Studia Maritima (Jan 2019)
BOLESLAVUS NON SOLUM AUREM CORRECTORIBUS NON ADHIBUIT […] – WAR GALLUS ANONYMUS DEM POLNISCHEN FÜRSTEN BOLESŁAW III. SCHIEFMUND WIRKLICH VORBEHALTLOS POSITIV EINGESTELLT?
Abstract
The article presents an analysis of the first Polish chronicle by Gall Anonim, in which – as the article argues contrary to previous scientific opinions – the image of the Polish prince Bolesław III Wrymouth (1085–1138) is not unambiguously positive, but is also full of critical tones. However, according to the characteristics of this genre (medieval historiography), the chronicler who came most likely from Western Europe, did not express his criticism directly. The article analyses – according to own designed methods in order to measure a ruler’s image in historiography and methods of literature science (narratology) – single fragments of the text as well as the dedication letters and epilogues of the chronicle from the point of view of criticism ‘hidden’ in them. In addition, the article shows clearly that the chronicle is not coherently written, and its form developed gradually, because – probably due to dissatisfaction in the highest circles of the Polish prince’s court (the court of Bolesław III) – in the third book Gall significantly modified his way of presenting the ruler and abandoned critical remarks, which can be spotted often in the second book. Finally the article juxtaposes the analysed critical fragments from Gall’s work with text fragments of the second Polish chronicle written by Vincent Kadlubek, thus demonstrating that all Gall’s critical tones were later either removed or at least mitigated by Vincent. The analysis carried out allows to conclude that the first Polish chronicle by Gall could have been perceived already by the contemporary and late medieval reader as criticism of Bolesław. Otherwise, Vincent would not have had to modify and smooth the passages of Gall on which his story was based.
Keywords
