If Schafarik is correct in seeing the name of the Poles in the Bulanes of the geographer Ptolemy, we should have this Slavonic people mentioned as early as the 2d century after Christ. There can be no doubt about the derivation of the name; the country is one vast plain, and thus the Poles come to mean dwellers of the plain or field (pole). Jordanes has no distinct name for them, although he speaks of Slavs inhabiting the banks of the Vistula. About the 6th or 7th century we find a people called Lekhs settled near that river, and this appears to be the oldest name which we can positively assign to the Poles. These Lekhs are considered by Szaj nocha and some of the modern school of historians to have been a Norse tribe who in the 6th century ruled over the Slavonic peoples from the Baltic to the Carpathians. And, if this were the case, the origin of the Polish kingdom would be traced to the same source as the Russian empire. No satisfactory etymology has been given as yet of the word Lekh or Lech; we cannot accept Schafarik’s attempt to connect it with szlachta, nobility, as that word is in all probability derived from the German geschlecht. From the form of the word Lech, Russian Liakh, we can see that the vowel represents a suppressed nasal, and this is further proved by the change which it undergoes in the neighbouring languages; thus in Lithuanian we get Lenkas and in Magyar Lengyel. The chronicle of Thomas, archdeacon of Spalato, calls them Lingones (Bielowski, Mon. Hist. Pol.), the Polish chronicles of Mierzwa and of Vincent Kadlubek Lenchitae, Linchitae. The loss of the nasal in the modern Polish form is curious, and contrary to the analogy of the language; it is supposed to have disappeared under the influence of Russian pronunciation. In the 13th century Kadlubek invented the imaginary heros eponymus Lekh, supposed to have been the father of the Poles, and two brothers were found for him, Czech and Rus. A great similarity has been noticed between these early heroes and others among the Czechs. Thus we may compare Cracus and Krok, Piast and Premysl. Many of the legendary tales greatly resemble Scandinavian sagas, as indeed much of the early Russian history does which is contained in the chronicle of Nestor. Gradually the name Lekh was superseded by Poliani or Polaki. Nestor, the old Russian chronicler, or at least the work which goes under his name, knows both appellations and distinguishes between Poliane Liakhove on the Vistula and Poliane Rousove on the Dnieper. When we first become acquainted with the Poles we find them like the other Slavonic peoples living in a kind of democratic communism, to which we need not assign the patriarchal simplicity and happiness in which some of their chroniclers, e.g., Dlugosz, would make us believe. All the early period of Polish history is mixed up with fables. Their first writers Gallus, Kadlubek, Dlugosz, Kromer, and others, who were ecclesiastics and used the Latin language as their literary medium and handled it with considerable dexterity, have treated these stories as genuine history,—just as Holinshed, Milton, Sir Richard Baker, and others did the Arthurian legends. The careful criticism, however, of modern times has relegated them to their proper place, and Lelewel has classified all the period of Polish history from the earliest times to the reign of Mieczystaw I. as belonging to the era of myths. We are hardly likely to believe in the existence of a Duke Lech or a beautiful Princess Wanda, who flourished in the 8th century, or in Cracus, said to have been the founder of Cracow. All these are obviously only generic and national names individualized. Many of the quaint and striking stories of these princes have done duty in all the legendary history of Europe. It cannot be doubted that poems corresponding to the Russian bîlîni are imbedded in the writings of these early chroniclers. The good peasant Piast, from whom was derived the celebrated line of kings, reminds us of the Mikoula Selianinovich of the Russians and the Premysl of the Czechs. Kromer has tricked out the legend of his call to the throne in all the graces of his elegant Latinity.

Bielowski, the editor of the Monumenta Poloniae Historica, in his Wstep Krytyczny do Dziejaw Polski (il Critical Introduction to Polish History ”) endeavoured to prove that the original Poles dwelt on the banks of the Danube, from which they were driven by the Romans. He also attempts to trace them in the 2d and 3d centuries after Christ. According to the whimsical theory of this author—a man to whom Slavonic history in other respects owes so much—the original habitation of the Poles was by the Lake of Ochrida. The Lçchites (Lyncestae) in the 3d century before Christ were driven by the Celts beyond the Danube, and there the kingdom of Dacia was founded. King Boirebista is Leszek II., Decebalus is Semowit, <fcc. Lelewel and Bielowski seem to have identified all the Thracian peoples with the Slavs.

All that we are told of the early Slavs shows them to have been a quiet agricultural people. We find them at first living in village communities with a tribal government. Nestor says, “The Poliani lived in separate groups, and each governed his family.” Gradually a class of serfs sprung up, whose origin cannot be clearly traced. Röpell in his history supposes that they were the descendants of rival tribes who had been conquered. At all events we soon find the following divisions of society among the Poles :—(1) the nobility, szlachta, who throughout Polish history constitute the nation properly so-called; (2) a superior class of peasants who were personally free, but bound to perform certain services (these are always called in the old Polish documents cmetones, or kmetones, Polish Aemeci); and (3) the peasants strictly so called, who were the property of their masters and had no rights. We shall see how there was gradually formed in Poland a proud military aristocracy, which circumscribed the power of the king by the pacta conventa, so that he became a mere puppet in their hands. The nobles had absolute power over their serfs, as each separate palatinate had its tribunals. In course of time the kmieci became mere bondsmen. The miserable condition of the latter is seen in such books as Connor’s Letters on Poland, published at the conclusion of the 17th century. Connor, who was physician to John Sobieski, had good opportunities for forming an opinion. Thus the trade of the country fell wholly into the hands of foreigners and Jews.

With the reign of Mieczystaw I. (962-992) we begin to have something firmer in our grasp. He became a suitor for the hand of D⅝br0wka, the daughter of the king of Bohemia. Being a’Christian she refused to give her hand to a pagan, and Mieczystaw consented to be baptized in 965. He had been previously conquered by the Germans, who seem to have enforced conversion from all whom they brought into subjection. After this he proceeded to extirpate the worship of idols in as autocratic a manner as Vladimir had employed, when at Kieff Peroun, the god of war, was thrown from his pedestal and ignominiously cast into the Dnieper. In 980 an edict was issued that every Pole who had not already submitted to baptism should immediately undergo it. No opposition was offered to this strange decree, which from its easy adoption would seem to have left but little impression upon the neophytes, and probably the chroniclers have some reason for their assertion that Mieczystaw himself subsequently relapsed into gross sins. This complete conversion of the nation appears to have been aided by the labours of St Adalbert, bishop of Prague. Such traces as remained of the early Orthodox creed which had been introduced from Moravia were effaced, although they remained for some time in the sister kingdom of Bohemia, and we find a monastery established by the emperor Charles IV. for Greek monks at Prague. Mieczystaw acknowledged himself to be the feudatory of Otho of Germany; he also resisted the encroachments of Vladimir of Russia, for already the feud between the two nations was commencing. He died in 992 universally regretted, as we are told, and was succeeded by his son Bolestaw, surnamed the Great. During his reign Otho III. of Germany paid him a visit, and the Polish prince received him with such magnificence that the emperor elevated his duchy into a kingdom, probably intending that it should always remain a fief of the empire. Dlugosz and Kromer vie with each other in describing the splendour of this meeting; they are, however, far outdone by their predecessor Gallus, who speaks of magnificent military manoeuvres prepared by Bolestaw to delight his guest, and of the gorgeous array of the lords and court ladies; “for gold,” he adds, “was at this time held as common as silver and silver as cheap as straw.” Finally, Otho hailed Bolestaw as king, and himself put the diadem upon his head. At his departure he presented the Polish king with the lance of St Maurice, still to be seen, as Kromer tells us, in the cathedral of Cracow; and Bolestaw in turn offered as a gift the arm of St Adalbert, the patron saint of Poland. Lelewel treats the whole story of this coronation as a myth, because, as he observes, at that time kings were always crowned by bishops. Bolestaw afterwards defeated the Russian prince, and spent the latter part of his reign in administering justice throughout his kingdom. By the commencement of the 11th century he had absorbed nearly all the western Slavonic states, including Bohemia. He enjoyed among his subjects the epithet of Chrobry^ or brave. The Germans, however, in derision of his corpulence, which he endeavoured to lessen by hunting, called him Trinkbier. To him is due the foundation of the archbishopric of Gniezno (Gnesen), the chief see in Poland.

Towards the end of his life he sought to aggrandize himself at the expense of Russia. He had previously, in 1013 according to Thietmar, given his daughter in marriage to Sviatopolk, the nephew of Vladimir. His expedition against Kieff is alluded to by Nestor, but narrated more in detail by Thietmar and Martin Gallus. According to the latter he entered Kieff with the Polovtzi as his auxiliaries, and struck the golden gate with his sword. He was succeeded by Mieczystaw his son, who abandoned himself to pleasure and left the kingdom in a disordered state. He is said to have first divided Poland into palatinates, a term which will be explained shortly. On his death an interregnum ensued and his queen Ryxa, niece of Otho of Germany, held the regency. Owing, however, to the continual feuds between the Slavs and Germans, she was driven out of the kingdom and betook herself to Saxony, whither her son soon followed her. During their absence Poland presented a spectacle of anarchy, the commencement of the long series of miseries of this unhappy country. The serfs are said to have risen everywhere and massacred their lords, and even the priests were not spared. Moreover, two foreign wars, with Bohemia on the one hand and Russia on the other, increased their miseries. The pious Kromer chiefly laments the sacred relics carried off by the ferocious Bohemians which were never restored. To heal the universal wounds it was resolved to send for Kazimierz (Casimir), the son of Mieczystaw and Ryxa. But it required some time to find him, for he was hidden in Germany, although the story of his having become a monk in the abbey of Cluny in Burgundy has been shown by Röpell to be groundless. We shall see afterwards that a Polish king did actually seek in a cloister rest from the turbulence of his subjects. Kazimiérz married Maria the sister of Yaroslav, the prince of Kieff, who was willing to abjure the Greek faith, and embracing the Latin took the name of Dobrogniewa. By this marriage he became the brother-in-law of Henry I. of France, who had married another sister. This king induced several monks to come from Cluny, and founded two monasteries for them, one near Cracow and the other in Silesia, at this time forming part of the kingdom of Poland. From the earliest period we find the country inundated with foreign ecclesiastics; and to this cause we may probably trace the long use among the Poles of the Latin language. Kazimiérz was succeeded by a second Bolestaw (1058-1101), of whom many curious stories are told. In an expedition against Iziaslav, the prince of Kieff, he took that city and remained in it some time with his troops. The stay of Bolestaw and his soldiers at Kieff is said to have been attended with the same deleterious effects as befell Hannibal and the Carthaginians at Capua; and the conduct of the Polish ladies during the absence of their lords, unless the chroniclers belie them, cannot be held up as an example to wives. The whole story, however, has a very mythical air.

The most remarkable event, however, of the reign of Bolestaw was the murder of St Stanistaw. In this respect he emulated Henry II. of England; he dared to come into collision with the ecclesiastical power, but he did not suggest the assassination of so prominent a person to others; he accomplished the deed with his own hand. His excesses had long drawn upon him the censure of Stanistaw, who concluded by putting all the churches of Cracow under an interdict. Upon this the king vowed vengeance on his denunciator. The Polish chroniclers tell us that, on hearing that the saint was to celebrate mass in a chapel, he took with him a few determined followers and hurried to the place. He, however, forbore to break in upon the scene till the service was concluded. This being over, he ordered some of his attendants to enter and slay the prelate. They were restrained, however, by a miracle, for, endeavouring to strike Stanistaw to the earth, they all suddenly fell backward. Again and again Bolestaw urged them on, and the miracle was repeated a third time, until the king rushed in and with one blow clove the skull of the ecclesiastic. Kromer tells us that immediately after the murder the king and his impious satellites slashed the body, separated it into many pieces, and cast it to be devoured by dogs and birds of prey. It was, however, guarded by eagles who kept off the assailants; and, some monks collecting the remains, they all became mysteriously reunited and were afterwards honourably interred at Cracow. Such a crime was not likely to go unpunished in those days. Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) placed the whole kingdom under an interdict. Bolestaw, regarded with hatred by all his subjects, fled into Hungary, but of his end we have no certain information. After the disappearance of Bolestaw, who had taken his son with him, the state remained nearly a year without a sovereign. Finally, being afraid of a Russian or Hungarian invasion, the Poles called to the throne Wtadystaw (Ladislaus), the brother of Bolestaw. Anxious to remove the interdict, he at once despatched ambassadors to the pope; but, although the churches were allowed to be reopened, so great was the authority of the occupant of the chair of St Peter, who refused again to ratify the title of king, that for two hundred years from this time no Polish ruler could legitimately assume such a dignity, but was obliged to consent to the humbler appellation of duke. Wtadystaw, who was engaged in constant wars with the Russians and the heathen inhabitants of Prussia, died in 1202 at Ptock,—as was suspected, of poison. The power of Poland was diminished in his reign, as many provinces were occupied by the Russians. He was succeeded by his son, Bolestaw III., to whom the Poles have affixed the surname of Krzywousty, or the Wry-mouthed. Kromer tells us, u Fuit autem Boleslaus hic, habitudine corporis satis firma, vegeta, et laborum patiente, colore fusco, statura mediocri, os ei carbunculus morbus ab ineunte adolescentia distorserat, atque inde Criuousti cognomentum habuit.” He married Sbislava, the daughter of Sviatopolk, the prince of Kieff, and was successful in many wars, till, having eventually been defeated by the Hungarians on the banks of the Dniester, he is said to have died of grief. He seems to have been a redoubtable warrior, and to have distinguished himself in some very hard fighting. His expeditions against the Pomeranians were characterized by much cruelty, for we are told that Gniewomir, one of their chiefs, was beaten to death in the presence of the Polish army. Besides his attack upon the Pomeranians we learn from Gallus that he also marched against the Prussians, whom he utterly defeated, returning with a large spoil of cattle and other booty. His most important war, however, was with the German emperor Henry V., the husband of Matilda, the daughter of our Henry I. He had probably become jealous of the rising power of Bolestaw, for the Germans at that time affected to regard Poland as a fief of the empire. The only event of much interest in this war is the gallant defence of Glogau, where the imperialists were driven off, in spite of their furious onslaught, and were ultimately routed near Breslau. The emperor fled precipitately, and the Poles gave little or no quarter. The field, says Kromer, where the battle took place was full of corpses, and exhibited a sorry and lamentable spectacle. The bodies of the Poles were carefully sought out and interred, but the Germans were unburied and lay as food for dogs and birds. In consequence of this the number of dogs who frequented the spot was so great that the road was rendered difficult to travellers. The place was called the Field of the Dog both by the Poles and Germans, a name which has obtained till the present day. Kromer, however, tells us that some of the German historians claimed the victory for their nation. Whatever the result may have been, peace was soon afterwards made between the emperor and the duke, a peace which was further consolidated by the marriage of Bolestaw and his son Wtadystaw to members of the imperial family. Before his death the Polish duke, following the same fatal course which in Russia paved the way for its subjugation by the Mongols, parcelled out his territories to his sons Wtadystaw, Bolestaw, Mieczystaw, and Henry. There remained a fifth and youngest son, at that time of tender age, Kazimierz. The duke being asked why he had left him portionless is said to have declared that the four-wheeled chariot must have a driver, thus, as it were, prophesying the future pre-eminence of this child. The prediction, which looks very much like a prophecy after the event, reminds us of William the Conqueror distributing his kingdom to his sons. The quarrels of these princes are very tedious. Wtadystaw was ultimately driven out and Bolestaw became supreme. His subjects gave him the nickname of Kçdzierzawy, or the curly. He was drawn into a contest with the German emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who invaded Poland in the year 1158. It would have been impossible for Bolestaw to meet so formidable a foe in the field; he, however, succeeded in forcing him to make peace by continually harassing his army, and laying waste the territory before it. Frederick again attempted to convert Poland into a fief of the German empire, but failed. Bolestaw signed a peace by which he consented to give Silesia to his brother Wladystaw, and the Poles were to furnish three hundred spearmen to assist the emperor Frederick against Milan. An expedition which he undertook against the Prussians in 1167 was unsuccessful; in consequence, as Kromer assures us, of treachery, the Poles became entangled in the marshes of the country and were cut to pieces. On his death Bolestaw was succeeded by his brother Mieczystaw, who was so unpopular that he was expelled from the country in 1177. The crown, therefore, according to the prophecy, devolved upon Kazimierz, the youngest son of Bolestaw Krzywousty. During his reign many judicious laws were passed in Poland; among other improvements he abolished the evil custom of purveyance. His reign was tranquil, and by summoning a council of the bishops and nobles at Eçczyca he may be said to have instituted the Polish senate, at all events to have laid the foundations of it. At...