In ancient Poland, when the organisation of the noble estate had yet to be crystallised, it seemed that the knightly estate would comprise three hierarchical orders.
In ancient Poland, when the organisation of the noble estate had yet to be crystallised, it seemed that the knightly estate would comprise three hierarchical orders.
Such indications are contained in Kasimir the Great?s legislation and in numerous archival sources:
(i) the higher nobility: szlachta, miles famosus, generally nobilis;
(ii) the middle nobility: władcy, scartabelli (in the meaning that is very different from the institution of scartabellate later on) sometimes referred to in records as “squizio” (ścierałka in the jargon, etc.) corresponding to the French escuyer, the English squire, and later on esquire, who had no hereditary coats of arms;
(iii) the lower nobility: Panosza (familiaris, minister, ministerialis corresponding to the Czech armiger, scitoncse).
The 15th century saw the removal of any stratification of the nobility. The lower orders partially melted into the higher ones, and partially into peasantry. Generally speaking, in legal terms there remained only the highest order, the equal nobility, who would accept no ranks, titles, badges or orders – a true “democracy” of the nobles.
However, contrary to statutes and constitutions, practical life and custom had worked to disrupt – in various degrees in different times – the general principle of the equality of gentry.
This becomes evident in the set of titles used by the royal chancery:
. a noble in general, nobilis, genozosus – is a landed officer,
. magnificus – i.e. a senator (the Honourable),
. illustris – from a princely clan.
Apparently, the public law recognised four estates: nobility, townsfolk, peasantry and clergy. According to the participation in state power: royal, senatorial, knightly. The two of the mentioned estates themselves – senatorial and knightly (noble) ones, divide the noble estate into two classes. Yet in reality, there were three parts of the indivisible noble estate – “a nobleman in his manor is equal to the palatine” as the Polish saying goes, and namely:
(i) the Panowie or Lords come to the fore (originally comites, barones regni) senators, oligarchs, magnates, dynastic princes – knyazs. De iure, there is nothing hereditary (except for knyazs). De facto, there is a degree of heredity established.
(ii) the knightly estate in general, szlachta with a fourfold coat of arms (inherited from father and three grandmothers), bene nati et possessionati, landlords. And at last karmazyni, or the “crimson ones” with their status stemming from the antique nature of their clan.
(iii) lesser nobility, zaściankowa (nobles-behind-the-wall), chodaczkowa, szaraczkowa (the “grey ones”); this also includes those “odardi et golota” (the landless and commoners), sometimes found in records.
Apart from these principal classes there is also a new nobility, scartabelli, the ennobled ones, adopted to coats of arms, sons of townspeople, various newcomers, nouveau-riche from the Armenians, etc. In principle, they could exercise full nobility rights only in the third generation.
But in reality they were shortening this transitional period with gold.
The custom of using titles appertained to all sections of the nobility. Calling one another according patronymic style, used in Ruthenia and Russia, was abandoned in Poland; calling someone with the name ending with “ski” was perceived as playing down, if not as insult. Every nobleman would eventually land himself a title related to some office, even a lowest one, and so was he titled, and his children would inherit these titles in the patronymic form.
When the Republic collapsed, so did the titles, and the situation of the nobles obsessed with titles became unbearable. Specifically when the titles used patronymically (kasztelan /castellan/, kasztelanic, kasztelanicówna) inherited by usage in three generations and resulting from the offices held in the past suddenly expired. This spurred the dissemination of efforts to obtain hereditary titles – most often “counts” – and legalisation thereof by the then government, despite a foreign one, under which yoke one had to live after the Partitions.
During the Polish Middle Ages, in the practice of Polish chanceries the Latin comes was used to “honour” the Polish Lord. Not as a title, but to show respect only. There was a practice to say and write comes palatinus, meaning Pan Wojewoda or Lord Voivod. The highest group within the knightly/noble estate (equivalent to Western European higher nobility, and in fact even higher than that, because having, as the whole Polish szlachta – “Reichsunmittelbarkeit”, or direct participation in government. These are barons, barones regni. It is in no way a baronial title, to which individuals or clans were eligible, but a descriptive name, collective category encompassing and consisting in the lords (Panowie). The baronial title in a later usage was put in place much later, first as a feudal title, and then as one of the stages of “Briefadel”.
Joachim Lelewel writes [1] : “…the name of comites has become only the honouration of the incumbency, as the “pan”, more common. Comes castellanus was Lord Castellan. Comes without the addition of the official name (i.e. without the name of the office held) stood for a lord, officer without mentioning his office; or a lord, familjant, whose dignitaries-ancestors pave him the way to dignity”.
And this is what he writes about barons: ?this Circle of ruling dignitaries and eminent persons took the name of barons … individually each of them was not a baron, and just three centuries later (i.e. about 1500) the title of baron was sometimes assigned to individuals, because the title of baron meant a collective body of counsels or decision-makers, or a class of those capable of counselling, that is of lords councillors: it was a collective title for a debating body”.
Closer to our times, based on an in-depth analysis of the Statute of Wislica Julian Blesiczyński, an excellent expert in heraldry, argues: “barons stood for voivods, starosts, district officers, castellans, podkomorzys, judges, junior judges (podsędek) and sometimes cavalry commanders (chorąży)”.
Barons were therefore dignitaries bestowed with a judiciary function, “who could represent the king”. No question that bishops belonged to the highest barons of the realm (state) as well: not only did they have the judiciary function, but they were in fact the “princes of the Church”. 15th-century writers refer in their writings to the same person as “dignitarji” and “barones”. Etymologically, the term of baron (and its derivative – baronet) derives from German Bannerherr (the French banneret) which corresponds to the Polish cavalry commander (pan chorągiewny) who should undoubtedly be included in the class of barons as the highest dignitaries in the knightly estate who wield full knightly rights (plenum jus militare) and thus judicial rights in their own territory.
Having determined the above-mentioned, we can state that in the Middle Ages an individual belonging to the class of barons was a lord or comes, while it should be stressed that there is no talk about a title based on holding some fief (district or county), nor a per rescriptum principis title, but only about a “définition d?état”.
In present-day terms, the only equivalent is the count; it is impossible to describe in our contemporary language the membership of the highest category of the noble estate, i.e. the lords (panowie – in the early meaning of this term), by adding the term of “pan” (lord), even with “P” being in capital letters.
In the Russian legislation it was similar to ?prirodnykh knyazey”: to evidence them it was not necessary to present the document of conferment. This applied mainly to Georgian or Tartar knyazs, etc, but it happened (not frequently) to be applied per extansionem also in other cases. The clans of Livonian barons were treated in the same way.
The Baronial Title of the Grochowski Family
In the pre-partitions Poland the Grochowski family held no baronial title. Their ancestors in the Middle Ages were cavalry commanders (pan chorągiewny) (the clan cavalry unit of Syrokomlas in the Battles of Grunwald, Koronowo, etc.), one of them, Jaśko, was a junior judge (podsędek) and then a judge of the Krakow Province (†1361). His son, Zaklika (†1379) was described in the records as “nobilis miles dominus”, his son in turn was a sandecki starost (†1420), and the latter?s cousin-brother was a bishop of Płock (†1425). They all together and the whole clan of Syrokomlas belonged to the class of “Barones Regni Poloniae”, as evidenced by Jan Długosz in his “Clenodia seu Insignia”.
Until the end of the 16th century the Grocholski family, our direct ancestors, were inheriting the fiefs of Grocholice, Grabów, Strykowice, etc. Thereafter, throughout the 17th century and the first quarter of the 18th century, although holding no hereditary land, they managed vast pledge land (zastawy) and held entailed land, which is sufficient to name them “possessionatus”. All them were fourfold coat-of-arms nobility, and thus all were bene nati et possessionatii. Lord Judge – Regimentarz (reporting directly to hetman) (1705-1768) holds hereditary land firmly (this was happening before, but for shorter periods and less firmly) and a serious office. Shortly before the collapse of the Republic, but incontrovertibly, his older son (Marcin 1727-1807) received a chair in the Senate, thus introducing the whole family to the group of senatorial families. The younger son (Franciszek-Xawery 1730-1792) was graced with a dignity of the Crown. They hold a fortune, a pretty big one, they stand out from the average landowner-nobleman.
Already before the collapse of the Republic, in abroad, Grocholscy were titled “graf” (earl, count). When discussing the matters of Dniepr and Black Sea navigation, Potemkin (1782-84) refers to the then bracławski castellan Marcin Grocholski, a representative of King Stanisław Poniatowski, as “graf”. The descendants of Lord Voivod and his brother P. Miecznik were named grafs, and with time also counts, smoothly and somewhat automatically: it goes without saying. In the “statistics of the Podolian guberniya” from 1825, its author, Marczyński, does the same. Thus the custom has become established, although without any official sanction.
Efforts to legalise a hereditary count title with the Russian state began in the 1840s by endeavours of Marshal Adolf Grocholski (1797-1863), a major of the Polish Military, but the title was legalised not until the sons of Lord Henry of Pietniczany established relations in Petersburg. As formal basis the State Council of Imperial Russia assumed an alleged bestowing of Hungarian and Bohemian hereditary count title to the progenitor of our family tree, Peter (†1459), which obviously did not correspond with the facts, but was sanctioned as true for the Russian state by the signature of the Tsar-autocrat.
Given that all our documents were destroyed in 1917-20 and 1939-45, I must cite here an excerpt from a Russian statistical book, concerning the case of Grocholski family?s count title: “The titled families of the Russian Empire, Sergei Wasilyevich, St. Petersburg 1910:
An attempt to list in detail all titled Russian noble families with the descent of each family and the date of being granted and approved a title:
The Grocholski family originates in Ruthenia in 1431. By decree of 27 September 1469 of Hungarian and Bohemian king Matthew Peter, who possessed the fief of Łystow and Komorow(o) was raised, together with his descendants, to the count dignity of the Kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia. His descendants took their name of Counts Grochowski from the Grocholice land, which they held.
By resolution of the State Council of 26 May 1881, retired Leibguard lieutenants of a cavalry regiment Stanisław, Wincenty, Karol and Tadeusz, Przemysław, Michał, sons of Henryk, Cyprian, Ignacy Grocholski are allowed to use in Russia a count title of the Hungarian and Bohemian kingdoms.
By resolution of the State Council of 18 November 1898, Bernard, Józef, Marian, Stefan with his descendants, and Mayan, Jozef, Maurycy, Włodzimierz, sons of Maciej, Mieczysław, Józef Grocholski are allowed to use in Russia a count title of the Hungarian and Bohemian kingdoms.
Our ancestor Piotr (generation IV), who died about 1459 and the ancestor of Korczak-Komorowski family, also Piotr, landlord of Łystów, Komorow(o), Orawa, Rozembark, Hradcz, Starograd etc., who in 1469 were allegedly granted a hereditary count title by king Matheus Corvin have had nothing to do with each other.
When in 1870 Ludgard Grocholski (1840-1908) submitted an application to “vysotscheysche ymya” to free him from the subjection to the Russian state (because he was moving to Galicia – Błudniki, Pustomyły), he was allowed to do so, while being referred to as “graf”. This was on 8 November 1870, and he was granted the Austrian citizenship on 20 December 1870 with the title mentioned, as if the notion of an “inherent” title (such as for Georgian knyazs and Livonian barons) was applied – which, however, was not utilised during legalisation of the count title of Grochowski.
Our fathers living under Russian rule wanted undoubtedly to legalise a title which was had been in use for several generations and undisputed among compatriots, and which provided useful prerogatives towards the partitioners; so they deemed it possible to wave aside the above-mentioned bogus basis of formal legalisation.
The order of approval of the count title of Grocholski in Russia and entry into the 5th book:
. Stanisław (1835-1907) and Tadeusz (1839-1913): 26May 1881
. Władysław (1841-1920) : 20.April 1890
. Stefan (1850- ) and Włodzimierz (1857-1914): 18.November 1898
. Ludgard (1884-1954) : 12.June 1908
The count tile of the Grocholski family, in their oldest main line, provides no clue as to the antique nature of the Clan, provides no proof of exceptional service to community and country, neither is it a historical grant imparting splendour to family traditions. It is an opportunistic addition to the main line of the surname, corresponding to recognition and respect it has had among the compatriots.
About the Coat of Arms of Syrokomla
The coat of arms of Syrokomla is also spelled: Serokomla, Sirokomla, Sorokomla, Srokomla, Siromla etc. According to medieval relics it features a white (silver) Abdank (a W-shaped symbol) in a red field, with a cross attached to the middle part of it. The medieval crest [2] is unknown. From the 16th century onwards the crest sometimes features a repeated symbol from the shield, while the tincture of the cross, both on the shield and on the crest, is gold (Or). This was an old ownership mark reaching back to earlier than the 12th century, and according to Piekosiński at least to the period of the adoption of Christianity, from which it evolved to an identification family mark (seals, coins), and finally – placed on knightly shields and standards of the Clan – it became a hereditary coat of arms.
Długosz (Vitae Episcoporum Poloniae) mentions Bernard, “nobilis dedomo Sirokomlya”, a Poznan bishop. The Syrokomla emblem appeared on bracteates from the 13th century.
According to Piekosiński, Syrokomla is an older form…….. According to Semkiewicz it was transformed from ………….., created as a variety of the one used by bailiffs using the mark of cavalry commanders……………. None of which can be maintained. Syrokomlas were cavalry commanders themselves fighting under their own standard in the Battle of Grunwald. The cross in Syrokomla is not an addition to the Abdank ………… and is not, should not be golden. The tradition of golden cross and descent from …………… was first introduced to armorials by Paprocki in “Herby Rycerstwa”, 1584.
Długosz, although in his “Arma Baronum Regni Poloniae” was usually outlining genetic relations between coats of arms, if they existed (e.g. Topór – Starykoń; Pomian-Wieniawa, etc.) says nothing such about Syrokomla, and does not mention any its relation to ………: these coats of arms are described differently:
” Habdank – tracturam albam tria cornua habentem in modum stellae in campo rubeo defert (Rps. Kornicki), or: “Habdank, duplex w in campo rubeo defert” (Rps. arsenalski)
” Syrokomla – circulatulam triangularem cruce superimposita alba in campo rubeo defert” ( Kórnicki Manuscript).
The oldest representations of Syrokomla can be viewed: on Jaśko?s seal ……… of the Krakow Province of 1354 (arch. Of Cistercians in Mogiła), in “Heraldyka polskich wieków średnich” (Heraldry of Polish Middle Ages) by Rekosiński, p. 156 fig. 249, on the seal of Zaklika from Korzkwia, podsędek of the Krakow Province 1418 (Arch. O.O. Dominicans in Krakow) in a so-called “rola marszałkowska” (Manuscript of Biblioteque de l`Arsenal, Paris No 4790) and in Kórnicki, arsenalski and other manuscripts of Długosz?s jewels, and also on a foundation plaque of the church at Grocholice; also on a seal of Jakub of Korzkwia, Płock bishop (arch. pol. Ak. Un. in Kr) and in a chronicle of the Council of Constance of 1415 by Ulrich v. Reychenthal (Augsburg 1483).
Syrokomla with white cross is the oldest form of the coat of arms. Eligible to use it are only the families from the clan of Syrokomla, indigenous “Uradels”, i.e. having simultaneous origin of the clan and the coat of arms. These families include: Chybicki family (if they still exist; the last mention about them was made in 1697, when Fr. Chybicki was signing, together with the Warsaw Province, the election of Augustus II) – Grocholski family – Janowski family † [3] , Kiiński vel Kijenski (if they still exist) – Korzekwicki †, Kurdwanowski †, Pulya †, Świeszkowski v. Szwayszkowski †, Zaklika families –
A non-exhaustive list of ennobled, adopted families or families who use the coat of arms of Syrokomla improperly (including the Latvian-Ruthenian ones).
Andronowscy var. Kijankowscy Sopockowie var.
Baranowicze ” Kondraccy Starosielscy “
Beynarowie ” Kondratowicze Staweccy “
Bulhakowie ” Konratowscy Stefanowicze
Burdzieccy Korzeniccy Stefanowscy
Chaleccy var Koscialkowscy Traczewscy
Czechowicze ” Losowicze Wahanowscy
Dziewoczkowie Maslowie Wasilewicze var
eygirdowie var Mingelowie Wesierscy
Gosztowty Mingielewicze Wieliczkowie var
Gumkowscy Modzelewscy Witoniscy
Haleccy var Montrymowie Witowscy
Holubowie ” Nieszyjkowie Woyczynowie
Horszewscy Petryccy Woynilowicze var
Ilgowscy var Puciatowie Wyrwicze
Iwanowicze ” Puciatczyce Zagrodzcy
Jalowscy ” Sapalscy Zoledziowie
Karniccy ” Sieheniowie Zajace
Koronscy Siwczynscy i (?) Syrokomla
Kesiccy var Sollohubowie Syrokomscy
All these families, except for those marked with “var” use the coat of arms of Syrokomla in its common form, with a golden cross. And that common form is often used by Lithuanian families with a crest of 3 or 5 ostrich plumes instead of the repetition of abdank. Different varieties of Syrokomla have different shapes, sometimes barely resembling it.
The different shapes of the ordinary Syrokomla sometimes resulted from varied skills of engravers or other artisans of bygone days, and no doubt were influenced by the styles of the respective ages. The shape of Syrokomla on the enclosed colour picture is taken from the foundation plaque dated “A.D. 1460” of the brick church at Grocholice. [4]
The tincture of the Syrokomla cross – white (silver) or golden – does not matter for the authenticity of the coat of arms. By the same token, in one and the same clan of Pilawitas some use a silver (white) and other a golden Pilawa.
Having learned all that has been left from the ancient relics and sources about the coat of arms of Syrokomla and given that the golden cross in its coat of arms appeared only in the 6th century, and originally a white abdank with a white cross both in the shield and in the crest (above the helm) formed a self-contained whole:
“Origo…Veniunt (sc. arma Syrokomla) ex additione pro meritis viro militari, dicto Syrokomla de armis Abdank ut notavit Bielseius fol. 277.
Cum enim insolenter Prussieus miles Vladislai Loktek temporibus 1331 provocaret militem nostrum in theatrum duelli atque inter obiurgationes diras Christi quoque nomen et gloriam ignominia repleret, nobilis de armis Habdank piu motus affectu contra iniquum molitem processit atque dira minantem diris supposuit manibus – Laetus Rex auream crucem merenti nobili in praemium obtulit et armis adfixit…Arma praesentia dum inspicio considero crucem considero te militis amorem, considero Dei adjutorium et Regis gratiam et inscribero illis iam licebit : gratia Des et Regis. Henricus II Borbonius, Navarae Rex – refert Jacobus Tipotius in symbolis – devoti humilique orga Deum animi gratia formaverat symbolum literam H. a quatour partibus ornatam rosis et addidit legendum : gratia Dei sum id quod sum. Nil hoc vero veriusest… Idem et Syrokomla miles exprimit dicens : gratia Dei – qui instruxit manus meas ad pugnam pro fide Christi, et gratia Regis – qui aurea cruce actum collustrant meum sum id, quod sum.”
S. Okolski. Orsis Poloni. Vol. III. fol. 147
The Pietniczański line of the Grocholski family of Grabów refers to the heraldic law and returns to a Syrokomla with white cross, which is hereby stated ad memoriam rei by the Family Starost
Zdzisław Grocholski
January 1959, London
Endnotes
[1] Polska, Dzieje i Rzeczy Jej : vol. IV p. 18
[2] klejnot : crest: klejnot, le cimier, cymer…
[3] † : extinct families
[4] The Syrokomla case is similar to that of Grochomla: Acta Vaticana, issue Ak. Um. in Krakow “Acta Cameralia” II fol 191. no. 296, under date 1346; beside the expression “Ecclesia de Syrokomla”
In ancient Poland, when the organisation of the noble estate had yet to be crystallised, it seemed that the knightly estate would comprise three hierarchical orders.
Such indications are contained in Kasimir the Great?s legislation and in numerous archival sources:
(i) the higher nobility: szlachta, miles famosus, generally nobilis;
(ii) the middle nobility: władcy, scartabelli (in the meaning that is very different from the institution of scartabellate later on) sometimes referred to in records as “squizio” (ścierałka in the jargon, etc.) corresponding to the French escuyer, the English squire, and later on esquire, who had no hereditary coats of arms;
(iii) the lower nobility: Panosza (familiaris, minister, ministerialis corresponding to the Czech armiger, scitoncse).
The 15th century saw the removal of any stratification of the nobility. The lower orders partially melted into the higher ones, and partially into peasantry. Generally speaking, in legal terms there remained only the highest order, the equal nobility, who would accept no ranks, titles, badges or orders – a true “democracy” of the nobles.
However, contrary to statutes and constitutions, practical life and custom had worked to disrupt – in various degrees in different times – the general principle of the equality of gentry.
This becomes evident in the set of titles used by the royal chancery:
. a noble in general, nobilis, genozosus – is a landed officer,
. magnificus – i.e. a senator (the Honourable),
. illustris – from a princely clan.
Apparently, the public law recognised four estates: nobility, townsfolk, peasantry and clergy. According to the participation in state power: royal, senatorial, knightly. The two of the mentioned estates themselves – senatorial and knightly (noble) ones, divide the noble estate into two classes. Yet in reality, there were three parts of the indivisible noble estate – “a nobleman in his manor is equal to the palatine” as the Polish saying goes, and namely:
(i) the Panowie or Lords come to the fore (originally comites, barones regni) senators, oligarchs, magnates, dynastic princes – knyazs. De iure, there is nothing hereditary (except for knyazs). De facto, there is a degree of heredity established.
(ii) the knightly estate in general, szlachta with a fourfold coat of arms (inherited from father and three grandmothers), bene nati et possessionati, landlords. And at last karmazyni, or the “crimson ones” with their status stemming from the antique nature of their clan.
(iii) lesser nobility, zaściankowa (nobles-behind-the-wall), chodaczkowa, szaraczkowa (the “grey ones”); this also includes those “odardi et golota” (the landless and commoners), sometimes found in records.
Apart from these principal classes there is also a new nobility, scartabelli, the ennobled ones, adopted to coats of arms, sons of townspeople, various newcomers, nouveau-riche from the Armenians, etc. In principle, they could exercise full nobility rights only in the third generation.
But in reality they were shortening this transitional period with gold.
The custom of using titles appertained to all sections of the nobility. Calling one another according patronymic style, used in Ruthenia and Russia, was abandoned in Poland; calling someone with the name ending with “ski” was perceived as playing down, if not as insult. Every nobleman would eventually land himself a title related to some office, even a lowest one, and so was he titled, and his children would inherit these titles in the patronymic form.
When the Republic collapsed, so did the titles, and the situation of the nobles obsessed with titles became unbearable. Specifically when the titles used patronymically (kasztelan /castellan/, kasztelanic, kasztelanicówna) inherited by usage in three generations and resulting from the offices held in the past suddenly expired. This spurred the dissemination of efforts to obtain hereditary titles – most often “counts” – and legalisation thereof by the then government, despite a foreign one, under which yoke one had to live after the Partitions.
During the Polish Middle Ages, in the practice of Polish chanceries the Latin comes was used to “honour” the Polish Lord. Not as a title, but to show respect only. There was a practice to say and write comes palatinus, meaning Pan Wojewoda or Lord Voivod. The highest group within the knightly/noble estate (equivalent to Western European higher nobility, and in fact even higher than that, because having, as the whole Polish szlachta – “Reichsunmittelbarkeit”, or direct participation in government. These are barons, barones regni. It is in no way a baronial title, to which individuals or clans were eligible, but a descriptive name, collective category encompassing and consisting in the lords (Panowie). The baronial title in a later usage was put in place much later, first as a feudal title, and then as one of the stages of “Briefadel”.
Joachim Lelewel writes [1] : “…the name of comites has become only the honouration of the incumbency, as the “pan”, more common. Comes castellanus was Lord Castellan. Comes without the addition of the official name (i.e. without the name of the office held) stood for a lord, officer without mentioning his office; or a lord, familjant, whose dignitaries-ancestors pave him the way to dignity”.
And this is what he writes about barons: ?this Circle of ruling dignitaries and eminent persons took the name of barons … individually each of them was not a baron, and just three centuries later (i.e. about 1500) the title of baron was sometimes assigned to individuals, because the title of baron meant a collective body of counsels or decision-makers, or a class of those capable of counselling, that is of lords councillors: it was a collective title for a debating body”.
Closer to our times, based on an in-depth analysis of the Statute of Wislica Julian Blesiczyński, an excellent expert in heraldry, argues: “barons stood for voivods, starosts, district officers, castellans, podkomorzys, judges, junior judges (podsędek) and sometimes cavalry commanders (chorąży)”.
Barons were therefore dignitaries bestowed with a judiciary function, “who could represent the king”. No question that bishops belonged to the highest barons of the realm (state) as well: not only did they have the judiciary function, but they were in fact the “princes of the Church”. 15th-century writers refer in their writings to the same person as “dignitarji” and “barones”. Etymologically, the term of baron (and its derivative – baronet) derives from German Bannerherr (the French banneret) which corresponds to the Polish cavalry commander (pan chorągiewny) who should undoubtedly be included in the class of barons as the highest dignitaries in the knightly estate who wield full knightly rights (plenum jus militare) and thus judicial rights in their own territory.
Having determined the above-mentioned, we can state that in the Middle Ages an individual belonging to the class of barons was a lord or comes, while it should be stressed that there is no talk about a title based on holding some fief (district or county), nor a per rescriptum principis title, but only about a “définition d?état”.
In present-day terms, the only equivalent is the count; it is impossible to describe in our contemporary language the membership of the highest category of the noble estate, i.e. the lords (panowie – in the early meaning of this term), by adding the term of “pan” (lord), even with “P” being in capital letters.
In the Russian legislation it was similar to ?prirodnykh knyazey”: to evidence them it was not necessary to present the document of conferment. This applied mainly to Georgian or Tartar knyazs, etc, but it happened (not frequently) to be applied per extansionem also in other cases. The clans of Livonian barons were treated in the same way.
The Baronial Title of the Grochowski Family
In the pre-partitions Poland the Grochowski family held no baronial title. Their ancestors in the Middle Ages were cavalry commanders (pan chorągiewny) (the clan cavalry unit of Syrokomlas in the Battles of Grunwald, Koronowo, etc.), one of them, Jaśko, was a junior judge (podsędek) and then a judge of the Krakow Province (†1361). His son, Zaklika (†1379) was described in the records as “nobilis miles dominus”, his son in turn was a sandecki starost (†1420), and the latter?s cousin-brother was a bishop of Płock (†1425). They all together and the whole clan of Syrokomlas belonged to the class of “Barones Regni Poloniae”, as evidenced by Jan Długosz in his “Clenodia seu Insignia”.
Until the end of the 16th century the Grocholski family, our direct ancestors, were inheriting the fiefs of Grocholice, Grabów, Strykowice, etc. Thereafter, throughout the 17th century and the first quarter of the 18th century, although holding no hereditary land, they managed vast pledge land (zastawy) and held entailed land, which is sufficient to name them “possessionatus”. All them were fourfold coat-of-arms nobility, and thus all were bene nati et possessionatii. Lord Judge – Regimentarz (reporting directly to hetman) (1705-1768) holds hereditary land firmly (this was happening before, but for shorter periods and less firmly) and a serious office. Shortly before the collapse of the Republic, but incontrovertibly, his older son (Marcin 1727-1807) received a chair in the Senate, thus introducing the whole family to the group of senatorial families. The younger son (Franciszek-Xawery 1730-1792) was graced with a dignity of the Crown. They hold a fortune, a pretty big one, they stand out from the average landowner-nobleman.
Already before the collapse of the Republic, in abroad, Grocholscy were titled “graf” (earl, count). When discussing the matters of Dniepr and Black Sea navigation, Potemkin (1782-84) refers to the then bracławski castellan Marcin Grocholski, a representative of King Stanisław Poniatowski, as “graf”. The descendants of Lord Voivod and his brother P. Miecznik were named grafs, and with time also counts, smoothly and somewhat automatically: it goes without saying. In the “statistics of the Podolian guberniya” from 1825, its author, Marczyński, does the same. Thus the custom has become established, although without any official sanction.
Efforts to legalise a hereditary count title with the Russian state began in the 1840s by endeavours of Marshal Adolf Grocholski (1797-1863), a major of the Polish Military, but the title was legalised not until the sons of Lord Henry of Pietniczany established relations in Petersburg. As formal basis the State Council of Imperial Russia assumed an alleged bestowing of Hungarian and Bohemian hereditary count title to the progenitor of our family tree, Peter (†1459), which obviously did not correspond with the facts, but was sanctioned as true for the Russian state by the signature of the Tsar-autocrat.
Given that all our documents were destroyed in 1917-20 and 1939-45, I must cite here an excerpt from a Russian statistical book, concerning the case of Grocholski family?s count title: “The titled families of the Russian Empire, Sergei Wasilyevich, St. Petersburg 1910:
An attempt to list in detail all titled Russian noble families with the descent of each family and the date of being granted and approved a title:
The Grocholski family originates in Ruthenia in 1431. By decree of 27 September 1469 of Hungarian and Bohemian king Matthew Peter, who possessed the fief of Łystow and Komorow(o) was raised, together with his descendants, to the count dignity of the Kingdoms of Hungary and Bohemia. His descendants took their name of Counts Grochowski from the Grocholice land, which they held.
By resolution of the State Council of 26 May 1881, retired Leibguard lieutenants of a cavalry regiment Stanisław, Wincenty, Karol and Tadeusz, Przemysław, Michał, sons of Henryk, Cyprian, Ignacy Grocholski are allowed to use in Russia a count title of the Hungarian and Bohemian kingdoms.
By resolution of the State Council of 18 November 1898, Bernard, Józef, Marian, Stefan with his descendants, and Mayan, Jozef, Maurycy, Włodzimierz, sons of Maciej, Mieczysław, Józef Grocholski are allowed to use in Russia a count title of the Hungarian and Bohemian kingdoms.
Our ancestor Piotr (generation IV), who died about 1459 and the ancestor of Korczak-Komorowski family, also Piotr, landlord of Łystów, Komorow(o), Orawa, Rozembark, Hradcz, Starograd etc., who in 1469 were allegedly granted a hereditary count title by king Matheus Corvin have had nothing to do with each other.
When in 1870 Ludgard Grocholski (1840-1908) submitted an application to “vysotscheysche ymya” to free him from the subjection to the Russian state (because he was moving to Galicia – Błudniki, Pustomyły), he was allowed to do so, while being referred to as “graf”. This was on 8 November 1870, and he was granted the Austrian citizenship on 20 December 1870 with the title mentioned, as if the notion of an “inherent” title (such as for Georgian knyazs and Livonian barons) was applied – which, however, was not utilised during legalisation of the count title of Grochowski.
Our fathers living under Russian rule wanted undoubtedly to legalise a title which was had been in use for several generations and undisputed among compatriots, and which provided useful prerogatives towards the partitioners; so they deemed it possible to wave aside the above-mentioned bogus basis of formal legalisation.
The order of approval of the count title of Grocholski in Russia and entry into the 5th book:
. Stanisław (1835-1907) and Tadeusz (1839-1913): 26May 1881
. Władysław (1841-1920) : 20.April 1890
. Stefan (1850- ) and Włodzimierz (1857-1914): 18.November 1898
. Ludgard (1884-1954) : 12.June 1908
The count tile of the Grocholski family, in their oldest main line, provides no clue as to the antique nature of the Clan, provides no proof of exceptional service to community and country, neither is it a historical grant imparting splendour to family traditions. It is an opportunistic addition to the main line of the surname, corresponding to recognition and respect it has had among the compatriots.
About the Coat of Arms of Syrokomla
The coat of arms of Syrokomla is also spelled: Serokomla, Sirokomla, Sorokomla, Srokomla, Siromla etc. According to medieval relics it features a white (silver) Abdank (a W-shaped symbol) in a red field, with a cross attached to the middle part of it. The medieval crest [2] is unknown. From the 16th century onwards the crest sometimes features a repeated symbol from the shield, while the tincture of the cross, both on the shield and on the crest, is gold (Or). This was an old ownership mark reaching back to earlier than the 12th century, and according to Piekosiński at least to the period of the adoption of Christianity, from which it evolved to an identification family mark (seals, coins), and finally – placed on knightly shields and standards of the Clan – it became a hereditary coat of arms.
Długosz (Vitae Episcoporum Poloniae) mentions Bernard, “nobilis dedomo Sirokomlya”, a Poznan bishop. The Syrokomla emblem appeared on bracteates from the 13th century.
According to Piekosiński, Syrokomla is an older form…….. According to Semkiewicz it was transformed from ………….., created as a variety of the one used by bailiffs using the mark of cavalry commanders……………. None of which can be maintained. Syrokomlas were cavalry commanders themselves fighting under their own standard in the Battle of Grunwald. The cross in Syrokomla is not an addition to the Abdank ………… and is not, should not be golden. The tradition of golden cross and descent from …………… was first introduced to armorials by Paprocki in “Herby Rycerstwa”, 1584.
Długosz, although in his “Arma Baronum Regni Poloniae” was usually outlining genetic relations between coats of arms, if they existed (e.g. Topór – Starykoń; Pomian-Wieniawa, etc.) says nothing such about Syrokomla, and does not mention any its relation to ………: these coats of arms are described differently:
” Habdank – tracturam albam tria cornua habentem in modum stellae in campo rubeo defert (Rps. Kornicki), or: “Habdank, duplex w in campo rubeo defert” (Rps. arsenalski)
” Syrokomla – circulatulam triangularem cruce superimposita alba in campo rubeo defert” ( Kórnicki Manuscript).
The oldest representations of Syrokomla can be viewed: on Jaśko?s seal ……… of the Krakow Province of 1354 (arch. Of Cistercians in Mogiła), in “Heraldyka polskich wieków średnich” (Heraldry of Polish Middle Ages) by Rekosiński, p. 156 fig. 249, on the seal of Zaklika from Korzkwia, podsędek of the Krakow Province 1418 (Arch. O.O. Dominicans in Krakow) in a so-called “rola marszałkowska” (Manuscript of Biblioteque de l`Arsenal, Paris No 4790) and in Kórnicki, arsenalski and other manuscripts of Długosz?s jewels, and also on a foundation plaque of the church at Grocholice; also on a seal of Jakub of Korzkwia, Płock bishop (arch. pol. Ak. Un. in Kr) and in a chronicle of the Council of Constance of 1415 by Ulrich v. Reychenthal (Augsburg 1483).
Syrokomla with white cross is the oldest form of the coat of arms. Eligible to use it are only the families from the clan of Syrokomla, indigenous “Uradels”, i.e. having simultaneous origin of the clan and the coat of arms. These families include: Chybicki family (if they still exist; the last mention about them was made in 1697, when Fr. Chybicki was signing, together with the Warsaw Province, the election of Augustus II) – Grocholski family – Janowski family † [3] , Kiiński vel Kijenski (if they still exist) – Korzekwicki †, Kurdwanowski †, Pulya †, Świeszkowski v. Szwayszkowski †, Zaklika families –
A non-exhaustive list of ennobled, adopted families or families who use the coat of arms of Syrokomla improperly (including the Latvian-Ruthenian ones).
Andronowscy var. Kijankowscy Sopockowie var.
Baranowicze ” Kondraccy Starosielscy “
Beynarowie ” Kondratowicze Staweccy “
Bulhakowie ” Konratowscy Stefanowicze
Burdzieccy Korzeniccy Stefanowscy
Chaleccy var Koscialkowscy Traczewscy
Czechowicze ” Losowicze Wahanowscy
Dziewoczkowie Maslowie Wasilewicze var
eygirdowie var Mingelowie Wesierscy
Gosztowty Mingielewicze Wieliczkowie var
Gumkowscy Modzelewscy Witoniscy
Haleccy var Montrymowie Witowscy
Holubowie ” Nieszyjkowie Woyczynowie
Horszewscy Petryccy Woynilowicze var
Ilgowscy var Puciatowie Wyrwicze
Iwanowicze ” Puciatczyce Zagrodzcy
Jalowscy ” Sapalscy Zoledziowie
Karniccy ” Sieheniowie Zajace
Koronscy Siwczynscy i (?) Syrokomla
Kesiccy var Sollohubowie Syrokomscy
All these families, except for those marked with “var” use the coat of arms of Syrokomla in its common form, with a golden cross. And that common form is often used by Lithuanian families with a crest of 3 or 5 ostrich plumes instead of the repetition of abdank. Different varieties of Syrokomla have different shapes, sometimes barely resembling it.
The different shapes of the ordinary Syrokomla sometimes resulted from varied skills of engravers or other artisans of bygone days, and no doubt were influenced by the styles of the respective ages. The shape of Syrokomla on the enclosed colour picture is taken from the foundation plaque dated “A.D. 1460” of the brick church at Grocholice. [4]
The tincture of the Syrokomla cross – white (silver) or golden – does not matter for the authenticity of the coat of arms. By the same token, in one and the same clan of Pilawitas some use a silver (white) and other a golden Pilawa.
Having learned all that has been left from the ancient relics and sources about the coat of arms of Syrokomla and given that the golden cross in its coat of arms appeared only in the 6th century, and originally a white abdank with a white cross both in the shield and in the crest (above the helm) formed a self-contained whole:
“Origo…Veniunt (sc. arma Syrokomla) ex additione pro meritis viro militari, dicto Syrokomla de armis Abdank ut notavit Bielseius fol. 277.
Cum enim insolenter Prussieus miles Vladislai Loktek temporibus 1331 provocaret militem nostrum in theatrum duelli atque inter obiurgationes diras Christi quoque nomen et gloriam ignominia repleret, nobilis de armis Habdank piu motus affectu contra iniquum molitem processit atque dira minantem diris supposuit manibus – Laetus Rex auream crucem merenti nobili in praemium obtulit et armis adfixit…Arma praesentia dum inspicio considero crucem considero te militis amorem, considero Dei adjutorium et Regis gratiam et inscribero illis iam licebit : gratia Des et Regis. Henricus II Borbonius, Navarae Rex – refert Jacobus Tipotius in symbolis – devoti humilique orga Deum animi gratia formaverat symbolum literam H. a quatour partibus ornatam rosis et addidit legendum : gratia Dei sum id quod sum. Nil hoc vero veriusest… Idem et Syrokomla miles exprimit dicens : gratia Dei – qui instruxit manus meas ad pugnam pro fide Christi, et gratia Regis – qui aurea cruce actum collustrant meum sum id, quod sum.”
S. Okolski. Orsis Poloni. Vol. III. fol. 147
The Pietniczański line of the Grocholski family of Grabów refers to the heraldic law and returns to a Syrokomla with white cross, which is hereby stated ad memoriam rei by the Family Starost
Zdzisław Grocholski
January 1959, London
Endnotes
[1] Polska, Dzieje i Rzeczy Jej : vol. IV p. 18
[2] klejnot : crest: klejnot, le cimier, cymer…
[3] † : extinct families
[4] The Syrokomla case is similar to that of Grochomla: Acta Vaticana, issue Ak. Um. in Krakow “Acta Cameralia” II fol 191. no. 296, under date 1346; beside the expression “Ecclesia de Syrokomla”