Dagome Iudex - Nature and Import of The Dagome Iudex

Nature and Import of The Dagome Iudex

The Dagome iudex survives only in the form of a summary, completed c. 1080. It was found in a register compiled by a curial cardinal during the papacy of Gregory VII.

Most historians believe that the word "Dagome" is a melding of two names: the Christian "Dago," for "Dagobert" (Mieszko's hypothetical baptismal name), and the Slavic "Me," for "Mieszko." The Latin word "iudex" ("judge") would be used in the meaning of "prince." Another interpretation is that "Dagome iudex" is a corruption of "Ego Mesco dux" ("I, Prince Mieszko"). In the Vatican copy the e of Dagome might have an s adscriptum (similar to cedilla), though just the Vatican copyist read iudex literally, relating it to Sardegna and its four "judges".

Place names are misspelled by the person who made the summary. He was also apparently unaware that the document related to territory later called Poland.

The boundaries of the "Gniezno" state are described as extending to the "Long Sea" (the Baltic), Prussia, Rus', Kraków, Moravia and the Oder River. Lesser Poland is taken account by the mention of its capital, Kraków ("craccoa"). Between alemura, probably Olomouc, and Upper Lusatia region of the Milceni (terra mileze) the border could include Silesia if it was straight.

The text seems to use ciuitas schinesghe as a synonyme of Greater Poland. Otherwise, the description of the boundaries would be rather more logical, if schenisghe meant the city of Szczecin. Of other regions and places in Mieszko's territory, it mentions only Kraków and Lusatia, both without fines (border). Regions outside Mieszko's rule, pruzze (Prussia) and russe (Russia), are mentioned with the word fines.

The Dagome iudex is of capital importance for Polish history in giving a general description of the future Polish state in that period. It, however, leaves unanswered many questions. First, it does not explain why Mieszko I placed his state under the protection of the Pope. Also, it is unclear why the document does not mention Mieszko's eldest son, Bolesław I the Brave. Mentioned instead are his sons by his second wife, Oda. No mention is made of the third son from that marriage, Świętopełk, either." Finally, Mieszko I is not referred to as "Dagome" in any other document.

Historians suppose that Bolesław's absence from the document might be explained by an old Slavic custom whereby children received their inheritance as soon as they reached the age of majority. Thus Bolesław the Brave might have received Kraków as his part of his father's legacy before the Dagome iudex had been written.