An Unproclaimed Empire: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania

From the Viewpoint of Comparative Historical Sociology of Empires

Zenonas Norkus

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138281547
• eBook ISBN: 9781351669054
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Early Modern History
• Index: History

An Unproclaimed Empire: The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is an interdisciplinary study of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (GDL) that is historical in subject but social scientific in approach. It is also the first study to apply this comparative and social scientific method to the GDL.

In this book, Zenonas Norkus draws on national historiographies and applies theories from comparative empire studies involving historians, sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists and scholars in the theory of international relations, allowing it to transcend differences in national viewpoints. It also provides answers to contested issues in the history of the GDL, and raises a number of new questions, including whether the Grand Duchy was an empire or a federation, and why and when it failed.

By adopting this "imperial approach" of considering the GDL as an empire, this book brings something new to the research surrounding the Grand Duchy and is ideal for academics and postgraduates of early modern Lithuania, early modern Eastern Europe, historical sociology, and the history of empires.

Part 1
Translatio imperii and Lithuanian history

1 Translatio imperii in outline

The claim that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was an empire may sound absurd, i.e., the same as saying “this square shape is round”. It appears that, in both cases, the predicate contradicts the subject. Actually, the Lithuanian state never even became a kingdom (if we don’t count the brief period 1253–1263 of Mindaugas’ Lithuania), let alone an empire!

Historians consistently following hermeneutic (“emic”) methodology can consider the idea of the Grand Duchy as the rise and demise of an empire only as patently absurd. In this view, the empire is an ancient Roman invention and a part of their legacy. There are no grounds for calling a state an empire if its title, constitution, official discourse (especially diplomatic correspondence) or at least unofficial discourse (texts created by influential public opinion makers) make no mention of any sorts of claims on the legacy of Ancient Rome, or no attempts are made to match it. In the very least, this is signified by the transfer of the empire’s name and its rulers’ titles. By calling itself an “empire”, a state joins in a symbolic relay race, known in Latin as translatio imperii. “In the most general meaning of the term, Translatio indicated the passage of an institution or of an honour from one place to another” (Folz 1969 [1953]: 85). The legacy that a state seeks to adopt by calling itself an “empire” can also be described as symbolic capital that may be used to resolve domestic and foreign policy problems.

Did the rulers of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania really never aspire to an empire’s laurels? I shall try to answer this very question in this chapter, and at the same time illuminate its context – the history of European peoples’ and dynasties’ struggles over the succession of the Roman Empire up to the seventeenth century. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 established the principle of equal sovereignty of all Christian rulers, acknowledging that in their domains they were sovereigns. As such, they had the supreme authority and rights claimed earlier by rulers calling themselves emperors, who considered themselves as the heirs to the rights and honour reserved for rulers of the Roman Empire.

In the original meaning of the word, imperium is the Latin for power, once held by the highest-ranking officers or magistrates of the Roman republic. It was used to distinguish this public government from the dominium (power) which such officials and other Roman citizens had over their home folk – their family members and slaves. Over time, the meaning of imperium narrowed down to the power of the highest military commanders only. Thus, the word “emperor” did mean high military commander, and later, after the collapse of the republican order, it also became a title of honour for Rome’s rulers. In the late Roman Republic, the saying imperium populi Romani started being applied to describe the supremacy of the Roman nation over other nations. Later, it meant the right to rule the whole world (imperium orbis terrarum) (Koebner 1961: 2–3).

Already Sallustius Crispus (85–35 BC) mentioned imperium Romanorum as the entirety of lands subject to Roman rule. This name became established in usage in the times of the Principate, said to date from 27 BC, when the Senate granted Octavianus (63 BC–14 AD), the victor of the civil war, the name Augustus, which became a part of the imperial title. The famous Roman commander and dictator Gaius Julius Caesar (100–44 BC) had adopted Octavianus as a stepson in his will. According to the naming rules in Ancient Rome, the adopted Gaius Octavius Turin became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus.

In order to highlight his bond with the authority of his stepfather, Octavianus usually titled himself as “Emperor Caesar” or “Emperor Caesar Augustus”. Adoption was a legal procedure that Rome’s emperors used to transfer their power to heirs of their selection. Octavianus made use of it also, transferring the name Caesar to his relative: once adopted, Tiberius Claudius Augustus (42 BC–37 AD) became Tiberius Caesar Augustus. Later it was not just legitimate heirs, but also those who took power by force that adopted the name “Caesar”.¹ Hence, it became a part of the imperial title, and having found its way into other languages (Kaiser in German, царь in Russian, etc.) it became a synonym for “emperor”. Although Octavianus and his heirs ruled as absolute monarchs, by joining those powers of government that had been divided between the tribunes, consuls, censors and other elected officials, nominally they were just the “first citizens” (princeps ) rather than actual monarchs. Diocletian (244–311) was the first to reject this continued fiction, titling himself dominus (lord). Another one of Diocletian’s reforms was the “tetrarchy” – the division of the empire into four parts, ruled by four emperors. Now there could be more than just one emperor, yet only one empire.

Another important step was made in 395 when the empire was finally divided: now there was the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. The first became known as the Byzantine Empire, based on the Ancient Greek city of Byzantium where Emperor Constantine (ruled from 306 to 337) founded a new capital for the as-yet undivided empire, calling it after himself (Constantinople). The title “Byzantine Empire” is an invention of later authors – probably the first to have used this term was Charles Montesquieu. The rulers and subjects of this state called it Βασιλεία Ρωµαίων – the “Roman Empire”, or simply “Romania” (Pωµανία). In the Eastern Roman Empire, Greek was the dominant language. The Latin emperor’s title “Caesar Augustus” was translated into Greek as Kaisar Sebastos (Kαίσαρ Σεβαστός), while the word “emperor” became autokrator (αυτοκράτωρ) or basileus (βασιλεύς). In Ancient Greek, the word basileus once meant “king”. Once the Roman emperor took this title, the meaning of this word was narrowed down: in Byzantine documents, only the ruler of one’s country was given this title. Rulers of other countries were termed using the Hellenic form of the Latin rex – rēgas (ρήγας).

Schoolchildren need to memorise that the history of the Roman Empire ended in 476 when the Germanic military leader Odoacer (435–493), serving the Romans, overthrew the “last” emperor of the Western Roman Empire, Romulus Augustulus, and sent the emperor’s insignias to Constantinople to the Eastern Roman Empire’s Emperor Zeno (425–491). Actually, the Roman Empire survived in the imagination of Christians whose religion had been the official Roman confession since Constantine the Great. One of the products of the synthesis of the Christian and Roman cultural traditions was the so-called “theology of the empire”, affording the Roman Empire sacred meaning (Demandt 1984). The student of Aurelius Augustinus, Orosius (385–420), constructed a universal history scheme, which had immense influence on European medieval historical thinking. As his point of reference, Orosius takes off from the prophecy found in the Old Testament’s Book of Daniel, which says that before the apocalypse there will be four universal kingdoms: the gold, silver, bronze and iron: “ And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things” (Daniel 2:40). Orosius identified these kingdoms with Babylon (Eastern Empire), Carthage (Southern Empire), Macedonia (Northern Empire) and Rome (Western Empire).

As it was the last, the Roman Empire was perennial – it could end only with the end of time and humanity itself, i.e., with the onset of the apocalypse as prophesied in the Revelation to John. This scheme of history implied that the Roman emperor was the top secular authority – the reign of any other ruler was legitimate only if acknowledged as such by the emperor. It also implied that “empire” was a proper noun. If more than one ruler aspired to the emperor’s dignity, then only one of them could be acknowledged as the true emperor – the one who had legitimately inherited the title and rights of the emperor of Rome. For all its claims and pretences, the emperor’s authority was universal – absolutely all the remaining rulers of the world had to be subject to his power. Of course, those claims and pretences need to be distinguished from reality – the sphere of control of no hitherto existing empire has ever been truly universal (global). Yet, even in the case when imperial claims are limited to a particular region, the doctrine of equal sovereignty of all “civilised” states accepted in modern Western international law is incompatible with this idea of empire.

For Eastern Christians (Orthodox believers), until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 the survival of the Roman Empire was a completely obvious and non-problematic thing: the state that historians still call the Byzantine Empire was for them the Roman Empire, or the “real” Roman Empire. It was a different case altogether with Western Christianity. In the eighth century Rome’s popes created the doctrine of the transfer of supreme power (translatio imperii) (Demandt 1984: 71–89). This doctrine claimed that Rome’s emperor, Constantine, in transferring his capital to Constantinople, had handed over the authority over Rome and the western part of the empire to the Roman popes – much like Diocletian had done before him, appointing co-ruling emperor-tetrarchs to separate parts of the empire. In accordance with this “donation of Constantine” (Kimsa 2000: 101–112), which was widely accepted as authentic until its demolition by Lorenzo Valla in the mid-fifteenth century, Rome’s popes in turn had the right to transfer the emperor’s authority to one of the Christian rulers of their discretion. This ruler would be at the same time appointed as the highest secular defender of “true” Christianity, becoming superior to any other Christian rulers whose authority was regnum (kingdom) at best, but not imperium.

Popes allegedly transferred these rights at first to the ruler of Constantinople, so long as he carried out his duty to defend the Roman popes from aggressors – Arian Ostrogoths and the Saracens. However, when the emperors of Constantinople lost their power or diligence to carry out their obligations, and failed to defend the pope from the offences of the Lombards who had caught Italy in a stranglehold since the late sixth century, the pope used his right to transfer the emperor’s power to a more suitable Christian ruler. He took it from the Greeks and passed it onto the Franks. This happened when the Frankish king Charlemagne (reigned 771–814) was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III (pope in 795–816) on Christmas Day in the year 800, in Rome. Charlemagne’s successor, Louis the Pious (reigned 814–840), was crowned emperor twice: first in 813, by his father, whilst he was still alive, and again in 816 when he was crowned by Pope Stephen IV (pope in 816–817), who had arrived in Rheims especially for the occasion.

When the sons of Louis the Pious partitioned the Carolingian Empire into three parts according to the Treaty of Verdun of 843, the countries today known as France, Italy and Germany began their evolution. At this time, the emperor’s title and the accompanying duties of ensuring the Roman pope’s safety went over to Lothair I, Louis’ successor in the middle section containing Italy, and his heirs. The rule that became entrenched was that the ruler who reigned over Italy, where the “eternal city” of Rome is located, could lay claim to this title (Koebner 1961: 24). The King of Italy Berengar I of Friuli (murdered in 924) was the last Carolingian to receive the imperial crown.

After a break of almost forty years, on 2 February 962 in Rome, Pope John XII crowned Otto I (reigned 936–973), a representative of the Ottonian dynasty (also known as the Saxon dynasty), which had replaced the Carolingians on the German throne in the early tenth century, Roman Emperor. Otto had earned fame for his victory in Lechfeld in 955 where he had put an end to the Hungarians’ invasions that had devastated Western Europe. Coronation as emperor consummated the efforts of Otto I to win the throne of the Kingdom of Italy, which he inherited in 951 when he married the throne’s successor, Adelaide of Italy (lived 931/932–999), and who received the Roman imperial crown together with Otto I in 962.

Thus, we arrive at the political body that eventually encompassed present-day Germany, Bohemia (now the Czech Republic) and a large part of contemporary Italy. It was known by the title “Holy Roman Empire” or the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation in German; Sacrum imperium Romanum nationis Germanicae in Latin) (Muldoon 1999: 21–45). Indeed, the name “German” in the empire’s title became established only in the early sixteenth century, while it became “holy” thanks to probably its most eminent emperor Frederick I Barbarossa (emperor 1155–1190). According to Karl Ferdinand Werner, the concept of the Kingdom of Germany (regnum Teutonicorum) only appeared in the twelfth century: Otto I and his heirs believed they reigned over the East Frankish kingdom, inherited from the Carolingians (Werner 1980: 173). On the other hand, Charlemagne did not go by the title of Roman emperor, using only Carolus Augustus imperator Romanum gubernans imperium (Werner 1980: 169) – “Charles Augustus, Emperor ruling the Roman Empire”. Only the Ottonians started consistently titling themselves as the “emperors of the Romans” (Romanorum imperator).

The title used by Charlemagne meant the challenge thrust at Constantinople’s rulers, who had considered themselves the “true” emperors of Rome, was lessened somewhat. There was still a fair way to go to the Great Schism of 1054, when Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy ultimately took different paths, so it was still difficult to ignore the rights of the heirs of Justinian the Great (reigned 527–565). Leo III made use of a favourable opportunity: when he crowned Charlemagne emperor, a woman had taken the throne in Constantinople (797–802) – Empress Irene (lived 752–803), who had assumed power by overthrowing and blinding her own son. That is why, when offering the emperor’s crown to Charlemagne, Leo III could consider the emperor’s throne as having been vacant, and Charlemagne could avoid feeling like a usurper. Until “manly” order was reinstated in Constantinople, Charlemagne could expect that he would be recognised as the second Roman emperor, appealing to those times when there was not just one but two (West and East) or even four (from the times of the tetrarchy) Roman emperors. However, after a prolonged conflict, Constantinople’s rulers only recognised Charlemagne’s heirs as the “Frankish” not the “Roman” emperors (basileus). Men of letters that served him and the heirs of Otto I “returned the favour”, stating that the rulers of Constantinople were only emperors of the “Greeks”, as only an emperor who ruled over Rome could be called the true emperor of Rome.

An important outcome of these disputes was that they broke the semantic link between “emperor” and “ruler of Rome”: an “emperor” stopped by definition being the “ruler of Rome”. If there can be Frankish and Greek emperors, why then can’t there be French, Spanish and other emperors? Indeed, researchers on the idea of empire (Folz 1969 [1953]: 40–43, 53–58; Muldoon 1999: 54–58) found that rulers of polities existing in tenth-century Britain and on the Iberian Peninsula in the tenth and eleventh cen...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of maps
• List of tables
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• PART 1 Translatio imperii and Lithuanian history
• PART 2 Empire and imperialism: Methodological strategies
• PART 3 The Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an empire
• Concluding generalisations
• Index