HERBARZ-L Archives

Archiver > HERBARZ > 2005-01 > 1106758343


From: "David Zincavage" <>
Subject: Re: Question regarding Zagloba
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:52:41 -0800
References: <2409A35B3E1C8D4D929583798DF5AA7803595615@whmail01.walterhav.com> <004d01c503c5$de83fe00$220110ac@FRED>


The first case of arms conferred, used, and inherited that we know about
with certainty are those of Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (died 1151), who is
said in a chronicle to have received his lioncels on the occasion of his
marriage from Henry I in 1127. The lioncels appear on Geoffrey's tomb,
obviously contemporaneous with his death, and are still borne by the kings
of England. In the late 12th century, heraldry is clearly being used by a
large number of European rulers. There seems to be some evidence of Norman
arms being used as far back as the 1130s.

Heraldry comes to Poland from Germany. The word _Herb_ derives from the
German _Erbe_ "an inheritance." Some interval of time from the mid-12th
century is required for heraldry to spread from Britain & France, where it
seems to have originated to Germany & Bohemia, and then to Poland. It is
clear that any legends of origin claiming that some Polish coat of arms is
associated with events before the 13th century is quite impossible.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wfhoffman" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: Question regarding Zagloba


> Greetings!
>
> I heard recently from a gentleman who raised a point some of you might be
> able to clarify. He read the English translation of Niesiecki's entry on
> Zagloba printed in the August 1999 issue of PGSA's Journal _Rodziny_,
which
> I edit. If you wish to look at the translation, it appears on the PGSA
> Website at http://www.pgsa.org/Hearldry/herbarzZ.htm.
>
> One sentence in the translation read "The variations in the arms occurred
> during the reign of Kazimierz the Monk." My correspondent said, "This is
> incorrect. The original states Kazimierz Michal. Michal (Michael) is not
> Monk. There was Kazimierz Odnowiciel also called Monk but in the first
half
> of 11th century, a far too early a period. The time period and events
> mentioned in description are more appropriate to Kazimierz Wielki but his
> second name is not mentioned in common history books."
>
> I checked the photocopy I had of the excerpt from _Herbarz Polski_ and
> verified that the original text read "Czas tej odmiany naznaczaja za
> panowanie Kazimierz Mnicha," not "Michala." I explained that the original
> Polish text specified Kazimierz Mnich, not Kazimierz Michal, and there was
> no need to print a correction.
>
> It turns out this gentleman's family papers included a nadwritten history
of
> herb Zagloba, and he sent me a scan of it. Upon close study I realized
that
> this history was a verbatim copy of Niesiecki -- except the copier
> apparently misread "Mnicha" as "Michala," or else decided "Mnicha"
couldn't
> be right and substituted "Michala." I explained that it's easy to verify
the
> existence of a Polish king called Kazimierz Mnich, but none of my sources
> mentioned a Kazimierz Michal. Again I said, the translation did not
require
> a correction.
>
> But he insisted that Niesiecki must be wrong, because the reign of
Kazimierz
> I Odnowiciel, also called Mnich, was much too early for the events
described
> by Niesiecki. So even though the translation was correct, Niesiecki had
his
> facts wrong.
>
> I frankly admit, I don't know enough about Polish heraldry to express a
> qualified opinion. Is the reign of Kazimierz I Odnowiciel too early to be
> plausible?
>
> I know anyone who reads Niesiecki soon realizes that he repeats some
dubious
> information. As I understand it, Niesiecki is highly regarded because he
> followed the principles of a true historian, citing sources whenever
> possible and trying to provide the best information he could find, without
> attempting to flatter the vanity of nobles. So although his "facts" are
> often wrong, the foundation of the work is solid enough that subsequent
> scholars have been able to build upon it, and improve it.
>
> I'd be interested in any comments readers care to make. It's no longer a
> question of the accuracy of the translation. I just wonder if one can say
> with reasonable certainty that the reign of Kazimierz I is too early for
the
> variation in arms that led to the creation of Zagloba herb.
>
> Fred Hoffman
> Editor of _Rodziny_
>
>
>

This thread: