At the end of the last century, the Polish historian
Jan Tengowski, having deep analysis of numerous previous studies concerning the
origin of the Zbarazh princely dynasty, rejected the possibility of the
identity of their hypothetical ancestor Fedko Nesvizhskyj and Fedir
Korybutovych. According to the historian, the family tradition of the dynasty's
origin from the Lithuanian prince Dmytro Korybut (brother of King Jagiello),
which was propagated by members of the family for centuries, must be refuted.
Later, in the next article, the historian proposed his
own version concerning the origin of the princes Zbarazhski, Vyshnevetski and
others descendants of Fedko Nesvizhskyj. The version proposed by the author, in
our opinion, did not provide convincing arguments for solving the problem
regarding the origin of one of the most influential princely dynasties of
Volhynia, and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a whole. However, it
gave a new impetus to the next "hot phase" of “genealogical war” that
began back in 1876 and continues to this day. This article launched the next
wave of discussions concerning the roots of the princely dynasty from Zbarazh
and its later branches - princes Vyshnevetski, Porytski and Voronetski, which,
of course, make the common historical heritage of modern Ukraine, Poland,
Lithuania and Belarus.
Building his own hypothesis, the researcher paid
attention to a document issued on September 19, 1388 by the contemporary owners
of Ukrainian Podilia, Lithuanian princes Constantine and Fedir Koriatovych for
Nemyria, to whom these princes granted the town of Bakota together with several
villages[1]. Jan Tengowski drew attention to the list of witnesses
on this document, where Prince Vasyl Vinnytskyj is mentioning in second place[2]. According to the Polish historian, since the ancestor
of the Zbarazhski princes Fedir Nesvizhskyj mentioned Vinnytsia among his
estates in his oath of allegiance to the Polish king Wladyslaw of Varna issued
in 1434, this Vasyl may well be Fedko Nesvizhskyj father based on the
territorial principle.
The author further claims that Prince Vasyl Vinnytskyj
should be identical with Vasyl Bozhskyj, also mentioned as a witness in a
document issued by Svidrigiello for the Kamyanets Dominicans in 1401[3]. As an additional argument in favor of his hypothesis,
J. Tengowski cites the fact that the name Vasyl is found among the descendants
of Fedko.
However, he later himself claimed that this name was
very popular among the medieval Rus’ princes and attempts to identify these
people by name are doomed to the risk of making a mistake[4]. Moreover, the author admits his own mistake when his
previous assumption that Prince Yuri Nesvizhskyj was Fedir's father was based only
on so-called "kryterium imionowe", because one of Fedir's sons was
also named Yurij[5].
Following the Polish historian Jusef Wolf, Jan Tengowski
derives the origin of the ancestor of Prince Fedko Nesvizhskyj from the
Turovo-Pinsk branch of the Rus’ princes Rurikovich. Unfortunately, the author
does not specify when and how the representatives of this branch could get to
the territory of later Podilia. He also does not explain the reasons why the hypothetical ancestor of
the princes Zbarazhski changed his nickname from "Vinnytskyj" to
"Bozhskyj" in the context of those events, which took place in the territory
of Ukrainian Podilia in the late XIV and early XV centuries.
If we briefly summarize the version of Jan Tengowski,
we get the following: some representative of the Turovo-Pinsk branch of the
Rurikoviches in an unknown way get on the volynia- podilia border. Here he
leaves a descendant named Vasyl (or Vasyl himself was the prince who came to Podilia).
We observe the activity of this historical character at the end of the XIV -
beginning of the XV century. It is obvious that this Vasyl received Vinnytsia
from one of the Koriatovych brothers and called himself “Prince Vinnytskyj”
(whether this prince owned Zbarazh and other estates, which later became the
property of Fedko Nesvizhskyj, is unknown). In the early XV century, he already
acts as a “prince Bozhskyj” and leaves the son Fedir, who became known in
history as Fedko Nesvizhskyj. As we can see, this theory is based on the common
ownership of the only one city - Vinnytsia and the fact that descendants of
Fyodor Nesvizhskyj had used the same name Vasyl. It is clear that none of these
arguments is convincing. However, despite the weakness of the arguments, it was
this publication written by J. Tengowski, which motivated the famous Ukrainian
historian Natalia Yakovenko to change his previous position. She recognized the
previous statement about Dmytro Korybut as the ancestor of the Zbarazhski
dynasty false and went to the camp of supporters the theory of origin Prince
Fedko Nesvizhskyj from Rus’ princes. In particular, N. Yakovenko noticed that
based on several newly introduced documents of the XV century J. Tengowski
convincingly proves that the ancestors of the Volyn princes were not Gedyminovychi,
but local princes Nesvizhskyj, otherwise Bozhskyj, most likely - from the
branch of Turov-Pinsk Rurikovich[6]. However, are these arguments really that convincing?
In the end, if we assume the truth of J. Tengowski's
version, then a logical question arises: what is the reason for such a frequent
phenomenon of changing the nickname: Vinnytskyj - Bozhskyj - Nesvizhskyj? Probably,
this happened because the change of the administrative center of the prince's
possessions. "He probably used the surname "Bozhskyj" from the
castle he held" – writes J. Wolf[7]. In
addition, if the son of Vasyl Vinnytskyj-Bozhskyj called himself Nesvizhskyj,
then we can suppose that, as prince Nesvizhskyj at the end of his life was
still his father Vasyl. On the other hand, if one person changes his nickname
at least twice or even three times during his life (it depended from the
location of the family castle), then how it is possible to trace family ties
based only on common ownership of one city, which, moreover, lost the status of
a family nest. At the same time, the chronological difference between the
documentary mentions of Vasyl Vinnytskyj and Fedko Nesvizhskyj is as much as
half a century. This "single city" could easily pass from one hand to
another not through the right of inheritance, but, as a dowry, as a result of
purchase or simply through “the right of force”, which happened quite often at
that times[8]. It would still be possible to speak with a high
probability about the family connection between Vasyl Vinnytskyj and Fedko
Nesvizhskyj, if there was a document with the name "Nesvizhskyj" used
by Prince Vasyl, but we do not have such a historical source.
We have to notice, one more moment. If prince Vasyl
called himself Vinnytskyj and Bozhskyj according the names of his central
castles and their existence and location do not cause serious questions, then
where is the central residence of his son – the town of Nesvizh? In this case,
the chronological framework of the "life" of a relatively large city
must fit into a short period of 1403 - 1434, when the residence of the prince
(Fyodor or Vasily) moved from Bozhsk to Nesvizh. If in other studies which deal
with the problem of localization of the family Nesvizh (and not related with
the figure of Prince Vasyl Vinnytskyj) there is no necessity to set a lower
chronological limit of the town's existence, in the context of this version it
is simply impossible not to set this "lower limit". No less obvious
is the fact that a rather large settlement with a castle should serve as a
family nest. However, we do not hear about any settlement of the same name on
the territory of volynian- podilia border[9]. It is clear that having such defensive castles like
Vinnytsia, Khmilnyk or Zbarazh the prince could not take his name from some
less significant and little-known settlement. How to explain this mystery? Unfortunately,
Jan Tengowski is not paying attention at this moment. Another Polish historian,
Janusz Kurtyka, as well does not raise the question of the family nest
location. At the same time, he generally describes Jan Tengowski's conclusions
as "correct"[10].
Ukrainian historian Vitalij Mykhailovskyj in his
article "The rule of the Koriatovychi in Podilia (1340s - 1394s): the
social structure of the prince's entourage" provides a complete list of
persons mentioned in the documents of this period. Interestingly, that on the
one hand, in the list of princes-Koriatovychs in Podilia, author indicates the
name of Vasyl, but on the other hand he notes that near the new rulers of Podilia
we see a prince, possibly dependent from Koriativychi or their co-ruler - Vasyl
Vinnytskyj or Bozhskyj"[11]. What motivated the author to make such a conclusion,
rejecting the logical assumption about the identification of Vasyl Koriatovych
and Vasyl Vinnytskyj? After all prince Semen Yurijovych without any hesitation
is identified by Vitalij Mikhailovsky as a son of Yurij Koriatovych. A logical
question arises: how the hypothetical representative of the house of Rurik got
on the Podilia[12] and why (according to the Vitalij Mikhailovsky) in
the preserved documents there is no any mention about Vasyl Koriatovych. There
is no doubt that Vasyl Koriatovych was at that time in Podilia and taking into consideration
his high social status, he had to own some large towns within Podilia borders[13].
Perhaps the main
reason for the conclusion made by Vitalij Mychajlowskyj was that he did not
want to destroy or doubt the theory of his colleague Jan Tengowski. Especially,
after this version was adopted by Natalia Yakovenko, Janusz Kurtyka and others.
At the same time, it is worth noting that although Polish historian Janusz
Kurtyka generally supported the theory of his colleague Jan Tengowski, about
the hypothetical origin of Fedko Nesvizhskyj from Prince Vasyl Vinnytskyj,
however he noted, that “his identification with the later co-ruler of Podilia
Vasyl Koriatovych, who received Vinnytsia from his older brothers also seems to
be correct” [14].
We know that when last brothers Koriatovychi was
forced to leave Podilia they went to the Transcarpathia region and here along
with Fedir we see his brother Vasyl who used the title «prince Podilskyj»[15]. Ukrainian researcher of Podilia Juchym Sitsinsky also
mentions this prince as Fedir's brother, who fled from Podilia with him[16].
Probably, we should agree with the statement of Jan Tengowski
about the identity of Vasyl Bozhskyj and Vasyl Vinnytskyj. Therefore, the
change of his nickname in this case would really be logical to explain by
changing his administrative center in connection with the events, which took
place in Podilia region in the early XV century.
After the death of Koriat's three sons, the fourth one
Fedir became the owner of Podilia. In 1393, Vytautas took Podilia during his
military campaign, and Fedir and his brother Vasyl sought refuge in Hungary[17]. The well-known researcher of Podilia Olga Biletska
cites a document dated 1398, which proves that prince Vasyl Koriatovych at that
time was in the Hungarian Mukachevo[18]. Important in this context is the evidence of the arrest of Fedir by
Polish King Jagiello. It is known that in 1403 Fedir forgave King Volodyslav
and his subjects for his imprisonment[19]. Olga Biletska rightly asserted that this arrest
should have taken place after 1398[20]. It is difficult to disagree with this, because if
the arrest had happened during Vytautas' attack in 1393, it was the Lithuanian
jail, that Fedir should get into and, as a result, he would not have been able
to escape to Hungary[21]. Therefore, we see that the imprisonment of Prince Vasyl
was not directly related to the clash of the sons of Koryat with Vytautas in
1393. However, if the prince Fedir, after fleeing from Podilia in 1393, was
permanently in Hungary, how than could he be captured by the Polish king? It
would be a different situation if Fedir returned to the Polish land. The
conclusion is clear - in 1402 in the lives of Vasyl and Fedir Koriatovych an
event had to take place, which resulted in the appearance of Vasyl's oath to
the Polish king and Fedir's captivity by the same king. Naturally that this
event should take place in the lands lying under the political jurisdiction of
Polish state. In this case, it is simply necessary to link the context
described above with the activities of the youngest Olgerd's sons - Prince
Svidrigail.
It would be right to assume that during the conflict
between Svydrygailo from one side and Vytautas with Jagiello from another, offended
sons of Koriat took the side of Svydrygailo and used his help to regain their
former lands. After Svydrygailo received from King Jagiello Podilia in 1400,
Fedir and Vasyl also should have returned here and received some land from the
new suzerain. This way, Bozhsk became a new administrative center of the former
owner of Vinnytsia Vasyl Koriatovych. This prince with the nickname "Bozhskyj"
appears as a witness on the mentioned above document, issued by Svydrygailo for
the Dominican’s in 1401[22].
It is obvious that, despite the rich land grants,
relations between Svydrygailo and his entourage with the rulers of Poland and
Lithuania remained strained. Thus, after another betrayal from the side of Svydrygailo in 1402, the contemporary
owner of Podilia - King Jagiello, took one of his allies, namely prince Fedir
Koriatovych as a prisoner. It should be noted that the sworn document written
by Vasyl Koriatovych on the name of King Volodyslav Jagailo appears in 1402[23]. So, just at the same time when Svydrygailo left
Podilia and went into the land of Teutonic knights. A year later, after being release,
his brother Fedir Koriatowich issued the same oath. "Perhaps these
documents tell us about the recent events, because there is also a letter from
Vasyl Koriatovych from 1402, which contains the promise to be loyal to the
Polish king and to resolve all problems not with weapons but with law,"
says Olga Biletska[24]. Once again, it is difficult to explain what would
motivate the brothers to issue such documents if they were in the political
environment of Hungary. It is a different matter if, according to Olga Biletska,
"Vasyl and his brother got involved in some adventure to get back their
Podilia land, which neither Vytautas nor Volodyslav-Yagailo, who themselves
claimed to own it, were not going to return to Koriatovych"[25].
According to the Polish historian Kazimierz Stadnicki,
Svydrygailo could receive Podilia, after this land was bought from its previous
owner Spytko of Melsztyn[26]. Five years earlier when Western Podilia was given to
Spytko, Bozhsk situated among the settlements that King Jagiello left for
himself[27]. In this case, we can suppose that the border of
Svydrygail's possessions in Podilia shifted to the east in comparison with the
lands of Spytko of Melsztyn. Such, the town of Bozhsk, unlike Vinnytsia,
Bratslav and others came under the control of the youngest Olgerdovich and was
geographically located closest to the previous possessions of Prince Vasyl
Vinnytskyj, or, perhaps, Bozhsk was part of his former possessions with the
center in Vinnytsia. At the same time, it was not possible to return Vinnytsia.
This fact explains the change in the identification of Vasyl Koriatovych from
"Vinnytskyj" in 1388 to "Bozhskyj" in 1401. It is obvious
that being vassals of Svydrygailo, who essentially occupied the former position
of the Koriatovych brothers within the Podilia region, Fedir and Vasyl could
not return previous power here. Later, after the escape of the suzerain
Svydrygajlo and reconciliation with the king, both brothers left Podilia and
lived out their last years in the Mukachevo, where, according to Mykhajlo
Hrushevsky, Fedir died in 1414[28]. The further fate of his brother Vasyl is unknown.
It is clear that if our theory written above is
correct (everything looks like that) and both Vasyl (Vinnytskyj and Bozhskyj)
should be identified with Prince Vasyl Koriatovych, it must be clearly said
that:
-
As the author of
the only monograph dedicated to the Vyshnevetsky family, the Polish historian
Ilona Chamanska said, if the Zbarahzski and Vyshnevetski were not descendants
of the Korybut, they could originate from another Lithuanian prince Koriat[29].
-
Another way it
must be recognized that Vasyl Vinnytskyi has nothing to do with Fedko
Nesvizhskyj and he is not an ancestor of the Zbarazhski and Vyshnevetski
family.
Of course, it is possible to suppose that Vasyl
Vinnytskyi and Vasyl Bozhskyi are different historical figures, because apart
from the common name and the hypothesis described above, there are no other
reasons to identify them. Once again, since Vasyl Bozhskyj is among
Svidrigail's witnesses, there is no doubt that Bozhsk as well in 1401 belonged
to the possessions of the youngest Olgerdovich. If we suppose that Vasyl
Vinnytskyj and Vasyl Bozhskyj are different historical figures, and identify
Vasyl Vinnytskyj as prince Koriatovych, then there is no reason at all to
consider Vasyl Bozhskyi as an ancestor of Fedko Nesvizhskyj, because this Vasyl
(Bozhskyi) did not own Vinnytsia, and among the estates of Fedko we do not see
Bozhsk. Moreover, three years after the mention of Vasyl Vinnytskyj in 1391, we
have a mention of Princess Andrianova Vinnytska and the owner of Sokilets - Mr.
Hrynko. So, we can see that later possessions of Fedko Nesvizhskyj are in the
hands of the owners, who cannot be related by family ties with Fedko. This way,
our version about the impossibility of continuous possession and inheritance of
Vinnytsia during 1388 - 1434 within the same family is confirmed, and the only
weak argument, which was put into Jan Tengowski’s theory, is broken.
To be continued
…
[1]
After the battle on the Synia Voda
River, which according to most historians took place in 1362, the new owners of
Podilia were the sons of the Lithuanian prince Koriat, who ruled here until
1393.
[2] Tęgowski J. Jeszcze o pochodzeniu kniazia
Fiodora Nieświckiego. S. 88.
[3]
In 1400, after the death of the
previous owner of Western Podilia Spytko of Melsztyn during the Battle on the
Vorskla river Polish King Wladyslaw Jagiello gave his former possessions to
Svydrygajlo.
[4] Tęgowski J. Jeszcze o pochodzeniu kniazia
Fiodora Nieświckiego. S. 88.
[5] Tęgowski J. Jeszcze o pochodzeniu kniazia
Fiodora Nieświckiego. S. 87.
[6] Яковенко
Н. Дзеркала ідентичності. с. 326.
[7]
[8]
Chronicle of Lithuanian
princes from the middle of the XV century tell us that Vytautas, having
received Podilia in 1411, appointed his people here. It is quite obvious that
the same Vytautas, after the capture of Podilia in 1393, would also have to give
key castles to his servants, removing the previous owners. Svydrygailo should
have appointed loyal officials here, after receiving part of Podillya in 1400. So,
for half a century the new owners of Podilia castles could be completely
different people and not united by any family ties with previous owners.
Naturally, each new ruler usually appointed officials from his entourage whom
he could trust. And since many dramatic events took place in Podilia during the
period under our study, it is difficult to imagine that any of the
administrative centers was inherited without interference for half a century.
[9]
However, there is only one
mention about the settlement called Nesvizh in the chronicle of Polish historian
Jan Dlugosz located on the road from Smotrych to Kremenets. Stanislav Kelembet
paid special attention to this problem. We tell more about it in our subsequent
researches.
[10] Kurtyka J. Podole w czasach jagiellońskich. s. 234.
[11] Михайловський
В. М. Правління Коріатовичів на
Поділлі. c. 36.
[12]
In his book "Princes of Nesvizh and Zbarazh XIII
- early XVI centuries" Ukrainian researcher Stanislav Kelembet, rejects
the version of Jan Tengowski, noting that the representatives of the turovo-pinsk
branch of the Rurikoviches had nothing to do with the volynia-podilia border.
[13] Possession
of the castle in
Vinnytsia would correspond to the status of Prince Vasyl Koriatovych.
[14] Kurtyka J. Podole w czasach jagiellońskich. s. 114.
[15] Білецька
О. Поділля на зламі XIV – XV ст. c. 118.
[16] Сіцінський
Ю. Поділля під владою Литви. с. 63.
[17] О.
Білецька. Поділля на зламі XIV – XV ст. с. 118.
[18] О. Білецька. Поділля на зламі XIV – XV ст. с. 118.
[19]
I. Daniłowicz. Skarbiec diplomatów. s. 339.
[20] О.
Білецька. Поділля на зламі XIV – XV ст. с. 118.
[21] According
to the chronicle, during Vytautas' attack,
was captured voivoda of Fedor Koriatovych Nestak.
[22] Михайловський
В. М. Правління Коріатовичів на Поділлі c. 40.
[23] I. Daniłowicz. Skarbiec diplomatów. s. 334.
[24] О.
Білецька. Поділля на зламі XIV – XV ст. с. 119.
[25] О.
Білецька. Поділля на зламі XIV – XV ст. с. 119.
[26] Stadnicki
K. Bracia Władysława Jagiełły Olgierdowicza króla Polski. s. 309.
[27] Полехов С. Летописная "Повесть о Подолье" с. 54.
[28] М.
Грушевський. Історія України – Руси. Т. IV. c. 172.
[29] I Czamańska. Wiśniowieccy. Monografia rodu. s. 24.
Historical sources and literature.
1. Білецька О. Поділля на зламі XIV – XV ст.: до витоків формування історичної області: Монографія. Одеса: Астропринт, 2004. – 416 с.
2. Грушевський М. Історія України – Руси. Т. IV. XIV – XVI віки. Відносини політичні. Видавництво «Книгоспілка». Нью-Йорк 1955.
3. Михайловський В. М. Правління Коріатовичів на Поділлі (1340-1394 рр.): соціальна структура князівського оточення. Український історичний журнал. – 2009. – № 5. – С. 34-47.
4. Полехов С. Летописная "Повесть о Подолье". Ч. 2. Древняя Русь. Вопросы медиевистики. 2014. № 2.
5. Сіцінський Ю. Поділля під владою Литви.: Монографія. – Кам’янець – Подільський, 2009. – 160 с.
6. Яковенко Н. Дзеркала ідентичності. Дослідження з історії уявлень та ідей в Україні XVI – початку XVIII століття. – К.: Laurus, 2012. – 472 с.
7. Czamańska І. Wiśniowieccy. Monografia rodu. Poznań 2007.
8. Daniłowicz І. Skarbiec diplomatów papiezkich, cesarskich, krolewskich, książęcych; uchwał narodowych, postanowień różnych władz i urzędów posługujących do krytycznego wyjaśnienia dziejów Litwy, Rusi Litewskiéj i ościennych im krajów. T. 1. Wilno 1860.
9. Kurtyka J. Podole w czasach jagiellońskich. Studia i materiały. Wydawnictwo towarzystwa naukowego „Societas Vistulana”. Kraków 2011.
10. Stadnicki K. Bracia Władysława Jagiełły Olgierdowicza króla Polski. – Lw.: druk.A. Vogla, 1867. S. 416.
11. Tęgowski J. Jeszcze o pochodzeniu kniazia Fiodora Nieświckiego. Genealogia. Studia i materiały historyczne. Poznań-Wrocław, 1996. – T. 8.
12. Wolff J. Kniaziowie litewsko-ruscy od końca czternastego wieku. Warszawa: Drukiem J. Filipowicza, 1895. - 724 s.
Немає коментарів:
Дописати коментар