Grand Duchy of Warsaw

About six months ago I contributed the following explanatory text to
the Wikipedia article "Duchy of Warsaw":

"The Duchy of Warsaw is commonly referred to today as the "Grand Duchy
of Warsaw". However, the duchy was not referred to as such in French,
which was both the diplomatic language of the time, and of course the
language of the French Empire which created the state.

"Article 5 of the Treaty of Tilsit, which created the duchy, the
Convention which transferred it to Saxony, and Article 1 of the Act of
the Congress of Vienna, which effectively abolished it, all refer to it
in French as the "Duch=E9 de Varsovie".

"Similarly, the duchy's constitution refers to it in German as
Herzogtum Warschau, and its coins bore the Latin inscription
FRID=B7AVG=B7REX SAX=B7DVX VARSOV=B7 (Fridericus Augustus, Rex Saxoni=E6,
Dux Varsovi=E6; "Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, Duke of Warsaw)."

What I never looked into at the time, and what still bugs me a bit, is
the question of why exactly the state is so often referred to today as
a grand duchy (in English, at least).

I'd be interested to hear any comments from the various knowledgeable
souls here!

Guy Stair Sainty...

Nonetheless, it was immediately referred to as the Grand Duchy in publications
such as the Almanach de Gotha.

michael james...

So, what is the difference between a 'duchy' and a 'grand duchy' if any?

frederick...

That does at least demonstrate that this odd situation has a
contemporary basis. But where would their information have come from?

Incidentally, the French "Imperial Almanac" of 1808 (the first edition
to reflect the existence of the new state) does refer to the K. of
Saxony as "Grand Duc de Warsovie"; but subsequent editions change that
to "Duc de Warsovie". This would seem to contradict the assertion that
I've come across once in a while that the title was upgraded with the
annexation of "West Galicia" in 1809. The Treaty of Sch=F6nbrunn, which
transferred the territory from the Austrian Empire, refers once again
to the "Duch=E9 de Varsovie" (although that of course says nothing about
any unilateral decision to upgrade its status).

Unfortunately I don't have access to any documents that might've been
issued by either the Saxon or Varsovian chancelleries (assuming that
they were kept separate?), which might at least have demonstrated that
a formal change in title had occurred, even without finding formal
documentation for the change itself. And the website at
useful starting point, has no information for the period in question.

Guy Stair Sainty...

Pwerhaps there are 2 separate issues - Warsaw remained a duchy, but the
ruler took the title grand duke. Remember that this is also what happened
with several of the German states where the rulers auto-promoted
themselves to grand duke from that of duke or other title.

frederick...

On the face of it that sounds rather unlikely. Could you give some

George Lucki...

Xiestwo is equivalent to Ksiestwo. You'll find both. The -a ending is the
specific case.
The text of the constitution from the University of Gdansk web-site is on:

George Lucki...

That's right. Polish doesn't distinguish between duke and prince. The word
Ksiaze covers both. The same holds true for Ksiestwo. Duchy is the more
common translation. Duchy would be the correct term in this case
nonetheless.
In this case though the Polish text of the constitution is not the original
or the definitive one. The constitution was granted by Napoleon and the
original is in French and signed by Napoleon in Dresden 22 July 1807. It was
published in the August 2, 1807 Moniteur in Paris and subsequently in the
Gazette de Varsovie 19-21 August. Polish language papers published Polish
translations. The official translation appeared in the Dziennik Praw
Ksiestwa Warszawskiego with the notation that the French text should be
regarded as the particularly authoritative one.

Kind regards, George Lucki

(PS - Ironically July 22 was also celebrated by communist authorities in
Poland to commemorate the Stalinist constitution of 22 July 1952 which

susuhanan...

I do wish people wouldn't "fiddle" with original texts and simply
reproduce them adding notes and commentary if necessary.

Here is a scan of the original document

George Lucki...

In Polish it is the same text. Spelling has since been standardized and the
letter X is no longer used at all. The title is altered though eliminating
the word Act, and here I'm in agreement people shouldn't fiddle.

susuhanan...

Perhaps if that degree of licence pertains to the language, then Grand
Duke/duchy vs. Duke/duchy isn't material either?

George Lucki...

Polish does make a distinction between Duchy and Grand Duchy - you will see
this in the titles of the Polish King prior to 1795 where both appear.
George Lucki

created the People's Republic - 22 July could be called Puppet State
Constitution Day)

examples of states for which that is known to have occurred?

susuhanan...

I am afraid I cannot agree. At best it is a modern version of the
original.

One cannot go about altering the original spelling, punctuation or
other "errors" from a document, based on some modern fancy. Otherwise,
every 50 or 100 years these documents will be altered to suit the
styles of the time and we will end up having several versions quite
different from the original text. I would hate to imagine what fanciful
versions of the US Constitution or Magna Carta we would have, were the
same notion applied to them. Any "corrections" can easily be dealt with
in notes or comments to the original text.

Christopher Buyers

George Lucki...

I understand the points you make and certainly you may wish to make them to
the various history departments, etc. who are using the text of the
Constitution that utilizes the now standard Polish spelling. I'd be
interested in their response. The original French text and the contemporary
translations are of course readily available as well.

susuhanan...

What may be more useful is that when people refer to documents or claim
to quote from them, they make clear whether it is an original document
or a modernised translation.

frederick...

That is something with which I wholeheartedly agree.

For example, I'm in the process of preparing a number of old texts for
notes to explain what my "editorial policy" has been; the nature of the
notes will be tailored to each particular text. Academic publications
of source material of course take the same approach, sometimes going
into considerable detail as to what decisions have been taken, and why.

Explanatory notes should indicate at the very least whether the text is
in the original language, whether language and/or spelling has been
modernised, whether the text is complete or only made up of extracts,
and whether punctuation and use of particular typefaces (or differences
in handwriting) have been preserved, indicated, or "standardised".

Far too often, people contributing to this board seem to blur the
distinction between primary documents and secondary sources or revised
translations. On a different topic, we have just seen a lengthy

frederick...

On a related note, I find it frustrating that historical documents that
are published online often lack information as to the source of the
text. Rule #1 for historians: Always cite your sources!

exchange with a Roumanian who repeatedly claimed to be referring to
"documents" when they eventually turned out to be modern commentaries
or texts published between 110-180 years later, and which may simply
have mentioned or referred to them.

Christopher Buyers

Kind regards, George Lucki