Ruler, Protector, and a Fairy Prince:
the Everlasting Deeds of Grand Duke Vytautas
as Related by the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites
Giedre Mickünaite
This paper is concerned with the image of Grand Duke Vytautas1 of
Lithuania (b. ca. 1 3 50, d. 1430, r. 1392 – 1430) as revealed through the oral tradition
of the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites. While religion and historical faith
separate Tatars and Karaites, their common Turkic origins and, most importantly,
the legend oftheir Settlement in the Grand Duchy ofLithuania firmly unite them.
Tatar presence in the Lithuanian Iands becomes notable after the mid-fourteenth
century. As everywhere in Europe, Lithuanian tradition associates Tatars
exclusively with warfare. However, there is a major difference between the
general European and the Lithuanian perception of Tatars: in Lithuania they are
regarded as allies rather than enemies. Such a view is understandable given Lithuanian
heathenism, which Iasted until 13 87. Naturally, collaboration with
„Saracens“ did not evoke any religious connotations. One would expect a change
in attitude after the adoption of Catholicism; paradoxically, the most intensive
phase of the Lithuanian-Tatar cooperation falls onto Christian times, that is, on the
reign of Grand Duke Vytautas. Having occupied the grand ducal seat in 1 392,
Vytautas started extending his powers eastwards. He successfully subjugated
Ruthenian principalities and by 1397 reached the Tatar hordes.2 Polish historian
Jan Dlugosz describes this encounter as follows: „Vytautas, in hope of gaining
recognition as Christian prince, organises his first campaign against Tatars. His
troops march beyond the rivers of the Don and even the Volga. Meeting no
opposition, the grand duke reaches the land of the Tatars called Horde. There he
captures many thousands of Tatars together with their wives, children, and cattle,
and brings them to Lithuania. Half of the captives he sends to the king of Poland,
while he retains the rest in Lithuania. Tatars, who arrive in Poland adopt the
1 Vytautas is & Lithuanian version of the grand duke’s name; he is also known as Witold in Polish
and as Vitovt in Russian. Oepending upon the choice of the author, all the three versions ofthe
name are equally used in the English language. Henceforth, I shall use the Lithuanian version
ofthe grand duke’s name.
2 For Vytautas‘ life and activities see Josef Pfitzner, Großfürst Witold von Litauen als Staatsmann
(Bmo, Prague, Leipzig, and Vienna: Rohrer, 1930).
80 ÜIEDRE MICKONAITE
Christian faith and gradually merge with local people. The ones left in Lithuania
continue to worship Muhammad and live according to their godless beliefs.“3
In contrast to quite extensive sources mentioning the Tatar arrival, the story
of Karaite settlement in the grand duchy is related only by their own tradition. It
teils that Vytautas brought them from Crimea in the year 1 2 1 8 . Such a discrepancy
in chronology urged scholars to question the entire issue of Karaite resettlement.4
Circumstantial evidence ascribes the resettlement of 383 Karaite families to the
year 1398.5
As to the reason for the resettlement, it is believed that Vytautas‘ military
interests deterrnined Tatar and Karaite arrival. Sources explicitly demoostrate that
Tatar military exploits and warfare in general constitute the base for their selfperception
as weil as social standing.6 As far as Karaites are concemed, the evi-
3 „Alexander Vithawdus Lithwanie dux aliquantulurn quietis ab intestino et extemo bello nactus,
primam katcholicum se demosntrans principem, in Thartaros agit expedidionem. Et notabili
exercitu ex Po1onis, Lithwanis et Rulhenis congesto terras et regiones ingreditur Thartarorum.
Quos esti ultra fluvium Don, qui Latine Thanays, et prope maximurn fluviorum Volham
vastando peragrasset, nullam tarnen resistenciam reperiens in Thartarorurn stacionem, que
Orda appellatur, irruens plura milia Thartarorurn cum uxoribus, parvulis et peccore cepit et
usque in Lithwaniam deduxit; quorum medietatem Wladislao regi et prelatis baronibusque
Polonie in victorie signum pro munere misit, reliquam medietatem sibi retinuit. Et Thartari
quidem in Poloniam translati, deposito gentilitatis errore, fidem Christi professi sunt et unus
populus, cum Polonis iungendo invicem matrimonia, effecti. Hii vero, qui in Lithwania
resederant, secta spurcissimi detinentur Machmeti atque in uno angulo terre Lithwanie a
Withawdo duce locati suis moribus suosquc detestando ritu vivunt,“ Joannis Dlugossii
annales seu cronicae incliti Regni Poloniae, 12 bks., eds. Stanislaw Gawc;da et al. (Warsaw:
PWN, 1978 ff.), vol. X: 1370-J40j (1985), p. 221.
4 Jacob Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, 2 vols. reprint introduced by
Gerson D. Cohen (New York: Ktav, 1 972), vol. II: Karaitica, p. 556.
s A. Szysz.man, „Osadnictwo karaimskie i tatarskie na ziemiach W. Ksic;stwa Litewskiego“
(Tatar and Karaite senlement in the Iands of the G[rand] Duchy of Lithuania), Mys/ karaimska,
1 0 ( 1 932/34), pp. 29-37; idem, „Osadnictwo karaimskie w Trokach za Wielkich Ksit Litcwskich“
(Karaite settlemcnt in Trakai during the reigns of the Lithuanian grand dukes), ibid.,
I I { 1 935/36), pp. 40-69. Sirnon Szyszman, Les Karai“tes d’Europe (Uppsala: Centre d’etudes
multiethniques de l’Universite de Upsal, 1989), pp. 38-46, passim; Halina Kobeckaite,
Lietuvos Karaimai (Lithuanian Karaites) (Vilnius: baitos lankos, 1997), pp. 42-53.
6 For tbe outline of Tatar military history see Jan Tyszkiewicz, „Stanislaw Kryczynski i jego
‚Kronika wojenna tatar6w litewskich“‚ (Stanislaw Kryczynski and bis ‚Military chronicle of
the Litbuanian Tatars‘), Przeglqd Humanistyczny, 2 {1 984), pp. 1 1 7-149. As to the social
status, it is commonly assurned that the Lithuanian Tatars were gradually enobled. Such a view
is supported by the number of noble families of Tatar origin, see Stanislaw Dziadulewicz,
Herharz rodzin tatarskich w Polsee (Coats of arms of Tatar families in Poland) (Wilno:
Nakladem autora z zasilkiem Komitetu Funduszu Kultury Narodowej, 1 929; reprint Warsaw:
Wydawnictwo Artystyczne i Filmowe, 1986). However, the entire issue is rather complicated.
On the one band, most of the Tatars remained Muslim, and only a Christian could enter the
ranks of the gentry. On the other band, the so-called „hospodar“ or landed Tatars possesed all
but the political rights of a boyar; bence, tbere was no vivid difference between them. In
addition to the landed Tatars, there was a buge number of commoners wbo had no rnilitary
RULER, PROTECTOR, AND A FAIR Y PRINCE 81
dence is quite limited. The grand ducal jurisprudence usually employs the same
term „Jew“ to denote both Karaites and Jews proper. The distinction is that
Karaites are refeued to as our, meaning grand ducal, Jews.7 Karaite documents
themselves frequently call them grand ducal warriors or colonels.8 Tradition
sometimes ascribes Karaites the service as grand ducal bodyguards.9 The
duties. These, even if baptised, could not enter higher strata of society. Surnmarised from
Andzej B. Zakrzewski, „Polozenie prawnie tatar6w w Wie1kiem Ksistwie Litewskim (XVI –
XVIII w.)“ (Legal Position of the Tatars in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, t6’h-t 8’h Centuries),
in Kipcaia( tiuria( orientas Lietuvoje: istorija ir tyriml{ perspektyvos. Tarptautines mokslines
konferencijos skirtos profesoriaus dr. Ananiaszo Zajqczkowskio 90-osioms gimimo metinems,
mediiaga. Vilnius, 1993m spalio 14-15 d (The Kipchak-Turkish orient in Lithuania: history
and research perspectives. Proceedings of the international scho1ar1y conference dedicated to
the 90’h anniversary of Prof. Ananiasz Zajczkowski, Vilnius 1 4- 1 5 October 1 993), eds.
Tarnara Bairasauskaite and Halina Kobeckaite (Vilnius: Danielius, 1 994), pp. 1 1 8-129. For an
in-depth study on the issue see Jacek Sobczak, Poloienie prawnie ludno§ci tatarskiej w
Wielkim Ksistwe Litewskim (The legal Situation of the Tatar peop1e in the Grand Duchy of
Lithuania) (Warsaw and Poznan: PWN, 1 984). The issue of Tatar enoblement received a great
deal of scholarly attention, see the following discussion: Piotr Borawski, „Polozenie prawne
Tataröw w Wielkirn Ksi<;stwe Litewskim“ (The Legal Situation of the Tatars in the Great
Duchy of Lithuania), Lituano Slavica Poznaniaensia. Studia Hist01yczne, 2 ( 1987), pp. 1 87-
2 1 1 and Jacek Sobczak, „Z problemtyki polozenia prawnego ludnosci tatarskiej w Wie1kirn
Ksistwe Litewskim“ (Some Problems of the Legal Situation of the Tatar Population in the
Great Duchy ofLithuania), ibid. , pp. 212-226.
7 Jurgita Siauciunaite-Verbickiene, „K iydai“ (Whom did Ghillebert de Lannoy discover in Trakai and who were the Jews of
Trakai?), Lietuvos istorijos studijos, 7 ( 1 999), pp. 28-37. Sometimes Jcws were referred to as
Rabaites and Karaites as Karaim, e. g., Akty otnossiashchiesia k istorii Zapadnoj Rosii
sobranyje i izdanyje Arkheograficheskoj Kommisssieju (Acts conceming the history of the
Western Russia, collected and published by the Archeagraphie Commission), 5 vols. (St.
Petersburg: V Tipografii 11 Otdelenija Sobstvennoj E. I. B. Kantseliarii, 1846-1 853), vol. II:
1506 -1544 ( 1 848), no. 5, p. 4.
8 V. Raudeliiinas and R. Firkovicius, „Teisine karaim4. padetis Lietuvoje (XIV – XVIII a.)“
[Karaite legal situation in Lithuania (fourteenth-eighteenth centuries)], Socialistine reise, 4
(1975), pp. 48-53 (pp. 48-49).
9 There is no evidence that Karaites either served as Vytautas‘ body guards, or that they had
similar duties in the service of the later dukes. Thc entire story seems to have been invented by
Szyszman, who wrote that the Karaite garrison tried to prevent the murder of Grand Duke
Sigismund in 1440. Szyszman referred to Syrokomla, while the latter referred to Stryjkowski,
cf.: „die bewaffnete Intervention zur Verteidigung des Großfiirsten Sigismund Kiejstutowicz
bei der durch den Fürsten Czartoryski organisierten Verschwörung,“ Sirnon Szyszman, „Die
Karäer in Ost-Mitteleuropa“, Zeitschrift für Osiforschung, 6 ( 1 957), pp. 24-54 (n. 56, p. 41);
see also idem, Les Karai’les, n. 94, p. 42. Syrokomla writes as follows: „zolnierze spiskowych
zajli zamek i rozpdzili zalog. NiRt im niestawil oporu: Chrescijanic byli w kosciolach;
Karairni na haslo trwogi zbiegli si do zamku, !ecz, znalezli bramy zamknil(te;“ Wladyslaw
Syrokomla, Wycieczki po Litwie w promieniach od Wilna (Trips in Lithuania around Vilnius),
2 vo1s. (Wilno: Nakladem ksigarza A. Assa, 1857), I, p. 1 16. Stryjkowski teils nearly the
same story; „Ale .Zydowie co w miescie mieszkali uslyszawszy on trwog, naprzod si<; do
zarnku jako na gwalt rzucili, bo inszy mieszczanie wszyscy jako chrze5cianie tej godziny
82 ÜIEDRt MICKÜNAITE
Lithuanian perception of both minorities also associates them with military
service.
Although there are quite extensive Karaite and Tatar written records, for the
most part they dwell upon religious issues. Therefore, historical memory of these
people was Iransmitted orally not to be put in writing until the eighteenth century.
As to the reflections upon the Grand Duke Vytautas, one should emphasise that in
the Kipchak dialect, that is the native tongue of Tatars and Karaites (today retained
only by the Karaites) the grand duke is called Vatad Bij, that is ‚king
destroying enemies.‘ 10
The earliest testimony to the Tatar oral tradition is a speech addressed to
King Sigismund the Old in 1 5 19. As recorded, this appeal reads as follows: „We
do not have the blessed memory Yytautas any more. He did not allow us to forget
the Prophet; thus, when looking towards the holy places we repeat his name as we
repeat the names of our caliphs. We swear on our swords that we do Iove
Lithuanians, this land, these waters, and these trees are precious to us. There by
the salted lakes [i.e., in the Crimea], everybody knows that we are not strangers in
this land and our ch.ildren know about h.im [i.e., Yytautas).“11
The other source to be considered here is the story told by an anonymous
Muslim pilgrim to Sultan Suleyman and recorded under the title Rissalei Tatari
Leh ( 1 558). 12 It teils that Tatars in Lithuania worsh.ip the great king Wattad, 13 who
nabozenstwem si'< bawili,“ Maciej Stryjkowski, Kronika Po/ska, Lilewska, Zm6dzka i
wszystkiej Rusi (The Polish, Lithuanian, Samogitian, and the Whole-Rus‘ chronicle), 2 vols.
(Warsaw: Naklad Gustawa Leona Glückberga, 1 846; reprint, Wydawnictwo Artystycznc i
Filmowe. 1985), vol. ll, p. 204. – lnteresting evidence about Jewish (Karaite?) solders among
the Lithuanian troops comes from from a description of the battle of Grunwald/Tannenberg
(15 July 1410) as given in the Bavarian chronicle: „scilicet Tartarorum, Samagitarum,
Litoviensium, et etiam Judaeorum quasi totam Prussiam devicit,“ Scriplores rerum
Prussicarum. Die Geschichtsquellen der Preussischen Vorzeit bis zum Untergange der
Ordensherrschajt, eds. Theodor Hirsch, Max Töppen, and Ernst Strehlke, 5 vols. (Leipzig:
Verlag von S. Hirzel, 1861 -74; reprint, Frankfurta. M.: Minerva, 1 965), vol. Ill, p. 4 1 8 .
11°1 Kobeckaiti:, Lietuvos karaimai, p. 43.
The Lithuanian Metrica (unpublished) as quoted in Dzie/a Tadeusza Czackiego (Works of
Tadeusz Czacki), ed. Edward Raczynski, 3 vols. (Poznait: w Drukami J. Lukaszewicza, 1843-
45), IIJ ( 1845), p. 3 1 1 .
12 „Zdanie sprawy o Tatarach Litewskich prez jednego z tych Tataröw zlozone sultanowe Sulejmanowi
w r. 1558“ (Account on the situation ofthe Lithuanian Tatars written by one ofthese
Tatars for Sultan Suleiman in 1558), ed. A. Muchlinski, Teka Wi/enska, 4 ( 1 858), p. 241-272.
Rowell doubts about thc authenticity ofthis text. His arguments are the following: ( I ) it is the
only historiographic text of the Lithuanian Tatars; (2) it is written in good Turkish; however,
stylistically, it is more European than Asian; (3) it frequently repeats inscriptions from the
Lithuanian Metrica, published by Muchlinski; however, not all the Originals have been found
so far; (4) the account calls Lithuania Poland and avoids the toponym ‚Lipka/Libka,‘ which
was generally used to refer to the Lithuanian Tatars; and (5) it expresses ideas of Sarmatism,
not yet popular in the mid-I6th century, Stephen C. Rowell, „Lietuva, tevyne mlisl!? Tarn tikrll
XVI a. LDK rastijl! pavyzdziai“ (Lithuania Our Anccstral Horne? Variations on a Theme from
Certain l 61h-Century Literary Traditions), in Senosios rastijos ir tautosakos sqveika: kultürine
RULER, PROTECTOR, Al\D A fAIR Y PRINCE 83
resettled them in the grand duchy. This king is like a column supporting the
Muslim faith in the northem countries; therefore, annually one day is dedicated to
his memory. Muslims living in the grand duchy visit their shrines and remember
him in prayers.14
Besides these rhetorical speeches, the grand duke is mentioned in Tatar
folklore and tales of the origins of families and settlements. One of the popular
legends says that Vytautas had permitted Tatar polygamy in order to increase the
number of his favoured subjects. 15 Such an explanation of Muslim life style clearly
illustrates the power of Vytautas‘ image. The grand duke’s desire cloaks the
practices subject to religious regulations.
The origin stories constitute the largest group of Tatar sources. As with
most of the tales of this genre, usually there is a material proof of a story’s
validity, which sometimes goes beyond traditional lieux de memoire and offers a
chose or temps de memoire. The legend of the beginnings of the village
Studzianka (‚little weil‘ in Polish) is the following: Once upon a time, Grand Duke
Vytautas admired the place called Dolina (i.e., ‚valley‘). He used to visit this
valley on his way home from campaigns in far-away countries. Most of all, the
duke enjoyed drinking clear and cool water from the local spring. Later the spring
was cased into a little weil. In memory of Vytautas, Tatars living there call the
entire place Studzianka. 16
Quite a numbcr of stories pertain to the establishment of a Tatar village
known as Sorok Tatary17 (i.e., ‚Forty Tatars·). One of them relates about Vytautas:
the grand duke had awarded Tatar warriors with vast, yet uninhabited Iands. In
Lietuvos Didiiosios Kunigaik.Stystes patirtis (The Interaction of Old Literature and Folklore:
Cultural Experience of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania), ed. Rita Repsiene (Yilnius: Lietuvil!
literatüros ir tautosakos institutas, 1998), p. 123-137 (p. 132). Rowell’s argumenls are wellbased,
however, this queslion should be answered by a Iinguist. As to historical and
circumstancial arguments, several pieccs of Muchlinski’s evidence are suspicious;
nevertheless, I Iack lhc explication of thc motives for creating a forgery. (Romantic spirit is not
enough). Moreover, the „Lipka/Libka“ argument does not have a slrong basis, especially when
it concems the 1 61h c. Having analysed the usage of this term. Lapicz concluded that it is
certain that the denomination Lipka refers to Tatar rebels, who abandoned the PolishLithuanian
Commonwealth for the Onoman Empire in 1672, Czeslaw Lapicz, Kirab tatarow
litewsko-polskich (Paleografia. Grafika. Jzyk) (Khitab of Lithuanian-Polish Tartars.
Paleography. Graphy. Language) (Torun: Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, 1986), p. 24.
13 Muchlinski suggested that originally the name could have been „Witud,“ howcver, it was
changed while copying into ‚·Wanad,“ the word meaning column, „Zdanie sprawy“, n. I , p.
253.
14 „Zdanie sprawy“, pp. 252-253.
15 Kricinskis, Lietuvos tororiai lstorines ir etnografines monografijos bandymas (Lithuanian
Tatars: an attempt of a historical and ethl\ographic monograph), Irans!. Tarnara Bairasauskaite
(Yilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijl! leidykla, 1 993), p. 120.
16 Piotr Borawski and Aleksander Dubinski, Tatarzy polscy. Dzieje. obrzdy. legendy. tradycje
(The Polish Tatars: history, rites, legends, and traditions) (Warsaw: Iskry, 1 986), p. 2 3 1 .
1 7 Keturiasdesimt Totori4.. Lt I PI, Czterdziesce Tatar6w I Kirkalary in Tatar.
84 GtEDRI:: MtCKÜNAITI::
order to populate his possession, one of these Tatars married four women at the
same time. They bore him forty sons. When the brothers grew up they established
a Settlement known in Byelorusian as Sorok Tatary. 18
As to the family origins, these not only refer to Vytautas, but also consider
another key event of medieval Polish-Lithuanian history, the battle of Grunwald/
Tannenberg ( 1 5 July 1 4 1 0). Many families indicated that their forefathers arrived
to Lithuania with the troops of Khan Dzhelal-ai-Din, who Iead victorious Tatar
forces against the Teutonic Knights.19 Sometimes the military motif is exploited
more thoroughly. For example, the Bielak family associates their origins with an
ancient bow, which once belonged to their ancestor Kara Mirza. The latter
participated in numerous battles against Lithuania, until Vytautas overcame the
Tatar troops. Heavily wounded, Kara Mirza became the grand duke’s captive.
Vytautas, a merciful ruler and a brave knight, turned these prisoners into his
solders, granting them Iands of his realm. Kara Mirza also received his share. The
grand duke changed his name into Bielak (i.e., the white) as opposite to Kara,
which means black in the Tatar tongue. Bielak faithfully served Vytautas, eaming
numerous favours from the grand duke.20
The nobility confirmation issued for the Dovgial family includes the
following story: during the times of Vytautas, Lithuania was frequently at war
with her neighbours. The grand duke invited Crimean Tatars to assist him in
warfare. This was the time when the forerunners of the Dzhalair Murza Dovgial
family arrived in Lithuania. Having acknowledged their heroism, Vytautas granted
the family lands.21
To surnmarise the Tatar evidence, the motif of resettlement constitutes the
basis for the most of the stories. lnterestingly enough, Karaite folklore does not
address the issue of origins. These are mostly fairy tales; hence, Vytautas appears
as a fairy hero. Tradition says that whenever Karaite texts mention the duke’s
name, the blessing formula, Iet him rest in peace, always follows it.22
Most of the Karaite folklore originates from the town of Trakai/Troki,
which once housed Vytautas‘ favourite residence and still remains the principal
Karaite settlement in Lithuania. One of the stories teils that some time in the early
stage of Karaite arrival. in Trakai, it was raining so heavily that the waters of the
Iake Galve flooded Karaite Street severely endaugering the survival of the entire
community. Karaite men were fighting in far-away battles; thus, there was no one
to protect women and household. In the face of such a disaster, people realised
18 Borawski, Dubinski, pp. 232-33.
19 lbid., pp. 241 -242 and ‚·Zdanie sprawy“, p. 252.
20 Borawski, Dubinski, p. 242.
21 Tarnara Bairasauskaite, Lietuvos totoriai XIX amiiuje (Lithuanian Tatars in the nineteenth
century) (Vilnius: Mintis, 1 996), p. 52.
22 A. Mukhlinski, lzledovamie o proiskhozhdenii i sostoyanii Litovskikh tatar (Research on the
origins and thc current state of the Lithuanian Talars) (St Petersburg: v tipografii Eduarda
Veimara, 1857; reprint Minsk: Adradzhen’ne, 1993), p. 14.
RULER, PROTECTOR, AND A FAIRY PRINCE 85
that only Vytautas could help·them. Women assembled and approached the grand
duke in search of support and protection. Vytautas Jooked through the window of
his castle and addressed the ladies in their own tongue. He calmed the women
saying that he would definitely find a means to help them and prevent the troubles.
Without the slightest hesitation, Vytautas mounted his white horse and galloped to
the place of disaster. There he ordered the horse to drink the waters of the flood.
The horse imrnediately obeyed the order. As it drank, the waters diminished, and
people prayed. Soon the flood was over and Karaites returned home to teil everyone
about the glory of the duke and his horse. Meanwhile, the horse rose as if a
mountain and slowly moved to the fields. In the place where he stopped the Iake
Puvus (i.e., rotten) was formed. Even today, says the legend, the waters of this
Iake on the edge of the town have a strange scent of sweat, reminding the townsmen
of the miraculous horse ofVytautas.23
In sight of the ruins of the grand ducal castles, the Karaite comrnunity
retlected upon themselves as the only guardians of Vytautas‘ memory.24 Moreover,
Karaites of Trakai explain their speci ftc architecture, that is, three windows
on the street side, as being a replica of Vytautas‘ palace, which also has three
windows on its side walls.25
Another motif frequent in Karaite folklore is the link with their ancient
molherland in the Crimea. Actually, Karaites never forgot their oriental origins
and emphasised them by wearing oriental armour. Oral culture also maintained an
oriental connection. One legend teils about the son of Vytautas‘ councillor Zarakh
and reveals Karaite service to the grand duke. Vytautas ordered the young man to
travel to Crimea and deliver presents as weil as forward regards to the khan. On
the way southwards robbers attacked the travellers in an attempt to steal the
carriages loaded with precious furs. The young man started fighting with the
chieftain of the robbers. When his father noticed that the son would soon win, he
warned him not to kill the enemy, but rather to cut his ear. The winner followed
the advice. Moreover, he bandaged the enemy’s head. Impressed by the young
man’s virtue, the chief’tain gave him a ring, which protected the carts throughout
their way to Crimea. The messengers handed the khan the gifts from Vatad Bij and
23 Kobeckaite, Lietuvos karaimai, pp. 8 1 -82, for the rhymed version of the legend see Sirnon
Firkovic I Sirnonas Firkovicius, „Batyr bijnin tamasa akty I Stebu.klingas didtiojo kunigaiksCio
zirgas“ (The miraculous horse of the grand dukc), ibid., pp. 1 1 5 – 1 18. A slightly different
version of the legend (the horse spits the waters and forms the Iake Galve) is given by
Grzegorz Pekzyriski, Najmniejsza mniejszosc. Rzecz o Karaimach polskich (The smallest
minority: A study on Polish Karaites) (Warsaw: Stanislaw Krycinski and Towarzystwo
Karpackie, 1995), p. 45.
24 Kobeckaite, Lietuvos karaimai, p. 80.
25 Pelczynski, p. 50. For the architecture of Trakai see Algirdas Baliulis, Stanislovas Mikulionis,
and Algimantas Miskinis, Trala( miesras ir pilys. lstorija ir architektüra (The city and the
castles ofTrakai: history and architecture) (Vilnius: Mokslas, 1991).
86 GIEDRE MICKÜNAITE
forwarded his regards. The young man was acknowledged for his excellence and
received the name of Alankasar, meaning ‚the hero.’26
Karaite stories demoostrate a strong bond and express mutual favor between
Vytautas and the community. Although Tatar and Karaite evidence differ in
themes concemed with the grand duke, the ruler is always revealed as a powerful
sovereign and the protector o f the resettled people.
An extremely positive image of the grand duke is neither a Karaite nor a
Tatar invention. Vytautas spared no endeavours in building up his image and his
efforts were crowned with success; according to Dlugosz, having leamed of the
grand duke’s death, the Lithuanian people lamented as if burying the father of
their nation.27 Thus, Tatars and Karaites could easily absorb and develop the existing
tradition. Although credible, this observation does not pertain to oral culture.
Legends about the isles of Lamentation („Raudine“ in Lithuanian) in the lakes
around Trakai testify to massive executions once performed there. Even the Iake
Galve, which surrounds Vytautas‘ castle, is said to have received its name from
the head of a knight decapitated by the grand duke (the word for head in Lithuanian
is ‚galva‘).28 Moreover, written sources also confirm to the image of
Vytautas as a tyrant.29 Looking from today’s perspective, tyranny accords weil
with the idea of resettlement: it still happens that people or even entire nations
change their living places upon someone’s desire. Yiewed in this light, it is outstanding
that Vytautas‘ image as resettler is a genuinely positive construction.
Moreover, it has been thoroughly exploited until the present: after the Word War I
Karaites paralleled their retum from evacuation to the arrival of 1398. Later this
motif was staged during various historical occasions30 and profoundly performed
in 1997 during the events dedicated to the 600’h anniversary of Tatar and Karaite
settlement in Lithuania.
26 Kobeckaite, Lie/Uvos karaimai, pp. 80-81.
27 „Omnes illum, ve1ut parentern patriae, lamentabantur absumtum,“ Joannis Dlugosz Senioris
Canonici Cracoviensis Opera Omnia, ed. by Alexander Przezdziecki, 14 vols. (Cracow: Czas,
28 1863-87), vol. Xlll ( 1 877), p. 415.
For the legends see Galina Bogdel, Trakl{ krasto legendas ir pasakos (The legends and fairy
talcs from the Trakai area) (Trakai : n. p., 1996), pp. 24-25.
29 E.g., „Vitoldus huic praefuit VIadislai frater, qui relicto Deorum cultu cum regno Poloniae
Christi sacramentum acceppit. Magnum Vitoldi nomcn sua tcmestate fuit, quem subditi adeo
timuerunt, ut iussi laqueo se suspendere parere potius quam in principis indignationem
incidere volucrint; detrectantes imperium insutos ursina pelle viventibus ursis, quos eam ob
causam nutriebat, dilaniandos obiectavit crudelibusque aliis affeeil supp1iciis. Equitans acrum
scmper tensum gestavit. Si quem conspicatus est aliter incidere quam voluit, confestim sagina
confodit, multos quoque per ludum interemit. Sanginarius camifex, ut esset inter populares et
ipsium principem certurn faciei discrimen, radere barbam omnibus imperavit. Id ubi non
successit – facilius enim cervicis quam barbae iacturam Lituani ferebant – tonsus ipse mentum
et caput prodiit, capitale interminatus, is quis provincialium pilos faciei capiti suo deponeret;“
„V. Aeneas Sylvius Preussen betreffende Schriften“, ed. Th. Hirsch, in Scriptores rerum
Prussicarum, IV, p. 237.
3° For the inter-war cvcnts see Kobeckaite, Lietltvos karaimai, pp. 56 and 1 1 9.
RULER, PROTECTOR, AND A FAIRY PRINCE 87
To conclude, the diverse and Contradietory image of Grand Duke Vytautas
has been shaped by many people and numerous authors. However, the tradition of
the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites adorned him with an eternal aura inspired by
the duke’s initiatives of resettlement, thus, constituting the base for the Tatar and
Karaite legacy in Lithuania . .
ORAL HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE AGES
THE SPOKEN WORD IN CONTEXT
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
MEDIUM AEVUM QUOTIDIANUM
SONDERBAND XII
=
CEU MEDIEV ALIA
VOLU1vfE 3
Oral History of the Middle Ages
The Spoken W ord in Context
Edited by Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
Krems and Budapest 200 1
GEDRUCKT MIT UNTERSTÜTZUNG DER ABTEILUNG
KULTUR UND WISSENSCHAFT DES AMTES
DER NIEDERÖSTERREICIDSCHEN LANDESREGIERUNG
niederästerreich kultur
copy editor: Judith Rasson
Cover illustration: The wife of Potiphar covets Joseph: “ … erat autem Joseph pulchra facie et
decorus apectu: post multos itaque dies iecit domina oculos suis in Ioseph et ait donni mecum.“
(“ … And Joseph was (a] goodly fperson], and weil favoured. And it came to pass after these
things, that his master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. „), Gen. 39:
6-7 (KJV). Concordantiae Caritatis, c. 1350. Cistercian abbey of Lilienfeld (Lower Austria), ms
151, fol. 244v (detail). Photo: Institut fiir Realienkunde des Mittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit
(Krems an der Donau).
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
– ISBN 3-90 Hl94 15 6 (Krems)
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any
form or by any means, without the permission of the Publishers.
Published by:
and
– ISBN 963 9241 64 4 (Budapest)
-ISSN 1587-6470 CEU MEDIEVALIA
Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Gesellschaft zur Erforschung
der materiellen Kultur des Mittelalters, Körnermarkt 13, A-
3500 Krems. Austria,
Department ofMedieval Studies, Centrat European University,
Nador utca 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary.
Printed by Printself, Budapest.
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ……………………….. 7
Michael RICHTER, Beyond Goody and Grundmann ………. . . . . . . ………. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
Tom PETTIIT, Textual to Oral: the Impact ofTransmission
on Narrative Word-Art …………………………………………………………………….. 1 9
Elöd NEMER!<.ENYI, Fictive Audience. The Second Person Singular in the Deliberatio ofBishop Gerard of Csanäd …………………………………………….. 3 9 Katalin SZENDE, Testaments and Testimonies. Orality and Literacy in Composing Last Wills in Late Medieval Hungary ……………………………. 49 Anna ADAMSKA, The Kingdom of Po land versus the Teutonic Knights: Oral Traditions and Literale Behaviour in the Later Middle Ages …………… 67 Giedre MICKÜNAITE, Ruler, Protector, and a Fairy Prince: the Everlasting Deeds of Grand Duke Vytautas as Related by the Lithuanian Tatars and Karaites ………………………………… 79 Yurij Zazuliak, Oral Tradition, Land Disputes, and the Noble Community in Galician Rus‘ from the 1440s to the 1 460s ……………………………………… 88 Nada ZECEVIC, Aitc; yA.uKeia. The Importance ofthe Spoken Word in the Public Affairs ofCarlo Tocco (from the Anonymous Chronaca dei Tocco di Cefalonia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 108 lohn A. NICHOLS, A Heated Conversation: Who was Isabel de Aubigny, Countess of Arundel? …………………………… 1 1 7 Tracey L. BILADO, Rhetorical Strategies and Legal Arguments: ‚Evil Customs‘ and Saint-Florent de Saumur, 979- 1 0 1 1 …………………….. 1 28 Detlev KRAACK, Traces of Orality in Written Contexts. Legal Proceedings and Consultations at the Royal Court as Reflected in Documentary Sources from l21h-century Germany ……… 1 42 6 Maria DOBOZY, From Oral Custom to Written Law: The German Sachsenspiegel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Martha KEIL, Rituals of Repentance and Testimonies at Rabbinical Courts in the 151h Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 64 Michael GOODICH, The Use of Direct Quotation from Canonization Hearing to Hagiographical Vita et Miracula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 77 Sylvia ScHEIN, Bemard of Clairvaux ’s Preaching of the Third Crusade and Orality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Michael BRAUER, Obstades to Oral Communication in tbe Mission offriar William ofRubruck among the Mongois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Elena LEMENEVA, From Oral to Written and Back: A Sermon Case Study . . . . . . . . 203 Albrecht CLASSEN, Travel, Orality, and the Literary Discourse: Travels in the Past and Literary Travels at the Crossroad of the Oral and the Literary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 217 Ulrich MÜLLER and Margarete SPRJNGETH, “Do not Shut Your Eyes ifYou Will See Musical Notes:“ German Heroie Poetry („Nibelungenlied“), Music, and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 Jolanta SZPILEWSKA, Evoking Auditory Imagination: On the Poetics of Voice Production in The Story ofThe Glorious Resurrection ofOur Lord (c. 1580) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 Jens T. WOLLESEN, SpokenWords and Images in Late Medieval Italian Painting . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 257 Gerhard JARTTZ, Images and the Power of the Spoken Word . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Preface Oral culture played an instrumental role in medieval society.1 Due to the Iack of any direct source evidence, however, research into the functions and importance of oral communication in the Middle Ages must confront a number of significant problems. Only indrect traces offer the opportunity to analyze phenomena that were based on or connected with the spoken word. The ‚oral history‘ of the Middle Ages requires the application of different approaches than dealing with the 201h or 2 151 century. For some decades Medieval Studies have been interested in questions of orality and literacy, their relationship and the substitution of the spoken by the written word2 Oral and literate culture were not exclusive and certainly not opposed to each other.3 The ‚art of writing‘ was part of the ‚ars rhetorica‘ and writing makes no sense without speech.4 Any existing written Statement should also be seen as a spoken one, although, clearly, not every oral Statement as a written one. Authors regularly wrote with oral delivery in mind. ‚Speaking‘ and ‚writing‘ are not antonyms. It is also obvious that „the use of oral conununication in medieval society should not be evaluated … as a function of culture populaire vis-a-vis culture savante but, rather, of thc communication habits and the tendency of medieval man 1 For the late Middle Ages and the early modern period, cf. Willern Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne i1 Ia fin du moyen äge et a l’epoque moderne: reflexions de theorie et de methode,“ in Kommunialion und Alltag in Spätmillefalter und fniher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 24: „La plupart de gens vivait encore pour l’essentiel dans une culture orale et !es procedes d’appropriation des idCes passaient de prefcrence par Ia parolc dite et ecoutee, quand bien memc on ctait capable d’une Ieelure visuelle plus ou moins rudimentaire.“ 2 See Marco Mostert, „New Approaches to Medieval Communication?“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), pp. 15-37; Michael Richter, “Die Entdeckung der ‚Oralität‘ der mittelalterlichen Gesellschaft durch die neuere Mediävistik,“ in Die Aktualität des Miue/alters, ed. Hans-Werner Goetz (Bochum: D. Winkler, 2000), pp. 273-287. 3 Peter Burke calls the constrnct of „oral versus literate“ useful but at the same time dangerous: idem, „Mündliche Kultur und >Druckkultur< im spätmittelalterlichen Italien,“ in Volkskultur des europäischen Spätmittelalters, eds. Peter Dinzelbacher and Hans-Dieter Mück (Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1987), p. 60. 4 Michael Clanchy, „lntroduction,“ in New Approaches to Medieval Communication. ed. Marco Mostert (Tumhout: Brepols, 1999), p. 6. 8 to share his intellectual experiences in the corporate framework.“5 Oral delivery was not „the sole prerogative of any socioeconomic class. „6 For all these reasons, it is important to analyze the extent of and context, in which ’speech acts,‘ auditive effects, and oral tradition occur in medieval sources .7 Research into the use of the spoken word or references to it in texts and images provides new insight into various, mainly social, rules and pattems of the communication system. 1t opens up additional approaches to the organization and complexity of different, but indispensably related, media in medieval society, and their comparative analysis.8 The spoken word is connected with the physical presence of its ’sender.‘ Speech may represent the authenticity of the given message in a more obvious way than written texts or images. Therefore, the use of ’speech acts‘ in written or visual evidence also has to be seen in context with the attempt to create, construct, or prove authenticity. Moreover, spoken messages contribute to and increase the lifelikeness of their contents, which may influence their perception by the receiver, their efficacy and success. Being aware of such a situation will have led to the explicit and intended use and application of the spoken word in written texts and images- to increase their authenticity and importance, too. lf one operates with a model of ‚closeness‘ and ‚distance‘ of communication with regard to the Ievel of relation of ’senders‘ and ‚receivers,‘ then the ’speech acts‘ or their representation have to be seen as contributors to a ‚closer‘ connection among the participants of the communication process.9 At the same time, however, Speech might be evaluated as less official. One regularly comes across ‚oral space‘ 5 Sophia Menache, The Vox Dei. Commwzication in the Middle Ages (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 19. 6 Ibidem, p. 21. Cf. also Jan-Dirk Müller, „Zwischen mündlicher Anweisung und schrifilicher Sicherung von Tradition. Zur Kommunikationsstruktur spätmittelalterlicher Fechtbücher,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1992), p. 400: „Offensichtlich sind schriftliche und nichtschriftliche Tradierung von Wissen weiterhin relativ unabhängig voneinander, nachdem die Schrift längst dazu angesetzt hat, lnseln der Mündlichkeil oder praktisch-enaktiver Wissensvermittlung zu erobem. Die Gedächtnisstütze kann die Erfahrung nicht ersetzen, sendem allenfalls reaktivieren. Sie ist sogar nur verständlich, wo sie auf anderweitig vermittelte Vorkenntnisse stößt.“ 7 f. W.F.H. Nicolaisen, ed., Oral Tradition in the Middle Ages (Binghamton: Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 1995). 8 See, esp., Horst Wenzel, Hören und Sehen, Schrift und Bild. K ultur und Gedächtnis im Mittelalter (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1995), passim. 9 See also Siefan Sonderegger, „>Gesprochen oder nur geschrieben?< Mündlichkeil in mittelalterlichen
Texten als direkter Zugang zum Menschen,“ in Homo Medietas. Aufsätze zu Religiosität,
Literatur und Denkformen des Menschen vom Mittelalter bis in die Neuzeit. Festschrift
for Alois Maria Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Claudia Brinker-von der Heyde and
Niklaus Largier (Bem e\ al.: Peter Lang, 1999), p. 665: „Jedenfalls darf man sich bewußt bleiben,
daß auch in den Texten des deutschen Mittelalters die Reflexe gesprochener Sprache eine
bedeutende Schicht ausmachen, die besonders dann immer wieder hervortritt, wenn es um
einen direkten Zugang zum Menschen geht, um einVerstehen aus unmittelbarer Partnerschaft
heraus … “
9
that has become institutionalized or more official by the application of ‚written
space.‘ 10 Simultanous employment of such different Ievels and qualities of
messages must often have had considerable influence on their efficacy.11
The papers in this volume are the outcome of an international workshop that
was held in February, 2001, at the Department ofMedieval Studies, Central European
University, Budapest. Participants concentrated on problems of the occurrence,
usage, and pattems of the spoken word in written and visual sources of the
Middle Ages. They dealt with the roJe and contents of direct and indirect speech in
textual evidence or in relation to it, such as chronicles, travel descriptions, court
and canonization protocols, sermons, testaments, law-books, literary sources,
drama, etc. They also tried to analyze the function of oral expression in connection
with late medieval images.
The audiovisuality of medieval communication processes12 has proved to be
evident and, thus, important for any kind of further comparative analysis of the
various Ievels of the ‚oral-visual-literate,‘ i.e. multimedia culture of the Middle
Ages. Particular emphasis has to be put on methodological problems, such as the
necessity of interdisciplinary approaches,13 or the question of the extent to which
we are, generally, able to comprehend and to decode the communication systems
of the past.14 Moreover, the medievalist does not come across any types of sources
in which oral communication represents the main concem.15 lnstead, she or he is
confronted, at first glance, with a great variety of ‚casual‘ and ‚marginal‘ evidence.
We would like to thank all the contributors to the workshop and to this
volume. Their cooperation made it possible to publish the results of the meeting in
the same year in which it took place. This can be seen as a rare exception, at least
in the world of the historical disciplines. The head, faculty, staff, and students of
the Department of Medieval Studies of CentTal European University offered
various help and support. Special thanks go to Judith Rasson, the copy editor of
10 This, e.g., could be weil shown in a case study on thc pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostela:
Friederike Hassauer, „Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeil im Alltag des Pilgers am Beispiel der
Wallfahrt nach Santiago de Compostela,“ in Wallfahrt und Alltag in Mittelalter und früher
Neuzeit, eds. Gerhard Jaritz and Barbara Schuh (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, 1992), pp. 277-316.
11 Cf. Bob Scribner, „Mündliche Kommunikation und Strategien der Macht in Deutschland im
16. Jahrhundert,“ in Kommunikation und Alltag in Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed.
Helmut Hundsbichler (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1992), pp. 183-197.
12 Wenzel, Hören rmd Sehen, p. 292.
13 Cf. Ursula Schaefer, „Zum Problem der Mündlichkeit,“ in Modernes Miuelalter. Neue Bilder
einer populären Epoche, ed. Joachim Heinzle (Frankfurt am Main and Leipzig: Insel Verlag,
1994), pp. 374 f.
14 Frijhoff, „Communication et vie quotidienne,“ p. 25: „Sommes-nous encore en mesure de
communiquer avec Ja communication de jadis?“
1 Michael Richter, Sprache und Gesellschaft im Mittelalter. Untersuchungen zur mündlichen
Kommunikation in England von der Mit te des elften bis zu Beginn des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts
(Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1979), p. 22.
10
this volume, who took particluar care with the texts of the many non-native
speakers fighting with the pitfalls of the English language.
Budapest, Krems, and Constance
December 200 I
Gerhard Jaritz and Michael Richter
MEMO - Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture Online
Medieval and Early Modern Material Culture Online
