Great, great, strong and pious. The nicknames of medieval rulers, especially those who have been sewn with the label of eminence, can be extremely monotonous. Against this background, the familiar and unique Bolesław the Brave stands out. But - probably shouldn't. Because this nickname is one big piece of rubbish.
Historians have been arguing for several decades whether the third Polish king should be called "Bold" or "Szczodry". This problem is nothing, however, compared to the question of the nickname of the creator of the Piast empire. It has been used unanimously for several hundred years. If someone says "Chrobry", it is immediately known that it is the first crowned ruler of Poland, reigning from 992 to 1025.
On the surface, the term "Chrobry" was taken from the most reliable source. They can be found in the Latin form "Chrabri" in the pages of the first Polish chronicle - Gesta Principum Polonorum by a monk traditionally called Gallus Anonymous. There is also an epitaph in the second verse, which was probably placed on the king's tomb shortly after his death. The problem is that neither the first nor the second source - at least in the passages we are interested in - is authentic.
What Bolesław? Brave, great, wonderful?
Falsified Chronicle of Gall Anonymus?
In the main text, Gall Anonim consistently referred to Bolesław as "Magnus", which should be translated simply as Bolesław the Great. He broke off the only time he had described the king as "Gloriosus" on the occasion of his death - "the Magnificent." So what about the nickname Chrobry? It appears in the chronicle, but only in the title of one of the chapters of the first book. This heading is almost certainly not from Gall, but was added by one of the copyists of the work.
Such a conclusion is confirmed by the comment of the publisher of the chronicle, Karol Maleczyński. Already in 1952 he stated that in one of the manuscripts of Gestów - the so-called manuscript of Sędziwoj z Czechło - the nickname Chrobry is not used at all.
A fragment of an epitaph… that wasn't there?
Theoretically, this should not matter in the light of the text of the epitaph placed at the tomb of the ruler. It stated explicitly:"You were called Brave." Professor Brygida Kürbis, who discussed this text in detail, was of the opinion, however, that this particular passage did not fit in with the rest. It is metrically awkward and looks like a late addition, for example with the renovation of the tomb.
The other chronicler of the history of Poland, Wincenty Kadłubek, did not know the characteristic name of "Chrobry". It is difficult to justify this oversight, if indeed "Chrobry" was a nickname commonly associated with the first king. According to Professor Przemysław Wiszewski, the solution is very simple:there was no such nickname. It appears for the first time in Kronika Wielkopolska, a work written almost three hundred years after the death of King Bolesław! It was probably from there, around 1300, that he began to penetrate into other sources:he influenced late copies of the chronicle of Gallus Anonymus, as well as the text of the epitaph.
Piotr Michałowski, "The Brave's Entry to Kiev" (around 1837).
Bolesław the Great or the Great?
It seems that at the court of the Piast dynasty the respectable ancestor was referred to as "Bolesław the Great" throughout almost the entire Middle Ages. On the other hand, in church circles - as Wiszewski justifies in the work Domus Bolezlai. In search of the Piast dynastic tradition - the king was probably called "The Magnificent" ("Gloriosus"). It seems that this nickname was also originally in the text of the epitaph. After replacing "You were called Brave" with "You were called Great", the Latin text sounds flawless.
The question now what? It's high time to revise the manuals?