Pozorna unia… Rzeczpospolita, Polacy i rodzina narodów słowiańskich w Wywodzie Dembołęckiego (geneza – znaczenie – predestynacja)


  • Radosław Sztyber Uniwersytet Zielonogórski



Słowa kluczowe:

megalomania narodowa, Wojciech Dembołęcki, sarmatyzm, polska historiozofia


The sketch is an attempt at presenting Wojciech Dembołęcki’s views (contained in Wywód jedynowłasnego państwa świata [Treatise on the only True Country of the World]) on some issues, especially political issues, concerning the authority of Poles and its origin. The book published in 1633 (Warsaw) seems to be very controversial for its reader may find a lot of megalomaniac concepts often based on presumptions, historical usurpations, re-interpretations or simply naive etymology. The mentioned manipulations in the sphere of philosophy of history allowed the author to come to incredible conclusions. The fundamental one is connected with the first ever language that was spoken in paradise. The Franciscan writer convinced it was the Slavic tongue (“słowiański” from the Polish “słowo” – “word”), in effect Slavs must have been the oldest people of the world. There are numerous consequences of such an assumption, nevertheless the Poles were particularly privileged – as noble descendants of Adam and Eve – and only they participated in the mankind development process, they were responsible for civilization achievements, founded first ever cities, established the state system (and even regalia), defeated various military powers in the past, etc. Therefore, they allegedly had an exclusive right to rule countries and nations of the whole globe. This is the most important message of the book in question, although the author himself probably did not believe in his own imaginary theory fabricated just for show and because of overly ambitious Polish noblemen’s needs.




Jak cytować

Sztyber, R. (2019). Pozorna unia… Rzeczpospolita, Polacy i rodzina narodów słowiańskich w Wywodzie Dembołęckiego (geneza – znaczenie – predestynacja). Tematy I Konteksty, 14(9), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.15584/tik.2019.13