Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus/Nationality/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Structure, list of pro and cons?

Somebody who just stumbled upon the issue (like I did from Unsere Besten) will probably be confused due to the lack of structure in a mess of opinions. Headlines like "first debate" and "second debate" are not helpful. Could somebody please sort the stuff into sections, maybe ancestors, origin of the name, pro-Polish facts, pro-German facts? And especially: why should he be considered only Polish and nothing else, not both Polish and German or simply European? Thank you. --Matthead 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the debate over Copernicus's nationality/ies on the main page of his biography? It looks like it used to be a separate article, which I much prefer.64.81.240.233 08:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jus sanguinis

I wonder why there is no link to the articles Jus sanguinis/Jus soli which deals in general with the issue of nationality and citizenship based on ancestry and place of birth? German law, as many other countries, follows the idea that anybody born by a German mother is a German, no matter what, even if s/he is living in a foreign state and considered a citizen in this state. As a result, many German people who lived in Eastern European states or Siberia have chosen to move to Germany since 1989 as soon as this was possible. I undertsand that this might have caused some bad feelings by the ones left behind. As Copernicus is concerned, it seems that at least his mother had undisputedly a German name, without digging further into details. If this is established, it would give him (and others) the right to call him(self) a German, no matter what other nationalities might also apply. His nationality should then be described as "Polish by xyz and German by birth". So, based on modern standards, nobody could take away the right of a living Copernicus of calling himself German, not even he himself. Wikipedia shouldn't try either. --Matthead 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The German law says that it's the FATHER's nationality, not the mother's nationality that defines a German. Therefore, according to the same German law, he is not German. I doubt he would have any chance becoming a German citizen if he applied today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.218.41.190 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus' Birthplace in Prussia and Place of Death in Prussia

According to Zedlers Universal-Lexicon (circa 1730-50) Copernicus ..ward zu Thoren in Preussen gebo(h)ren) .. starb in Frauenburg (Frauenberg) in Preussen. Copernicus was born in Prussia - worked in Prussia - died in Prussia. Feliz Navidad!

Pero Prussia was a part of Poland then, so what's your point?

Prospero año y felicidad! Space Cadet 11:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Prussia was part of Poland then and had Balts, Poles and other various groups of people living there, Not-Just-Germans!

---

Prussia was n o t a part of Poland then- That assumption is nonesense (unfortunately widely perpetuated in Wikipedia, but historically nonefactual). Prussia was first ruled by the Teutonic Knights (under emperor and pope), then by dukes (Herzog, Dux), some of the Dukes of Prussia were also Electors (Kurfuersten) of the HRE Holy Roman Empire as well, others happened to be Dukes of Lithuania , others Kings of Poland and other countries. Prussia was however always with selfgovernment, the governing persons had to be natives of Prussia ( not of Poland). Prussia was n o t a part of Poland.

That's true though, that a variety of different ethnic people from different European countries found refuge in Prussia, due to the fact, that Prussia was the first country to become and to remain (mostly) Protestant

---

Royal Prussia was part of Polish kingdom, which is to say, part of Poland. Szopen 09:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Nicolaus Copernicus (Nikolaus Kopernikus) was a canon and administrator in exempt Fuerstbistum (Prince Bishopric [Ermland/Warmia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05522a.htm] in Prussia, which is to say, was not a part of Poland. MG

---

Warmia WAS part of Polish kingdom, though it had large authonomy. Szopen 17:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I would love to hear the arguments WHY exactly Prussia was nto part of Poland? I mean, if every king of Poland authomatically used title duke of Prussia (just as every king of Poland authomatically used title duke of Masovia, BECAUSE Masovia was aprt of Poland), if the treaty clearly stated it was incorporated into Poland, if the Prussians had their places in Polish parliament (though they refused to occupy them until finally forced to in XVI century), if they were pledging allegiance to Polish KINGDOM (though Prussian elites in XVI century, during unification, were trying to argue taht they pledge personal allegiance to the king). Why Prussia was not part of Polish kingdom?! Szopen 17:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

POV comments removed from article

This relates to the Copernicus' nationality article. I am moving comments that present a particular point of view out of the article and into this talk page; although they definitely do not belong in the article in their present form, they contain some points pertaining to the controversy that could be presented neutrally. --LesleyW 12:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

== Difference between Prussian German and native Baltic Prussian ==
Germany did not offically exist at the time, there was peoples of the Holy Roman Empire who believed
themselves to be of German ethnic background. Also the Austrian Empire had peoples who defined themselves
as German. From what I have read on Wikipedia.org, Copernicus was either ethnic Polish or Prussian-Baltic.
There needs to be more discussion of being ethnic Polish on former occupied terrorities of Prussia
terrorities and of the Baltic native Prussians. Since, under the wikipedia article on Prussia,
it seems that the native Non-German Prussian spoke a language that was not German but a Baltic
language related to Lithuanian and Latvian. "The name Prussia derives from the Prussians,
a Baltic people related to the Lithuanians."
---------------
== Surroundings of Copernicus, the peoples in Prussia, birth name ==

Firstly, Mikołaj Kopernik, was his surname, not Koppernigk. 

Poland existed long before Copernicus was born, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland. There were many
separate German states, Germans living in the Holy Roman Empire and Austrian Empire, there
was no unified Germany, but there was the Kingdom of Poland. It should also be noted that Copernicus
did speak several languages and terrorities that formely belonged to Poland were passed to Prussia.
And do not forget the native Non-German Baltic Prussians. There are the Baltic Prussians,
Polish Prussians, German Prussian, Polonized Baltic Prussians, Germanized Baltic Prussians.  

And just because Kopernik may have signed his name Kopperlingk, does not constitute his mother
tongue  as German, where is the evidence for this? I can also say that his mother tongue was Polish. 

Prussia was part of Poland then and had Balts, Poles and other various groups of people
living there, Not only Germans! Informationguy
------------------
Prussia was n o t a part of Poland then- That assumption is nonesense (unfortunately widely
perpetuated in Wikipedia, but historically nonefactual). Prussia was first ruled by the Teutonic
Knights (under emperor and pope), then by dukes (Herzog, Dux), some of the Dukes of Prussia were
also Electors (Kurfuersten) of the HRE Holy Roman Empire as well, others happened to be Dukes of
Lithuania , others Kings of Poland and other countries. Prussia was however always with
self-government, the governing persons had to be natives of Prussia ( not of Poland). Prussia
was n o t a part of Poland.

That's true though, that a variety of different ethnic people from different European countries
found refuge in Prussia, due to the fact, that Prussia was the first country to become and to
remain (mostly) Protestant. 

Prus

Are you aware of the two Prussia's of the time: Royal Prussia (an integral part of Poland)
and Ducal Prussia (a Polish fief)? You also seem to be under influence of some stereotypes
popular during time before Poland regained independence. I recommend a great book : The Other
Prussia by Karin Friedrich. Sincerely Space Cadet 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-------------
Actually Prussia at that time was under three different types of governing bodies, the ducal
part, the royal part and the prince-bishopric part (Wermeland, Ermeland, Warmia). All three
parts had  o n e official name, Prussia, all three parts were officially reunited under
one government under the kings of Prussia and none were an integral part of Poland.

Prus
-----------------------------------------------------
Can you provide sources other than XIX century Prussian historians, like I did?
Space Cadet 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
---------------------

The assumption, that Copernicus was Polish because someone in Wikipedia assumes that he owed allegiance 
to a king of Poland makes about as much sense, as saying that all Germans owed allegiance to a king of Spain, 
therefore they were  (are) all Spaniards. Or as at some time the king of the HRE (Germany) was also the king of England,
all Germans are English. We also had multiple times, that the dukes of Poland owed allegiance to the German emperors, 
it would therefore be right to insist, that all Poles are actually Germans.

Zedlers Lexicon of circa 1730-50 shows over 20 entries for Deutschland (Germany)

contrary to Wikipedia perpetuating the incorrect assumption that Germany did not exist (prior to 1871) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.232.44 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-31 06:19:47.

Please read the text more carefully - it is not saying that Germany did not exist, it is saying the modern geopolitical entity did not exist - in other words although the name existed and described a region, it was not a single country with a single ruler. As a country in the form that we know it today, it did not exist. The wording of the paragraph could use some work, just like the rest of the article. --LesleyW 23:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for protection

I've requested short-term protection for article in the hope of persuading [[User:66.74.232.44|] and Space Cadet to use the talk page for discussions instead of splashing POV comments all over the article. --LesleyW 03:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep and I granted it. Please work this out HERE. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --LesleyW 07:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Allegiance != nationality

66.74.232.44 wrote: The assumption, that Copernicus was Polish because someone in Wikipedia assumes that he owed allegiance to a king of Poland... Okay, this is about that summary statement, am I right? Here's my argument to support the statement as I rewrote it:

1. An earlier paragraph says that "Copernicus swore allegiance to King Sigismund I of Poland".
2. Any further detail about King Sigismund belongs in the section that is being summarised, not in the summary.
3. Swearing allegiance to a ruler is not a declaration of nationality. I never said it was, and nor did anybody else.
4. The summary is effectively saying that the question is not settled and probably never will be.

Any other comments? --LesleyW 07:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Copernicus, born in Prussia, worked and died in Prussia, was first and foremost a church cannon, that is were all his income came from. His uncle the Prince Bishop Lucas Watzenrode had wished for him to become a prince bishop as well. Therefore it is very questionable, if he ever actually swore allegiance to king Sigismund I. Besides Sigismund I was not only king, he was also a duke (Magnus Dux Prussiae) and a Habsburg HRE Imperial relative.

Copernicus would have (if he did) swear allegiance to the Magnus Dux, Duke of Prussia but not to the King of Poland. You are correct, that swearing allegiance did not mean a declaration of nationality as well Hohenzollern Duke Albrecht of Brandenburg Prussia swore allegiance to King Sigismund I (his uncle). No one has claimed him to be Polish, yet !!!

Wikipedia entries by a persistent group of people are so heavily POV slanted to the Polish side and Wikipedia does not show facts as they were recorded for centuries. A number of people have given up trying to correct Wikipedia in that regard.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.232.44 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-01 08:02:16.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an expert, but I would have thought that in those days swearing allegiance related more to the person than the position they hold - it was essentially a promise to support the ruler in battle and protect him from his enemies. If one person rules two states, the person swearing allegiance wouldn't be able to say "I swear allegiance to you as Duke of Foo but not as King of Blah". You either supported the man or you didn't. --LesleyW 22:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is moot point. Every king of POland authomatically received title of duke of Prussia, just as he held several other titles (including duke of Masovia etc). This was just the title. E.g. Casimir the Great had the title of hereditary lord and duke of Pomorze, even if it was ruled by Teutons. Szopen 09:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Prussia and Poland

What was the relationship between Prussia and Poland at the time? --LesleyW 22:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

What may be confusing is that there were two "Prussias": Royal Prussia and Ducal Prussia. Royal Prussia, which is of our concern here, was a Polish province formed in the result of the War of the Cities, in which the cities of Danzig, Elbląg and Toruń rose against Teutonic Order. The direct reason of the war was that the cities asked Polish king Kazimierz IV Jagiellon to be part to Poland. After the war Poland (1466) got the previously lost lands which formed Royal Prussia, including Chełmno Land, Gdansk Pomerania, Warmia and Olsztyn. Ducal Prussia remained a Polish fief. --Lysy ^(talk) 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've linked some of your references so that I can find the articles easily. I have also just been reading Monastic State of the Teutonic Knights and I begin to understand the background. So in 1466, Toruń (which was to be Copernicus' home town) was part of Royal Prussia and had come under the control of Poland, but there was a problem: The Second Treaty of Toruń (October 1466) provided for the Teutonic Order's cession to the Polish crown of its rights over the western half of its territories, which became the province of Royal Prussia. None of this was agreed to by pope or the emperor and the Pfaffenkrieg (priests war) of 1467-79 ensued.

So the question of whether or not Royal Prussia was part of Poland at that time depends mainly on whether or not the Holy Roman Empire had ultimate authority over that part of Europe, which is obviously a very debatable question itself.

Next question: Copernicus was born in 1473, in the middle of the aforementioned 1467-79 war. I can't find any further information about that war in (English) Wikipedia, is there more information about it somewhere else?

--LesleyW 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Prussia was not a part of Poland. Prussia's rulers after the Teutonic Order (under the emperor and pope) were Dukes and Magnus Dukes Prussiae. The first King of Prussia was crowned in 1701. While there were agreements and arrangements between the royal/imperial rulers (including the ones who held the Polish crown), all parts of Prussia incl. Ermland (Warmia) always maintained their independence and had its own government with the requirement, that they had to be Prussian citizens. Polish kings tried to annex Prussia at time, which was illegal and was fought. Polish troops were not allowed in any part of Prussia. Hanse cities, like Danzig had their own Danzig citizen military, made up of the burghers and guild members of the different profession, such as butchers, bakers etc.Polish people were considered foreighners in Prussia. Also the 'names 'Royal' and 'Ducal' Prussia were only used in later times, about the time of Imperial Kurfuerst -electors of Saxony and kings of Poland.

That's wrong. This was debated before.

1. Royal prussia province was part of Poland. In treaty ending the war it was specifically mentioned Prussia was incorporated into Poland.
2. King of Poland had authoamtically title of duke of Prussia. He also had title duke of Masovia, for example. There was nto separate ceremony to become duke of Masovia or Prussia - it ws merely part of titles EVERY Polish king had
3. Prussia received places in Polish parliament. They were not using this right, which was then elemnt of fierce debate during the final reunification in XVI century.
4. "Polish kings tried to annex Prussia at time, which was illegal and was fought." When?!?
5. All Polish cities and some Polish magnates had their own military.
6. Prussian offices were indeed privileged with "indygenat", that is king could offer them only to those considered Prussians.

Aaah I want repeat it again. The debate is archived somewhere in either Royal Prussia or on Nico's talk pages. Or on HJ talk pages. Szopen 09:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW: it is true that Poles not-born in Prussia were not considered "indigens" (While Poles born within Prussia were considered "indigens", though one work seem to indicate that they had to know "landesprache": German? Must confirm...) . The same is true for GERMANS not-born in Prussia. For that matter, even in ducal Prussia local Germans were complaining that foreigners (that is: non-Prussians) are taking most offices.

Szopen 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

On nationality

Some facts:

• The name Copernicus is derived from the name of the village of Koeppernig, near Neisse, in Silesia, then German.

Silesia was not German in XV century. Szopen 09:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Silesia was ruled by Reichsfuersten -imperial dukes- who pledged allegiance to emperor as did dukes/kings of Bohemia (Czech) You won't find the truth by only reading the so called English Wikipedia [Henryk IV Probus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_IV_of_Silesia] version of Heinrich von Breslau [1] or other Silesian Piasts, that is German-speaking imperial dukes.

So its undisputed that the name does derive from that village? --Matthead 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Thorn (Torun) was German for more than two centuries before Copernicus was born and only came under Polish control shortly before the family arrived.

Thorn as well as all of Prussia was at war Thirteen Years War until 1466. The agreement was not recognized and as a result the Pfaffenkrieg priests war continued until 1479. Prussian cities like Thorn were in upheaval and not under Polish control. Thorn was then and remained a Hanse city, that means to become a burgher of Thorn one had to be 'of (Deutscher Zunge) German language.

• When Copernicus, like his uncle before him, started to study in Bologna on 19 October 1496, he joined the German school especially established by the Vatican to educate German clergy, the "...Natio Germanorum" or "German Nation of Bologna University."

No, that's wrong answer. It was not the school established to educate German clergy. He joined unversity and as ALL Polish students he joined German natio, that is, student corporation which was called "German natio". This was not declaration of nationality. There were simply no "Polish natio" in Bologne at that time. Szopen 09:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• The Copernicus manuscript book states : [...] Nicolaus Copernicus Canon [in] Warmia, in Prussia Germaniae, mathematician.

Who wrote that remark? Copernicus? Or someone else? Szopen 09:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• It has been proven that Copernicus' grandmother and mother were German inhabitants of Toruń, as was his uncle Watzenrode.
• Copernicus did not write in Polish - he used only Latin or German.

He however correctly wrote down Polish names of Polish peasants. Szopen 09:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Writing down names in one language equals writing scientific manuscripts in other languages? Travellers in foreign countries better don't prepare themselves with notes of local names and addresses then ... --Matthead 20:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• German was Copernicus' native language. Cyberevil 13:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this summary. I've reformatted your text so that the numbers appear as bullet points, makes it easier to follow.

I don't think anyone is disupting that German was his native language, the main debate seems to be about the political status of Toruń. The Copernicus manuscript book that you referred to - am I right in assuming you mean De revolutionibus orbium coelestium? --LesleyW 22:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting. And pardon if I say that, but hinging the debate of Copernicus' nationality on the status of Toruń seems a bit superficial to me. Cyberevil 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it's hinged on, the whole debate of nationality of a 16th century person seems nonsensical. Any modern criteria of nationality like "he spoke German" are simply anachronistic. --Lysy ^(talk) 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that the whole debate hinges on the status of Toruń, just that seems to be the part of the issue that is the most debated. I'm looking at the whole thing bit by bit in order to come to an understanding of the two sides (or three, or however many there are). I'm trying to work out how to make the article neutral so that the edit wars can come to an end. --LesleyW 11:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Good luck trying

---

At the time of Copernicus he was described as Nicolaus Copernicus Canon [in] Warmia, in Prussia Germaniae, mathematician.

In the 1750's he was still described as born in Thoren in Preussen, died in Frauenburg in Preussen, ref. Zedlers Universal Lexicon.

Some people in the 20th century and many people in Wikipedia in the 21th Century insist on declaring him Polish. In Wikipedia this is not only happening to Copernicus, but to Schopenhauer, Fahrenheit , many other persons as well.

Is changing a person's identity and thereby theft of cultural property in Wikipedia and its many mirror sites ok? Prus

Until XVIII century Kopernik was commonly refered as Polish. The idea that he is German started to be popular in Germany in XVIII century.

Btw, Lizards union was not organisation of merely protecting Prussian interest. It was organisation which actively seek contacts with kings of Poland (most of the founders were Polish) and wanted to incorporate Prussia into Poland.

Szopen 09:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Copernicus may have been referred to by some Poles as Polish, but that is contrary to factual records, where for centuries he is recorded 'born in Prussia' and 'died in Prussia'.

Well, yes and no. He was nto referred by "Some" Polish, but inversally by Polish and I believe quite commonly by foreigners. Heck, even such anti-Polish guy as Fabian Ochs when goind abroad from Ducal Prussia was called "Polnische ochs"!

Btw, Eidechsenbund (Engl. translation : Lizards union) aka Bund vor Gewalt was not sanctioned by pope and emperor.

No kidding. It was semi-official opposition organisation, which oficially was loyal to Teutons. Why it should seek any kind of official recognition from emperor and pope? And how this affect fact that Lizards union was found mainly by Polish nobles from Chelmno land (aka Culmerland) and many of its members after 1409/10 war had to search cover in Poland for their help to Poland?

Btw, 1525 Krakow Prussian Tribute (personal oath by Albrecht of Brandenburg Prussia to his uncle Sigismund I) was not recognized by pope or emperor either.

MG

Which doesn't matter, as Prussian Tribute (which made Prussia fief of kingdom of POLAND, not just merely personal oath to Sigismund as you try to imply) doesn't need one. Poland never recognised emperor's supremacy over Prussia, and didn't care much about pope (e.g. in the treaty from 1466 Poland agreed to search confirmation, but clearly stated it is not needed (in the text of treaty). BTW, are you Helga Jonat? You have very similar arguments, way of signing and some other similar features... Szopen 17:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This smacks of German ethnic theory. First of all, Europeans are mongrels, particularly Poles (see genealogical studies, esp. recent ones, by Bryan Sykes at Oxford). At the time of Copernicus, any Pole was equally considered a Pole. (Likewise, there was some study, which is not entirely incredible, that cited a bound that up to 50% of present-day Germans have direct Polish roots). Both Ducal Prussia and and Royal Prussia were under Polish rule. Copernicus's allegiance was to the Crown, and his nationality was Polish. Likewise, he was clearly and strongly opposed to the Teutonic Order. (Additionally, Prussia would have been considered something akin to a province, more or less). What is the point of assigning German nationality? Is this the ongoing German preoccupation with trying to assign "German roots" to any Pole with any sort of recognized accomplishments as a means to say that if a Pole acheived anything, it must have been his "German genes"? How pathetic. How about we use recent studies of Lech Walesa's DNA and change the Wikipedia article to say "Lech Walesa, Polish politician of aristocratic Roman, French, Portuguese, etc, origin"? How about I dig to see why my great-great-grandfather's name was "Berg" and based on that, declare my "nationality" as if that had something to do with it? This is completely stupid and screams 20th century nationalism. --Vegalabs 05:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the Nationality section (as of today) is muddled, and implies that "-nik" means one who works with copper. The full name may mean that, but the suffix "-nik" has a much broader meaning. Plazak 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected because there doesn't seem to be much discussion going on. Perhaps it's time to edit the article again after 13 days of protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Since his mother was German and there is no evidence of him speaking Polish, the evidence clearly leans toward German ethnicity. Additionally, his siblings married into German families, his uncle was bishop in an all-German town, and he came from a merchant family (trade and commerce was in the hands of German families at the time). He himself identified is background as East Prussian when he advised on revamping the monetary system.

The composer Delius was ethnically German though born in England. Now we see him as English composer, though. On the other hand, will we call Immanuel Kant a Russian philosopher, even though he didn't speak Russian (as far as I know) 500 years from now?

I suggest Prussian-Polish a German-Polish astronomer (or Polish-German, if you will).

REMOVED Nationality paragraph

Please do not compromise the well-being of this article because of nationality disputes...

Historical background to the question of Copernicus' nationality Because of geographical uncertainties it remains a matter of dispute to this day whether Copernicus was German or Polish. The father of Copernicus, also named Nicolaus and probably Koppernigk, had been a citizen of Kraków, then the capital of Poland, but left this city in 1460 to move to Toruń (Thorn). This city was part of the Hanseatic League, as well as the Prussian Confederation which, some years before Copernicus' birth, staged an uprising (which shortly led to the Thirteen Years' War when they asked Polish king to join Prussia to his kingdom) to gain independence from the Teutonic Knights who had ruled the area for two hundred years, imposing high taxes which were hindering the economic development in the province. With the Second Treaty of Thorn in 1466, the city as well as Prussia's western part called Royal Prussia became connected to the Kingdom of Poland, which had supported the uprising, while the eastern part remained under administration of the Teutonic Order to become Ducal Prussia later on.

Copernicus, called Mikołaj Kopernik in Polish and Nikolaus Kopernikus in German was born in Toruń (Thorn) and spent most of his working life in Royal Prussia which enjoyed substantial autonomy as part of the lands of the Polish Crown - it had its own Diet, treasury and monetary unit (to which Copernicus' contributed) and armies. He also oversaw the defense of Allenstein/Olsztyn at the head of forces of the Polish king when the troops of Albert of Brandenburg besieged the castle.

In the 19th century, with the rise of German nationalism, attempts were made to claim that Copernicus was exclusively a German and to discount his connection with Poland, however after 1945 those attempts have greatly diminished. In a mirror image of this, some Poles attempted to claim Copernicus exclusively and attempted to downplay his possible German ethnic origin. It is quite possible that his family was ethnically German, and Copernicus was certainly fluent in the German language, while no direct evidence of the extent to which he knew Polish has survived. His main language for written communication was Latin. However, Copernicus was born in western Prussia, later known as Royal Prussia or Polish Prussia, due to its connection to the Kingdom of Poland. He became a burgher of Prussian Ermland or Warmia, an exempt Prince-Bishopric, throughout the rest of his life and he was a loyal subject of the Catholic Prince-Bishops at a time when most of Prussia and Germany had become Protestant. Today he is generally considered to be Polish by virtue of his citizenship. At the same time, it must be remembered that during Copernicus' lifetime nationality played a much less significant role that it did later, and people generally did not think of themselves primarily as Poles or Germans . Therefore, in a modern context, Copernicus may be viewed as an ethnically German Polish citizen.

Antidote

---

Therefore, in a modern context, Copernicus may be viewed as an ethnically German Polish citizen That assumption would however be wrong. Labbas 10 January 2007

Anybody against Prussian as denomination?

Copernicus (latin, real name was Koppernigk) was a Prussian. Thorn and Frauenburg were cities of the Prussian Confederation who rebelled against the Teutonic Order and requested the protection of King Kazimierz IV Jagiellon. These cities became part of the Kingdom of Poland as Royal Prussia after the Thirteen Years' War. So the denomination as Prussian is neutral as far as I can see. Any objections?
Additionally, the Province of Prussia was never a part of Germany (neither Holy Roman Empire nor German Confederation) until 1871. The population was mixed linguistically. In the region of Prussia the people spoke mostly German in major cities, Kashubian or Polish in rural areas, and Lithuanian in the area of Memel.
Prussian is neutral because it combines both the Polish and the German heritage. It refers to a historical region.
--Der Eberswalder 19:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Eberswalder, strictly speaking you are right. Copernicus would consider himself Prussian, just as would Dzialynscy or most of Polish-speaking inhabitants of the region. However, the problem with this denomination is that most of the readers would not understand that, since Prussian later became associated ONLY with Germany. So for most people "Prussian" would mean "German". Szopen 10:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that can be solved. What about this: Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was an astronomer from the historical region of Prussia who formulated the first modern heliocentric theory of the solar system. --Der Eberswalder 09:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ho hum

Still at it, are we? Well, as I said a long time ago, I think the most accurate short ethnic categorization of Copernicus would be "a German-Polish astronomer." Parallels: Oscar Halecki was a Polish-American historian, Carl Schurz was a German-American politician, Hans Bethe was a German-American physicist, etc., etc.

I agree with the observation above that calling him "Prussian" would solve nothing in the context of an online English-language encyclopedia in the 21st century. For one thing, Prussia hasn't existed as an independent entity since 1871, and hasn't existed in any form since 1945-46; consequently, few English speakers outside of history buffs will have any clear concept of what "Prussian" means — or meant at the time of Copernicus.

Considering that Copernicus is believed to have spoken German as his native tongue, I don't think those who champion him as a Polish national hero have a logical argument for resisting a "German-Polish" label. And as mentioned in the past, "German" and "Polish" had different connotations in the 15th century than they do now, following the tragic orgies of nationalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Sca 21:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

SCA, I won't object to any denomination like that. "German-Polish" is OK by me. However I am afraid that this will be reverted by either Poles to "Polish" astronomer or by Germans to "German" astronomer. Szopen 10:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Britannica

After making a good edit, User:168.215.123.44 then inserted

Polish[2]

at start of article. Since I see this is an ongoing issue (own page, wow!), I thought it best to move the reference to here. Shenme 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Germanization of ethnic Poles (Copernicus?)

I understand that during the time when Poland was partitioned, ethnic Poles (those of a historical Slavic gene pool) were heavily "Germanized" meaning that Polish was no longer taught or spoken in schools (run by Germans) and all government activities were also conducted (spoken and written) in German. The aim was to erase the Polish identity. The majority of the population was genetically Polish, but was forced to conduct themselves as Germans. My Grandfather, as a resident of Galicia, Poland in the early 1900s (under Austrian rule at the time) learned only German in school.

Then he went to a German school - schooling was bilingual or monolingual (in the province's majority language - btw, Poles discriminated Ukrainians then, since they were the Galician majority) in the Cisleithanian (=Austrian) part of the empire. Polish was the language of government since 1869. In my school in Cracow (V LO, founded 1871) classes were always in Polish, and that was not the exception... [...]Qubux 14:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (I deleted my last two sentences - they were stupid and unnecessary. Sorry.) Qubux 22:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I also understand that this practice was also conducted in "Prussia" by Germans. Originally, Prussia was inhabited by a Slavic or Baltic race that was not Germanic. When the Teutonic Knights were invited, by the King of Poland, to help control that territory, the Tuetonic Knights (ethnic Germans) "Germanized" the local population (Slavs or Balts). They would have been forced to learn/speak German inorder to conduct business.

I also understand (vague on facts) that at one time Germany required all Jews (along with everyone else) to register (or something like that) and only Germanic names were permitted, hence Jews adopted sur names of German origin.

The surname laws were edicted in 1787 (Austrian Empire) and 1812 (Prussian Kingdom). 1) Jews were treated in a discriminating way, that's true - but Poles not so (at least in the Autrian Empire) - or how would you interpret that at this time very Polish names (like Szymanowicz, Kuleczka, etc.etc.) were registered and in use? (The Bismarckian Kulturkampf is another story.) 2) What is the connection of this point to Copernicus? At his time most people didn't even had a surename, much less the government could germanise surenames... (BTW, this surename registration laws were a common European movement around the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century). Qubux 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, looking back at someone with a Germanized last name who spoke German wouldn't be proof of German genes (which seems to be the real issue here). I also saw a book at Barnes & Nobel (will find) regarding a history of Auschwitz (by the way, that's the Gremanized version of the name) from inception to WWII. There was a chapter regarding Nazi propaganda. It listed a number of things that the Germans said they were responsible for, rather than Poles. In this way they were creating the argument that the territory occupied by Poland was actually rightfully Germany's, as Germany could take credit for developing it. That chapter went on to list and disprove a number of pro-German Nazi claims. So when I read a debate where an argument is posed claiming Copernicus was ethnically German and not Polish (Slavic) it really smacks of Nazi propaganda. By the way, Copernicus (the Latin version of his name which he adopted) spoke Latin (the universal language of science at the time) and wrote in Latin, but I don't see anyone suggesting that he was of Roman (or Italian) ancestry. Sean21122 05:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is your applying of nationality concepts of the 19th and 20th century that smacks of Polish nationalistic propaganda. Nobody is trying to steal Copernicus - we should simply be grown up enough to accept that we should share him. The other way is a spiritistic seance in which we summon his ghost and ask him if he feels German or Polish - I think the summoned entity would be pretty confused about what we are asking... Qubux 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In the early modern era, Masuria and the Ermland (a.k.a. Warmia) included many ethnic Poles who were culturally Germanized, Protestant (Lutheran) and in many cases bilingual. The descendants of these Masurians in the 1920 League of Nations plebiscite voted 97.8 percent (362,209 votes) for Germany and 2.2 percent (7,980 votes) for Poland. How Copernicus, living four centuries earlier, would have viewed such events would make for interesting speculation. However, from what I've read, he was truly German-Polish in ethnic background. Beyond that, he was a citizen of the world who wrote in the international language of his time, Latin.

I certainly don't accept that this discussion is about "genes," any more than it is about "race" as the term was misused by the Nazis. It is about history and ethnicity. As to "genes" or "race," the nations of Europe have intermixed and combined extensively over the centuries. This is particularly so in the case of the Germans and the Poles, who lived in close proximity and combination with one another for so long. Contrary to what Hitler, Rosenberg and Goebbels asserted, no European nation is "pure," just as most European languages, including Polish, contain borrowings from those of neighboring peoples.

Perhaps the ultimate solution is to call Copernicus a northeastern-European astronomer.

Sean21122, why aren't you a registered Wikipedian?

Sca 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)