Talk:Toruń/Archive 1

This is archived talk originally from the article Thorn, the German name of the city of Toruń, see Talk:Toruń.

Blaeu's ,map of PRVSSIA : http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia-preview.jpg http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia.jpg large map Answer to question below When you enlarge this map, you will be able to read Culm (Culmigeria) and Thorn on bottom left of map at Vistula river. South of Prussia and Thorn is Masovia. The map is from ucla ca, do not know if we can keep it on ? I also have map from circa 1540 by Sebastian Muenster, but not on internet. ok -- we need to figure this one out -- was it in Poland or Prussia when Copernicus was born? The map means nothing unless it is contemporaneous with Copernicus' birth... If you will write down your email her, I will email a map from 1547 by Sebastian Muenster from book :"Ostpreussen damals und heute D. Weldt ISBN 3-7921-0192-0" It shows Preussen and Thorn  user:H.J. I don't need to see the map -- as I said before, you need to understand and use your sources critically. A map done in 1547 may not show what was true when Copernicus was born -- and we all agree he was born in what was at the time Poland, I think. Also, you have to look at who the mapmaker was, who commissioned the map, and if there was a particular agenda that they were supporting. This is often true in sources from before the late 19th century, at least. I am not saying your sources are invalid just because they are old -- only that they must be used with full understanding. That is not evident in this case. JHK
 * Yep, maps are not neutral documents. See this book: How to Lie with Maps, Mark Monmorier (ISBN: 0226534219);  I recommend this book, having used it in a class with great success.  Here's a nice example link from American history of a flawed map: .  We need entries for the stub Primary source and Secondary source under History Basic Topics so that we can direct people there.  --MichaelTinkler

Sorry, but I completely disagree , that Copernicus was born in Poland. Copernicus was not born in Poland, he was born and he died in Prussia. Every map of the time tells you the name of the country was Prussia or Preussen. There were only were few hantpainted maps before 1500 (book printing started by 1470). Schedelsche Weltchronik 1493 shows most cities and places for the first time. The first more detailed map of Prussia was not till 1539 and in 1547 by Sebastian Muenster. Give me your email and I will send a copy of that map, which clearly shows Preussen and Thorn.

Earlier maps only showed the name of the country written in the general area, no borderlines. Borders changed constantly from duke to count to margrave etc. This did not affect the Land and the people. They were not exchanged everytime a ruler changed. This was all worked out under the emperor.

Maps from 1577 do not even list Poland or Lithuania at all. It shows Livonia and Prussia (with Lithuania and Poland just written in as names, but not listed). This was at the time after the death of the last Jagiello 1570 (72?). (When a ruler died out the land reverted back to the empire, who then loaned it out to some other ruler.)

Nicolaus Copernicus never called himself Polish, nore did his contemporaries.

He never signed his name M or Mikolai (Polish language for Nicolaus).

He did sign his name N. or Nicolaus ( see on website Nikolaus Kopernikus below)

Since age of 10 he was raised and educated by his uncle Lucas Watzenrode or Watzelrode in Ermland. Ermland was an excempt bishopric. Copernicus did sign in as German at the German learning facility (uni ?) in Italy. He did write German letters. He did represent Prussia in the Prussian coin reform and wrote on this subject ( I think printed in Dan(t)zig in 1494 in any case before the Copernican treatise) Thorn, where he was born was a Hanseatic League city , it became wholly protestant. By 1642 anti-reformation brought in catholics in too.

While some areas of Prussia came under some nominal rule by the "Polish crown" (which meant under the imperial Habsburg-Jagiellos, Vasas and Wettins), none of the different Prussian lands ever where a part of Poland (even though "Polish" kings tried to annex, unsuccessfully).

Since the first official state of Prussia under the Teutonic Kinights the court or official language in all the Prussian lands was German.

See the Preussische Regesten PrUB Prussian Urkunden Record books (on internet by Stuart Jenks, 1234 giving citizenship of the empire to people of Prussia, Livonia etc).

see the church books from Thorn (unfortunately not before 1600):

LDS -http://www.familysearch.com Place search : filmed since 1920,show all church record films of Kirchenbuecher in Latin and German language (Polish titles below added after 1945, still show films of actual Kirchenbuecher in Latin and German).

Topic Germany, Preußen, Westpreußen, Thorn - Church records Titles Kirchenbuch, 1605-1944  Evangelische Kirche Neustadt Thorn (KrSt. Thorn) Kirchenbuch, 1773-1920 Evangelische Kirche. Militärgemeinde Thorn

Kirchenbuch, 1600-1944 Evangelische Kirche Altstadt Thorn (KrSt. Thorn)

Kirchenbuch, 1629-1944 Evangelische Kirche Sankt Georg Thorn (KrSt. Thorn)

Kirchenbuch, 1677-1862 Evangelisch-Reformierte Kirche Thorn (KrSt. Thorn)

Kirchenbuch, 1833-1868 Preußen. Armee. Infanterie Regiment 33 (Ostpreußisches Füsilier)

Kirchenbuch, 1773-1808 Preußen. Armee. Infanterie Regiment 53

(The following polish language titles are the same german language records, when you click on the LDS website)

Ksiegi metrykalne, 1670-1890 Kosciól rzymsko-katolicki. Parafja Sw. Jakuba, Torun (Torun)

Ksiegi metrykalne, 1717-1874 Kosciól rzymsko-katolicki. Parafja Sw. Marii Panny Torun (Torun)

Ksiegi metrykalne, 1642-1890 Kosciól rzymsko-katolicki. Parafja Sw. Jana, Torun (Torun)

Thorn, Westpreußen, Prussia, Evang. Kirche Sankt Georgen; computer printout, christenings, 1854-1875 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Genealogical Department Maps were not very accurate by todays standards till about 1800 or later. For 20 or 21st century persons to complain about inaccuracies 200, 500 or earlier seems a bit snobbish, I think. So is trying to make 15st century European countries conform to the norms of 20st century US laws on nationality. user:H.J. for a partial map of Preussen 1539 go to http://www.crystalbay.net/prussia-baltic then to amberfisher Dear user:H.J. --

I'm sorry, but none of what you have cited here makes sense as far as historical methodology goes. None of it changes the fact that, if the maps you cite were created in imperial or German lands, there will likely be a bias that reflects how the people who commissioned the map WANTED things to be. The emphasis was often not on factual truth, but on the "truth as seenby the people who pay me." This has nothing to do with snobbery, it is just how things were. Good history requires understanding the sources. Nothing you cite proves your point, because you don't take your sources in context. Please re-read what has been written on the topic of using primary sources as nauseam. If you need more clarification, we can certainly discuss it further. So far, you base most of your arguments re the entire Baltic area on faulty premises. This makes your arguments weak at best, and mostly invalid.JHK Let me deal with only one aspect of early modern printed maps, an issue clear in the various Weltchronik type publications. They usually show us an aerial view of each city. This is before aviation was invented. The aerial view is an imaginary projection. Many historians have studied the imagery and proved that they are imaginary and cannot be used uncritically as historical evidence. If that is true for a city, which could be known fairly easily by walking around it, how much more is it true for a region or a continent? Maps from early modern Europe are NOT EASY TO USE. We are not saying that they are all 'lies', but that you need to be CAREFUL presenting arguments based on the names someone engraved on a map. --MichaelTinkler To JHK and MichaelTinkler

I appreciate your attention to details and agree with you to always check all sources.

The question here is simply : what was the name of the country ? 1. What was the name of the land, that the city of Thorn (Latin Thorunensis) in Culmerland (Culmigeria) was in, when Copernicus (Nikolaus Kopernikus) was born ? (Everyone does agree this city is since 1945 called Torun in Polish language)

2. What was the name of the country where his uncle Lucas Watzenrode(or Watzelrode) of Ermeland raised him since he was 10 years old ?

3. What was the name of the country ,where Copernicus worked in Frauenburg and Heilsberg all his life ?

4. What was the name of the country, when Copernicus died in Frauenburg in 1543.

Maps showing all locations: http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia-preview.jpg prvssia http://wwwtest.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/maps/blaeu/prvssia.jpg large map prvssia,bottom left city of Thorn between Vistula and Drewenz rivers in Culmigeria-Culmerland.

http://www.crystalbay.net/prussia-baltic  go to : amber fisher 1539 partial map Prussia A map of 1547 by Sebastian Muenster, Basel Switzerland shows Thorn in Preussen, copy in book: "Ostpreussen Damals und heute D. Weldt ISBN 3-7921-0192-0"

(I condensed) and suggest that these questions are posted for anyone to answer.

In the meanwhile until someone else posts several maps from circa 1400 to 1600 in Polish language clearly showing that the land was not called Prussia, but Poland , we leave articles as is. user:H.J. Clearly you just agreed to something you don't understand. IT DOESN"T MATTER THAT YOU HAVE THIS 1547 MAP. IT DOESN'T PROVE YOUR POINT.  This will be revised. JHK Coming late to all this; what is this argument about? I'm having trouble following the discussion above. -- SJK

This is an encyclopedia - we don't have to do original research. In that line I found on http://www.kopernikus-gymnasium.de/v5/pages/schueler/copernic/cop101.htm

1473 19. (?) Februar Nicolaus Copernicus ( deutsch Kopernikus, er selbst unterschrieb mit lat. Copernicus, polnisch Coppernicus und Coppernic ) wird in der St.-Annen-Gasse in Thorn an der Weichsel als Sohn einer deutschen Kaufmannsfamilie geboren. Thorn gehörte seit 1466 zum polnischen Staatsgebiet, war aber eine Stadt mit überwiegend deutscher Bevölkerung.

---rmhermen Wait -- sometimes we have to do SOME research...!

SJK, the discussion arises out of the passages in this article that imply that Copernicus was German (specifically Prussian) and how the author, Fr. user:H.J., came to that somewhat unique conclusion. Following is yet another discussion of methodology and the use of primary sources...

Many thanks to rmherman for his contribution. This again leads us back to the sticky area of ethnicity vs. nationality -- I would like to see evidence other than on these pages that says that the man was not Polish. Odds are, when you look Copernicus up in any encyclopedia, the entry will say he's Polish...even if he weren't, the methodological arguments I've presented are valid...JHK SJK: I honestly have no idea, but my impression is that he was a Pole born in territory which was at the time Prussian. -- SJK
 * the article rmherman cites says he was of German heritage, born in Poland. I think that is the case, but most people consider him Polish -- see talk:Nicolaus Copernicus

To JHK ( and MichaelTinkler) YOu have changed my entrance to reflect some changing back and force many times. That is somewhat ok to say if you speak stricly in political terms. However he was not a political person, he was a human being and the fact remains that Prussia, where he was born, had the name Brus or Prussian people recorded by 850. The first histories written down were in appr 1050 by Adam von Bremen, by Christian of Prussia ca 1240, in 1325 the "Chronicon terrae Prussiae", by Peter von Dusberg and 1340 "Kronike von Pruziland" by Nicolaus von Jeroschin.

I have asked you or anyone else to list Polish maps or any other proof ,which shows clearly ,that Copernicus (Nikolaus Kopernikus) was Polish or was born in Poland.

You have not disproven to me that he was born, lived and died in Prussia, as all the maps and written material of the time clearly show.

I have stated a list of items showing that he was Prussian and spoke German and that he was not Polish, nor was he born in Poland. (The fact that under feudal arrangements some parts of Prussia came nominally under the "Polish Crown", did not mean, that Prussia became Polish, was Polish or anything like that).

You and MichaelTinkler have implied possible lying by mapmakers etc. You are telling me of primary sources only after 1970 ? What is all this ? Besides, YOU have not stated ANY primary sources.

When you look at American encyclopedias you get the answer Copernicus was born and died in Poland. Why ? they look at a map find Thorn or Frauenberg, which is today Poland Torun and Poland Frombork. Then they make their entry :Copernicus was born in Poland and died in Poland.

Search on internet under German spelling :"Nikolaus Kopernikus" you will find entries, that tell you he was born and died in Prussia (Westpreussen,Ostpreussen).

But under over 50 years of Allied Occupation of Germany ,all Prussian records were sealed and teachers in Germany were only allowed to teach what was authorized by the Allied Occupation powers. Thus, when a highschool in Germany today writes a nice article on Copernicus (see talk above) they follow the same method ,they generally look at what is authorized and copy it.

What are your primary sources you have used to come to the conclusion, that Copernicus was Polish or that he was born in Poland, other than current encyclopedia entries ? What is YOUR proof, that is so overwhelming, that you disregard all facts I have stated ? Where are your Polish maps showing not Prussia ,but Poland ?

Please state your proof and the primary sources. user:H.J.
 * HJ, I don't care about copernicus and his supposed ethnicity; in fact, I don't believe that ethnicity as we think of it today is at all relevant to the early modern period.  He probably thought of himself as a citizen of his city and as a member of his university, but not as a German or a Pole. On the other hand, I care about maps as sorces, and yes, I think that lots of maps are lies.  Have you heard the joke, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics"?  Maps are that way, too.  I don't know about the map you are using, but I don't trust it as simple information any more than I trust the parish records preserved by the LDS Church;  let me point out that parish records are what someone wrote down, often not even what a priest wrote down but what a sexton wrote down.  Hence, spelling is VERY tricky in those sources, and judging the names on the basis of the parish records is even trickier.  All sources must be evaluated, not merely reported. I have not changed your entry on Copernicus;  I have frequently changed your entries when you quote Tacitus as though HE were a simple source which could be reported as FACT.  --MichaelTinkler


 * HJ, You clearly have misunderstood everything we've written. As an historian, I use primary sources all the time.  Since my specializations are in ancient and medieval history, NONE of my primary sources are post 1970 (some arbitrary date you've picked).  One of the main points I at least have tried to make is that, even without a source that contradicts your map, the map may be more of an interpretation of what the person who commissioned the map wanted to see than what was the reality of the time.  The main problem with your articles is not that they are in themselves wrong, but that they are full of assertions that you can't prove.  I know you cite all kinds of sources, but those sources don't prove your point as far as anybody who cares about history is concerned. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.  If you don't want to learn how to use sources properly, then live with the edits. Frankly, I'm tired of your whinging when you don't even bother try to understand what the objections to your articles are.JHK

JHK You still do not explain or show your primary sources. What are your primary sources ? user:H.J.
 * HJ. Quoting a 'primary source' does not trump questioning a 'primary source.'  Just because it's OLD doesn't mean it's TRUE.  What we're trying to tell you is that even OLD texts must be examined.  This includes maps.  Who commissioned the map?  Who drew the map?  Who published the map?  Until one studies that one doesn't know how much one can TRUST the map's information.  For instance, do you, HJ, trust maps published by the Polish government between 1945 and 1990?  I trust their cartography of hills and streams, but not their boundaries.  --MichaelTinkler

To MichaelTinkler, Blaeu's map of Prussia as, shown by me on this Talk section , was from an atlas made by one of the Blaeu's, Dutch mapmakers. At that time it was the largest, most expensive. I have a remake, published in Co-operation with Royal Geographical Society, called "BLAEU'S THE GRAND ATLAS of the 17th Century World, Barnes & Noble 1997 ISBN 0-7607-0686-7 .. This has the same map of Prussia plus many maps from around the world. Again , it was the most expensive Atlas printed by Barnes&Noble. So it is older and it is new again.

When you look up mapmakers on http://www.webtop.com Blaeu's or the other map of 1547 by Sebastian Muenster, also showing THORN and PREUSSEN , you will find, that these are some of the greatest map makers. I am surprised, that you did not immediately recognize Blaue's and Muensters name.

That part of the 1539 map on my website, I do not know, who did that one. I did find out, that Copernicus, as Administrator of Frauenburg and a representative of the Prussian Landsrat (government of Prussia) printed an article on Prussian (Muenzreform) coin systhem and worked on a map of Prussia (perhaps the one of 1539 ?).

I have looked closely at many ancient and older maps. user:H.J.

By the way--

from the philosophenlexikon.de site, "Der polnische Astronom Nikolaus Kopernikus (eigentlich: Nikolaus Koppernigk) wurde nach dem Tod seines Vaters durch deinen Onkel erzogen."

another German language web site ... Kopernikus, Nikolaus (1473-1543), polnischer Astronom, der das heliozentrische Weltsystem aufstellte

From the Kopernikusshule Website, "Copernicus (Abb.1 ) wurde in Thorn geboren, einer bedeutenden Hansestadt, die seit 1466 unter der Oberherrschaft des Königs von Polen stand"

Just goes to show -- there are aome Germans who accept current terminology. Other German sites avoid mentioning his nationality. Still others, I'm sure, claim he was Prussian. My point is, you can usually find sources to prove most any point -- a good historian will question those sources and use them critically. A good and ethical historian will also mention that there are conflicting theories and mention sources for those -- unless those theories have been utterly rejected by the scholarly community.

Oh -- and the cost of maps or fame of the mapmaker doesn't make him more reliable -- as I have said, you have to know who paid for the maps to be drawn. There is probably a forwar to the atlas that talks about this. That is a part of the source you have to consider. JHK


 * Well, I specialize in European history between about 500 and 1000, so I'm not at all surprised that I've never heard of a particular early modern mapmaker. I'm sure that no one here knows the names of the scribes whose work I study regularly.  So, let me ask  who Blaeu was working for?  For himself?  Most publishing enterprises in the early modern period were under government patronage because mapmaking and map publishing was too expensive to do on a speculative basis.  The fact that it has been reprinted shows not that it was especially TRUE, but that it is a beautiful example of mapmaking.   Again, I don't care about Copernicus's ethnicity.  Maybe he spoke German.  Maybe he spoke Polish.  Maybe he considered himself German.  Maybe he considered himself Polish.  Maybe he considered himself a citizen of a city and not a member of an ethnicity.  Without direct testimony *I* think this entire discussion is useless, and I wonder what it's about.  Poles claim him for Polish pride.  You seem to be claiming him for Prussian pride.  Why?  The fact is that he was a priest, a doctor, and a cosmologist.  Are any of those roles changed by his ethnicity, especially when we know how different earlier ideas of ethnicity were from ours?  I don't know why everyone is still going on about it.   In this instance I myself am only interested in trying to preserve the standards of historical interpretation, not in the outcome.  --MichaelTinkler


 * let me stress JHK's last sentence: There is probably a forwar to the atlas that talks about this. That is a part of the source you have to consider.  This is our point.  Maps are not neutral.  What does your republished map say about its own origins? --MichaelTinkler

To MichaelTinkler There are many pages of Foreword, Intro etc. I'll pick some out

Foreword:"Although the map collection was in the main directed towards practical applications and up-to-date maps, the Society's early concern for the history of mapmaking is seen in its commissioning in 1830-1831 of the copying, in manuscript facsimile of the world map of Richard of Haldingham, the renowned Hereford Map. It was however mainly in the twentieth century that the Society built up the rich collection of early maps and particularly, early atlases of which it is now possessed....However, the Society has benefited to an even greater extent perhaps from the generosity of Fellows, both in gifts and legacies. The copy of Joan Blaeu's "Atlas Major", from which most of the plates in the present work were reproduced, was donated by the Earl of Northbrook in 1879, during his presidency of the Society. Its nine volumes in gilt-tooled vellum are a major treasure among the jewels of the Society's early atlas collection.... P.K. Clark ,Keeper (1989-1992) " Introduction: "The fire( 1672) precipitated the end of a publishing house established over forty years before, and very probably contributed to the death of its proprietor, Alderman Dr. Joan Blaeu, a year later, effectively ending the reign of one of the greatest producers of printed maps and atlases in publishing history. Only ten years before, in 1662, the house had reached its zenith with the publication of its greatest achivement, the 'Atlas Major'(to give it its Latin title) or "Great Atlas'. In its turn, the atlas reflected many of the achievments of the so-called "Golden Age" of the United Netherlands. But how did this great enterprise reach such a height of fame ? Not all of the history of the House of Blaeu has survived; indeed, we have very few records of any of the Amsterdam publishers and booksellers available to us today, fire and dispersal of their records having taken their inevitable toll over the years.

Alderman Dr. Joan Blaeu was born at Alkmaar in the province of Noord-Holland in either 1598 or early 1599, to Willem Janszoon Blaeu and wife, Maritgen Cornelisdochter. The eldest of seven children, from his earliest days Joan, was surrounded by scientific and navigational instruments. Since before Joan's birth, Willem Janszoon Blaeu had been interested in mathematics and astronomy. To further this interest, he travelled, in 1594, to Denmark to study under the famous astronomer Tocho Brahe, becoming his assistant at the astronomical observatory on the small island of Ven in Oeresund between Denmark and Sweden. Here he learned the art and science of instrument and globe-making. Willem Janszoon returned to Alkmaar, and he and his family left for Amsterdam sometime during 1599, where he set himself up in business as a globe and scientific instrument-maker. In 1605 the family moved to an address 'op 't Water', which is now part of the west side of the Damrak in the centre of Amsterdam. Here, Willem Janszoon opened his sop and set up a printing-press under the sign called "in de Vergulde Sonnewijzer (at the sign of the gilded sundial), where works on navigation (for example, Het Licht der Zee-vaert (1608), which contained 61 sea charts with descriptive text), astronomy (the prime example being a revised edition of the astronomical treatise of Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium caelestuim (1617), edited by Blaeu's friend from Alkmaar, Nicolaeus Mulerius ...... Joan Blaeu studied Law at the University of Leiden, gaining his Doctorate in 1620. After this date, very little is known of his personal life exept for a few brief mentions. He married ,in 1634, Geertruida Vermeulen from Gouda (she survived him by about two years, dying in 1675) . In 1651, Dr. Joan Blaeu (as he liked to style himself), was elected to the Raad en Schepen van Amsterdam (Council and Aldermen of Amsterdam), the first printer in the history of the city to hold such an office and which meant that Blaeu was able to further the interests of the Amsterdam book trade.

However, it is not until about the year 1631 that the name of Joan Blaeu is met with in any real connection with his life's work, in the joint imprint with his father on the first of what was to be the long and celebrated series of atlases.

The business partnership of father and son began in 1630 with the pubpication of an atlas called Atlantis Appendix, sive pars altera...nunc primum editas,which contained sixty maps..... more user:H.J. Sorry -- should have been clearer. This is a nice history of the edition you have, but is not what I was talking about. The ORIGINAL edition should have some kind of dedication or preface. This would be something like the one in the portrait book you cited in another discussion. Normally, they were in Latin (rarely in the vernacular), and discussed how wonderful the dedicatee (usually the person who paid the bill) was. Sometimes it also stated clearly the aim of the work in question. One finds this kind of Forward, preface, or dedication in most highly illustrated (thus expensive) volumes produced in Europe in the 15th-19th centuries. This is where you can find out a great deal of interesting background info about your source. Then, after you read the Preface, you look up the people concerned and see what you can find out about their political and social agendas...and then look at the source with those facts in mind, so you can note any possible bias or agenda in the source itself. Does that make sense? JHK(Using "you" in the common sense of "one") If I ever get to go to England, I will be sure to look up the original at the Royal Geographic Society. In the meanwhile I have all of Blaeu's life and work history in the reprint mentioned above. user:H.J. When you can find a way to show that what you have is somehow relevant to your arguments, I'd be happy to see it. JHK for the external link for the map to be useful, the article needs to tell us where in Prussia Thorn is. Currently that information is not clear (on the Baltic? kilometers south of the baltic?  where?). The map is virtually illegible, so is not helpful. I looked up the website - Thorn/Torun is in contemporary Poland, which we have to admit in the first sentence. Discussion of its historical status in other historical (but no longer existing states or confederations) comes afterwards. In fact, now that I've bothered to look, I think that "Thorn" should be a paragraph of an entry on a contemporary city, "Torun". --MichaelTinkler About the 1570 map: For larger version, click on : High resolution TIF ( it takes very long) http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/atlas/seite70.html|http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/atlas/seite70.html This shown section of Prussia was later named West Prussia by Frederick II the Great. See light area of map Marca [Brandenburg] and Prussia Pars at the Baltic Sea. Dan(t)zig is up north at the bay and Hela peninsula. Follow the Vistula river from Danzig south, paralel to the right edge of the map to the southern part of Prussia, the cities of Conitz, Althaus, Culm, Culmsee, Thorn (to the right of Bromberg) and Golup just above the green area. What do the two names before the letter Thorn signify?? JHK I removed the incorrect Latin names. "Torunensis" is just a latin declension of polish form "Torun". Genetive, to be exact. It means "Torunian", "of Torun" or "Torun's". Mruk Mruk -- lots of us read latin -- don't be patronizing unless you know your audience deserves it. Since Torunensis is the name found in most of the primary sources of the time, it is one of the few alternate names that deserves a place JHK For some reason, I feel patronized by your sarcastic remarks (exemplum gratis: "lots of us read Latin"), although, I don't thik I deserve it. The mistake, that I corrected is very common and popular among people who are not used to think in a language with declensions. Many of those people do know and read Latin. Yet by natural impulse, when seeing a word in a different case (declinated), consider it a different word. There was no intention to patronize, nor is there one now, but Torunensis means "Torunian", just like "Berliniensis" would mean "Berlinian", not a Latin name of Berlin. Quid erat demonstrandum. Mruk Not completely true, Mruk. You can make a latin name for any city by, adding "Urbs" and then declinating. So Urbs Berliniensis is a Latin name for Berlin, just like Urbs Toruniensis is a latin name for Torun (Thorn). Anke
 * Yep, Anke has it right. And the process has gone further in Neo-Latin usage. I have no idea how early this part of the practice is -- I always had the impression this is a neo-Latin phenomenon -- but it is quite common to go from Urbs whateverensis and simply refer to the city as Whateverensis, taking the third declension ending of -ensis for its nominative, so that the place-name's nominative and genitive would both be -ensis.  The normative practice of the modern Roman Catholic Church is not to translate the names of new dioceses into Latin, but to take whatever the local place-name is and stick an -ensis on it.  Hence, I used to live in the diocese of Atlantensis, even though *I* thought they could have treated 'Atlanta' as a first declension (Atlanta - Atlantae).  My parents live in the diocese of Knoxvillensis, despite the fact that the place-name termination -ville could have been back-translated to -villa and then declined as a first declension noun.  So, Torunensis can be both nominative and genitive. Sorry to go on at this length. --MichaelTinkler

OK, OK. I give up. I really don't know any Neo-Latin. In school I only took the Roman Latin, You know, as in: "Aurea prima sata est/Aetasque vindice nullo/Sponte sua, sine lege/Fidem rectumque colebat./" or as in "Galia est omnis divisa in partes tres...". However, the city of Torun was a part of Polish Crown's province - Prusy Krolewskie (Royal Prussia), and never belonged to the Hohenzollerns or to Germany before 1795 (and to Germany for only a few years before WW I). Mruk Pr UB Prussian Document Record Book of 1224, Catania, emperor of Holy Roman Empire Frederick II takes the people of Livonia, Estonia, Samland, Prussia, Semgallen and neighboring provinces in his and the empire's protection ...and declares them as Reichsfreie (free imperial citizens) under jurisdiction of the church and the empire only. user:H.J. That's the same as if Gorbachev (in 1987) took the citizens of United States, Canada, Italy and Netherlands under Soviet Union's protection and declared them under jurisdiction of the communist party only! The Emperor's protection did't really help the citizens of Prussia to be completely wiped up (or "put to the sword" - poetically speaking) by the Cross bearing hordes of the blood thirsty Teutonic Knights, who followed the Emperor, or the Pope only when it served their purposes. To replace the original population of Prussia, the Order was constantly bringing settlers from Flanders, Netherlands, South Germany and later even Poland and Lithuania, only to make people forget that any language besides German was ever spoken in these lands. Mruk I don't see what Imperial claims of protectorship over the eastern Baltic have to do with anything here: the region was never a part of the Empire (and indeed the Teutonic Knights preferred to see the Pope rather than the Emperor as their suzerain until they had to acknowledge the nominal overlordship of the Polish crown) - not that having been an Imperial territory ever determined the national affiliation of areas which had once formed a part of the Empire. -- David Parker Re: map of 1570 (in fact 1598). It's true that the linked sheet 70 (Pomerania marcha & Prussia) shows Thorn as a town of Prussiae pars. Thorn is also included in the far south-west of sheet 71 (Prussia), though this map shows no change in shading between Prussia and (Polonia. But the 16th-century text accompanying the latter map is more interesting for what it says about Prussia, beginning:


 * Prusse appartient totalement sous la Couronne de Poloigne, excepté le Duché de Prusse, qui y est comprins, ayant encore pour le present un Duc à part.


 * ("Prussia belongs entirely under the crown of Poland, except the Duchy of Prussia, which is comprised in it, yet having for the present a distinct Duke".)

So Thorn was indeed a part of a geographical region named Prussia, but at least a part of Prussia was under Polish sovereignty. The other part, Ducal Prussia, was what later became East Prussia (excluding Ermeland, which with the later West Prussia formed in 1466-1772 Royal Prussia, i.e. the part directly under the Polish crown).

It's this wide geographical area that is depicted again in the 1630 map: there was no single polity of "Prussia" comprising Thorn until 1793 or arguably 1824, when East and West Prussia were combined as a single Province. Prussia in the early modern period possessed no administrative unity and formed no basis for determination of nationality.

Thorn was in a historical region called Prussia (an area named for its former Baltic population rather than for its German inhabitants), but more precisely in the part of Prussia under Polish rule. That makes it both Prussian and Polish, but in asking what state the district lay in, the answer has to be Poland, since the Dukes of Prussia (themselves subject to a far more nominal Polish suzerainty until 1660) possessed no political authority there. -- David Parker Would you, David Parker, please point out the country of Poland for me on the Atlas Index of the same 1570 French language atlas : Index : http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/atlas/seite98.html I can find Prussia, but I do not seem to be able to find Poland listed. Could it be that there actually was no country of Poland then ?

And to the cities they were Hanseatic League cities and had self government law system with own seperate armies, in other words they were individual city states. No Polish military was allowed to enter the cities. (The royals (Jagiello/Habsburgs) did have the right to visit though).

As to your no Thorn (Prussia) till 1793 or 1824, that is completely false. Read what it says in earlier statements on Prussia.Thorn in Culmer Land was in the original Old Prussia Land, which in 1247 was sectioned into four bishoprics, under the archbishop of Riga. Your above assumptions are not correct. user:H.J. Poland isn't indexed because there isn't a map covering Poland - why, I don't know: presumably the mapmaker wasn't familiar with the country or felt that there wasn't a need for detailed coverage. Polonia is named on the southwestern corner of map 71, but the next map to the south appears to be Bohemia, with a large unmapped gap in between.

Of course there was a Poland in 1570 or 1598 - what do you imagine the kings of Poland were actually kings of? I never said Thorn wasn't in Prussia, rather that while it was in the historical region of Prussia, it wasn't in the polity then known as Prussia, i.e. the Duchy of Prussia (1525-1701). Old Prussia is a geographical term for an area half of which was under Polish sovereignty (1466-1772), the other half under German dukes subject to Polish suzerainty (1525-1660).

Thorn was indeed a Hanseatic city possessing substantial self-government. But from 1466 until 1772 its overlord was the king of Poland, not any imagined pan-Prussian polity. And it certainly wasn't then ruled from Riga. -- David Parker

(For the person # 194 109.832 ( no name given), that just wrote the strange entrance about Holland There is a Voetbalvereniging Thorn (Holland) outside link to the soccer club website http://www.vv-thorn.myweb.nl/index.htm This shows that there is a north Noord-Holland and a south Zuid-Holland There is another very nice site outside link :http://grenzeloos.nl/Thorn.htm Please explain your strange comment ref. Holland Netherlands, Wels etc. Thank you user:H.J.


 * The Netherlands is also known as 'Holland', named after the two provinces who were traditionally the most influental in the country, just like the Soviet Union got called Russia by some, and the United Kingdom still gets called England by some. Of course, for many people who are from the Netherlands but not from the Noord or Zuid Holland, being called a Hollander is an insult, just as I imagine that you will not make a Welshman very happy by calling him an Englander. Perhaps I am wrong about this.


 * Anyhow, the official name of the country is The Netherlands, not Holland.--branko

- branko , I checked http://www.altavista.com typed in holland and got many official Holland sites I did find a reference to the Holland or Netherlands(Low Countries) question:

"Holland or the Netherlands? The official name of our country is the Netherlands . Strictly speaking, "Holland" is only part of the country, namely: the two provinces in the west called North Holland and South Holland. However, many people, including the Dutch, use the two names interchangeably. Luckily, this is not as serious an error as referring to Scotland and Ireland as parts of England (a mistake the Dutch often make!)" And I found a reference to the official name : Koninkrijke der Nederlanden, Royal Netherlands.

This is posted solely for anyone truly anxious to know. user:H.J. --

''are cactus needles the same as thorns? And what's the name of those trees in the Amazon that provide hollow thorns for symbiotic ant colonies to live in?''

''Cactus needles are modified leaves...as well as protection, they serve the cactus by providing (1)shade and (2)little evaporation surface. I'm no expert, but I think cactus needles have other uses, too.''