"И доконцавъ с нимъ миръ до своего живота": on the question of the context of the opava meeting in 1289, its participants and the "eternal" czech-galician union

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru

«И доконцавъ с нимъ миръ до своего живота»: on the question of the context of the opava meeting in 1289, its participants and the "eternal" czech-galician union

Solomiya Kozak Postgraduate Student Ivan Krypyakevych Institute of Ukrainian Studies the National Academy of Sciences of Ukrain



The article covers the circumstances of the meeting that took place in Opava in 1289 with the participation of the Czech king Wenceslaus II Premyslid, Gali- cian-Volynian suzerain Lev Danylovych and some Polish princes. As the Polish participants in the meeting are not named in the sources, there are still doubts in historiography as to who they were. An attempt was made to substantiate the version that one of the unnamed Polish participants in the meeting was Prince Wladyslaw I Lokietek of Piast dynasty. This assumption is based on an analysis of the eventful context of the Opava meeting, which was part of the struggle for the Cracow heritage, as well as the matrimonial and dynastic ties that played a very important role in medieval international communication. It is noted that the union of Wenceslaus II, Lev Danylovych and Wladyslaw I Lokietek repeatedly manifested itself shortly after the meeting in Opava and was based on existing dynastic ties and the conclusion of new marriage agreements. At the same time, the assumption that Prince Henryk IV Probus of Silesia may also have been present at the talks cannot be completely ruled out, although this hypothesis is currently less plausible. Lack of sources does not allow to definitively refute any of the versions. It is concluded that the Opava meeting was one of the key episodes of the Galician-Czech political union of the late XIIIth century and clearly demonstrated how relevant international communication was in the struggle for the Krakow throne. Lev Danilovych's participation in the vicissitudes of the struggle for the Krakow throne is considered to be inextricably linked with the orientation towards an alliance with the Czech king and is connected with the importance of an ally of the Galician-Volynian ruler ruling in Krakow.

Keywords: Opava meeting, Lev Danylovych, Wenceslaus II, Henryk IVProbus, Wladyslaw I Lokietek, struggle for Krakow heritage.



Соломія Козак аспірант

Інститут українознавства імені Івана Крип'якевича НАН України, Львів

«И ДОКОНЦАВЪ С НИМЪ МИРЪ ДО СВОЕГО ЖИВОТА»: ДО ПИТАННЯ ПРО КОНТЕКСТ ОПАВСЬКОЇ ЗУСТРІЧІ 1289 РОКУ, ЇЇ УЧАСНИКІВ ТА «ВІЧНИИ» ЧЕСЬКО-ГАЛИЦЬКИЙ СОЮЗ

У статті висвітлюються обставини зустрічі, яка відбулась в Опаві у 1289 р. за участі чеського короля Вацлава II Пршемисловича, галицько-волинського сюзерена Лева Даниловича та деяких польських князів. З огляду на те, що у джерелах польські учасники зустрічі не названі, в історіографії досі існують сумніви щодо того, хто ними був. На підставі аналізу подієвого контексту отавської зустрічі, яка була складовою боротьби за краківську спадщину, а також матримоніальних та династичних зв 'язків, які відігравали дуже важливу роль у середньовічній міжнародній комунікації, було здійснено чергову спробу обґрунтувати версію, що одним із неназваних польських учасників зустрічі був саме лєнченський і сєрадський князь Владислав І Локєток із династії П'ястів. Це вважаємо ймовірним з огляду на те, що союз Вацлава II, Лева Даниловича та Владислава І Локєтка неодноразово виявляв себе невдовзі після зустрічі в Опаві та ґрунтувався на підставі існуючих династичних зв 'язків та укладенні нових шлюбних угод. Водночас, нами не відкидається повністю припущення, що на переговорах міг також бути присутнім вроцлавський князь Генріх IV Пробус, хоч ця гіпотеза наразі менш вірогідна. Брак джерел не дає змоги остаточно спростувати жодну з версій. Зроблено висновок, що опавська зустріч була одним із ключових епізодів галицько-чеського політичного союзу кінця XIII cm. і яскраво продемонструвала, наскільки актуальною в умовах боротьби за краківський трон була міжнародна комунікація. Участь Лева Даниловича в перипетіях боротьби за краківський трон розглянуто у невід 'ємному зв 'язку із орієнтацією на союз із чеським королем та пов 'язувано із важливістю того, аби у Кракові правив союзник галицько-волинського володаря.

Ключові слова: Опавська зустріч, Лев Данилович, Вацлав II, Генріх IV Пробус, Владислав ІЛокєток, боротьба за краківську спадщину.

meeting krakow throne



In the last quarter of the XIII century the suzerain of the kingdom of Rus' the Galician-Volynian prince Lev Danylovych (1225/29-1301) was one of the active participants in the struggle for the Krakow throne. First he competes personally, and later supports his lucrative contenders. The participation of the Galician prince in the political life of the Polish principalities is mentioned in the local Galician-Volynian chronicle (XIII century)1 and in Latin chronicles, in particular by the chroniclers Jan Dlugosz (1415--1480)2 and Ottokar von Steiermark (1260/65-1319/21)3. At the same time, the Galician-Volynian prince maintained friendly relations with the Czech king Wenceslaus II (1271-1305) of the Premyslid dynasty. Having established himself on the Czech throne, he began to actively prepare for the coronation with the Polish crown. That is why we are talking about Czech-Rus' relations, the apogee of which fell on the last decade of the life and reign of Prince Lev Danylovych.

One of the important episodes of Rus'-Czech relations at that time was the meeting in Opava in 1289. It was aptly described by the Czech medievalist Vra- tislav Vanicek as a “congress of Slavic princes” of the “Czech, Lech and Rus”4 family. At this meeting, among other issues, the Galician-Czech union was farmed “until the end of its life”. The Galician-Volyn chronicle eloquently testifies to this: «тогда же Левъ . n>xa в Чехы . на снемь къ королеви . [Вацлава - S.K.] зане любовь держаше с нимъ великоу . и доконцавъ с нимъ миръ . до [скону - S.K.] своего живота . король же wдapивъ . Леа . дарми вслкыми дорогыми . и тако їїпоусти с великою четью»5.

The Opava meeting of 1289 remains in the field of view of researchers in view of the still open question about its participants, especially the unknown Polish ruler, who then met with Lev Danylovych and Wenceslaus II and promised them support against any enemy, as evidenced by the then source - records of the Prague bishop Tobiase z Bechyne, or the so-called “formular”6. In recent decades, this question has been raised by medievalists Norbert Mika7, Dariusz D^browski8, Igor Lichtei9 and Leontii Voitovych10. We will mostly rely on the work of these researchers in the article. At the same time, often among researchers studying Czech-Polish relations in the second half of the 13 th century11, Lev Danylovych's participation in the events surrounding the meeting in Opava is not taken into account. Therefore, to pay attention to this aspect of Rus'-Czech-Polish relations is one of the important tasks. Although the views of researchers on this issue differ somewhat, in general, there are two versions of possible participants in the meeting in Opava, to analyze which are the purpose of our intelligence. At the same time, we will try to outline the general event context of the Opava meeting of 1289 as one of the key episodes of Czech-Rus' communication.

First of all, we must turn to the events that prepared the ground for the allied Czech-Rus' relations of the last third of the XIII century. The conditions for this originated with the predecessor of Wenceslaus II - his father Ottokar II (1233-1278), and were associated with his search for allies against the German Emperor Rudolf I of Habsburg (1218-1291) in the war for the Austrian heritage (1246-1278).

Against the background of the formation of the Hungarian-German alliance during the 1270s, the King of Bohemia Ottokar II became increasingly close to his relatives - the Polish and Rus' princes. Between 1275 and 1277, the Gali- cian-Czech alliance was confirmed12 by a dynastic marriage between Casimir, the eldest son of Prince Vladislaus of Opole, and Olena of the Romanovychi family13. Evidence of the then union agreements was the fact that on the eve of January 21, 1278, a Czech diplomat (venit de Russia) Pardus, son of Neplach, came to Lev Danylovych14.

This was followed by the decisive events of the struggle for the heritage of the Austrian Babenbergs, because in the war that broke out in 1278 and ended on August 26 of that year with the bloody battle of Dkrnkrut (Suche Kruty) on the Marchfeld near Vienna, the Czech suzerain was killed. As is known from several Czech, Austrian and Bavarian chronicles at the time, warriors from Rus' fought on the side of Premysl Otakar II in this battle15. Lviv researcher Illia Parshyn analyzed the participation of Lev Danylovych's knights in this military campaign16.

The death of Ottokar II led to the extinction of the influence of the Czech Premyslid dynasty and the entry of the Habsburg dynasty into the European poli- tikal arena. At the same time, the Galician-Czech union faded away for a while, only to soon gain new relevance.

What was the political situation in Central and Eastern Europe under the successor of Ottokar II, King of Bohemia Wenceslaus II, and what was the place of the Kingdom of Rus'? Relations with the Czech king for Rus' were then determined primarily by relations with Polish rulers, and struggle for the Polish throne, which lasted from 1280 during the 80-90's of the XIII century. Lev Danylovych, who at first competed personally, having reason to do so as the husband of Constance, the sister of the wife of the deceased Krakow prince Boleslaw V the Chaste (1226-1279) - Kunigunde (Kinga). A successful struggle for a free throne could was restore political balance in Central and Eastern Europe, as the balance was ruined by the death of Ottokar II, a former ally of Lev Danylovych and

Boleslaw V17. Actual in the 70's of the XIII century Czech-Polish-Rus' union had longevity in the next decade, when at a meeting in Opava in 1289 the rulers of Bohemia, Poland and Kingdom of Rus' had the opportunity to discuss controversial issues, which will be discussed later in the article.

Lev Danylovych, despite active hostilities aimed at seizing the throne of Krakow in the 80's of the XIII century, failed to achieve the desired. The ruler of Rus', realizing the mistakes of past campaigns, sought rather to normalize relations with neighbors, relying on the diplomatic method and not giving up their own interests. Therefore, in the future the situation was not in favor of Lev Danylovych's direct participation in these events, which created the basis for Rus'-Czech rapprochement18.

After the death of prince Leszek II the Black in 1288, a new round of struggle came, and the Czech King Wenceslaus II, duke Henryk IV Probus (~1258-1290) of Wroclaw and prince Boleslaw II of Mazovia-Plock, a cousin of the deceased Leszek, actively competed for the vacant throne. By then, Lev Danylovych was interested rather in in having Krakow seized by his ally. Нє could't stand aside, but he had no reason to claim himself frankly, it remained to support the Plock prince Boleslaw II19. The latter was married (1290-1302) to the daughter of Ot- tokar II, the sister of Wenceslaus II Kunigunde (Kunguta)20. This may have been one of the factors that further contributed to the rapprochement of the Galician prince Lev Danylovych with the Czech king, but also linked his policy to the open Polish question.

At the time of Leszek II the Black death, Wenceslaus II was occupied with his internal position in the lands of the Bohemian Crown, because in the autumn of 1288 or early 1289 he finally managed to take power into his own hands, imprisoning the then usurper, the leader of the Vftkovci noble clan, Zavis of Fal- kenstein. From that moment on, Wenceslaus's active assertion of his own position was inextricably linked to the struggle for the Krakow throne, which was then claimed by his relative and rival, prince Henryk IV Probus from Wroclaw21. The fact is that shortly after the imprisonment of the Zavis, in the south of Bohemia the Vftkovci revolted, acting in alliance with the Hungarian king and Henryk Probus, offering the latter even the Czech throne22. In order to prevent another loss of power, as well as to avoid the unification of Wroclaw land with Krakow land, the Czech king inevitably had to actively intervene in the struggle for the Krakow throne, trying to attract allies to his side. As the Czech medievalist Lukas Reitinger aptly pointed out, the very idea of Polish subordination was decisive in monarchical representation of the last rulers of Premyslid dynasty23.

In this vein, the meeting of Central European rulers in Opava in August 1289 was very important for the Czech king. Meeting was designed to outline a further political alliance capable of resisting a possible coalition of the Vftkovci, Hungarian king Ladislaus IV Kun and Henryk IV Probus.

We find out about the Opava meeting from the already mentioned formular of the Prague bishop Tobiase z Bechyne, in which he congratulates Wenceslaus II on the successful negotiations24. There is no discussion about the date of the meeting, and it is believed that it took place on August 15, 128925, but there is no final agreement among historians about the participants of the meeting. It is more or less clear about some of the participants, as about the Bytom duke Casimir II and Mieszko Wladyslawych of Cieszyn, Bolko I, duke of Swidnica and Lev Danylovych26. But the figure of the Polish prince, unnamed in any source, is unexplained. Henryk IV Probus, as well as prince Wladyslaw I Lokietek of L^czyca and Sieradz, the brother of the late Leszek II the Black, could be this prince with a high probability. Next, we consider the researchers' arguments for these two likely candidates.

The version that Henryk IV Probus was an unnamed participant in the meeting in Opava was suggested by the Polish medievalist Bronislaw Wlodarski. His arguments boiled down to the fact that the “formular” (however, only there) recorded the Czech king's promise to provide military support to the Wroclaw duke27. According to the researcher, it was important for Wenceslaus II to agree with Henryk IV his non-interference in the internal affairs of the Czech crown, so that he would't enter into agreements with opponents of the Czech king28. However, the problem is that there is no source of evidence that such an agreement really existed. On the one hand, Henryk did claim the precedence among the Polish elite for a long time, so the assumption of his participation in the negotiations is partially justified.

What could have been another scenario of the Opava meeting, if among its participants was not Henryk IV Probus, but Wladyslaw I Lokietek? It is this version that is gaining increasing support in research circles. As Dariusz D^browski29, Jan T^gowski30 and Leontiy Voytovych31 argued, the meeting in Opava was attended not only by Wenceslaus II and Lev Danylovych, but also by Casimir II and Mieszko III Wladyslawych's, possibly Bolko I of Swidnica, and Wladyslaw I Lokietek. It was they who could sign the agreement on against Henryk IV Probus and his allies, and also decided to support Wladyslaw I Lokietek's claim to the Krakow throne32.

The union that took place in Opava was based on dynastic-matrimonial prospects, as the agreement between Lev Danylovych and Wladyslaw I Lokietek provided for the marriage of Lev's son Yuri with Lokietek's sister Euphemia (f 1308)33. At the same time, this would fit the Polish-Galician union into the already existing marriage and political alliance of other participants in the Opava meeting: Casimir II was son-in-law of Lev, vassal of Wenceslaus and cousin of Wladyslaw34. Therefore, the version that Wladyslaw I Lokietek was the unnamed Polish prince-participant of the Opava meeting seems plausible.

Wenceslaus II really had reason to form a coalition of princes, directed against Henryk IV Probus. An additional argument in this direction is made by the Czech researcher Katerina Charvatova and the Ukrainian medievalist My- roslav Voloshchuk, noting that Wenceslaus II could have been assisted in antiProbus policy by his mother Kunigunde's sister (~1245-1285) - widow of Leszek II the Black, Princess Agrippina (Gryfina), aunt of the Czech king35.

Another interesting fact follows from this dynastic connection, which is an additional explanation of the allied nature of relationship of Wenceslaus II with Lev Danylovych. The fact is that the mother of the Czech king Kunigunde was of Rus' origin, namely she was the daughter of Rus' prince Rostyslav Mykhailo- vych (1219 - after 1264), who for a long time fought for the Galician heritage with Danylo Romanovych (1201-1264), being his nephew36. So Wenceslaus II was a relative for Lev Danylovych - a grand-nephew. And the mother of the Czech king and Princess Gryfina the widow of Leszek II the Black, were the daughters of the Rus' prince Rostyslav Mykhailovych. This, of course, created a favorable ground for the establishment of Rus'-Czech relations, as well as led to quite fair claims of Wenceslaus II to the throne of Krakow.

Returning to the course of events shortly after the death of Leszek Chorny, we will try to find out what can help us reveal the mystery of an unknown participant in the Opava meeting. At first, the brothers of the deceased Leszek II the Black, Prince Casimir of Kuyavia and Prince Wladyslaw I Lokietek of Sier- adz, forming a coalition, unequivocally sided with the contender close to them - Boleslaw II of Mazovia and Plock. In late 1288 and early 1289, Lev Danylovych supported the Mazovian-Kuyavian coalition in the struggle for the Krakow throne against Henryk IV Probus, and in July 1289 already stood with his army under the walls of the Wawel, captured by the Prince of Wroclaw and tried to storm it37. At the end of July 1289, just before Opava, Galician troops devastated the Wroclaw principality, the domain of the new prince of Krakow38. On this basis, as L. Voitovych convincingly argues, there is no doubt that these allies, united against Henryk IV Probus, were present at the Opava meeting, and among them, most likely, was Wladyslaw I Lokietek, recorded in the sources as “unnamed”39.

If at the meeting in Opava Lev Danylovych did support Wladyslaw I Lokietek in his plans to ascend the Krakow throne, then the further course of events may also confirm this. Shortly after the meeting, Yuri, son of Lev Danylovych, married Wladyslaw's sister Euphemia, which has already been mentioned. This happened between September 1289 and June 23, 1291, which directly suggests that this marriage was preceded by a certain union agreement, and it is logical to connect it with the Opava meeting40. Such a decision could help the Rus' prince to strengthen his position in the region and ensure a reliable alliance between the Rus' and Polish kingdoms.

The Czech researcher R. Antonm expressed a somewhat different view of the events in Opava. In his opinion, Henryk IV Probus could be one of the participants in the «meeting»: both the negotiations and the gifts received by Lev Da- nylovych from the Czech king aimed at could that the Galician prince would side with the prince of Wroclaw, with whom then Wenceslaus II was in confrontation. Therefore Henryk himself, could be present at the meeting41.

Also leads to such conclusions the course of events shortly after Opava, which was unfavorable for Wladyslaw I Lokietek. On August 24, 1289, Henryk Probus and Henry V the Fat, duke of Legnica, managed to defeat the enemys under the walls of Wawel42. As I. Lichtei noted, relying on the testimony of chroniclers Jan Dlugosz and Alexander Guagnini, Wladyslaw I Lokietek barely managed to escape from Krakow, disguised as a Franciscan43. Instead, his knights was much less fortunate: some were killed, others were taken prisoner44. Thus, version to R. Antonm, such consequences for Wladyslaw I Lokietek shortly after the Opava meeting suggest that it was Henryk IV Probus was the unnamed participant in the congress who promised to help Wenceslaus II and Lev Danylovych.

Can information about position of Lev Danylovych during the Krakow campaign of Henryk IV Probus at the end of August 1289 help answer this question? Unfortunately, it is not known for sure in favor of which prince the actions of the Lev Danylovych were. We have only information from the Galician-Volynian chronicle that warriors of Lev Danylovych near Krakow «не оусппша ничтоже . и поиде Левь . во свожси . с четью великою вземь бесчисленое множество . полона . челлдии и скота и конии . и товара . славлще Баи прчетоую его Мтрь . помогшоу емоу»45. Could this indicate that there was no agreement with Wladyslaw I Lokietek, and the Galician prince with gifts from Wenceslaus II had just returned to the Rus' lands? Perhaps, this message reveals the failure of the Lev's army in alliance with Lokietek, so after this failure near Krakow, the Galician prince had more sense to return home.

However, it is known that the Galician prince did not stop there, and from the beginning of 1290 he together with the allied from the Golden Horde made a campaign in the Silesian lands46 up to Raciborz47, which was carefully studied by N. Mika. After the unsuccessful assault on Raciborz on January 16, Rus' troops abandoned the attempt to subdue the Raciborz prince to Wenceslaus II and moved on to the possession of their main adversary in Silesia, Henryk Probus48. It turns out that there were hardly any allied agreements between Lev Danylovych and Henryk Probus in Opava, if the Galician prince fought against the prince of Wroclaw shortly after their hypothetical meeting. However, a compromise peace between the rulers could have taken place as a result of the Silesian campaigns of the Galician prince. According to Austrian chroniclers, before his death, Henryk Probus gave the “king of Rus' ” lands and citys49. It was, obviously, about the recognition of the Lublin land captured by Lev during the war of 1289--129050. In response, the Galician prince could recognize Henryk as the prince of Krakow - such an alliance would be beneficial to both.

Henryk IV Probus, inspired by the success in Krakow in 1289, do the following step: he tried to restore the Polish royal title with the help of the Roman Curia51. But fortune was not in favor of the Prince of Wroclaw, and on June 23, 1290 he died suddenly, apparently poisoned52. Perhaps this turn of events is evidence that a coalition was formed against Henryk Probus, and that at the Opava meeting the unnamed Polish prince was not Henryk, but Wladyslaw I Lokietek, who from that moment acted in alliance with Wenceslaus II and Lev Danylovych. The above-mentioned matrimonial grounds, which became apparent shortly after Opava, may serve as an argument here.

What was the content of Polish-Rus'-Czech relations shortly after the Opava meeting, and especially after the death of Henryk IV Probus? Lev Danylovych supported Wladyslaw I Lokietek, who immediately after the death of the Silesian prince established himself in the Sandomierz principality53. At the same time, the Galician suzerain could't actively interfere in Polish events, because the events surrounding the struggle for the Hungarian throne became more relevant for him at that time, when on the Hungarian throne with the establishment of Andrew III (1265-1301) and the Hungarian-Galician alliance appeared. In the conditions when in 1292 Wenceslaus II attacked the Sandomierz principality of Wladyslaw I Lokietek, and in August of the same year the latter was forced to take a vassal oath of allegiance to the Czech king, Lev Danylovych openly did not interfere in the struggle, but later began to lean more and more. to the alliance with Wenceslaus II54.

As we can see, the congress in Opava in 1289 demonstrated how important and ambiguous the communication of the Central European rulers was in the struggle for the Krakow throne. Its key participants were the Czech and Gali- cian-Volynian suzerains, as well as some Polish princes. At the same time, the question of who the Polish prince was not named in the sources remains open, as there are arguments both in favor of the fact that Henryk IV Probus could be this prince and that it was Wladyslaw I Lokietek, and the sources are not enough to finally accept one version. This requires a careful study of the events that preceded the Opava meetings and took place soon. The matrimonial connections of the explicit and hypothetical participants of the meeting - Wenceslaus II, Lev Danylovych and Wladyslaw I Lokietek - are quite informative in this context, which may indicate that Prince Wladyslaw was unnamed participants in Opava.

The events of the next decade will only confirm what was said when the union of three rulers - Wenceslaus II, Lev Danylovych and Wladyslaw I Lokietek - bound by agreements and matrimonial ties, more than once found its expression in the vicissitudes of power struggle in Central and Eastern Europe. And this for some time determined the close Czech-Polish-Rus' communication of the late ХІІІ century.



Literature

Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 2. Ипатьевская летопись. СПб, 1908. стлб. 881, 933.

Joannis Dlugossii seu Longini Canonici Cracoviensis Historiae Polonicae: Libri XII. Ad Veterrimorum Librorum Manuscriptorum Fidem Recensuit, Variis Lectionibus Anno- tationibusque. Ed. A. Przezdziecki. Tomus II. Libri V, VI, VII, VIII. Cracoviae: 1873. P. 455-456.

Ottokars Osterreichische Reimchronik . Hrsg. J. Seemdller. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsbucher des Mittelalters. T. 5. Bd. 1. Hannoverae, 1890.P. 281, W. 21307-21311.

Vanrcek V. Velke dejmy zemi Koruny ceske. Praha-Litomysl: Paseka, 2002. Svazek III. 1250-1310. S. 410.

Полное собрание русских летописей. Т. 2. Ипатьевская летопись... стлб. 936.

Hlavacek I. Novy zlomek formulare biskupa Tobiase z Bechyne. Ceskoslovensky casopis historicky. 1958. Rocmk VI (56). Oslo 1. S. 545-561.

Mika N. Polityka czeska kniazia Lwa Danilowicza. Z dziejow stosunkow rusko-czes- kich w drugiej polowie XIII w. Przemysl i ziemia przemyska w strefie wplywow ruskich X-polowaXIVw. Red. V. Nagirnyy, T. Pudlocki. (Colloquia Russica, ser. II, vol. 1). Krakow,

S. 163-181. Його ж. Русь у сілезьких середньовічних джерелах (до кінця XIII ст.). Середньовічна Русь: Проблеми термінології. Ред. В. Нагірний, М. Волощук. (Colloquia Russica, ser. II, vol. 4). Івано-Франківськ-Краків, 2018. S. 227-249. Idem. Traktat w Opa- wie z 15 sierpnia 1289 roku. Przyczynek do pierwszego planu rozbiorowego Polski. Pro pana profesora Libora Jana k zivotmmu jubileu. Ed. B. Chocholac, J. MaHr, L. Reitinger, M. Wihoda. Brno, 2020. S. 287-302.

D^browski D. Stosunki polityczne Lwa Danilowicza z s^siadami zachodnimi. Галичина та Волинь у добу середньовіччя. До 800-річчя з дня народження Данила Галицького. Інститут українознавства ім. І. Крип 'якевича НАН України. Історичні та культурологічні студії. Т. 3. Львів, 2001. С. 42-69.

Ліхтей І. Суперництво польських князів за володіння Краковом у 80-х роках ХІІІ ст. й позиція галицького правителя Лева Даниловича та чеського короля Вацлава ІІ. Ужгородські польські наукові читання: історія, культура, політика, право. Ужгород,

С. 7-27.

Войтович Л.В. Князь Лев Данилович. Львів: НАН України. Інститут українознавства ім.І.Крип'якевича, 2012. Його ж. Лев Данилович: «князь думен и хоробор на рати» чи «безчесний князь»? Україна в Центрально-Східній Європі. Київ: Інститут історії України НАН України, 2013. Вип. 12-13. С. 148 -189. Його ж. Лев Данилович і боротьба за краківський престол в останній чверті ХІІІ ст. Проблеми слов 'янознав- ства. 2014. Вип. 63. С. 9-21. Його ж. Лев Данилович. Князь галицько-волинський (бл. 1225 - бл. 1301). Львів, 2014. Його ж. Галич у політичному житті Європи ХІ-XIV ст. Львів: Інститут українознавства ім. І. Крип'якевича, 2015.

Для прикладу, можна згадати праці авторитетних дослідників, у яких руський аспект чесько-польських відносин, зокрема участь Лева Даниловича в міжнародній комунікації, майже не береться до уваги: V. Vamcek, Velke dejiny zeme Koruny ceske. Praha-Litomysl: Paseka. (Svazek III. 1250-1310). S. 410-411; R. Antonin, Zahranicm politika krale Vaclava II. v letech 1283-1300. Svazek 26. Brno: Matice Moravska, 2009, S. 114-121. Idem. Malopolsko jako objekt zahranicm politiky Vaclava II. v letech 1289-1300. Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica. Praha: Historicky dstav AV CR, 2007. Cislo 11. S. 95-116.

D^browski D. Stosunki polityczne Lwa Danilowicza... S. 49.

Jasinski K. Rodowуd Piastуw sl^skich. T. 3. Wroclaw, 1977. S. 35-38; Sroka S. Z dziejуw stosunkуw polsko-w^gierskich w рутут srednowieczu. Krakуw, 1995. S. 34-36.

14Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Regni Bohemiae. Ed. J. Sebanek, S. Duskova. T. 5/1. Pragae, 1974. №50.

Ottokars Osterreichische Reimchronik. Ed. J. Seemdller. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Deutsche Chroniken. T. 5/1. Hannoverae, 1893. W. 15233-15234; Johannis ab- batis Victoriensis Liber centanum historianum. Ed. F. Schneider. Scriptores rerum ger- manicarum in usum scholarum. T. 43. Hannooverae-Lipsiae, 1909. P. 231, 277; Heiling K.J. Leopold Stainreuter von Wien der Verfasser der sogenannten Osterreichische Chronik von den 95 Herrschaften. Mittheilungen des Instituts fur Osterreichische Geschichts- forschung. T. 47. Innsbruck, 1933. S. 257; Anonimi Leobiensis chronicon. Ed. H. Pez. Scriptores rerum Austriacarum veteres ac genuini. T. 1. Lipsiae, 1721. P. 848; Ebendorfer Thomas. Chronica Austriae. Ed. A. Lhotski. Monumenta Germanie Historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Seraes Nova. T. 13. Berlin-Zdrich, 1967. P. 146; Die Weltchronik des Monchs Albert 1273/1277-1454/56. Ed. R. Sprandel. Id. T. 17. Monchen, 1994. P. 179; Eberhardi archidiaconi Ratisbonensis annals. Ed. Ph. Jaffe. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores. T. 17. Hannoverae, 1861. P. 593; Hermani Altahensis annals. Ed. Ph. Jaffe. Ibid. P. 410.

Див.: Паршин І. Участь Лева Даниловича у битві при Дюрнкруті 1278 року. Княжа доба: історія і культура. Львів, 2012. Вип. 6. С. 187-192; Його ж. Галицькі війська у битві при Дюрнкруті 1278 року: факти і здогади. Вісник Львівського університету. Серія історична. Львів, 2013. Вип. 48. С. 45-60. Його ж. Битва при Дюрнкруте 26 августа 1278 г.: альянс Льва Даниловича и Пшемысла Оттокара. Rossica Antiqua. Санкт-Петербург, 2012. №1 (5). С. 95-106. Його ж. Leon rex ruthenorum на сторінках “Anonymi Leobiensis Chronicon». SredniowieczePolskie iPowszechne. 2013. Zeszyt 5 (9).

S. 86-93.

Войтович Л. Лев Данилович і боротьба за краківський престол в останній чверті ХІІІ ст. Проблеми слов'янознавства. 2014. Вип. 63. С. 10.

Паршин І. Дипломатія Галицько-Волинської держави: європейські наративні джерела ХІІІ-XV століть. Львів: 2018. С. 185.

Dabrowski D. Stosunk polityczne Lwa Danilowicza... S. 54.

Флоровский А. Чехи и восточные славяне. Очерки по истории чешско-русских отношений (Х-XVIII вв.). В 2-х томах. Прага: Slovansky ustav, 1935. Т. 1. С. 255. J.Szymczak. Genealogia Przemyslidow z przelomu XIII i XIV wieku spokrewnionych z Piastami. Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Historia. T. 8 (54). Torun: 1973. S. 40-42.

Bar P. Vratislavsky vevoda Jindrich IV. Probus a posledm Premyslovci. Cesky casopis historicky. 2008. Rocmk 106. Cislo 4. S. 774.

Zbraslavska kronika. Chronicon aulae regiae. Prekl. F. Hermansky, verse preloz.

R. MertHk, historicka revise Z. Fiala, spoluprace M. Blahova. 2 oprav. vyd. Praha: Svoboda, 1976. S. 66; Ліхтей І. Суперництво польських князів. С. 19.

Reitinger L. Polske zeme a originalnost piastovske monarchie j ako inspirace a nastroj panovnicke sebeprezentace Premyslovch. [in:] Michalowski R., Pac, G. Oryginalnosc czy wtornosc? Studia poswi§cone polskiej kulturze politycznej і religijnej (Х--ХШ wiek). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2020. P. 233-290.

Formular biskupa Tobiase z Bechyne (1279-1296). Vyd. J. B. Novak. Historicky ar- chiv. C. 22. N. 192. Praha: Ceska akademie dsare Frantiska Josefa pro vedy, slovesnost a umem, 1903. P. 152.

D^browski D. Stosunki polityczne Lwa Danilowicza... S. 55; Jurek T. Plany korona- cyjne Henryka Probusa. Slqsk w czasach Henryka IVPrawego. Wratislavia Antiqua 8. Studia z dziejyw Wroclawia. Ed. K.Wachowski. Wroclaw, 2005. S. 24; Vanicek V. Velke dejmy zemi Koruny ceske. Svazek III. 1250-1310. Praha-Litomysl: Paseka, 2002. S. 410; Wlodar- ski B. Polska i Czechy w drugiej polowie XIII i pocz^tkach XIV wieku (1250-1306). Archiwum towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie. Dz. 2. T. 7. Z. 3. Lwyw: Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1931. S.112.

Ліхтей І. Суперництво польських князів... С. 20.

Там само.

Wlodarski B. Polska i Czechy w drugiej polowie XIII i pocz^tkach XIV wieku...

S. 112-113.

D^browski D. Stosunki polityczne Lwa Danilowicza... S. 55; Idem. Rodowod Romanowiczyw ksi^z^t halicko-wolynskich. Biblioteka Genealogiczna. T. 6. Poznan; Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Historyczne, 2002. S. 211-212.

T^gowski J. Zabiegi ksi^cia kujawskiego Wladyslawa Lokietka o tron krakowski w latach 1288-1293. Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzynskie. T. 6. Historia. Wloclawek: Wloclawskie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 1988. S. 48-49, 53-54.

Войтович Л.В. Князь Лев Данилович. Львів: НАН України. Інститут українознавства ім.І.Крип'якевича, 2012. С. 151.

Ліхтей І. Суперництво польських князів... С. 21.

D^browski D. Rodowod. S. 197-217. Войтович Л. Лев Данилович. С. 212.

D^browski D. Stosunki polityczne Lwa Danilowicza... S. 55.

Charvatova K. Vaclav II. Kral cesky a polsky. Velke postavy ceskych ddjin. Svazek 7. Praha: Vysehrad, 2007. S. 126. Волощук М. Княгиня Ґрифіна Ростиславівна, її польський шлюб та ймовірне руське оточення двору. Галичина: науковий і культурно- просвітній краєзнавчий часопис. Івано-Франківськ: 2017. Вип. 28. С. 12-19.

Козак С. Постать Кунегунди Ростиславни на тлі русько-чеських відносин другої половини ХІІІ ст. Актуальні проблеми вітчизняної та всесвітньої історії. 2018. Вип. 21. C. 7-12.

ПСРЛ... Стлб. 935-936.

Там же. Стлб. 936; Rocznik Cystersow Henrykowskich. Monumenta Poloniae His- torica: Pomniki dziejowe Polski. T.3. Lwow, nakl. Akademii Umiej^tnosci, 1878. S. 702..

Войтович Л. Князь Лев Данилович. С. 150.

Войтович Л. Лев Данилович... С. 212-213.

Antonin R. Zahranicm politika krale Vaclava II... S. 121.

T^gowski J. Zabiegi ksi^cia kujawskiego Wladyslawa Lokietka... S. 54-55.

Гваньїні Олександр. Хроніка європейської Сарматії. Упорядкув. та пер. з пол.

о. Ю. Мицика. Київ: Вид. дім «Києво-Могилянська академія», 2007. С. 115-116.; Joan- nis Dlugossii seu longini Canonici Cracoviensis Historiae Polonicae... Р. 500. І. Ліхтей. Суперництво польських князів. С. 22-23.

Ліхтей І. Там само. С. 23.

ПСРЛ... Стлб. 937.

Rocznik Cystersow Henrykowskich... P. 702.

Mika N. Racibyrz w obliczu najazdyw tatarskich i zagrozenia walaskiego. Racibyrz, 2002. S. 50-62. Idem. Polityka czeska kniazia Lwa Danilowicza... S. 176-177. Idem. Dzieje ziemi raciborskiej. 2. wyd. Krakow: Avalon, 2012. S. 45-46.

Міка Н. Русь у сілезьких. С. 247.

Ottokars Osterreichische Reimchronik. P. 284; Osterreichische Chronik von den 95 Herrschaften. Hrsg. J.Seemuller. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Deutsche Chroniken. T. 6. Hannoverae et Lipsae, 1909. P. 138; Ebendorfer Thomas. Chronica Austriae. P. 210-211.

Rocznik krakowski. Ed. A. Bielowski. Monumenta Poloniae Historica: Pomniki dziejowe Polski. T. 2. Lwow:Druk. Zakl. Nar. im. Ossolinskich, 1872. P. 852.; Войтович Л. Лев Данилович. С. 214.

Ottokars Osterreichische Reimchronik. P 287, v.21710-21714.

Bar P. Vratislavsky vevoda Jindrich IV. Probus.. S. 777. І. Ліхтей. Суперництво. С. 23.

Войтович Л. Лев Данилович. С. 215.

Там само. С. 216-217.



References

Anonimi Leobiensis chronicon. (1721). H. Pez (Ed.). Scriptores rerum Austriacarum veteres ac genuini. (Vol. 1). Lipsiae [in Latin].

Antonin, R. (2007). Malopolsko jako objekt zahranicm politiky Vaclava II. v letech 1289-1300. Mediaevalia Historica Bohemica, 11, 95-116 [in Czech].

Antonin, R. (2009). Zahranicm politika krale Vaclava II. v letech 1283-1300. (Svazek 26). Brno: Matice Moravska [in Czech].

Bar, P. (2008). Vratislavsky vevoda Jindrich IV. Probus a posledm Premyslovci. Cesky casopis historicky, 4, 753-787 [in Czech].

Charvatova, K. (2007). Vaclav II. Kral cesky a polsky. Velkepostavy ceskych ddjin. (Svazek 7). Praha: Vysehrad [in Czech].

Codex diplomaticus et epistolaris Regni Bohemiae. (1974). J. Sebanek, S. Duskova (Ed.). (Vol. 5/1). Pragae [in Latin].

D^browski, D. (2002). Rodowod Romanowiczуw ksi^z^t halicko-wolynskich. Bib- lioteka Genealogiczna. (Vol. 6.) Poznan; Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Historyczne [in Polish].

D^browski, D. (2001). Stosunki polityczne Lwa Danilowicza z s^siadami zachodnimi. Halychyna ta Volyn' u dobuseredn'ovichchia. Do 800-richchiazdnia narodzhenniaDanyla Halyts'koho. Instytut ukrainoznavstva im. I. Kryp'iakevycha NAN Ukrainy. Istorychni ta kul'turolohichni studii, 3, 42-69 [in Ukrainian].

Die Weltchronik des Monchs Albert 1273/1277-1454/56 (1994). R. Sprandel (Ed.). (Vol. 17). Monchen [in German].

Ebendorfer, Th. (1967). Chronica Austriae. A. Lhotski (Ed.). Monumenta Germanie Historica. Scriptores rerum Germanicarum. Seraes Nova. (Vol.13). Berlin-Zurich [in Latin].

Eberhardi archidiaconi Ratisbonensis annals. (1861). Ph. Jaffe (Ed.). Monumenta GermaniaeHistorica. Scriptores. (Vol. 17). Hannoverae [in Latin].

Florovskiy, A. (1935). Chekhi i vostochnye slavyane. Ocherkipo istorii cheshsko- russkikh otnosheniy (X-XVIII vv.). (Vol.1). Praga: Slovansky ustav [in Russian].

Formular biskupa Tobiase z Bechyne (1279-1296). (1903). Vyd. J. B. Novak. Historicky archiv. (C. 22. N. 192). Praha: Ceska akademie dsare Frantiska Josefa pro vedy, slovesnost a umem [in Czech].

Heiling, K. J. (1933). Leopold Stainreuter von Wien der Verfasser der sogenannten Osterreichische Chronik von den 95 Herrschaften. Mittheilungen des Instituts fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung. (Vol. 47). Innsbruck [in German].

Hermani Altahensis annals. (1861). Ph. Jaffe (Ed.). Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores. (Vol. 17). Hannoverae [in Latin].

Hlavacek, I. (1958). Novy zlomek formulare biskupa Tobiase z Bechyne. Ceskoslovensky casopis historicky, 1, 545-561 [in Czech].

Hvan'ini, O. (2007). Khronika ievropejs'koi Sarmatii. Kyiv: Vyd. dim Kyievo-Mo- hylians'ka akademiia [in Ukrainian].

Jasinski, K. (1997) RodowydPiastywslqskich. (Vol. 3). Wroclaw [in Polish].

Joannis Dlugossii seu Longini Canonici Cracoviensis Historiae Polonicae: Libri XII. (1873). Ad Veterrimorum Librorum Manuscriptorum Fidem Recensuit, Variis Lection- ibus Annotationibusque. A. Przezdziecki (Ed.). Tomus II. Libri V, VI, VII, VIII. Cracoviae [in Latin].

Johannis abbatis Victoriensis Liber centanum historianum. (1909). F. Schneider (Ed.). Scriptores rerum germanicarum in usum scholarum. (Vol. 43). Hannooverae-Lipsiae [in Latin].

Jurek, T. (2005). Plany koronacyjne Henryka Probusa. Sl^sk w czasach Henryka IV Prawego. Wratislavia Antiqua 8. Studia z dziejyw Wroclawia. K.Wachowski (Ed.). Wroclaw [in Polish].

Kozak, S. (2018). Postat' Kunehundy Rostyslavny na tli rus'ko-ches'kykh vidnosyn druhoi polovyny XIII st. Aktual'niproblemy vitchyznianoi ta vsesvitn'oi istorii, 21, 7-12 [in Ukrainian].

Likhtej, I. (2014). Supernytstvo pol's'kykh kniaziv za volodinnia Krakovom u 80-kh rokakh XIII st. j pozytsiia halyts'koho pravytelia Leva Danylovycha ta ches'koho ko- rolia Vatslava II. Uzhhorods'kipol's'ki naukovi chytannia: istoriia, kul'tura, polityka, pravo. Uzhhorod, 7-27 [in Ukrainian].

Mika, N. (2002). Racibyrz w obliczu najazdyw tatarskich i zagrozenia walaskiego. Racibyrz [in Polish].

Mika, N. (2012). Dzieje ziemi raciborskiej. Krakow: Avalon [in Polish].

Mika, N. (2013). Polityka czeska kniazia Lwa Danilowicza. Z dziejow stosunkow rusko-czeskich w drugiej polowie XIII w. Przemysl i ziemia przemyska w strefie wplywow ruskich, X-polowaXIV w. (Colloquia Russica, ser. II, vol. 1). Krakow, 163-181 [in Polish].

Mika, N. (2018). Rus' u silez'kykh seredn'ovichnykh dzherelakh (do kintsia XIII st.). Seredn'ovichnaRus': Problemy terminolohii. (Colloquia Russica, ser. II, vol. 4). Ivano- Frankivs'k-Krakiv, 227-249 [in Ukrainian].

Mika, N. (2020). Traktat w Opawie z 15 sierpnia 1289 roku. Przyczynek do pierwszego planu rozbiorowego Polski. Pro pana profesora Libora Jana k zivotnimu jubileu. Brno, 287-302 [in Polish].

Ottokars Osterreichische Reimchronik. (1890). Hrsg. J. Seemhller. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Deutsche Chroniken und andere Geschichtsbucher des Mittelalters. (T. 5. Bd. 1.). Hannoverae. W. 21307-21311 [in German].

Parshyn, I. (2012). Bytva pry Diurnkrute 26 avhusta 1278 h.: al'ians L'va Danylo- vycha y Pshemysla Ottokara. Rossica Antiqua, 1/5, 95-106 [in Ukrainian].

Parshyn, I. (2012). Uchast' Leva Danylovycha u bytvi pry Diurnkruti 1278 roku. Kniazha doba: istoriia i kul'tura, 6, 187-192 [in Ukrainian].

Parshyn, I. (2013). Halyts'ki vijs'ka u bytvi pry Diurnkruti 1278 roku: fakty i zdo- hady. VisnykL'vivs'koho universytetu. Seriia istorychna, 48, 45-60 [inUkrainian].

Parshyn, I. (2013). Leon rex ruthenorum na storinkakh Anonymi Leobiensis Chro- nicon. Sredniowiecze Polskie i Powszechne, 5/9, 86-93 [in Ukrainian].

Parshyn, I. (2018). Dyplomatiia Halyts'ko-Volyns'koi derzhavy: ievropejs'ki naratyvni dzherelaXIII-XVstolit'. L'viv [in Ukrainian].

Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey. (1908). (Vol. 2). Sankt-Peterburg [in Russian].

Reitinger, L. (2020). Polske zeme a originalnost piastovske monarchie jako inspirace anastroj panovnicke sebeprezentace Premyslovcu In: Michalowski R., Pac, G. Oryginalnosc czy wtornosc? Studia poswi§cone polskiej kulturze politycznej і religijnej (X-XIII wiek). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 233-290 [in Czech].

Rocznik Cystersow Henrykowskich. (1878). Monumenta Poloniae Historica: Pomniki dziejowe Polski. (Vol. 3). Lwow: nakl. Akademii Umiej^tnosci, 699-704 [in Latin].

Rocznik krakowski. (1872). A. Bielowski (Ed). Monumenta Poloniae Historica: Pomniki dziejowe Polski. (Vol. 2). Lwow: Druk. Zakl. Nar. im. Ossolinskich [in Latin].

Szymczak, J. (1973). Genealogia Przemyslidow z przelomu XIII i XIV wieku spok- rewnionych z Piastami. Acta Universitatis Nicolai Copernici. Historia, 8 (54), 39-54 [in Polish].

Sroka, S. (1995). Z dziejyw stosunkywpolsko-w§gierskich wpyznym srednowieczu. Krakyw [in Polish].

T^gowski, J. (1988). Zabiegi ksi^cia kujawskiego Wladyslawa Lokietka o tron krakowski w latach 1288-1293. Zapiski Kujawsko-Dobrzynskie. (Vol. 6). Wloclawek: Wloclawskie Towarzystwo Naukowe [in Polish].

Vanicek, V. (2002). Velke ddjmy zemi Koruny ceske. Praha-Litomysl: Paseka. (Svazek III. 1250-1310) [in Czech].

Vojtovych, L.V. (2012). Kniaz' Lev Danylovych. L'viv: NAN Ukrainy. Instytut ukrainoznavstva im. I.Kryp'iakevycha [in Ukrainian]

Vojtovych, L. (2013). Lev Danylovych: kniaz' dumen y khorobor na raty chy bez- chesnyj kniaz'? Ukraina v Tsentral'no-Skhidnij Yevropi, 12-13, 148-189 [in Ukrainian].

Vojtovych, L. (2014). Lev Danylovych i borot'ba za krakivs'kyj prestol v ostannij chverti XIII st. Problemy slov'ianoznavstva, 63, 9-21 [in Ukrainian].

Vojtovych, L. (2014). Lev Danylovych. Kniaz' halyts'ko-volyns'kyj (bl. 1225 - bl. 1301). L'viv [in Ukrainian].

Vojtovych, L. (2015). Halych u politychnomu zhytti Yevropy XI-XIVst. L'viv: In- stytut ukrainoznavstva im. I. Kryp'iakevycha [in Ukrainian].

Voloschuk, M. (2017). Kniahynia Gryfina Rostyslavivna, ii pol's'kyj shliub ta jmo- virne rus'ke otochennia dvoru. Halychyna: naukovyj i kul'turno-prosvitnij kraieznavchyj cha- sopys, 28, 12-19 [in Ukrainian].

Wlodarski, B. (1931). Polska i Czechy w drugiej polowie XIII i pocz^tkach XIV wieku (1250-1306). Archiwum towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie. (Dz. 2. T. 7. Z. 3). Lwow: Towarzystwo Naukowe [in Polish].

Zbraslavska kronika. Chronicon aulae regiae. (1976). Praha: Svoboda [in Czech].

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...