The Regaining of Smolensk in 1611 and Its Defence in 1634 in the Eyes of Contemp

开篇：润墨网以专业的文秘视角，为您筛选了一篇The Regaining of Smolensk in 1611 and Its Defence in 1634 in the Eyes of Contemp范文，如需获取更多写作素材，在线客服老师一对一协助。欢迎您的阅读与分享！

Abstract

Smolensk had been captured in 1514 by Wasyl III and belonged to the Grand Duchy of Muscovy up to 13th June 1611 when taken back by Zygmund III and incorporated into Lithuania after 21 months of siege. For the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth it was a historical event. Poets and memoirists began to write passionately. Interested in those events were also fly-sheets which kept citizens of Europe informed about what was happening on the Dniepr in 1611. In this work I shall discuss the prints published in the Grand Duchy only. I shall limit myself only to the fly-sheets and prints published exclusively on the victory in Smolensk.

Key words： Smolensk； 17th century Lithuanian prints

Anna Filipczak-Kocur （2014）. The regaining of smolensk in 1611 and its defence in 1634 in the eyes of contemporary Lithuanian Prints. Cross-Cultural Communication， 10（3）， -0. Available from： http///index.php/ccc/article/view/4696

DOI： http：///10.3968/4696

INTRODUCTION

Smolensk was captured in 1514 by Wasyl III and belonged to the Grand Duchy of Muscovy up until 13th June 1611 when it was retaken by Zygmund III and incorporated into Lithuania after 21 months of siege （Korzon， 1923， pp.176-177）. For the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth it was the regaining of its stronghold， for Muscovy an unjust annexation. Military operations were still taking place in 16131616. Smolensk was at that time under siege from the Muscovite army under the command of Micha? Buturlin and Dymitr Czerkaski who tried to force the surrender of troops by blocking the stronghold. They withdrew from the siege only in February 1616. The truce made on 11 December 1618 in Dywilin ended the war and assured peace for fourteen and a half years； that is until the 3rd of July 1633. However， in October 1632 the first units of Muscovites had crossed the borders of the Great Duchy of Lithuania， and in December that year they probably began the siege of the stronghold， and thus the so called war of Smolensk. It was ended by the peace treaty of Polianovka that was signed on the 14th June 1634. Poland lost Smolensk again， this time permanently， in 1654. It was an important stronghold on the Dniepr for both sides of the conflict.

In Poland the joy of regaining the stronghold and its effective defence was the opposite of the mood experienced on the other side of the border. For the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth it was a historical event. Poets and memoirists began to write passionately. Many of their works remained in the form of manuscript； some were published soon after the events had taken place. Fly-sheets， which kept the citizens of Europe informed about what was happening on the Dniepr in 1611， were also interested in those events. In this work I shall discuss the prints published in the Grand Duchy only. I shall limit myself only to the fly-sheets and prints published exclusively on the victory in Smolensk.

According to Konrad Zawadzki’s definition， a fly-sheet is a “print of small volume， containing one or several current reports from the country and abroad concerning mainly political and religious matters， military operations， matters concerning the King and the royal family， natural disasters and extraordinary accidents”.

Fly-sheets reported on the events of 1611 in at least three languages. In total there are nine papers known to me： one in Italian， four in German and four in Polish， two of which were published in Vilnius. The Italian paper was published in Rome， one of the German papers in Augsburg， the place of publishing of the other three remains unknown to me. Besides the two Polish papers published in Vilnius， I know of one published in Pozna. When it comes to the 27 papers concerning the war of Smolensk in 16331634 that I know of， there is no information on any of them indicating that they were published in the Grand Duchy. This does not mean， however， that such editions did not exist as 17th century papers rarely specified their place of publication.

During the battles for Smolensk informers stayed in Vilnius and sent news from the front line further to the west. Proof of this exists in the form of the fragment of a letter written in Vilnius on 22nd June and a letter written on 24th June that were included in two German papers.

Both Polish papers were published in Jan Karcan’s （Kawecka-Gryczowa， 1996-1997， pp.24-25） print shop in Vilnius and both reported on the capture of Smolensk on 13th June. In one of the texts “On the regaining of Smolensk from Moscow [...]” we read that the stronghold was besieged from 1st November 1609. The garrison of the fortress are presented as wilful people and Mikhail Borisovich Shein， the voivode of Smolensk， is portrayed as an impertinent and recalcitrant man who did not want to return the stronghold back into King Zygmunt hands under any circumstances. The protectors of the castle did not want to give it back to King Zygmunt “neither bad， nor good way”， “trusting the soaring and impossible to break walls”.

The informative value of this print is considerable. The readers were informed that the King was commanding himself， for part of the army had been sent against Ivan Saltykov， who was preparing relief for Smolensk. Alongside the King was the marshal of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania， Krzysztof Dorohostajski， and the castellan of Kamieniec， Jakub Potocki. The author of this report describes the decisive storm of the night of 12th June in great detail： the blowing up of part of the wall， the use of ladders in order to reach the walls， the role of Stefan Potocki’s legions， the starost of Felin， Marcin Wejher and Bart?omiej Nowodworski， the knight of the Order of the Knights of St John of Malta， who lit the gun powder together with Krzysztof Dorohostajski. He emphasises the bravery of the commanders and soldiers； particularly stressing the virtues of Dorohostajski as a good leader. A few dozen besieging soldiers were able to invade the stronghold thanks to the gun powder， lit by Nowodworski， which blew up part of the wall. The last of the defenders sheltered in the archbishop’s orthodox church of Uspiensk and when they realized that they had reached a dead end， they blew themselves up together with the church. The fire spread quickly， fed by the strong wind and the explosions of gun powder which had been stocked up throughout the town. Its victims were the Orthodox Church， several houses， monasteries and， of course， people. The author describes their sufferings with evident satisfaction： “some of them died of the sword； others were eaten by the fire”. With sorrow he reports on the death of the cavalry captain of Petyhorcy， Gorecki. He also notes the capturing of the archbishop Sergii， who was defended from the soldiers’ fury by the marshal. Along with Mikhail Shein， voivode of Smolensk， the second voivode， Piotr Gorchakov and around 20 boyars were also taken prisoner. According to the author of the report， Shein locked himself up in the keep and was planning to escape. This information is， however， a falsehood. Mikhail Shein was actually attempting to kill himself but was dissuaded from this fate by his wife and son. The voivode made it clear that he would give his weapon only to someone of his own rank. And so it was. He gave his sword to Jakub Potocki.

The day after the battle the ceremonial handing over of the prisoners took place， followed by the congratulations to the King from the commanders and an order for the brave soldiers to continue their service. The Lithuanian marshal delivered a ceremonial speech and Jakub Potocki gave the King the keys to the town. Vicechancellor of the Crown， Szcz?sny （Feliks） Kryski， gave thanks on behalf of the King with “beautiful and broad words”.

The castle was taken over on the third day and many stocks of food， except for salt， were found inside： grain， unleavened honey， vodka， butter， meat， lard， pork fat and others. These stocks might have been enough to sustain the besieged crew of the stronghold for at least a year. Moreover ninety five bronze cannons were seized， as well as other military materials， except for the gun powder which had been destroyed during the fire. The only gun powder remaining was stocked in the keep.

The author finishes his report saying： “For all that may God be blessed”. He ascribed the whole of victory to a remarkable blessing of God.

The second print， written by Baltazar Ozimiski （Estreicher， 1910， p.544）， was dedicated to prince W?adys?aw “the Great Monarch and invincible King of Poland and Sweden， the son of Zygmunt III”. The dedication on this print is dated 6th June； however， it is probably of the old style， as the whole work “Szturm radosny smoleski” concerns the events of 13th June and the days following.

The dedication is preceded by a poem whose first letters read from the top compose the word Smolinsk.

Szturm wesoly smoliski czerwca trzynastego

Mia? król tysi?c sze??set roku iedenastego，

O Bo?e któremu racz do koca tak swoiey

Laski ?wi?tey urzycza?， iakby i r?ki twoiey，

Iu? wszytko otrzyma? móg?， co przedsiewzi?? ?miele，

Na?ycz mu granic wi?cey y day mu ich wiele：

Sk?d imie twoie ?wi?te zawsze chwali? b?dzie，

Krol z ludem swym to z ust ich， nigdy nie wynidzie.

The dedication is followed by a report in verse form， “Szturm radosny smoleski”. The first letters of each verse compose the following sequence： Zygmunt Trzeci z Laski Bozey Krol Polski， Wielkie Ksia?e Litewskie， Ruskie， Pruskie， Mazowieckie， Zmodzkie， Inflackie y Siewierskie， a Szwedzki， Gocki， Wandalski dziedziczny niezwyciezony Krol Wladislawowi， Krolewicowi Polskiemu tegosz b?ogos?awiestwa od Boga oycowskie ?yczy.

In this work the author considers God， who is “the highest comfort for those in despair”， to be the reason for the success and to him he expresses his thanks firstly. He assumes that the regaining of Smolensk and “the respectable Duchy of Seversk” is an achievement which shall bring Poland fame amongst other nations and inspire terror amongst its enemies. There is also an educational aim to the author’s work. He wishes the young prince to follow his father’s example in order to prevent further danger， broaden borders and accomplish anything that will benefit the country （“to prevent dangers， increase benefits， add borders and broaden them”）. He expresses the hope that W?adys?aw will want to follow in Zygmunt III foot-steps.

As for the Muscovites， he describes them with unflattering adjectives as very proud， arrogant， “hot-tempered” and writes about “thick” Muscovite blood. He accuses them of stubbornness， of being recalcitrant and “haughtily proud”. “Europe is a witness that God could not stand it any longer， for their proud thoughts he crushed by his own.” He asks： “this thick Muscovite nation and the strong fortress destroy on your own”. Smolensk， according to the author， had always been in Polish hands and should remain so forever. He calls the stronghold “a gate to the Muscovite land” and with respect he writes about its powerful walls and keeps. They were， however， filled with Muscovite anger. Mikhail Shein could have become the Aeneas of the Duchy of Seversk if only he had wanted to live in peace with the Poland that is within Polish borders.

References to mythology emphasise the importance of the events. The King is compared to Achilles. Upon Smolensk’s walls he writes that Aeneas himself would admire them. The work is in praise of the impeccable reputation of the Sarmatian knights. It is amusing to see short phrases added in Russian： Litwa o? teper idet Moskwa za? wo?ali （“Lithuania is coming， they called in Moscow”） or Kako nas （Moskwa mówi） Litwa ju? podoszli （“Moscow says， Lithuania has come to us yet”）.

Ozimiski begins his description of events by reminding the reader that the capital of the Duchy of Seversk， which was reported to have been in Muscovite hands for over a hundred years， was in reality only within Russian control for 97 years. Regarding the storm， he mentions it’s most important persons： Bartosz Nowodworski， Jakub and Stefan Potocki， Krzysztof Dorohostajski. He describes without compassion the explosions of gun powder， and the death in flames of many of the defenders， including women and children； commenting upon that by saying it was God’s punishment for “beating our people without any mercy”. He foresees damnation for their souls and regrets only the burnt houses， monasteries and valuables. He enumerates those who were taken into captivity： the voivode of Smolensk， Mikhail Shein， archbishop Sergii （Piotr Gorchakov） and many of the “mob”. He enumerates also the food stocks found in Smolensk. With sorrow he records the death of the cavalry captain， Gorecki， and notes gladly that 95 cannons and other equipment were seized as spoils of war.

The author also included a very short description of ceremonies that followed the victory when the King listened to Krzysztof Dorohostajski’s speech and the vicechancellor， Feliks Kryski， thanked the soldiers on the King’s behalf. He did not give any details， however， saying that “someone else shall describe this speech broader”. He mentioned also the thanksgiving mass and huge banquet thrown by King with enough liquor to enable the “people to bath well in them”. The Senators knelt before Zygmunt III and “drank his health”. In return， the King drank the soldiers’ health and great cannons were fired. The feast lasted a whole day and at its end “all conquerors of Smolensk jumped merrily while riding before the Lord”. Ozimiski noted also the fact that， during the feast Jakub Potocki was given nomination for the voivode of Bratslav by Feliks Kryski （Maciszewski， 1970， pp.482-485）. Fly-sheets were the quickest of all prints to inform the society on important events. They were characterized not only by their speed but by the reliability of the information as well. They were read by the general public and those who found Gutenberg’s invention too troublesome. They were read aloud in taverns， inns， public places. Some of the information read aloud was later transmitted orally. The victory in Smolensk was celebrated triumphantly not only in Kraków， Vilnius， Warsaw and Pozna， but also in Rome.

In 1634 the city of Vilnius celebrated the victory over Mikhail Shein’s army. The Academy of Societatis Jesu built a triumphal arch， pyramids and colossuses “as meaningful tongues of the victory” during two ceremonial thanksgiving processions with the Holy Sacrament. They were accompanied by loud trumpets， shots of cannons， orations， and the declamations of poems. The first of these processions probably took place on the 2nd March 1634， at the beginning of the convocation of Vilnius， when Jakub Olszewski preached a sermon in the cathedral in the presence of around a dozen senators and all of the members of parliament. The sermon was printed after the 27th April. This date was written by Olszewski under a dedication for Miko?aj Kiszka， who contributed to the printing of the sermon. The long title begins with the word “Triumph”. The author explains， however， that this is not a panegyric， its words are dedicated to the glory of God. It is a triumph， but in the religious sense. Gratias Deo， qui dedit nobis victoriam per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. For this reason he speaks only of the King， whom God let to the achievement of victory， and does not ention those others who rendered that victory， explaining that it is not his wish， however， to offend anyone. The sermon is 52 pages long and the author himself calls it a book. Passing over the literary value of the book， I shall restrict myself to a discussion of the author’s intention and political realities. The sermon was supposed to induce the participants of the convocation to pass a bill introducing taxes for the victorious army， who had demanded payment on a few occasions beforehand. The main point of the discussion is the capitulation of Shein’s army on 24th February. According to the priest Olszewski， the enemies were punished justly， as they had started the war in spite of the signed truce and despite their oath. He enumerates the losses in people and towns that were made by the Muscovite army. He emphasises the particular danger in which Poland found herself in 1632 without King， money or army. Soon a ruler was chosen， taxes were introduced and Krzysztof Radziwi??， field hetman， was given the commandment of the army. “The King” thought “after a short time [...] of a basinet with the crown [...]， of a sword with the sceptre”. When he got to Smolensk， he set it free； conquered the trenches， besieged the enemy’s camp and forced it to capitulate. He captured cannons and many weapons. The author concludes this part of the report with the sentence： “Oh the mighty spirit of the King our Lord， oh the courage of the fearless knighthood， oh the glory of Polish and Lithuanian name not outshined by the centuries”.

The sermon creates a picture of a victorious， but generous and merciful ruler. After conquering the camp he could have taken revenge for all the harms experienced， “he could bind them all together， cut their heads off， or like cattle force into Poland for the eternal bondage”. He did not do it； instead he spared everyone’s life. He acted against the rule of war： cuius castra， eius rastra （“revenge belongs to the conqueror of the camp”）. For contrast or analogy Olszewski reminds the reader of Biblical or quite recent events. The enemy humbles himself before the triumphant as he has only himself to blame for his humiliation； he is guilty of perjury. “Their unfaithful hand is a perfidy which， when stands up against an oath， [...] soon， because of its unfaithfulness， shall be destroyed.” Olszewski recalls the events of 1520 when Chrystian II， the King of Denmark， as the King of Sweden and Norway， made a promise to the Swedes， via the Kalmar Union， that he would uphold their rights and freedom. However， upon arriving in Stockholm he forced 94 men to their deaths. The events described were tantamount to a massacre. According to Olszewski， men were burnt alive， but in reality they were decapitated in the market square in Stockholm. However， such details are not what was most important here. Soon after this episode， Chrystian was deposed from the throne by his uncle Frederick， the prince of Schleswig-Holstein. It is interesting to note the fact that， even after over a hundred years， the memory of those events was still alive， and the example， skilfully used by the preacher， helped to draw the conclusion that it was the betrayal of an oath that brought about the Danish King’s downfall. A triple betrayal defeated the Muscovite army. Shein broke his oath， for he had sworn not to attack the King of Poland. The Muscovite nation had sworn to acknowledge W?adys?aw as their tsar， but had not kept that promise， just as they had not upheld the truce， instead initiating war before its conclusion. “Triple guilt， triple cannonball； those who were three times spared by mercy， shall be lost three times by their unfaithfulness.”

The bishops of Poland and Lithuania prayed for the victory of the King and his army in Smolensk. God， through the hand of the King， Prince Jan Kazimierz， the hetmans and the soldiers of both nations defeated the enemy. The soldiers fought bravely， as they saw before them a leader， “courageous， not a layabout， visiting the guards， preparing， commanding， fearless of evident dangers”.

The preacher recalled the expeditions to Dorohobuzh and Viazma， and the blockage of the roads which prevented supplies from reaching Shein’s army， leaving them suffering from hunger. He spoke of the plundering of the Muscovite towns and villages without any compassion； of the pride that had been shown when talking of the fear that spread around the capital. He describes the Tsar as Michael Filaretovich， who “is a Tsar unjustly”. That he should thank W?adys?aw for treating the Muscovite army in a way akin to that of the heroic Julius Caesar： first he had starved them and only after that had he begun to spill their blood. This， according to the preacher， limited losses on the enemy’s side. He asked was it “the end of Shein， or of Muscovy as well”. It was the beginning of deliberations concerning the further undertakings of the monarch. He suggested that it was a certainty that the King would go and look for Filaretovich in his capital. He even encouraged the undertaking of an expedition to Muscovy. The land of Seversk with its fortresses and castles lay in the hands of the enemy and needed to be taken back. “The capital of the Tsars shall you take in your possession and on the rebels shall you impose the yoke of obedience.” The preacher was almost daydreaming. The King should not only conquer the Muscovy up to Astrachan’， but also Sweden which had been resisting his hereditary rule. Smolensk was the gate to the new provinces.

In the second part of the sermon we find a critique of the army； some of the soldiers take money and do not turn up for camp， they plunder the church and the estates of the gentry. Others， while in the camp， “more attentively listen to dopes than to war trumpets； play dice， draughts， cards for many hours； more willingly attack a dead priest with a fork than an armed warrior with a lance； attend feasts too often”. Yet others “waiting not till the end of the war， call themselves victorious and return homes”. The author wished for the King that everyone would serve well in his army.

In the final part of the sermon， Olszewski reached the aim of the convocation， which was to work out “nervum for the war”. He said directly that gold was needed to continue the Christian war and end it with success“. Your coat of arms of Lithuania wishes to chase， until it catches a good deal of something.” He turned to the King： “you shall feed your soldier gold and suppress the enemy with iron”. The sermon ended with a request to the Creator for victory， safety within borders， for both willingness and fame for the Polish army， and for fear and disgrace for their enemies.

The second sermon concerned with the victory of Smolensk was preached by the same priest Jakub Olszewski in the parish church of St. John on 12th March on the Sunday after the convocation. The sermon， 35 pages long， was printed in the same Jesuit print shop in Vilnius. The sponsor of the print shop was Gothard Jan Tyzenhauz， castellan of Wenden， and to him the author dedicated his work. It is dated the 26th April 1634， therefore it must have been published after this date. The leitmotif is a fragment of the evangel by St. Matthew describing the Transfiguration on the mountain Tabor. Its deliberations revolve around the changed face of Christ and his robe which was white as snow. He congratulated the King， Jan Kazimierz， the hetmans and the army on the success they had achieved， stressing that that they owe all of their good fortune to God. The King is a kind-hearted ruler， for “impudent nations， venomous bears， recalcitrant bulls， [...] you do not bind them， nor tie； nor a traitor and perjurer punish on his throat， but with his cannon and some military equipment you satisfy yourself， and under particular conditions set him free”. King W?adys?aw is given three royal virtues： wisdom， quietude and kindness. He has always a sunny face that does not change like the Moon； it is the same face in happiness， the same face in sadness. The author calls the King “our Polish and Lithuanian Sun”. He expresses his deep belief that the King would， upon safe return from the Duchy of Seversk， where he had stood against the rebels， set Prussia and the Inflants free from Swedish hands.

The triumphant should wear white clothing as such robes were worn by the Polish and Lithuanian triumphant： the invincible King， hetmans， colonels， cavalry captains， lieutenants and all soldiers， for they have bleached them with blood on the battlefield； not with the blood of Christ， but their own. They have clothed themselves in immortal fame. This fame shall be heard in Europe， Africa， Asia and America. This fame they owe to heaven.

When Jakub Olszewski was preaching his sermon the victorious monarch was not in Vilnius. He arrived in the capital of the Grand Duchy only on Friday on 23rd June. Albrycht Stanis?aw Radziwi?? wrote upon his arrival： “the King used the same road when leaving Vilnius on his expedition to Muscovy； he came back on 23rd June to a triumphant town full of his praise” （Radziwill， 1980， p.380）. To celebrate this event， on Sunday， on 25th June in the church of the Holy Spirit a Dominican， Dominik Krasuski， preached a sermon. At that time he was a Vilnius lector. His sermon was worked out by Maria Rowiska-Szczepaniak. The work was published in Kraków in MaciejAndrzejczyk’s print shop and was dedicated to Fabian Birkowski. The sermon was of course in praise of the victorious King. The leitmotif is a fragment of the evangel by St. Lukas： “And coming home he calls Friends and Neighbours and tells them： Rejoice with me for I have found my sheep that had been lost”. W?adys?aw IV is presented here as a lay shepherd in comparison with the highest shepherd， Christ. He is like David， the saint King and prophet. Dominican explains that monks do not possess cannons， trumpets， they cannot erect obelisks or pyramids， but as a an order of preachers they wish to honour the King， preaching his glory as a model lay shepherd， and simultaneously honouring the worship of the clerical shepherd， Jesus Christ. Krasuski describes the shepherd with four words： courageous， royal， providing a good example and caring for peace （“courage is the first virtue in the image of a shepherd”， “enough of this image of royalty”， “the image of a royal shepherd is good when he gives a good example”， “the last virtue worth commending in the image of a royal shepherd is keeping his sheep in peace”）. According to the preacher， the important virtues of a good royal shepherd were courage and care for the common good， not his own. The shepherd is an image to follow. Ending his sermon， Krasuski thanks the King for the peace he is assuring. The King owes his grandeur to Divine Providence. Because of that， Krasuski presents the images of two shepherds： divine and lay， to the glory of God and the memory of the monarch.

A sermon was the fastest way of communication； it was direct. Regardless of when it was printed there was always a group of people who knew its content as it was being preached. In its informative function it even competed with fly-sheets. The three sermons discussed， regardless of which literary genre we classify them within， functioned as political propaganda. In 1634 this propaganda was supposed to help the King to impel the participants of the Lithuanian convocation to introduce

taxes and to make the gentry disposed toward the acceptance of similar resolutions during the Sejm， which was planned for that year. Propaganda helped maintain royal ambitions concerning the Tsar’s title and throne. In June 1634， after signing the peace treaty of Polianovka， it was no longer valid， for the King renounced rights to the Tsar’s crown. Moreover preparations for the war with Sweden were taking place， as the truce was to end in 1635. In 1634 a few dozen speeches were written to celebrate W?adys?aw IV and his victory of Smolensk. The speeches immortalized the history of Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite conflict and propagated Polish arguments. The leitmotif of those works was a conviction that God had helped to conquer the faithless Tsar. A similar function is displayed in the panegyrics written in Polish and Latin.

References

Estreicher， K. （1910）. Bibliografia polska （Vol.XXIII. S. Estreicher Ed.）. Kraków.

Kawecka-Gryczowa， A. （1966-1967）. Karcan Jan z Wieliczki （1611）. In Polski s?ownik biograficzny （further： PSB）， vol. XII， 24-25.

Korzon， T. （1923）. Dzieje wojen i wojskowo?ci w Polsce （Vol.II， pp.176-177）. Lwów.

Maciszewski， J. （1970）. Kryski Feliks. In PSB （Vol. XV， pp.482-485）.

Radziwi??， A. S. （1980）. Pami?tnik o dziejach w Polsce （Vol.1， pp.1632-1636. A. Przybo? & R. ?elewski， Trans. & Ed.）. Warszawa.