] J. Spors: Studia nadwczesnośredniowiecznymi dziejami Pomorza ZachodniegoXII-połowa XIII w., p. 119.

[151] E. Rymar: Rodowód książąt pomorskich, p. 98.

[152] I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara: Społeczeństwo pol-skie od X do XX wieku, pp. 55-56.

[153] O. Baranowska: Pomorze Zachodnie – moja małaojczyzna, pp. 40-42.

[154] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 154.

[155] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 155.

[156] Onemark of silver was equal to 240 denarii. A.Czubinski,J. Topolski: Historia Polski, Ossolineum 1989, p. 39.

[157] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 144-145.

[158] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, p. 39.

[159] J.W. Szymański: Książęcy ród Gryfitów, p. 381.

[160] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 155-156.

[161] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 145.

[162] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, pp. 34-35.

[163] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, p. 38.

[164] J. Kłoczowski: Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji chrześcijańskiej śred-niowiecza, p. 35.

[165] According to sources Otto christianized even the towns ofGartz, Niekładz, Kłodkowo, Kołobrzeg and Białogard. K.Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 176.

28 16 NOTES

[166] M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polski i pre-tendentów do tronu polskiego, p. 64; J. Krzyżaniakowa:Rola kulturalna Piastów w Wielkopolsce [in:] R. Heck(ed.), Piastowie w dziejach Polski, p. 181.

[167] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 147.

[168] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, pp. 52-54.

[169] Kyra Inachim: Die Geschichte Pommerns, Hinstorff Ros-tock, 2008, p. 17, ISBN 978-3-356-01044-2

[170] Norbert Buske: Pommern, Helms Schwerin 1997, p. 11,ISBN 3-931185-07-9

[171] The Polish-Danish expedition to the island of Wolin andUsedom is mentioned by Saxo Grammaticus. E. Rymar:Rodowód książąt pomorskich, p. 98.

[172] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 148-149.

[173] On 14 October 1140 Pope Innocent II formally investedAdalbert as Bishop of Pomerania inWolin. The Bishopricwas erected in 1124 in Wolin by Wartislaw I and Otto ofBamberg. E. Rymar: Rodowód książąt pomorskich, pp.102-103.

[174] Archbishop Norbert tried to take over the Bishopric ofPoznań and incorporated under the suzerainty of theArchbishopric of Magdeburg. K. Maleczyński: BolesławIII Krzywousty, p. 301.

[175] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 303.

[176] Ph. Jaffé: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita Ec-clesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, cap. I,p. 860, nr 7629. Text of the Bull Sacrosancta Romanawas published [in:] Codex diplomaticus majoris Polonia,vol. 1, nr 6 (in Latin) [retrieved 19 July 2014].

[177] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 303-304.

[178] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, pp. 151-153.

[179] Around 1127, Magnus married Ryksa, Bolesław’s eldestdaughter

[180] E. Kosiarz: Wojny na Bałtyku X-XIX w., p. 38.

[181] W. Czapliński, A. Galos, W. Korta: Historia Niemiec, p.138.

[182] W. Czapliński, A. Galos, W. Korta: Historia Niemiec, p.137.

[183] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, p. 68.

[184] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, p. 69.

[185] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, p. 70.

[186] The hypothesis about the Polish ruler paying homageto Germany was undermines by K. Maleczyński, whopointed that in this way Bolesław retained the sovereigntyover his Pomeranian lands. The Annals of Magdeburg,which reported this information, added a note with the

year 1113 (Congress in Merseburg), who is considersreliable. It shall give the fact that any other Germanor Bohemian sources doesn't mention this event. K.Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 239-246. Onthe other hand S. Szczur, referring to theAnnals, indicatesthat the Polish prince acknowledged the sovereignty of theEmperor not only for Western Pomerania and Rügen, butalso for Poland. S. Szczur: Historia Polski - średniowiecze,p. 126.

[187] Kyra T. Inachin: Die Geschichte Pommerns, Hinstorff Ro-stock, 2008, p. 17, ISBN 978-3-356-01044-2: “Mit demTod Kaiser Lothars 1137 endete der sächsische Druck aufWartislaw I., und mit dem Ableben Boleslaw III. auch diepolnische Oberhoheit.”

[188] The authenticity of the only known copy of this Bull isdisputed. According to K. Maleczyński this was a forgerymade after 1139. He believes that the 7 July 1136 issueddocument for the Archbishopric of Gniezno indeed wasonly a privilege, as evidenced by not only by the names ofthe Cardinals signed there, but also by the fact that the Bullbears the stamp who originally belonged to Pope InnocentII. This document, however, later widened at the law firmofGniezno new church property as collateral against greedlay people, hence the current text can even deviate sig-nificantly from the original 1136 text. K. Maleczyński:Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 309-310, 311. Compare[with]: K. Maleczyński: W kwestii autentyczności bullignieźnieńskiej z r. 1136., reprint, [in:] K. Maleczyński:Studia nad dokumentem polskim, pp. 170-188. The au-thenticity of the Bull, in turn, was defended by H. Łowmi-ański: Początki Polski: polityczne i społeczne procesy ksz-tałtowania się narodu do początku wieku XIV, vol. VI, cap.1, pp. 337-343; There is also a summary of the sourcesof the years 1937-1975.

[189] Ph. Jaffé: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab conditaEcclesia ad annum post Christum natumMCXCVIII.. Cz.I. s. 872, nr 7785. Tekst bulli Ex commisso nobis a Deoopublikowany został, [w:] Codex diplomaticus majorisPolonia, T. 1, nr 7 (łac.). [dostęp 16 grudnia 2009].

[190] L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, p. 71.

[191] At the same time fell a plan to appoint two otherPomeranian dioceses. R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J.Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polski średniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 152.

[192] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 127.

[193] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 154.

[194] L. Fabiańczyk: , p. 74.

[195] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 187-188.

[196] A wide scientific discussion over the death of Zbyslavawas presented in the work of K. Kollinger. See K.Kollinger: The problem of food in 1109, Zbyslava’s deathand the Polish-Kievan alliance in 1102–1114, pp. 42–46(in Polish) [retrieved 13 September 2009].

[197] O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, p. 121; K. Jasiński:Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 189.

29

[198] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 312.

[199] O. Balzer indicates that marriage of Bolesław and Sa-lomea was concluded in 1113. O. Balzer: Genealogia Pi-astów, pp. 122-123. K. Maleczyński, however, believesthat this marriage took place in late March–July 1115.K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 313. K.Jasiński was in favor of J. Bieniak, who indicates that themarriage occurred in the first two months of 1115. K.Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 190-191.

[200] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 313-314.

[201] O. Balzer: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 122-123.

[202] P. Jasienica: Polska Piastów, p. 127; A.Marzec: BolesławIII Krzywousty, [in:] S. Szczur, K. Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie.Leksykon biograficzny, p. 84; S. Szczur: Historia Polski –średniowiecze, p. 132.

[203] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 314.

[204] K. Jasiński: Rodowód Piastów śląskich, cap. I, pp. 57-58.

[205] According to Latopis hipacki (the only reliable earlysource who mentioned her), doesn't give her name. Inolder literature, however, was assumed that her name wasJudith, for example J. Żylińska: Piastówny i żony Piastów.pp. 99, 113. M. Spórna and P. Wierzbicki, however, con-firmed the existence of this daughter but her name is un-known; see M. Spórna and P. Wierzbicki: Słownik wład-ców Polski i pretendentów do tronu polskiego, pp. 501-502.

[206] Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, vol. 2:Ипатiевская лѣтопись, p. 10.

[207] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 207.

[208] This hypothesis was formulated by J. Bieniak and sup-ported by K. Jasiński. K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszychPiastów, p. 207.

[209] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principumPolonorum, vol. II, cap. 40, p. 108.

[210] O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, pp. 135-136.

[211] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, pp. 315-316.

[212] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 209.

[213] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 316.

[214] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 211, 214.

[215] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 217-218; O. Balzer, Genealogia Piastów, 2nd edition, Kraków2005, p. 270, placed her birth around 1118.

[216] It’s possible that there was no actual marriage -The An-nalista Saxo uses the phrase “was married to” (in Latindesponsata fuit in the sentence: Huic desponsata fuit filiaducis Polanorum); GH Pertz: Annalista Saxon in Chronicaet annales Aevi Salici (Monumenta Historica Germaniae)(in Latin), vol. VI. p. 768. [retrieved 19 May 2014].

[217] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 217-218.

[218] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 222.

[219] Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiegoDziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście, vol. I, p. 499 (in Pol-ish) [retrieved 21 July 2014].

[220] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 246.

[221] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 224-228.

[222] Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, vol. 2:Ипатiевская лѣтопись, p. 14.

[223] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 317.

[224] Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiegoDziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście, vol. I, pp. 509-510 (inPolish) [retrieved 21 July 2014].

[225] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 234-235.

[226] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 334.

[227] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 251-253.

[228] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 318.

[229] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 255-258.

[230] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 248-249.

[231] Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiegoDziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście, vol. I, p. 509, 535-536(in Polish) [retrieved 21 July 2014].

[232] K. Maleczyński says she was engaged to YaroslavVsevolodovich. K.Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty,p. 318.

[233] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, pp. 261-263.

[234] D. Dąbrowski: Genealogia Mścisławowiczów, pp. 225-228.

[235] K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, p. 265.

[236] O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów, p. 123, 138-143, 152-153.

[237] Among historians who refuted her Piast origin areStanisław Kętrzyński, Karol Maleczyński and GerardLabuda. See: K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów,p. 208.

[238] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 315.

[239] This view was formulated by J. Bieniak. He also pointedthat Sophia and Bishop Mateusz would belonged to theLeszczyców family. See also K. Jasiński: Rodowód pier-wszych Piastów, p. 223.

[240] K. Maleczyński points out that there is no way to resolvethe issue of Sophia’s parentage. The Rocznik świętokrzyskidawny reported Sophia’s death on 10 October 1136, whilethe Obituary of Zwiefalten from the manuscript of Civi-dale recorded her death on 11 October 1136, naming her aPolish princess. Thus, Sophia could be Bolesław’s daugh-ter, or a close relative. K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzy-wousty, p. 316.

[241] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 128.

30 16 NOTES

[242] G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A.Horst. (ed.), Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuage-nario dedicata, p. 178; J. Bieniak: Polska elita politycznaXII wieku (Część II. Wróżda i zgoda), [in:] Kuczyński K.(ed.), Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, vol. III, p. 52.

[243] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 127. Ac-cording to J. Bienak the Testament was drawn up duringthe Christmas celebrations of 1117. J. Bieniak: Polskaelita polityczna XII wieku (Część II. Wróżda i zgoda), [in:]K. Kuczyński (ed.), Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej,vol. III, pp. 51-52. The theory of Bienak was criticizedby M. Dworsatschek. M. Dworsatschek: Władysław IIWygnaniec, p. 37.

[244] K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 302. Theabolition of the Seniorate Principle occurred during theCongress of Łęczyca in 1180. In that meeting, the LesserPoland domains were given to Casimir II as hereditary fief.R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Pol-ski średniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 183. The decisions of theCongress were further approved by Pope Alexander III on28 March 1181. A. Bielowski (ed.): Monumenta PoloniaeHistorica (in Polish), p. 401, compare editor 1, p. 401.

[245] A. Śmiech: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish)[retrieved 22 July 2014].

[246] E. Rymar: Primogenitura zasadą regulującą następstwo wpryncypat w ustawie sukcesyjnej Bolesława Krzywoustego,"Śląski Kwartalnik Historyczny Sobótka”, no 1 (48), pp.10-15, 1993.

[247] Issues about the principate-seniority rules after Bolesław’sdeath were further revised in the publication of A.Śmiecha, Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego. In Statut osukcesji władzy w Polsce the author presents the views ofPolish medieval studies. A. Śmiech: Testament BolesławaKrzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 22 July 2014]. Seealso [in:] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p.128.

[248] M. Kantecki argued that Bolesław described the heritabil-ity of the Seniorate Province. This view was supportedby W. Kętrzyński. The arguments of M. Kantecki metwith criticism between contemporary medieval studies.E. Rymar: Primogenitura zasadą regulującą następstwo wpryncypat w ustawie sukcesyjnej Bolesława Krzywoustego,"Śląski Kwartalnik Historyczny Sobótka”, no 1 (48), pp.4-5, 1993.

[249] P. Jasienica: Polska Piastów, p. 127.

[250] Modern medievalist historians pointed that Sieradz andŁęczyca were not included in the territorial district ofthe Seniorate Province. A. Śmiech: Testament BolesławaKrzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 22 July 2014].

[251] A. Marzec: Bolesław III Krzywousty, [in:] S. Szczur, K.Ożóg (ed.), Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny, p. 84; K.Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, p. 328.

[252] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 132.

[253] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 155.

[254] G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii do poliarchii,p. 18.

[255] G. Labuda believes that Bolesław established the Se-niorate Province, which had in turn passed to all hissons, according to seniority, along with a senior district.G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A.Horst (ed.), Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuagenariodedicata, p. 193.

[256] According to modern medievalist historians, Henry wouldreceive his domains only in 1146. A. Śmiech: TestamentBolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 22 July2014]. G. Labuda believed that Bolesław divided thecountry between three and not four sons: WładysławII, Bolesław IV and Mieszko III. G. Labuda: TestamentBolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A. Horst (ed.), OpusculaCasimiro Tymieniecki septuagenario dedicata, p. 193.

[257] K. Buczek: Jeszcze o testamencie Bolesława Krzywoustego,“Przegląd Historyczny”, no 60, pp. 621-639; G. Labuda:Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:] A. Horst (ed.),Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki septuagenario dedicata, p.193.

[258] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 130.

[259] With this view is disagreed E. Rymar. See E. Rymar:Primogenitura zasadą regulującą następstwo w pryncy-pat w ustawie sukcesyjnej Bolesława Krzywoustego, "ŚląskiKwartalnik Historyczny Sobótka”, no 1 (48), pp. 9-10,1993.

[260] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 131.

[261] B. Zientara: Władysław II Wygnaniec, [in:] Poczet królówi książąt polskich, p. 90.

[262] Cleric, Knight and Workman Li Livres dou Santé France,late 13th century Sloane 2435, f.85 [retrieved 24 July2014].

[263] The division within the provinces on castellanies and opoleas smaller territorial units, presented by R. Grodecki. R.Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 199.

[264] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 150.

[265] J. Topolski (ed.): Dzieje Polski do roku 1501, pp. 141-142.

[266] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 151.

[267] T. Lalik: Społeczne gwarancje bytu [in:] J. Dowiat (ed.),Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII w, p. 145.

[268] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, pp. 149-150.

[269] T. Lalik: Społeczne gwarancje bytu [in:] J. Dowiat (ed.),Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII w, p. 146.

[270] R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: Dzieje Polskiśredniowiecznej, vol. I, p. 197.

[271] T. Lalik: Społeczne gwarancje bytu [in:] J. Dowiat (ed.),Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII w, p. 147.

[272] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, pp. 240-250.

31

[273] I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara: Społeczeństwo pol-skie od X do XX wieku, p. 65.

[274] Sources didn't provide the amount of this different groups.T. M. Nowak, J. Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego 963-1795, p. 67.

[275] L. Ratajczyk (ed.): Historyczny rodowód polskiego cere-moniału wojskowego, p. 351.

[276] I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara: Społeczeństwo pol-skie od X do XX wieku, p. 47.

[277] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principumPolonorum, vol. III, cap. 23, p. 149.

[278] T. M. Nowak, J. Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego 963-1795, p. 20, 22.

[279] T. M. Nowak, J. Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego 963-1795, p. 66.

[280] Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principumPolonorum, vol. II, cap. 5, p. 69.

[281] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, pp. 250-256.

[282] S. Arnold: Historia Polski do połowy XV wieku, p. 37.

[283] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze., pp. 152-154.

[284] M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piastów w Polsce, p. 251.

[285] The first seal, on basis of detailed research, was assigned toWładysław I Herman. M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nieśniło się historykom (in Polish). [retrieved 26 July 2014];F. Piekosiński: Najdawniejszy dokument polski, Wiado-mości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne, vol. IV, 1899-1902. p. 493.

[286] S. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znalezisko bulliBolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianych pieczęciwe wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce, p. 1 (in Polish). [re-trieved 26 July 2014].

[287] M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Bulle księcia BolesławaKrzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].

[288] The Bulla is the seal of the highest rank. Originally fromancient Rome, in the Middle Ages was commonly usedin offices and in the zones with Byzantine cultural influ-ence, including the Principalities of Kievan Rus’: the old-est preserved Bulla from this area are dated already fromthe second half of the 10th century, including the Bulla ofPrince Sviatoslav. M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nie śniłosię historykom (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].

[289] M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nie śniło się historykom (inPolish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].

[290] S. Suchodolski: Denar w kalecie, ill. nr 16.

[291] S. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znalezisko bulliBolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianych pieczęciwe wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce, p. 2 (in Polish) [re-trieved 26 July 2014].

[292] S. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znalezisko bulliBolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianych pieczęciwe wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce, p. 3 (in Polish) [re-trieved 26 July 2014].

[293] W.Garbaczewski: Polska: Epoka denarowawmennictwiepolskim (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014].

[294] In older literature, there was a view that classified thisbracteate with the name of penitential. W. Garbaczewski:Polskie monety kruszcowe od X wieku, p. 6 (in Polish)[retrieved 26 July 2014]; M. Gumowski: Podręcznik nu-mizmatyki polskiej, p. 25.

[295] According to A. Mikołajczyk this bracteate was mintedonly in 1135. M. Folwarniak: Pierwsze polskie brakteaty.Poglądy na ich temat w ujęciu historycznym (in Polish) [re-trieved 26 July 2014].

[296] W. Garbaczewski: Polskie monety kruszcowe od X wieku,p. 6 (in Polish) [retrieved 26 July 2014]

[297] M. Folwarniak: Pierwsze polskie brakteaty. Poglądy naich temat w ujęciu historycznym (in Polish) [retrieved 26July 2014].

[298] K. Micorek: Świętokrzyskie Millenium (in Polish) [re-trieved 27 July 2014].

[299] Kościół św. Idziego w Inowłodzu (in Polish) [retrieved 27July 2014]

[300] Modern research debated the time of the foundation dur-ing 1120-1126. The first known source who mentionedthe Collegiate was from 1218 (13th century), where men-tioned the first Provost, Peter. H. Podolińska: Kościółgrodowy (I) na Ostrowie Tumskim - historyczny świadekObrony Głogowa (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014].

[301] H. Podolińska: Kościół grodowy (I) na Ostrowie Tumskim- historyczny świadek Obrony Głogowa (in Polish) [re-trieved 27 July 2014].

[302] M. Gronowski: Opactwo Benedyktynów w Tyńcu. Założe-nie klasztoru. Spór o fundatora Opactwa (in Polish) [re-trieved 27 July 2014].

[303] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, p. 183.

[304] Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztukapolska, Romanizm, p. 64.

[305] Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztukapolska, Romanizm, p. 93.

[306] J. Żylińska: Piastówny i żony Piastów, pp. 100-101; B.Snoch: Protoplasta książąt śląskich, p. 41.

[307] Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztukapolska, Romanizm, p. 328.

[308] Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sztukapolska, Romanizm, pp. 327-328.

[309] 16th century Bishop and historian Marcin Kromer be-lieved that the author was Gallus due to the assumptionthat the monk came from Provence, France.

32 17 REFERENCES

[310] M. Plezia: Nowe studia nad Gallem-Anonimem, [in:] H.Chłopocka (ed.): Mente et litteris. O kulturze i społeczeńst-wie wieków średnich, pp. 111-120.

[311] D. Borawska: Gallus Anonim czy Italus Anonim,“Przegląd Historyczny”, no 56, pp. 111-119; T. Jasiński:Czy Gall Anonim to Monachus Littorensis?, “KwartalnikHistoryczny”. no. 112, cap. 3, pp. 69-89.

[312] See also R. Sidorski: Kierunek: Wenecja!. Wywiad zTomaszem Jasińskim (in Polish) [retrieved 27 July 2014].An extensive discussion on the origin of Gallus Anony-mous was concluded by Polish medievalists. See W. Mis-chke and others: Kronika życia naukowego (in Polish) [re-trieved 27 July 2014].

[313] This dates are suggested byM. Plezia in the introduction toher 2003 book. According to the author, the work is prob-ably developed between years 1112-1116. Gallus Anony-mus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive principum Polonorum,p. 14.

[314] M. Plezia in the introduction to the Chronicles of Gal-lus suggested that the work stopped at the year 1113.Gallus Anonymus: Cronicae et gesta ducum sive prin-cipum Polonorum, p. 20. Contemporary medievalists as-sumes that the Chronicle of Gallus Anonymous has beenbrought to 1114. Behind that advocated, among others, K.Jasiński, which dates back to Zbyslava’s death in 1114. K.Kollinger: Ruskie posiłki dla Bolesława III Krzywoustego w1109, śmierć Zbysławy i trwałość sojuszu polsko-ruskiegow latach 1102-1114.

[315] S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, pp. 199-200.

[316] P. Jasienica: Polska Piastów, pp 133-136.

17 References

17.1 Sources

• Gallus Anonymous: Cronicae et gesta ducum siveprincipum Polonorum, Kraków 1923.

• Wincenty Kadłubek: Kronika polska, Wrocław2003.

• Cosmas of Prague: Kosmasa Kronika Czechów,Warsaw 1968.

• JanWikarjak (ed.): Pomorze Zachodnie w żywotachOttona, Warsaw 1979.

• Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, изданноепо Высочайшему повелѣнiю АрхеографическоюКоммиссiею, vol. 1, Лаврентiевская и Троицкаялѣтописи, Санктпетербургъ 1846.

• Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей, изданноепо Высочайшему повелѣнiю АрхеографическоюКоммиссiею, vol. 2, Ипатiевская лѣтопись,Санктпетербургъ 1843.

• Полное собранiе русскихъ лѣтописей,изданное по Высочайшему повелѣнiюАрхеографическою Коммиссiею, vol. 7,Летопись по Воскресенскому списку,Санктпетербургъ 1856.

17.2 Online sources

• Marcin Bielski: Kronika polska (in Polish), Kraków1597, [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• August Bielowski (ed),Monumenta Poloniae Histor-ica (in Polish), vol. II, Lwów 1872, [retrieved 28July 2014].

• Papal Bull Ex commisso nobis a Deo in: Codex diplo-maticus majoris Polonia (in Latin), vol. 1, nr 7, [re-trieved 28 July 2014].

• Papal Bull Sacrosancta Romana in: Codex diplo-maticus majoris Polonia (in Latin), vol. 1, nr 6, [re-trieved 28 July 2014].

• Gallus Anonymous: Kronika polska (in Polish),Wrocław 2003, [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• Jan Długosz: Jana Długosza kanonika krakowskiegoDziejów polskich ksiąg dwanaście (in Polish), vol. I,Kraków 1867, [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• G. H. Pertz: Annales Magdeburgenses (MonumentaGermaniae Historica) (Monumenta Germaniae His-torica) (in Latin), vol. XVI, Hannover 1859, [re-trieved 1 July 2011].

• G. H. Pertz: Annalista Saxo w: Chronica et an-nales aevi Salici (Monumenta Germaniae Historica)(in Latin), vol. VI, Hannover 1844, [retrieved 28July 2014].

• Collective work: Monumenta Poloniae Historica (inPolish) (Polish historical monuments), vol. III,Lwów 1878, [retrieved 28 July 2014].

17.3 Bibliography

• S. Arnold S: Historia Polski do połowy XV wieku,Warsaw 1968.

• O. Baranowska: Pomorze Zachodnie – moja małaojczyzna, Szczecin 2001.

• M. K. Barański: Dynastia Piatów w Polsce, Warsaw2006.

• J.Bieniak: Polska elita polityczna XII wieku (PartII: Wróżda i zgoda), [in:] K. Kuczyński (ed.):Społeczeństwo Polski średniowiecznej, vol. III, War-saw 1985.

• D. Borawska: Gallus Anonim czy Italus Anonim [in:]“Przegląd Historyczny”, nr 56, 1965.

17.3 Bibliography 33

• K. Buczek: Jeszcze o testamencie Bolesława Krzy-woustego [in:] “Przegląd Historyczny”, nr 60, 1969.

• W. Czapliński, A. Galos, W. Korta: HistoriaNiemiec, Wrocław 1990.

• Z. Dalewski: Rytuał i polityka. Opowieść GallaAnonima o konflikcie Bolesława Krzywoustego zeZbigniewem, Warsaw 2005.

• D. Dąbrowski: Genealogia Mścisławowiczów,Kraków 2008.

• J. Dowiat (ed.): Kultura Polski średniowiecznej X-XIII w., Warsaw 1985.

• M. Dworsatschek: Władysław II Wygnaniec,Kraków 2009.

• L. Fabiańczyk: Apostoł Pomorza, Szczecin 2001.

• L. Giesebrecht: Wendische Geschichte aus denJahren 780-1182, Berlin 1843.

• R. Gładkiewicz (ed.): Kłodzko: dzieje miasta,Kłodzko 1998.

• A. F. Grabski: Polska w opiniach obcych X-XIII w.,Warsaw 1964.

• R. Grodecki, S. Zachorowski, J. Dąbrowski: DziejePolski średniowiecznej, vol. I, Kraków 1995.

• M. Gumblowicz: Zur Geschichte Polens im Mittelal-ter. Zwei kritische Untersuchunden über die ChronikBaldwin Gallus. Aus dem Nachlass des Verfassersherausgegeben, Innsbruck 1898.

• M. Gumowski: Podręcznik numizmatyki polskiej,Kraków 1914.

• I. Ihnatowicz, A. Mączak, B. Zientara:Społeczeństwo polskie od X do XX wieku, Warsaw1979.

• S. Helsztyński: O Gallu Anonimie i jego dziele[in:] Gall Anonim, Wielkie czyny Bolesława Krzy-woustego, Warsaw 1948.

• Ph. Jaffé: Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab con-dita Ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCX-CVIII, cap. 1, Leipzig 1885.

• P. Jasienica: Polska Piastów, Warsaw 2007.

• K. Jasiński: Przydomek Bolesława Krzywoustego[in:] Genealogia. Studia i materiały historyczne, vol.VI, Poznań-Wrocław 1995.

• K. Jasiński: Rodowód Piastów śląskich, Kraków2007, cap. I.

• K. Jasiński: Rodowód pierwszych Piastów, Poznań2004.

• T. Jasiński: Czy Gall Anonim to Monachus Littoren-sis? [in:] “Kwartalnik Historyczny”, no 112, cap 3,2005.

• J. Kłoczowski: Młodsza Europa. Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w kręgu cywilizacji chrześcijańskiej śred-niowiecza, Warsaw 2003.

• L. Korczak: Władysław I Herman, [in:] S. Szczur,K. Ożóg (ed.): Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny,Kraków 1999.

• E. Kosiarz: Wojny na Bałtyku X-XIX w., Gdańsk1978.

• E. Kowalczyk: Krzywousty – skaza moralna czy fizy-czna [in:] “Kwartalnik Historyczny”, nr 101, 1994.

• J. Krzyżaniakowa: Rola kulturalna Piastów wWielkopolsce, [in:] R. Heck (ed.): Piastowie wdziejach Polski. Zbiór artykułów z okazji trzechset-nej rocznicy wygaśnięcia dynastii Piastów, Wrocław1975.

• P. Ksyk-Gąsiorowska: Zbigniew [in:] S. Szczur,K. Ożóg (ed.): Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny,Kraków 1999.

• G. Labuda: Korona i infuła. Od monarchii do po-liarchii, Kraków 1996, ISBN 83-03-03659-9.

• G. Labuda: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego [in:]A. Horst (ed.): Opuscula Casimiro Tymieniecki sep-tuagenario dedicata, Poznań 1959.

• H. Łowmiański: Początki Polski: polityczne ispołeczne procesy kształtowania się narodu dopoczątku wieku XIV, vol. VI, cap. 1, Warsaw 1985.

• J. Machnicki: Przewrotna historia Polski – do 1795roku, Kielce 1999.

• K. Maleczyński: Bolesław III Krzywousty, Wrocław– Warsaw – Kraków – Gdańsk 1975.

• K. Maleczyński: Studia nad dokumentem polskim,Wrocław 1971.

• K. Maleczyński: W kwestii autentyczności bullignieźnieńskiej z r. 1136 [in:] Prace WrocławskiegoTowarzystwa Naukowego, serie A, nr 2, Wrocław1947.

• K. Maleczyński: W sprawie daty urodzin BolesławaKrzywoustego, [in:] “Kwartalnik Historyczny”, nr50, 1936.

• T. Manteuffel: Polska wśród nowych państw Eu-ropy [in:] T. Manteuffel (ed.): Polska pierwszychPiastów. Państwo, społeczeństwo, kultura, Warsaw1968.

• A. Marzec: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] S. Szczur,K. Ożóg (ed.): Piastowie. Leksykon biograficzny,Kraków 1999.

34 17 REFERENCES

• A. Nawrot: (ed.) Encyklopedia Historia, Kraków2007.

• V. Novotný V: České dějiny. Dílu I. část II, OdBřetislava I. do Přemysla I, Prague 1912.

• T. M. Nowak, J .Wimmer: Historia oręża polskiego963-1795, Warsaw 1981.

• J. Ochmański: Dzieje Rosji do roku 1861, Warsaw –Poznań 1974.

• F. Piekosiński: Najdawniejszy dokument polski.Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne, vol.IV, 1899-1902, p. 493.

• Z. S. Pietras: Bolesław Krzywousty, Cieszyn 1978.

• M. Plezia: Nowe studia nad Gallem-Anonimem,[in:] H. Chłopocka (ed.): Mente et litteris. O kulturzei społeczeństwie wieków średnich, Poznań 1984.

• M. Plezia: Wstęp [in:] Gallus Anonymous: Kronikapolska, Wrocław 2003.

• J. Powierski: Data konsekracji katedrygnieźnieńskiej (1 maja 1099) na tle sytuacjipolitycznej Polski, Rusi i krajów sąsiednich [in:]“Roczniki historyczne”, 1994.

• L. Ratajczyk L. (pod red.), Historyczny rodowódpolskiego ceremoniału wojskowego, Warszawa1981.

• E. Rymar: Primogenitura zasadą regulującąnastępstwo w pryncypat w ustawie sukcesyjnejBolesława Krzywoustego, [in:] "Śląski KwartalnikHistoryczny Sobótka”, cap. 1, nr 1 (48), 1993.

• E. Rymar: Rodowód książąt pomorskich, Szczecin2005.

• B. Snoch: Protoplasta książąt śląskich, Katowice1985.

• J. Spors J: Studia nad wczesnośredniowiecznymidziejami Pomorza Zachodniego XII-połowa XIII w.,Słupsk 1988.

• M. Spórna, P. Wierzbicki: Słownik władców Polskii pretendentów do tronu polskiego, Kraków 2003.

• S. Suchodolski: Denar w kalecie, Wrocław 1981.

• S. Szczur: Historia Polski – średniowiecze, Kraków2002.

• J. W. Szymański: Książęcy ród Gryfitów, Goleniów– Kielce 2006.

• Z. Świechowski, E. Gawlikowska-Świechowska: Sz-tuka polska, Romanizm, vol. I, Warsaw 2005.

• J. Topolski (ed.): Dzieje Polski do roku 1501, War-saw 1993.

• S. Trawkowski: Bolesław III Krzywousty [in:] A.Garlicki (ed.): Poczet królów i książąt polskich, War-saw 1978.

• T. Tyc: Zbigniew i Bolesław, [in:] ArcybiskupMarcin i Gniezno, Poznań 1927.

• J. Wyrozumski: Historia Polski do roku 1505, War-saw 1984.

• B. Zientara: Władysław II Wygnaniec, [in:] A. Gar-licki (ed.): Poczet królów i książąt polskich, Warsaw1978.

• J. Żylińska: Piastówny i żony Piastów, Warsaw1975.

17.4 Online bibliography

• M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Bulle księciaBolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved 28July 2014].

• M. Andrałojć, W. Andrałojć: Nie śniło się histo-rykom (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• O. Balzer: Genealogia Piastów (in Polish), Kraków1895 [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• R. Drogi: Państwo Czeskie Przemyślidów (historiaCzech, cz. III. 1) (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July2014].

• M. Folwarniak: Pierwsze polskie brakteaty. Poglądyna ich temat w ujęciu historycznym (in Polish) [re-trieved 28 July 2014].

• W. Garbaczewski: Polska: Epoka denarowa w men-nictwie polskim (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• W. Garbaczewski: Polskie monety kruszcowe od Xwieku (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• M. Gronowski: Opactwo Benedyktynów w Tyńcu.Założenie klasztoru. Spór o fundatora Opactwa (inPolish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• K. Kmąk: Wojna polsko-niemiecka 1109 (in Polish)[retrieved 28 July 2014].

• K. Kollinger: Ruskie posiłki dla Bolesława III Krzy-woustego w 1109, śmierć Zbysławy i trwałość sojuszupolsko-ruskiego w latach 1102-1114 (in Polish) [re-trieved 13 September 2009].

• B.Kozłowski: Śmierć księcia Zbigniewa, oślepionegoprzez Bolesława Krzywoustego (in Polish) [retrieved2 September 2009].

• W. Mischke and others: Kronika życia naukowego(in Polish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• W.Mischke: Polska korona królów czeskich (in Pol-ish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

17.4 Online bibliography 35

• Ł. Piernikarczyk: Palatyn Sieciech (1080-1100) (inPolish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• H. Podolińska: Kościół grodowy (I) na OstrowieTumskim – historyczny świadek Obrony Głogowa (inPolish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• J. Prajzner: Numizmatyka: Katalog polskich monetobiegowych. Monety 1916-2010 (in Polish) [re-trieved 28 July 2014].

• S. Orgelbranda encyklopedja powszechna (in Polish),vol. 12, Od Polska do Rohan, Warsaw 1902, [re-trieved 28 July 2014].

• J. Serafin: Pomniki Głogowa (in Polish) [in:] J. Sad-owski (ed.): Encyklopedia Ziemi Głogowskiej, vol.XLIII, Głogów 2001, [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• R. Sidorski: Kierunek: Wenecja!. Wywiad zTomaszem Jasińskim (in Polish) [retrieved 28 July2014].

• S. Suchodolski: Nowe (mazowieckie) znaleziskobulli Bolesława Krzywoustego i problemy ołowianychpieczęci we wczesnośredniowiecznej Polsce (in Pol-ish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

• A. Śmiech: Testament Bolesława Krzywoustego (inPolish) [retrieved 28 July 2014].

36 18 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

18 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

18.1 Text• Bolesław III Wrymouth Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boles%C5%82aw_III_Wrymouth?oldid=676898552 Contributors: Kp-jas, Space Cadet, Ktsquare, Mic, Delirium, Stan Shebs, Maximus Rex, Topbanana, Lord Emsworth, Warofdreams, Caius2ga, Dimadick,Robbot, Altenmann, Wjhonson, Cautious, Anthony, GreatWhiteNortherner, Ausir, Guanaco, Kpalion, ClockworkLunch, Phe, Piotrus,Emax, Klemen Kocjancic, D6, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Naive cynic, MJSS, Iamunknown, Darwinek, Polylerus, Logologist, Deaconof Pndapetzim, Drbreznjev, Redvers, Woohookitty, FeanorStar7, Tabletop, Angusmclellan, Olessi, Valentinian, Volunteer Marek, Molobo,Bota47, Iwalters, Curpsbot-unicodify, Appleseed, GrinBot~enwiki, Attilios, SmackBot, Elonka, Reedy, Eskimbot, Hmains, Roy Al Blue,Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski, Arod14, Mathiasrex, MTSbot~enwiki, KonradWallenrod, CmdrObot, Eric, FlyingToaster, Cydebot, Slp1,Jameboy, PamD, Thijs!bot, Marek69, Suedois, JustAGal, Maed, RobotG, Aldebaran69, JAnDbot, Magioladitis, Waacstats, JaGa, R'n'B,Johnpacklambert, LedgendGamer, DrKiernan, Yonidebot, Hugo999, Abberley2, Johnello, David Condrey, Rob Aleksandrowicz, Orestek,Rhopkins8, Brandon97, SieBot, Nihil novi, CarlosPn, Piast2007, Lightmouse, Martarius, PipepBot, Skäpperöd, Sir Mmt, Arjayay, Zomno,SchreiberBike, Kelvin, EstherLois, RogDel, HerkusMonte, Addbot, Download, Lightbot, DK4, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Againme, AnomieBOT,JackieBot, Arminidi, Eumolpo, ArthurBot, LilHelpa, Xqbot, Sylwia Ufnalska, NiederlandeFW, J04n, Vlastimil Svoboda, Anna Roy, D AR C 12345, Kobrabones, Spidey104, Horst-schlaemma, Orenburg1, Sqwe, Spacejam2, EmausBot, John of Reading, ZéroBot, Wieralee,Kmicic, Rommullus, Delusion23, Mannanan51, Kaltenmeyer, Khazar2, Mały koleżka, Dexbot, Hmainsbot1, Jodosma, Oliszydlowski,1982vdven, SaneMaly, KasparBot and Anonymous: 59

18.2 Images• File:Armborst_4,_Nordisk_familjebok.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Armborst_4%2C_Nordisk_familjebok.png License: Public domain Contributors: Nordisk familjebok (1904), vol.2, p.5 [1] Original artist: Nordiskfamiljebok

• File:Bulla_Krzywoustego.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Bulla_Krzywoustego.jpg License: CCBY3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Roman Andrzej Kargul (Kargul1965)

• File:Bulla_Krzywoustego_(2002).jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Bulla_Krzywoustego_%282002%29.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Roman Andrzej Kargul (Kargul1965)

• File:Cleric-Knight-Workman.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Cleric-Knight-Workman.jpgLicense: Public domain Contributors: http://faculty.uml.edu/ccarlsmith/teaching/43.105/PDFs/Medieval%20Society%20and%20Architecture.pdf Original artist: Unknown

• File:Denar_rys_krzywousty2.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Denar_rys_krzywousty2.png Li-cense: Public domain Contributors: Skan z pierwszego tomu dzieła “Polska, jej dzieje i kultura”, wyd. 1927 nakładem “Księgarni Trzaski,Everta i Michalskiego”. Original artist: Unknown

• File:Denar_rys_krzywousty3.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Denar_rys_krzywousty3.png Li-cense: Public domain Contributors: Skan z pierwszego tomu dzieła “Polska, jej dzieje i kultura”, wyd. 1927 nakładem “Księgarni Trzaski,Everta i Michalskiego”. Original artist: ?

• File:Denar_rys_sieciech1.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Denar_rys_sieciech1.png License: Publicdomain Contributors: “Polska, jej dzieje i kultura” t.I., 1927, publisher “Księgarnia Trzaski, Everta i Michalskiego” (scan). Uploaded first topl wikipedia under the same file name. Original artist: Unknown

• File:Gall_Anonin-kamien1.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Gall_Anonin-kamien1.JPG License:CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Bonio

• File:Gniezno_16.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Gniezno_16.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contrib-utors: http://www.poczta-polska.pl/mw Original artist: Marek & Ewa Wojciechowscy

• File:Jacobi_1828_Boleslaw_III_Krzywousty.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Jacobi_1828_Boleslaw_III_Krzywousty.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: dziedzictwo.polska.pl Original artist: Obraz został namalowany w1828 r. Przechowywany jest w Muzeum Okręgowymw Toruniu. Jest jednym z pięciu portretów podarowanych przez artystę miastu dla uzupełnienia obrazów zniszczonych przez pożar na pocz.XVIII w.Malowidło jest kopią obrazu M. Bacciarellego z Zamku Królewskiego w Warszawie

• File:Katedra-Płock9.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Katedra-P%C5%82ock9.JPG License: CCBY 2.5 Contributors: Originally from pl.wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: Original uploader was Chrisiek atpl.wikipedia

• File:Kosciol_sw_Idziego_w_Inowlodzu.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Kosciol_sw_Idziego_w_Inowlodzu.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Chrumps

• File:Mapa_podziału_Księstwa_Polskiego_w_1102.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1a/Mapa_podzia%C5%82u_Ksi%C4%99stwa_Polskiego_w_1102.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: http://www.polskiedzieje.pl/mapy-granic-polski/mapa-boleslaw_krzywousty Original artist: Kargul1965

• File:Marcin.PNG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Marcin.PNG License: Public domain Contributors: ?Original artist: ?

• File:Otto_der_Heilige.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Otto_der_Heilige.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Originally from de.wikipedia; same file name. Original uploader was Dagny at de.wikipedia Original artist: Dagny atde.wikipedia

• File:Polska_1102_-_1138.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Polska_1102_-_1138.png License: CCBY-SA 3.0 Contributors: własna praca na podstawie: “Ilustrowany Atlas Historii Polski” Original artist: Poznaniak

18.3 Content license 37

• File:Pomeraniae_Ducatus_Tabula.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Pomeraniae_Ducatus_Tabula.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Willem & Joan Blaeu, Atlas Blaeu (later Atlas Maior), 1662 Original artist: Eilhard Lubinus

• File:Pomnik_Bolesława_III_Krzywoustego.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Pomnik_Boles%C5%82awa_III_Krzywoustego.JPG License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rommullus

• File:PsiePole_MBielski.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/PsiePole_MBielski.png License: Publicdomain Contributors: Marcin Bielski “Kronika polska” Original artist: Unknown

• File:Reception_of_Jews_in_Poland_1096.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Reception_of_Jews_in_Poland_1096.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: image taken by User:Mathiasrex Maciej Szczepańczyk Original artist: Jan Mate-jko

• File:Somogyvar_Szent_Egyed_apatsag.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Somogyvar_Szent_Egyed_apatsag.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

• File:Ustawa_sukcesyjna_Bolesława_Krzywoustego.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Ustawa_sukcesyjna_Boles%C5%82awa_Krzywoustego.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work w oparciu m.in. o: Samsonowicz H.,Historia Polski do roku 1795, Warszawa 1990, s. 36–38. ISBN 83-02-04285-4. Original artist: Farary

• File:Zbigniew.JPG Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Zbigniew.JPG License: Public domain Contributors:? Original artist: ?

• File:Zwiefalten_Abtei.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Zwiefalten_Abtei.jpg License: CC BY 3.0Contributors: Own work (own photograph) Original artist: Photo: Andreas Praefcke

• File:Święty_Krzyż_02_ssj_20060108.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/%C5%9Awi%C4%99ty_Krzy%C5%BC_02_ssj_20060108.jpg License: GFDL Contributors: Own work Original artist: Paweł Cieśla Staszek_Szybki_Jest

18.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0