Mieszko of Poland

[Rafal Prinke]

"Todd A. Farmerie" <ta...@PO.CWRU.EDU> wrote:

>It is in Stuart. He states that Miesko I was originally a viking named
>Dag, but then (as only Stuart can) goes on to provide the viking Dag
>with the Piast ancestry of traditionally polish Miesko. I have not had
>the time to track down his sources (so many errors, so little time), and
>was just hoping someone else knew about this claim.

Just to explain - the name Dago or Dagon for Mieszko appears only
once - in a circa 991 document (known as "Dagome iudex" from the initial
words) in which the town of Gniezno is presented to Rome (most probably
in ecclesiastical sense as Gniezno was the archbishopric).

The original of the document is now believed to be lost but was
seen in Italy in the 19th c. and is known from sevaral later
summaries.

As far as the name itself is concerned, it is now generally believed
by Polish medievalists to have been Mieszko's baptismal name
(he accepted Christianity in 966) and therefore was used
in a church-related document.

The valid ancestry of Mieszko is now accepted to be:
Siemowit/Ziemowit -> Lestko/Leszek -> Siemomysl -> Mieszko

The early story about Siemowit's parents - the peasant Piast and
his wife Rzepka/Rzepicha - is part of dynastic propaganda, most
probably to justify taking over the rule from an earlier dynasty
(the name Popiel is mentioned in early chronicles as "the bad guy"
but sounds suspicious).

BTW: the name of the "Piast dynasty" started to be used only
in the 18th c. - earlier it was simply "the Polish dynasty"
as opposed to other dynasties ruling in Poland.

Best regards,

Rafal