These are the three things I am satisfied with:
the first one - speculations on the theory of the law
the second one - speculations on the complex numbers
the third one - translations of medieval texts

Below there are a few translated sections referring to the Polish Kingdom coming from writtten in the years1368 - 1385


Cronica Polonorum 1285 A.D.

Each work defends itself, and if it does not then let it consign to oblivion. That is how things should be.
Such a notion could be applied to works within one or maybe two generations. What is more, for a work to become part of a particular group, class or as in the following case nation, matters get more complicated as cultures and languages change, historical memory fades. Polish country and its nation also possess such works which have been preserved long enough, although their volume is much smaller than those of our neighbours from the south, east or west. So those which have remained are even of greater value.
I made the first attempt to translate so-called Polish-Silesia chronicle (Chronica Polonorum - CP) or it was rather an intention, in March 2013, but soon I abandoned it as I received very hostile or even disrespectful comments on it in so-called literature subject. Only after having finished works on translating the Chronicles of Polish Dukes (Chronica Principum Polonie CPP) I came back to the topic.

The work The Polish-Silesia chronicle dates back as a piece of work to the end of the thirteenth century and most probably constitutes – regarding the history of Silesia – a compilation or summary of an unknown work, being itself penned by two or three authors. They use styles different from each other. The first part – as it is widely considered – is peculiarly written by Kadłubek (a Latin history of Poland written by Vincent Kadłubek – hence the name) the beginning of the thirteenth century) . What is interesting CP includes a passage which reads that Bishop Fulco listened to the account of the battle of Mozgava. It gives a million-to-one but still a slim chance that those words were written by a witness of the events or by one who heard about it himself, or I would say, by a person who almost saw it. These are of course only assumptions and what is more deeply flawed ones.
The supposed summery by Kadlubek is particularly peculiar. The longer I think about it the more doubts I have which one of them was the actual archetype. Kadlubek's writing used to be wordy. CP is written specifically. By and large, CP appear to be – at least to me – highly credible. It presents the facts. Contrary to CPP CP almost does not seem to be a summery at all, and the author (or the authors) is always aware of what he is writing about. The author of CPP somewhat twists the facts, although he does not tend to embellish to much either, apart from citing the lives of a few saints.

The Language.
The language used in CP is classically composed Latin but at least in two writing styles. Obviously, the way of expressing thoughts has changed over the years, words have changed their meanings, verbs have become nouns and vice versa. Nevertheless, this piece of writing is much easier to translate than CPP. Man thinks universally however even when expressing thoughts deep down in his spirit man thinks in a given language. The author of CP must have learnt to think in Latin, and if he thought, read and wrote in a Romance language, so he was not Polish, contrary to the author of CPP who thinks in Polish and not Latin, which is shown through the way of building sentences and other features of his writing. Combining the two trends of the above statements, I advance ambiguous although insignificant thesis that CP and Kadlubek's work, at least in their common part, were very close to each other at the time of their creation. To simplify matters I will continue writing exclusively about Kadlubek.
Besides, those are not the most significant aspects, as the most important is, as I consider, the feeling that I have been able to unravel main sources which Kadlubek based his works on including the identification of famous Olophagus. That is – I have managed to recognise the main source of the ideas, which will be discussed later, however, I am not able to point out the direct source, if such existed at all. Among them were, firstly – as the direct source - the works of Constantine VII, mainly due to the fact that these constituted the last, fairly universal for the eastern and western part of the Empire source of historical knowledge. Finally however, I rejected the view. Firstly, as after having examined them I found neither the confirmation nor the characters and events' archetypes described both in CP and other chroniclers from the thirteenth century. Secondly, they were written in Greek and Kadlubek used Latin; he knew Greek at most from hearsay as he studied at a romanised university. Obviously, if the thesis that Kadlubek was not the author of the original work was accepted, than such reasoning could not be applied. Another direct source could be the works in an Old Russian language such as those written by Nestor. Yet again , despite existing quite strong connections between the country of the Piast and Russia, – I rejected it, as the Rus (i.e. the Varangians) or the Ruthenians, and these terms are not identical contrary to the view held in CC, - were closer to Byzantine rather than Rome. Moreover, in Poland of that time there was a growing view on cultural independence. It is not impossible though that Kadłubek drew the story of Saint George from that cultural field. Then I examined the Germanic sources. And here indeed, one particular work was used, as it seems, at least as an idee fixe, and it was Thietmari Merseburgiensis Episcopi Chronicon, Volume VI, section 82. Although these are only a few sentences, Kadlubek's entire, possible content in CP (or vice versa) consists of several dozen sentences.

Let us go back now to the story of Saint George, who fights against a dragon demanding preys, preferably virgins. About virgins – at some other time. A future saint, according to a legend, was a legionary born at the end of the second century A.D. As a soldier he used to be in the service here and there, until one day he ventured to Libya were he fought against a dragon. Let us not leave dragons, because as it turns out in so-called Krakow-Czestochowa Upland (Jurassic Highland) the fossils of dinosaurs could be still found there, which certainly did not go unnoticed by Kadłubek. Let us leave Saint George for a moment and focus on the main source although arguably not the direct one.

Pompilus (that is, chosen by a pilum -a javelin or spear used by the Roman army - that is, legionaries armed with such a kind of javelin), originated in a military camp which was strong and well fortified (like a Roman, military camp), “Grakchus”, “Cezar Julijski”, Julia, these are traces of Roman culture. Alexander – mostly associated with Alexander the Great – as CCP states. Whereas, CP does not say about the Great but Alexander, the King of Macedonia. Has this fact gone unnoticed by researchers? It was not until the end of the sixteenth century that it was written about Alexander the Great. At the end of the thirteenth century – about Alexander, the King of Macedonia. Where do – as it was thought – Alexander, Julius Caesar and other characters appear from in the history of Poland? One particular view overshadowed others that is, Kadlubek wanted to add extra gravity to the origin of the Piasts or generally speaking to the origin of both Polish country and its nation. Everyone probably thought that these were only parallels or comparisons made by Kadlubek, or even that he was a fantasiser or storyteller. Indeed, as one of the Polish authorities wrote in his comments to Kadlubek, he made up the officials' names of Pompilus. On the other hand, as I have established, those are not invented terms but the officials' names taken from so-called The Codex Theodosianus from the year 438 A.D. That was probably the turning point in approaching the described stories.
And by the way, Kadłubek is not a fantasiser, both experts and authorities are wrong.
And what if Kadłubek quotes, discusses or summarizes ? If Alexander mentioned by him is not Alexander the Great, so maybe even Roman Emperor – Julian (that is how I translated it the first time) is not Julius Caesar or Emperor at all? Maybe Julia is not a proper name but a family closeness term? So here I came back once again to Pompilus, that is, the one chosen by those armed with a pilum – a javelin, that is legionaries, as the translation seemed to me accurate. That is how I was gathering unarticulated till the end thoughts.
And all the time that Pannonia, that is Hungary, as it is commonly translated these days.
Pannonia, Pompilus, Grakchus.
Pompilius, Pannonia, Grakchus.
What does it mean?
And particularly one sentence stood out: There is a city in the north of Pannonia, (swept by the north wind) called Carantas .
And if it is the north wind in Pannonia, and Carantas, legionaries, Rome etc. then this settlement is Carantum – a quarter of X and other legionaries during Marcus Aurelius, and Pannonia is Pannonia Superior – a district of Imperium Romanum. Indeed, Mark Aurelius was not chosen by the Danube legions. It was actually Septimius Severus.

Later, a great help came from historical knowledge.
His sons are Geta and Caracalla. The latter one considered himself not only a follower of Alexander the Great ideas, but also Alexander himself. Perhaps they were only brothers from a story told by Kadłubek in a few minor threads. A confusing parallel about the setting sun which turned into an imperial diadem – it reminded me of the conquest of Scotland described by Cassius Dio in Roman Chronicles – volume 77 and the following. In addition – selected passages from Kadlubek fit the story about Caracalla's exploits, about Marcomannic Wars. Mostly the details did not match, however the main keynote remained the same that is, the archetypes. So Kadłubek described, on the basis of an unknown summary or from hearsay - Roman Chronicles by Cassius Dio.
It was even possible, though here I have some doubts, to work out Wanda and the River Vistula (though the name does not actually appear in the text) also the description of Caracalla's exploits against Wastalek – Vesthal. From Vestal to Vistula, only half a step. I leave the details for the future generations, if they are interested.
It is important, although slightly sad, that the story of Krak and the origins of the Polish country is the story of the Danube crossed by the army of Mark Aurelius and about his successors as well as other events of the second century A.D., the events that shaken the contemporary world. The story of Popiel is at least partly the story of Septimius Severus.

As it seems to me, it will be hard to anyone to deny the above advanced theses.
The detailed references to Cassius Dio could be found in the footnotes.
These and other engrossing threads , although they fall into a coherent whole, did not explain the story of a monster Olophagus, the story that caught and held the imagination of a few generations of writers, researchers and readers. And if it is not Olophagus – I thought – but for example Olofagos, Olofargo. Olofargus, and what is more, written by Omega not by “O” (refers to Greek alphabet). Certainly, somewhere out there I came across attempts to explain the word deriving from holos etc. . “F” which is Latin ''ph'' could it be the letter ''pi''?
Some nuances.
Olofago, which should not have escaped my attention, appears both as a human being as well as an unknown animal – a symbol, a counterpart of a particular phenomenon. Why should not I be right?
And even more interesting is the following question: why did not anyone associate all those facts earlier? I have no idea, but the experience with translating both of the texts was a great intellectual challenge with a huge dose of fun at the same time. Statuta salis included in the volume, indeed gave a clear picture as well as matters' judgement on affairs of Polish Kingdom at the end of the fourteenth century, as well as other translated documents. The translation of CPP and CP however, resolved mysteries which have been unexplained for thousand years. I am even more pleased, that I myself participated in unravelling them. Coming back to Olofago. Written in Greek (with another spelling twister) Oloffago found himself at Herodotus (Histories, volume I, part four, section 175-180). Furthermore, not only did he find himself in logical sense but also geographical one, as the indicated sections refer to the events which happened in Libya, where the earth blazes with fire (underground sources of oil) etc. And what does Septimius Severus have to do with it?
Indeed he has.
There is a legend – most probably originated from Romania – the seat of veteran- legionaries in the second and third century A.D., about a dragon from Libya which was summoned by the last dragon lady from Pannonia to arrive there in order to impregnate her. Septimius Severus was born in Africa. As a legionaries commander he settled in Pannonia Superior. He took power in Rome. He defeated Prescennius Niger (called Crassus), the usurper of the imperial power, whose people in fear of Severus escaped to the Parts. His son Caracalla competed with his brother Geta, considered himself Alexander Macedonian, waged wars in Scotland, where the Sun could not set. Caracalla raped Vesthales (Wandas who did not want to have men). He created silver-golden-shield legionaries (the chronicles by Dzierzwa and Kadlubek). He also achieved lots of other feats. That is how, I suppose, the story of Polish history, that probably comes from Kadłubek unfolds,which is the history of Roman and settled cultures clash. And I have almost forgotten – Olofago lived by the mountain blazing with fire and sulphur. Of course it refers to Vesuvius and its eruptions also described in the chronicles by Cassius Dio. This raises one more question: how did it happen that those stories do not appear in the Czech history?
Fragmentarily they are – the story of Krok. Krok died without leaving any heirs.
I also wrote a few words in the footnotes about how the Piasts history is to be understood.
Piast, Repiza, Semowit and Zemomysł these are the kinds of activities, which together with the food description give a picture of a sedentary lifestyle. There is one date in CPP, not found in CP, as regards the year 800 and events described in a form of stories about the beginning of the statehood. And if the story of horseshoe horses, kind of a joke of two boys to take over power through a horse race, is actually a reminiscence about taking over power by Hungarians in the Moravian country at the beginning of the ninth century or a civil war description between Swietopelek's sons. If it was so than the given history of the beginning of the Polish statehood is a reminiscence of the legends explaining the history of the Duchy of Great Moravia origin. And here I should pause once again.
There were two not three pilgrims who visited Piast, which would refer to the record of New Testament on Three Kings.
And they came to a simple Piast as they were not welcomed by the royal court.
And if those two pilgrims were actually the ones spurned by the Emperor of Kingdom of the East Francs who was well known for his support for the bishops in his Christianisation mission – that is Cyril and Methodius. Let us assume for a while that this is so, and I am supported in this belief by an entry from the Life of the Saint Methodius (section 10) that after arriving at Swietopelek's court, conversion to the faith was done by the ritual first haircut. This method of a haircut as a way of the Christians recognition was mentioned both in CPP and CP, and new followers of Jesus Christ were called '' postrzyzeniec – that is, the ones who had their hair cut or shaved. According to the tradition provided by the Polish chronicles – the pilgrims arrive for POSTRZYZYNY (the ritual first haircut). Hence, the pilgrims almost certainly turn out to be Cyril and Methodius, and the thread seems to be a Slavic thread. The ritual first haircut ( polish - postrzyzyny ) - most certainly a custom from the Pagan times - a transition to the authority of the father by shortening the boy's long hair symbolizing the mother's authority, to the short one - symbolizing the father's authority. And that tradition merged with the Christian style haircut. Then, in the mentioned legends, their second part unfolds that is, in details – the second thread appears, the one more contemporary for the creator. Both threads or parts are connected by explicit recollection of Vandals and Attyla tribes, that is, the time between the fourth and eighth centuries A.D. - the time of so-called migration of human populations. Whilst the first part is the transformed content of Cassius Dio's chronicle, the second is perhaps the reminiscence of the events from the ninth century in Moravia. The dispute between the two brothers over the power is perhaps the dispute between Swietopelek II with his brother Moymir II. Perhaps the horse with shod hooves symbolises Western knighthood using shod horses, and which lost the race for power in Moravia.
It is striking that – if the hypothesis about Cyril and Methodius is true – they are not mentioned by names. That would be an argument that this factor as well as the element of competition for power did not come from written sources or it was created long after the events, so long that it was forgotten to whom it referred. Anyway – they came from the people who could not identify not very distant events, or from those who could not express themselves directly.

The work circulation
Now, let us go back to Cosmas of Prague and his Krok.
Cosmas was a Czech and not a Moravian.
The tradition of his Czech culture is not the same as the tradition of Moravian culture. However, Cosmas writes about Krok, so he does not want to efface the legend entirely. He simply does not refer to the origin of the Czech state. The legend of Grakk, of Krakow is therefore the legend which lived on, on our – currently Polish side of the Carpathians.

Why am I writing – lived on – and not – arose ?
Firstly, as it covers the history of Pannonia Superior, secondly – the arrival of Cyril and Methodius in Moravia, so it has nothing in common with the Polish territory of today, well, maybe apart from one record – section 11 of the Life of the Saint Methodius. Territorial endemicity of the legend preservation, the legend of the origin of the Moravian-Polish statehood could only be explained by assuming that, since there are no traces of it in Czech, so it must have been handed down to Poland through people connected with the Moravian state. So, if it was handed down – then by whom, and further, was it deliberately or accidentally. Whether they remained in a written or oral form is an additional question. As for the former form of communication – the issue cannot be solved in that way as otherwise it would not be possible to identify the terms and proper names, which throughout the years would get distorted. In the Polish chronicles the proper names are preserved quite accurately. The Slavs, if at all, used the Glagolitic, the language not particularly suitable for being recorded with the Latin alphabet, and the Polish chronicles are recorded using such a language. Who could have been him as it did not identify - perhaps deliberately - Cyril and Methodius although knowing the tradition of history adopted by the Great Moravia. The hypothesis on recording done by the pupils of the Disciples should be rejected – due to the language of the record as well as lack of confirmation of the thesis in Russian chronicles, which despite the order to destroy Slavic chronicles given by Emperors of Byzantium resisted the wave of destruction. It is possible to determine an approximate date of the creation of these materials – it is after the fall of the Great Moravia, as basically it is here where the story handed down by the Polish chroniclers ends. Mieszko appears shortly after, but almost 500 kilometres away, and besides he was illiterate.
After Swietopelek I Moravian died in 894 the country is ruled by his sons – no longer than until 906. After their death the Great Moravia falls apart, however bishoprics remained inside the state according to the Roman ritual; and here perhaps the creator of the records discovered hundreds of years later on the North side of the Carpathians should be found. The search for survival of the original source of the Polish chronicles within the works of Cyril and Methodius' followers is rather a dead end as they did not write in Latin although it is known that some of them went as far as north of the Carpathians. Latin however remained in Moravia mostly in cathedrals administrated by the clergy delegated by the Frankish rulers.

The migration of individual persons did not give a chance of culture migration. The crucial factor in that matter was the marriage of Mieszko to Dobravca. And it is here where the moment of handing down particular, written sources might be sought. The appearance of the record in CP telling about Knut II the Great certain role he played in the history of the Piasts perhaps denotes the continuation of the chronicle tradition within the Polish land. There is also one another possibility – the history of Moravia or if at all of Pannonia – was written in Sirmium (currently in Serbia). It is a place where Methodius as an archbishop arrived in Moravia from. This is also a place where the Slavic part of the history was added as a continuation of the previous one. The following factors would suggest it: the knowledge of the Latin language including proper names, geographical proximity as well as slightly folk-mythical character of the entire part – which could be called an ancient tale, which clearly indicates time delay when it was written, when facts were intermingled with tales and legends. Such a scenario is backed up by the thread of Cyril and Methodius' pilgrimage. There were attempts to include this thread in the previous story. The hypothesis can be defended only as a handing down of the ancient part from Sirmium, perhaps repeated among legionaries. Last final hypothesis suggests that the whole was written down by Gallus Anonymus, perhaps on the basis of the materials located on the territory of Pannonia, which he probably came across whilst on a journey to the monastery of St. Giles in Hungary. Perhaps his work was based on the retained Slavic records. However, it is hard to defend the thesis for two reasons: it is considered today that Anonymus was not a Slav. If it is so than there was nobody to translate for him Slavic texts written in transcribed Cyrillic, which later on he would have had to translate into Latin. Anyway, the knowledge of the third language would have been necessary in such a case, as long as Gal himself would not have comprehended Cyrillic. All the same, the hypothesis on the existence of the work on the Moravia history written down in Latin should be recognized as the most probable. What is more, a very brave thesis on the migration of Swietopelek's third son to the Polish land (mentioned by Constantine VII) should be rejected, as even if it was true there are no evidence for it, particularly for the seizure of monuments of material culture by somewhat illusionary figure. It seems to me that the most probable conception is the following one, although I would not be adamant about it : the ancient record of the history of Pannonia was created within the circles of power, in one of the capitals of the empire – in Sirmium, at the time when already only Roman presence was mentioned in that region – around fourth and fifth century. For a long time the city blocked the way for the Huns, Slavs and Eurasian Avars marching from the Pannonian valley to the Adriatic. Anyway, it also mentions the onslaught of the Vandals or Huns. It is also known that the Avars in alliance with other tribes conquered the city on the condition that all the survivors were free to leave the city as well as all the city property was to be left on the spot. That was undoubtedly how the work got into the hands of the Avars and later somewhat the Slavs. Both of them were illiterate. Certainly it was later in the middle of the ninth century that focus was back on the work, regarding it as the history of the origin of the Great Moravia. It was supplemented with Slavic threads regarding Cyril and Methodius in the tenth or at the beginning of the eleventh century, adding a passage about Knut the Great, which means that the work was already in Poland (the beginning of the eleventh century). Both Gallus and after him other chroniclers based their works on. Am I right?
Perhaps not.
There are too many elements though, so as they could make up a coherent whole within the events that could pass for accidental.

The main archetypes of the events as well as the characters' descriptions I consider as correctly recognised. As far as its migration across Europe is concerned – it is only a hypothesis.

Projekt Firmy INMAKS - link