THE Teutonic Order, originally, like the Knights Hospitallers, established
in the Holy Land about 1199, settled, after the cessation of the Crusades,
in the country bordering upon the Baltic Sea, at the mouth of the Vistula,
in the year 1225. The possession of the Baltic shores, and of such lands
as the Order should conquer from the pagan Prussians and Litwini, was
assured to them by Konrad, Duke of Masowsze, brother to Leszek the White
of Poland. The fatal error thus committed, in abandoning a hold on the
sea-coast, had afterwards a disastrous effect on the history of Poland.
The Order speedily made themselves masters of the whole country of
Prussia, and were engaged in ceaseless war with the pagans of Lithuania,
under pretext of their conversion; more frequently, it is however to be
feared, for purposes of raid and plunder. It is, in fact, upon record that
a certain Lithuanian prince, who had offered to embrace Christianity for
the purpose of recovering part of his territory conquered by the Order,
upon finding that his conversion would produce no better disposition in
them towards himself, declared his intention of abiding in paganism, with
the remark that he saw it was no question of his faith, but of his
possessions. The plundering expeditions of the Teutonic knights up
country, in which many of the chivalry of all Europe frequently bore a
part, were termed _reyses_. The English reader will remember how Chaucer’s
knight had fought “aboven alle nations in Pruce.”
“In _Lettow had he reysed_ and in Ruce.”
Henry IV. also, during his banishment, fought in the ranks of the Order.
After the conversion of Lithuania, and the union of that country with
Poland, the Teutonic knights were frequently engaged in hostilities with
both powers combined, sustaining in the year 1410 a terrible defeat at
Tannenberg in E. Prussia, from the forces of Jagellon. In this battle it
is worthy of note that the famous John Ziska was engaged. In 1466 Casimir
Jagellon inflicted heavy losses on the Order. After its secularisation in
1521, when the Grand-Master Albert embraced the reformed faith, the
domains of E. Prussia were held as a fief from Poland. In 1657 Prussia
became an independent state under Frederick William, the great Elector. It
is curious to observe how the name of Prussia, originally that of a
conquered, non-Germanic people, has become in our time that of the first
German power in the world.
The historical circumstances on which the poem of “Konrad Wallenrod” is
founded are thus detailed at length by the author himself, in the
following postscript to the work:—
“We have called our story historical, for the characters of the actors,
and all the more important circumstances mentioned therein, are sketched
according to history. The contemporary chronicles, in fragmentary and
broken portions, must be filled out sometimes only by guesses and
conjectures, in order to create some historic entirety from them. Although
I have permitted myself conjectures in the history of Wallenrod, I hope to
justify them by their likeness to truth. According to the chronicle,
Konrad Wallenrod was not descended from the family of Wallenrod renowned
in Germany, though he gave himself out as a member of it. He was said to
have been born of some illicit connection. The royal chronicle says, ‘Er
war ein Pfaffenkind.’ Concerning the character of this singular man, we
read many and contradictory traditions. The greater number of the
chroniclers reproach him with pride, cruelty, drunkenness, severity
towards his subordinates, little zeal for religion, and even with hatred
for ecclesiastics. ‘Er war ein rechter Leuteschinder (library of
Wallenrod). Nach Krieg, Zank, und Hader hat sein Herz immer gestanden; und
ob er gleich ein Gott ergebener Mensch von wegen seines Ordens sein
wollte, doch ist er allen frommen geistlichen Menschen Graüel gewesen.
(David Lucas). Er regierte nicht lange, denn Gott plagte ihn inwendig mit
dem laufenden Feuer.’ On the other hand, contemporary writers ascribe to
him greatness of intellect, courage, nobility, and force of character;
since without rare qualities he could not have maintained his empire amid
universal hatred and the disasters which he brought upon the Order. Let us
now consider the proceedings of Wallenrod. When he assumed the rule of the
Order, the season appeared favourable for war with Lithuania, for Witold
had promised himself to lead the Germans to Wilna, and liberally repay
them for their assistance. Wallenrod, however, delayed to go to war; and,
what was worse, offended Witold, and reposed such careless confidence in
him, that this prince, having secretly become reconciled to Jagellon, not
only departed from Prussia, but on the road, entering the German castles,
burnt them as an enemy, and slaughtered the garrisons. In such an
unimagined change of circumstances, it was needful to neglect the war, or
undertake it with great prudence. The Grand-Master proclaimed a crusade,
wasted the treasures of the Order in preparation—5,000,000 marks—a sum at
that time immeasurable, and marched towards Lithuania. He could have
captured Wilna, if he had not wasted time in banquets and waiting for
auxiliaries. Autumn came; Wallenrod, leaving the camp without provisions,
retired in the greatest disorder to Prussia. The chroniclers and later
historians were not able to imagine the cause of this sudden departure,
not finding in contemporary circumstances any cause therefor. Some have
assigned the flight of Wallenrod to derangement of intellect. All the
contradictions mentioned in the character and conduct of our hero may be
reconciled with each other, if we suppose that he was a Lithuanian, and
that he had entered the Order to take vengeance on it; especially since
his rule gave the severest shock to the power of the Order. We suppose
that Wallenrod was Walter Stadion (see note), shortening only by some
years the time which passed between the departure of Walter from
Lithuania, and the appearance of Konrad in Marienbourg. Wallenrod died
suddenly in the year 1394; strange events were said to have accompanied
his death. ‘Er starb,’ says the chronicle; ‘in Raserei ohne letzte
Oehlung, ohne Priestersegen, kurz vor seinem Tode wütheten Stürme,
Regensgüsse, Wasserfluthen; die Weichsel und die Nogat durchwühlten ihre
Dämme; hingegen wühlten die gewässer sich eine neue Tiefe da, wo jetzt
Pilau steht!’ Halban, or, as the chroniclers call him, Doctor Leander von
Albanus, a monk, the solitary and inseparable companion of Wallenrod,
though he assumed the appearance of piety, was according to the
chroniclers a heretic, a pagan, and perhaps a wizard. Concerning Halban’s
death, there are no certain accounts. Some write that he was drowned,
others that he disappeared secretly, or was carried away by demons. I have
drawn the chronicles chiefly from the works of Kotzebue, ‘Preussens
Geschichte, Belege und Erläuterungen.’ Hartknoch, in calling Wallenrod
‘unsinnig,’ gives a very short account of him.”
As to the conditions under which the poem was written, it is perhaps
needful to state that it was composed by Mickiewicz, during the term of
his banishment into Russia, and was first published at St. Petersburg in
the year 1828. In the character of the hero of the story, and in various
circumstances of the poem, it is impossible not to recognise the influence
of Lord Byron’s poetry, which obtained so powerful an ascendency over the
works and imaginations of the Continental romanticists, and had thus an
influence over foreign literature not conceded in the poet’s own country.
The Byronic character, however, presents a far nobler aspect in the hands
of the present author than in those of its original creator; for, instead
of being the outcome of a mere morbid self-concentration, and brooding
over personal wrongs, it is the result of a noble indignation for the
sufferings of others, and is conjoined with a high purpose for good, even
though such good be worked out by means in themselves doubtful or
questionable.
We cannot pass by the subject without saying a word as to the undercurrent
of political meaning in “Konrad Wallenrod,” which fortunately escaped the
rigid censorship of the Russian press. Lithuania, conquered and oppressed
by the Teutonic Order, is Poland, subjugated by Russia; and the numerous
expressions of hatred for oppressors and love of an unhappy country woven
into the substance of the narrative must be read as the utterances of a
Pole against Russian tyranny. The underhand machinations of the concealed
enemy against the state in which he is a powerful leader, may be held to
figure that intricate web of intrigue and conspiracy which Russian
liberalism is gradually weaving throughout the whole political system, and
which is daily gaining influence and power. The character of Wallenrod is
essentially the same as that of Cooper’s “Spy;” but we cannot suppose that
the author intended to hold up trickery and deceit as praiseworthy and
honourable, even though it is the sad necessity of slaves to use treachery
as their only weapon; or that the Macchiavellian precept with which the
story is headed is at all intended as one to be generally followed by
seekers of political liberty against despotism. The end and aim of this,
as of all the works of Mickiewicz, is to show us a great and noble soul,
noble in spite of many errors and vices, striving to work out a high
ideal, and the fulfilment of a noble purpose; and to exhibit the heroism
of renunciation of personal ease and enjoyment for the sake of the world’s
or a nation’s good.
In regard to the method used in the English version, it is only necessary
to add that as far as possible verbal accuracy in rendering has been
endeavoured after; and an attempt, at least conscientious—whether or not
partially successful must be left to the sentence of those qualified to
form an opinion—has been made to reproduce as nearly as may be something
of the original spirit In translating the main body of the narrative blank
verse has been the medium employed, not as at all representing the
beautiful and harmonious interchange of rhymes and play of rhythm so
conspicuous in the Polish lines; but as securing, by reason of freedom
from the necessity for rhymes, a truer verbal rendering, and as being the
measure par excellence best suited to English narrative verse. The
“Wajdelote’s Tale” has for similar reasons been rendered into the same
form, instead of being reproduced in the original hexameter stanza, as
strange to the Polish as to the English tongue, wherein, despite the works
of Longfellow and Clough, it can hardly be said to have yet become
thoroughly naturalised. Most of the lyrics are translated into the same
metres as the originals, with the sole exception of the ballad of
Alpujara. This, as being upon a Spanish or Moorish subject, it was judged
best to render into a form nearly resembling that of the ancient Spanish
ballad, and employed by Bishop Percy in translation of the “Rio Verde,”
and other poems from a like source. Moreover, the original “Alpujara” is
couched in a metre which, though extremely well suited to the Polish
tongue, is difficult of imitation in English; or only to be imitated by
great loss of accuracy in rendering.
In concluding, the translator begs to express a hope that this humble
effort to present, however feebly, to the reading public of Great Britain
an image of the work of the greatest of Polish poets, may, not be wholly
unacceptable. Any defects which the critical eye may note, must
undoubtedly be laid rather to the charge of the copyist, than to the
original of the great master. I dare, however, to trust, that the shadow
of so great a name, and the sincere wish to contribute this slender homage
to the memory of one of Europe’s most illustrious writers, may serve as an
excuse for over-presumption.
LONDON, _March_ 1882.