Puzyna
M Sjostrom
1 Rurik, varyag chieftain, lord of Aldeigjuborg in Lake Ladoga, Duke of
Goroditshe of Ilmen = Holmgard, lake Ilmajärvi (born est 850; died after est
900)
2 king Ingvar, Igor Rjurikovich, sovereign of Kievan Rus (born est 900;
killed 945); married Helga = Olga 'Helena' of Pleskov
3 king Sviatoslav Igorevich, sovereign of Kievan Rus (bc 935; killed 972);
had concubine Malusha of Liubech
4 king Valadimir Sviatoslavich, duke of Veliki Novgorod, sovereign of
Kievan Rus (bc 958; d 1015); married firstly Ragneda Ravalovodna of Polatsk
5 king Jaroslav Vladimirich, duke of Veliki Novgorod, sovereign of Kievan
Rus (b est 982; d 1054); married secondly Ingegerd Olofsdotter 'Eirene' of
Sweden
6 king Sviatoslav II Jaroslavich, duke of Chernihiv, sovereign of Kievan
Rus (b 1027; d 1076); married firstly Cicilia
7 prince Oleg Sviatoslavich 'Mikhail' of Tmutarakan, 'gorislavich', duke of
Siveria (b 1050s; d 1115); married firstly despoina Theophano Mouzalonissa
8 king Vsevolod II Olgovich, duke of Chernihiv, sovereign of Kievan Rus (b
est 1090; d 1146); married Maria Mstislavna of Ruthenia
9 king Sviatoslav III Vsevolodich, duke of Chernihiv etc, sovereign of
Kievan Rus (b 1120s; d 1194); married Maria Vasilkovna of Polatsk
10 king Vsevolod Sviatoslavich 'the Red', duke of Belgorod and Chernihiv,
sovereign of Kievan Rus (b est 1160; d 1212); married Anastasia of Poland
11 king Mikhail Vsevolodich, St.Michael, duke of Chernihiv, Perejaslavl,
Siveria, etc, sometime sovereign of Kievan Rus (b est 1185; martyred in
1146); married Maria Romanovna of Volhynia
12 prince Roman, duke of Briansk and Chernihiv (b est 1220s; d aft 1288), or
alternatively some younger son of St.Michael
13 prince Mstislav, possibly duke of Karachev - or a grandson of St.Michael
- or as traditional (and probably mistaken genealogies present it) no
generation at all
14 prince Tit, possibly duke of Kozelsk (Two of his sons were mentioned as
direct agnatic descendants of St.Michael, so prince Tit was one such too.
Probably his father was Mstislav, but at least he was great-grandson or
grandson of St.Michael.)
15 prince Ivan Titovich, Duke of Kozelsk (fl 1371; born bef est 1340) [Ivan
Titovich is attested as one of direct descendants of St.Michael]; married
Agrafena Olegovna of Riazan (b after est 1350)
16 prince Vasilei 'hlazyna', one of heirs of Kozelsk (born est 1390s; died
after est 1450) [He was according to local knowledge and tradition in next
centuries one of heirs of principality of Kozelsk, which meant in that
cultural context that he was patrilineally descended from some rulers of
Kozelsk, an odel held by the branch of Ivan Titovich. He could even have
been a younger son born to middle-aged Ivan Titovich. Chronologically he is
well as grandson of Ivan, or at least was direct descendant in second or
more generations from Tit]
17 prince Ivan Vasilievich of Kozelsk, [possibly 'puzina'] (mentioned in
1482; died after 1494; born est 1530)
18 prince Ivan Ivanavich 'hluzhonak', lord of Nosovo (mentioned in 1496;
died after 1517; born bef est 1470), holder of estate of Nosov in Melnitski
19 prince Timafej Ivanavich [? 'puzyna'] (mentioned in 1517; died after
1528; born est 1490)
20 prince Pietr Timafejevich of Kozelsk, 'puzyna' (mentioned in 1551; died
after 1564; born est 1520s), he is ascertained with byname Puzyna
21 prince Janis Petrovicius (Jonas) Puzinis (mentioned in 1586; died after
1604; born est 1560)
22 prince Jeronimas Janavicius Puzinas, marshal of Upyte (mentioned in 1629;
died in c1666; born est 1590s), marshal of Upyte in Lithuania, calvinist
23 prince Jeronimas Puzinas (mentioned in 1667; died after 1681; born est
1640)
24 prince Aleksandras Puzinas (mentioned in 1715; died after 1723; born est
1680s)
25 prince Adamas Aleksandrovicius Puzinas (mentioned in 1733; died after
1774; born est 1710); married Darata-Elzbieta Tyzenhauzaite
26 prince Jokubas Adamovicius Puzinas (mentioned in 1754; died in 1792; born
est 1730s); married: Benedikta Stasevskaite
27 prince Ksaveras Bartolomejus Puzinas (b est 1770s)
28 prince Aloyzas Jokubas Puzinas (b 1802 at Sukionys, Lithuania; d 1868 at
Panevezys, Lithuania); married: Marijona Stasevskaite (d 1885 at Riga,
Latvia)
29 prince Povilas Puzinas (b 1839 at Sukionys, Lithuania; d 1911 at
Vinnytsia, Podolia, Ukraine); married Ona Burbaite, heiress of Belvederis
(b 1849 at Belvederis, near Kaunas; d 1872 at Gruze)
30 prince Cheslovas Juozapas Petras Puzinas, lord of Belvederis (b 1871; d
1929), his estate of Belvederis was near Kaunas, Lithuania
31 Professor Czeslaw ksiaze Puzyna, Doctor of Science in Acoustics (b 1920
at Warsaw; d 2003 at Warsaw)
there are two male generations more, both generations alive
32
33
-----
M Sjostrom
this is to outline my leading hypothesis about the matter.
Recently, the tradition that the Oginskis and Puzyna princes were directly
descended in male line from Dukes of Kozelsk and directly from St.Michael of
Chernihiv, received a practically uncontestable proof: their Y DNA is shown
to be Rurikid. 'Beyond reasonable doubt'.
Using this as solid starting point (analogous to axiomatic), it became a
relevant exercise to sort out how the forefather, Vasilei hlazyna, actually
would fit to the known Rurikid family tree.
Vasilei Hlazyna's clear progeny down to his grandsons in late 1400s and
their issue in the early 1500s, is featured in S.L.Ptashitski Ptaszycki,
1899, kniazhnia Pyzyni. Peterburg 1899.
Vasilei Hlazyna's some great-grandsons were adults in 1510s.
Vasilei Hlazyna's eldest grandson was adult in 1486. This means the said
grandson must have been born in about 1460 or earlier.
This sets Vasilei's own birth to about 1400 or a bit earlier. And such fits
to what is known: in about 1440s (or in mid-1400s), Vasilei hlazyna
received a fief in the region of Smolensk. It is still fitting to the
context that he was about in his middle years (such as, fifties or so) when
that occurred.
The datings of great-grandsons, grandsons, etc, pin down it and mean that
Vasilei cannot been born much later than the year 1400. Vasilei Hlazyna
could quite plausibly been born in the 1390s, for example.
There was an early tradition, already within a century from Vasilei Hlazyna,
that they belong to the branch of the Rurikid dukes who had held the
principality of Kozelsk. This was shown on early days already, when an
addition 'Kozelski' (or equivalent) was present occasionally in their names
in documentation.
Of the several attested ruling dukes of Kozelsk in various times along
earlier centuries, my attention focused on the latest known of them in the
1300s:
Ivan Titovich, duke of Kozelsk, who was mentioned as adult and ruler in
1371.
Now the source which narrates also about his marriage, reveals that the wife
was Agrafena Olegovna of Riazan. The family circumstances of Oleg of Riazan
are a bit better known from records, and it is relatively clear that the
specific Oleg of Riazan in the 1300s, could not have any children born much
before the year 1350. Rather, his eldest children would plausibly been born
precisely in the 1350s.
So, even if Ivan Titovich (mentioned in 1371 as ruler of his principality)
were himself born in 1330s or 1340s (as he well might have been), still any
children he would have had with the known wife, Agrafena, must been born in
the 1370s at earliest - and Agrafena (who probably was born in the first
half of the 1350s, as she was married with her husband in or before 1371)
was biologically capable to have children up to last years of the 1300s -
she turned 45 years only sometime in the 1390s at earliest.
Vasilei Hlazyna is easier to believe to been a younger son, because his
known life does not involve him as *the* successor in the rule of the
family's sovereign duchy, Kozelsk.
So, a simple (and quite possible) solution is that Vasilei hlazyna would
have been one of youngest children born to Agrafena Olegovna and Ivan
Titovich. This solution does not suffer any, even if Ivan himself was
possibly nearing even his sixtieth birthday at the time of the conception,
or was fifty years old. Men were having children at such ages, provided they
were themselves alive and had a bit younger wife. Genealogical research
knows well that it usually are wives who are bottlenecks, and thusly helpful
in chronological analysis.
Why would Vasilei been of the progeny of Ivan Titovich, and not some
collateral relative of Ivan Titovich ?
Ivan Titovich's brothers (two names are establishedly known: Adrian and
Sviatoslav) had -according to historical records- received other fiefs than
Kozelsk, so there is less merit in reconstruing Vasilei to have come from
some other way from the extended family of Ivan Titovich - had he been a
nephew or son of a cousin, the heirship then repeated in names of his
descendants (the Hlazyna) should have been the name of another little
principality, and not Kozelsk. But it is well established that the name of
Kozelsk was the one in names and traditional titles of the Oginskis and
Puzina.
Still, all this said, I guess that with a bit altered dating parameters
which however are possible, Vasilei Hlazyna could be a paternal grandson of
Ivan Titovich, and still practically everything presented above to support
his filiation to Ivan Titovich, would equally hold.
2010/7/7 M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com>
M Sjostrom
duke Ivan Titovich
married Agrafena Olegovna of Riazan
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00304602&tree=LEO
2010/7/8 M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com>
according to ES, duke Ivan Titovich's sons included:
* prince Roman, of Kozelsk [he is accredited as the forefather of princes
Gortsakov]
* prince Fedor, of Eletsk [he is accredited as the forefather of princes
Eletski] about him, I however have some doubts
It is narrated that some epoch later, the dukes of Kozelsk moved their seat
to Peremyshl, this becoming the new capital of the family principality.
I have gathered that the town of Kozelsk itself was annexed to Moscow by its
sovereign Vasilei I (d 1425).
>
> So, a simple (and quite possible) solution is that Vasilei hlazyna would
> have been one of youngest children born to Agrafena Olegovna and Ivan
> Titovich. This solution does not suffer any, even if Ivan himself was
> possibly nearing even his sixtieth birthday at the time of the conception,
> or was fifty years old. Men were having children at such ages, provided they
> were themselves alive and had a bit younger wife. Genealogical research
> knows well that it usually are wives who are bottlenecks, and thusly helpful
> in chronological analysis.
>
> Why would Vasilei been of the progeny of Ivan Titovich, and not some
> collateral relative of Ivan Titovich ?
> Ivan Titovich's brothers (two names are establishedly known: Adrian and
> Sviatoslav) had -according to historical records- received other fiefs than
> Kozelsk, so there is less merit in reconstruing Vasilei to have come from
> some other way from the extended family of Ivan Titovich - had he been a
> nephew or son of a cousin, the heirship then repeated in names of his
> descendants (the Hlazyna) should have been the name of another little
> principality, and not Kozelsk. But it is well established that the name of
> Kozelsk was the one in names and traditional titles of the Oginskis and
> Puzina.
>
> Still, all this said, I guess that with a bit altered dating parameters
> which however are possible, Vasilei Hlazyna could be a paternal grandson of
> Ivan Titovich, and still practically everything presented above to support
> his filiation to Ivan Titovich, would equally hold.
>
>
>
> 2010/7/7 M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com>
>
>
M Sjostrom
>
>
> 30 prince Cheslovas Juozapas Petras Puzinas, heir of Belvederis (b 1871; d
> 1929), his maternal heritage, the estate of Belvederis was near Kaunas,
> Lithuania
>
> 31 Professor Czeslaw ksiaze Puzyna, Doctor of Science in Acoustics (b 1920
> at Warsaw; d 2003 at Warsaw)
>
professor Czeslaw ksiaze Puzyna, Doctor of Science in Acoustics (b 1920 at
Warsaw; d 2003 at Warsaw); married (1949)
professor, Dr. Jadwiga Zapolska (lives in Poland; b 1928 at Rozyshe,
Volhynia, Ukraine), university professor, linguist, philologist
who is in Genealogics:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00458818&tree=LEO and has
that Meck- Tsaikovski ancestry
>
> there are two male generations more, both generations alive
> 32
> 33
>
>
as sometimes mentioned, it has been a paternal grandson (b 1985) of Czeslaw
and Jadwiga, who made the Y-DNA test